What is "real" Christianity?

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
What is "real" Christianity?

I would like to know once and for all precisely what "judeo-christian" means. The phrase "judeo-christian values" is bandied about ever and anon, with such implied objectivity, that one presumes to end (and win) any discussion by merely mentioning it. Yet when I examine the phrase, it is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus). Why are they then cobbled together in this catch-phrase? Because they share a common tradition? Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition. Would george bush sound less credible should he say "judeo-christian-islamic"? judaism and islam are in agreement that jesus was not divine. christianity and islam are in agreement that jesus was a man of god. So how do we settle on "judeo-christian"?

Examining further, we see that judaism and christianity are decidedly heterodox. There are orthodox jews, conservative jews, reform jews, hasidic. There are jews who believe the book of genesis is historical, and that Israel is ordained by divine right. Yet there are also gay and atheist synagogues.

"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.

So what is "judeo-", what is "christian", and what is "judeo-christian". I simply feel that when one uses the phrase, one seeks to tap the support of all to whom that phrase applies, which cuts fairly wide in its scope. If we define the particulars, and settle on what exactly values the phrase indicates, the scope of that phrase might shrink drastically. We would at least have greater clarity in our discussions and that would be a good thing.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: This

razorphreak wrote:

This going back and forth will not bring us to any kind of agreement. My point has been that Paul's writtings would have been the result of the message of Jesus.

Well obviously...not until you stop believing in jesus.  I can hardly wait.

My point has been (and still is) that if jesus existed and the events detailed in the gospels occurred (caesar's census, earthquakes, you know the rest), there ought to have been some record of it made at the time, and it ought to have found mention in paul's letters.  It ought not to have taken 40 years to resurface in the gospels.

razorphreak wrote:
Of course it seems you've simply dismissed that because you'd rather argue dates.

As long as we're talking about historical accuracy, yes we have to argue dates.  And as long as we're talking about god, you'd think it would be a little more obvious than this. 

razorphreak wrote:
 

zarathustra wrote:
...many of those thoughts attributed to jesus can be found in other writings (with different wording, of course). Mouse has been courteous enough to provide some examples...

I'm having to research those since he gave no locations to where those are actually written. I'm coming back to those.

See that you do.

razorphreak wrote:
 

 

zarathustra wrote:
Do not baptists, catholics, methodists, lutherans and nazarenes all disagree with one another?

Over what? Jesus? NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

YESSSSSSSS.  Some "christians" think you can turn bread and wine into little bits of jesus and consume him.  Other "christians" think this is simply symbolic. Some "christians" take the bible literally, and therefore literally consider jesus "the second adam".  Some "christians" (such as Gene Robinson) think jesus loves homosexuals.  Some "christians" (such as Fred Phelps" think jesus hates homosexuals.  

razorphreak wrote:

The divisions are being caused more and more because of dogmatic practices, not Jesus. That remains the one thing that keeps them all together.

One has to wonder what the point of believing in jesus is, when all these divisions result.

razorphreak wrote:

OK. If God put you on this Earth for the purpose of, oh I don't know, causing the holocaust, would God present that person with the truth if the holocaust was going to serve the purpose of bringing his people back to Israel? I know you could say that as God he could have just said "poof" and had it done, but since we don't know his reasoning behind what he does, say he did it because though his actions the world would unite for the formation of Israel and expose the Islamic faith as peaceful or violent (I'm making a guess statement of course).

 If you are implying that god orchestrated the holocaust (or at least put hitler on this Earth for some higher purpose), I ask that you make a thread addressing that.  It would certainly be interesting, yet is quite off the topic of this one.  My two cents however, is that I would much rather god had just said "poof" rather than permitting the extinction of 11 million people (5 million of which were not jews, with no stake in Israel).  I imagine the majority of the jews thus expensed would have preferred that option as well.

And I didn't realize jews were still "his people".  I thought jesus changed the membership rules so everyone could join.   

razorphreak wrote:
Anyway my point is God can do this for his will. The other two I'm sure you understood...I think.

Not really.  This still makes us look like mere pawns in a game that god is playing with himself.  Not sure where (or even if) free will comes into play here, but I'm not really digging this setup. 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Well

zarathustra wrote:
Well obviously...not until you stop believing in jesus. I can hardly wait.

No can do.  I got it from the source so how can I stop believing if I got it from the horse's mouth so to speak... 

zarathustra wrote:
It ought not to have taken 40 years to resurface in the gospels.

How long before real written accounts of what really happened in Nazi Germany occured?  10, maybe 15 years?  And that's with more modern equipment.  My point is you are thinking that they BEGAN 40 years after his death and that simply is not realistic.

zarathustra wrote:
YESSSSSSSS. Some "christians" think you can turn bread and wine into little bits of jesus and consume him. Other "christians" think this is simply symbolic. Some "christians" take the bible literally, and therefore literally consider jesus "the second adam". Some "christians" (such as Gene Robinson) think jesus loves homosexuals. Some "christians" (such as Fred Phelps" think jesus hates homosexuals.

Again you are talking semantics.  All Christians believe that Jesus died and rose for our salvation.  Those that do not accept that concept are not Christians.  Mormons do not.  JW's do not.  Followers of Islam do not.  Please help me understand what about this you do not understand.

zarathustra wrote:
If you are implying that god orchestrated the holocaust (or at least put hitler on this Earth for some higher purpose), I ask that you make a thread addressing that. It would certainly be interesting, yet is quite off the topic of this one. My two cents however, is that I would much rather god had just said "poof" rather than permitting the extinction of 11 million people (5 million of which were not jews, with no stake in Israel). I imagine the majority of the jews thus expensed would have preferred that option as well.

I'm not implying anything.  I don't know who has been on this earth to fulfill God's purpose so based on that I cannot condemn anyone to hell either.  I think I've covered this before when I spoke of Romans 9... 

zarathustra wrote:
And I didn't realize jews were still "his people". I thought jesus changed the membership rules so everyone could join.

Jews are still the chosen people.  God's word was made available to the Gentiles (the rest) because of the rejection of Jesus.  But there is only a certain number of Gentiles that will be accepted before the Jews will do an about face. 

zarathustra wrote:
Not really. This still makes us look like mere pawns in a game that god is playing with himself. Not sure where (or even if) free will comes into play here, but I'm not really digging this setup.

So what is it that you don't understand? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

wrong thread. Eye-wink


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: No can

razorphreak wrote:

No can do. I got it from the source so how can I stop believing if I got it from the horse's mouth so to speak...

I used to say that, although I did stop short of calling jesus a horse. 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
It ought not to have taken 40 years to resurface in the gospels.

How long before real written accounts of what really happened in Nazi Germany occured? 10, maybe 15 years?

How so?

razorphreak wrote:
My point is you are thinking that they BEGAN 40 years after his death and that simply is not realistic.
It is simply not realistic that nothing outside the gospels corroborates what would qualify as major historical events.  It is simply not realistic that Paul knew about the pre-crucifixion life of jesus as detailed in the gospels, yet made nary a reference to any of those details in any of his letters.  

 It is simply not realistic to believe that a man died and rose from the dead.  For that to be realistic, we need a little more than what we have to go on.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
YESSSSSSSS. Some "christians" think you can turn bread and wine into little bits of jesus and consume him. Other "christians" think this is simply symbolic. Some "christians" take the bible literally, and therefore literally consider jesus "the second adam". Some "christians" (such as Gene Robinson) think jesus loves homosexuals. Some "christians" (such as Fred Phelps" think jesus hates homosexuals.

Again you are talking semantics. All Christians believe that Jesus died and rose for our salvation. Those that do not accept that concept are not Christians. Mormons do not. JW's do not. Followers of Islam do not. Please help me understand what about this you do not understand.

I am not talking semantics.  Is the eucharist true according to jesus?  Does jesus hate homosexuals?  Does jesus believe in capital punishment?  Does jesus support the war in Iraq? If "christians" cannot come to agreement on any of these practical matters, what is the point of believing in jesus?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If you are implying that god orchestrated the holocaust (or at least put hitler on this Earth for some higher purpose)...

I'm not implying anything. I don't know who has been on this earth to fulfill God's purpose so based on that I cannot condemn anyone to hell either. I think I've covered this before when I spoke of Romans 9...

It appears you are at least implying the possibility that hitler could have been carrying out god's instructions, rather than ordering genocide of his own volition.

razorphreak wrote:

Jews are still the chosen people. God's word was made available to the Gentiles (the rest) because of the rejection of Jesus. But there is only a certain number of Gentiles that will be accepted before the Jews will do an about face.

 So I'm still playing with a handicap because of my ethnicity. Not interested.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Not really. This still makes us look like mere pawns in a game that god is playing with himself. Not sure where (or even if) free will comes into play here, but I'm not really digging this setup.

So what is it that you don't understand?

According to you, god and satan are playing with our minds.  At any moment, we could be receiving truth, or being deceived.  The matrix is real...

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
How long before real written accounts of what really happened in Nazi Germany occured? 10, maybe 15 years?

How so?

Let's see. How long did it take to discover Hitler's true reign of destruction? How long before we knew exactly what happened at Auschwitz (many of the references weren't written until the starting of the 60's - 20 years after)? My point is it takes time to write these things; they don't just get written by a thought.

zarathustra wrote:
It is simply not realistic that nothing outside the gospels corroborates what would qualify as major historical events. It is simply not realistic that Paul knew about the pre-crucifixion life of jesus as detailed in the gospels, yet made nary a reference to any of those details in any of his letters.

You know it dawned on me, I don't know why you are harping on the details as to what Jesus did vs. Jesus' message. To discount what?

zarathustra wrote:
I am not talking semantics. Is the eucharist true according to jesus? Does jesus hate homosexuals? Does jesus believe in capital punishment? Does jesus support the war in Iraq? If "christians" cannot come to agreement on any of these practical matters, what is the point of believing in jesus?

Yes, you are. The Eucharist is considered a celebration and recognition of Jesus' last meal with the disciples. It is NOT a tradition that Jesus created, only man did. The purpose of this celebration is fellowship which is what Jesus expressed on the last supper.

Homosexuality, capital punishment, the war in Iraq, none of these issues have to deal with what Jesus is in terms of faith. You know as well as I do to a gay person Jesus would accept him and reveal that the person's way of life is wrong and to sin no more, to the idea of capital punishment, Jesus would have preached forgiveness but at the same time understood that the laws of the state are that of the state and every person should respect those laws, and to the war in Iraq, how can war be justified upon a lie?

zarathustra wrote:
It appears you are at least implying the possibility that hitler could have been carrying out god's instructions, rather than ordering genocide of his own volition.

If he had or not, my point goes back to not condemning based upon their actions on Earth.

zarathustra wrote:
So I'm still playing with a handicap because of my ethnicity. Not interested.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity.

zarathustra wrote:
According to you, god and satan are playing with our minds. At any moment, we could be receiving truth, or being deceived. The matrix is real...

Then take the red pill and I'll show you how far the rabbit hole goes.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It's just a shame that the

It's just a shame that the only pills you're offering are blue.

 Does this always happen when one trades reason for faith?

"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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Let's

razorphreak wrote:

Let's see. How long did it take to discover Hitler's true reign of destruction? How long before we knew exactly what happened at Auschwitz (many of the references weren't written until the starting of the 60's - 20 years after)? My point is it takes time to write these things; they don't just get written by a thought.

Surely you are not implying there is no contemporary reference to the Nazi war machine, or the atrocities it executed. Surely you accept that there are dated references to the Nazis' rise to power, Chamberlain's hopeless "Peace in Our Time" speech, the invasions of the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia and Poland, Britain and France's declaration of war. Scholars no less reputable than the 3 Stooges knew of the Nazi atrocities as they were occurring. Perhaps you are claiming that researched accounts of WWII events were not written until 20 years after, and perhaps you are claiming the gospels are counterpart to such. Yet multiple, contemporary records (from the '30s & '40s) exist of the monumental events to corroborate the claims made in accounts written 20 years later. No such contemporary records (from the years 0 to 33) have been found to corroborate the claims made in the gospels written 40 years afterwards.

You're welcome to continue arguing for gospel historicity, but this Auschwitz strategy really isn't working.

razorphreak wrote:
You know it dawned on me, I don't know why you are harping on the details as to what Jesus did vs. Jesus' message. To discount what?

Primarily, the need to believe in jesus at all. Secondarily, whether there is any worth in the message itself, without the adumbration of ceremony and worship attached to the messenger.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
I am not talking semantics...

Yes, you are. The Eucharist is considered a celebration and recognition of Jesus' last meal with the disciples. It is NOT a tradition that Jesus created, only man did. The purpose of this celebration is fellowship which is what Jesus expressed on the last supper.

As said before, catholic christians disagree with you. They believe jesus is something you can chew and swallow. You therefore disagree on what jesus is. This is not a disagreement on semantics; it is a disagreement over central doctrine.

razorphreak wrote:
...You know as well as I do to a gay person Jesus would accept him and reveal that the person's way of life is wrong and to sin no more,...

As said before, the governing body of episcopalian christians disagree with you. By vote, practicing homosexual Gene Robinson was permitted to serve as a bishop. This is not a disagreement on semantics; it is a disagreement over morality.

razorphreak wrote:
...and to the war in Iraq, how can war be justified upon a lie?

Westboro Baptist christian Fred Phelps believes god induced bush to start the iraq war in order to incur punishment on America. This is certainly not a disagreement over semantics. You at least agree with Phelps in the belief that god toggles with people's minds in order to fulfill his plans.

razorphreak wrote:

Then take the red pill and I'll show you how far the rabbit hole goes.

I suppose that's somewhere in the gospels?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Surely you are not implying there is no contemporary reference to the Nazi war machine, or the atrocities it executed.

There are many opinion papers but few with pictures or facts. Those were still gathering research and being written. None the less my point has been that while you are looking for something that was written exactly at the time of the event of Jesus those writtings most likely existed and were then used to compile into the gospels.

zarathustra wrote:
Primarily, the need to believe in jesus at all. Secondarily, whether there is any worth in the message itself, without the adumbration of ceremony and worship attached to the messenger.

Organized religions have done more harm than good in the public eye however where their success comes from is the fellowship within the crowds. Even the mega churches promote this (granted it takes more than just meeting in a building to call it fellowship but you get the point). The belief in Jesus is what it's all about...salvation, truth, understanding, all come with the faith.

zarathustra wrote:
As said before, catholic christians disagree with you. They believe jesus is something you can chew and swallow. You therefore disagree on what jesus is. This is not a disagreement on semantics; it is a disagreement over central doctrine.

Tradition that does not change who Jesus was, what his message was, and why he died. This tradition is a way to show faith and to renew one's spirit. Others do do this as well but as a representation of what it means. Not any one of these however change who jesus was. Wanna try again?

zarathustra wrote:
the governing body of episcopalian christians disagree with you. By vote, practicing homosexual Gene Robinson was permitted to serve as a bishop. This is not a disagreement on semantics; it is a disagreement over morality.

Ah yes. Episcopalians are about the most liberal when it comes to God's word and unfortunately are changing it for the worst. However they are not changing Jesus or his message or what his purpose was.

zarathustra wrote:
razorphreak wrote:

Then take the red pill and I'll show you how far the rabbit hole goes.

I suppose that's somewhere in the gospels?

Man I thought that was really a clever response and you'd get a kick outta it. Oh well...so much for appealing to a sense of humor...

To your question...actually....

Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razor wrote: "To your

razor wrote:

"To your question...actually....

Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

So what do you say to those who followed that verse and found that God didn't do anything that his boy said he would do?

We came to the realization that we did the giving, finding and door-opening ourselves.

Can you give me an answer without the No true Scotsman fallacy? 

 

 

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So what do

jcgadfly wrote:
So what do you say to those who followed that verse and found that God didn't do anything that his boy said he would do?

It wasn't God's will for you to receive what it was you were asking or seeking. 

jcgadfly wrote:
Can you give me an answer without the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Already did. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So what do you say to those who followed that verse and found that God didn't do anything that his boy said he would do?

It wasn't God's will for you to receive what it was you were asking or seeking.

jcgadfly wrote:
Can you give me an answer without the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Already did.

So what do you do with 2 Peter 2:9 if you believe that it's God's will whether people believe or not?

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So what do

jcgadfly wrote:
So what do you do with 2 Peter 2:9 if you believe that it's God's will whether people believe or not? "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

It's actually 2 Peter 3:9.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking about this verse.  It simply states that everything that God does is done when it's his will for it to be done.  Nothing happens until the right time and it's very well possible that everyone will receive God's word.  What people do with the word however is another story... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It wasn't God's will for

It wasn't God's will for you to receive what it was you were asking or seeking.

If a rule doesn't fair better than fifty percent, at what point does it cease to be a rule?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Organized religions have done more harm than good in the public eye...

Quite so.

razorphreak wrote:
...however where their success comes from is the fellowship within the crowds. Even the mega churches promote this (granted it takes more than just meeting in a building to call it fellowship but you get the point).

Then you surely see the inherent problem. Fellowship is diminished by the plethora of denominations. The potential for dogmatic diversity directly inhibits fellowship. Wars have been fought and governments overturned due to sectarian differences -- despite the enduring belief in the same jesus as you say.

razorphreak wrote:
The belief in Jesus is what it's all about...salvation, truth, understanding, all come with the faith.

I'm sure you know what's coming. If that's what it's all about, there would be one church with one truth and one understanding. You also mention salvation. Although you claim that belief in jesus is the same across the board, I'd thank you to realize that the notion of salvation is just as heterodoxical. In the catholic church, forgiveness is offered as a sacrament. Calvinists believe you are predestined for salvation or damnation. Pentecostals believe you cannot lose your salvation after you have received it. Jesus is not a rug you can just sweep these differences under.

razorphreak wrote:
Tradition that does not change who Jesus was, what his message was, and why he died.

Of course not. The problem is noone really knows who jesus was (or even if he was). The jesus concept handed down to us (and itself irreconcilably nebulous) was formulated -- as already said -- in the 4th century. Had other gospels made it into the canon, our concept of who jesus was and why he died would be different. As it is, the writers of the canonical gospels were themselves not in agreement -- observe the inconsistencies in the sermon on the mount or jesus' genealogy as to simple but obvious examples.

razorphreak wrote:

Ah yes. Episcopalians are about the most liberal when it comes to God's word and unfortunately are changing it for the worst. However they are not changing Jesus or his message or what his purpose was.

Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

razorphreak wrote:

Man I thought that was really a clever response and you'd get a kick outta it. Oh well...so much for appealing to a sense of humor...

Sorry if I didn't fully acknowledge the humor. I was too caught up in a rigorous discussion about the worship of a fictional character. You know, serious stuff.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

simple theist wrote:

I think you plan on teaching others what the bible says, you really should be able to read Greek and Hebrew.

Quote:
As it presently stands, there are several denominations (a d individual preachers) whose knowledge of scripture is not predicated on a study of the original texts. Are such denominations and preachers therefore inadmissible as "christian", since their understanding of scripture is corrupted? If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?
I'm not sure if this would fix everything and I wouldn't say that they are absolutely non-christian. I don't think the denominations will grow unified. Protestants protested the Catholic Church and after learning they could seperate from the parent chuch whenever they wanted, kept doing so whenever they disagreed over something. I find it strange that the Orthodox Church has never had anyone seperate from it to my knowledge.

Doesn't this continuing separation and inability to unify (even with the linguistic corrective you propose) challenge the credibility of the basic tenets? 

 

simple theist wrote:

I think if revelation played a part in it, there wouldn't need to be any additional study books, and we would never disagree over what scripture means. Joseph Smith had a large revelation that there was additional books that were equal to the Bible (or a good way to get people to follow him). This doesn't mean that God can't reveal what scripture means or that he hasn't. 

By what objective means do we determine if god has revealed?  You seem to have just acknowledged that disagreement over scripture indicates a lack of revelation. 

simple theist wrote:
True Christianity means accepting Jesus as Lord.

 This definition of "true christianity" has been submitted multiple times, and each time, the argument become circular.  The "jesus is lord" rule -- by your own admission -- does not suffice to unify the thousands of different denominations. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So what do you do with 2 Peter 2:9 if you believe that it's God's will whether people believe or not? "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

It's actually 2 Peter 3:9.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking about this verse. It simply states that everything that God does is done when it's his will for it to be done. Nothing happens until the right time and it's very well possible that everyone will receive God's word. What people do with the word however is another story...

Thanks for the correction. Thanks again for not looking at the entire verse.

Nevertheless, the verse doesn't say it's possible for everyone to receive God's word. It says that God wants (it's his will) that no one perish but that all should come to repentance). That blows your "God must not have wanted you to understand his Word" or "God didn't will what you were seeking (in my case, that was to repent and know more of God)" completely away.

This doesn't include the question of how the God who supposedly has all knowledge and all power having a desire for anything.  

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
If a rule doesn't fair better than fifty percent, at what point does it cease to be a rule?

I don't follow...

zarathustra wrote:
Then you surely see the inherent problem. Fellowship is diminished by the plethora of denominations. The potential for dogmatic diversity directly inhibits fellowship. Wars have been fought and governments overturned due to sectarian differences -- despite the enduring belief in the same jesus as you say.

Oh I agree 110% on that. Jesus died for our sins. OK. Now if you modify that to be Jesus died for our sins and now we must give up meat for 40 days not because we it's in our hearts to do so but because someone told us somewhere that it's what God wants, it's being done for the wrong reasons and dogma strikes again. It is the action that is not necessary to celebrate what Jesus did, this type of example, that causes the splits and creates undue diversity. There are some so encapsulated by it they actually think one dogma is better than the other which is why you tend to see two churches on opposite street corners almost looking at each other with hate. This is not God's will...it's man's stupidity.

zarathustra wrote:
I'm sure you know what's coming. If that's what it's all about, there would be one church with one truth and one understanding. You also mention salvation. Although you claim that belief in jesus is the same across the board, I'd thank you to realize that the notion of salvation is just as heterodoxical. In the catholic church, forgiveness is offered as a sacrament. Calvinists believe you are predestined for salvation or damnation. Pentecostals believe you cannot lose your salvation after you have received it. Jesus is not a rug you can just sweep these differences under.

Oh I know and it's almost the same answer I just gave. From Catholics to Calvinists to Pentecostals each of these dogmatic statements contradicts the bible on various levels and it simply needs to be corrected. Jesus is not the rug but rather the red pen that makes these corrections and restores the unity.

zarathustra wrote:
Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

They are not any less of a person than you would be. Their liberal statements and actions indicate more a desire to stand out rather than be humble, be the least among those who serve God. I honestly don't know why they do it because they don't explain themselves when it's a glaring contradiction to the bible. One can only assume at that point.

zarathustra wrote:
Sorry if I didn't fully acknowledge the humor. I was too caught up in a rigorous discussion about the worship of a fictional character. You know, serious stuff.

Smile...it's only Tuesday.

jcgadfly wrote:
Nevertheless, the verse doesn't say it's possible for everyone to receive God's word. It says that God wants (it's his will) that no one perish but that all should come to repentance). That blows your "God must not have wanted you to understand his Word" or "God didn't will what you were seeking (in my case, that was to repent and know more of God)" completely away.

This doesn't include the question of how the God who supposedly has all knowledge and all power having a desire for anything.

As to how god is "omni" + whatever, no one knows.  It's one of those things we don't comprehend.

God is a loving "father".  If God wants you to know this, he makes sure of it.  If he doesn't, he will not expose the truth to you.  Each person has a purpose to fulfill so if God does not want you to understand, much like he did to the Sanhedren, then he will do so.  If they are doing his will but not understanding, who is to say they will perish?  It is not a good or evil thing though we on Earth may see it as such.  Evil, true evil, is what keeps you from doing God's will.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Razor: As to how god is

Razor:

As to how god is "omni" + whatever, no one knows.  It's one of those things we don't comprehend.

God is a loving "father".  If God wants you to know this, he makes sure of it.  If he doesn't, he will not expose the truth to you.  Each person has a purpose to fulfill so if God does not want you to understand, much like he did to the Sanhedren, then he will do so.  If they are doing his will but not understanding, who is to say they will perish?  It is not a good or evil thing though we on Earth may see it as such.  Evil, true evil, is what keeps you from doing God's will.

First off, as far as the Omnimax God is concerned, you haven't proved that he exists at all - let alone that he's an Omnimax being. Don't take on "how" until you can show that such a being exists. 

Now, to your next paragraph. you directly contradicted the passage from 2 Peter and you just removed freewill from any argument you can make. In your logic, no one can choose to do anything that violates their "purpose to fulfill". You also contradict yourself in your last sentence. You said true evil is what keeps you from doing God's will but God has given you a purpose that you must fulfill.

You've contradicted your Bible - you've contradicted yourself. What's your next trick? 

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: First off,

jcgadfly wrote:
First off, as far as the Omnimax God is concerned, you haven't proved that he exists at all - let alone that he's an Omnimax being. Don't take on "how" until you can show that such a being exists.

Has not been the point of this thread so why you bring it up now...seems to be the easy way out of the discussion.  Don't change the subject...

jcgadfly wrote:
Now, to your next paragraph. you directly contradicted the passage from 2 Peter and you just removed freewill from any argument you can make. In your logic, no one can choose to do anything that violates their "purpose to fulfill". You also contradict yourself in your last sentence. You said true evil is what keeps you from doing God's will but God has given you a purpose that you must fulfill.

At no point does 2 Peter speak of free will, AT ALL.  You've taken 2 Peter 3:9 meaning and twisted it to seem as if it means that we have the ability to say to God, "OK I'm ready" or "Thanks God but no thanks".  We've gone down the argument of what is Free Will already in both this thread if memory serves and a totally separate thread about just free will.  The promise that this verse speaks of is that of salvation, not a prayer.

There is no contradiction to what I said or what I've been saying...seems you were looking or thinking of something else.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
First off, as far as the Omnimax God is concerned, you haven't proved that he exists at all - let alone that he's an Omnimax being. Don't take on "how" until you can show that such a being exists.

Has not been the point of this thread so why you bring it up now...seems to be the easy way out of the discussion. Don't change the subject...

jcgadfly wrote:
Now, to your next paragraph. you directly contradicted the passage from 2 Peter and you just removed freewill from any argument you can make. In your logic, no one can choose to do anything that violates their "purpose to fulfill". You also contradict yourself in your last sentence. You said true evil is what keeps you from doing God's will but God has given you a purpose that you must fulfill.

At no point does 2 Peter speak of free will, AT ALL. You've taken 2 Peter 3:9 meaning and twisted it to seem as if it means that we have the ability to say to God, "OK I'm ready" or "Thanks God but no thanks". We've gone down the argument of what is Free Will already in both this thread if memory serves and a totally separate thread about just free will. The promise that this verse speaks of is that of salvation, not a prayer.

There is no contradiction to what I said or what I've been saying...seems you were looking or thinking of something else.

Somehow I expected you to say that.

1. You say that God's omnimax properties are just something that we'll never understand. That statement is based on the assertion of God's existence - an assertion without evvdience. It is pertinent to the discussion as you haven't explained how a being with the power to have everything still has a desire as stated in 2 Peter.  

 

2. You say that God chooses to reveal or not reveal his saving knowledge as he chooses.

2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants all to come to repentance so that removes the not wanting to reveal saving knowledge option. There's you contradiction of your Scripture

You say that God has given all of us a "purpose to fulfill" that we can't do anything about. That purpose also includes eternal punishment for some if God wills it. 

You have stated in another thread people can choose their sexual orientation. How do you square that with this statement of the God given "purpose to fulfill"? 

 Where do people get choices in any of this?

I'm not altogether surprised that you don't see the contradictions - you're not looking. 

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: That

jcgadfly wrote:
That statement is based on the assertion of God's existence - an assertion without evvdience.

It is not part of this disucssion as it has been from the start what is real Christanity.  I don't care if you don't acknowledge God, believe you have no proof of him or whatever... 

jcgadfly wrote:
You say that God chooses to reveal or not reveal his saving knowledge as he chooses.

2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants all to come to repentance so that removes the not wanting to reveal saving knowledge option. There's you contradiction of your Scripture

Wrong.  To those who have never been called to God to understand in the slightest God's word, how would they know to go to repentance?  You forget, Peter is the disciple to the Jews, the chosen people, and his letters are to the believers, not the Gentiles.  This means that all people that God wants to repent are already called...it has nothing to do with the non-believers.  Because they are already called they know God and can repent before God to receive the promise of salvation.  A person who has never been called, knows nothing of God, how can he or she repent?  They simply will not have the understanding on how to...or the desire.

I forget that you don't take these things into consideration.  Of course they would seem like contradictions to you.  For that I promise I will try to explain (a) the meaning of the letter, (b), the full context of the passage, and (c) where it applies.  I made assumptions of your understanding of what you referenced earlier and for that I can see where you'd be confused. 

jcgadfly wrote:
You say that God has given all of us a "purpose to fulfill" that we can't do anything about. That purpose also includes eternal punishment for some if God wills it.

It does?  God states what can condemn a person but he gives an easy way out, Jesus.  I don't remember ANYTHING in the NT that states his purpose was to condemn someone from the beginning.  It does state however that God can chose how his creations will be, either for a noble and good purpose or for an evil or destructive purpose (Romans 9:21-29

jcgadfly wrote:
You have stated in another thread people can choose their sexual orientation. How do you square that with this statement of the God given "purpose to fulfill"?

It is written that God will not hold onto a heart that hardens against him so if they have ignored God, God will ignore them (Romans 1:21-32).  What their purpose is only God knows but God does not wish evil nor does he give evil for someone to do.  God cannot be against himself so for them to give in to their own desires of the flesh is against God's will.

jcgadfly wrote:
Where do people get choices in any of this?

It's about the will of the flesh vs. the will of the spirit.  We do not control the latter. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't follow... Why does

I don't follow...
Why does "god" need his followers to contrive so many excuses for apparent inconsistencies in "his" deeds and "his" words? If a prophecy doesn't come true, it's not wrong. It will eventually come true, or it already has but it was metaphoric. Or worse, we have to "make it come true." If a lot of people pray for something that doesn't come true, it's not that there isn't a personal "god" who heeds prayers, it's that "he" found a reason that's not only unknown, but unknowable, not to come through. That's the proposition we face when excuses are made for things better called falsehoods.
Say I claim to have an iPod that repels bees. If there are no bees around I say it's working. If a bee flies over to me and lands on my forehead, I claim the right song's not playing, "But the iPod definitely repels bees." I get the "right" song playing, but the bee stings anyway, so I claim it was the wrong iPod.
If every once in a while we received a telegram that explained why the tsunami happened, or a hurricane, or why a child molester was allowed to commit dozens of horrible acts, I could see some reason for all the excuses. But all we have is millennia of exuses.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Why does

magilum wrote:
Why does "god" need his followers to contrive so many excuses for apparent inconsistencies in "his" deeds and "his" words? If a prophecy doesn't come true, it's not wrong. It will eventually come true, or it already has but it was metaphoric. Or worse, we have to "make it come true." If a lot of people pray for something that doesn't come true, it's not that there isn't a personal "god" who heeds prayers, it's that "he" found a reason that's not only unknown, but unknowable, not to come through. That's the proposition we face when excuses are made for things better called falsehoods.

OK I understand now.

I could categorize it under the same explination as to how we grow to understand God same as to how scientists can backtrack all the time and put it under "evolution", saying well we were wrong then but this is why we were wrong, oh we're right now (e.g. the recent dinosaur exibits that are being reworked).  I don't hear anyone calling those excuses.

God does not need his followers to do anything.  We make assumptions based upon what we know from our own personal experiences and based upon what is written in the bible.  People are wrong all the time because we are not God.  All we can do is assume or make an educated guess which seems to be allowed under science but not faith.  Why is that?  We can say yea we knew what God's will was here or there but that doesn't mean we were right or more so that doesn't mean we understood the full meaning.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
That statement is based on the assertion of God's existence - an assertion without evvdience.

It is not part of this disucssion as it has been from the start what is real Christanity. I don't care if you don't acknowledge God, believe you have no proof of him or whatever...

I see. "Real Christianity" doesn't have to have a "real" God as its basis. That's why every "christian" group is allowed to have its own ideas about it

jcgadfly wrote:
You say that God chooses to reveal or not reveal his saving knowledge as he chooses.

2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants all to come to repentance so that removes the not wanting to reveal saving knowledge option. There's you contradiction of your Scripture

razorphreak wrote:
Wrong. To those who have never been called to God to understand in the slightest God's word, how would they know to go to repentance? You forget, Peter is the disciple to the Jews, the chosen people, and his letters are to the believers, not the Gentiles. This means that all people that God wants to repent are already called...it has nothing to do with the non-believers. Because they are already called they know God and can repent before God to receive the promise of salvation. A person who has never been called, knows nothing of God, how can he or she repent? They simply will not have the understanding on how to...or the desire.

So God doesn't really want that no one should perish and that all should come to repentance? You still don't see how that contradicts the Scripture passage? So when your Jesus told the disciples to ""Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Mark 16:15 there were people that God wanted them to skip?

razorphreak wrote:
I forget that you don't take these things into consideration. Of course they would seem like contradictions to you. For that I promise I will try to explain (a) the meaning of the letter, (b), the full context of the passage, and (c) where it applies. I made assumptions of your understanding of what you referenced earlier and for that I can see where you'd be confused.

Save it. If the God who supposedly inspired the writers of the Bible is not able to say clearly what he means, why would I need you to tell me that when God said "does not want that any should perish but that all should come to repentance", he meant "all...excpet for some people that he says aren't supposed to because of their purpose to fulfill".

jcgadfly wrote:
You say that God has given all of us a "purpose to fulfill" that we can't do anything about. That purpose also includes eternal punishment for some if God wills it.

razorphreak wrote:
It does? God states what can condemn a person but he gives an easy way out, Jesus. I don't remember ANYTHING in the NT that states his purpose was to condemn someone from the beginning. It does state however that God can chose how his creations will be, either for a noble and good purpose or for an evil or destructive purpose (Romans 9:21-29)

I didn't say the Bible said that - I said you did. You claim that God purposes some to be evil/destructive and that God also purposes others to refuse salvation /Jesus(condemnation from the beginning). I believe you used the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus as an example.

jcgadfly wrote:
You have stated in another thread people can choose their sexual orientation. How do you square that with this statement of the God given "purpose to fulfill"?

razorphreak wrote:
It is written that God will not hold onto a heart that hardens against him so if they have ignored God, God will ignore them (Romans 1:21-32). What their purpose is only God knows but God does not wish evil nor does he give evil for someone to do. God cannot be against himself so for them to give in to their own desires of the flesh is against God's will.

It is also written that God hardens hearts (remember Pharoah in the Exodus story? or does biblical history go away with Christ on the cross?) You say God does not wish evil but you cite the Romans passage that says God can choose to have his creations used for evil.

jcgadfly wrote:
Where do people get choices in any of this?

razorphreak wrote:
It's about the will of the flesh vs. the will of the spirit. We do not control the latter.

So we have no freewill and aren't free moral agents. I'm glad you agree.

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I see.

jcgadfly wrote:
I see. "Real Christianity" doesn't have to have a "real" God as its basis. That's why every "christian" group is allowed to have its own ideas about it

Oh I believe he's real and so do many more Christians with me.  It's you who doesn't all because you have never received the "proof". 

jcgadfly wrote:
So God doesn't really want that no one should perish and that all should come to repentance? You still don't see how that contradicts the Scripture passage? So when your Jesus told the disciples to ""Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Mark 16:15 there were people that God wanted them to skip?

And did you forget where he also said:

Matthew 10:14-15 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

I really can't believe you are missing the point here..

a. God wants everyone to be saved.  This is why there is God's word for those who are called and the "natural law" written on everyone's hearts.  Everyone knows right from wrong.

b. God calls many but few will be chosen from that mix. The reason...not all who are called will be repentant for what they have done or what they do and will continue to act upon their Earthly/fleshly desires.

c. God creates some to do his will that we question as being evil but while not understandable God's will is done so that humans understand and learn.  The point is we cannot say who is in hell or who isn't in hell based upon who we think they were here on Earth.

d. Those who are never called the bible states they will be judged upon their actions while alive.

jcgadfly wrote:
Save it. If the God who supposedly inspired the writers of the Bible is not able to say clearly what he means, why would I need you to tell me that when God said "does not want that any should perish but that all should come to repentance", he meant "all...excpet for some people that he says aren't supposed to because of their purpose to fulfill".

It's 100% clear.  It's not my fault that you are taking the bible as one book when it is a collection of books and letters, each with an intended audience and each written with a specific context to be understood. 

jcgadfly wrote:
You claim that God purposes some to be evil/destructive and that God also purposes others to refuse salvation /Jesus(condemnation from the beginning). I believe you used the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus as an example.

You misunderstand.  I used the example of the Sanhedrin as God using those men so his will be done so Jesus becomes the atonement for all time.  That DOES NOT MEAN the men of the Sanhedrin were condemned.  You immediately assumed that means those men did not get salvation.  I don't know if they did, I don't know if they didn't.  I keep saying that we are not the judge of men when it comes to their salvation as only God decides this.  Is that not clear?

jcgadfly wrote:
So we have no freewill and aren't free moral agents. I'm glad you agree.

You didn't read.  We have the freedom to our lives on Earth (fleshly desires).  We do not have the ability to seek God.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Where do people get choices in any of this?

It's about the will of the flesh vs. the will of the spirit. We do not control the latter.

so is whether you go to hell determined by the former or the latter?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: so is whether

mouse wrote:
so is whether you go to hell determined by the former or the latter?

Neither.  It's determined by God and God alone but he does give you hints (i.e. the bible), hints like "do this and you'll be ok". 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Neither. It's determined by God and God alone but he does give you hints (i.e. the bible), hints like "do this and you'll be ok".

Hints? That is the best your god can do? Where does that leave people who do not get subtle hints? What does one who is not very perceptive get, screwed? An all loving god who wanted all his creation to be saved could certainly do better than "hints". I am sure you will throw the free will argument out but that has been proven to be invalid. Even if god was apparent people with free will could still choose not to worship him.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Hints? That is

BGH wrote:
Hints? That is the best your god can do? Where does that leave people who do not get subtle hints? What does one who is not very perceptive get, screwed? An all loving god who wanted all his creation to be saved could certainly do better than "hints".

Sometimes I wonder if you guys aren't wound up too tight.  Of course it's more than hints.  I was trying to be simplistic in my tone and in my words. 

The words that God gives for us to read are simply the way to helping discover the truth.  I like how John stated that the truth is the Word of Life, the message in full from Jesus that leads to life eternal (1 John 1:1-4). 

BGH wrote:
I am sure you will throw the free will argument out but that has been proven to be invalid. Even if god was apparent people with free will could still choose not to worship him.

Proven how, because you said so?  Because you have not received God's word, the message, it doesn't make sense to you.  Because you believe you have control, of course you believe that you can choose not to worship.  If God calls your spirit there is nothing you can do with your flesh to stop him.  It has not happened to you so you will say there is no proof but if you were in my shoes, if you were in my friend's shoes, you'd know and you'd understand what proof there is.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I could categorize it under

I could categorize it under the same explination as to how we grow to understand God same as to how scientists can backtrack all the time and put it under “evolution“, saying well we were wrong then but this is why we were wrong, oh we're right now (e.g. the recent dinosaur exibits that are being reworked).  I don't hear anyone calling those excuses.

Science really has been playing a game of catch-up with religious Truth, hasn't it? I mean, sure they can put together all these unproven “laws” and get massive vehicles airborne, or put people on the moon, but it doesn't compare with religious Truth. I mean just look at it, it's capitalized! Let's see scientists do that. Anyway, you've got science backwards. Do research on anything and you'll find that as you progress your work will become more complete, will be corrected, and so on. It, uh, seems to be working so far. It's only religion that places “perfection” at the wrong end of the timeline.

God does not need his followers to do anything.  We make assumptions based upon what we know from our own personal experiences and based upon what is written in the bible.

If assumptions about what “god” wants can be wrong, why not the assumption of “god” itself?

People are wrong all the time because we are not God.

People are wrong a lot of the time because people give a lot of answers. Maybe “god” subscribes to a different approach.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

Or,

“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Proverbs 17:28, KJV

All we can do is assume or make an educated guess which seems to be allowed under science but not faith. Why is that?

I've overestimated you. Go find out what science means because you are profoundly misinformed.

We can say yea we knew what God's will was here or there but that doesn't mean we were right or more so that doesn't mean we understood the full meaning.

And this helps the case for belief how?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Do research

magilum wrote:
Do research on anything and you'll find that as you progress your work will become more complete, will be corrected, and so on. It, uh, seems to be working so far. It's only religion that places “perfection” at the wrong end of the timeline.

Funny, I would have thought the more you actually research ANYTHING, including the word of God, you find where you were wrong and you correct it.  I can say that God will condemn us if we lie but then does it really say that?  I've asked you before why is it that you'll accept the educated guess from science and not the one based upon faith.  More below.. 

magilum wrote:
If assumptions about what “god” wants can be wrong, why not the assumption of “god” itself?

Who's assuming that?  I'm not... 

magilum wrote:
I've overestimated you. Go find out what science means because you are profoundly misinformed.

You can tout specifics at me all day long but they are complex guesses for the most part.  What I'm not understanding is how you can accept some and not others and have no basis to do so other than reject it as being superstition.  Look at your previous statement about the assumption of God...you start off with a rejecting attitude.  If someone told you they saw a giant squid and you'd never seen one, does that mean they don't exist?

magilum wrote:
We can say yea we knew what God's will was here or there but that doesn't mean we were right or more so that doesn't mean we understood the full meaning.

And this helps the case for belief how?

Wrong question.  You should be asking me how does it affect your belief and the answer to that is humility.  People learn not to equate themselves to God and understand to let him "take the wheel" as the song states.  Your question is under the assumption that I'm trying to prove something to you when what I'm doing is explaining what I know to be true.  Read my quote...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Funny, I would have thought

Funny, I would have thought the more you actually research ANYTHING, including the word of God, you find where you were wrong and you correct it.  I can say that God will condemn us if we lie but then does it really say that?  I've asked you before why is it that you'll accept the educated guess from science and not the one based upon faith.  More below.. 

I don't see where you're in disagreement with what I wrote. You're just restating it and putting “god” in as every other word. Remember, you were complaining that scientists don't start out with everything right, and insist on constantly updating their theories based on new evidence.

Who's assuming that?  I'm not... 

Really? Not that “god” exists? That that “god” is as described in a book? That the book is what adherents claim it to be? The validity of various claims in the book? You just said “we” make assumptions about what's written in the bible: I assumed you included yourself, unless you think you're the one reader never forced to interpret anything in it.

You can tout specifics at me all day long but they are complex guesses for the most part.

Scientists work with observable phenomena and testable hypotheses to slowly build an understanding of how the world works. That you're reading this now in the medium that you are is tacit acknowledgment that this approach has at least worked a little bit. What did the authors of religious texts do?

What I'm not understanding is how you can accept some and not others and have no basis to do so other than reject it as being superstition.

Are you too challenged to accept the “assumptions” and “guesses” of the sciences to drive? Fly? Go to the hospital? Reformat your hard drive?

Look at your previous statement about the assumption of God...you start off with a rejecting attitude.

Because I don't subscribe to the tautology of “In order to believe you have to accept.” Give me proof that doesn't start with a dismissal of the need for proof.

If someone told you they saw a giant squid and you'd never seen one, does that mean they don't exist?

Bad example. I have seen giant squid. They're well known and documented. Let's use an example appropriately fictional, like, say... “god.”

Wrong question.  You should be asking me how does it affect your belief and the answer to that is humility.  People learn not to equate themselves to God and understand to let him “take the wheel“ as the song states.  Your question is under the assumption that I'm trying to prove something to you when what I'm doing is explaining what I know to be true.  Read my quote...

I agree that it'd be pointless of me to imagine myself on par with a vague, indeterminate, unproven notion of perfection dreamt up millennia ago by ancient hayseeds. Nice dodge.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
I don't see where you're in disagreement with what I wrote. You're just restating it and putting “god” in as every other word. Remember, you were complaining that scientists don't start out with everything right, and insist on constantly updating their theories based on new evidence.

Ah but the moment I put "God" into the mix, "oh how could you!"

And you don't know how to read, only assume. I didn't say ALL scientists ALWAYS start wrong. As detail specific you are you sure love to miss em too...

magilum wrote:
Scientists work with observable phenomena and testable hypotheses to slowly build an understanding of how the world works. That you're reading this now in the medium that you are is tacit acknowledgment that this approach has at least worked a little bit. What did the authors of religious texts do?

Wrote what they observed...

magilum wrote:
Because I don't subscribe to the tautology of “In order to believe you have to accept.” Give me proof that doesn't start with a dismissal of the need for proof.

And you still aren't listening. You don't have to accept anything to believe, you believe because it is the gift from God. THEN you accept...

magilum wrote:
Bad example. I have seen giant squid. They're well known and documented. Let's use an example appropriately fictional, like, say... “god.”

Knock it off. I don't care if you've seen it or not, as I have as well, I was going for hypothetical scenario....as you tell me, nice dodge.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Ah but the moment I put

Ah but the moment I put “God“ into the mix, “oh how could you!“

Good luck with that characterization.

And you don't know how to read, only assume.

Maybe you just suck at communicating your ideas. That's one thing you'd have in common with your “god.”

I didn't say ALL scientists ALWAYS start wrong. As detail specific you are you sure love to miss em too...

What an interesting distinction about “all” versus “some”... because it is totally irrelevant to the course of this conversation. You suggested a failure by scientists who correct their mistakes rather than being right the first time. As though it were a weakness to recognize new evidence and adjust a theory accordingly. You, as a theist, just say “I know this” and “I know that” and nothing really comes of it, save for a cheapening of the word “know.” The religious proposition of “perfection” being the starting point for anything is contrary to how everything else has been seen to develop. It's an empty idea that exists only nominally. Again, we see man's errors precisely because man does things. Humanity has used creativity and systematic methodology to develop a body of knowledge that's become more refined over time and has produced real effects and benefits. Religion's been picking its seat for the past several millennia.

Wrote what they observed...

You're half right. Somebody wrote something; on that we can agree.

And you still aren't listening. You don't have to accept anything to believe, you believe because it is the gift from God. THEN you accept...

I had it all turned around. You have to believe before accepting because you've made the assumption that a “god” is giving you a “gift.” Worlds apart.

Knock it off. I don't care if you've seen it or not, as I have as well, I was going for hypothetical scenario....as you tell me, nice dodge.

Firstly, tu quoque.

Your “giant squid” scenario could be applied to anything: “god,” orbiting space teapots, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, Joseph Smith's gold plates. Anyone can claim to have seen anything, and nothing can be logically proven not to exist. There are all kinds of ideas even you consider absurd, but they're just as supported as those of which you are convinced. That is to say, not at all. If the criminal justice system placed as little value on evidence or the reliability of witnesses in influencing its actions, as someone arguing for a god of gaps does, we'd have a rehash of the Salem Witch Trials on a weekly basis.

I'm still interested in hearing the New Testament justification for your specific religious selectiveness, and the practical distinction between hating the sin and hating the sinner (especially from a legislative view). You never answered those questions.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Maybe you

magilum wrote:
Maybe you just suck at communicating your ideas. That's one thing you'd have in common with your “god.”

Funny how those who are intent not to listen will be the first to say I don't get it.  I've seen that in a classroom too.

How bout this...after each point I make, I start asking you if you understand it or not, believing it or not.  You tell me what you do or don't understand and I'll try to get deeper into it.  Agreed? 

magilum wrote:
You're half right. Somebody wrote something; on that we can agree.

Ah yes.  Do you say the same thing I wonder to all psychology books?

magilum wrote:
There are all kinds of ideas even you consider absurd, but they're just as supported as those of which you are convinced. That is to say, not at all. If the criminal justice system placed as little value on evidence or the reliability of witnesses in influencing its actions, as someone arguing for a god of gaps does, we'd have a rehash of the Salem Witch Trials on a weekly basis.

Ideas that are perversions of what the truth cannot be held with any kind of support when another point contradicts it.  The problem with "religions" is many times they do this and that's the public image.  There is a message behind faith and it is not religion.  It is that message which matters the most and it is that message which has no contradictions or misinterpretations. 

magilum wrote:
I'm still interested in hearing the New Testament justification for your specific religious selectiveness, and the practical distinction between hating the sin and hating the sinner (especially from a legislative view). You never answered those questions.

What have I not answered that you still do not understand?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Funny how those who are

Funny how those who are intent not to listen will be the first to say I don't get it.  I've seen that in a classroom too.

How bout this...after each point I make, I start asking you if you understand it or not, believing it or not.  You tell me what you do or don't understand and I'll try to get deeper into it.  Agreed? 

You're in no position to be condescending, Bubba. Unlike your curious silences in the “Why is homosexuality still wrong?” thread, I've addressed your questions (idiotic as they have all been). So you can grandstand about imaginary answers you've provided, and imaginary points you think I've missed (does “missed” mean disagreed with and refuted in your book--I mean, what the fuck?).

Ah yes.  Do you say the same thing I wonder to all psychology books?

So the bible is a really, really pulled-it-out-of-my-ass bad attempt at a soft science? No, wait, it makes claims about the natural world that can be easily refuted. It's just bad with everything.

Ideas that are perversions of what the truth cannot be held with any kind of support when another point contradicts it.  The problem with “religions“ is many times they do this and that's the public image.  There is a message behind faith and it is not religion.  It is that message which matters the most and it is that message which has no contradictions or misinterpretations. 

Ah, the “perfect” message now. With no contradictions, yet! You must have a very, very small bible. What is that message, and how is your rejection of many denominations and other interpretations not simply an exercise of preference? How is it not another subjective interpretation of the same bleary-eyed balloon juice?

What denomination are you, anyway?

What have I not answered that you still do not understand?

For anyone reading this thread, here is razorphreak's debate tactic: Argue something; when criticized resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by claiming that anyone who's bad and religious isn't properly religious; amplify non sequiturs like “hate the sin, love the sinner” or “Christianity isn't a religion, it's a way of faith”; paint yourself into a corner and dodge questions; impatiently proclaim that you've answered every question when called on your bullshit. For an example, read through this long thread and see how many questions go unanswered.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: You're in no

magilum wrote:
You're in no position to be condescending, Bubba. Unlike your curious silences in the “Why is homosexuality still wrong?” thread, I've addressed your questions (idiotic as they have all been). So you can grandstand about imaginary answers you've provided, and imaginary points you think I've missed (does “missed” mean disagreed with and refuted in your book--I mean, what the fuck?).

Know when to speak, know when to be quiet, and know when to walk away. 

In that thread, more than once, I stated my position.  I don't know how many more times I can I can say I will not support an action I consider immoral.  Add to that a few that were rearranging my words to sound hateful and bigot-like and I decided I had enough of that conversation.  It was not a discussion but instead a "time to bash the theist" session.

Now in this thread the question was raised what defines Christianity and who's right.  I've explained this.  I gave an answer in accordance to my beliefs and while you may think it "idiotic" (great answer by the way) they are answers none the less.  I'm not exactly sure how you want hear an answer...

magilum wrote:
So the bible is a really, really pulled-it-out-of-my-ass bad attempt at a soft science? No, wait, it makes claims about the natural world that can be easily refuted. It's just bad with everything.

 I'll bite...like what?

magilum wrote:
What is that message, and how is your rejection of many denominations and other interpretations not simply an exercise of preference? How is it not another subjective interpretation of the same bleary-eyed balloon juice?

I want to know something; if I tell you will your retort be "but it's still your interpretation" or something along those lines NO MATTER WHAT I SAY?  If so, I'm damned if I do or if I don't answer your questions so what's the point?

magilum wrote:
What denomination are you, anyway?

None of the above.  I am a follower of Christ Jesus. 

magilum wrote:
For anyone reading this thread, here is razorphreak's debate tactic: Argue something; when criticized resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by claiming that anyone who's bad and religious isn't properly religious; amplify non sequiturs like “hate the sin, love the sinner” or “Christianity isn't a religion, it's a way of faith”; paint yourself into a corner and dodge questions; impatiently proclaim that you've answered every question when called on your bullshit. For an example, read through this long thread and see how many questions go unanswered.

Anyone who's bad and religious isn't properly religious?  Never heard that one before.  Hell I didn't even think that up and that's my "no true scotsman" fallacy?  Ummm...

If a child responded to a question with an incorrect answer, would you call him or her an idiot or would you show him or her why you believe them to be wrong?  You've called me on nothing; seems you'd rather insinuate things about me instead.  My answers are in line with my faith and the teachings from the bible.  When you see them, you retreat to calling it a fallacy or put me under the burden of proof argument instead of attempting to discuss my faith or what I believe.  It cannot be a discussion if you are using a prejudice  against me before one word is uttered (much to what was happening in your thread example).  There are a few who do not do this and you can tell in their writing styles who actually is discussing the topic and not playing "bird of prey" in a thread, just waiting to use the same silly "prove it" or "you're delusional" tag lines.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the answers I've given you, let's do it. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Razor, I'm afraid that

Razor, I'm afraid that after all this time, you are still begging the question.

razorphreak wrote:

It is the action that is not necessary to celebrate what Jesus did, this type of example, that causes the splits and creates undue diversity. There are some so encapsulated by it they actually think one dogma is better than the other which is why you tend to see two churches on opposite street corners almost looking at each other with hate. This is not God's will...it's man's stupidity

Your excuse for the proliferating disagreement among those who worship jesus continues to be dogma. It is an enduring puzzle how with what you define as correct belief (i.e., in jesus), dogmatism can take christianity awry, and in so many different directions. As we see in the epistles, Paul even had to correct the beliefs and practices of early christian communities - which indicates that heterodoxy was a problem even from the outset -- and as history demonstrates, Paul's rebukes seem not to have had any worthwhile corrective effect. You have attributed this heterodoxy in turn to satan's deception, god's deliberate blinding, and now man's stupidity. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

razorphreak wrote:
From Catholics to Calvinists to Pentecostals each of these dogmatic statements contradicts the bible on various levels and it simply needs to be corrected.

So you have said before -- denominations go off track when they stray from the bible. Once again, the question is begged -- for as I have said before, each denomination claims to be reading the bible properly. Take the catholic doctrine of the eucharist, for example. jesus clearly says in the bible "this is my body...this is my blood...", and instructs the apostles to parttake of it. How does the eucharist contradict that biblical passage?

You have said dogma obfuscates the truth. Yet the bible that you have to work with for deciphering the truth represents the dogmatic decisions of church fathers in the 4th century. Dogma was ok then but not now?

As far as certain (or all?) denominations contradicting "the bible on various levels": Since the bible itself is self-contradictory (see the thread in Rook's forum if you haven't already), one would be hard pressed not to contradict the bible when drawing conclusions from it.

razorphreak wrote:
Jesus is not the rug but rather the red pen that makes these corrections and restores the unity.

It would appear the pen has been out of ink for quite some time. And that lump under the rug just keeps getting bigger.

 

In regard to the episcopalian stance on homosexuality:

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

They are not any less of a person than you would be. Their liberal statements and actions indicate more a desire to stand out rather than be humble, be the least among those who serve God. I honestly don't know why they do it because they don't explain themselves when it's a glaring contradiction to the bible. One can only assume at that point.

Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

 

Your all-encompassing explanation is that god reveals the truth to some, and they know it when they receive it. Again, this begs the question, as every believer feels that he has received the truth -- or at the very least thinks that his pastor has. So we are still stuck with determining who has actually received the truth, who is reading the bible properly, and who is a real christian.

If there is no way to determine who has "received the truth", or if you yourself have it as claimed, the discussion really cannot progress.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Razor,

zarathustra wrote:
Razor, I'm afraid that after all this time, you are still begging the question.

And after all this time you still aren't addressing my answer, even if you don't agree. 

zarathustra wrote:
Paul even had to correct the beliefs and practices of early christian communities - which indicates that heterodoxy was a problem even from the outset -- and as history demonstrates, Paul's rebukes seem not to have had any worthwhile corrective effect. You have attributed this heterodoxy in turn to satan's deception, god's deliberate blinding, and now man's stupidity. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

Don't just start jumping to conclusions.  There is a reason why Paul's writings dominate the new testament and why so few churches seem to really get into his works.  Unfortunately the "church" in many cases has become a business which is less about God and Jesus and more about the 10% you owe and making sure we keep your butt in the pew.  There are things that need to be corrected and it does not happen overnight.

zarathustra wrote:
each denomination claims to be reading the bible properly. Take the catholic doctrine of the eucharist, for example. jesus clearly says in the bible "this is my body...this is my blood...", and instructs the apostles to parttake of it. How does the eucharist contradict that biblical passage?

It doesn't but the sacrament that is performed on a weekly basis is done out of routine not sacrifice.  Now this does not mean all Catholics are following the chow line but you can see it on their faces many many times.  The purpose of recognizing the last supper is not about eating a bread wafer or drinking grape juice but what it means and unfortunately that message seems lost.

When I spoke of contradictions, I mean the divisions that are produced because of denominations, how from one believer to another there is animosity over statues, over baptism, over how one should get married.  These are the things that Jesus warned us about and yet here they are.

zarathustra wrote:
Since the bible itself is self-contradictory (see the thread in Rook's forum if you haven't already), one would be hard pressed not to contradict the bible when drawing conclusions from it.

Yes I've seen it and his research is based upon lies.  99% of these contradictions are based upon mistranslations from greek to latin and then to english.  The others are misunderstandings from the culture of our time to that time (such as the concept of slaves) or the misunderstanding of writer's style (such as number discrepancies).  Look hard enough online and you'll see every point is refuted by various Christian web sites.

zarathustra wrote:
Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

If they practice homosexuality, yes.  "Gays for Christ" or other groups are a contradiction to what the bible states and what the Christ himself came for.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

And after all this time you still aren't addressing my answer, even if you don't agree.

I have addressed it, and found it inadequate.

You said that all that matters is belief in jesus and the trinity as based on the NT, and that all further differences are inconsequential. When I pressed you for how one determines if they are reading the NT properly, you at length said that god reveals the truth. This begs the question, as anyone can be claiming to have had the truth revealed to them.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
You have attributed this heterodoxy in turn to satan's deception, god's deliberate blinding, and now man's stupidity. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

Don't just start jumping to conclusions. There is a reason why Paul's writings dominate the new testament and why so few churches seem to really get into his works. Unfortunately the "church" in many cases has become a business which is less about God and Jesus and more about the 10% you owe and making sure we keep your butt in the pew. There are things that need to be corrected and it does not happen overnight.

OK. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
How does the eucharist contradict that biblical passage?

It doesn't but the sacrament that is performed on a weekly basis is done out of routine not sacrifice. Now this does not mean all Catholics are following the chow line but you can see it on their faces many many times. The purpose of recognizing the last supper is not about eating a bread wafer or drinking grape juice but what it means and unfortunately that message seems lost.

That is your reading of the NT, which is different than the catholic reading. How to demonstrate who's reading it correctly? It is not simply a routine; they have an entire doctrine (transubstantiation) devoted to explaining it.

razorphreak wrote:

When I spoke of contradictions, I mean the divisions that are produced because of denominations, how from one believer to another there is animosity over statues, over baptism, over how one should get married. These are the things that Jesus warned us about and yet here they are.

Which is indication enough that belief in jesus is not very effective.

razorphreak wrote:

Yes I've seen it and his [Rook's] research is based upon lies. 99% of these contradictions are based upon mistranslations from greek to latin and then to english. The others are misunderstandings from the culture of our time to that time (such as the concept of slaves) or the misunderstanding of writer's style (such as number discrepancies). Look hard enough online and you'll see every point is refuted by various Christian web sites.

Bring the refutations to this site, please.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Are they therefore less "christian" than you, or less receptive of "god's truth" than you? Perhaps they are not changing jesus or his message -- if in fact either exist. But their liberalism (which you acknowledge) firmly indicates that they interpret a different jesus message than you do.

If they practice homosexuality, yes. "Gays for Christ" or other groups are a contradiction to what the bible states and what the Christ himself came for.

So believing in jesus and the trinity is in fact not enough to designate one a christian. Puzzling though, I don't recall the jesus character making any statements on homosexuality in the gospels.

[edit]

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
You said that all that matters is belief in jesus and the trinity as based on the NT, and that all further differences are inconsequential. When I pressed you for how one determines if they are reading the NT properly, you at length said that god reveals the truth. This begs the question, as anyone can be claiming to have had the truth revealed to them.

Which question...can the guy in Houston or whatever with the "666" on his vest be right? He's the guy who claims to be Jesus, the anti-christ, and whatever...could he be right? Anything is possible...but is it probable. No. Why? It is not within the bounds of the message of the bible.

So what makes what I say right? What if I was to tell you that from the lest to the most dogmatic organized religions, are all right? Even with all their differences, they are all right?

Forgive me if I'm really lacking the words here at this point but my faith, my God, tells me that what I speak is not an re-interpretation but rather a way to resay the message of the bible for today's society. I'm not speaking my own opinions but rather what the bible already says. Even Catholics, the most dogmatic, are correct in the message of the bible. Every Christian believes the same thing. Jesus is the son of God, died, resurrected, and is the savior for us to get into heaven. Mormons do not believe this. JW's don't. That's it; that's THE message of the NT and how the OT is fulfilled. The rest....how to worship. That's where differences are and that's how we as Christians must begin to say "so what" to those differences.

zarathustra wrote:
OK. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

LOL. Yes. Where they no longer believe that Jesus is the way.

zarathustra wrote:
That is your reading of the NT, which is different than the catholic reading. How to demonstrate who's reading it correctly? It is not simply a routine; they have an entire doctrine (transubstantiation) devoted to explaining it.

And their doctrine is how to worship, not why. The why is the same among all Christians.

zarathustra wrote:
Which is indication enough that belief in jesus is not very effective.

It is the how that screws up what people believe is right and wrong. The base of being a Christian is what should unite. Jesus is that base, and through his example how you get baptized, how you celebrate "breaking bread", all that becomes details that everyone can do and it not redefine your faith.

zarathustra wrote:
Bring the refutations to this site, please.

How open are you to those? If I show you where the Greek writing shows that the verse can correct what appears to be a contradiction, where putting things into context corrects flow, and where putting your mind into the society of 2000 years ago helps you understand traditions and meanings, would you accept it?

zarathustra wrote:
So believing in jesus and the trinity is in fact not enough to designate one a christian. Puzzling though, I don't recall the jesus character making any statements on homosexuality in the gospels.

Because he is the fulfillment of the law, the law did not change but rather believing in him accomplishes what following the law did. In the OT law, it is stated it is not natural for two of the same sex to be sexual. Jesus didn't change that. Believing in Jesus has the understanding with it. This is why Paul repeats it.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
When I pressed you for how one determines if they are reading the NT properly, you at length said that god reveals the truth. This begs the question, as anyone can be claiming to have had the truth revealed to them.

Which question...can the guy in Houston or whatever with the "666" on his vest be right? He's the guy who claims to be Jesus, the anti-christ, and whatever...could he be right? Anything is possible...but is it probable. No. Why? It is not within the bounds of the message of the bible.

Again this begs the question. If there is no objective standard for defining "the message of the bible", then one person's claim is as good as the next one's. If, as you implied, this objective standard is revealed from god, then how do we determine who is correct when multiple people claim to have had the truth revealed to them, and their subsequent assertions are mutually incompatible? (Please realize that if you respond by saying their assertions have to be within the "bounds of the message of the bible", the argument has become circular.)

razorphreak wrote:
So what makes what I say right? What if I was to tell you that from the lest to the most dogmatic organized religions, are all right? Even with all their differences, they are all right?

Are you in fact saying that? Why ask "what if"? A quick survey of organized religions would show they cannot all be right. I'm not certain what bearing that has on the particular definition of real christianity.


razorphreak wrote:
Even Catholics, the most dogmatic, are correct in the message of the bible.

And yet we had a protestant reformation. And yet there are christian denominations who hold that the catholic church is the antichrist (we have been through this before).

razorphreak wrote:
Every Christian believes the same thing.

They do not. There is disagreement over predestination, salvation, the eucharist, and biblical literalism (we have been through this before).

razorphreak wrote:

Jesus is the son of God, died, resurrected, and is the savior for us to get into heaven. Mormons do not believe this. JW's don't. That's it; that's THE message of the NT and how the OT is fulfilled. The rest....how to worship. That's where differences are and that's how we as Christians must begin to say "so what" to those differences.

A moral stance on birth control is not how to worship. A moral stance on homosexuality is not how to worship. A stance on whether non-believers is not how to worship. christians are decidedly heterodox on such matters, to name only a few. Yet these matters are not outlined in the " Jesus is the son of God..." creed you just recited.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
OK. Is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a denomination goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

LOL. Yes. Where they no longer believe that Jesus is the way.

Some previous quotes of yours on dogmatism:

Quote:
The divisions are being caused more and more because of dogmatic practices, not Jesus. That remains the one thing that keeps them all together.

Quote:
From Catholics to Calvinists to Pentecostals each of these dogmatic statements contradicts the bible on various levels and it simply needs to be corrected.

Up until now you have claimed "dogmatism" is what causes christianity to split. Now you are saying the differences lie in "how to worship". If in fact you are still holding that dogmatism contradicts the bible (are you?), let's amend the question:

Since true christianity is based on the bible, and dogmatism contradicts the bible, is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a christian denomination (and by christian denomination, we mean one that professes "Jesus is the son of God, died, resurrected, and is the savior for us to get into heaven &quotEye-wink goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Bring the refutations to this site, please.

How open are you to those? If I show you where the Greek writing shows that the verse can correct what appears to be a contradiction, where putting things into context corrects flow, and where putting your mind into the society of 2000 years ago helps you understand traditions and meanings, would you accept it?

I would at the very least be open to reading them. If the refutations are well-researched and hold up to peer criticism (and places no reliance at all on faith for veracity), they should be acceptable. Please post in the biblical forum (either to an appropriate existing thread, or start your own), and send me the link when you do. Thank you!

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
So believing in jesus and the trinity is in fact not enough to designate one a christian. Puzzling though, I don't recall the jesus character making any statements on homosexuality in the gospels.

Because he is the fulfillment of the law, the law did not change but rather believing in him accomplishes what following the law did. In the OT law, it is stated it is not natural for two of the same sex to be sexual. Jesus didn't change that. Believing in Jesus has the understanding with it. This is why Paul repeats it.

I feel debating the "fulfillment" of OT law would go off topic (let me know if you feel otherwise). But I think we are in agreement on this: believing in jesus and the trinity is in fact not enough to designate one a christian. If so, are the episcopals in or out?

 

[edit] 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Again

zarathustra wrote:
Again this begs the question. If there is no objective standard for defining "the message of the bible", then one person's claim is as good as the next one's. If, as you implied, this objective standard is revealed from god, then how do we determine who is correct when multiple people claim to have had the truth revealed to them, and their subsequent assertions are mutually incompatible? (Please realize that if you respond by saying their assertions have to be within the "bounds of the message of the bible", the argument has become circular.)

Well that's why I keep saying the ROOT of the belief is the same.  We all share that...hold that thought...

zarathustra wrote:
Are you in fact saying that? Why ask "what if"? A quick survey of organized religions would show they cannot all be right. I'm not certain what bearing that has on the particular definition of real christianity.

I was asking what if for you and this conversation to see your answer, not that of organized religion.

zarathustra wrote:
And yet we had a protestant reformation. And yet there are christian denominations who hold that the catholic church is the antichrist (we have been through this before).

Again has to deal with how, not why. 

zarathustra wrote:
They do not. There is disagreement over predestination, salvation, the eucharist, and biblical literalism (we have been through this before).

Well what we are talking about now is confusement over what one person reads out of context and what another reads in a different context.  It is not necessarly a bad thing that they don't agree on those things, I actually consider them to be resolved pretty easily. 

zarathustra wrote:
A moral stance on birth control is not how to worship. A moral stance on homosexuality is not how to worship. A stance on whether non-believers is not how to worship. christians are decidedly heterodox on such matters, to name only a few. Yet these matters are not outlined in the " Jesus is the son of God..." creed you just recited.

Actually it is.  The bible states to not waste your seed in a sense (which I think was more of a reference to masturbation) but can be referenced to birth control too.  Does this limit salvation though?  No.  Being that Christians believe homosexuality is a choice not biological, does this limit salvation?  No.  We can keep going but how Christians regard the use of condoms for instance is personal preference, not that of God's word.

zarathustra wrote:
Up until now you have claimed "dogmatism" is what causes christianity to split. Now you are saying the differences lie in "how to worship". If in fact you are still holding that dogmatism contradicts the bible (are you?), let's amend the question:

Since true christianity is based on the bible, and dogmatism contradicts the bible, is there a particular level of dogmatism beyond which a christian denomination (and by christian denomination, we mean one that professes "Jesus is the son of God, died, resurrected, and is the savior for us to get into heaven &quotEye-wink goes from being christian to satanic, or just too stupid to be christian?

Dogma does not alter the profession that Jesus is the messiah.  Dogma will split Christians, sometimes rather nastily too, but it does not alter the core of what Christians believe.  Unfortunately it seems that dogma can (and in some cases does) have people going "stupid".  Then it becomes time for corrections.  Whether or not those corrections will work from keeping someone going completely anti-christian is another story though, but I know this I wouldn't call it satanic as satanism is a whole different story.

zarathustra wrote:
I would at the very least be open to reading them. If the refutations are well-researched and hold up to peer criticism (and places no reliance at all on faith for veracity), they should be acceptable. Please post in the biblical forum (either to an appropriate existing thread, or start your own), and send me the link when you do. Thank you!

So why haven't you accepted the one's that were already posted? 

zarathustra wrote:
I feel debating the "fulfillment" of OT law would go off topic (let me know if you feel otherwise). But I think we are in agreement on this: believing in jesus and the trinity is in fact not enough to designate one a christian. If so, are the episcopals in or out?

Yea that would be a different thread I thinks, though in a way it is a bit related as how a Christian regards the OT law also defines how a Christian worships and lives their life, again based upon the bible. 

Believing in the trinity IS enough.  That is what defines the belief that is known as Christianity.  The Episcopals, Catholics, Baptists, etc. all believe this and that is what can and will bring salvation. 

This is where Mark 3:29 REALLY starts to play a role however as if one believer were to tell another that their system of belief on how they worship will condemn them, that is someone actually forcing someone else out of the belief in Jesus, especially when they know better (which is yet another reason the blasphemy challenge is, well frankly stupid since it seems those who are doing it really don't know any better), this is part the action of the unforgivable sin.  Read Romans 14 and you'll see, especially starting around verse 13, that it is not wise for us to cause others to sin and we must lift up all who believe in Jesus.  Do I agree with everything the Episcopals do?  No but this does not mean I should reject them as being non-Christian.  What it should be for me to do is to lift them up and use the words of Jesus to show them and correct them.

Romans 15:1-4 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
 

zarathustra wrote:
They do not. There is disagreement over predestination, salvation, the eucharist, and biblical literalism (we have been through this before).

Well what we are talking about now is confusement over what one person reads out of context and what another reads in a different context.

As you have previously intimated, "true" christianity is based on a proper reading of the scripture.  If one reads the scripture out of context, don't the conclusions they draw from their reading fail to qualify as "true" christianity?

 

razorphreak wrote:
It is not necessarly a bad thing that they don't agree on those things, I actually consider them to be resolved pretty easily.

 How would such disagreements be a good thing, as far as christianity is concerned?  If such differences are "resolved pretty easily", then why have they not been resolved?  Why, rather, do the disagreements multiply as time goes on?

razorphreak wrote:

So why haven't you accepted the one's that were already posted?

Links please.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


tracifish
Theist
tracifish's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I would

zarathustra wrote:

I would like to know once and for all precisely what "judeo-christian" means. The phrase "judeo-christian values" is bandied about ever and anon, with such implied objectivity, that one presumes to end (and win) any discussion by merely mentioning it. Yet when I examine the phrase, it is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus). Why are they then cobbled together in this catch-phrase? Because they share a common tradition? Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition. Would george bush sound less credible should he say "judeo-christian-islamic"? judaism and islam are in agreement that jesus was not divine. christianity and islam are in agreement that jesus was a man of god. So how do we settle on "judeo-christian"?

Examining further, we see that judaism and christianity are decidedly heterodox. There are orthodox jews, conservative jews, reform jews, hasidic. There are jews who believe the book of genesis is historical, and that Israel is ordained by divine right. Yet there are also gay and atheist synagogues.

"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.

So what is "judeo-", what is "christian", and what is "judeo-christian". I simply feel that when one uses the phrase, one seeks to tap the support of all to whom that phrase applies, which cuts fairly wide in its scope. If we define the particulars, and settle on what exactly values the phrase indicates, the scope of that phrase might shrink drastically. We would at least have greater clarity in our discussions and that would be a good thing.

 

In a way...Christianity is Judaism...the only difference is we are in the dispensation of grace. Jewish people will not agree...and they may actually be offended...since they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah....but one day they will believe. The bible says that God will pour out his Spirit on them, and they will know that Jesus is the Messiah...but for now, they do not.

 

God today is the same God of the old testament. Jesus is the same as He was in the old testament...only now, we know who He is.He is God, the Son. There are alot of hints of Him in the old testament...but Jewish people can't see it (yet) and they have allegorized all the Messianic prophecies to be Israel....which they are...in one sense. Prophecies often have both a physical and allegorical meaning.

 

Judeo values are the ten commandments, basically. We feel connected to the Jews, because God has grafted us in. They are the natural branches...and we are the ingrafted ones. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
tracifish wrote:   In a

tracifish wrote:

 

In a way...Christianity is Judaism...the only difference is we are in the dispensation of grace.

[...] Judeo values are the ten commandments, basically. We feel connected to the Jews, because God has grafted us in. They are the natural branches...and we are the ingrafted ones

I appreciate your response, but I'm afraid you haven't attended to the heterodoxy within both judaism and christianity which I outlined in the introduction (please let me know if I need to clarify this at all).  Without first establishing precisely what judaism and christianity is, it is intractable to assert that christianity is judaism.  

Encapsulating "judeo values" with the ten commandments does not account for the dogmatic differences among the many different jewish and christian denominations.  If the ten commandments were all that was required, we should not expect this continuous sectarian blossoming. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


tracifish
Theist
tracifish's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
tracifish wrote:

 

In a way...Christianity is Judaism...the only difference is we are in the dispensation of grace.

[...] Judeo values are the ten commandments, basically. We feel connected to the Jews, because God has grafted us in. They are the natural branches...and we are the ingrafted ones

I appreciate your response, but I'm afraid you haven't attended to the heterodoxy within both judaism and christianity which I outlined in the introduction (please let me know if I need to clarify this at all). Without first establishing precisely what judaism and christianity is, it is intractable to assert that christianity is judaism.

Encapsulating "judeo values" with the ten commandments does not account for the dogmatic differences among the many different jewish and christian denominations. If the ten commandments were all that was required, we should not expect this continuous sectarian blossoming.

 

Okay...but it will take awhile to answer...and even then, I  will probably get confused. Right now, I'm just way to sleepy...and this is a confusing topic with all schism going on in both Judaism and Christianity....it's a tough question...albeit, a good question.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: If one

zarathustra wrote:
If one reads the scripture out of context, don't the conclusions they draw from their reading fail to qualify as "true" christianity?

i.e. dogma?  I wouldn't call it "fail to qualify" but rather following the wrong example.

zarathustra wrote:
How would such disagreements be a good thing, as far as christianity is concerned? If such differences are "resolved pretty easily", then why have they not been resolved? Why, rather, do the disagreements multiply as time goes on?

Easy.  The disagreements first indicate, at least for the most part, empathy.  With empathy usually comes the desire to listen.  Using the bible, it becomes very easy to resolve the issues.  Now mind you I didn't say bring only one bible, but rather several translations, the greek, the greek to english concordances, and so on.  It's like the Lucifer debate - once you get into the Greek versions, you discover for many many years now, the devil or Satan was NEVER called Lucifer in the bible.

The disagreements seem to multiply because we've got people taking one verse or passage and running with it (like the go out and make nations in my name, some seem to think that's a passage to call Christians to force Christianity where it doesn't belong). 

zarathustra wrote:
Links please.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

You can Google "bible contradictions" and spend all day seeing these everywhere.  These have been around for quite some time and rook's posting was irresponsible for not addressing the answers as well. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Razor, I've not looked at

Razor,

I've not looked at all the links in detail (I will).

What I have seen, however, is a lot of blame placed on "translation error" and a good bit of goalpost moving to make Scripture fit beliefs.

I'll get back to you in detail as time allows. 

"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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I've not

jcgadfly wrote:
I've not looked at all the links in detail (I will).

What I have seen, however, is a lot of blame placed on "translation error" and a good bit of goalpost moving to make Scripture fit beliefs.

I'll get back to you in detail as time allows.

I'm not sure why you call it goal post moving.  Translation errors are valid.  The other explanations are in context to the time the scriptures were written (you cannot actually think of how society exists today and address them in that context) can be debated but not just pushed off to the side because you want them to stick.

I don't want it this thread to go way off into outter space - perhaps it should be readdressed in rook's thread (even though it never was)? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire