On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:11:48 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:fj9sn3hd9dd1228fr81cpfgerh26gr8027@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:30:54 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
>
>[]
>
>>>Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it 
>>>was
>>>perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around beating 
>>>the
>>>crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and boychidlren, and
>>>keeping the virgins as spoils of war.
>>
>> I see that sort of thing as an example of how the religion changed to
>> fit the society of the day, there are some people who like to try and
>> claim that it has all been set down in a certain way since the
>> beginning and that none of it contradicts other bits and so on. Does
>> knowing that attitudes have changed even within the lifetime of one's
>> religion mean that one has a wider problem with the religion? I
>> wouldn't have thought so, but mentioning that sort of thing to some
>> does seem to be heard as criticism.
>
>Are we still on christianity here? 

Um... <rereads> Yes? Possibly? <g>

>Because if not, I'd suspect you of 
>lurking in some the places wot I lurk ;-)

Well now that's the problem with lurking, it's so hard to know who
else is too. ;-) Don't know if I do, mind you. 

>
>
>
>> You have a scale then?
>> 'Fundamentalist-----------------------------------------Hard Atheism'?
>> Made me think now, which is unfair when I am uncaffeinated. ;-) I
>> think I'd put fundamentalism and hard atheism next to each other, and
>> my scale would have fluffy-funny-newage on the other end of the scale.
>> <g>
>
>Heh. Nice to know I'm at the same end of the scale whichever phase I'm in ;)

<g> No balance for you, ha! ;-) 

Actually I've rethought, and would have the scale as it is above, with
Newage sagging down in the middle in a soppy manner. ;-)

>
>
>>>Then I found
>>>Wiccanesque Paganism, found some really good, wholseome, useful things in
>>>there (probably the lack of dogma and direct relationship to Deity) and 
>>>once
>>>I worke dout that I never had any issue with the teachings of Jesus but my
>>>issues were with the church, I started searching for somethign that took 
>>>all
>>>the good things from Paganism but coudl recognise Jesus.
>>
>> Heh. From what I've heard of the teachings of Jesus there's nowt wrong
>> with them at all. I can acknowledge that without doing anything else
>> with the fact. :-)
>
>That was my earlier point. Christians are (supposedly) distinguished from 
>everyone else because they accept Christ as Lord, and hence the doctrine of 
>salvation. I was most intrigued to learn that for *some* people (mentioning 
>no names, since apparently my posts here are Being Watched, ooh scary), 

Er, yes? It's a public forum? <puzzled> Why do folk think that's a
threat? 'I'm in your Usenet reading your posts' indeed.

>it 
>doesn't matter what they believe or don't believe, as long as they identify 
>as christians.

<splutters> Now what's the point in that?

>
>[]
>
>> Sorry, can't brain today, I have teh dumb. Or a cold. One of the two.
>
>Here ya go. Hot toddy, heavy on the whisky: doesn't matter if it's teh dumb 
>or teh cold, after a couple of these, you won't care anyway.

Bleah. Thanks but no, still don't like whisky. :-) 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."