What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Reaction to Michelle Obama saying, "For the first time, I am proud of my country"?

48 votes, 7 comments
3
Nerd-Its
+ -

RE: Here we go again.

Comment comment by ldsudduth on 12 March 2008

You might consider the fact that not even every Christian insists on the literal truth of scriptures - possibly even most do not.

Then they, by definition, cannot call themselves Christian. To 'follow Christ' means to obey God..how do we know how to Obey God? By picking up His Holy Book, reading it, and following it. Now..I know we're going to go down that old tired path on 'What About this Mosaic Law, or that Mosaic Law. Christ fulfilled those Laws during His Life, and He passed that fulfillment to us (which is why we are saved through Him) on the Cross.

any more than western society "attacks" Islam when we don't conform to the Qur'an.

To even draw a picture of Muhammed is considered an attack on Islam by some in that belief.

Why is this an "attack on Judeo-Christian belief?"

Simple..because it attempts to relegate Christianity to a mere 'hallucination'. Of course, you're going to say what makes Christianity the correct path? Because God saved me and granted me eternal life through His Grace and Love. I can't do anything to earn that love; it is freely given. Just as any parent (deep down) loves their children regardless of what they do, God loves me...(and everyone) He might not like things I sometimes do, but that never changes His unceasing Love. I cannot do anything to earn my way into eternal life; it is mine simply by trusting Him and believing in His Son, Jesus Christ. That, my friend, is how I know I am on the correct path.

Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
3 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Here we go again. by scottb :: NR7

Then they, by definition, cannot call themselves Christian.

Then, by your (narrow-minded, conservative) definition, they cannot call themselves Christian. By their definition, you cannot.

The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes that scripture must be "interpreted", by a skilled, trained, professional. They've adopted the stance that the bible is never at odds with scientific fact - when the literal reading of the bible (talking snakes, and such) differs from scientific fact, it's the interpretation of the bible that's got to change.

Guess what - you don't get to decide who's a Christian and who's not. Neither does your pastor. Your whole "they're not real Christians" stance is just arrogance. You're positive that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right.

The entire last paragraph of your post is nothing more than your interpretation of whatever message is to be found in Christian scripture. To assert that it's the only possible correct one is arrogance far and away beyond anything we atheists have managed.

Even the notion that one doesn't "earn" salvation by works, only by faith, is mere interpretation. And a disgustingly self-serving one, at that. It says you don't actually have to be worthy of anything, you can be the most despicable blackguard in your village, but if you believe hard enough, you get rewarded.

Well, guess what? Not everybody thinks that's something a good deity would accept. Some think that one does have to earn a place in heaven through deeds.

I still think you're all selling bullshit, but pretending yours is the only true bullshit is arrogance beyond belief.

To even draw a picture of Muhammed is considered an attack on Islam by some in that belief.

That's kind of my point. Do you think it's sane at all to call that an "attack on Islam"? You're doing essentially the same thing when you call Shanon's conjecture an attack.

2 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Here we go again. by NomadSoul :: NR6

Simple..because it attempts to relegate Christianity to a mere 'hallucination'.

I don't think that's what he's doing at all. Shanon is not reducing Christianity to "mere" hallucination, he's validating hallucination as a possible path to symbolic / mythic / religious experience--in the way that Joseph Campbell or William James might have talked about. In the proper context and with supervision, hallucinogens may be a worthwhile means to understanding.

Of course, the implication is that Christianity is not the only possible interpretation of such experiences--but that there's truth to be found in many spiritual traditions, depending on an individual's particular frame of reference.