Cheeze_Pavilion said:
No, I'm out to call you on being a victim troll. You're the one who brought up the 4 month old post in a thread called "Atheist Bible" to say:
maximilian said:
To the credit of whoever you're answering - the escapist forums are pretty much Christian bashing boards. I made a thread in which I'd try to answer Christian theological questions so people could understand why Christians think what they do from an internal perspective, and I got 70 messages calling me an idiot (the arguments were well thought out to the downright bizarre) while the thread got over 10,000 replies - 90% of it atheist hate completely off topic and worded in highly baiting ways: "why do you believe in the tooth fairy?lol?"
These are *not* Christian bashing grounds. That's bullshit. You're the one going around this forum all butthurt over a four-month old thread making believe that just because people didn't lay down and think you're answers were just peachy that means these are "pretty much Christian bashing boards."
I'm a victim troll? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? These *are* Christian bashing grounds. My thread and the thousands of others prove it. Ask people like baby_tea or hippo24. Haha, "butthurt"? And you aren't? I'm not butthurt, many of the cool people who I started talking to (I got overwhelmed at the 100 pm mark) I still do now via PM (something you can't use, even though it's getting you nowhere to argue this publicly). Anyway, it's not a question of "peachy" - I have fantastic arguments with people who sustain real thought. What is not "peachy" is when someone says "Jesus didn't exist" for the greater part of 15 posts WITHOUT replying not only to the logic I present, but the hundreds of sources and information and COMMON ACCEPTED KNOWLEDGE that he did. It's like arguing against someone who claims that Stalin "wasn't a communist". Similarly, read some posts. Bashing is a descriptive word used to describe people who don't give Christians the benefit of the doubt, and open their posts with "haha you idiots believe in the flying spaghetti monster? LOLOLOL".
I figured I could use academic nuances in my replies to someone with a degree in theology since typing/reading 'qua' communicates a complex concept clearly and efficiently to people like you and I.
Didn't realize you'd use it as an opportunity to be a dick about things.
Like you and I? You seem to be a but hung up on the university thing. They say the best teachers are the ones who are able to condescend their language in order to explain simple concepts. As you won't PM me this, I assumed you wanted people to bask in your glory. Using "qua" is only going to alienate *some* of them. Oh, and I reckon you've just learned it - which is why it has so much novelty for you.
No you *didn't*: you said: "Essentially, I'll explain to you from a Christian perspective." What would have been so hard about saying: "Essentially, I'll explain to you from a evangelical Christian perspective"?
This is so semantically fiddly. The thread was "ask a Christian theologian". You're wriggling between phrases I used, alienated them and then attacking them in alienation. I posted a thread called "ask a christian theologian". People open the thread and I introduce myself stating I own a brand of theology that is reformed evangelical. It's not complicated - you just want to argue. And that's fine, just don't dress it up as some tyranny on my behalf - because you are the one who is offended here.
Wait, you've got a degree in theology, and you've never heard of a Catholic theologian? Exactly what kind of program was this?
In any case, here's a book: http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Moral-Theology-United-States/dp/1589011961
And here's an organization: http://www.ctsa-online.org/what_is_the_ctsa.html
So you'll quiet down about it, because sometimes it's easier to just go catch the red herring than to argue about how you don't need any.
The program was Theology at Cambridge University, England (because you're pretty hung up on discrediting me). Catholic theologians are referred to as holding an archaic position held pre-reformation and are referenced as a historical source. The problem is - THEY don't actually use the bible, but catholic tradition, as their essential tenet of difference. Also, the fact that you can't NAME any of them individually or what they have contributed to theological understanding, but only supply links to websites, suggests you haven't READ them. This is a problem because it discredits your argument for them in the first place.
However, it's NOT the key source for clearing up questions about "anything about the Christian faith - how it works, why we believe what we believe, technicalities of faith etc." in a "an attempt at an intelligent conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian" because guess what--if they're not Christian, they don't care what the 'real' "central physicality of the Christian faith" is. They don't think ANY of it is 'real' or else they wouldn't be non-Christians in the first place!
So you missed the entire point of the thread. First off - the bible is the key source on Christian God and Christianity. Everything else is *blatant* human construct (biblical empiricism, "word of god" is a whole different argument) Your argument is flawed because it doesn't consider the exact nature of the thread, which was different to every other atheist vs christian thread because it attempted to explain JUST THAT. It was to explain why we internally and biblically believe the things we do - for those who are interested. It's like exploring WHY Muslims pray 5 times a day, NOT arguing against WHY they pray 5 times a day.
No, you were only looking to combat misinformation about evangelicals at the expense of non-evangelicals! You think non-Christians really care about that? That's your fight, not theirs, so how is offering to explain 'Christianity' to them in a way that you try and co-opt them into your fight in any way honest?
Damn straight I was looking to combat misinformation, but it was not the only reason. For instance, I got some fantastic questions on what "evangelical" (although I'd argue that if you're not following the book, then you aren't a Christian at all) Christians think of suffering in the world, or why we dislike abortion etc. It was also to sift between the misinformation so many non Christians get through popular culture (praying to Mary, priests being celibate etc.) - which is where you still appear to be hurt, 4 months later.
And people just as smart as any I've met in grad school. We have a *great* community here. It's...in a period of transition, but you know what? If it's so terrible, why don't you just leave?
That's cute. Search for my conversation with Bright_raven and you'll see what I mean. I have absolutely no problem with the majority of users. Of course, everything isn't always roses and ponies (as you seem to think it should be) so there will always be a level of "intolerance" or "disagreement". It's how you express it that counts. And it appears I owe you an apology for expressing my disagreement with Catholic teaching, as it has obviously hit a deep nerve. Oh, and my "religious contributions" don't exactly occur overly frequently. But, like I said in the post that sparked all this - Christianity comes up a lot, and not in the most correct lights.
But that's not 'Christian teaching as your audience would understand it' that's 'Christian teaching as you from your reformed Christian thought viewpoint define the word Christian'. How is that not confusing for people? I mean, you're comparing Catholicism's relationship to Christianity here to the daVinci code!
The point is to correct the views of the audience. To surprise them with what the bible actually says. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It was to inform, not to convert.
If they're confused, then they needed to read the first post thoroughly - which many people obviously didn't.
Screw that--why shouldn't I correct you right at the point where you're making your mistakes? You didn't own that thread--you started it, and from that point on, anyone can comment as long as it's on topic. This is The Escapist--if you say it, you better be ready to defend it.
Mistakes? I made no mistakes as far as I can re-read. I did OWN that thread because I was THE theologian. It's an open forum and I was there to answer questions. Otherwise, by that logic, a geneticist could start a thread and I could spout something adverse to "genetics" and hail it as "genetics" as it's introduced in the thread. What's unfair, is if I give my conflicting (and in this case, biblically unfounded) opinion while the geneticist is answering replies 3 pages later.
No, nothing like you did. Your introduction made NO reference to anything about your religion with greater specificity than the word "Christian" while you put the fact that you're "a reformed, evangelical, conservative Christian. (aka bible based)" right below the line telling us that:
"I spend most of my time between Australia and England."
and a few lines above:
"My passions are psychology, writing, literature, fashion modeling, aesthetic, industrial design, video games, art, fitness/health and my girlfriend."
I don't know what kinda books they give you in that theology program of yours, but when I pick up a book, they don't leave something as vital as the specific viewpoint that will be offered out of the main introduction and tucked into a section called 'background' in between where the author lives and her hobbies.
I guess we read different books then. (Phew). So what exactly would I be answering questions from had I not placed that caveat in there? "Oh, well years of unfounded tradition has taught me that... oh, I don't really know!" Start your own thread if you're so keen on advocating the "unevangelical" (whatever that looks like) position.
And they ARE "Christian" to them. Maybe not to you, but guess what--there's a difference between a thread to clear up misconceptions, and a thread that tries to convince people that Catholics are not Christians. If that was what you were addressing, you should have put that in the first post
Ah, but if you read the thread, the percentage of time I spent clearing the difference between Catholicism and Christianity was a good 10-15% total. In any case, you didn't actually DISPROVE my claims (eg. church keeping bible in latin), you just cried "mean" and went on a rant.
Great! Clear that up! Aquinas contributes, but not because he's a script doctor! It just so happens that Catholic beliefs make for better movies. You can clear up that something is only a Catholic belief without calling it a Catholic *heresy*. You can even say 'reformed, evangelical, conservative Christian' considers that heresy. Quote Karl Barth on the Virgin Mary if you want and say "Catholic mariology is a cancer, a sick theological development, and cancers should be cut out"
Heresy, in it's purest sense, is a fair term to apply to the teaching that differentiates Catholicism. It is NOT from the Bible. I'm not being unfair in calling it heresy.
Whoa, that's a good line. However, if I had posted that I'd be blamed for subjectivity and lack of explanation. And I did provide explanations as to WHY Catholic elements were non-Christian.
But be a little more like Karl Barth and don't be a dick to Catholics in the process of expressing your own beliefs, even when you do so vehemently.
I'll try be more like Jesus I reckon.
I'm happy to accept I was being a dick about it. But I had to be so. In the situation, it was a line that needed to be quickly and strongly drawn. If you look at the times on the posts, you'll see how many replies it got and how fast. Also, so many were out of the context I positioned the thread (how I described it using that WHY and not trying to prove WHY was wrong).
EXACTLY! Theology! NOT non-Christians, you know, the people you invited into the thread? This is your whole problem--you made like it was going to be this helpful thread for non-Christians, but it was actually a theological argument.
You've redefined the purpose of a thread you didn't start based on your own precepts. You can't do that. And that was exactly what it was. I had amazing conversations and discussions about theological issues (one great one on the nature of the trinity for example), but somewhere along the line, one or two crazy atheists (and essenes) dropped in to start the bashing - which was not the spirit of the thread at all.
The apex is: you deceived people into thinking you were going to give them a better understanding of Christianity as they non-believers understand that term, but what you were *really* doing is you were trying to advocate for your particular theological view, or you just don't understand the difference.
Let me put it in the form of an analogy: when people go to college and take a survey course like let's say, history, they haven't signed up for a course in *Marxist* history even if the professor is a Marxist. What they've signed up for is the chance to be acquainted with history as generally agreed upon, and exposed to all the different theories. Not to get the whole course from on school of thought.
That's what you did--based on your OP, people were looking for a survey course, and you gave them a seminar in your theories. Whether that's dishonesty or because you just can't put yourself in someone else's shoes or it was an oversight or something else--what was it?
No, that analogy works if Christianity possessed a pluralist base, as formulations of history do. A correct analogy is if people signed up to a survey course on "JRR Tolkeins Lord of the Rings" and as the lecturer was explaining, someone stood up to argue that he was wrong about his description of the Balrog (from the book) because "in the film it was made of fire!" or, "in the game, the Balrog kills Frodo".
Anyway, I like debating you Cheeze.
