Darwin was a Unitarian, many considered Einstein to be a Unitarian (at various times in his life he made pro and questioning statements about a god). Thomas Jefferson also should be questioned as an Atheist, like Unitarians he did not believe in the Trinity and created the Jefferson Bible which basically revisited the gospels minus the magic. I think someone assumed that anyone who was a Unitarian is also an Atheist, which would be a mistake. I did noticed they left Presidents John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore off the list, also questioners of the Trinity.
I am saying that Anti-Christ... as for Atheist. Those who do not belivie in God. So if you belive there is NO God or never has been one you are AGAINST the idea of Christ. Then I said against and anti are very close so you may not belive what I belive but you are not Atheist if you belive Jesus Christ or does exist. Not that you HATE Christ but against the being of Christ is what I consider an Atheist (does not believe in anything). Too many people try to make my comments or that of others something horrible. Even those who disagree with me. People jump all over them. I have never said that people have to belive like me, but I pray that they will accept Christ. That is a true Christian. Not judging you as a bad person or anyone for their viewpoints. I just beg to differ my thoughts. Several people have jumped on my comments and turned them around totally different than what I actually was implying. I have said almost every time in MY OPINION or MY THOUGHTS and some are not happy with that and make it sound as I am saying something differnt and try to tell me what I am meaning or that I do not know what I am talking about. I will not argue with people about this, I was actually just answering KellBell when she asked about hating Christ and where that came from. I said I have not read that but did read he is Atheist and says he writes books about killing God. Yes his stories are made up, but just like I do not enjoy watching horror and murder movies... I do not like supporting things bad or someone who has an imagination about killing Christ. I seriously only watch movies with out a lot of violence and so on. Just me. I watch Hairspray, Hannah Montana, Elf, Rudolph, Grease, some Adam Sandler movies, and things like that. Bad movies bother me... but I am just that type of person... and I am not focused in enough on mythology and mystical moives. They are boring to me!
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --- Mahatma Gandhi And I disagree with Jester, regarding teaching tolerance at a young age. When you have a child that is an intellectual, they pretty much let you know when they are ready to learn. They recognize intolerance, injustice, and ignorance. And they want to know "why?".
I think the problem is that you are using a term that has come to have a specific meaning in most people's minds, but you are using it with some other meaning in mind. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist I don't think that's what you mean to say, but that's what people are understanding.
We had a discussion on that one in Adult Sunday School this week. Topic - Using nonviolence to do what is right.
Of course not. That would be admitting you're wrong. So you believe that Christianity is rife with bullying, racism and misogyny? After all, Mr. Pullman is an intelligent man and should know such things, right? He said it, therefore it must be true.
Come on, Clif. Lighten up. Just because I produced the article after you implied it didn't exist doesn't mean we can't all be friendly here. At first, the doubts of the story's validity was the argument and then it became necessary to retreat to questioning the interpretation of what Pullman meant when the Washington Post article was produced and the statement was proven true. You quoted me as saying that "Pullman is reported to be an intellectual type". No where did I say I agreed with that assessment. His viewpoint of the C.S. Lewis stories are expressed as his own in the article. You may share that opinion with Mr. Pullman, but that still does not make it fact. In the end, however, you get to be right when you're at your own keyboard. :mrgreen: Even if I gave you (and him) the benefit of the doubt, it would still be a false generalization of Christianity and those that believe upon it. Like I said, the objective for me starting the topic was met. That was to show Mr. Pullman's comments as anti-Christian to the Christian audience on here. The Washington Post article reveals the statement as true, quoted in a reputable newspaper. If you want to see the movie, go ahead. It was never my intent to issue orders not to see it and you won't find that in my original post. It was to simply let those who wanted to know the message behind it.
Tell that to the next couple of kids that go on a shooting spree because they were bullied in school by others who are intolerant of their looks, beliefs, or skin color. You're right you don't have to 'drill', but you can instill this with ease at an early age.
It depends on what you believe. Some believe He was simply a wise man, others that He was a prophet. Still others believe He was God walking on Earth. Ultimately, though, the Bible says He was a God incarnate as a man, so technically you are correct.
Most Christians would say yes, he was both fully human and fully divine. One of the mysteries that we take on faith. There have been sects that believed he was not human, but entirely divine, but I'm not sure any of those sects are active today. On the other hand, there are many people in the world who believe he was a great man, a great prophet, but not divine.
I concur with that. I didn't really say that he wasn't a man and didn't mean to imply that. He bridges the chasm between man and God as the Word alive in the flesh, as described by John in the Gospel that he wrote and the events he eyewitnessed for himself. Jesus relates to our imperfections and temptations having lived with man and being born to a woman, but did not know sin because He was incapable of it as God. My intent was to show that Jesus IS and not just WAS. The bodies of all the significant spiritual leaders of history lie in their graves or have returned to the earth in some capacity. Jesus' tomb is empty. Christ defeated death and sin according to the Word of God at the Resurrection.
Well, this may surprise you and some others, but I don't think it is required to teach religion to your kid to raise a compassionate person. I don't really disagree with you as much as you might think. The example you use is a behavioral response and isn't something that just appears overnight. Parents should be able to witness negative changes going on with their kids. Psychologists have pointed out for a number of years that one of the earliest markers of potential problems is how children treat animals or pets for example. As a child develops, changes in behavior such as withdrawal from the family social environment, changes in clothing or personal hygene, music, friends, fascinations with negative images, etc. are all signs of things going wrong. I like your instill/drill analogy, but I disagree that at an early age an indepth discussion of various world religions is necessary when they are attempting to discover who they are. Most young children that I've witnessed have the capacity to be compassionate and understanding as they are emotionally maturing. Rather than instilling (which is a good word) I would probably prefer nurturing, giving as needed along the way. You can't overwater a flower. A flower needs water, but too much will have damaging effects. I would suppose that it would be more appropriate to state that only when the child begins inquiring about varying religious viewpoints (or other social issues) should a parent be prepared to address their questions intelligently yet simple enough to understand for a young child. Furthermore, if those social issues involve anything that is contrary to the parents' religious views, there is no reason not to introduce those at that time as well. A good example is homosexuality. I'm not about to introduce that to my child at an early age. When my child begins to see evidence that produces questions, I will address those at that time.
