'Our Culture Is Better'

[Cap'n Billy]

You go Boy! Great picture. Ruds

Hey thanks, Ruds! Have a great Christmas out there in Sunny Southern California, where I resided for about a quarter century. I took my fitness walk this morning here in the "Sunny South" in temps in the low 30's, but I have other compensations, as you can see.

[TerryAnne]

Swanky!! Looks to me like you're taking over for Paul Newman.

[Cap'n Billy]

Swanky!! Looks to me like you're taking over for Paul Newman.

Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be where I am now than where Mr. Newman is.
Thanks for the sentiment. The lady I'm with is completely responsible for that "swanky" look!

[pubjohn47]

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

When I see a balanced approach to any issue, I show my appreciation by thanking the person for his balanced approach.

Btw, In your picture, you look very distinguished Captain and have a blessed New Year

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

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

The fact that you are quoting someone else is irrelevant unless you either endorse or oppose her viewpoint.

Since it is obvious that you endorse her viewpoint, my take stands. You are a religious bigot.

I'd strongly urge that you defend your own belief system- and yes, atheism is a belief system- which has been responsible for more death and more suffering on less than a century than all the religions have in fifty centuries. When you get your own atheistic house in order, perhaps then you will be qualified to render an opinion on religion(s). Until then, you have zero credibility on the issue.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

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.

Then it speaks mightly softly...even to the point of silence.

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

You've fallen into the same pattern as the dear departed- again- flapper of arguing against things I did not say rather than things I did say.

What I did say is that flawed, imperfect humans created Christianity based on the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. To the extent that Christianity is flawed, that is due to the human influence rather than that of Christ himself. We humans might have gotten some aspects wrong...but Christ didn't.

Now if you want to argue that the teachings of Christ are not the basis of Christianity...by all means have at it.

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.

I am familiar with the Jeffersonian Bible...just as I am familiar with hundreds of other versions of the Bible. I am also aware that there are varying translations or interpretations of various things Christ said and did. If Jefferson had special insight into what he felt were things that Christ actually said as opposed to things that others ascribed to Him, if you think that Jefferson is unique in this well who is being ignorant now?

[Jim Rutledge]

Since it is obvious that you endorse her viewpoint, my take stands. You are a religious bigot.

Weaps, what does that mean "my take stands"?

Jim Rutledge

[Jim Rutledge]

Weapons,

You continue to be silent regarding when the Gospels were written; the status of the Gnostic Gospels: the Unitarian/Trinitarian debate; the Cannon; & the Councils of Nicaea.

Speak up great historian!!

Jim Rutledge

[Cap'n Billy]

They just don't make atheists like they used to. Atheists by and large once either just ignored religion or scoffed at it. Now many of them find it necessary to brand all religion as "fundamentally evil," or such like, and / or initiate lawsuits to restrict the practice of it in public venues, or even sometimes on private property where it can be seen from some public place. I strongly suspect that the "entertainment" industry has much to do with this, as religion and its clergy have almost always been portrayed as bad people (Except lately, when Muslims are portrayed as victims). It didn't affect the society so much when people only saw this in the occasional movie, but with the almost constant exposure to anti-religious propaganda on TV and other popular entertainment a lot more gullible minds have been poisoned. An example being Mr. Rutledge, who finds it necessary to portray all religion as "fundamentally evil."

I never called myself an atheist, but I spent about 40 years of my life as an agnostic, and never set foot in a church except to attend the occasional wedding or funeral. I was one of the scoffers, and frequently ridiculed religion in the presence of religious people. Some, those who were secure in their faith, responded with concern for my soul, while others who were less secure responded in anger. The angry person who uses the term of "fundamentally evil" strikes me as one who is insecure in his atheism and finds it necessary to hate religion rather than scoff at or ignore it. He also finds it necessary to claim to have been victimized by it, further justifying his hatred of it.

I currently call myself a skeptical Christian, attending church regularly but quite skeptical of much I hear therein. However, it does me no harm to attend services and other church functions with my choir-director wife, and in fact has enriched my life considerably during the 13 years I have been doing so.

[pubjohn47]

Except lately, when Muslims are portrayed as victims

And yet, muslims are willing to protect christians

Ref : viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30395

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Since it is obvious that you endorse her viewpoint, my take stands. You are a religious bigot.

Weaps, what does that mean "my take stands"?

Jim Rutledge

You, Jim, are a religious bigot.

That is my take.

As you have not even made the slightest attempt to rebut it, then it stands- unchallenged by you.

Is that simple enough for you, Jim?

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Weapons,

You continue to be silent regarding when the Gospels were written; the status of the Gnostic Gospels: the Unitarian/Trinitarian debate; the Cannon; & the Councils of Nicaea.

Speak up great historian!!

Jim Rutledge

I have admitted that, so far as I know, very little of the Gospels was written down while Jesus was alive. He and His Disciples were too busy making history to record it.

If your point is that humans might have gotten portion of Jesus' message wrong, then you and I have absolutely no argument on that score. I completely agree and have repeatedly said as much. But that does not make the words and actions of Jesus- Who was and is the "fundamental" basings of Christianity- "evil". I'd worry about the catastrophy to civilization that atheism has proven to be before I'd dare lecture others on a flawed belief system.

If you are trying to argue that, since the Gospels were not written contemporariously with Jesus' life, then I have to assume that you also believe any history not written about a person, place or event is hopelessly flawed unless it was written when the person was alive, the place existed or the event was taking place. So, in JimWorld, David McCulloguh's "1776" is meaningless, Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" has no merit and so on. If that's your point, it is equally as ignorant as your take on religion.

[TerryAnne]

Swanky!! Looks to me like you're taking over for Paul Newman.

Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be where I am now than where Mr. Newman is.
Thanks for the sentiment. The lady I'm with is completely responsible for that "swanky" look!

Oops..didn't mean to imply that! I could offer my explanation, but that might come out sounding just as bad.

I was meant as a compliment, though.

[Cap'n Billy]

I was meant as a compliment, though.

I took it as such, TerryAnne, for which I thank you. I was just trying to be a smart-as... er... aleck, but sometimes I'm too clever by half. Anyone who is ever compared to Mr. Newman (and I think that was a first for me), at least in the looks department, should feel complimented!

One less complimentary comparison in my past was during the Carter administration, when flight attendants began reporting to me that I sounded like Jimmy when I was making in-flight announcements (My home state is right next to his). They meant it as a compliment, but I took it the opposite, and immediately modified my speech patterns to correct that. Just a little snippet from my 'way back machine!

[TerryAnne]

I was meant as a compliment, though.

I took it as such, TerryAnne, for which I thank you. I was just trying to be a smart-as... er... aleck, but sometimes I'm too clever by half. Anyone who is ever compared to Mr. Newman (and I think that was a first for me), at least in the looks department, should feel complimented!

One less complimentary comparison in my past was during the Carter administration, when flight attendants began reporting to me that I sounded like Jimmy when I was making in-flight announcements (My home state is right next to his). They meant it as a compliment, but I took it the opposite, and immediately modified my speech patterns to correct that. Just a little snippet from my 'way back machine!

Oof! That's bad.