Everything interesting I've said this morning has been a comment.

[kellinator]

To slsanfran, regarding http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/09/CM162371.DTL:

Just skimmed the article. Most of my family members are huge NASCAR fans (and I myself follow it with a passing interest, though not one which leads me to watch races or really anything beyond asking my family members who's leading/who won).

That said -- I disagree on the race issue, because I've heard people from my hometown say they like NASCAR because it's white. The bigwigs may like to pretend it's not that way, but to an extent it is. And this morning on the radio they were playing a sound clip from this weekend's "start your engines" -- which ran the gamut from "support the troops" (always a worthy goal, even for those of us who don't agree with the war) to "support American hunters because they're the real conservationists" -- meaning, presumably, those environmentalists who want people to reconsider their SUVs are pinko commie bastards.

A huge cross-section of the country, and especially the South, enjoys NASCAR, but the most vocal fans tend to fly Rebel flags, practice subtle (at best) racism, and talk down to their wimmen. Will that change? I dunno. I sure hope so. But the country's swinging so far right that I doubt it.

And that said, in my experience people with number 3's on their back window are asshole drivers and people with 24's are whiners. Sterling Marlin and Mark Martin fans are usually okay though.

To buckthorn, on my church experience and issues of doctrine (aka, "is Kelly becoming Lutheran because they tell her what she wants to hear?"):

Appreciate your opinion, Brian, but I'm not exactly a babe in the woods here. I grew up Southern Baptist and can give you lists of the inaccuracies spouted at me during sermons. (Example: "America was founded on Christianity." I really wanted to interrupt that sermon and explain to the preacher that most of the Founding Fathers were deists. He probably didn't know what a deist was.)

I've read my Bible through -- in fact, I probably have a better working Biblical knowledge than 90% of the American population. I've thought long and hard before reaching my conclusions, which include 1). a religion based in fear instead of love isn't what Jesus was about, 2). the Bible was divinely inspired, but it was written by men, which means like anything manmade there could have been errors, 3). the Old Testament bars rare steak and fabric blends, and I don't see anyone up in arms over those, and 4). Paul was a lot more interested in telling people they were going to hell (and women to shut up) than Jesus was.

I don't pretend to know the mind of God. Based on what I've seen, Lutherans will come closer to admitting that than Southern Baptists, or pretty much any other group of fundies. Anyway, if I join a church I don't agree with that won't even recognize that rational people can have disagreements over issues of interpretation, I'm a liar and a hypocrite. And one thing Jesus really didn't like was hypocrisy.

To mfree, on gated communities etc.:

I HATE homeowners' associations. I consider them unamerican. Once in a class at Vanderbilt, a girl said her family's homeowners' association controlled what color they could paint their house. I said something along the lines of "You're giving up your rights as an American. Doesn't that bother you?" and I shit you not, she said, "No, because they keep those people out." Stupid bitch.

to cynical7, on delicious David Duchovny:

One of my college profs went to grad school with David Duchovny. He said they all laughed their asses off when he quit to become an actor, because they'd seen him in a play and he was awful. Then he got The X-Files and they all laughed at him again because he wasn't acting, he was playing himself.

He apparently has a magnetism that makes all women want him. Duh, tell me something I don't know.

To tarpo:

I saw The Ring last night. It scared the ever-lovin' shit out of me.

Comments

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

(taking a moment to bask in the irony that this comment for the moment is right below technomom's)

In my humble opinion, if you don't follow the Bible you're not a Christian. No, I don't believe there are inaccuracies in the Bible. Would an all-powerful God allow that to happen? I mean, this is His Big Speech to His people. This is the Written Record, the literal Word of God.... think that he would allow some junk to creep in there, just y'know for whatever reason?

Paul did a great deal to expand on the general principles of Christianity. If we don't like them, then that's our choice. But we have no right to call ourselves true Christians if we don't believe them and try to follow them. Same way as I can't call myself a Democrat if I don't believe what the Democrats stand for, or can't call myself a NASCAR fan if I've never seen a race, or whatever. Disagree with the Bible all you like, but then you're not a Biblical Christian. What you are remains up to you.

And while I'm thinking about it... why aren't people up in arms about fabric blends and the like? Because Jesus took away the OT law. So it's generally not applicable to us today except for specifics that were carried over. And maybe that's not a fact that 90% of people understand but it's an important distinction nonetheless. OT had lots of fun stuff ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") that didn't get carried over to NT times that somehow people managed to drag over the line.

And Jesus didn't like hypocrites, true. He also wanted people to work very hard to understand God and his purpose for the Earth and Jesus' purpose on earth (John 17:3). It's important if we're going to be Christians for us to continue to grow in our knowledge as much as possible, and that means finding a church that is Biblically consistent. You can't pick and choose.

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

You're a Jehovah's Witness, correct?

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

correct, yes. And you may cite some of the stuff I've said in my LJ as hypocricy if you like and you won't be off the truth much at all, but it doesn't make what I said any less true just 'cause I've been a weakling now and again. Just sayin what I know is true.

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I'm really not up for calling anyone a hypocrite. Suffice it to say after looking at this, I really don't think either of us is going to change our mind, and I believe this is one of those times when it's best to agree to disagree. I know what's in my heart.

One thing I would like to mention, though: if the Bible as text is completely infallible, what are we to make of the differing versions of Christ's geneology in Matthew and Luke?

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

Wow, so the discussion is over before it begins. That's constructive. Not even quite clear what we disagree on yet. It's not what's in your heart that counts, it's what's in God's heart. We don't set the criteria for our own salvation.

And I'm not sure about the differing versions of Christ's geneology in Matthew and Luke. Will have to try to find out about that. Not exactly a doctrinal question but I'll see what I can do.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

This isn't a discussion, this is spoiling for a fight. I made a post about a very moving religious experience. I did not tell anyone else that they had to validate that experience; I just wanted to share it for those who chose to read it (hint: no one had to click the cut-tag). You come in my journal and tell me I'm not a Christian because I don't believe the truth -- which lookie here, happens to be just what you believe!

I could go through and dig up plenty of information on doctrinal changes in Biblical interpretation among Jehovah's Witnesses -- I have mad librarian skillz like that. But I choose not to because you don't want to hear it. You haven't considered things I've said; you've just insisted I'm WRONG and I'm NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN. This is not only poor debating skills, it makes me (and anyone else who might be listening) less likely to listen to you because you're making attacks.

I choose my blood pressure over an argument where my points will be ignored just because they aren't yours.

If God wanted sheep, He wouldn't have given us free will.

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have modified their beliefs since they were organized as a religion is a documented fact; No mad librarian skillz are required to prove that to me. For me, it's comforting to know that I belong to a religion that isn't afraid to admit when we're wrong about the understanding of some Biblical something and change accordingly. Our changes continue to be made based on the Bible. There is a distinct possibility/probability that some of the stuff we believe now is off to some degree, and that's why it's incumbent on us to continue studying and expanding our knowledge and understanding. We believe that, based on what we know know, what we believe is accurate and harmonious with the Bible. But if we can be proven wrong on anything, we're not afraid to admit it.

What really got my attention was this line in your experience:
I found out that Lutherans don't really care about sexual orientation (a big issue for me, though I'm straight)

Explain to me how that harmonizes wtih Gen 1:28, Gen 9:1, 1 Cor. 7:2-5, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Tim 1:9-11, Jude 7, 1 Cor 6:9-11, and 1 Thess. 4:3-8.

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

BTW, I never said you weren't a Christian. Read my words carefully, for they were chosen so. I said I believe that if you (either you Kelly or the plural YOU everybody) don't follow the Bible than you (again) are not a Christian. If that to you reads that I'm saying you're not a Christian, then that to me reads that you don't follow the Bible. In that case, I get really confused about how this is a discussion about Christianity and churches since we are speaking completely cross-purposes.

just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

How do you know that what you perceive to be in God's heart is a more correct perception that what someone else perceives to be in God's heart?

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

Because our doctrines are the closest to what the Bible holds forth as proper behavior for Christians. And when there's doubt, we err on the side of caution. I would much rather have God say to me after all is said and done "You know, you could have done this 'cause it wasn't wrong like you thought" than "You know how you thought this was okay? It wasn't, and here's why. *points to Bible*"

Besides, somebody has to be right. I mean, it's not like the Bible is multiple choice... if the OT shows us anything, it's that God is pretty exacting with his people when it comes to guidelines. Why should he be any different today? So although there are different possible interpretations for things in the Bible here and there, there is only one correct interpretation, and instead of being all PC and cuddly and throwing right and wrong to the winds, we've chosen to pursue that correct interpretation as best as we can with the Bible knowledge we have available. There are certain critera you have to meet before calling yourself a Jehovah's Witness, and if you don't meet those criteria then you're something else. Always gets me when people say "Well I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in such-and-such part of the Bible"... because again, it's like me saying "Well, I'm female, I just have and X and Y chromisome" or "I'm African-American, even though none of my lineage extends back to Africa" or "I'm a Captain in the Army" when I've never been in the military... or "I'm Pagan, but I believe in a single all-powerful god and that he sent his son to die for our sins".

Re: just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Because our doctrines are the closest to what the Bible holds forth as proper behavior for Christians.

How do you know that?

And which translation of the hundreds out there of the Bible? And how do you know that this translation (whichever one it is) is the closest to the original intent?

In other words, what do you have to go on other than what some other human told you, either directly or indirectly, and how do you know these humans are more "right" than other humans?

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

You go to the original Greek, the original Hebrew, and you extract meaning as best you can. For example, we don't know what God's name is... the tetagrammaton is YHWH, how the Hebrews wrote it. Best as it can be figured is what we use, though. That's the way it is with some of the Bible... work thru the translation as best you can, and in the case of ambiguity you take the translation that makes the Bible most internally consistent.

But we're sort of getting away from the actual point here. Christians by definition believe the Bible to be the word of God... If Kel is saying that's not true, then that's news to me because I never heard of a Christian church playing fast and loose with the Bible's authenticity. Little things that we don't understand sure, so long as we make the approach in trying to understand them and not as a challenge. I'm taking Biblical authenticity as a given since we're discussing Christianity, but maybe that's an assumption I need to recant.

Re: just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

We're operating on different sets of semantics.

By my definition, a Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. There is considerable difference of opinion as to what these teachings are, how they relate to the Bible, and even within the Bible there is a huge amount of leeway in determining what messages differing passages are trying to convey (not to mention editorial decision over the last several thousand years as to what is and what os not in the Bible), along with the fact that the Bible is not internally consistent with itself (understandable, since it is a collection of orally-transmitted information that was set into print many years after its content originated in the first place).

The best that any denomination can possibly offer is a set of opinions by fallible people as to what is and what is not the will of God, and making the determination that any one denomination has an exclusive patent on what The Truth is leaves open a LOT of room for error....

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

Translation: There are no Christians.

Explanation: A Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ. The Bible account tells of the teachings of Christ, however, there are many different interpretations of many different teachings, and nobody can fully know all the correct teachings. Therefore, there can be no Christians.

Obviously, I disagree. Again, we're talking about God here. God has one set of standards. We look back in the OT, and we see a God that's pretty exacting, pretty specific about what he has in mind for his chosen people. Knowing that the Jewish system ended when Jesus came and fulfilled prophecy and further when the apostles were given the okay to minister to the Gentiles, we know that God's chosen people are no longer Jews, but rather Christians who, as said, follow the teachings of Christ. However, God's attitudes about right and wrong don't really change, we just have a somewhat different set of rules. There are still consequences for obeying and disobeying them.

Now that we get to that point, here's a question: We have a God, all-powerful etc who says basically "You need to live within the boundaries that I set for you in order to be called my people and receive your reward"... the Bible also says that God "is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any of us should perish, but that all should come to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9, Modern KJV). So he wants everyone to be saved, to receive the reward. Now, is he really going to make the Bible a convoluted mess of contradictions and obfuscations to prevent people from getting to the truth? And before you say that the Bible was written by men and is therefore fallible, remember that again, we're dealing with all-powerful God here... do you think that he would go thru all the work of the prophecies, the genealogy, sending his son, sacrificing his son, resurrection, all the work that had been in place since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:14-15) and then let it be recorded incorrectly? There is a proper canonical text, and we use the absolute closest thing we can find to it and translate to keep the Bible internally consistent. The reason for many inconsistencies that people perceive in the Bible is that, simply, Christendom has some major parts wrong.

Re: just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

do you think that he would go thru all the work of the prophecies, the genealogy, sending his son, sacrificing his son, resurrection, all the work that had been in place since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:14-15) and then let it be recorded incorrectly?

No, I don't... which is why I term the Bible to be a helpful set of parables and nothing more.

If you had to assign descriptives to "God", one of them would not be micro-manager.

Seeing the Bible (and religions in general) as anything other than tools to help people get through life is, in my opinion, missing the whole point for why they exist in the first place.

This (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=metaphorge&itemid=279619) sums up my general viewpoint much more eloquently than I am able to in words of my own.

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

So we put the Bible on a shelf next to "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Who Moved My Cheese?" and go on with our lives. Interesting.

Honestly, if that's the point we're at then not much either one of us says is going to be constructive going forward.

Re: just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

So we put the Bible on a shelf next to "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Who Moved My Cheese?" and go on with our lives.

Nope... we read them all, appreciate them for the truth that they do unequivocably contain, and stop sweating the small stuff.

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

Meh... Life is in the details. It's the small stuff that really shows how we feel about someone or something... ask any female, or almost anyone in a relationship, they'll say it's the little things that the other person does that makes or breaks it. Obviously sometimes it's the big things (the tequila-hazed weekend in Mexico with three prostitutes and a Doberman named Manuel), but more often than not the little details reveal the true heart. The big stuff is easy... it's the attention to detail that determines merit.

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

oh, and I love your icon.

Re: just a question:

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

Re: just a question:

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

Lain was one of the first animes I got into after the legally-mandated period of 80's imported and dubbed anime in the states. One interesting thing I heard was that "Battle of the Planets" over in Japan got sent to the US episode by episode, and the US importers got whatever the US censors let thru. Added to that, nobody on the US staff understood Japanese, so they basically had to just figure out what was going on. Deleted parts were repaced with the 7-Zark-7 and 1-Rover-1 bits to pad the show back out to proper length. One episode, the US animation staff was given 10 minutes out of a 22 minute show. Bet that was fun.

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matt 1:6,7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.

It's also worth noting that, of all the attacks made on him by the religious leaders of the day, no attack was ever made against his lineage.