44% of USians think Christ Will Be Back in 50 years

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
The only real purpose of commenting on this thread is to point out how stupid it is to use USians. I see it and I know the people using it think that they are clever somehow but they really aren't.

If you'd bother to read the thread, you'd have come across the post where I mentioned I did it to shorten the thread title.

Nor is this thread about pointing and laughing at Christians, but at understanding the policiy implications of certain beliefs, and how they are dangerous to the rest of us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So is eating shrimp or cheeseburgers. The rules changed with the NT, so the fact that something was proscribed in the OT isn't necessarily a valid reason for continuing to proscribe it.

<-cough->

[chequita guevara]

You're Jewish, the NT doesn't apply to you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're Jewish, the NT doesn't apply to you.

Then you should have said the rules changed for CHRISTIANS. I mean its kind of odd thinking that the fact that the rules still apply to Jews is just a minor thing, when you consider, like, who the history of the "old" testament. Odd to see an atheist(I presume) privileging the Christian view of the "old" testament.
One might as well say that Jesus was a just a prophet leading to Muhammed.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
religious debates that assume christianity and humanism/athiesm are the only options

People who equate atheism and humanism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You know Martin Luther King was named after Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, right?

Yeah. I do. How did I say something stupid?

edit: nevermind

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Then you should have said the rules changed for CHRISTIANS.

This is a thread about the beliefs of certain Christians. And in the context of the specific comment, it was pointing out that as far as the NT goes, the NT supercedes the OT. In other words, you can't point to Leviticus and Deuteronomy to point out that Timothy is correct (or written by Paul, for that matter).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If you'd bother to read the thread, you'd have come across the post where I mentioned I did it to shorten the thread title.

Nor is this thread about pointing and laughing at Christians, but at understanding the policiy implications of certain beliefs, and how they are dangerous to the rest of us.

so guev, did the survey also ask those people if they save money? If theyre taking out a second mortgage on their house? How this varies from everyone else of comparable demos?

AFAIK these folks are taking the same approach as R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and I see no evidence otherwise.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


People who equate atheism and humanism

People who should said atheism/and or humanism/ and or agnosticism, etc.

Look, if id just said atheism id have gotten all kindsa crap for that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so guev, did the survey also ask those people if they save money?

Not having seen the original survey, I can't say.

AFAIK these folks are taking the same approach as R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and I see no evidence otherwise.

And yet, so many people act as if it is the case that we don't need to plan for the long term future because the return of Christ is iminent. It helps explain a puzzling feature of the right wing, which is why they are so adamantly opposed to conservation or environmental protection or building for the future anything besides wealth (there's those talents PLATO mentioned).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is a thread about the beliefs of certain Christians.

I thought it was about the decline of the US due to beliefs about the 2nd coming of christ. If you can get from that to cheeseburgers, i think youve left yourself open.

In any case, the OT says nothing about cheeseburgers, say. The application of it to something new requires a tradition of legal application, which the Christians havent maintained on dietary law. The Jewish tradition was implicit in your statement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so guev, did the survey also ask those people if they save money?

Not having seen the original survey, I can't say.

AFAIK these folks are taking the same approach as R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and I see no evidence otherwise.

And yet, so many people act as if it is the case that we don't need to plan for the long term future because the return of Christ is iminent. It helps explain a puzzling feature of the right wing, which is why they are so adamantly opposed to conservation or environmental protection or building for the future anything besides wealth (there's those talents PLATO mentioned).

Its easily explained on other grounds, from financing by industrial interests, to hostility to "Pagan" fringes of the enviro movement, to general cultural conservativism.
It also fails to explain the hostility to the enviro movement of A. Christians who do NOT think the 2nd coming is imminent and B. secular conservatives.

Really, this is silly.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In any case, the OT says nothing about cheeseburgers.

No milk (cheese) and meat together, as you well know. As the comment pointed out, Christians picked and chose what from the OT they wanted to keep when creating their new religion. The fact they decided to toss dietary restrictions but keep a prohibition on homosexuality points to a certain arbitrariness on their part.

This is also a side discussion on whether or not a belief in the imminent end of the world leads to certain behaviors on the part of certain groups of Chrisitans. It's tangential to the main thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
A. Christians who do NOT think the 2nd coming is imminent and B. secular conservatives.

They have their own, different reasons. Wanting one overarching explanation for all people isn't fair. We're talking about a particular, and politically powerful, segment of the U.S. electorate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


. It's tangential to the main thread.

Precisely.