Thomas,

My impression is that your own postion is abscure, you do not wish to be pinned down. Muddying the waters so that there can only be confusion allows you to maintain your place, of-- non-committment---of no-place. Christianity for you is not an entity, it to is obsurity as well, yet, I don't think your comfortable even in this no man's land. Even if someone wished to agree with you Thomas, they would need to find out where you are, I do not think even you know, where you are.

I warned you against taking phrases out of context (ie, your use of John 3:16) - that's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Not all Christians accept all of the Bible, some do not accept any part of the New Testament. That's simple fact.

Do thinkers practice selective philosophy when they reject the notions of some philosophers? No.

You are making incorrect assumptions about why I accept some scripture and reject others. My rejection/acceptance of scripture is based on a number of concerns - date written, political environment, intended audience of the text. It's called scholarship.

My personal views are more nuanced - some scripture I neither wholly reject nor wholly embrace - sometimes I have to admit I just dont understand. I'm at this point with Revelations - either it's the result of the author's experiaments with hallucinogens, or I just dont get the book.

Actually, I would advise people to read the whole of the New Testament - even the parts I question.

You constantly make these sorts of suggestions, when you have a terrible habit of dropping confused lines of silly criticisms and then conveniently do not reply to them.

I try to answer every question posed to me as openly and honestly as possible. Of all the people, I would expect you, a moderator, to avoid these useless, and insulting, insinuations.

Again, you say I muddy the waters - sorry boagie, but not everything is black and white. Religion is certainly not black and white, however often you try to treat it as such.

I still have no idea what you mean by my 'non-commitment'. Sounds like a hollow criticism coming from someone remarkably and blindly biased against anything relating to religion.

Because Christianity is not an entity. There are Christian entities, certain churches and organizations, Christian individuals, but "Christianity" is not an entity. It's a faith tradition.

Honestly, I have lost all concern for what you think - your habit of making snide and confused comments, and only restating your opinions as evidence, has lead me to the conclusion that you do not care about my explanations - you just look for new opportunities to spead your bigotted opinions about religion, which I have to add, are ignorant and ill-informed.

Agree with me on what? The totality of my religious philosophy? I've never presented such a thing.

They can, however, agree with me on particular points which you seem unable to even comprehend - for example, the fact that Christianity is not an entity, a unified whole. Or they might agree that literal interpretations of the Bible are misguided and lead to contradiction.

But, hey, you'd prefer to make accusations about my character than actually address any issues. So, what's your point boagie?

There was no offense intended, you do not really seem to disagree with the what I have said, other than to say, in your face. The position you have taken is a most powerful one, a bit like Socrates, stating that he knows nothing, therefore gaining what litttle in the way of control that might be possiable. I don't know why you take offense at the wondering, you have been quite verbal about the obsurity of your beliefs. If I have offended, as I suspect I have, you have my sincere apologies.

I disagree with what you've said - goodness man, how could you miss that point? In case you missed it:

How is that obscurity?

No, I have not advanced any notion of obscurity in my beliefs. What you have taken as obscurity is my treatment of the whole of Christianity - as a broad and diverse group. My Christian views do not represent the whole of Christianity, only me as a Christian.

Damn right you have, but I do appreciate this apology. It's easy to offend when being persistent in over-generalizations and negative insinuations draw from those over-generalizations. Might be something for all of us to keep in mind.

boagie is a mod? Woah that's scary, lol.

DT, you recommend the whole New Testament, and I said up front the scripture that talks directly about what it means to be a child of God or a child of the Devil is from the New Testament. Since your reply to that was "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible.", I can only assume that you choose to ignore that scripture. I honestly see "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" here, to recommend the philosophy contained in a book but choose to ignore a certain part of that philosophy. It's not like I'm pointing out some small nuance of idealogy. I think that recognizing what the Bible says about who and what God's children are should be a huge issue with any Christian. But I guess I'm wrong about that.

And a damn fine one, too. Hehe.

You assume I ignore what scripture? Maybe that's the problem - assumptions.
I mentioned that Christians might reject portions of the New Testament to show that even if there are passages in the New Testament to support a given perspective, not all Christians may find that convincing as some may reject the books from which the passages come.

What book? The Bible? The Bible is a compilation of books.

As a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity I cannot accept the whole of the New Testament because some of the texts, Revelations for example, I do not understand very well. How can I advocate a philosophy I do not wholly understand?

I also have to consider the political environment when looking at these texts, and consider the way the political atmosphere influenced the writings. I cannot honestly, with integrity, accept spiritual teaching that exists to promote a political end rather than spiritual development. In my opinion, there are parts of the New Testament which are just that - politically motivated writings.

Try as you might to be disparaging, I've offered to compare notes on these scriptural issues. Again, if you would like to have this particular conversation, I'm game.

Okay, here it is then. If you tell me afterward that, for whatever reason, you don't accept the given book that this passage comes from, I'll leave it there and I won't question you on it.

1 John 3:8 "He that committeth sin is of the Devil;"

and 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;"

I realize that I'm just taking parts of those verses, but those are the parts that refer directly to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss the rest of those verses, as well as the ones around them or whatever, then let's do that too. If you feel this subject is better taken up in private or a new thread, either is good by me.

As far as I know this "part" of the bible are letters. I sometimes wonder why pastoral letters are included in the bible. Letters are meant to address issues for particular audiences. I think one can be "christian" without reading any of them.

As far as I know everything from Romans to Jude are letters. That's the majority of the New Testament. Do you dismiss this whole section of the Bible just because they were written in the form of letters?

I don't dismiss them. They must be understood as letters, thats my point. It seems I just don't like dwelling on letters that is not supposed to be addressed to me. But I do agree there are some enlightening passages, but as DT states it must be put into context.