Theist Plea to me.

mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Theist Plea to me.

i understand your definition of faith. but its a horrible misconception, mark. faith isnt what i substitute for logic when dealing with spirituality. its really not. the biblical definition of faith is believing based on proof. the prophesies involving Christ are compelling, yes- like Isaiah predicting the birthplace and events surrounding Jesus' death-- things totally out of Jesus' control as an unborn child and condemned criminal. but those arent what get me. what strike me are the prophesies like those found in Daniel 7- where the next several thousand years of empirial rularship are outlined. you can not make a archeologic case against the authenticity of the book of daniel... how in the hell did that guy pinpiont the medes/persians, greek, and roman conquering in sequential order while living under the babylonians? no way, its nuts.

i do beleive that i am a christian largely because of how i was brought up. i have spent alot of time investigating my faith and other faiths, however. i also have to piont out that that rule doesnt hold true in both directions- how often do you hear of people converting to Christianity versus converting from it? nurture plays a large part in our identity, but the number of people who have revolted agianst thier core culture is in itself a compelling arguement for the reality of Christianity.

heres the root of our problem: for every answer I can try to provide you, you could probably find an issue to argue. i dont think you can present a serious case agianst the reality of a divine being. we exist in a world that has a beginning... "i dont know" wont cut it for how matter was formed, or how things lined up so perfectly for humanity to exist. thats silly... it ceases being a world view and becomes aviodance of dealing with the issue. once the existance of a God is established we could debate forever between religions, which ultimately i would piont out all rely on human effort to achieve spiritual perfection, except for Christianity which requires acknowlgement of the inability to be perfect and reliance on the Christ to deal with that issue, which ultimately makes God the holder of our hope versus ourselves,which is the only really logical way to objectify our condition into a solvable problem. the ultimate question you will eventually have to ask is " what is my relationship to God, right now, and what does that mean for me." we're taking the long way around, dealing with all these peripheral issues, but that is where i see this is eventually heading. i say that because you are hitting alll the same targets as people have been bouncing around for 2000 years, and several that I myself addressed during a period of time where i really was not convinced of the truth of "god" as "revealed in Scripture". none of our debate is new, none of it is unique, and always in history the end result is the same- God remains undenialble, and eventually most people realize none of this(christianity) is a ploy meant to capture humans and enslave them into a controlled program. instead, the reality is that the God they seek to deny totally and insanely loves them and wants only one thing: to establish a relationship that He can not have because we wont let Him. All i hear from you is denial, but no answers as to why humans crave spirituality, why we all have a moral sense, and why the world even exists. instead i hear"im content to say i dont know yet". so what, you have "faith" that someday you will? now there is a baseless faith, in my opinion. instead of actually considering the existance of God you'd rather assume His nonexistance(in the face of at the very least curiousity arousing evidence) and look foward to some sort of answers as to how and why we exists that have yet to be found in the last few million years of human thought. why do we have a sense of right and wrong? i dont know is a better explaination than an outside source. why do all humans share the same core natures(if developed naturally)? i dont know is better than an oustide source? why do humans always seek spiritual comfort, and why do they devote so much of themselves to it? i dont know is better than addressing a spirtual reality. really? you think that? i use the term "think" loosly, since really what you have done is compartmentalized all these arguements into your "i dont have to answer this, id rather think theres nothing to be found" box. turn your nurture picture around, and realize you, too, are a product of your environment. you feel that because you have not experienced any "god" in your life, you need not consider His existance. but maybe it is more true that you have not associated God with experiences you have had simply out of ignorance of His involvment because you dont know how to look for such involvement.

btw, i dont want to sound hash with all that. my tone in my head is more compassionate than the words look on the screen. like i said, im debating this because i care... not out of anger at your questions and "attacks" or whatever.

{MOD EDIT font color}


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Writing kinda small, but I

Writing kinda small, but I think there is someone that believes the same way I do as to the definition of Fatih. One question, do you believe that you must believe Christianity only by Faith?


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
ST, i didnt write the

ST, i didnt write the above.  It was a response to me from a theist friend of mine.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
FYI, a large part of what

FYI, a large part of what your theist friend is writing about, like why people "crave spirituality" is discussed in Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
"once the existance of a

"once the existance of a God is established we could debate forever between religions, which ultimately i would piont out all rely on human effort to achieve spiritual perfection, except for Christianity which requires acknowlgement of the inability to be perfect and reliance on the Christ to deal with that issue,"

Hi mmonte,

for a start this paragraph is pure garbage contradicted directly by Matthew 5:48 John 10:35-37 and many more. this 'inability to be perfect' - 'sinful self' argument is the most divisive lowest denominator of evangelical propaganda and it is directly contradicted in their own canon. Anything that follows from this point should be considered by their church as blasphemy not apologetics. LOL

On the other hand your friend's argument about the compartmentalising of 'I'd rather god be nothing' is a fair point IMO. Not everyone has to agree with Occam, and I, frankly, don't agree, and I doubt he ever heard of a sharpening stone because his razor is blunt and barbaric in my opinion. The derision of imagination is not universally ideal, it's not even statistically ideal, we can argue till the cows come home how many great scientific minds of our history were theists, but hands down there's no contest they are/were ALL daydreamers.

Sorry I ran off on a bit of a tangent there. Overall the apologetics in the OP are the usual run of the mill bull to me. I'm not surprised you don't buy it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: for a start

Eloise wrote:

for a start this paragraph is pure garbage contradicted directly by Matthew 5:48 John 10:35-37 and many more. this 'inability to be perfect' - 'sinful self' argument is the most divisive lowest denominator of evangelical propaganda and it is directly contradicted in their own canon. Anything that follows from this point should be considered by their church as blasphemy not apologetics. LOL

First of all John 10:35 - 37 does not apply, I assume you have the wrong verse. As for Matthew 5:48 it only agrees with you in 1 out of 5 Bible translations that I looked at, therefore your statement is probably wrong as for the original meaning of the text. (I seriously doubt you looked at what the Greek meaning of the text you quoted is). THe non-Christians of this website really need to start investigating what your claiming.


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
This letter demonstrates

This letter demonstrates clearly why religion divides friends and family.  These letters drive wedges between those that otherwise would remain close.

There's a clear superiority/inferiority thing going on.  "If you only make the decision I made, you can be eternally happy like me, if not you will burn."  Of course that attitude that is prevalent in the entire letter is ended with a "This may sound harsh, but I only write this because I love you."

Its a pattern that was clear in many letters I wrote back in my christian days, and I've received this same letter a dozen times since my deconversion.

As annoying as it is, the people who write these letters REALLY believe what they are writing.

I have no idea what you should write back.  I've approached it from a few different angles with my friends and family, but so far I've found no effective method.  Good luck! Smiling 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Eloise wrote:

for a start this paragraph is pure garbage contradicted directly by Matthew 5:48 John 10:35-37 and many more. this 'inability to be perfect' - 'sinful self' argument is the most divisive lowest denominator of evangelical propaganda and it is directly contradicted in their own canon. Anything that follows from this point should be considered by their church as blasphemy not apologetics. LOL

First of all John 10:35 - 37 does not apply, I assume you have the wrong verse. As for Matthew 5:48 it only agrees with you in 1 out of 5 Bible translations that I looked at, therefore your statement is probably wrong as for the original meaning of the text. (I seriously doubt you looked at what the Greek meaning of the text you quoted is). THe non-Christians of this website really need to start investigating what your claiming.

The Greek meaning is possibly 'finished', or 'complete', and as for 1 out 5, which 5? I can give you 5 texts that agree with the translation 'be  perfect'.  Darby; Young; NASB; KJV; GWT Check for yourself.

John 10:35-37  says plenty about that oppressive Calvinist trash in my opinon not the least of all that it is utterly contradicted. Revelation makes a God of you, and if it doesn't there ends your scripture. If Jesus can argue it then the christian needs to swallow it, verse 37 makes it clear, don't believe me if I don't do as the father, if noone can do that then no one is to be believed least of all Calvin who spouted the internally contradictory nonsense in the first place. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
New Living Translation, New

New Living Translation, New International Version, Contempary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible. The 5th book being KJV, which agrees with you. Also the Message disagrees with you (though I could not really hold it as proof except in how someone interpreted the passage).

John 10:35 - 37 says nothing about people being perfect. Also by mentioning Calvin's teachings, you exclude most Christians. You have also not investigated what the passage means or what passage Jesus was refering to when quoting that. It is the quotation of Jesus of a Psalm, that has nothing to do with those who follow Jesus. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:

New Living Translation, New International Version, Contempary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible. The 5th book being KJV, which agrees with you. Also the Message disagrees with you (though I could not really hold it as proof except in how someone interpreted the passage).

John 10:35 - 37 says nothing about people being perfect. Also by mentioning Calvin's teachings, you exclude most Christians. You have also not investigated what the passage means or what passage Jesus was refering to when quoting that. It is the quotation of Jesus of a Psalm, that has nothing to do with those who follow Jesus.

Not mentioning the Psalm does not equate to not knowing it or researching the meaning. There's no lack of clarity in John 10, Jesus asserts it as Law and he gives good reason for doing that which christians wholly subscribe to in the inerrancy of the bible. As for it not applying to followers of Jesus, there is no statement better backed in Christian canon than the divinity of all. John 10:13-15 and 30 ; 1 Corinthians 12:12 ; Ephesians 1:23 ; Galatians 3:26 and 4:6 ; Romans 8:14 ; Colossians 1:19 ... and etc it goes on, here's your out, take it.

Total depravity is not confined to churches that call themselves calvinist, but it remains that Calvin formalised the stupidity for anyone who unfortunately subscribes to it, it's all calvinism in any language.

edit: By the way, the New Jerusalem text agrees with ''you must be perfect".

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Would anyone care to address

Would anyone care to address the specific points brought up in this letter?


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Simple Theist and Eloise -

Simple Theist and Eloise - perhaps you two should open your own thread with your debate.  It becomes difficult to stay on topic when you're interrupted with another debate.

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Truthiness
Truthiness's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-04-16
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote: Would anyone

mmonte4 wrote:
Would anyone care to address the specific points brought up in this letter?

He seems insistent on forcing the idea that "I don't know" is somehow an invalid answer to a question. I don't know is a lot better than some ad hocery.


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
MY RESPONSE IN CAPS

"i do beleive that i am a christian largely because of how i was brought up. i have spent alot of time investigating my faith and other faiths, however. i also have to piont out that that rule doesnt hold true in both directions- how often do you hear of people converting to Christianity versus converting from it? nurture plays a large part in our identity, but the number of people who have revolted agianst thier core culture is in itself a compelling arguement for the reality of Christianity."
THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS WHY PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ARENT CONVERTING FROM CHRISTIANITY.  THERE ARE ALSO VERY GOOD REASONS WHY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE CONVERTED BY CHRISTIAN MISIONARIES.  THE REWARDS ARE COMPELLING- ESPECIALLY TO THE UNEDUCATED AND UNDERPRIVALEDGED.  THE BACKLASH OF TURNING AGAISNT CHRISTIANITY IN THIS COUNTRY HAS MANY MANY CONSEQUENCES.  THIS ISNT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY, BUT AGAINST IT.
i dont think you can present a serious case agianst the reality of a divine being. we exist in a world that has a beginning...IT IS NOT ON ME TO PRESENT A CASE AGAISNT THE REALITY OF A DIVINE BEING, BUT ON YOU TO PRESENT A CASE FOR ONE (JUST AS IF I CLAIMED THERE WERE INVISIBLE GREMLIMS- IT WOULD BE ON ME TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE).  USING THE "THERE MUST BE A GOD IF THERE IS A BEGINNING AGRUMENT" IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE.  HERE, GOD IS SIMPLY FILLING THE GAPS, AND IS THE ANSWER TO THE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN- JUST AS GOD WAS ONCE THE ANSWER TO THE SUN, THE RAIN, ETC.  NOW WE KNOW HOW THINGS WORK AND DONT ATTRIBUTE THEM TO GOD.  RESPONDING "I DONT KNOW" TO THE HOW THE SUN RISES AND SETS AND TO HOW THE TIDES COME IN AND OUT THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WAS CONSIDERED WAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR HOW YOU CONSIDER IT TODAY- INSUFFICIENT, BECAUSE GOD IS THE ANSWER.  BUT TIME HAS CHANGED, PEOPLE ARE MORE INTELLIGENT, AND SUPERSTITION IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT.
i dont know" wont cut it for how matter was formed, or how things lined up so perfectly for humanity to exist.
IF THINGS LINED UP SO PERFECTLY, THEN WHY ARE THERE SO MANY IMPERFECTIONS IN NATURE AND HUMANITY IF THE CAME FROM A "PERFECT" CREATOR.  OUT OF CURIOUSITY, WHAT ARE YOU EXPLAINITIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS, EXTINCTION OF SPECIES, CANCER VICTIMS, CHILDREN BORN RETARED, BON WITH AIDS, ETC. (MUST BE ALL PART OF GODS PLAN)

once the existance of a God is established we could debate forever between religions
THE EXISTANCE OF GOD CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED.  WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH GOD TO BELIEVE IN AND WHY.
" what is my relationship to God, right now, and what does that mean for me." we're taking the long way around, dealing with all these peripheral issues, but that is where i see this is eventually heading.
MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD IS VERY SIMILAR TO MY REALTIONSHIP WITH THE PINK UNICORN, THE CELESTIAL TEAPOT, AND THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MOSTER.  WHAT DOES THE NONRELATIONSHIP MEAN FOR ME?  NOTHING BUT A POSITIVE FUTURE.
none of our debate is new, none of it is unique, and always in history the end result is the same- God remains undenialble, and eventually most people realize none of this(christianity) is a ploy meant to capture humans and enslave them into a controlled program.
YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE DEBATE IS KEPT HUSH HUSH IN THIS COUNTRY.  "GOD REMAINS UNDENIABLE."  IF HE IS UNDENIALABLE BECAUSE OF YOUR FIVE REASONS VIDEO, YOURE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE AS THOSE ANSWERS DONT SUFFICE.  AGSIN, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.YOU ASSUME THAT I THINK CHRISTIANITY IS A PLOY WHICH IS INCORRECT.  I THINK CHRISTIANTY IS A STRETCH TO SAY THE LEAST.  I DONT THINK ALL OF IT IS NEGATIVE, IN FACT, I THINK MUCH OF IT CAN BE POSITIVE.  MY PROBLEM WITH CHRISTIANITY IS THAT IT FORCES US TO ABANDON LOGIC AND REASON, ABANDON REALITY AS WE KNOW IT AND TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH. 
why humans crave spirituality, why we all have a moral sense, and why the world even exists.
I DISAGREE THAT HUMANS CRAVE SPIRITUALITY.  I CERTAINLY DONT.  I BELIEVE THAT HUMANS CRAVE ANSWERS.  INSUFFIENCE ANSWERS, UNFORTUNATELY, RESULT IN SPIRITUALITY.  OUR MORAL SENSE CAN BE EXPLAINED THROUGH EVOLUTION.  WHY THE WORLD EXISTS IS AN UNKNOWN BECAUSE YOURE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION, INSTEAD YOU SHOULD BE ASKING HOW IT CAME TO BE AND THERE ARE VARIOUS THEORIES, NONE MORE RIDICULOUS THAN "GOD MADE IT."
instead i hear"im content to say i dont know yet". so what, you have "faith" that someday you will? now there is a baseless faith, in my opinion. instead of actually considering the existance of God you'd rather assume His nonexistance(in the face of at the very least curiousity arousing evidence) and look foward to some sort of answers as to how and why we exists that have yet to be found in the last few million years of human thought.
YOURE WRONGLY ASSUMING THAT SOMEDAY I THINK I WILL KNOW.  I DONT KNOW AND MAY NEVER KNOW, AND TO BE HONEST, IM NOT CONCERNED.  WOULD IT BE BASELESS FAITH TO SAY SOMEDAY I WILL?  NOT AS MUCH AS BELIEF IN A GOD, BECAUSE SCIENCE MAKE LEAPS IN BOUNDS EVERY CENTURY(ESPECIALLY THE LAST 2), SO TO SAY THIS WILL BE DISCOVERED WOULD NOT BE A HUGE LEAP.I HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, IN FACT I BELIEVED IN GOD FOR MANY YEARS, AND KNOW EXACTLY WHY I DID BELIEVE.  AND THERE IS NO CURIOUSLY AROUSING EVIDENCE.  AGAIN, IM NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERS, IF WE GET THEM IN OUR LIFE TIME THEN GREAT, IF NOT...ITS NOT A BIG DEAL.  WE DONT KNOW IS EXTREMELY MORE LOGICAL THAN A SUPERNATURAL BEING.
why do we have a sense of right and wrong? i dont know is a better explaination than an outside source. why do all humans share the same core natures(if developed naturally)? i dont know is better than an oustide source? why do humans always seek spiritual comfort, and why do they devote so much of themselves to it? i dont know is better than addressing a spirtual reality. really? you think that? AS STATED EARLIER, I DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR SPIRITUAL COMFORT.  THE OTHERS CAN EASILY BE EXPLAINED THROUGH EVOLUTION AND NO LONGER FALL INTO THE I DONT KNOW CATEGORY.
what you have done is compartmentalized all these arguements into your "i dont have to answer this, id rather think theres nothing to be found" box. NO, I WAS VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT I DONT KNOW- THE BEGINNING OF THE EARTH.  AND I DONT THINK "ID RATHER THERE IS NOTHING TO BE FOUND."  IN FACT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SUFFICIENT, LOGICAL ANSWERS.
turn your nurture picture around, and realize you, too, are a product of your environment. you feel that because you have not experienced any "god" in your life, you need not consider His existance. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY ENVIRONMENT- YOURE RIGHT.   BUT, YOU ARE VERY WRONG IN SAYING THAT I HAVENT CONSIDERED HIS EXISTANCE.  FALSE ASSUMPTION HERE.  LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I WAS A BELIEVER FOR MANY YEARS.
but maybe it is more true that you have not associated God with experiences you have had simply out of ignorance of His involvment because you dont know how to look for such involvement. THANK YOU!  THE FALLACY OF FALLACIES.  THIS IS A FORM OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR.  READ UP ON IT.
btw, i dont want to sound hash with all that. my tone in my head is more compassionate than the words look on the screen. like i said, im debating this because i care... not out of anger at your questions and "attacks" or whatever.DONT WORRY, I DONT TAKE IT PERSONAL.  I ENJOY HEARING OTHER PERSPECTIVES AND LEARNING.  DONT TAKE MY WORDS AS ATTACKS AS I TOO CARE AND HOPE, FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, TO SEE YOU ACHIEVE AT HIGHER LEVEL OF THOUGHT AND REASONING IN THIS AREA Eye-wink


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Assuming most people are

Assuming most people are like me, people seek spirituality, not because they think there is a God, but because of their overactive imaginations that stike them with wonderment in how differnt life would be if we WERE gods.

 Other than this, the points of the post are resting entirely on the poster's supposition that I disagree with.

 To me, faith is pretentious justification in spite of adequate justification. When all evidence(s) are taken into account - we, as human beings, simply are wholely without adequate justification for belief in any deity. Some choose to hold to pretentious justification for such a being in spite of this, and this is their choice.

 I have faith that someday I will have a rewarding career providing me great wealth. Sure, I am in classes that should lead me to obtaining a Bachelor's in Accounting, and I will also be taking courses in Brokerage and Securities... however, as of right now: I have no degree and no liscences. My hopes and dreams for my future I accpet on my faith in myself.

 I do not view faith as being always bad. It can be quite good, however, if I were to try to get everyone around me to hold that I am a successful financial administrator - that would have crossed the line and made my projection of faith entirely inappropriate.

 Likewise, a theist's faith in a god is ENTIRELY internal - and has nothing to do with the outside world. Like my faith in me becoming a successful financial administrator (at this point in time with my current knowledge) it can be viewed as nothing more than a delusion or hallucination.

If believing in a deity gets you though your day, so be it... I, however, am strong enough to purpose myself. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Simple

pariahjane wrote:

Simple Theist and Eloise - perhaps you two should open your own thread with your debate. It becomes difficult to stay on topic when you're interrupted with another debate.

 

I was simpy stating Eloise dismissed the letter on a false assumption of what the passages she listed really mean. I have also relooked at The New Jerusalem Bible, and the word perfect isn't even used. I'm ending the debate.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to address some of

I'm going to address some of this, but it repeats itself a fair amount, so I'm going to cut it down a lot.

mmonte4 wrote:
what strike me are the prophesies like those found in Daniel 7- where the next several thousand years of empirial rularship are outlined. you can not make a archeologic case against the authenticity of the book of daniel...

I don't know a whole lot about this, but here's one thing.

mmonte4 wrote:
heres the root of our problem: for every answer I can try to provide you, you could probably find an issue to argue. i dont think you can present a serious case agianst the reality of a divine being.

That's what happens when you make a fallacious case; Someone comes along and debunks it. That still doesn't somehow transfer the burden of proof away from the claimant, and it doesn't justify appealing to ignorance.

mmonte4 wrote:
i dont know is better than an oustide source?

'I don't know' is far better that believing some made-up nonsense. At least it's honest.

mmonte4 wrote:
why do humans always seek spiritual comfort, and why do they devote so much of themselves to it?

Perhaps because we want there to be an ultimate purpose we invent elaborate imaginary systems to provide one.

mmonte4 wrote:
i dont know is better than addressing a spirtual reality. really?

What is a "spiritual reality"? I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

mmonte4 wrote:
i use the term "think" loosly, since really what you have done is compartmentalized all these arguements into your "i dont have to answer this, id rather think theres nothing to be found" box.

ad hominem, projection

mmonte4 wrote:
turn your nurture picture around, and realize you, too, are a product of your environment.

non sequitur

mmonte4 wrote:
you feel that because you have not experienced any "god" in your life, you need not consider His existance. but maybe it is more true that you have not associated God with experiences you have had simply out of ignorance of His involvment because you dont know how to look for such involvement.

Begging the question.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Simple

pariahjane wrote:

Simple Theist and Eloise - perhaps you two should open your own thread with your debate. It becomes difficult to stay on topic when you're interrupted with another debate.

 

I apologise to Mark. I didn't mean to interrupt, I posted with the intention of giving valid answer to the letter in the OP, nobody has to agree with me but it is my opinion that you can more effectively answer a theist in their own language, so to speak. Indoctrination is so widespread in religion that many don't even know they aren't following their own gospel word but argue it anyway and I believe it's helpful to argue it back which is what I intended in my original post. When you halve the ignorance, I believe, you halve the problem at least, atheists may believe it's irrational to not attack faith itself as a precept, but nevertheless I think it's practical to argue within the faith for all purposes when dealing with indoctrination which is, essentially, brainwashing. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: pariahjane

Eloise wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

Simple Theist and Eloise - perhaps you two should open your own thread with your debate. It becomes difficult to stay on topic when you're interrupted with another debate.

 

I apologise to Mark. I didn't mean to interrupt, I posted with the intention of giving valid answer to the letter in the OP, nobody has to agree with me but it is my opinion that you can more effectively answer a theist in their own language, so to speak. Indoctrination is so widespread in religion that many don't even know they aren't following their own gospel word but argue it anyway and I believe it's helpful to argue it back which is what I intended in my original post. When you halve the ignorance, I believe, you halve the problem at least, atheists may believe it's irrational to not attack faith itself as a precept, but nevertheless I think it's practical to argue within the faith for all purposes when dealing with indoctrination which is, essentially, brainwashing.

You quote Calvin like everyone follows him. If your going to insist on a passage meaning something because someone said it does, then you need to quote an early church father, instead of a protestant that lived 1,500 years after Christainity was established. As a non-follow of Christianity, you have no basis for why someone should listen to your view of the bible over other Chrstians. I appologize Mark, but I am not Brainwashed, I don't accept anything without proof. (as evidence, I have no beliefs about the rapture--If I was brainwashed, you would think that someone would have given me some info on that)YOu've quoted a version of the bible that agrees with you, and ignored the ones that don't. Quoting whatever version agrees with you, and quoting passages out of context (as most atheist seem to enjoy doing) does nothing to help you argue with a Christian. Insisting someone is brainwashed is also something that isn't going to help you any. (Perhaps if your field of study happened to be brainwashing, you might have a leg to stand on). I have no clue why theist is below your name.

My advice, Mark, if you want to argue with a Chrsitian, make sure that your views are at least supported by the majority of Christians. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Eloise wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

Simple Theist and Eloise - perhaps you two should open your own thread with your debate. It becomes difficult to stay on topic when you're interrupted with another debate.

 

I apologise to Mark. I didn't mean to interrupt, I posted with the intention of giving valid answer to the letter in the OP, nobody has to agree with me but it is my opinion that you can more effectively answer a theist in their own language, so to speak. Indoctrination is so widespread in religion that many don't even know they aren't following their own gospel word but argue it anyway and I believe it's helpful to argue it back which is what I intended in my original post. When you halve the ignorance, I believe, you halve the problem at least, atheists may believe it's irrational to not attack faith itself as a precept, but nevertheless I think it's practical to argue within the faith for all purposes when dealing with indoctrination which is, essentially, brainwashing.

You quote Calvin like everyone follows him. If your going to insist on a passage meaning something because someone said it does, then you need to quote an early church father, instead of a protestant that lived 1,500 years after Christainity was established. As a non-follow of Christianity, you have no basis for why someone should listen to your view of the bible over other Chrstians. I appologize Mark, but I am not Brainwashed, I don't accept anything without proof. (as evidence, I have no beliefs about the rapture--If I was brainwashed, you would think that someone would have given me some info on that)YOu've quoted a version of the bible that agrees with you, and ignored the ones that don't. Quoting whatever version agrees with you, and quoting passages out of context (as most atheist seem to enjoy doing) does nothing to help you argue with a Christian. Insisting someone is brainwashed is also something that isn't going to help you any. (Perhaps if your field of study happened to be brainwashing, you might have a leg to stand on). I have no clue why theist is below your name.

My advice, Mark, if you want to argue with a Chrsitian, make sure that your views are at least supported by the majority of Christians.

Moved 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/7997?page=-1#comment-81527

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com