Wiki is bad. Christians don't believe the OT anymore...

100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Wiki is bad. Christians don't believe the OT anymore...

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Evidence from

robj101 wrote:

Evidence from perspective and you yourself can only have the one perspective "concerning God". For those who choose to "believe" it is rejection of a god not just the concept, for us it is the notion or idea of a god not the "god himself" because we don't even get past the idea.

Not on this forumbut there have been people who have not rejected a god let alone the idea of one.

I don't think I'd call them atheists then, at least not in the classical understanding of it. They have no reason for believing in a god, but nor have they cognitively rejected a god either... That's categorically no different from an object incapable of beliefs...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
]I certainly would not disagree with an OTF from an agnostic ground. . It makesI think atheists and theists alike paint faith as believing something with no good reason. I think for example the ontological arguments of Plantinga plavce the discussion in a rational context though failing to prove the premise itself to the conclusion.

I think Plantinga cheats in his OA... and as a rule, I think OA's are bad arguments anyways.

Whether atheists and theists define faith as such, I do not necessarily think that it belief without reason. It is unfortunate that people do this though... Sad

Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects. He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe.  Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly. I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Kapkao

TGBaker wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

tgbaker wrote:
Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.

Not that it's particularly relevant to anything focused on in this thread, but apparently there's a few dictionaries that disagree with you.

I know but it is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

 

 

True...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Awesome, the

Kapkao wrote:

Awesome, the state of the world reduced to three frames. Thanks.


 


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Certainly all

TGBaker wrote:
Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

I think all that Plantinga has done is shown that his reformed epistemology is coherent in and of itself. His claim is that it is rational because it is properly basic. I grant that, but the products of such epistemologies is dubious -- that is they are not grounded. The same problem rears its head in molinism too, of which Plantiga is an adherent to as well. I think his OA and his Free Will Defense on for the same reason.

WLC seems more dismissive of the objection, claiming there's no consensus in the opposition. But that's not a defense at all... it's just an argument from silence. He also compares the volumes of his writings with that of opposition... I don't think one has to write 30 20-page essays that say the same thing to make the objection. A simple paragraph or two will do. Gettier turned the classical understanding of knowledge on its head in just 1 3-page essay.

TGBaker wrote:
He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Faith without belief in what sense? JTB or TB minus the B equals JT or T?... I'm not sure how that's possible...

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I hope the treatments are going well...

TGBaker wrote:
I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

Pascal argues from two pragmatic justification which are expectation and superdominance. Pascal thought the expectation was 50/50 for God. The superdominance in any case would swamp any expectation so long as it is not zero. The problem, as noted by many, is that there are many possible options (i.e. "many-gods objection" ) Given this, the expectation is no longer 50/50, rather devvied up among the rest of the options. If their are many options, then there is no certain option that is more likely that the others. But I do not think that the expectation is equal -- rather in favor of one option.

I approach this with two criterion (that I outlined earlier) from hope and incredulity. Hope would apply to pragmatic reasons, and incredulity with evidential reasons. I think some would be more biased towards hope and others towards incredulity. Through a pragmatic evaluation of truth claims (William James has been particularly helpful here) and evaluation of the evidence, I think Christianity is one's best bet for the hope factor and incredulity factor. For this reason, I don't think one has to favor hope or incredulity. I can outline this more if you want...

TGBaker wrote:

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

My entire approach to belief I think is largely heuristical -- that is an application of "rules-of-thumb".

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

I think all that Plantinga has done is shown that his reformed epistemology is coherent in and of itself. His claim is that it is rational because it is properly basic. I grant that, but the products of such epistemologies is dubious -- that is they are not grounded. The same problem rears its head in molinism too, of which Plantiga is an adherent to as well. I think his OA and his Free Will Defense on for the same reason.

WLC seems more dismissive of the objection, claiming there's no consensus in the opposition. But that's not a defense at all... it's just an argument from silence. He also compares the volumes of his writings with that of opposition... I don't think one has to write 30 20-page essays that say the same thing to make the objection. A simple paragraph or two will do. Gettier turned the classical understanding of knowledge on its head in just 1 3-page essay.

TGBaker wrote:
He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Faith without belief in what sense? JTB or TB minus the B equals JT or T?... I'm not sure how that's possible...

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I hope the treatments are going well...

TGBaker wrote:
I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

Pascal argues from two pragmatic justification which are expectation and superdominance. Pascal thought the expectation was 50/50 for God. The superdominance in any case would swamp any expectation so long as it is not zero. The problem, as noted by many, is that there are many possible options (i.e. "many-gods objection" ) Given this, the expectation is no longer 50/50, rather devvied up among the rest of the options. If their are many options, then there is no certain option that is more likely that the others. But I do not think that the expectation is equal -- rather in favor of one option.

I approach this with two criterion (that I outlined earlier) from hope and incredulity. Hope would apply to pragmatic reasons, and incredulity with evidential reasons. I think some would be more biased towards hope and others towards incredulity. Through a pragmatic evaluation of truth claims (William James has been particularly helpful here) and evaluation of the evidence, I think Christianity is one's best bet for the hope factor and incredulity factor. For this reason, I don't think one has to favor hope or incredulity. I can outline this more if you want...

TGBaker wrote:

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

My entire approach to belief I think is largely heuristical -- that is an application of "rules-of-thumb".

We seem to agree or have common views in many areas. I am found of William James and pragmatism. My main studies of late have been regarding consciousness.  Our whole grounding in knowledge seems to be dependent on the empirical acceptance of our mental constructs phenomenologically not just correlating but corresponding the "external" world as it effects our senses. I guess with pascal you could weigh the rationality of one faith over another then bet on the probable one.  That is what I've been doing with atheism since I moved from a Pannenbergian panentheism to an atheistic modified Buddhism to a skeptical stance completely.

James Sennett's article about faith without belief.

 http://faculty.brenau.edu/jsennett/research/acceptance.htm

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Wowzers1

TGBaker wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

I think all that Plantinga has done is shown that his reformed epistemology is coherent in and of itself. His claim is that it is rational because it is properly basic. I grant that, but the products of such epistemologies is dubious -- that is they are not grounded. The same problem rears its head in molinism too, of which Plantiga is an adherent to as well. I think his OA and his Free Will Defense on for the same reason.

WLC seems more dismissive of the objection, claiming there's no consensus in the opposition. But that's not a defense at all... it's just an argument from silence. He also compares the volumes of his writings with that of opposition... I don't think one has to write 30 20-page essays that say the same thing to make the objection. A simple paragraph or two will do. Gettier turned the classical understanding of knowledge on its head in just 1 3-page essay.

TGBaker wrote:
He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Faith without belief in what sense? JTB or TB minus the B equals JT or T?... I'm not sure how that's possible...

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I hope the treatments are going well...

TGBaker wrote:
I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

Pascal argues from two pragmatic justification which are expectation and superdominance. Pascal thought the expectation was 50/50 for God. The superdominance in any case would swamp any expectation so long as it is not zero. The problem, as noted by many, is that there are many possible options (i.e. "many-gods objection" ) Given this, the expectation is no longer 50/50, rather devvied up among the rest of the options. If their are many options, then there is no certain option that is more likely that the others. But I do not think that the expectation is equal -- rather in favor of one option.

I approach this with two criterion (that I outlined earlier) from hope and incredulity. Hope would apply to pragmatic reasons, and incredulity with evidential reasons. I think some would be more biased towards hope and others towards incredulity. Through a pragmatic evaluation of truth claims (William James has been particularly helpful here) and evaluation of the evidence, I think Christianity is one's best bet for the hope factor and incredulity factor. For this reason, I don't think one has to favor hope or incredulity. I can outline this more if you want...

TGBaker wrote:

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

My entire approach to belief I think is largely heuristical -- that is an application of "rules-of-thumb".

We seem to agree or have common views in many areas. I am found of William James and pragmatism. My main studies of late have been regarding consciousness.  Our whole grounding in knowledge seems to be dependent on the empirical acceptance of our mental constructs phenomenologically not just correlating but corresponding the "external" world as it effects our senses. I guess with pascal you could weigh the rationality of one faith over another then bet on the probable one.  That is what I've been doing with atheism since I moved from a Pannenbergian panentheism to an atheistic modified Buddhism to a skeptical stance completely.

James Sennett's article about faith without belief.

 http://faculty.brenau.edu/jsennett/research/acceptance.htm

Interesting essay... I'm not sure what he is calling faith though is really what I'd call faith though...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

I think all that Plantinga has done is shown that his reformed epistemology is coherent in and of itself. His claim is that it is rational because it is properly basic. I grant that, but the products of such epistemologies is dubious -- that is they are not grounded. The same problem rears its head in molinism too, of which Plantiga is an adherent to as well. I think his OA and his Free Will Defense on for the same reason.

WLC seems more dismissive of the objection, claiming there's no consensus in the opposition. But that's not a defense at all... it's just an argument from silence. He also compares the volumes of his writings with that of opposition... I don't think one has to write 30 20-page essays that say the same thing to make the objection. A simple paragraph or two will do. Gettier turned the classical understanding of knowledge on its head in just 1 3-page essay.

TGBaker wrote:
He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Faith without belief in what sense? JTB or TB minus the B equals JT or T?... I'm not sure how that's possible...

TGBaker wrote:
Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I hope the treatments are going well...

TGBaker wrote:
I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

Pascal argues from two pragmatic justification which are expectation and superdominance. Pascal thought the expectation was 50/50 for God. The superdominance in any case would swamp any expectation so long as it is not zero. The problem, as noted by many, is that there are many possible options (i.e. "many-gods objection" ) Given this, the expectation is no longer 50/50, rather devvied up among the rest of the options. If their are many options, then there is no certain option that is more likely that the others. But I do not think that the expectation is equal -- rather in favor of one option.

I approach this with two criterion (that I outlined earlier) from hope and incredulity. Hope would apply to pragmatic reasons, and incredulity with evidential reasons. I think some would be more biased towards hope and others towards incredulity. Through a pragmatic evaluation of truth claims (William James has been particularly helpful here) and evaluation of the evidence, I think Christianity is one's best bet for the hope factor and incredulity factor. For this reason, I don't think one has to favor hope or incredulity. I can outline this more if you want...

TGBaker wrote:

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

My entire approach to belief I think is largely heuristical -- that is an application of "rules-of-thumb".

We seem to agree or have common views in many areas. I am found of William James and pragmatism. My main studies of late have been regarding consciousness.  Our whole grounding in knowledge seems to be dependent on the empirical acceptance of our mental constructs phenomenologically not just correlating but corresponding the "external" world as it effects our senses. I guess with pascal you could weigh the rationality of one faith over another then bet on the probable one.  That is what I've been doing with atheism since I moved from a Pannenbergian panentheism to an atheistic modified Buddhism to a skeptical stance completely.

James Sennett's article about faith without belief.

 http://faculty.brenau.edu/jsennett/research/acceptance.htm

Interesting essay... I'm not sure what he is calling faith though is really what I'd call faith though...

We get along playing guitar a little better than discussing philosophy I defeated the free will argument of Plantinga back when they we cocky sure of it. Just does work with my pragmatism. He has written a lot of good books on Plantinga though he has come to believe that most of the projects fail to meet there goals.  he got tick off with me the other day for defending Sam Harris as a beginning ground for a secular morality.  He has unpublished a book called the Reluctant Disciple where he concludes with believing in his faith almost against his beliefs. I think that is where the interest originated.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello

Wow, this thread is causing me to have diarrhea. Very absurd.

Pascal was wrong. Probability is not Christianity. 2nd, the Bible did not say to kill everybody who disagrees with you. There were a time where this was allowed via a specific people for a piece of specific land. This was under the theocratic kingdom, that was ended during the period of the judges.

Also, God needed to show His justice and His mercy to Israel since there was no written Word about his attributes and nature and character. This was a demonstration in which He chose certain men to record such things under inspiration.

2nd, to say that we do not like the Old Testament because we don't take everything literally is by definition non-literal. If you take a figure of speech literal, you are taking it out of context since the true literal rendering is via the intent of the figure of speech itself.

To based Christian belief on Wikipedia is extremely laughable and amusing. When I quote major reference works to define atheism, everybody has a temper tantrum. But when you quote a very unreliable source, wikipedia, you take it and run with it.

This is extremely hilarious. Talk about double talk.

Anyway, denominations are over non-essentials, not essentials. THus the Baptists, and even the AoG along with the rest are united under essentials

In Essentials Unity

In non-Essentials Liberty

In all, charity (Augustine)

Though, there area some denominations that differ on the essentials, making their non-christians. Examples are ROman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc.

I think responding to this thread was a huge waste of time. It's like throwing a ball at a cloud and expecting it to bounce back. There's nothing there.

And TG, my hippie Jesus Movement friend. You have never done that, been there. I John 2:19 says you were never a Christian. Only a professing heretic. Sorry to break the news.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:HelloWow,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello

Wow, this thread is causing me to have diarrhea. Very absurd.

Pascal was wrong. Probability is not Christianity. 2nd, the Bible did not say to kill everybody who disagrees with you. There were a time where this was allowed via a specific people for a piece of specific land. This was under the theocratic kingdom, that was ended during the period of the judges.

Also, God needed to show His justice and His mercy to Israel since there was no written Word about his attributes and nature and character. This was a demonstration in which He chose certain men to record such things under inspiration.

2nd, to say that we do not like the Old Testament because we don't take everything literally is by definition non-literal. If you take a figure of speech literal, you are taking it out of context since the true literal rendering is via the intent of the figure of speech itself.

To based Christian belief on Wikipedia is extremely laughable and amusing. When I quote major reference works to define atheism, everybody has a temper tantrum. But when you quote a very unreliable source, wikipedia, you take it and run with it.

This is extremely hilarious. Talk about double talk.

Anyway, denominations are over non-essentials, not essentials. THus the Baptists, and even the AoG along with the rest are united under essentials

In Essentials Unity

In non-Essentials Liberty

In all, charity (Augustine)

Though, there area some denominations that differ on the essentials, making their non-christians. Examples are ROman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc.

I think responding to this thread was a huge waste of time. It's like throwing a ball at a cloud and expecting it to bounce back. There's nothing there.

And TG, my hippie Jesus Movement friend. You have never done that, been there. I John 2:19 says you were never a Christian. Only a professing heretic. Sorry to break the news.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean, isn't it amazing how God and the Bible agree with the concepts you already hold? Funny thing is, it has the same effect on all Christians.

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:HelloWow,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello

Wow, this thread is causing me to have diarrhea. Very absurd.

Pascal was wrong. Probability is not Christianity. 2nd, the Bible did not say to kill everybody who disagrees with you. There were a time where this was allowed via a specific people for a piece of specific land. This was under the theocratic kingdom, that was ended during the period of the judges.

Also, God needed to show His justice and His mercy to Israel since there was no written Word about his attributes and nature and character. This was a demonstration in which He chose certain men to record such things under inspiration.

2nd, to say that we do not like the Old Testament because we don't take everything literally is by definition non-literal. If you take a figure of speech literal, you are taking it out of context since the true literal rendering is via the intent of the figure of speech itself.

To based Christian belief on Wikipedia is extremely laughable and amusing. When I quote major reference works to define atheism, everybody has a temper tantrum. But when you quote a very unreliable source, wikipedia, you take it and run with it.

This is extremely hilarious. Talk about double talk.

Anyway, denominations are over non-essentials, not essentials. THus the Baptists, and even the AoG along with the rest are united under essentials

In Essentials Unity

In non-Essentials Liberty

In all, charity (Augustine)

Though, there area some denominations that differ on the essentials, making their non-christians. Examples are ROman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc.

I think responding to this thread was a huge waste of time. It's like throwing a ball at a cloud and expecting it to bounce back. There's nothing there.

And TG, my hippie Jesus Movement friend. You have never done that, been there. I John 2:19 says you were never a Christian. Only a professing heretic. Sorry to break the news.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I never said I was a Christian but I am probably of the Elect so get use to it. I get to eternally torment you in heaven.  No I only thought I was a Christian just like you only think you are a Christian. There can be no experts on UFO's if UFO's do not exist....only deluded believers. I am surprised that you did not use that right strwy epsitel to the Hebrews for it is impossible to be renewed once enlighten stuff. Again you assume to much which you know the old saying but at any rate I was brainwashed by the 1st Baptist Church ( Southern Baptist as a teen).  I switched to the Christian Church because of the perseverance of the saints junk. As to defintions when they originate from a system that alters the normal (secular) meaning of words the communication really only occurs within such a system. You can not understand normal conversation or meanings of words as typically used and most can not understand "Calvinese". I am not saying this as a slight or a negative thing. One looses meaning of words that are specialized with in the practice of law for example.  Attorneys interact with those terms but they do not mean the same thing as externally in the "real" world.

Your 38,000 denominations can not agree on essentials vs. non-essentials so obviously it is simply what your context or system believes and thus you judge your supposed brethren. Well then so shall ye be judged.  Rock on.  The OT is written as literal for the most part but is mostly false. So the NT.  Terrible to live your life on a fictional colection of writings such that ones response to reality is delusional.

Respectfully Yours,

Christian Atheist.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

So you are elect? You are doubting your atheism? I enjoy discussing things with heretics and pagans. Regarding language barriers, you are correct. I learned this as a very young lad. That's why I speak many languages. I can speak atheism, agnosticism, free thinker, Existialism via Sarte, Bultmann, Marx, Sa

tansim, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism.

I rarely speak the language of monergism unless the sovereignty of God is brought up or something along that line.

Okay, you were a Southern Baptist, then you were a Calvinists? But you apostosized over the Trinity correct? Why? I'm just curious.

Okay, maybe we can revisit your journey and take me with you. What were the first issues you had trouble with. It started with the Trinity and then what? Inerrancy? Take me down the path you went down and show me where you had trouble with what?

If you're up for it, it may be fun. That why I can correct your errors.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,So

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

So you are elect? You are doubting your atheism? I enjoy discussing things with heretics and pagans. Regarding language barriers, you are correct. I learned this as a very young lad. That's why I speak many languages. I can speak atheism, agnosticism, free thinker, Existialism via Sarte, Bultmann, Marx, Sa

tansim, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism.

I rarely speak the language of monergism unless the sovereignty of God is brought up or something along that line.

Okay, you were a Southern Baptist, then you were a Calvinists? But you apostosized over the Trinity correct? Why? I'm just curious.

Okay, maybe we can revisit your journey and take me with you. What were the first issues you had trouble with. It started with the Trinity and then what? Inerrancy? Take me down the path you went down and show me where you had trouble with what?

If you're up for it, it may be fun. That why I can correct your errors.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It doesn't matter about my doubts. i can believe in or not believe but it is whether I am elected and predestined that matters.  I believe I am elected and I don't believe in god.  But I believe the god I don't believe in...your god likes me anyway...so I'm one of you guys though kicking and screaming at the goad.  Baptists were weak and inconsistent Calvinists. They believed in freewill but not limited atonement. Christ died for all peoples.  I guess I had problems with the gospel conflicts. And I did not believe in the once saved always saved thing. But what really made me switch was the racism of the deacons of the church. Trinity has always looked inconsistent with a historical reading of the NT. I decided at some time to chunk rationalism and believe anyway. But in Bible College with greek all the fabrications and contradicitions in the Synoptics mad me return to a skepticism.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
In my experience . . .

Wowzers1 wrote: Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

In my experience, I don't initiate such conversations. The only places I openly discuss my beliefs (Wicca) are on fora where I do not expect someone to hunt me down and kill me, like this one or Mensa or Intertel Atheists, or with my parents, when they ask me (not often). Not with my son. (He is in the hunt-me-down camp, and because of his own and mother's beliefs does not associate with me.)

On the other hand, it seems that Christians of my acquaintance delight in never-ending discussions trying to "bait" me into this-or-that position. And generally, I don't discuss my own theological beliefs with atheists, either, as they are usually uninterested in my position nor trying to bait me. Or being atheists, already know at least in general about Wicca (because atheists of my acquaintance, such as my wife, actually learn about various and sundry religious faiths); I have a good enough command of English vocabulary to understand what the word "atheist" means so I don't bother them with something they are generally uninterested in.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Anymouse wrote:Wowzers1

Anymouse wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote: Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

In my experience, I don't initiate such conversations. The only places I openly discuss my beliefs (Wicca) are on fora where I do not expect someone to hunt me down and kill me, like this one or Mensa or Intertel Atheists, or with my parents, when they ask me (not often). Not with my son. (He is in the hunt-me-down camp, and because of his own and mother's beliefs does not associate with me.)

On the other hand, it seems that Christians of my acquaintance delight in never-ending discussions trying to "bait" me into this-or-that position. And generally, I don't discuss my own theological beliefs with atheists, either, as they are usually uninterested in my position nor trying to bait me. Or being atheists, already know at least in general about Wicca (because atheists of my acquaintance, such as my wife, actually learn about various and sundry religious faiths); I have a good enough command of English vocabulary to understand what the word "atheist" means so I don't bother them with something they are generally uninterested in.

My mother-in-law was Wiccan and I dabbled with Druidism  20 years or so ago.  It certainly is worth a discussion whenever you want. I like the moral do what you will but harm no one. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi WIccan

Hi Wiccan,

I know more about Wicca then you (LOL). Wiccans don't argue (consistent ones) because they deny logic and reason, but instead use intuitiion or volition for knowing. Thus it starts completely subjectively.

Technically speaking, Wicca doesn't believe in God or gods via entity but rather via the subconsious of presense or mind, and within that reality, they exist.

Unless you get higher up in the levels. Have you heard of the green man (Murray, not Wicca) or the stag god.

Why would an absurd wiccan who hates logic want to discuss anything logical.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Wiccan,

I know more about Wicca then you (LOL). Wiccans don't argue (consistent ones) because they deny logic and reason, but instead use intuitiion or volition for knowing. Thus it starts completely subjectively.

Technically speaking, Wicca doesn't believe in God or gods via entity but rather via the subconsious of presense or mind, and within that reality, they exist.

Unless you get higher up in the levels. Have you heard of the green man (Murray, not Wicca) or the stag god.

Why would an absurd wiccan who hates logic want to discuss anything logical.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I have the green man on my wall beside my wands and runes.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism