[quote]Sloth wrote:
One observation. These discussions always assume that Christianity is solely bible based. Indeed, as if the faith was founded on the bible to the exclusion of the church and it’s clergy/apostles. So when the teaching role of clergy, the theology and/or doctrines of the church (whichever, to avoid getting into denominations), are raised about how, where, when, and to who verses and covenants are targted, it’s dismissed as waffling.[/quote]
Actually, it’s hard to assume anything except a few basics, such as the Bible is important and Jesus is da man. For the rest, there are about as many variations are there are participants.
We’ve got the rare Catholic, who’s ok with most of science and believe in “progresssive Revelation”, where God can over time reveal new information. Helps them stay current with two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Chief Cat likes to wear dresses with giant ridiculous hats, and claims to be infallible while uttering gems of wisdom such as “condoms help spread HIV.”
There’s the even rarer Orthodox, who tend to have their ducks in a row. Easier, since none of them had a new thought since 1054. Their hats are funny, but in a serious, who-died way.
You’ve got your Protestant, who apparently never met a sect or a schism they didn’t like. So from Anabaptist, Baptist, Calvinists… all the way to Waldensians, they seem intent on having a sect for each letter of the alphabet. I’m sure some of them would like funny hats, but picking a model would probably cause another schism and double the sects into hatted and hatless groups.
Popular around here, you got your Evangelicals or Born-Again (which seem to be the same thing) who are big on Sola Scriptura and take great pleasure in pointing out that everyone else is going to Hell. They all seem to miss the “judge not” admonition that Jesus made. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in about everything Jesus said, except when he talked about people going to Hell.
We have the Mormons, although I’m not sure if we’ve had one here. They’ll argue for hours that the second “m” in Mormon is not optional, thus proving that it is. They believe in batshit insane stuff, like magic underwear and that’s its OK for daddy to fuck all their sisters and five mothers.
We even have a Flood Geologist. While this isn’t really a sect of Christianity and would be easier to classify among clowns, he exhibits the same rabid fanatism that most of the others do when you ask for a shred of evidence. He’ll go on about stuff that will make you think the Mormons are damn smart.
And then there’s pat, who’s just confused.
Oh, and Haney, who hasn’t been around for a while, but was about the only one who seemed to try to live the “Christ” part of Christian, as far as I’m concerned.
So that’s quite a menagerie… any assuming you see on our part might only be because we’re tailoring our arguments for some particular belief; or we’re trying to stay generalist enough so that all the deluded participating feel equally insulted. Gotta stay fair, you know.