"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[Dragon]

I'm a free thinker and a christian. I do believe in sin and certain behaviors are bad. Doesnt mean humans dont do bad things or good things, it's up to the person, it's free will. If you're saying that those who believe in monogamy and are opposed to homosexuality are not free thinkers, than I disagree with that. Free thinkers dont have to be absent morality or standards of conduct. Humans are smarter than animals and we should act like it.

Free thinkers are NEVER "absent morality or without standards of conduct." However, they arrive at their morality and standards of conduct themselves, based on their own moral sense, in stead of accepting them from an authority without question.

The antithesis of free thought is not religion in general nor Christianity in specific, but dogmatism -- authoritarian thinking -- the binding of the mind. As for the specific beliefs you referred to, I suppose it's not completely IMPOSSIBLE that someone could arrive at the whole array through a process of free thought, but given the fact that traditional Christianity includes a whopping big gun pointed at your head with a banner that says, "BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" I am highly skeptical.

 

[koshergrl]

What garbage you spout.

 

[Dragon]

I implied above that Christianity is not necessarily opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.

Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.

Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question.

Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world.

Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source.

Anyone who does all of these things, and continues to revere Jesus as primary form of the God and to follow his teachings as they understand them, is a free-thinking Christian.

 

[koshergrl]

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.

 

[G.T.]

i'm a free thinker and a christian. I do believe in sin and certain behaviors are bad. Doesnt mean humans dont do bad things or good things, it's up to the person, it's free will. If you're saying that those who believe in monogamy and are opposed to homosexuality are not free thinkers, than i disagree with that. Free thinkers dont have to be absent morality or standards of conduct. Humans are smarter than animals and we should act like it.

free thinkers are never "absent morality or without standards of conduct." however, they arrive at their morality and standards of conduct themselves, based on their own moral sense, in stead of accepting them from an authority without question.

The antithesis of free thought is not religion in general nor christianity in specific, but dogmatism -- authoritarian thinking -- the binding of the mind. As for the specific beliefs you referred to, i suppose it's not completely impossible that someone could arrive at the whole array through a process of free thought, but given the fact that traditional christianity includes a whopping big gun pointed at your head with a banner that says, "believe this or else!" i am highly skeptical.

qft.

 

[G.T.]

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.

Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.

 

[koshergrl]

I implied above that Christianity is not necessarily opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.

Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.

Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question.

Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world.

Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source.

Anyone who does all of these things, and continues to revere Jesus as primary form of the God and to follow his teachings as they understand them, is a free-thinking Christian.

This is dogma. Dragon is setting forth the *conditions* for being considered a *freethinker*.

Funny.

 

[Dragon]

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.

Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.

The interesting thing here is that what she refers to as "free thinker's dogma" amounts, in every particular, to "think for yourself." Which is, of course, the antithesis of dogma.

 

[G.T.]

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.

Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.

The interesting thing here is that what she refers to as "free thinker's dogma" amounts, in every particular, to "think for yourself." Which is, of course, the antithesis of dogma.

I especially <3 when the more obvious idiots incessantly have to tell everyone else how teh smawt they are. Koshergirl is a narcissist, and it's clear as day.

 

[koshergrl]

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.

Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.

The interesting thing here is that what she refers to as "free thinker's dogma" amounts, in every particular, to "think for yourself." Which is, of course, the antithesis of dogma.

No, you idiot. You've numbered and listed the *requirements* (which include a way of thinking) that a person must meet to be considered a freethinker.

The very definition of dogma.

Which is exactly what better minds than yours have been saying all along...freethinking is nothing more than subversive atheism, and it follows a very rigid standard...

The definition of dogma, which certainly applies to Dragon's idiotic "freethinker outline":

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.["

From wiki no less, so Dragon will be able to understand it and most certainly will agree with it, since all his information comes straight from that source.

Dogma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

lol proof^

 

[koshergrl]

Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.

The interesting thing here is that what she refers to as "free thinker's dogma" amounts, in every particular, to "think for yourself." Which is, of course, the antithesis of dogma.

I especially <3 when the more obvious idiots incessantly have to tell everyone else how teh smawt they are. Koshergirl is a narcissist, and it's clear as day.

I think you took too many paxil again, bud...

 

[G.T.]

Yea? Ask your God, maybe heshe will tell you what I take. You do talk to heshe, right?

 

[koshergrl]

It doesn't matter, whatever it is, you need to take more. Or less.

 

[G.T.]

Oh, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Dragon]

"Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.

"Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't adhere slavishly to what's written in a book. Subject everything to scrutiny and test.

"Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't obey the teachings of the church reflexively, but subject all such ideas to test.

"Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."

In other words, think for yourself. Don't reject ideas automatically just because they aren't from an approved source.

These four points are not dogma. They are the antithesis of dogma.

 

[G.T.]

"Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't adhere slavishly to what's written in a book. Subject everything to scrutiny and test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't obey the teachings of the church reflexively, but subject all such ideas to test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."

In other words, think for yourself. Don't reject ideas automatically just because they aren't from an approved source.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

These four points are not dogma. They are the antithesis of dogma.

 

[Newby]

"Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't adhere slavishly to what's written in a book. Subject everything to scrutiny and test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't obey the teachings of the church reflexively, but subject all such ideas to test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."

In other words, think for yourself. Don't reject ideas automatically just because they aren't from an approved source.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

These four points are not dogma. They are the antithesis of dogma.

Glad that someone sees his logic, because I sure don't. How do you place rules and parameters or definitions on 'free thinking'? That's exactly what he's done in the post you are applauding.

 

[G.T.]

"Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't adhere slavishly to what's written in a book. Subject everything to scrutiny and test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't obey the teachings of the church reflexively, but subject all such ideas to test.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

"Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."

In other words, think for yourself. Don't reject ideas automatically just because they aren't from an approved source.

OPPOSITE OF DOGMA

These four points are not dogma. They are the antithesis of dogma.

Glad that someone sees his logic, because I sure don't. How do you place rules and parameters or definitions on 'free thinking'? That's exactly what he's done in the post you are applauding.

No, he hasn't. He's released/removed/reduced "rules and parameters." Try again.

 

[Newby]

Glad that someone sees his logic, because I sure don't. How do you place rules and parameters or definitions on 'free thinking'? That's exactly what he's done in the post you are applauding.

No, he hasn't. He's released/removed/reduced "rules and parameters." Try again.

He defined what he THINKS a 'free thinking christian' would be, what they would have to do to fall into HIS definition of it. Why should his definition be used by anyone else if they are truly a 'free thinker'? It seems to me that you wouldn't follow anyone else's guidelines/definitions at all, only your own. He's placing parameters around what a 'free thinking christian' is, but it's not for him to place parameters on what something means to me. He's no better than he claims the christians following a Bible are, it's very obvious.