response to dawkins

sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
response to dawkins

Atheists, have a look at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html - a response to the first chapter of Dawkins' novel. Responses to the other chapters are still in progress, but this page has some solid stuff on it. Check out the rest of the site also - lets face it, this forum is made up of 90% atheists and maybe it would be good to check out areas of the web which look at religion from a different perspective...


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
What Sagan failed to

What Sagan failed to understand (and Dawkins, by quoting him) is that there is such a religion that directly ascribes the magnificence of the universe to the glory of the God who created it. The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.

No, what you fail to understand is the Muslim religion ascribes the magnificence of the universe to Allah. The Koran says Allah created the universe and time.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:"...but this

sharky wrote:
"...but this page has some solid stuff on it.

Yep, it's packed full of baloney. Lets take one example:
"Dawkins conveniently leaves out of the discussion the fact that atheists (who are not religious) have killed far more people than all "religious" conflicts combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. And, since atheist-led states were largely unheard of before the 20th century, atheists have just begun to get in on the killing rampage."

We have discussed this issue many times here and theists keep making the same error on this issue. These Communist leaders killed in the name of political goals not atheism. Contrast this with the religious leaders that have killed in the name of their god.

sharky wrote:
"...lets face it, this forum is made up of 90% atheists."

And you were expecting what? Rational Theists?

sharky wrote:
"...and maybe it would be good to check out areas of the web which look at religion from a different perspective..."

Don't you realize that most of us here came from a religious background. We know about religion(s) from the inside.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Nice avatar Sharky! Where

Nice avatar Sharky! Where did you ever get the idea? Eye-wink

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm right and just, try and fail.

I'm convinced, Praise Set. Kill the evil infidels of the monotheistic faith!!!!!

PS so much for turning the other cheek, and being honest.

A lot of christians are going to hell I guess... wait, what am I saying? KILL MONOS!!!!11!!1!!!one!!eleventy!!!!

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Todangst will like this

Todangst will like this one:

Proof #7: God cannot be almighty and allow free will simultaneously.

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if God is almighty. If you had a free will, God wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

Answer: The two dimensions of time take care of this one, too. God knows what each person will do and can put him anywhere in our time line to accomplish His purposes. Complete free-will and complete predestination is possible in two dimensions of time. However, this concept may require some time to think about.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord, didn't Hitler

Randalllord, didn't Hitler persecute the Jews in the name of God? Most people would agree that wasn't a true Christian. Most people who kill in the name of God have political motives, not spiritual motives (Yes, I know you're going to mention Suicide bombers).


Sybarite
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-10
User is offlineOffline
Uh... How is he not a true

Uh... How is he not a true christian? He believed he was appointed by the Christian God to kill jews. If you suggest that he mixed paganism with Christianity, Christianity is a mix of Judaism and paganism anyway. :S


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:Randalllord,

sharky wrote:
Randalllord, didn't Hitler persecute the Jews in the name of God? Most people would agree that wasn't a true Christian. Most people who kill in the name of God have political motives, not spiritual motives (Yes, I know you're going to mention Suicide bombers).

How convenient! When they do the right thing, they're christians. When they commit atrocities, they aren't.

Hitler specifically invoked his belief in god and a divine plan as a justification for killing jews. You cannot dodge the fact that religious beliefs, including mainstream christian beliefs, have been used to justify all manner of atrocities. Where religion is not leading to violence are the areas where religion has been tempered by secular influences, ie most of the modern West.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:How convenient! When

Quote:
How convenient! When they do the right thing, they're Christians. When they commit atrocities, they aren't.

Yes, it is convenient - when they're following the scriptures and believing it in their heart - they're Christians. When they're creating their own plan (naturally atrocities will follow if you use your own methods) they aren't. I can't find any bit in the scriptures that justified Hitler killing Jews...

I'm sure there are atheists out there who have murdered, abused, bullied, and raped people, but I'm sure you will still say they do not represent your own views and opinions - just because someone puts themselves in the same catagory as you does not mean they belong there.

I do agree with you that religion has been used as a manipulative tool in history and still is being abused now, but that does not mean there is a problem with the actual concept of faith. The democratic system has been abused by leaders in many countries, but most people still believe it is the correct way of running a country. Just because people have misused it, doesn't mean it was false from the beginning. It's important to examine your beliefs personally, and decide for yourself, away from corruption.


Jherr
Jherr's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
"Yes, it is convenient -

"Yes, it is convenient - when they're following the scriptures and believing it in their heart - they're Christians. When they're creating their own plan (naturally atrocities will follow if you use your own methods) they aren't. I can't find any bit in the scriptures that justified Hitler killing Jews..."

Yeah, that whole combination of fulfilling every "jot and tittle" of the Old Testement with things such as Deuteronomy 13, which reinforce ideas of "kill the unbeleiver", and the fact that the Jews could, by their meer existance, be leading people away from eternal life... no scriptural evidence at all!

 

"I'm sure there are atheists out there who have murdered, abused, bullied, and raped people, but I'm sure you will still say they do not represent your own views and opinions - just because someone puts themselves in the same catagory as you does not mean they belong there."

Yes, there are atheists of that sort, and we don't mention them for the same reason we don't mention the various serial killers who happened to be Christian; they did not commit their acts in the name of their beleif/lack of beleif. Stalin and Hitler do not fall under the same catigory because Stalin did not kill people because he was an atheist, whereas I find it hard to argue that Hitler did not act on his Christianity; it isn't like Hitler woke up one day and decided that he would start the idea of European Anti-semitism, he was working off of extremely deep, and extremely Christian, roots.

"I do agree with you that religion has been used as a manipulative tool in history and still is being abused now, but that does not mean there is a problem with the actual concept of faith."

Mayhaps we could start with its glorification of beleif without evidence, or the fact that it can stall out human progress by locking peoples moral mindsets in the bronze age.

" It's important to examine your beliefs personally, and decide for yourself, away from corruption."

And why shouldn't we examine your beleifs, considering that much of our discourse is constrained by it?

 


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
No mistake has been made

No mistake has been made when it comes to the conduct of Communist leaders.   These "political goals" were informed by  a world view that was clearly atheist. There is no escaping this fact no matter how much many of you would like to.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i wrote: No

Cocky Christian i wrote:
No mistake has been made when it comes to the conduct of Communist leaders. These "political goals" were informed by a world view that was clearly atheist. There is no escaping this fact no matter how much many of you would like to.

With things like the crusades or 9/11 the people claim god as the root of actions. Please show me were the Communist leaders did something wrong in the name of atheism.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

No mistake has been made when it comes to the conduct of Communist leaders. These "political goals" were informed by a world view that was clearly atheist. There is no escaping this fact no matter how much many of you would like to.

 And the political goals of American leaders are informed by a world view that is clearly Christian theist. These avowed Christians condone atrocities on a daily basis. 

 What's your point? 

"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


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote: Quote: How

sharky wrote:
Quote:
How convenient! When they do the right thing, they're Christians. When they commit atrocities, they aren't.
Yes, it is convenient - when they're following the scriptures and believing it in their heart - they're Christians.

Here we go with the no-real-Scotsman fallacy.  What makes their claim to be christians less valid that yours?  If anything they are following the letter of the OT more closely, as jesus commanded.  

sharky wrote:
 

When they're creating their own plan (naturally atrocities will follow if you use your own methods) they aren't.

I reject your characterization of the human species as evil by default and submit that it is religion that makes them that way by telling people from birth that they are sinners.

sharky wrote:

I can't find any bit in the scriptures that justified Hitler killing Jews...

Is this a joke?  The bible commands its followers to kill infidels in a hundred different ways in a hundred different places! 

 

sharky wrote:

I'm sure there are atheists out there who have murdered, abused, bullied, and raped people, but I'm sure you will still say they do not represent your own views and opinions - just because someone puts themselves in the same catagory as you does not mean they belong there.

I agree.  But there is overwhelming evidence that Hitler was directly motivated by his christianity, and the legacy of German Crusaders, to do what he did.

sharky wrote:

I do agree with you that religion has been used as a manipulative tool in history and still is being abused now, but that does not mean there is a problem with the actual concept of faith. The democratic system has been abused by leaders in many countries, but most people still believe it is the correct way of running a country. Just because people have misused it, doesn't mean it was false from the beginning. It's important to examine your beliefs personally, and decide for yourself, away from corruption.

This analogy is false because religion leads to atrocity when it is being practiced in its most pure form.  The closer one follows the actual holy writings of christianity and islam, the more horrible acts become justified.  Democracy, on the other hand, only becomes dangerous when it is corrupted and taken away from its core precepts.  It is no cooincidence that the freest, most democratic and most secular countries in the world are also the most peaceful.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Plenty of examples were

Plenty of examples were provided in the posts i originally quoted (the twentieth century is littered with them). I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view. Now to the other poster that asserted that Christianity followed in it's pure form requires inquisitions and Crusades, i will say this. You must obtain a firm grasp of Christian BIBLICAL theology before you attempt to argue for such positions. One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles? it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology. First of all the only commandments for war given are in the old testament and are direct commands to the nation of israel in specific circumstances. As for the Old testament laws demanding the execution of adulterers and the like, Paul anounces that this law has passed away in the Epistles. The two new commandments that have replaced them according to both Jesus and the new testament writers are a) Love the lord thy God with all thy soul heart and mind and  b)love thy neighbor as thyself. In general,  there is no where in new testament scripture anything resembling a prescription for an Inquistion or a Crusade.  By the way everyone, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. Actually the Nazi party was made up of neo -Pagans. Hitler wished to revive the beliefs and symbols of his ancient Aryan ancestors. Hitler merely tolerated Christianity. There have  been plenty of programs on this very topic on the History channel.

My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy. There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.  This is why this doctrine is so dangerous.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

Plenty of examples were provided in the posts i originally quoted (the twentieth century is littered with them). I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view. Now to the other poster that asserted that Christianity followed in it's pure form requires inquisitions and Crusades, i will say this. You must obtain a firm grasp of Christian BIBLICAL theology before you attempt to argue for such positions. One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles? it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology.

Why should we, or anyone else, accept your whitewash of the actual biblical message as we see it translated into English?  Why is your reinterpretation the right one?  Why should we reject the instructions from jesus in the gospel to follow every word of the OT?

This standard christian response that no one can read the bible without being steeped in "theology" is a pure argument from authority.  Basically, it says that you can't interpret what's written there until you've been brainwashed into seeing it from the perspective of faith.  I say bollocks to that.  If god wanted people to read his message, understand it and believe in it, why couldn't he give us a book that doesn't require blinders to understand?

I'll tell you why.  God had nothing to do with it.  The bible was written by an ancient, savage, warlike civilization and what it says is exactly what it means.  Your attempt to filter the message through modern "theology" is nothing but an attempt at spin aimed at squaring these ferocious people's primitive idea of morality with our more advanced, secular perspective.  

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

First of all the only commandments for war given are in the old testament and are direct commands to the nation of israel in specific circumstances.

And we are not to read these as the correct actions of the faithful?  Even if you do successfuly make the case that we cannot see these actions in this perspective, the bible and christianity are guilty of negligently perpetuating this savage outlook by promoting the bible as the holy word of god.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
   

As for the Old testament laws demanding the execution of adulterers and the like, Paul anounces that this law has passed away in the Epistles. The two new commandments that have replaced them according to both Jesus and the new testament writers are a) Love the lord thy God with all thy soul heart and mind and  b)love thy neighbor as thyself.

I'll let some others who are handier with the bible quotes come in here an destroy this one.  The fact is that jesus and mark both command christians to follow every word of the OT.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

In general,  there is no where in new testament scripture anything resembling a prescription for an Inquistion or a Crusade. 

The people of the Middle Ages were apparently able to take a very, very different view on this.

 

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

By the way everyone, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. Actually the Nazi party was made up of neo -Pagans. Hitler wished to revive the beliefs and symbols of his ancient Aryan ancestors. Hitler merely tolerated Christianity. There have  been plenty of programs on this very topic on the History channel.

By the way, you are completely wrong.  Please look on this site for Rook Hawkins' extensive list of Hitler quotes specifically referencing his christian beliefs and his citing of the bible and his belief in god as justification for his actions.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy. There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.  This is why this doctrine is so dangerous.

Back up this naked assertion or cram it back from whence it came.  The fact of history is that secular societies are orders of magnitude more peaceful than those connected to any particular religion.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1218
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i wrote: I

Cocky Christian i wrote:

I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view.

Thank you for clarifying. Having done so, would you care to demonstrate the veracity of the "Judeo-Christian world-view"? I'm sure the practicioners of every religion falling outside that world-view would appreciate it.

 

Cocky Christian i wrote:
One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles? it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology.

Would you kindly explain the conceptual relationship between the two holy testaments? If we are to accept that the n.t. replaced the wicked commandments of the o.t., with nice, shiny new ones, the question remains why the wicked ones were ever in place to begin with.

Cocky Christian i wrote:

My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy.

I disagree. Democracy purports to grant equality to all citizens, regardless of whom they worship or don't worship on Sunday. Your judeo-christian democracy seemingly enfranchises judeo-christians to the exclusion of other citizens (religious or otherwise).

Cocky Christian i wrote:
There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God ...

Then we are surely headed for the trash pile of history, as there is still no absolute, self-subsistent proof for God's existence, judeo-christian or otherwise.

Cocky Christian i wrote:

...and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.

 

Without the "judeo-christian world-view", we also have modern day Holland, and the America of 1776.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Plenty of examples

Quote:
Plenty of examples were provided in the posts i originally quoted (the twentieth century is littered with them).

If you mean the communism you will need to show that people were doing things for their lack of belief. Read carefully I am not saying an atheist can do no wrong. I am asking you to show his world view is why he did it.

Quote:
I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view.

Unless you said you were, I wouldn’t expect you to.

Quote:
Now to the other poster that asserted that Christianity followed in it's pure form requires inquisitions and Crusades, i will say this. You must obtain a firm grasp of Christian BIBLICAL theology before you attempt to argue for such positions.

He didn’t say it requires it, but did point out a correlation. It really doesn’t take much to think that when they use the bible for justification and talk about god all the time. And then when you read all sorts of ugly things in the bible is would seem that is where they got it.

Quote:
One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles?

Do you know all about the different communist leaders and their philosophies along with the philosophies of atheist who claim to be philosophers? If not, according to your own logic you can’t say they did for their atheism.

Quote:
it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology. First of all the only commandments for war given are in the old testament and are direct commands to the nation of israel in specific circumstances. As for the Old testament laws demanding the execution of adulterers and the like, Paul anounces that this law has passed away in the Epistles. The two new commandments that have replaced them according to both Jesus and the new testament writers are a) Love the lord thy God with all thy soul heart and mind and  b)love thy neighbor as thyself. In general,  there is no where in new testament scripture anything resembling a prescription for an Inquistion or a Crusade.

With things like Matthew 10:34 or Matthew 5:17 I’m not too sure on that.

Quote:
By the way everyone, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. Actually the Nazi party was made up of neo -Pagans. Hitler wished to revive the beliefs and symbols of his ancient Aryan ancestors. Hitler merely tolerated Christianity. There have  been plenty of programs on this very topic on the History channel.

History isn’t really my thing, but Rook did something on this [url=”http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3590?page=2“]here[/url].

Quote:
My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy.

Where the fuck do you get this?

Quote:
There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.

Are you smoking something? What about all the democratic countries that don’t use god in government? Did you know the US was kind of created to leave religion out of it?

Quote:
This is why this doctrine is so dangerous.

No your assumptions about many different things makes it look dangerous.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: He

Voiderest wrote:
He didn’t say it requires it, but did point out a correlation. It really doesn’t take much to think that when they use the bible for justification and talk about god all the time. And then when you read all sorts of ugly things in the bible is would seem that is where they got it.

 It's even clearer than just a correlation.  The Popes of the Middle Ages quoted liberally from the bible when preaching the crusades.  When christians try to say that the Crusaders and Inquisitors were not following christian theology, they are guilty of a most egregious no-true-Scotsman fallacy. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Keyser
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian, there is sooooooo

Tilberian, there is sooooooo much confusion and deception out there....  the Crusades and the Inquisition resulted in the deaths of real Christians, Arabs, Jews, and anybody else who was in the way or who didn't agree with the Roman Catholic Church and their false doctrines.  After all Jesus said we should love our enemies, right?


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Keyser wrote: Tilberian,

Keyser wrote:
Tilberian, there is sooooooo much confusion and deception out there....  the Crusades and the Inquisition resulted in the deaths of real Christians, Arabs, Jews, and anybody else who was in the way or who didn't agree with the Roman Catholic Church and their false doctrines.  After all Jesus said we should love our enemies, right?

Here we go again.  "Those weren't real christians!"  I already said that the popes who preached the crusades quoted liberally from the bible - the same book you use.  Why is your interpretation better than theirs?  Wouldn't a crusader be on equal footing if he claimed that you weren't a real christian because you hadn't taken up arms to kill infidels?  The bible commands it!

I swear, I've run into the no-true-Scotsman fallacy more times on this board in a month than I did in the last two years on the IG forums...

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: It's even

Tilberian wrote:
It's even clearer than just a correlation. The Popes of the Middle Ages quoted liberally from the bible when preaching the crusades. When christians try to say that the Crusaders and Inquisitors were not following christian theology, they are guilty of a most egregious no-true-Scotsman fallacy.


Do you have a link to the verses they used? I thought they did use it, but I wasn't sure which ones. I know for a fact they said it was the will of god, but it is hard to find any info on what parts of the bible they used or get any speeches or text. Of course I might need to go to a library for that Undecided


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: Do you

Voiderest wrote:

Do you have a link to the verses they used? I thought they did use it, but I wasn't sure which ones. I know for a fact they said it was the will of god, but it is hard to find any info on what parts of the bible they used or get any speeches or text. Of course I might need to go to a library for that Undecided

I'll have to dig it out of a book I have at home, and given the season it will probably be a week or so before I get around to it. Frown

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Cocky

Tilberian wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

Plenty of examples were provided in the posts i originally quoted (the twentieth century is littered with them). I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view. Now to the other poster that asserted that Christianity followed in it's pure form requires inquisitions and Crusades, i will say this. You must obtain a firm grasp of Christian BIBLICAL theology before you attempt to argue for such positions. One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles? it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology.

Why should we, or anyone else, accept your whitewash of the actual biblical message as we see it translated into English?  Why is your reinterpretation the right one?  Why should we reject the instructions from jesus in the gospel to follow every word of the OT?

This standard christian response that no one can read the bible without being steeped in "theology" is a pure argument from authority.  Basically, it says that you can't interpret what's written there until you've been brainwashed into seeing it from the perspective of faith.  I say bollocks to that.  If god wanted people to read his message, understand it and believe in it, why couldn't he give us a book that doesn't require blinders to understand?

I'll tell you why.  God had nothing to do with it.  The bible was written by an ancient, savage, warlike civilization and what it says is exactly what it means.  Your attempt to filter the message through modern "theology" is nothing but an attempt at spin aimed at squaring these ferocious people's primitive idea of morality with our more advanced, secular perspective.  

Cocky Christian i wrote:

*sigh* this is why I don't like debating scripture with  atheists, just philosophy, the knowledge base is not sufficient. I was not talking about  any theology other than new testament theology (what is actually contained in the texts). Specifically i was talking about the writings of paul. Jesus was talking to the nation of israel in the gospels (when he is addressing the general population) "i am sent only to the lost sheep of israel" he said.  Yet the scriptures say that his sacrafice was for all men and paul in the epistles outlines the meaning and significance of that sacrafice. It was jesus himself who gave   those two NEW commandments replacing the old ones to his disciples. He gave it only to his disciples and not to Israel in his own day because at the moment only his disciples were privy to his  mission here. Untill Jesus completed his sacrafice the old law was in place just as he preached. Thus the new testament  takes place at the point of transition from the old covenant  into to the new.   

 First of all the only commandments for war given are in the old testament and are direct commands to the nation of israel in specific circumstances.

And we are not to read these as the correct actions of the faithful?  Even if you do successfuly make the case that we cannot see these actions in this perspective, the bible and christianity are guilty of negligently perpetuating this savage outlook by promoting the bible as the holy word of god.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

 Tiberian if God told you that he wanted you to do something in particular in your life it would not be a command for everyone. These were commands TO A SPECIFIC NATION ABOUT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. Something is only general if the person speaking is using general language.

As for the Old testament laws demanding the execution of adulterers and the like, Paul anounces that this law has passed away in the Epistles. The two new commandments that have replaced them according to both Jesus and the new testament writers are a) Love the lord thy God with all thy soul heart and mind and  b)love thy neighbor as thyself.

I'll let some others who are handier with the bible quotes come in here an destroy this one.  The fact is that jesus and mark both command christians to follow every word of the OT.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

In general,  there is no where in new testament scripture anything resembling a prescription for an Inquistion or a Crusade. 

The people of the Middle Ages were apparently able to take a very, very different view on this.

 That is the problem you are having.  You   are looking at them instead of Scripture. i can't do anything about some person who calls themselves  a Christian and does things radically out of line with scripture.

 

Cocky Christian i wrote:
  

By the way everyone, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. Actually the Nazi party was made up of neo -Pagans. Hitler wished to revive the beliefs and symbols of his ancient Aryan ancestors. Hitler merely tolerated Christianity. There have  been plenty of programs on this very topic on the History channel.

By the way, you are completely wrong.  Please look on this site for Rook Hawkins' extensive list of Hitler quotes specifically referencing his christian beliefs and his citing of the bible and his belief in god as justification for his actions.

 

Cocky Christian i wrote:
 

Actually I am completely right and so are all of the scholars and all of the documentaries that have been done on this subject. Hitler was in protestant germany attempting to manipulate a protestant people  ofcourse he had to pay lip service to Christianity. Nevertheless the information I have given you is accurate and it is not even a controversial point. Does the History Channel just have it wrong?

   friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy. There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.  This is why this doctrine is so dangerous.

Back up this naked assertion or cram it back from whence it came.  The fact of history is that secular societies are orders of magnitude more peaceful than those connected to any particular religion.

I still haven't mastered the quoting function on the forum. my responses to you are in the quote box above. The words below are a response to your last point in that quote box. 

Only by playing word games, such as is  embodied in the word "secular socirty" , can you even imply the  view you are attempting to advance in that statement.


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Cocky

zarathustra wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

I am not interested in defending every religion that professes a belief in God only a Judeo-Christian world-view.

Thank you for clarifying. Having done so, would you care to demonstrate the veracity of the "Judeo-Christian world-view"? I'm sure the practicioners of every religion falling outside that world-view would appreciate it.

Cocky Christian i wrote:
One of the biggest issues in these kinds of discussions is a non in depth "pop" conception of biblical theology. Do you know what the conceptual relationship of the old testament is to the new testament according to the writings of Paul in the Epistles? it appears you do not, your statements indicate an non-conversance with basic new testament theology.

Would you kindly explain the conceptual relationship between the two holy testaments? If we are to accept that the n.t. replaced the wicked commandments of the o.t., with nice, shiny new ones, the question remains why the wicked ones were ever in place to begin with.

Cocky Christian i wrote:

My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy.

I disagree. Democracy purports to grant equality to all citizens, regardless of whom they worship or don't worship on Sunday. Your judeo-christian democracy seemingly enfranchises judeo-christians to the exclusion of other citizens (religious or otherwise).

Cocky Christian i wrote:
There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God ...

Then we are surely headed for the trash pile of history, as there is still no absolute, self-subsistent proof for God's existence, judeo-christian or otherwise.

Cocky Christian i wrote:

...and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia.

Without the "judeo-christian world-view", we also have modern day Holland, and the America of 1776.

Yes without The judeo-Christian world view we have modern day Holland (although we have to view it not as a product of it's own history...is that possible?) As for the America of 1776 LOL!!!!! don't make me start pummeling you with quotes. Furthermore long before that the foremost religious reformer of American History William penn derived his principles of religious tolerance from Quaker theology.

 Now ofcourse this is a nation for everyone. It is a nation for socialists as well but this does not change the fact that socialist ideology is inconsistent with American political ideology.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Another "Christian" who

Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs.

And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity.

Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator?

Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

"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


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Another

jcgadfly wrote:
Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs. And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity. Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator? Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

You want me to listen to Christ? ok.  jesus said that he had many things to say but that they could not be received now.  He  said that when he left and the holy Spirit came he would bring the complete truth. i cannot believe Christ without expecting subsequent revelations concerning him. As for paul, he helps the matter quite well, what dosen't help the matter is your ambiguity. What is insufficient about the writings of paul. You will have to elaborate...but do you  really want a scriptural debate?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1218
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

Yes without The judeo-Christian world view we have modern day Holland (although we have to view it not as a product of it's own history...is that possible?) As for the America of 1776 LOL!!!!! don't make me start pummeling you with quotes. Furthermore long before that the foremost religious reformer of American History William penn derived his principles of religious tolerance from Quaker theology.

Now ofcourse this is a nation for everyone. It is a nation for socialists as well but this does not change the fact that socialist ideology is inconsistent with American political ideology.

 

Please, please pummel me with quotes. I am dying to hear a cogent explanation for how this country was founded on "judeo-christian" values. While you're at it, actually, please respond to my forum topic on precisely what "judeo-christian" means. Please also explain (as I previously requested) by what criteria we determine that the judeo-christian "world view" is objectively true. judeo-christian ideology is likewise inconsistent with american political ideology.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs. And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity. Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator? Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

You want me to listen to Christ? ok. jesus said that he had many things to say but that they could not be received now. He said that when he left and the holy Spirit came he would bring the complete truth. i cannot believe Christ without expecting subsequent revelations concerning him. As for paul, he helps the matter quite well, what dosen't help the matter is your ambiguity. What is insufficient about the writings of paul. You will have to elaborate...but do you really want a scriptural debate?

 What is there to debate? You "Christians" won't use (or live by) what your Christ said (according to the writers of the gospels you claim to respect) because what Paul wrote is so much simpler to do.

All I'm suggesting is that you admit that you hold Paul in higher regard than your Christ. After all, shouldn't you worship the creator rather than the creation?

 As far as the problems with Paul's writings, Rook does a spectacular job explaining those in the "Biblical Errrancy" section (I think that's correct) so I don't feel a need to reinvent the wheel.

"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


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Cocky

jcgadfly wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs. And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity. Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator? Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

You want me to listen to Christ? ok. jesus said that he had many things to say but that they could not be received now. He said that when he left and the holy Spirit came he would bring the complete truth. i cannot believe Christ without expecting subsequent revelations concerning him. As for paul, he helps the matter quite well, what dosen't help the matter is your ambiguity. What is insufficient about the writings of paul. You will have to elaborate...but do you really want a scriptural debate?

 What is there to debate? You "Christians" won't use (or live by) what your Christ said (according to the writers of the gospels you claim to respect) because what Paul wrote is so much simpler to do.

All I'm suggesting is that you admit that you hold Paul in higher regard than your Christ. After all, shouldn't you worship the creator rather than the creation?

 As far as the problems with Paul's writings, Rook does a spectacular job explaining those in the "Biblical Errrancy" section (I think that's correct) so I don't feel a need to reinvent the wheel.

 

You speak as though I conceded at some point  that there was a conflict between the accounts of the words of jesus and the words of Paul...I did no such thing. I only suggested that the Holy spirit revealed the plan of God in greater detail later on through other testimonies. 


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Cocky

zarathustra wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

Yes without The judeo-Christian world view we have modern day Holland (although we have to view it not as a product of it's own history...is that possible?) As for the America of 1776 LOL!!!!! don't make me start pummeling you with quotes. Furthermore long before that the foremost religious reformer of American History William penn derived his principles of religious tolerance from Quaker theology.

Now ofcourse this is a nation for everyone. It is a nation for socialists as well but this does not change the fact that socialist ideology is inconsistent with American political ideology.

Please, please pummel me with quotes. I am dying to hear a cogent explanation for how this country was founded on "judeo-christian" values. While you're at it, actually, please respond to my forum topic on precisely what "judeo-christian" means. Please also explain (as I previously requested) by what criteria we determine that the judeo-christian "world view" is objectively true. judeo-christian ideology is likewise inconsistent with american political ideology.

Wow well I only have time to do so much. Your statememts are such that i would have to build from the ground up. No doubt you have utterly steeped yourself for a while in some quite  profound revision of  the history of this era.

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”    -Patrick henry [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]

  

  “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” - George Washington [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."

George Washinton In his Inaugural Speech, April 30, 1789,

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."- George Washington

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

(Now we know That franklyn was a private deist but these words give you incite into the mind of the audience he was addressing,) 

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -james madison

James McHenry Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

"RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony of all Denominations, that THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer...to confess the sins...to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression...and a blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People; and especially that the union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed....And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven."
By Order of the [Massachusetts] Provincial
Congress, John Hancock, President.

Chapter two, Section nine, in regards to representatives "And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. " I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."  

Vermont State Constitution 1777 (original)

    Article 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to an office or place of trust... shall ... make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration. Delaware State constitution (1776).   

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration.

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of pennsylvania (1776).  

I could go on, and I will a little longer when i get more time. The quotes i have given here are offered both to show you the belief that many of the founders had in Christianity as a philosophical basis for American Democracy and to show you how much influence Christianity had in this society in general. We need to distinguish the notion of a Judeo- Christian Cosmology from personal adherence to the faith of Christianity though.  The American colonists were for the most part Christians. Some considered themselves  Christians, embracing certain related general world view principles   while rejecting other central theological precepts (the best example of this is Thomas Jefferson). There were very few outright  public deists. Thomas paine was one of them and was a deeply controversial figure. (his Rights of man was denounced by Dr Benjamin Rush as "absurd and impious" .  Deism  was in vogue in france and in other areas of Europe but not much in the Anglo-saxxon world. The political philosophy of the founders was strongly influenced by John Locke and the principles from his Two Treatises of Civil Government (you can see this in the Declaration Of Independence).  This work by John Locke  builds its philosophical case on Scripture to an extent that would probably utterly astound an atheist fed on the pathetic pap of modern revisionist history and ignorant of such details. LOCKE DERIVES THE RIGHT OF POSSESION FROM EVENTS THAT OCCURED IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN!! I don't know how you get more judeo-Christian inspired than that. The work is riddled with scripture. This was the major influence of the Amaerican founders. They Chose Locke's natural rights over Rosseau's human convention which rejected the "natural right" (Rosseau became the darling of the French Revolution).   

  This same  principle of natural right is today being attacked relentlessly by legal scholars such as Ronald Dworkin and Alan Dershowitz in favor of the Rosseau consensus approach. As i touched on earlier Thomas jefferson was one who CONSIDERED HIMSELF a Christian. He did so despite the fact that his actual beliefs absolutely conflict with orthodox Christianity. Jefferson saw himself  as a  disciple   of Christ as a moral teacher. This is the origin of the famed Jefferson Bible.      

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

In that quote jefferson is trying to justify his peculiar beliefs to Dr benjamin Rush a fervent orthodox Christian. Clearly for anyone to get along in Colonial America thy had to profess adherence to Christianity in some sense, or be tossed by the tides of Controversey like a Thomas paine. The bible was taught in schools and given priority.   


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i wrote:

Cocky Christian i wrote:

By the way everyone, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. Actually the Nazi party was made up of neo -Pagans. Hitler wished to revive the beliefs and symbols of his ancient Aryan ancestors. Hitler merely tolerated Christianity. There have been plenty of programs on this very topic on the History channel.

 

I have to agree. To my knowledge Hitler was a huge occultist and belonged to some masonic lodges. He was also a huge fan of H.P Blavatsky of the theosophical society. Many blame Blavatsky's book 'The Secret Doctrine' on alot of the ideas that the nazis had, especially that of the aryan race. Apparently hitler believed the contents of the book which mentioned that the aryans were the oldest race on the planet(root race) and were once thriving in Atlantis. I also believe hitlers fascination with the occult led him to send expeditions of scientist to seek out all sorts of relics. He's far from atheist, but not exactly christian either. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs. And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity. Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator? Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

You want me to listen to Christ? ok. jesus said that he had many things to say but that they could not be received now. He said that when he left and the holy Spirit came he would bring the complete truth. i cannot believe Christ without expecting subsequent revelations concerning him. As for paul, he helps the matter quite well, what dosen't help the matter is your ambiguity. What is insufficient about the writings of paul. You will have to elaborate...but do you really want a scriptural debate?

What is there to debate? You "Christians" won't use (or live by) what your Christ said (according to the writers of the gospels you claim to respect) because what Paul wrote is so much simpler to do.

All I'm suggesting is that you admit that you hold Paul in higher regard than your Christ. After all, shouldn't you worship the creator rather than the creation?

As far as the problems with Paul's writings, Rook does a spectacular job explaining those in the "Biblical Errrancy" section (I think that's correct) so I don't feel a need to reinvent the wheel.

 

You speak as though I conceded at some point that there was a conflict between the accounts of the words of jesus and the words of Paul...I did no such thing. I only suggested that the Holy spirit revealed the plan of God in greater detail later on through other testimonies.

 

Where to begin...

You claim to be unable to follow the words of your Christ until the Holy Spirit comes and reveals things through other testimonies.

1) According to your literature, the Holy Spirit has already arrived. Where's this complete truth again?

2) Many Christians are incapable or unwilling to follow the words you believe Christ spoke in the gospels. In fact, when asked to defend their Christ they resort to the words of Paul. I have no problem with that - Paul's writings came first and he was the one who created the Christ character. Just don't call yourselves Christians. Acknowledge the man who created your religion - Paul of Tarsus.

I never said you conceded a conflict - you said Paul helps explain things well. I said he contradicts the sayings of Christ on many occasions and doesn't explain anything at all. Feel free to consult Rook's information then we can talk in depth.

"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


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cocky

jcgadfly wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Another "Christian" who believes in and claims to follow his Christ who skips over what his Christ said and uses Paul to defend his beliefs. And yet, they have the hubris to say that their "Christ" created Christianity. Why can't you use the words of your Christ to defend your faith? Could it be that the creation isn't enough and you have to go back to the religion's creator? Paul's words don't really help you that much, btw.

You want me to listen to Christ? ok. jesus said that he had many things to say but that they could not be received now. He said that when he left and the holy Spirit came he would bring the complete truth. i cannot believe Christ without expecting subsequent revelations concerning him. As for paul, he helps the matter quite well, what dosen't help the matter is your ambiguity. What is insufficient about the writings of paul. You will have to elaborate...but do you really want a scriptural debate?

What is there to debate? You "Christians" won't use (or live by) what your Christ said (according to the writers of the gospels you claim to respect) because what Paul wrote is so much simpler to do.

All I'm suggesting is that you admit that you hold Paul in higher regard than your Christ. After all, shouldn't you worship the creator rather than the creation?

As far as the problems with Paul's writings, Rook does a spectacular job explaining those in the "Biblical Errrancy" section (I think that's correct) so I don't feel a need to reinvent the wheel.

You speak as though I conceded at some point that there was a conflict between the accounts of the words of jesus and the words of Paul...I did no such thing. I only suggested that the Holy spirit revealed the plan of God in greater detail later on through other testimonies.

Where to begin...

You claim to be unable to follow the words of your Christ until the Holy Spirit comes and reveals things through other testimonies.

1) According to your literature, the Holy Spirit has already arrived. Where's this complete truth again?

2) Many Christians are incapable or unwilling to follow the words you believe Christ spoke in the gospels. In fact, when asked to defend their Christ they resort to the words of Paul. I have no problem with that - Paul's writings came first and he was the one who created the Christ character. Just don't call yourselves Christians. Acknowledge the man who created your religion - Paul of Tarsus.

I never said you conceded a conflict - you said Paul helps explain things well. I said he contradicts the sayings of Christ on many occasions and doesn't explain anything at all. Feel free to consult Rook's information then we can talk in depth.

I don't claim to be unable to follow the words of Christ untill other testimonies are revealed, HE CLAIMS WE COULD NOT FOLLOW HIS WORDS UNTILL  LATER TESTIMONIES ARRIVED. You seem to only " enjoy" the words of Christ when they get you to where you want to go.  Everything in the scripture is written to someone, you must always consider who is being addressed in every scriptural evaluation. Here is another case In which you have ignored the words of jesus which I have quoted to you.   Jesus said "I am come only to the lost sheep of Israel".  Only in private to his disciples does he reveal  details about the later parts of his plans (and in case you missed what i was saying the last time,  when I said this I was talking about Jesus privately explaining certain aspects of his plans to his disciples IN THE GOSPELS). He did not even reveal that he was the Son of God in public. However he obviously does not go into the detail that Paul does even in his private conversations with the disciples. That is why he refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit.   In general the private teachings of jesus are in many respects inconsistent with the traditional Judaism of the pharisees (and other sects) of his day. On the other hand they are in many other repects consistent with the testimonies of paul, John, peter and many of the other writers of the epistles.   As for your friend Rock, i am not about to expend my time evaluating the writings of another probable scriptural ametuer that thinks he has found some profound contradiction on the basis of a naive,  uncomprehensive understanding of scripture; I am weary of that. If you want me to see some great argument in support of your or his position, advance it here. Am i afraid you ask?  I am afraid of wasting my time, so cut and paste away.  I will respond to whatever is posted here from Rock's ideas or from your own.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So in other words you won't

So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So in other

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

As I said in my last post, Paste and Copy what you want me to know and i will respond to it. i have nothing to prove to anyone. I have seen my fill of attempts at such contradictions and I am weary of them. If you prove to me that his writings contain some worthwhile questions then I will pursue the matter afterward. i have met  atheists with fair and rational minds but I have also met my fill of atheists that preach all day about reason but in actual discussion rely on rhetoric rather than rational argument. I trust that you are far above such individuals and that you will post the arguments you believe I should see rather than continue on with that "crisis of faith" weak-minded Christian Charade.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: So in other

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

 I still haven't recovered from his calling Rook a "scriptural amateur".

 roflmao

"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


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Vastet

jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

 I still haven't recovered from his calling Rook a "scriptural amateur".

 roflmao

I said a "probable scriptural ametuer", I don't know him. If the majority of those that attempt to advance these kinds of arguments are ametuers (and i would say they were) then one taken randomly as a sample (and it is random from my standpoint) is "probably an ametuer". As you know, probabilities don't neccesarily bear out though, so prove me wrong. That was the point of my statement. I should also add that academic credentials don't neccesarliy make one a non ametuer in this area. This aint physics or philosophy.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

As I said in my last post, Paste and Copy what you want me to know and i will respond to it. i have nothing to prove to anyone. I have seen my fill of attempts at such contradictions and I am weary of them. If you prove to me that his writings contain some worthwhile questions then I will pursue the matter afterward. i have met  atheists with fair and rational minds but I have also met my fill of atheists that preach all day about reason but in actual discussion rely on rhetoric rather than rational argument. I trust that you are far above such individuals and that you will post the arguments you believe I should see rather than continue on with that "crisis of faith" weak-minded Christian Charade.  

 

You're assuming that the atheist is inclined to recover the information when you are not(and in my particular case, I know little of scripture, since it has no value in the debate). And you fail horribly by attempting to insinuate you are not responsible for your own knowledge. If you want to debunk something, then go look it up yourself.

 

I do not accept laziness as an excuse. I've looked things up thousands of times in arguments against a theist. I've never once declined to do so with the flimsy excuse that I've done it too many times already.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: sharky

Randalllord wrote:
sharky wrote:
"...but this page has some solid stuff on it.
Yep, it's packed full of baloney. Lets take one example: "Dawkins conveniently leaves out of the discussion the fact that atheists (who are not religious) have killed far more people than all "religious" conflicts combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. And, since atheist-led states were largely unheard of before the 20th century, atheists have just begun to get in on the killing rampage." We have discussed this issue many times here and theists keep making the same error on this issue. These Communist leaders killed in the name of political goals not atheism. Contrast this with the religious leaders that have killed in the name of their god.
sharky wrote:
"...lets face it, this forum is made up of 90% atheists."
And you were expecting what? Rational Theists?
sharky wrote:
"...and maybe it would be good to check out areas of the web which look at religion from a different perspective..."
Don't you realize that most of us here came from a religious background. We know about religion(s) from the inside.

I believe Dawkins has responded to this. He stated that while Hitler, et al did not use god, per se, to justify their acts and they may very well have not been religious at all, they adopted a similar dogmatic approach to that of religious dogma, based on stereotyping the enemy, notions of impurity (such as arguing that so and so is not a "true Christian), and irrationality , among other things, which suggests their approach had more in common with religous fundamentalists than with rational non-theists. That's not to say that individual Atheists aren't as capable as anyone else of commiting evil, or that theists are necessarily prone to commit evil, only that these actions stem from the irrational, and not so much from the rational. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

I still haven't recovered from his calling Rook a "scriptural amateur".

roflmao

I said a "probable scriptural ametuer", I don't know him. If the majority of those that attempt to advance these kinds of arguments are ametuers (and i would say they were) then one taken randomly as a sample (and it is random from my standpoint) is "probably an ametuer". As you know, probabilities don't neccesarily bear out though, so prove me wrong. That was the point of my statement. I should also add that academic credentials don't neccesarliy make one a non ametuer in this area. This aint physics or philosophy.

 Your attempts to disparage Rook aside, I'll do this little bit of research for you.

Follow this link:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/a_small_compilation_of_contradictions

 Don't ask me to read it for you, too.  I don't do copy/paste because some hypocritical theists have complained, "Don't copy and paste! Give me your opinion!" (often after asking for the material in the beginning)

 

"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


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Cocky

Vastet wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

As I said in my last post, Paste and Copy what you want me to know and i will respond to it. i have nothing to prove to anyone. I have seen my fill of attempts at such contradictions and I am weary of them. If you prove to me that his writings contain some worthwhile questions then I will pursue the matter afterward. i have met  atheists with fair and rational minds but I have also met my fill of atheists that preach all day about reason but in actual discussion rely on rhetoric rather than rational argument. I trust that you are far above such individuals and that you will post the arguments you believe I should see rather than continue on with that "crisis of faith" weak-minded Christian Charade.  

You're assuming that the atheist is inclined to recover the information when you are not(and in my particular case, I know little of scripture, since it has no value in the debate). And you fail horribly by attempting to insinuate you are not responsible for your own knowledge. If you want to debunk something, then go look it up yourself.

I do not accept laziness as an excuse. I've looked things up thousands of times in arguments against a theist. I've never once declined to do so with the flimsy excuse that I've done it too many times already.

 

Did you understand my last post? i did not attempt to disparage Rook personally. Now I did not imply that i am not responsible for my own knowledge I implied that there is not likely to be anything here that will add to it. Having examined the link offered i have found nothing comparing the teachings of paul to Christ. I saw some well known actual numerical discrepencies  and some fairly weak attempts at "Conceptual contradictions".  As far as the latter is concerned this is the level of scriptural prowess that i expected to find here. I was actually interested in the Paul/Jesus discussion not this other stuff. Yet i know that you find this other stuff quite entertaining and profound so i'll tell you what i'll do.  As a token of my good will I will either (a) choose 10 of the "conceptual contradictions" sited by this man Rook to refute or (b) allow you to choose 10 of the "conceptual contradictions" for me to refute. You just tel me which you want me to address. Wow, how did this discussion even get here? i thought we were supposed to be talking about the import of Morality.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Cocky Christian i wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So in other words you won't risk a crises of faith by reading solid arguments in a conveniently located position, using an excuse that can't be proven(much like your religion). Good to know.

As I said in my last post, Paste and Copy what you want me to know and i will respond to it. i have nothing to prove to anyone. I have seen my fill of attempts at such contradictions and I am weary of them. If you prove to me that his writings contain some worthwhile questions then I will pursue the matter afterward. i have met  atheists with fair and rational minds but I have also met my fill of atheists that preach all day about reason but in actual discussion rely on rhetoric rather than rational argument. I trust that you are far above such individuals and that you will post the arguments you believe I should see rather than continue on with that "crisis of faith" weak-minded Christian Charade.  

You're assuming that the atheist is inclined to recover the information when you are not(and in my particular case, I know little of scripture, since it has no value in the debate). And you fail horribly by attempting to insinuate you are not responsible for your own knowledge. If you want to debunk something, then go look it up yourself.

I do not accept laziness as an excuse. I've looked things up thousands of times in arguments against a theist. I've never once declined to do so with the flimsy excuse that I've done it too many times already.

Did you understand my last post? i did not attempt to disparage Rook personally. Now I did not imply that i am not responsible for my own knowledge I implied that there is not likely to be anything here that will add to it. Having examined the link offered i have found nothing comparing the teachings of paul to Christ. I saw some well known actual numerical discrepencies  and some fairly weak attempts at "Conceptual contradictions".  As far as the latter is concerned this is the level of scriptural prowess that i expected to find here. I was actually interested in the Paul/Jesus discussion not this other stuff. Yet i know that you find this other stuff quite entertaining and profound so i'll tell you what i'll do.  As a token of my good will I will either (a) choose 10 of the "conceptual contradictions" sited by this man Rook to refute or (b) allow you to choose 10 of the "conceptual contradictions" for me to refute. You just tel me which you want me to address. Wow, how did this discussion even get here? i thought we were supposed to be talking about the import of Morality.

*shrug*

I simply criticized you for making others look things up for you. I already mentioned I know little to nothing of scripture. I stick to science.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cocky Christian i
Theist
Cocky Christian i's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
AModestProposal

AModestProposal wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
sharky wrote:
"...but this page has some solid stuff on it.
Yep, it's packed full of baloney. Lets take one example: "Dawkins conveniently leaves out of the discussion the fact that atheists (who are not religious) have killed far more people than all "religious" conflicts combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. And, since atheist-led states were largely unheard of before the 20th century, atheists have just begun to get in on the killing rampage." We have discussed this issue many times here and theists keep making the same error on this issue. These Communist leaders killed in the name of political goals not atheism. Contrast this with the religious leaders that have killed in the name of their god.
sharky wrote:
"...lets face it, this forum is made up of 90% atheists."
And you were expecting what? Rational Theists?
sharky wrote:
"...and maybe it would be good to check out areas of the web which look at religion from a different perspective..."
Don't you realize that most of us here came from a religious background. We know about religion(s) from the inside.

I believe Dawkins has responded to this. He stated that while Hitler, et al did not use god, per se, to justify their acts and they may very well have not been religious at all, they adopted a similar dogmatic approach to that of religious dogma, based on stereotyping the enemy, notions of impurity (such as arguing that so and so is not a "true Christian), and irrationality , among other things, which suggests their approach had more in common with religous fundamentalists than with rational non-theists. That's not to say that individual Atheists aren't as capable as anyone else of commiting evil, or that theists are necessarily prone to commit evil, only that these actions stem from the irrational, and not so much from the rational. 

Well as we know atheistic communists indulged in the  same "stereotyping of enemies". This is simply a part of any intolerant POLITICAL perspective. As for the "irrationality"  of this regime being inconsistent with "rational" theism I will respond in this way. Hitler did not see himself as irrational. It is as if I responded that Hitler's actions were inconsistent with "scriptural" Christianity. Once we start adding adjectives that reflect the way we NOW understand things we can excuse all systems of thought or spirituality.  Now if your point (or Dawkins point) is that   Hitler did not even see his own world view as  rationally based i would have to disagree. Infact the nazi's employed "science" or i should say "scientism" to justify their race ideology.  Science in itself (accurate or not) can never be evil,  but "scientism" , the philosophy  which supposes that it can somehow build societies and moralities upon some "scientific ideal" is not science (and this is a doctrine extremely common amongst atheists and probably constitutes what you mean by rational atheism).  Now nazism advanced the notion  of the master race supplanting all others in a survival of the fittest Darwinian type of scenario.  Hitler was influenced by a book called Human Heredity written by Erwin Bauer, Eugene Fischer, and fritz lentz which argued from a clearly  Darwinian position that certain races were superior to others. Hitler  called the work scientific proof of the superiority of the aryan or nordic race. This was a part of nazi propaganda.  In general however I believe that  the contours of  this particular ideology (Nazi ideology) resist any attempt to neatly compress them into any  category.  The regime was simply evil period.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Are you fucking twits

Are you guys actually arguing over what the greatest monsters of all time believed? How, exactly, does it matter concerning the actual truth of the question at hand? Is Scientology more viable because Tom Cruise supports it?

Oh, Hitler did and said such and such and may or may not have been this, so I raise you an Eric Rudolph or a Constantine or a Spanish Inquisition or witch trial and we can all deny to the bitter end that so and so had anything to do with what we believe.

Who gives a crap what such monsters with power do or what justifications they use for their atrocities? It's the sheep who fall in line and carry out their sadistic whims who are the the real monsters. We cannot shame any creed or ideology in such a case, the whole human race is guilty. Propaganda and fear make fools and murderers of us all - it really doesn't matter who or what sells it.

It's ultimately poor logic and poor argumentation, and I think deep down we all know that.

If Hitler was an atheist, it relfects in no way on the tennets or morallity of atheism - same goes if he were a Christian (I don't think he cared one way or the other, but he certainly was not above exploiting belief when it suited him). Ultimately belief or lack thereof had little to do with the mania or agenda this monster got people to carry out in lock step; dogma, desperation, lust for power and propaganda did.

*Editted to remove the "dirty" words as this is posted in the "kindness forum".

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I agree YN5.  I'm not

I agree YN5.  I'm not Stalin and most Christians I know are not Bush.


Vengeance666
Vengeance666's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
AWESOME BOOK!

AWESOME BOOK!


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Cocky Christian i

Cocky Christian i wrote:

My friends in general, Atheism is antithetical to the very notion of rights and therefore Democracy. There can be no absolute self subsistent rights in the absence of God and without them, we have leninist and Stalinist Russia. This is why this doctrine is so dangerous.

 

Or, you get Japan.  I'm not providing a link for this because I honestly don't feel I need to.  It's incredibly well-known that Japan's violent crime rate is beyond low; far lower than any Christian nation's.  How do you account for this, given the fact that most Japanese are Buddhists(aka; atheistic)?


uberdonkey5 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
response to dawkins

I am a scientist who works in ecology (and thus, like a large area of science, uses the theory of evolution on a daily basis to uncover new relationships between species and their environment). I absolutely agree with the modern theory of evolution. I am neither an atheist nor theist, nor agnostic*. I have been extremely annoyed that Dawkins won a 'science communication' award since there are far better writers on evolution (e.g. Matt Ridley) whom do not have an ulterior objective.

Specifically, Dawkins has anthropomorphised the gene i.e. the 'selfish' gene, as if it has some 'desire'. Saying that a gene or individual is 'succesful' in a broad sense is wrong. A person can be 'succesful' at reproducing. But also a nun could be 'succesful' at being celibate. A chemist never talks about the 'selfish oxygen atom' that binds with carbon when you burn it. I think science has been distorted by Dawkins words and though I have sympathies for his feelings that religion gets much undue credit in society,he is 'irrationaly' blaming a belief in god on socieities problems. Ironically, religion is part of our evolution (though possibly for kin selection). Religious practices predate writing, and even elephants have been observed to bury their dead.

 

*I'm a taoist, and believe that a fundamental problem in theistic discussions is the definitions we use, as well as the problem of trying to understand a universe in which we are limited by our own logic and evolved brains. I think it is inevitable that we will never see reality as it is, though we can use science to help us achieve things. Everything we consider is a 'model' of reality.. science and religion, and these are thoughts, not reality. Besides this, existentialist philosophers would tend to say also that, since thoughts are just thoughts and not reality, what matters is our actions. CAN we build a space rocket with science? CAN we become better or more satisfied human beings with religion? Dawkins argues philosophical problems from a very limited and basic perspective.

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:Randalllord,

sharky wrote:
Randalllord, didn't Hitler persecute the Jews in the name of God? Most people would agree that wasn't a true Christian. Most people who kill in the name of God have political motives, not spiritual motives (Yes, I know you're going to mention Suicide bombers).

 

Is Jesus a true Christian?  If the Bible is true, and the prophesies in it will actually take place, without fail, then Jesus is the biggest mass murderer the Universe has ever seen.  Worse than Moses or Samson.

 

And, he will be killing in the name of God for spiritual motives.

 

How do you reconcile this?

 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov