'Our Culture Is Better'

[pubjohn47]

"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.
.

I do not believe that Jim thinks that christianity and the faith of Christ are the one and the same and that is why he is able to say that christianity is fundamentally evil because he does not believe Christ founded christianity

[pubjohn47]

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.

Here is the definition of atheist : one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God.

I again ask, what has Jim's atheism got to do with Jesus, who Jim acknowledges as not being evil ?

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.

Now he answered because I asked the question.

At the time of your response, you never asked him whether Jesus was evil or not.

You are a little too impressed by your 20/20 hindsight.

It was not 20/20; I always knew that Jim was not talking about the christianity of Jesus but rather a christianity that Jesus never started.

In other words, I do not believe that Jim thinks that Jesus started christianity

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.

You are glad that Jim elaborated because my questioning is what made Jim elaborate and he would have elaborated if you asked him to elaborate.

Your response to his choice of words was a response in which you assumed that you knew exactly what Jim was talking about but he was actually not talking about the same christianity you were talking about.

In other words, you assumed that Jim was talking about the Christianity that was started by Jesus but in actual fact, Jim does not believe that Jesus started christianity or at least the christianity that you are talking about.

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 .

You will be right in saying that, if only Jim was thinking the same thing you were thinking but Jim does not believe that Jesus started christianity.

So next time, when somebody says something, never jump to conclusions and always have them elaborate on what they are saying because your assumptions might be different from his assumptions

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

I do not believe that Jim thinks that christianity and the faith of Christ are the one and the same and that is why he is able to say that christianity is fundamentally evil because he does not believe Christ founded christianity

And I suppose Karl Marx had nothing to do with the founding of Marxism, right?

[Jim Rutledge]

I do not believe that Jim thinks that christianity and the faith of Christ are the one and the same and that is why he is able to say that christianity is fundamentally evil because he does not believe Christ founded christianity

And I suppose Karl Marx had nothing to do with the founding of Marxism, right?

Weaps, buy a clue, and read some history.

Jim Rutledge

[pubjohn47]

I do not believe that Jim thinks that christianity and the faith of Christ are the one and the same and that is why he is able to say that christianity is fundamentally evil because he does not believe Christ founded christianity

And I suppose Karl Marx had nothing to do with the founding of Marxism, right?

You and I know that Karl Marx founded Marxism but we cannot assume that everybody knows that in exactly the same way as we know it.

When somebody says Marxism is evil, are they talking about Karl Marx being evil or are they talking about the followers of Karl Marx who are evil ?

Likewise, when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil, is he talking about the founder of christianity or the followers of christianity who are evil.

To Jim, the words "fundamentally evil" might also be synonymous with the word "basically" as in the sentence " He is fundamentally dishonest" and if you take Jim's definition of the words "fundamentally evil" he is talking about the followers of Christ and not Jesus Himself.

So either way, whether Jim is thinking that Jesus did not start Christianity or the followers of Christ are evil, the words "fundamentally evil" do not point to Jesus at all, as acknowledged by Jim himself

[Jim Rutledge]

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.

A- I continue to think that christanity is fundamentally evil.
B- I am still an atheist.

Jim Rutledge

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Weaps, buy a clue, and read some history.

Jim Rutledge

Chances are pretty good that, unless you happen to have a Doctorate in History, I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever know.

As your comment lacked any coherent context, I'll await your elucidation.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

You and I know that Karl Marx founded Marxism but we cannot assume that everybody knows that in exactly the same way as we know it.

Which is exactly my point re: Christianity.

To say that Christ had nothing to do with the foundations of Christianity is exactly like saying that Marx had nothing to do with the foundations of Marxism. It is a completely nonsensical statement to make. I just wanted to be sure that wasn;t what you- or Jim- was saying.

When somebody says Marxism is evil, are they talking about Karl Marx being evil or are they talking about the followers of Karl Marx who are evil ?

Again, that's my point. You cannot blame Christ- or Marx for that matter- for the things done in His -or his- name by flawed humans.

Likewise, when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil, is he talking about the founder of christianity or the followers of christianity who are evil.

Based on this statement:

A- I continue to think that christanity is fundamentally evil.

one would have to conclude that, because Christ and his teachings are the rock upon which Christianity was founded, Jim thinks that Chirst and Christianity are both evil. That's a shame because it paints him as not only ignorant of all the good that Christianity has done and is doing but also marks him as a bigot. I thought better of him but I seem to be making that mistake more and more often.

To Jim, the words "fundamentally evil" might also be synonymous with the word "basically" as in the sentence " He is fundamentally dishonest" and if you take Jim's definition of the words "fundamentally evil" he is talking about the followers of Christ and not Jesus Himself.

Based again on his statements, I would have to disagree.

So either way, whether Jim is thinking that Jesus did not start Christianity or the followers of Christ are evil, the words "fundamentally evil" do not point to Jesus at all, as acknowledged by Jim himself

Where is this acknowledgement?

I have not seen Jim draw any distinction whatsoever between "Christ" and "Christianity", as evidenced by his continued statements that Christianity is "fundamentally evil"- something he repeated after you made your post. I think Jim more than capable of drawing such a distinction- >>IF<< he wanted to. Clearly, since he has repeated his statement, he does NOT want to because that is not what he believes.

What I find curious is the way you rush to defend his anti-religious statements, even to the point of defending something Jim did not say. He's clearly comfortable with being an anti-religion bigot, so why are you defending him?

[Jeffreydan]

So next time, when somebody says something, never jump to conclusions and always have them elaborate on what they are saying because your assumptions might be different from his assumptions

That's exactly what I did, PJ. I wanted him to elaborate, because the way he worded it was off the mark. I hoped he didn't mean it exactly how he stated, and you merely assumed, in the end correctly, that he didn't mean it the way he worded it.

Lose the pedantic attitude, quit tossing my COMPLETELY ACCURATE ASSESSMENT of his wildly unfair, poorly-used choice of words back at me, quit congratulating yourself, and quit beating this dead horse. The only person you're convincing is yourself.

Subject is past its point.

[Jeffreydan]

I continue to think that christanity is fundamentally evil.

Please explain exactly what you mean, Jim. I don't see how a generally benevolent faith that preaches to stay on the straight and narrow is, at its very core, evil. Your previous posts appear (to me at least) to take the edge off your blunt statement here.

[pubjohn47]

Weaps, buy a clue, and read some history.

Jim Rutledge

Chances are pretty good that, unless you happen to have a Doctorate in History, I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever know.

As your comment lacked any coherent context, I'll await your elucidation.

You have the right approach in waiting rather then jumping to conclusions

[Jim Rutledge]

I have not seen Jim draw any distinction whatsoever between "Christ" and "Christianity", as evidenced by his continued statements that Christianity is "fundamentally evil"- something he repeated after you made your post. I think Jim more than capable of drawing such a distinction- >>IF<< he wanted to. Clearly, since he has repeated his statement, he does NOT want to because that is not what he believes.

Weaps, apparently you missed, or chose to ignore my post last Friday. It read:

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.


This would suggest a distinction between Christ and the Christians, but I understand that it may be too subtle for you to apprehend. But how about my use of the name Jesus, instead of Christ in my posts? I would think that it might also suggest a distinction between Jesus and the Christians, but again I can see where you might not be able to understand that either.

Jim Rutledge

[Jim Rutledge]

Weaps, buy a clue, and read some history.

Jim Rutledge

Chances are pretty good that, unless you happen to have a Doctorate in History, I've forgotten more about history than you'll ever know.

Chances are, that without any degree in History, I have forgotten more about your religion than you will ever know. That really doesn't speak to my knowledge, rather it speaks to your ignorance.

So, Great Historian, please enlighten us regarding the dates the Gospels were written, the Gnostic Gospels, the Unitarian/Trinitarian debate, the Cannon, and the Council of Nicaea, a.d. 325. And then tell us, with a straight face that Jesus started Christianity.

Jim Rutledge

p.s. So, I guess you also missed my reference to the Jefferson Bible in my Friday post where I cited Ms. Dillard. I'm thinking you have no idea what that is. I'll give you a clue. It was Thomas Jefferson's attempt to analyze the Gospels, and separate the quotes of Jesus from the propaganda of the christians.

[Cap'n Billy]

You have the right approach in waiting rather then jumping to conclusions

Well, I'm sure this makes Weapon's day (Gaining the approval of this... whatever it is)!
And oh yeah, once again,

From me 'n my Lovely & Vivacious Bride!

[Ruds]

From me 'n my gal!
[/quote]
You go Boy! Great picture. Ruds