The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I will read this but I have

I will read this but I have one question:

What is so unholy about needing evidence for a God? If you believe that God gave man reason (and I'm pretty sure you do), why do folks like this tell you that God doesn't want you to use it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Becky

caposkia wrote:

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

Well, if the book is as confused about the debate as you are, that's not saying much in favour of the book. Comfort lost the debate when he broke the rules by using the Bible to support his case. The rest of the 'debate' was just gravy, poking holes in Comfort and Cameron's ridiculous nonsense. It was not the RRS' job to 'disprove' God. The fact that you think it was just proves you didn't understand the idea behind the debate.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The Way of the Fucktard

The Way of the Fucktard people didn't do nearly as good a job as Brian and Kelly - they broke the rules right from the start (they weren't supposed to use the BuyBull. ) There is no evidence for God or for Jesus ever having actually existed in the first place.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
From what I saw on the B&N

From what I saw on the B&N website, the book looks like an ad hom hatchet job on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I'll read it anyway but I don't know if it'll elevate the dialogue.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Hey all.  It's been a

Quote:
Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.

I haven't been able to eat or sleep.

Quote:
So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked. 

Didn't.

Quote:

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

I'll see your transparent No True Scotsman Fallacy and raise you a painful truth:

"Magic is religion that we don't believe in.  Religion is magic that we do".   Hocart

There is no difference between the two, no matter how many books are written to try and support the distinction.

Quote:
many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate

You still haven't learned even the most basic application of the "burden of proof".  There is no intention to "disprove" anything.  The cheeseball w/ the extraordinary claim has the responsibility for proof and not the other way around.  Members of the RRS merely pointed out that the aforementioned cheeseballs (Hi Kirk !) had no credible evidence for their cheeseball beliefs.  Which they did by the way.  

If you are so dense to think it is necessary to "disprove the existence" of something to discount it, I have a list of thousands of deities that you need to disprove....  (& none of which you will be able to, by the way. 

Quote:
  

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

There is always someone coming up w/ a whole NEW approach to christianity that explains it in a far out, funky new way.  That's how it goes with both marketing and manipulation, Caposkia.   Whether you're selling toothpaste, tampons or jesus. 

The source of your faith and your inspiration comes from the bible.  The bible is tragically absurd, funny at times, downright silly, obviously mythical and often cruel, violent and hateful.  It has a tendency to make it's readers cruel, violent and hateful as well. 

From a marketing standpoint, it's probably become useful to dissasociate from the bible and it's nasty little disposition, but no one w/ any intelligence is going to fall for that.   It's Becky Turnblad today.....Tomorrow it will be someone else.

It is still magic/fantasy...no matter how many books are written to try and support the distinction.  

Quote:
I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 

That's nice... It really is, but when you have to quote from a book that starts out w/ the words......ahem !  "In the beginning" and degenerates into talking snakes, donkey's, flaming swords and global floods...MATURITY, has already flown right out the window.

and it's return...doesn't look good!  

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
What makes this person a

What makes this person a True Christian rather than everybody else who claims to be a True Christian?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What is wrong with rejecting

What is wrong with rejecting claims of virgin births and dead flesh surviving rigor mortis after 3 days? What is wrong with rejecting claims of Thor? What is wrong with knowing I can find morals in fiction like Star Wars and Harry Potter without believing the magic to be real?

"unholy" is another hollow word that Christians use to demonize anything that does not promote their fictional sky daddy. So they use words like "unholy" to paint us as devil worshiping blood drinking kitten BBQers.

Get back to us when you can replicate and falsify godsperm and have AMA peer reviewed studies that prove human flesh can rise after 3 days of death. The moral stories that one may like is found in all cultures throughout history, and don't need a book of magic to claim to be the inventor of morality. That "holy book", being anyone of any religion in human history. Morality was not invented by Christians nor do they have a monopoly on it any more than Muslims or atheists.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
holy or unholy

Holy is in reference to God.  The unholy reference is just that; "not of God".  It wasn't meant to be taken as "the wrong way" or understanding.  Yes, the book is from the point of view of a believer, so they of course will take the side of the believer. 

The reasoning question.  I used "reasoning" to come to the conclusion that there is a God.  Some will disagree with my "reasoning", however, reason is my way, I don't believe in religion. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Well, if the

natural wrote:

Well, if the book is as confused about the debate as you are, that's not saying much in favour of the book. Comfort lost the debate when he broke the rules by using the Bible to support his case. The rest of the 'debate' was just gravy, poking holes in Comfort and Cameron's ridiculous nonsense. It was not the RRS' job to 'disprove' God. The fact that you think it was just proves you didn't understand the idea behind the debate.

my point was it was a stupid idea in the first place.  Yes, they did break the rules.  Why he thought he was going to succeed in such a debate is beyond me.  Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension.... if it did, then it wouldn't be beyond our comprehension.  science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.

Disclaimer:  I've used the word understanding in place of comprehension before.  It's not that we don't understand God, it's that we can't comprehend the extent of his being.  (btw, please start another blog if you want to discuss this previous statment)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:From what I

jcgadfly wrote:

From what I saw on the B&N website, the book looks like an ad hom hatchet job on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I'll read it anyway but I don't know if it'll elevate the dialogue.

Eh, don't judge the book too quickly.  The author is very sarcastic in many ways, but she explains herself.  Please don't be offended by the sarcasm.  To be honest, her approach reminded me very well of the approach of many people I've talked to on this site.  It's another reason why I thought it would be of interest to people. 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Science

caposkia wrote:

Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension.... if it did, then it wouldn't be beyond our comprehension. 

Nothing explains anything beyond our comprehension. Do you not understand the meanings of words, or what?

Quote:
science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.

Which is the only universe we know.

 

Theism on the other hand also doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension while simultaneously failing to help us better understand the universe.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Theism on the

natural wrote:


Theism on the other hand also doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension while simultaneously failing to help us better understand the universe.

Not only does it fail to help us understand the universe, it often acts as an agent corrosive to understanding.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:I haven't

AmericanIdle wrote:

I haven't been able to eat or sleep.

you poor thing

americanIdle wrote:

I'll see your transparent No True Scotsman Fallacy and raise you a painful truth:

"Magic is religion that we don't believe in.  Religion is magic that we do".   Hocart

There is no difference between the two, no matter how many books are written to try and support the distinction.

You still haven't learned even the most basic application of the "burden of proof".  There is no intention to "disprove" anything.  The cheeseball w/ the extraordinary claim has the responsibility for proof and not the other way around.  Members of the RRS merely pointed out that the aforementioned cheeseballs (Hi Kirk !) had no credible evidence for their cheeseball beliefs.  Which they did by the way.  

If you are so dense to think it is necessary to "disprove the existence" of something to discount it, I have a list of thousands of deities that you need to disprove....  (& none of which you will be able to, by the way. 

I'm sorry.  I used the word disprove.  Let's come to an agreement, no one on here is trying to disprove God, and I'm not here to "prove" the existence of God.  I'm just here to understand the truth...  If you can accept this statement from me, then we can move on in conversation.  If you cannot, then I really have no further reason to converse with you. 

americanIdle wrote:

There is always someone coming up w/ a whole NEW approach to christianity that explains it in a far out, funky new way.  That's how it goes with both marketing and manipulation, Caposkia.   Whether you're selling toothpaste, tampons or jesus.

 

I'm sorry you see it that way.  I would like to tell you however that this is actually a very old approach to Christianity... possibly the original approach.  Strictly to the scriptures.  This understanding has not changed for people who understand what it means to follow Jesus.  It's the religions of the world and the over 5000 religions within Christiandom that have changed anything to a "whole NEW approach". 

 

americanIdle wrote:

 

Quote:
I'm here to have mature discussions with people.

That's nice... It really is, but when you have to quote from a book that starts out w/ the words......ahem !  "In the beginning" and degenerates into talking snakes, donkey's, flaming swords and global floods...MATURITY, has already flown right out the window.

and it's return...doesn't look good!  

obviously you have no interest in reading the book, so why did you bother commenting in this forum?  This brought no progress or intelligence to this topic. 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote:What makes

phooney wrote:

What makes this person a True Christian rather than everybody else who claims to be a True Christian?

This question I like.  The difference is True Christians aren't going to shove Jesus down your throat.  This book was actually written to Christians, so she's not preaching in the book.  They also aren't going to condem you for anything.  True Christians aren't the ones standing on the street corners with megaphones and protest signs screaming hatred at everyone that walks by.  They're not the ones condeming people to hell because they're Gay/lesbian, have gotten an abortion, etc. 

True Christians know that they are just as sinful as the next person no matter what anyone believes in.  Therefore they know they have no right to condem anyone else for their "wrongdoings" or "unbelief" or what they themselves precieve as wrong. 

True Christians know to love everyone, therefore they understand that standing on street corners with protest signs or megaphones isn't showing love to others so they don't do that. 

They also know that you can follow Jesus Christ and be Gay/Lesbian or another type of labeled "sinner" as the world labels them.  It is understood by Christians that it was not God's intention, however true Christians also know that they're not doing everything "right" either.  (I use "right" generally not specifically)

I hope that answers your question.  If not, feel free to send me a PM and question further.  I want to try to keep this forum focused on the book. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Nothing

natural wrote:

Nothing explains anything beyond our comprehension. Do you not understand the meanings of words, or what?

yes I do.  Thanks for clarifying my statement.  It's accepted in our world that there are things beyond our comprehension.  Ask any scientist, they will admit this.  It is understood that in the future, less will be beyond our comprehension because of the advance of science.  It is your belief that nothing else clarifies the understanding of incomprehensible things. 

natural wrote:
science just helps us better understand the material universe around us.

Which is the only universe we know.

I never said there was a parallel universe. 


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

From what I saw on the B&N website, the book looks like an ad hom hatchet job on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I'll read it anyway but I don't know if it'll elevate the dialogue.

Eh, don't judge the book too quickly.  The author is very sarcastic in many ways, but she explains herself.  Please don't be offended by the sarcasm.  To be honest, her approach reminded me very well of the approach of many people I've talked to on this site.  It's another reason why I thought it would be of interest to people. 

"unholy" to most who use it, means wrong, or going against their God of Jesus. You may define it differently, BUT, that kind of language does play into the hands of ignorant bigots.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with putting fiction in the fiction section and calling hocus pokus what it is, fiction.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:many of you will

 

Quote:
many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate

AmericanIdle wrote:
You still haven't learned even the most basic application of the "burden of proof".  There is no intention to "disprove" anything.  The cheeseball w/ the extraordinary claim has the responsibility for proof and not the other way around.  Members of the RRS merely pointed out that the aforementioned cheeseballs (Hi Kirk !) had no credible evidence for their cheeseball beliefs.  Which they did by the way.

Anyone that can use the word cheeseball three times in one paragraph and in a way that each usage is funnier than the preceding, at a minimum, deserves a big thank you! Idle you rock.

I was ROTFLMAO....

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Holy is in

caposkia wrote:

Holy is in reference to God.  The unholy reference is just that; "not of God".  It wasn't meant to be taken as "the wrong way" or understanding.  Yes, the book is from the point of view of a believer, so they of course will take the side of the believer. 

The reasoning question.  I used "reasoning" to come to the conclusion that there is a God.  Some will disagree with my "reasoning", however, reason is my way, I don't believe in religion. 

Would this be where you or other Christians tell me "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"?

Why is it that when most adults have invisible friends and hear voices in their heads, they're mentally ill unless they call said invisible friend/ voice in the head "God"?  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

From what I saw on the B&N website, the book looks like an ad hom hatchet job on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. I'll read it anyway but I don't know if it'll elevate the dialogue.

Eh, don't judge the book too quickly.  The author is very sarcastic in many ways, but she explains herself.  Please don't be offended by the sarcasm.  To be honest, her approach reminded me very well of the approach of many people I've talked to on this site.  It's another reason why I thought it would be of interest to people. 

"unholy" to most who use it, means wrong, or going against their God of Jesus. You may define it differently, BUT, that kind of language does play into the hands of ignorant bigots.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with putting fiction in the fiction section and calling hocus pokus what it is, fiction.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"unholy" is

Brian37 wrote:

"unholy" is another hollow word that Christians use to demonize anything that does not promote their fictional sky daddy. So they use words like "unholy" to paint us as devil worshiping blood drinking kitten BBQers.

Unholy from Christians literally means "not of God".  There is no implication or intention of demonizing non-believers.  Their "unholy grail" just means they're a group seeking out a following that does not believe in God. 

Most of my closest friends are non-believers, some atheists.  Other friends of mine are part of a following that would be labeled by most as demonic.  I think they'd be offended to hear what you had claimed above.  They're my friends because they know I don't see them that way.  They also understand what kind of Christian I am and understand the definition of "unholy"

Our country is infested with religion.  It is why it's understood by many people that Unholy is as written above. 

yes, the author views the New Atheists as wrong, but that's because she's a believer.  I don't believe it has anything to do with her use of "unholy". 

Brian37 wrote:

Get back to us when you can replicate and falsify godsperm and have AMA peer reviewed studies that prove human flesh can rise after 3 days of death. The moral stories that one may like is found in all cultures throughout history, and don't need a book of magic to claim to be the inventor of morality. That "holy book", being anyone of any religion in human history. Morality was not invented by Christians nor do they have a monopoly on it any more than Muslims or atheists.

I know it wasn't you, but who was talking to me about people on here NOT trying to disprove God??????  This statement leads me to believe otherwise. 

Whoever said anything about morality?  If you want to start another topic, please start a new thread. 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Quote: I'm

caposkia wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry you see it that way.  I would like to tell you however that this is actually a very old approach to Christianity... possibly the original approach.  Strictly to the scriptures.

The approach is irrelevant if the claims are ones such as the bible makes. 

However, a simple glance through history will show you that religions have nearly always been "marketed" to the masses for the purpose of manipulation and control. Whether you use "love" or "fear", or a "brand new formula" or a super cool new "skate church", in an attempt to disguise your particular marketing tool, is also irrelevant.  It is still marketing with the intent to control and manipulate.  Until the student understands the many uses of manipulation to influence our power structures, it is difficult to learn anything all that useful about history.

Typical EGO response:  

"Yes, I can clearly see how religious belief has been marketed to manipulate the masses all throughout history but not MY beliefs". 

Quote:

obviously you have no interest in reading the book, so why did you bother commenting in this forum?  This brought no progress or intelligence to this topic.  

If you're referring to the bible.. Read it.. Got the merit badge and hundreds of hours spent on foolishness that I'll never get back.

If you're referring to Becky and her golden words of wisdom, I refer you back to the earlier quote from a noted anthropologist who scoured the planet studying mythology and human behavior:

"Magic is religion we don't believe in, religion is magic that we do".

No difference between the two, no matter how golden Becky's words might be.

If you could merely understand this simple concept, caposkia, that would be all the progress or intelligence this thread needs.

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
It's understood by

It's understood by Christians that anything that's not for God is against God.  There is no such gray area or middle of the road.  You either believe or you don't.  I think many people out there present it as a condemning word or use it negatively toward others, but it's just suppose to represent what is not of or for God.  If you don't believe in God, then there should be no reason to take offense to the word Unholy. 


 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's

caposkia wrote:

It's understood by Christians that anything that's not for God is against God.  There is no such gray area or middle of the road.  You either believe or you don't.  I think many people out there present it as a condemning word or use it negatively toward others, but it's just suppose to represent what is not of or for God.  If you don't believe in God, then there should be no reason to take offense to the word Unholy. 


 

 

Then again, Muslims and Jews aren't against God - they're just against your version.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:However,

AmericanIdle wrote:

However, a simple glance through history will show you that religions have nearly always been "marketed"...

I hate religion.  Simple and plain.  If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.  Stop trying to label me with all that religious flack.  It makes me sick. 

Once you care to find out what I really believe, then start talking to me.  I know you really don't care and are bent on trying to make me look like every other religious nut that you have come across.  Sorry to disappoint you, but don't try to make me out to be something I'm not. 

...and try to avoid the snide sarcastic replies to this as well.  I'm interested in thoughts on this book.  I'm expecting opposing beliefs and maybe some people upset about her take on a few things, but I want to discuss it, not get into a childish debate on who has a bigger imagination. 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Then again,

jcgadfly wrote:

Then again, Muslims and Jews aren't against God - they're just against your version.

right... and I don't believe you'll hear a true follower call their higher power unholy.  Mainly becasue they'll understand that both those religions actually follow the same God.  You may hear some claim their actions or radical beliefs to be unholy, just as I'd claim those Christians standing on street corners condeming people are being "unholy". 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's

caposkia wrote:

It's understood by Christians that anything that's not for God is against God.  There is no such gray area or middle of the road.  You either believe or you don't.  I think many people out there present it as a condemning word or use it negatively toward others, but it's just suppose to represent what is not of or for God.  If you don't believe in God, then there should be no reason to take offense to the word Unholy. 


 

 

My lizard brain just did a happy dance !! 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The title of

caposkia wrote:

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 

Usually I borrow books such as these from a library as I don't like to contribute money to an author with an opposing viewpoint. In some cases I might buy them as an Ebook on a Kindle edition from Amazon. This author is not available from my library or as a kindle edition. Amazon lists used books, so I may try that. I read book reviews from several sources and it might be interesting.

Not every atheist has portraits of Harris, Dawkins, etc on their walls. Most of us have arrived at our disbelief without their help. Many of us are vocal in our disbelief but few here would care what you do in your own home if you can keep it there. You can believe whatever you'd like just don't force it on others.

caposkia wrote:

True Christians aren't going to shove Jesus down your throat.  This book was actually written to Christians, so she's not preaching in the book.  They also aren't going to condem you for anything.  True Christians aren't the ones standing on the street corners with megaphones and protest signs screaming hatred at everyone that walks by.  They're not the ones condeming people to hell because they're Gay/lesbian, have gotten an abortion, etc.

The problem of course there are so few of these "True Christians". I fully support and desire that if Christians can't give up their belief they at least follow their leader and become a "True Christian". This of course means they won't be ringing my doorbell, asking me to Pledge 'under God', or desire to have a deity's name on the money right? I don't think I have met many of these types of Christians, they seem as rare as winning numbers in Lotto. Including you, I think I have encountered 3 or 4 in my life, though I'm not entirely convinced about you.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I hate

caposkia wrote:

I hate religion.

These three words would have buried your a$$ if you'd have spoke them in virtually any xian church just a hundred years ago. They wouldn't have given a rats rip about what you "meant" by saying it, either.

 

 

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem of course there are so few of these "True Christians".

Or, the problem is that every single Christian thinks they are a true Christian. Caposkia's razor is no different than any other Christian's; each uses it to slice away all the untrue Christians, until only them and a select few intelligent Christians (who just happen to believe as the razor-wielder) are left.

The One True Scotsman fallacy is applicable to those with whom we agree, or with whom we have sympathy or understanding. It's not just reserved for the evangelicals who believe they are God's Chosen.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't you mean you hate

Don't you mean you hate religion other than christianity? If you're a christian you have it as a religion. The only way to not have a religion is to be an atheist.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem of course there are so few of these "True Christians". I fully support and desire that if Christians can't give up their belief they at least follow their leader and become a "True Christian". This of course means they won't be ringing my doorbell, asking me to Pledge 'under God', or desire to have a deity's name on the money right? I don't think I have met many of these types of Christians, they seem as rare as winning numbers in Lotto. Including you, I think I have encountered 3 or 4 in my life, though I'm not entirely convinced about you.

I was hoping people would be able to find this in their local library or something.  I would never expect everyone to go out an buy this book because "I said so".  that's your own choice.  I hope you can find it somewhere without paying for it.  I understand your view. 

No True Christian that I know of has ever gone door to door asking for money for God.  There are instances where True Christians have gone door to door asking if you have anything you want them to pray about, but there are no strings attached and you usually don't find out what church they represent or where they're from unless you ask them for that information.  Occasionally you'd get some sort of contact information.  That's it. 

In fact, there's a good chance you happened upon a True Christian church if during the offering they specifically ask guests NOT to put money in the offering plate.  Obviously there'd have to be more to it than that, but it's a start.  Most other churches wouldn't say that in hopes that someone would feel obligated to put something in. 

It is hard to find these "true Christians" because they're not on a mission to convert as many people as they can in a given... day? week? month? etc.  They're out there building relationships with people.  our way of showing God's love is through usually actions not words. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Don't you

MattShizzle wrote:

Don't you mean you hate religion other than christianity? If you're a christian you have it as a religion. The only way to not have a religion is to be an atheist.

If you want to get into the technicality of the word religion, then technically atheism is a religion as well.  Look it up.  So I guess in that instance I hate the thing that separates people because of differing understandings of truth. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Or, the

nigelTheBold wrote:

Or, the problem is that every single Christian thinks they are a true Christian. Caposkia's razor is no different than any other Christian's; each uses it to slice away all the untrue Christians, until only them and a select few intelligent Christians (who just happen to believe as the razor-wielder) are left.

The One True Scotsman fallacy is applicable to those with whom we agree, or with whom we have sympathy or understanding. It's not just reserved for the evangelicals who believe they are God's Chosen.

Sorry, it's just not that way.  I know I keep disappionting you guys, but honestly, stop trying to pigeonhole me.  You have no idea what I believe because you don't know me, therefore you cannot say with certanty that your above statement is correct.  It's like guessing the cure for cancer and saying you know it will work because that's what you believe. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:MattShizzle

caposkia wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Don't you mean you hate religion other than christianity? If you're a christian you have it as a religion. The only way to not have a religion is to be an atheist.

If you want to get into the technicality of the word religion, then technically atheism is a religion as well.  Look it up.  So I guess in that instance I hate the thing that separates people because of differing understandings of truth. 

There's a religion based on not believing in gods where there is no supporting evidence? Or are you saying that all atheists believe there is no God?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Then again, Muslims and Jews aren't against God - they're just against your version.

right... and I don't believe you'll hear a true follower call their higher power unholy.  Mainly becasue they'll understand that both those religions actually follow the same God.  You may hear some claim their actions or radical beliefs to be unholy, just as I'd claim those Christians standing on street corners condeming people are being "unholy". 

So if they (Christians, Jews, Muslims) actually follow the same God - why is each group lobbying for the extermination of the other?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The title of this

Quote:
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison.

...The title is an insulting attack and a mischaracterization, so yeah, I imagine it would turn a head or two.

Quote:
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote:
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.

No True Scotsman fallacy, and I'm not interested in reading a book based solely on opinion. See: my disinterest in blogs.

Quote:

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

A lack of consistency in your perspective is not a strength, somehow. It's a sign of an incredibly shaky idea. Your ideas all stem from myth, and the myth has proved to be false. Persisting in your delusion after the fact and shifting the goal posts is a rather sad state of affairs.

Quote:
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

Jesus Christ was not a real figure, and there is no magical sky-daddy. The fact that anyone even had to bother debating this should make all of mankind take a few awkward moments to stare down at their feet.

We shouldn't be debating an 'issue' that one side hasn't so much as a single shred of evidence for. What the Hell is there to debate? Your concept isn't even defined, and certainly not defined in a way that is consistent with other believers.

Quote:
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

No True Scotsman.

(Curious: Please indulge me as to what authority you happen to have to define someone as a 'True' or 'Not True' Christian)

Quote:
I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.

Request denied.

I have no respect for conspiracy theorists or cults, and Christians share equally in each field. I'm not going to 'pretend' to have respect for you just because.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So if they

jcgadfly wrote:

So if they (Christians, Jews, Muslims) actually follow the same God - why is each group lobbying for the extermination of the other?

It's doctern and source.  If you read the New Testament, it is clear that the Jews did not accept Jesus' teachings.  Therefore, why would they follow a Christians belief?  They are following Old Testament tradition. 

The muslims are following a doctern written by Muhammad 600 years after Jesus Christ.  He grew up a Christian and just like the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, tweaked the understanding to his own and claimed to have divine inspiration from God.  He however went as far as saying he was thee prophet from God and not Jesus.  Though take note that the muslims do recongnize Jesus as a very important prophet.  I personally don't understand how they can take that view about Jesus and yet still follow the Quran be it that Jesus' teachings and the Quran don't exactly jive.  

 

As far as your previous statement... what is the difference?  Christians don't "believe" in God just because... 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

(Curious: Please indulge me as to what authority you happen to have to define someone as a 'True' or 'Not True' Christian)

Eh... the Bible.  It's clearer than people want to believe. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.

Request denied.

I have no respect for conspiracy theorists or cults, and Christians share equally in each field. I'm not going to 'pretend' to have respect for you just because.

Though your response was completely redundant to what has already been discussed in this forum and you chose to not be respectful to me I still respect you.  think about it.  I didn't ask you to respect me, I asked you to be respectful. 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sorry, it's

caposkia wrote:

Sorry, it's just not that way.  I know I keep disappionting you guys, but honestly, stop trying to pigeonhole me.  You have no idea what I believe because you don't know me, therefore you cannot say with certanty that your above statement is correct.  It's like guessing the cure for cancer and saying you know it will work because that's what you believe. 

Actually, yes I can.

You fall prey to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (sorry, I called it the "One True Scotsman" for some reason...) when you refer to "True Christians," and describe how a "True Christian" would behave. Granted, I agree I'd rather meet a Christian who behaves as you describe, rather than the typical glassy-eyed, cotton-eared, wooly-brained evangelical. But the instant you start separating yourself out from other people who claim to be Christians, you are falling for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I don't know exactly what you believe, and I don't claim to know. But I can spot a logical fallacy in approximately 82.9% of the cases, at least according to clinical trials.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Quote:and try

caposkia wrote:

Quote:
and try to avoid the snide sarcastic replies to this as well.  I'm interested in thoughts on this book.

Quote:
The author is very sarcastic in many ways, but she explains herself.  Please don't be offended by the sarcasm. 

Heyyy !  How come it's alright for Becky, what's her name, to be sarcastic but not me ??

If we can't have a little fun here, we might as well convert to (your religion here).

Quote:
It's understood by Christians that anything that's not for God is against God.  There is no such gray area or middle of the road.  You either believe or you don't. 

You are absolutely right, caposkia, and this is how the violence and the hatred starts.  The bible is very clear on what is to happen to those who choose not to believe.  You are now standing at the very peak of Mt. Intolerance.  Look, I can see the whole world !

What's wrong w/ this ?

One exclusionary culture is always a potential menace to another because it is a living example that life can go on under a value framework that is totally different from one's own.

It is a breeding ground for extremist nationalism, fascism, intolerance, etc.  It is an example of everything that is wrong and divisive in the world.

 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem of course there are so few of these "True Christians".

Or, the problem is that every single Christian thinks they are a true Christian. Caposkia's razor is no different than any other Christian's; each uses it to slice away all the untrue Christians, until only them and a select few intelligent Christians (who just happen to believe as the razor-wielder) are left.

The One True Scotsman fallacy is applicable to those with whom we agree, or with whom we have sympathy or understanding. It's not just reserved for the evangelicals who believe they are God's Chosen.

When he was posting earlier this year I had just joined the RRS and I read his posts but was more involved with Paisley and 1-24. I recognize the One True Scotsman fallacy in his posts. He again is using that position. One of my irritations at Christians is they don't follow Jesus at all but follow a distorted position by Paul the deceiver. They generally have no idea of where their belief came from and know little of its history. I realize its probably too much to ask that a believer actually understand what they profess. They all of course believe only their way is correct and since it won't ever go away I'd like the version of the least pain (in the ass) to be more prevalent. History however indicates otherwise in that the most vocal violent religions seem to survive. His True Christians would be easier to ignore so his position is doomed to failure anyway. My former religion Catholicism would find a way to declare his kind heretics for at least failure to submit to papal authority. The evangelicals will never give up their power over the masses they control and will find a way to show True Christians are deceivers.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote: Quote:many of

Wonko wrote:

 

Quote:
many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate

AmericanIdle wrote:
You still haven't learned even the most basic application of the "burden of proof".  There is no intention to "disprove" anything.  The cheeseball w/ the extraordinary claim has the responsibility for proof and not the other way around.  Members of the RRS merely pointed out that the aforementioned cheeseballs (Hi Kirk !) had no credible evidence for their cheeseball beliefs.  Which they did by the way.

Anyone that can use the word cheeseball three times in one paragraph and in a way that each usage is funnier than the preceding, at a minimum, deserves a big thank you! Idle you rock.

I was ROTFLMAO....

 

Grazie !

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No True

caposkia wrote:

No True Christian that I know of has ever gone door to door asking for money for God.  There are instances where True Christians have gone door to door asking if you have anything you want them to pray about, but there are no strings attached and you usually don't find out what church they represent or where they're from unless you ask them for that information.  Occasionally you'd get some sort of contact information.  That's it.

That does happen and it's still unacceptable. I don't go door to door asking if they believe in God and give a handout where they can find a local atheist meeting. I realize there is the command to go teach all nations, but they can do so without invading people's lives.

caposkia wrote:

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Eh... the Bible. 

Quote:
Eh... the Bible.  It's clearer than people want to believe.

I agree. The Bible is very clear about many, many things.

According to the Bible, there is a firmament over the Earth, the Earth rests on pillars, there was a great global flood and bad things are the result of the first man (who was literally molded out of clay) eating an apple.

 

...Presumably, though, you think that these areas aren't being literal? And if not, then perhaps your perspective on the Bible is a little murkier and more 'selective' that what you just suggested?

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sorry, it's

caposkia wrote:

Sorry, it's just not that way.  I know I keep disappionting you guys, but honestly, stop trying to pigeonhole me.  You have no idea what I believe because you don't know me, therefore you cannot say with certanty that your above statement is correct.  It's like guessing the cure for cancer and saying you know it will work because that's what you believe. 

So who are you then? If we don't know you, then tell us who you are. Otherwise, there really is no point in even saying that. It reminds me of someone on Jerry Springer to a crowd that is booing them: "You don't know me! You don't know me!"

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"unholy" is another hollow word that Christians use to demonize anything that does not promote their fictional sky daddy. So they use words like "unholy" to paint us as devil worshiping blood drinking kitten BBQers.

Unholy from Christians literally means "not of God".  There is no implication or intention of demonizing non-believers.  Their "unholy grail" just means they're a group seeking out a following that does not believe in God. 

Most of my closest friends are non-believers, some atheists.  Other friends of mine are part of a following that would be labeled by most as demonic.  I think they'd be offended to hear what you had claimed above.  They're my friends because they know I don't see them that way.  They also understand what kind of Christian I am and understand the definition of "unholy"

Our country is infested with religion.  It is why it's understood by many people that Unholy is as written above. 

yes, the author views the New Atheists as wrong, but that's because she's a believer.  I don't believe it has anything to do with her use of "unholy". 

Brian37 wrote:

Get back to us when you can replicate and falsify godsperm and have AMA peer reviewed studies that prove human flesh can rise after 3 days of death. The moral stories that one may like is found in all cultures throughout history, and don't need a book of magic to claim to be the inventor of morality. That "holy book", being anyone of any religion in human history. Morality was not invented by Christians nor do they have a monopoly on it any more than Muslims or atheists.

I know it wasn't you, but who was talking to me about people on here NOT trying to disprove God??????  This statement leads me to believe otherwise. 

Whoever said anything about morality?  If you want to start another topic, please start a new thread. 

And so what? You are missing my point.

If I said, "Helping an old lady across the street is unholy" would that have a positive or negative connotation?

People not of "your god" have done good deeds like that without fictional beings.

Now, if I said, "Pedeophilia is holy" would that imply a positive or negative connotation?

When you say, "Not of God" means not of YOUR GOD, and if something is not of your god it is not good, that is why "unholy" is used.

I don't say, "unholy" giving bad a magical source.

I say what makes sense without the magical implications.

"Helping an old lady across the street is GOOD" no man in a white beard magically telling me what to do.

"Raping a woman is bad" again, no man in a red leotard with a pitchfork "tempting" me.

"Not of God" means not of your God and it's implication, even if not projected by you, still means to a vast majority of Christians, BAD!

And if we take your model of what "unholy" means as being "not of God" strictly, and that it has nothing to do with addressing good or bad, then you should have no problem naming something "Not of God" that is good.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So if they (Christians, Jews, Muslims) actually follow the same God - why is each group lobbying for the extermination of the other?

It's doctern and source.  If you read the New Testament, it is clear that the Jews did not accept Jesus' teachings.  Therefore, why would they follow a Christians belief?  They are following Old Testament tradition. 

The muslims are following a doctern written by Muhammad 600 years after Jesus Christ.  He grew up a Christian and just like the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, tweaked the understanding to his own and claimed to have divine inspiration from God.  He however went as far as saying he was thee prophet from God and not Jesus.  Though take note that the muslims do recongnize Jesus as a very important prophet.  I personally don't understand how they can take that view about Jesus and yet still follow the Quran be it that Jesus' teachings and the Quran don't exactly jive.  

 

As far as your previous statement... what is the difference?  Christians don't "believe" in God just because... 

'Tis funny that the Christians hate the Jews even though their holy book was written in great part by them. In fact, the son of their God practiced Judaism.

The religions pretty much run from the same sources (each book plagiarized from the other and from earlier civilizations) - why do they hate each other again?

Actually, most Christians show up to their churches for mainly social reasons. It wouldn't surprise me if christians believed just to suck up to the majority in their environment.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you read

caposkia wrote:

If you read the New Testament, it is clear that the Jews did not accept Jesus' teachings.  Therefore, why would they follow a Christians belief?  They are following Old Testament tradition.

If you read the Hebrew Bible, Talmud, and Mishnah you'll see your derived religion has misinterpreted the Jewish prophets. Christians decided Jesus was the messiah despite Jewish prophecy not because of it. Jesus does not fit as the messiah that was prophesied to the Jews and they do not accept Pauline teaching. As to Jesus, who can really tell as the Gospels are not the writing of Jesus but that of others with their own interpretations. Whether or not Jesus was real or a legend the problem is the same. In order for Christianity to be true the Jews must have misinterpreted their own scriptures for centuries. Their prophets must have prophesied in error. Whoops, you're using those same prophets to show Jesus is the messiah. Oh no, this could be a problem. Maybe the prophets were just wrong altogether and none of it is based in reality.

caposkia wrote:

The muslims are following a doctern written by Muhammad 600 years after Jesus Christ.  He grew up a Christian and just like the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, tweaked the understanding to his own and claimed to have divine inspiration from God.  He however went as far as saying he was thee prophet from God and not Jesus.  Though take note that the muslims do recongnize Jesus as a very important prophet.  I personally don't understand how they can take that view about Jesus and yet still follow the Quran be it that Jesus' teachings and the Quran don't exactly jive.  

 

I don't think there is support for the position that Mohammad grew up as a Christian, he was familiar with both Judaism and Christianity and recognized the OT and NT as revealed works of God. You perhaps should read the Quran as you seem misinformed.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I would simply like to ask

What is a true chrisitan, what is her/his religious sect? Catholic (because they claim they are the one true church of christ and god), Baptist? Evagelist? Lutherian? I mean come on a true christian as opposed to all the other christians we get to see, like Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and ALL the other true christians? Please the perspective of one believer not a true christian.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:AmericanIdle

caposkia wrote:

AmericanIdle wrote:

However, a simple glance through history will show you that religions have nearly always been "marketed"...

I hate religion.  Simple and plain.  If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.  Stop trying to label me with all that religious flack.  It makes me sick. 

Once you care to find out what I really believe, then start talking to me.  I know you really don't care and are bent on trying to make me look like every other religious nut that you have come across.  Sorry to disappoint you, but don't try to make me out to be something I'm not. 

...and try to avoid the snide sarcastic replies to this as well.  I'm interested in thoughts on this book.  I'm expecting opposing beliefs and maybe some people upset about her take on a few things, but I want to discuss it, not get into a childish debate on who has a bigger imagination. 

 

 

So if Christianity is not a religion then you agree that as a whole it has committed tax fraud?  Religious tax exempt status!

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.