'Our Culture Is Better'

[pubjohn47]

[ 3. Involving all aspects; radical

.

In addition to the reply above, notice your own dictionary uses the word "radical".

In other words, fundamentally evil or radically different is what Jim is talking about when Jim says that "christianity" or the version practiced by some christians is fundamentally evil or radically different from what Christ taught

[Jeffreydan]

Jim was not calling christianity evil, Jim was calling some christians fundamentally evil, just as Jesus called some jews fundamentally evil.

Really?

I see Mr. Rutledge is still imagining some sort of cultural equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Yes that is precisely what I am imagining. They are both fundamentally evil. Maybe one more evil than the other, but both fundamentally evil.

Jim Rutledge

So as well as unable to acknowledge any point made by others, you are unable to read words as they are actually written.

[pubjohn47]

Wrong. You cannot correctly and directly translate the word "fundamental" (an adjective), to "a fundamental revision" (a noun). .

In addition to the two previous messages above, I wanted to also add that Jim was using the word fundamentally as an adverb, just as radically is an adverb and means the same.

So when Jim was saying that christianity is evil, he is saying that the christianity practiced by some christians is radically or fundamentally evil because it does not conform to the teachings of Christ

Hope all my three messages clarifies the point that Jim was trying to make when he said that "Christianity" is fundmentally evil or radically different from true christianity of the Christ, the Lord of Lords.

You will never hear Jim say that Christ is evil but you will hear Jim say that some christians or some of the versions of christianity are fundamentally evil or radically different from what Christ taught

I am sorry that you misunderstood Jim and you can always ask Jim, what his opinion of Jesus is to get a better idea of what he meant by the words, "fundamentally evil "

[pubjohn47]

Jim was not calling christianity evil, Jim was calling some christians fundamentally evil, just as Jesus called some jews fundamentally evil.

Really?

I see Mr. Rutledge is still imagining some sort of cultural equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Yes that is precisely what I am imagining. They are both fundamentally evil. Maybe one more evil than the other, but both fundamentally evil.

Jim Rutledge

So as well as unable to acknowledge any point made by others, you are unable to read words as they are actually written.

I understand completely what Jim is talking about

when Jim is talking about christianity being evil

Jim is talking about the christianity that does not love the enemy,

does not pray for those who persecute Americans,

Jim is talking about the christianity that does not turn the other cheek,

Jim is talking about the christianity that is not peace making but war making;

Jim is talking about christianity that does not take up its own cross but rather puts the cross on others to bear

Jim is talking about the christianity that behaves just like Islam ( an eye for an eye etc)

So when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil, Jim is talking about the christianity that is fundamentally evil or radically different ( using the defintion from your own dictionary) from what Christ taught

The best way to clarify this misunderstanding is to ask Jim whether he is talking about the christianity of Jesus or the christianity that is being preached in some churches today

[Jeffreydan]

I understand completely what Jim is talking about

when Jim is talking about christianity being evil

Jim is talking about the christianity that does not love the enemy,

does not pray for those who persecute Americans,

Jim is talking about the christianity that does not turn the other cheek,

Jim is talking about the christianity that is not peace making but war making;

Jim is talking about christianity that does not take up its own cross but rather puts the cross on others to bear

Jim is talking about the christianity that behaves just like Islam ( an eye for an eye etc)

So when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil, Jim is talking about the christianity that is fundamentally evil or radically different ( using the defintion from your own dictionary) from what Christ taught

YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT! Why do you think I challenged him on it?!

He made a blanket statement. I interpreted it 100% correctly based on the way he worded it. The way you just interpreted it is not definitive of the word "fundamental," the adjective upon which the adverb is based.

Until I actually read something from Jim that says he didn't really mean Christianity is fundamentally evil (you know, evil at its very core and basis), I'm not reading anything more into what he wrote. Unless you're a mind-reader, you can't either.

The best way to clarify this misunderstanding is to ask Jim whether he is talking about the christianity of Jesus or the christianity that is being preached in some churches today

Since you said before that you understand completely what Jim was talking about, you just contradicted yourself with this statement. "The christianity that is being preached in some churches today" wouldn't be Christianity at its fundamental state, which is what Jim called evil. Get it now?

You come across about as ignorant and thick-headed as is humanly possible.

[pubjohn47]

The best way to clarify this misunderstanding is to ask Jim whether he is talking about the christianity of Jesus or the christianity that is being preached in some churches today

Since you said before that you understand completely what Jim was talking about, you just contradicted yourself with this statement. "The christianity that is being preached in some churches today" wouldn't be Christianity at its fundamental state, which is what Jim called evil. Get it now?

You come across about as ignorant and thick-headed as is humanly possible.

Whether a person is grammatical correct or not, you have to ask the person what he actually meant; does he mean that Christ is evil or christianity is evil and if he says christianity is evil and not Christ, then Jim is talking about today's christianity.

When I said you need to clarify this misunderstanding, I am not talking about me; I was talking about you misunderstanding Jim.

If Jim says that Christ is evil, then you will be right in what you say but if Jim is talking about the christianity today, then that is what I have been talking about when I say that I completely understand what Jim is talking about when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil.

As soon as Jim says that Christ is evil, I will agree with you on this issue; but until then I am positive that Jim is talking about today's christianity being fundamentally (radically) evil

[Jeffreydan]

Read this response to Jim again, PJ:

"Fundamentally evil" is a pretty serious barb to toss, Jim; that's why I responded the way I did. I don't think Christianity and faiths based on it are without flaws or scars, but I can't see making the leap to "fundamentally evil." Knowing what the majority of Christians and their faith stand for, it comes off as ridiculous.

Characterizing Nazism that way I could buy. Islamofascism as well. Communism perhaps. The concept of genocide. White supremacy (or any bigotry for that matter). See where I'm going?

If Jim sees any need to clarify, he knows full well he can.

If you want to read into it something else, more power to you. I'm of the mind to take it at face value. Jim may be a sarcastic guy, but he writes with clarity.

I read and understood something exactly as it was written, by a guy who stands firm by his atheism. Your take on it, without Jim explaining anything, demonstrates you don't take the content of people's posts into account, and you don't read what is plainly written.

I actually accept, comprehend, and acknowledge what people write. Every time you discuss something with others here, you show you don't. I don't expect you to accept that; introspection ain't one of your gifts.

[pubjohn47]

.

I read and understood something exactly as it was written, by a guy who stands firm by his atheism. Your take on it, without Jim explaining anything, demonstrates you don't take the content of people's posts into account, and you don't read what is plainly written.

I actually accept, comprehend, and acknowledge what people write. Every time you discuss something with others here, you show you don't. I don't expect you to accept that; introspection ain't one of your gifts.

Ask Jim a simple question : Does Jim think that Christ is evil ?

and if you can get him to answer that simple question, then you will know what he means by christianity being fundamentally evil.

Tell me, what Christianity are you talking about ?

and I am sure, that Jim is talking about an entirely different type of christianity and therein lies the misunderstanding

[Jeffreydan]

.

I read and understood something exactly as it was written, by a guy who stands firm by his atheism. Your take on it, without Jim explaining anything, demonstrates you don't take the content of people's posts into account, and you don't read what is plainly written.

I actually accept, comprehend, and acknowledge what people write. Every time you discuss something with others here, you show you don't. I don't expect you to accept that; introspection ain't one of your gifts.

Ask Jim a simple question : Does Jim think that Christ is evil ?

Immaterial; Jim has on more than one occasion said he is an atheist. There's your answer.

[Jim Rutledge]

Ask Jim a simple question : Does Jim think that Christ is evil ?

I'm sorry for causing such a problem. The answer is 'NO'. I do not think Jesus, that was his name (not christ), was evil.

One of my favorite authors is Annie Dillard. She was initially a deist (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek), but progressively became a theist. I don't hold that against her. Towards the end of her essay titled THE BOOK OF LUKE she wrote the following:

The Gospel of Luke ends immediately and abruptly after the Ascension . . .
What a pity, that so hard on the heels of Christ come the Christians. There is no breather. The disciples turn into the early Christians between one rushed verse and another. What a dismaying pity, that here come the Christians already, flawed to the core, full of wild ideas and hurried self-importance. They were already blocking, with linked arms, the howling gap in the weft of things that their man's coming and going tore.

That phrase "so hard on the heels of Christ come the Christians" has haunted me for years.

Regarding Jesus, I prefer the JEFFERSONIAN BIBLE.

Jim Rutledge

[Jim Rutledge]

WTF?!? Are you even a Christian? Oh, wait, let me guess...you disowned all religion as a teen in the 60s as a way of fighting against your parents...and have yet to grow up.

I used to be a christian. I got the full-dunk from the Disciples of Christ, not that sissy sprinkling from those demi-denominations. I have nothing bad to say of my minister, Reverend Alley, in Gladstone, Oregon.

But after a while I grew up and realized that most of religion is a sham, and that I should take responsibility for my actions.

I love & respect my parents. I happen to think that I am blessed to have the parents I do. They are the salt of the earth: hard-working, say what they mean, mean what they say, look you straight in the eye. In a few days we are heading down to south Arkansas to spend Christmas with my parents. I love nothing better than to spend a few days cooking with my mom, and spending the evenings talking with my dad.

Jim Rutledge

[Jim Rutledge]

The funny thing here, which I overlooked, is that Jim calls himself an atheist, but follows Unitarianism....which is basically a religion of all religions. They acknowledge all gods as equal, but do not pay respects to a particular god. Atheists, on the other hand, claim that there is no god. Therefore, Jim, you are actually agnostic.

TerryAnne, you are confused regarding Unitarianism. It is non-creedal. It is not a "religion of all religions". There is no acknowledgment of gods. Historically Unitarianism has shifted to the extreme left of current religious dogma.

I don't follow Unitarianism. There is nothing to follow; keep in mind there is no creed. I am simply a member of a Unitarian congregation.

I am indeed an atheist. And by that I mean I do not believe in a personal god. But I am not immune to the "transcendental impulse". I am fundamentally a deist. I believe there are higher powers, but I am unable to give a face or name to them.

Jim Rutledge

[pubjohn47]

.

I read and understood something exactly as it was written, by a guy who stands firm by his atheism. Your take on it, without Jim explaining anything, demonstrates you don't take the content of people's posts into account, and you don't read what is plainly written.

I actually accept, comprehend, and acknowledge what people write. Every time you discuss something with others here, you show you don't. I don't expect you to accept that; introspection ain't one of your gifts.

Ask Jim a simple question : Does Jim think that Christ is evil ?

Immaterial; Jim has on more than one occasion said he is an atheist. There's your answer.

Why would Jim's atheism be the answer to the question : whether christianity is fundamentally evil or whether Christ was fundamentally evil ?

Jim has already answered that Jesus Christ is not evil

and so when Jim said that christianity is fundamentally evil,

he is obviously not talking about Christ because he already said that Christ is not evil,

so Jim must be talking about a different christianity that in his mind is evil and not the christianity of the Lord Christ, the Son of the Living God

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

"Fundamental" or "fundamentally" and "radical" or "radically" are NOT interchangible terms.

To say that Christianity is "fundamentally evil" is to say that the underpinnings of the religion itself are evil, that the basis upon which the religion was founded are evil.

To say that 'radical Christianity'- or "radical Islam" or "radical Judaism"- is evil is to be on at least somewhat firmer ground. In fact, I can agree with that to some extent because I have always- well, since I thought myself capable of making such decisions (or "judgements" if you prefer)- had my problems with organized religion. Since it is us flawed and fallible humans that formed the various factions/denominations, I think it safe to say that all are similarly flawed in some way and to some degree. I've attended too many services during which people are more concerend with who is sitting with whom or who is wearing what than the sermon. Again, that's not the fault of the religion- it is the fault of the humans involved in it. I feel far more comfortable and fulfilled communicating directly with God through prayer. Whatever that belief makes me is what I am.

If Jim was pointing out that we human's mistaken interpretations of the various religions have caused much sorrow throughout history, I see his point and I cannot disagree with it. But I'd respond that, the less "radically" a given religion is practiced, the less sorrow it seems to cause and, converselt, the more good it does.

[Jeffreydan]

Why would Jim's atheism be the answer to the question : whether christianity is fundamentally evil or whether Christ was fundamentally evil ?

Another example of your reading comprehension problem.

You suggested we ask Jim specifically if he thinks Jesus Christ is evil. My response to that: he said before he is an atheist.
Look up the word atheist.

Jim has already answered that Jesus Christ is not evil

NOW he has answered, PJ. At the time you got my response, he had not answered. You are a little too impressed by your 20/20 hindsight.

and so when Jim said that christianity is fundamentally evil,

he is obviously not talking about Christ because he already said that Christ is not evil

I'm glad Jim elaborated; doesn't change that I was absolutely correct in my response to his choice of words. Now that he set the record straight, we know that A) he agreed with my response, that Christianity actually isn't fundamentally evil, and B) he didn't ever really mean he's an atheist--more along the lines of agnostic.

so Jim must be talking about a different christianity that in his mind is evil and not the christianity of the Lord Christ, the Son of the Living God

If he was thinking about a different christianity, it contradicts his "fundamentally evil" wording. Christianity, at its fundamental meaning, is what it is. As a rule people write what they mean, and use words as they are defined.