Remember when...?

[Fenris]

In one of the few times I'm going to disagree with RK, it's simply not true. I am not nostalgic because "reality without Jesus would lead one to suicide as a rational thought." People can find true meaning from a life dedicated to another faith, or even a secular life with no faith at all.

[RabbiKnife]

You can disagree, my friend, just don't hit me with the space laser...

[Fenris]

No need to space laser you, I have meaning in life despite not being a Christian.

[Sojourner]

I never implied this country was ever a utopia free of societal problems. Racism and bigotry, social injustice, hypocrisy among Christians, widespread corruption and other problems have always existed. My intent was to point out certain prevailing improprieties that did not exist 40 years ago or so. That is simply an observation based on facts, not some misguided, nostalgic, reverie lamenting a supposed idyllic bygone era.

I'm not sure that you understand what an implication is, because you totally did. The slower, simpler times of your youth when traditional, common sense values prevailed is a confabulation. Perhaps the slower part is actually relevant and reasonably accurate. Instead of stepping back and admitting that you just wanted to put on some rose colored glasses for a minute, you are trying to convince the reader that you acknowledged the flip side. The other side to the simple traditional, common sense values was a nightmare for the complicated, non-traditional, unique folks that didn't fit in that worldview or were flat out excluded from it. It is a bit like missing the performance of leaded gasoline without acknowledging that it was directly responsible for enormous amounts of lead pollution. You want to act as if you can separate what you miss from the ill impacts they had on people that didn't fit or were excluded by them. Do you think people moved away from many of the things that you were just waxing nostalgic about because they worked too well for too long for too many people? 40 years ago was 1983...Do you think that any of the people or things that  are somewhat less marginal today simply didn't exist back then...or was the system of simple traditional common sense values forcing them implicitly or explicitly to pipe down and hide out lest they face the wrath of common sense? I think the entire sentiment behind your posts is that you wish that your worldview still had enough influence and structural power to force people and ideas that make you feel yucky back into the margins where you could promptly ignore them and not have to explain them to your grandkids....not that you care what I think.

Yes, I know what "implication" means, and I know what I said. I said I miss the slower, simpler times of my youth when common sense values prevailed, and was seeking to contrast those times with recent changes in standards of morality and social norms that are detrimental to society. That does not constitute a confabulation, nor suggest that I remember a pristine, idyllic paradise free of societal issues. I was simply juxtaposing specific conditions and circumstances of our day with a time when they didn't exist. I can assure you, I recall the good, the bad, and the ugly as great injustice, and social, cultural, and political upheaval defined a decade of my youth.

I'm 68 and grew up in South Carolina, so I remember very well the struggles of black Americans seeking equality and social justice. I remember "We serve whites only" signs in businesses in my area, as well as a nearby gas station with 3 rest rooms: "Men," Women" and "Colored." I remember Governor George Wallace blocking the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium in his efforts to resist desegregation. I remember 4 young black girls being killed when the KKK bombed a black church in Birmingham. And I remember when Martin Luther King was gunned down, as well as the Watts and Detroit Riots, fueled by racial tensions. The country was as torn and divided at that point as it is now.

I remember when both John F Kennedy and his brother Robert were assassinated, and swirling rumors suggesting Lyndon Johnson's complicity in the assassination of JFK. I remember when protests against the ill-conceived Vietnam war erupted, inciting nationwide social unrest and rebellion against "the Establishment" Many young people took to the streets in protest, while many draftees fled to Canada. When MLK's non-violent fight for civil rights ended with his assassination, activists turned to violence, further dividing the nation. I remember the rise of cults and pseudo-Christian groups, as well as hypocrites and opportunistic phonies misrepresenting Christianity.

These are just a few of the things that exemplify the problems prevalent when I was a kid. I grew up witnessing these things, so don't tell me I'm pretending everything was rainbows and butterflies when I was young, and that societal problems did not exist. Recalling a time when modern issues didn't exist does not equate to a pretext alleging an earlier era was a pristine utopia. I'm neither delusional, obtuse, nor intellectually dishonest. 

[Oscar_Kipling]

I never implied this country was ever a utopia free of societal problems. Racism and bigotry, social injustice, hypocrisy among Christians, widespread corruption and other problems have always existed. My intent was to point out certain prevailing improprieties that did not exist 40 years ago or so. That is simply an observation based on facts, not some misguided, nostalgic, reverie lamenting a supposed idyllic bygone era.

I'm not sure that you understand what an implication is, because you totally did. The slower, simpler times of your youth when traditional, common sense values prevailed is a confabulation. Perhaps the slower part is actually relevant and reasonably accurate. Instead of stepping back and admitting that you just wanted to put on some rose colored glasses for a minute, you are trying to convince the reader that you acknowledged the flip side. The other side to the simple traditional, common sense values was a nightmare for the complicated, non-traditional, unique folks that didn't fit in that worldview or were flat out excluded from it. It is a bit like missing the performance of leaded gasoline without acknowledging that it was directly responsible for enormous amounts of lead pollution. You want to act as if you can separate what you miss from the ill impacts they had on people that didn't fit or were excluded by them. Do you think people moved away from many of the things that you were just waxing nostalgic about because they worked too well for too long for too many people? 40 years ago was 1983...Do you think that any of the people or things that  are somewhat less marginal today simply didn't exist back then...or was the system of simple traditional common sense values forcing them implicitly or explicitly to pipe down and hide out lest they face the wrath of common sense? I think the entire sentiment behind your posts is that you wish that your worldview still had enough influence and structural power to force people and ideas that make you feel yucky back into the margins where you could promptly ignore them and not have to explain them to your grandkids....not that you care what I think.

Yes, I know what "implication" means, and I know what I said. I said I miss the slower, simpler times of my youth when common sense values prevailed, and was seeking to contrast those times with recent changes in standards of morality and social norms that are detrimental to society. That does not constitute a confabulation, nor suggest that I remember a pristine, idyllic paradise free of societal issues. I was simply juxtaposing specific conditions and circumstances of our day with a time when they didn't exist. I can assure you, I recall the good, the bad, and the ugly as great injustice, and social, cultural, and political upheaval defined a decade of my youth.

I'm 68 and grew up in South Carolina, so I remember very well the struggles of black Americans seeking equality and social justice. I remember "We serve whites only" signs in businesses in my area, as well as a nearby gas station with 3 rest rooms: "Men," Women" and "Colored." I remember Governor George Wallace blocking the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium in his efforts to resist desegregation. I remember 4 young black girls being killed when the KKK bombed a black church in Birmingham. And I remember when Martin Luther King was gunned down, as well as the Watts and Detroit Riots, fueled by racial tensions. The country was as torn and divided at that point as it is now.

I remember when both John F Kennedy and his brother Robert were assassinated, and swirling rumors suggesting Lyndon Johnson's complicity in the assassination of JFK. I remember when protests against the ill-conceived Vietnam war erupted, inciting nationwide social unrest and rebellion against "the Establishment" Many young people took to the streets in protest, while many draftees fled to Canada. When MLK's non-violent fight for civil rights ended with his assassination, activists turned to violence, further dividing the nation. I remember the rise of cults and pseudo-Christian groups, as well as hypocrites and opportunistic phonies misrepresenting Christianity.

These are just a few of the things that exemplify the problems prevalent when I was a kid. I grew up witnessing these things, so don't tell me I'm pretending everything was rainbows and butterflies when I was young, and that societal problems did not exist. Recalling a time when modern issues didn't exist does not equate to a pretext alleging an earlier era was a pristine utopia. I'm neither delusional, obtuse, nor intellectually dishonest.

Well, yeah okay I see how you got that from my post, I'm not the most concise writer i'll admit. You can see that I am criticizing you, but not exactly what my critique is and that is partially my fault.

I'll give you an example. You said "[Remember when] the pledge to the flag, daily devotion and saying grace before lunch were part of every school day" and then go on to say ""[Remember when] schools were facilities committed to education rather than indoctrination?" I can tell that in your mind compulsory prayer and pledges for school children could not be further from indoctrination. What you are longing for is a status quo where people that didn't fit into the mold of a particular kind of Christian patriot were pushed or dragged along the perfunctory Americhristian indoctrination conveyor belt. My point is that the very things you are missing were actually gears in the mechanism that partially drove all of the horrible stuff that you vehemently insist that you remember from the past. It's not that you don't see that the past was full of some pretty messed up junk, it's that you are not making the causal connection between many of the things that you miss and the messed up junk that they contributed to. Moreover I think you are doing it on purpose.

Then there is the stuff that like this "[Remember When] kids were not encouraged to question and explore their gender and sexual identity?" ... and so on. Plenty of children (I dare not say all) would of their own volition pose these questions. Many children that would or did question in the past got the message of "darling we don't speak of that" at best and a worst "you are a perverse sicko worthy of ridicule and castigation" if you even think about it. What you are missing is structures that constrained what questions people felt free to even ask themselves. There is nothing innocent about your reveries. I thought I made it clear, but I don't think you are deluded or obtuse and the only dishonesty is in the fact that you've couched as you did, instead of just flat out saying that you wish that people were still too afraid to be themselves in public to express a different view of their gender or sexuality than you are comfortable with.

If you are going to be indignant, please be indignant about what i'm actually accusing you of. To be clear I'm accusing you of longing for the days when the social, political and economic infrastructure placed a premium on people like you, that thought like you, and forced the others to either conform to this paradigm or be forced to the margins. So to be clear, I don't think you are stupid or oblivious, I think you are full of rotten desires.

[Sojourner]

I never implied this country was ever a utopia free of societal problems. Racism and bigotry, social injustice, hypocrisy among Christians, widespread corruption and other problems have always existed. My intent was to point out certain prevailing improprieties that did not exist 40 years ago or so. That is simply an observation based on facts, not some misguided, nostalgic, reverie lamenting a supposed idyllic bygone era.

I'm not sure that you understand what an implication is, because you totally did. The slower, simpler times of your youth when traditional, common sense values prevailed is a confabulation. Perhaps the slower part is actually relevant and reasonably accurate. Instead of stepping back and admitting that you just wanted to put on some rose colored glasses for a minute, you are trying to convince the reader that you acknowledged the flip side. The other side to the simple traditional, common sense values was a nightmare for the complicated, non-traditional, unique folks that didn't fit in that worldview or were flat out excluded from it. It is a bit like missing the performance of leaded gasoline without acknowledging that it was directly responsible for enormous amounts of lead pollution. You want to act as if you can separate what you miss from the ill impacts they had on people that didn't fit or were excluded by them. Do you think people moved away from many of the things that you were just waxing nostalgic about because they worked too well for too long for too many people? 40 years ago was 1983...Do you think that any of the people or things that  are somewhat less marginal today simply didn't exist back then...or was the system of simple traditional common sense values forcing them implicitly or explicitly to pipe down and hide out lest they face the wrath of common sense? I think the entire sentiment behind your posts is that you wish that your worldview still had enough influence and structural power to force people and ideas that make you feel yucky back into the margins where you could promptly ignore them and not have to explain them to your grandkids....not that you care what I think.

Yes, I know what "implication" means, and I know what I said. I said I miss the slower, simpler times of my youth when common sense values prevailed, and was seeking to contrast those times with recent changes in standards of morality and social norms that are detrimental to society. That does not constitute a confabulation, nor suggest that I remember a pristine, idyllic paradise free of societal issues. I was simply juxtaposing specific conditions and circumstances of our day with a time when they didn't exist. I can assure you, I recall the good, the bad, and the ugly as great injustice, and social, cultural, and political upheaval defined a decade of my youth.

I'm 68 and grew up in South Carolina, so I remember very well the struggles of black Americans seeking equality and social justice. I remember "We serve whites only" signs in businesses in my area, as well as a nearby gas station with 3 rest rooms: "Men," Women" and "Colored." I remember Governor George Wallace blocking the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium in his efforts to resist desegregation. I remember 4 young black girls being killed when the KKK bombed a black church in Birmingham. And I remember when Martin Luther King was gunned down, as well as the Watts and Detroit Riots, fueled by racial tensions. The country was as torn and divided at that point as it is now.

I remember when both John F Kennedy and his brother Robert were assassinated, and swirling rumors suggesting Lyndon Johnson's complicity in the assassination of JFK. I remember when protests against the ill-conceived Vietnam war erupted, inciting nationwide social unrest and rebellion against "the Establishment" Many young people took to the streets in protest, while many draftees fled to Canada. When MLK's non-violent fight for civil rights ended with his assassination, activists turned to violence, further dividing the nation. I remember the rise of cults and pseudo-Christian groups, as well as hypocrites and opportunistic phonies misrepresenting Christianity.

These are just a few of the things that exemplify the problems prevalent when I was a kid. I grew up witnessing these things, so don't tell me I'm pretending everything was rainbows and butterflies when I was young, and that societal problems did not exist. Recalling a time when modern issues didn't exist does not equate to a pretext alleging an earlier era was a pristine utopia. I'm neither delusional, obtuse, nor intellectually dishonest.

Well, yeah okay I see how you got that from my post, I'm not the most concise writer i'll admit. You can see that I am criticizing you, but not exactly what my critique is and that is partially my fault.

I'll give you an example. You said "[Remember when] the pledge to the flag, daily devotion and saying grace before lunch were part of every school day" and then go on to say ""[Remember when] schools were facilities committed to education rather than indoctrination?" I can tell that in your mind compulsory prayer and pledges for school children could not be further from indoctrination. What you are longing for is a status quo where people that didn't fit into the mold of a particular kind of Christian patriot were pushed or dragged along the perfunctory Americhristian indoctrination conveyor belt. My point is that the very things you are missing were actually gears in the mechanism that partially drove all of the horrible stuff that you vehemently insist that you remember from the past. It's not that you don't see that the past was full of some pretty messed up junk, it's that you are not making the causal connection between many of the things that you miss and the messed up junk that they contributed to. Moreover I think you are doing it on purpose.

Then there is the stuff that like this "[Remember When] kids were not encouraged to question and explore their gender and sexual identity?" ... and so on. Plenty of children (I dare not say all) would of their own volition pose these questions. Many children that would or did question in the past got the message of "darling we don't speak of that" at best and a worst "you are a perverse sicko worthy of ridicule and castigation" if you even think about it. What you are missing is structures that constrained what questions people felt free to even ask themselves. There is nothing innocent about your reveries. I thought I made it clear, but I don't think you are deluded or obtuse and the only dishonesty is in the fact that you've couched as you did, instead of just flat out saying that you wish that people were still too afraid to be themselves in public to express a different view of their gender or sexuality than you are comfortable with.

If you are going to be indignant, please be indignant about what i'm actually accusing you of. To be clear I'm accusing you of longing for the days when the social, political and economic infrastructure placed a premium on people like you, that thought like you, and forced the others to either conform to this paradigm or be forced to the margins. So to be clear, I don't think you are stupid or oblivious, I think you are full of rotten desires.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I am as well, and I think you are presumptuous, caustic and abrasive. But thanks for reminding why I generally avoid dialogue with you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I never implied this country was ever a utopia free of societal problems. Racism and bigotry, social injustice, hypocrisy among Christians, widespread corruption and other problems have always existed. My intent was to point out certain prevailing improprieties that did not exist 40 years ago or so. That is simply an observation based on facts, not some misguided, nostalgic, reverie lamenting a supposed idyllic bygone era.

I'm not sure that you understand what an implication is, because you totally did. The slower, simpler times of your youth when traditional, common sense values prevailed is a confabulation. Perhaps the slower part is actually relevant and reasonably accurate. Instead of stepping back and admitting that you just wanted to put on some rose colored glasses for a minute, you are trying to convince the reader that you acknowledged the flip side. The other side to the simple traditional, common sense values was a nightmare for the complicated, non-traditional, unique folks that didn't fit in that worldview or were flat out excluded from it. It is a bit like missing the performance of leaded gasoline without acknowledging that it was directly responsible for enormous amounts of lead pollution. You want to act as if you can separate what you miss from the ill impacts they had on people that didn't fit or were excluded by them. Do you think people moved away from many of the things that you were just waxing nostalgic about because they worked too well for too long for too many people? 40 years ago was 1983...Do you think that any of the people or things that  are somewhat less marginal today simply didn't exist back then...or was the system of simple traditional common sense values forcing them implicitly or explicitly to pipe down and hide out lest they face the wrath of common sense? I think the entire sentiment behind your posts is that you wish that your worldview still had enough influence and structural power to force people and ideas that make you feel yucky back into the margins where you could promptly ignore them and not have to explain them to your grandkids....not that you care what I think.

Yes, I know what "implication" means, and I know what I said. I said I miss the slower, simpler times of my youth when common sense values prevailed, and was seeking to contrast those times with recent changes in standards of morality and social norms that are detrimental to society. That does not constitute a confabulation, nor suggest that I remember a pristine, idyllic paradise free of societal issues. I was simply juxtaposing specific conditions and circumstances of our day with a time when they didn't exist. I can assure you, I recall the good, the bad, and the ugly as great injustice, and social, cultural, and political upheaval defined a decade of my youth.

I'm 68 and grew up in South Carolina, so I remember very well the struggles of black Americans seeking equality and social justice. I remember "We serve whites only" signs in businesses in my area, as well as a nearby gas station with 3 rest rooms: "Men," Women" and "Colored." I remember Governor George Wallace blocking the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium in his efforts to resist desegregation. I remember 4 young black girls being killed when the KKK bombed a black church in Birmingham. And I remember when Martin Luther King was gunned down, as well as the Watts and Detroit Riots, fueled by racial tensions. The country was as torn and divided at that point as it is now.

I remember when both John F Kennedy and his brother Robert were assassinated, and swirling rumors suggesting Lyndon Johnson's complicity in the assassination of JFK. I remember when protests against the ill-conceived Vietnam war erupted, inciting nationwide social unrest and rebellion against "the Establishment" Many young people took to the streets in protest, while many draftees fled to Canada. When MLK's non-violent fight for civil rights ended with his assassination, activists turned to violence, further dividing the nation. I remember the rise of cults and pseudo-Christian groups, as well as hypocrites and opportunistic phonies misrepresenting Christianity.

These are just a few of the things that exemplify the problems prevalent when I was a kid. I grew up witnessing these things, so don't tell me I'm pretending everything was rainbows and butterflies when I was young, and that societal problems did not exist. Recalling a time when modern issues didn't exist does not equate to a pretext alleging an earlier era was a pristine utopia. I'm neither delusional, obtuse, nor intellectually dishonest.

Well, yeah okay I see how you got that from my post, I'm not the most concise writer i'll admit. You can see that I am criticizing you, but not exactly what my critique is and that is partially my fault.

I'll give you an example. You said "[Remember when] the pledge to the flag, daily devotion and saying grace before lunch were part of every school day" and then go on to say ""[Remember when] schools were facilities committed to education rather than indoctrination?" I can tell that in your mind compulsory prayer and pledges for school children could not be further from indoctrination. What you are longing for is a status quo where people that didn't fit into the mold of a particular kind of Christian patriot were pushed or dragged along the perfunctory Americhristian indoctrination conveyor belt. My point is that the very things you are missing were actually gears in the mechanism that partially drove all of the horrible stuff that you vehemently insist that you remember from the past. It's not that you don't see that the past was full of some pretty messed up junk, it's that you are not making the causal connection between many of the things that you miss and the messed up junk that they contributed to. Moreover I think you are doing it on purpose.

Then there is the stuff that like this "[Remember When] kids were not encouraged to question and explore their gender and sexual identity?" ... and so on. Plenty of children (I dare not say all) would of their own volition pose these questions. Many children that would or did question in the past got the message of "darling we don't speak of that" at best and a worst "you are a perverse sicko worthy of ridicule and castigation" if you even think about it. What you are missing is structures that constrained what questions people felt free to even ask themselves. There is nothing innocent about your reveries. I thought I made it clear, but I don't think you are deluded or obtuse and the only dishonesty is in the fact that you've couched as you did, instead of just flat out saying that you wish that people were still too afraid to be themselves in public to express a different view of their gender or sexuality than you are comfortable with.

If you are going to be indignant, please be indignant about what i'm actually accusing you of. To be clear I'm accusing you of longing for the days when the social, political and economic infrastructure placed a premium on people like you, that thought like you, and forced the others to either conform to this paradigm or be forced to the margins. So to be clear, I don't think you are stupid or oblivious, I think you are full of rotten desires.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I am as well, and I think you are presumptuous, caustic and abrasive. But thanks for reminding why I generally avoid dialogue with you.

Thats fair, i'm definitely all of those things at least some of the time. You have me dead to rights, my posts was full of all of all of those things, but not subterfuge. You are smuggling your caustic, abrasive and presumptuous ideas in the guise of an old man who just wants to get back to the simple down home common sense traditional values of yore, when genitals told you exactly who you were and who you were for. Maybe one day you'll actually publicly examine your positions instead of just trying to state them in a way that camouflages their implications. Tell me i'm lying about what yearning for the times "When the two people exchanging vows at the altar were biologically paired for procreation?" means for two homosexuals in love. We already know what that world that enforces that looks like, why try and convince me that is is some totally different thing. What i've said is ugly because it has laid bare the true face of your own words....suck it up.

[Sojourner]

Thats fair, i'm definitely all of those things at least some of the time. You have me dead to rights, my posts was full of all of all of those things, but not subterfuge. You are smuggling your caustic, abrasive and presumptuous ideas in the guise of an old man who just wants to get back to the simple down home common sense traditional values of yore, when genitals told you exactly who you were and who you were for. Maybe one day you'll actually publicly examine your positions instead of just trying to state them in a way that camouflages their implications. Tell me i'm lying about what yearning for the times "When the two people exchanging vows at the altar were biologically paired for procreation?" means for two homosexuals in love. We already know what that world that enforces that looks like, why try and convince me that is is some totally different thing. What i've said is ugly because it has laid bare the true face of your own words....suck it up.

Yeah, I believe what God says about the sexuality of men and woman, and what constitutes a natural union. You know, I'd much rather engage a rabid atheist than a rabid ex-Christian. At least I'd know what I'm dealing with. And I still wonder what keeps drawing you back to this discussion board when you reject the validity of the faith it is centered around. 

[Oscar_Kipling]

Yeah, I believe what God says about the sexuality of men and woman, and what constitutes a natural union. You know, I'd much rather engage a rabid atheist than a rabid ex-Christian. At least I'd know what I'm dealing with. And I still wonder what keeps drawing you back to this discussion board when you reject the validity of the faith it is centered around.

I wonder too, perhaps its God, perhaps it's the format, perhaps it's something else. I've said in the past that I think that Christian beliefs and believers are important because they have influence, to me that is enough. I am forced to interact or engage with Christianity whether I am posting here or not. I don't post on any zoroastrian boards or debate the coherence of their beliefs because they have practically no influence over anything that is important to me. I have no zoroastrian family members ,friends, coworkers or bosses. I am unaware of any state or federal laws that are heavily influenced by zoroastrian beliefs.
Even if that isn't the whole story (and I have no doubt that it isn't), I do not find it mysterious that a non-believer would choose to actively engage. But hey, I am back for the time being, foaming and rabid as ever, so if you feel that God is telling you to do something with this opportunity then, okay. I agree to the possibility of being proselytized to by posting here. You get to say what you think about God stuff, I read it, and I get to say what I think (more or less), fair dinkum. I'm not sure how to make "what you are dealing with" any more clear than that.

 
Anyway, I appreciate this post as I take it to be acknowledgement that I'm not simply inventing the implications of your "Remember When(s)". ...or at least some of them. From where I stand, you wanting to shackle others with your beliefs cannot play out well. Either you are successful and you push people back into the margins where you don't actually get rid of them, but they are so weakened that you can ignore them for a while...Or you fail to force them into alignment or into the dark and you are labeled as an oppressive force in the world and you repel everyone except the folks who are just like you (or pretend to be). Neither of these outcomes seem particularly useful to winning souls to the kingdom of heaven. I do not think that you can domineer, shame and ignore people into salvation. So, if these musings on what used to be are not meant to inspire or promote the bygone day's strategies and tactics of gross suppression, rejection and neglect of some of the least among us...then what exactly is it that you are really "missing" and why? If not rebuilding the despotic power structures of the past, what is it that this remembering should compel anyone to do? I cannot see how this could lead to a renaissance in Christianity that more closely aligns with Jesus's habit of embracing and showing love to the least, the outcasts and the unworthy....to me it just looks like wanting to ensure that the least, the outcasts and the unworthy are marked, defined and kept in their place, out of sight and out of mind. So, if you have the time and the desire, please walk me through what it is that you actually want and how you expect that the sort of thinking that you proffered here will get us there.

[RabbiKnife]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

You keep going back to your unsupported meme that Jesus is different from modern Christianity.  No duh, Sherlock.  Why should any of us accept your presuppositions when you refuse to accept ours?

But painting all believers in Jesus as being homophobic, bigoted, racist blah blah blah is neither intellectually honest nor compelling.

The real question is "who do you say that Jesus is?", and if you reject Him, then you embrace the alternative, as the only truly binary question in the entire universe is "do you accept Jesus as the only Way, the only Truth, and the only source of Life?"

All the rest is white noise.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

You keep going back to your unsupported meme that Jesus is different from modern Christianity.  No duh, Sherlock.  Why should any of us accept your presuppositions when you refuse to accept ours?

But painting all believers in Jesus as being homophobic, bigoted, racist blah blah blah is neither intellectually honest nor compelling.

The real question is "who do you say that Jesus is?", and if you reject Him, then you embrace the alternative, as the only truly binary question in the entire universe is "do you accept Jesus as the only Way, the only Truth, and the only source of Life?"

All the rest is white noise.

EDIT: I just realized that I was responding to Rabbi and not Sojourner. I   have made some edits to reflect that, my apologies for painting you with the wrong brush Rabbi, even the most cold and assiduous brush can fall victim to the vellications of the human hand. I wasn't paying attention, my mistake.


Dost I? I mean it's not all that important to me that we have the same beliefs about whether I dost or dost'nt, so fine, maybe I dost.

You have in fact nailed one of my most favorite rhetorical tactics though, that is the whole "Jesus had way more chill than you". I think this was one of my least egregious though, but yeah you got me. Admittedly I don't believe that Jesus necessarily did or thought anything, It's more about discovering how you either reconcile the apparent incongruity or describe the Jesus that meshes with your beliefs like a fine toothed gear. The thing is, there are Christians who would describe a Jesus just as I (barely) did; So while you may not subscribe to that Jesus, there are plenty that do. The long and short is that it's not really my presupposition, but rather just one of the bountiful Jesus Recipes floating around. Accept it or don't, but I think it's more than a little laughable that you seem to think that my indictment of Sojourner's beliefs is akin to me prosecuting "Modern Christianity". I painted one particular Christian with my cold, but not particularly assiduous brush of ambiguously motivated ex-christianainity. I don't really remember what your whole deal is, but if you feel convicted by my criticisms of Sojourner then hop on in the paint is warm. If you yearn for the same things that Sojourner does then I have the same criticisms and questions for you too, but let it be clear that the criticisms and questions are for those that hold these beliefs/desires...though to be fair I've met very few christian beliefs that I didn't take some issue or another with.

WHITE noise huh? Of course a person like you would exclude all other colors of noise, disgusting. That was just a joke, I don't think that you actually hate other colors of noise. Honestly it doesn't matter to me or my point whether Sojourner's desires (or yours if they be so) are based in hate, fear, disgust or some idiosyncratic conception of love because the result is the same. The reality of Sojourner's desires would (and actually did) still marginalize people that don't fit into the narrow confines of the world Sojourner longs for. Maybe Sojourner is the world's most sincere lover of Rabbits, but if Sojourner pets them to death then Sojourner's has a heart full of love, and a dead rabbit.

The real question? Let's not denigrate the very questionhood of each other's questions, that is too far even for me. Can not your questions and mine both be equal in their intrinsic inquisitorial nature? Every version of Jesus that I'm at all familiar with is at the very best second hand. In all my expirience, Jesus displays all the signs and symptoms of a mostly made up person like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. At this point in my bibleforums career i'm far less interested in the bible or biblical figures than the people who make claims about them. So, Hey , if you wanna talk about Jesus, or which Jesus is the original recipe Jesus or why it doesn't matter whether or not you are afraid of the gays, or why I don't care where your heart is when your hands are around my throat, or even if you want to talk about the real question then I'm down, I'm here dosting with the rest of you mugs aren't I?