Colbert Rips the "Religious" Hypocrites

[Bill3000]

Yes, Bill, you are touting a sweeping ad hom against all evangelicals in the United States....one that isnt even true to be honest....and again, simply because you consider the claim to be 'factual' doesnt mean your right, let alone give you the right to be insulting about it.

Again, it's not an ad hominem. I am not trying to refute an argument. What I am saying is no different than saying that atheists go to hell.

I have said it before....you have a whole lot to learn in life Bill. A whole lot.

I've learned to not negotiate with wishy-washy heretics, and instead support the One True Faith for their consistency, good character, and good works. Enough with this chickenlike tolerance. The fate of hundreds of millions of souls are at stake.

You can always attempt to refute the claim of heresy, but the burden of proof is on the heresy. Tolerance just means that more people are being permanently damned by their imperfect faith, and I will not tolerate needless eternal suffering.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, it's not an ad hominem. I am not trying to refute an argument. What I am saying is no different than saying that atheists go to hell.

Precisely. However, how many times do you see me say such a thing? Never. You know why? Its not my place to judge their soul, and neither is it yours.

I've learned to not negotiate with wishy-washy heretics,

/sigh. As usual...tough talk is oh so easy over the internet isnt it.

and instead support the One True Faith for their consistency, good character, and good works.

Which faith would that be Bill? Scientology?

Enough with this chickenlike tolerance. The fate of hundreds of millions of souls are at stake.

Ah...the militancy of youth.

You can always attempt to refute the claim of heresy, but the burden of proof is on the heresy.

No its not. Its for God to decide....not you.

Tolerance just means that more people are being permanently damned by their imperfect faith, and I will not tolerate needless eternal suffering.

Now you sound like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

 

[FriendlyFire]

I predict another 'I know more than you do about christianity, even though your a christian' thread. Silly.

iam willing to match my knowledge of both bibiblical history and bible unstanding in a historical way with you if you want ?

Most christains are good decent people though saddly unknowedgeable about most aspects of there bible and religous historically and theologically.

As I pointed our repeatly the bible and christianity is a very spiritual and morally very vauleable. But should not be taken as the unalterable word of God.

 

[Miles Teg]

Precisely. However, how many times do you see me say such a thing? Never. You know why? Its not my place to judge their soul, and neither is it yours.

That's an odd position to take. It's pretty much classic Christianity that salvation is not only easy to tell by assessing a person's fulfillment of certain required theological positions and actions (belief the Jesus is God, asking for personal salvation, etc), but also relatively easy to tell by looking at someone's outward life. Your position is respectful and all, but it's definitely at odd with Biblical Christianity.

 

[MobBoss]

That's an odd position to take. It's pretty much classic Christianity that salvation is not only easy to tell by assessing a person's fulfillment of certain required theological positions and actions (belief the Jesus is God, asking for personal salvation, etc), but also relatively easy to tell by looking at someone's outward life. Your position is respectful and all, but it's definitely at odd with Biblical Christianity.

Uhm... no, its not.

I have long tried to mention here the distinction between judging someones 'soul' and judging someones acts upon the earth. While we may hold a criminal responsible for his crimes and punish him accordingly, he could in turn repent and be forgiven his sins by God.

Not judging someones soul is a very biblical position to take.

The problem, as I see it, is once again, a few bad apples have spoiled an entire demograph. People, like Bill, see a few judgemental christians and poof, they automatically assume that they are all like that. I assure you, they are not.

 

[Miles Teg]

Uhm... no, its not.

I have long tried to mention here the distinction between judging someones 'soul' and judging someones acts upon the earth. While we may hold a criminal responsible for his crimes and punish him accordingly, he could in turn repent and be forgiven his sins by God.

Not judging someones soul is a very biblical position to take.

I'm a little too tired to wrestle with the specific implications of that statement, so let's accept it for this post only. With that said, it is still easy to distinguish between the private destination of the soul, and how a person's actions and statements match up with that of Jesus and his disciples.

The problem, as I see it, is once again, a few bad apples have spoiled an entire demograph. People, like Bill, see a few judgemental christians and poof, they automatically assume that they are all like that. I assure you, they are not.

That may be the root of Bill's argument, but it certainly isn't the actual argument. From what I gather, he's criticizing their theological positions and understanding, not their morals.

 

[GenMarshall]

Colbert just gotten a neg hit for targeting the religious in my book.

Have you taken the moment to wonder why he would say what you quote and then also pray in public?

Count you just pray anywhere you want? Public or private?

Precisely. However, how many times do you see me say such a thing? Never. You know why? Its not my place to judge their soul, and neither is it yours.

Sometimes other people do that. I personaly have not seen it nor experianced it. But I acknowlage that it does happen in small numbers.

/sigh. As usual...tough talk is oh so easy over the internet isnt it.

Its not, most people take it as ether flaming or trolling. As well as people hating you for making tough talk.

...he could in turn repent and be forgiven his sins by God..

Even if the person has not been to church for months due because of chasing the all mighty dollar (as well as not having Saturdays and Sundays off)?

 

[Berzerker]

Do you realize that Jesus also prayed in public as well though?

Have you taken the moment to wonder why he would say what you quote and then also pray in public?

Hmmmm?

let me guess, Jesus really wanted his followers to pray standing in the synagogues and streets but said the opposite because he had say the opposite syndrome?

Now where did Jesus pray standing in a synagogue or street?

 

[MobBoss]

let me guess, Jesus really wanted his followers to pray standing in the synagogues and streets but said the opposite because he had say the opposite syndrome?

Now where did Jesus pray standing in a synagogue or street?

He prayed for the little children that were brought to him in the street.

The key to the entire text is the word hypocrite. Those that pray in public simply in order to be SEEN to be religious, but actually arent. They give a false front of who they really are.

Jesus isnt speaking out against prayer....he is speaking out against not being sincere in your prayer and doing it simply to look good.

 

[JollyRoger]

The key to the entire text is the word hypocrite. Those that pray in public simply in order to be SEEN to be religious, but actually arent. They give a false front of who they really are.

Could Jesus have been guilty of it himself? Or was he pulling a Foley?

 

[Shekwan]

Colbert just gotten a neg hit for targeting the religious in my book.

Yeah same here - Its too easy, and hes too intelligent to waste his time on them.

 

[MobBoss]

Colbert just gotten a neg hit for targeting the religious in my book.

I suggest stop giving him material....

Not that I think that is going to happen anytime soon, but its a nice thought.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretical

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by heresy
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards : unorthodox

So, was Protestantism heretical from the perspective of the Catholics beck when it first "broke out"? Yes. That is obviously why the word was coined.

Is fundamentalist Christianity heretical from the perspective of any other Christian sect today? Hmm.

Furthermore,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

For a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox, such as those proposed by Catholicism. The term orthodox is used in Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestant churches, in Islam, some Jewish denominations, and to a lesser extent in other religions. Variance from orthodox Marxism-Leninism is described as "right" or "left deviationism." The Cult of Scientology uses the term "squirreling" to refer to unauthorized alterations of its teachings or methods.

So, is Bill 'correct' in labeling anything that disagrees with his Catholic view of the world "heresy". Techincally yes.

Is it meant as a pejorative? Was he trying to insinuate that fundamentalist Christianity has given a "black eye" to all the other "respectiable" sects? I guess only Bill knows for sure...

 

[Miles Teg]

Trying to apply relativism to the people that believe there is no such thing is unhelpful. Since these fundamentalists have a source of ultimate truth as they see it, they have no excuse if they can't live their lives according to it's precepts. Since their theology clearly violates several parts of the New Testament, it's accurate to label them heretical, and by their own standards.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

why can't we all just keep our religious beliefs to ourself? i'm not saying this either because i disagree with it, but because it causes this. people like bill and mobby, who'd probably get along in other terms are now arguing because of religion. mobby, you see most christians as godly. i disagree, but fair enough.

i live in tennessee. definately a bible belt state. i will tell you from first hand experience (which i know is not proof, i'm presenting this as an anecdote) that many of the christians i see here are definately irrationally hateful and judgemental. not because of their religion though, but because of how the political world has bled into their spiritual world. want an argument for the seperation of church and state? look at what politics has turned religion into. it happened during the crusades (which i don't see as religious battles, but political power grabbing) and it's happening now. when people see a guy wearing a hammer and sickle shirt, they don't think of that person as a human. they think of him/her as an idea. suddenly that person is the personification of an abstract idea. they're a walking concept and they treat that person differently because of that. same with a mexican. they don't see the mexicans as a human. they don't think of how that person is exactly like them. they don't think of the family that person has, the kids that they treat exactly the same, or the hobbies and ideas of a good time that they both share. suddenly the mexican is just exhibit A in an argument over a concept. as soon as a mexican does something that many natives have done before, such as murder someone, that act becomes tied into the argument on immigration. here in the south, the people are bitter and clinging to guns and god, because that's all they see as having left in a nation where the politicians do not help them. and there are politicians claiming to be godly people who keep them as votes because they introduce wedge issues. all the while avoiding solving the problems we have here, because they don't know how and don't care to. they have no incentive to solve the southern economy because they still have the votes by playing false prophet.

once again, just an anecdote. i wouldnt say that all christians are like this, but i do believe i've just given you a good cross-section of the situation in the area i'm in.

and sorry about the wall of text, sometimes the situation here just gets my mind going and i just hop onto my train of thought.

 

[MobBoss]

mobby, you see most christians as godly. i disagree, but fair enough.

Where did I say this?

I didnt. In fact, I think most christians are simply christians in name only, and give very little regard to what being a christian actually means. I see that all the time.

I objected to them being called 'dangerous' by Bill. While I think most are the victims of apathy, I dont necessarily see them as dangerous, anymore so that I think different christian faiths are dangerous to one another.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Where did I say this?

I didnt. In fact, I think most christians are simply christians in name only, and give very little regard to what being a christian actually means. I see that all the time.

I objected to them being called 'dangerous' by Bill. While I think most are the victims of apathy, I dont necessarily see them as dangerous, anymore so that I think different christian faiths are dangerous to one another.

ahh, it seemed implied. my apologies. but my point still stands, if he does the labelling and you disagree, wouldnt it make more sense to just let them? if you in your heart know he's wrong, then why bother defending? this life is too fleeting to waste time stressing out and arguing with your fellow man on something that nobody is going to change their mind on?

but, in terms of apathy, i do see that as dangerous to an extent. if a layman is apathetic about it, he can be easily decieved by people with an agenda higher up in the church. suddenly because of the apathy, a corrupt leader is able to herd them into believing that something he just doesnt like is bad.

which is why i say if you're going to be religious, you should know quite a good amount and be able to debate with others on issues in your texts. i don't see the idea of an everloving god being one who sees debate and open discussion on some things as bad.

if you give a team an assignment at work, do you punish them for discussing amongst each other on the meaning of some things? the difference is, you could tell them in person. god can't, and if he's perfect he understands this and has a bit of leniency. which comes to the question of whether god rewards thought or faith more. and despite what either side would say, that's up in the air. personally, i believe it's mostly the first with a bit of the second. however, a mans faith should come into play when the actual decision to believe is made. but no man should have faith in another as a middle man who interprets religious texts. it's all too personal. and i believe god understands this, and we all get what we earn.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Since their theology clearly violates several parts of the New Testament, it's accurate to label them heretical, and by their own standards.

Heretical in the sense that they disagree with Catholic orthodoxy? Obviously.

Heretical in the sense that you apparently mean it? As doctirne which diverges from a literal interpretation of the Bible? Ha. In that sense, it is clearly the Catholics who are much more "heretical" than the fundamentalists.

 

[Miles Teg]

Heretical in the sense that they disagree with Catholic orthodoxy? Obviously.

Heretical in the sense that you mean it? As diverging from a literal interpretation of the Bible? Ha. Guess again.

They allow women to speak publicly in churches (although not to hold leadership positions). The vast majority of them have more worldly possessions than they need. Some of the crazier ones refuse to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. They (Pentecostal types excluded) treat people claiming to speak in tongues or drink poison without harm skeptically, although it's clearly biblical. The list goes on and on.

 

[Dachs]

Hey guys is it just me or did Lumen Gentium basically say "yeah so Protestants aren't really heretics we were just kidding over the last four hundred fifty years kthxbai"?