Blasphemy Challenge Dissent (all threads combined)
Posted on: March 5, 2007 - 8:25pm
Offline
Blasphemy Challenge Dissent (all threads combined)
A second attempt to get the Blasphemy Challenge dissent working...
edit: It didn't work. Oh well, sucks that all the dissenters couldn't figure out how to follow the board rules and post their concerns in a thread that was already started. The excessive merged topics, broke the thread.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Why do we do it? Here is a link where a Christian's fear and indoctrination is ripped right out of a holy book. Other Christians pull the true scottsman fallacy missing the point THAT IT HAPPENS!
http://forums.go.com/abcnews/Nightline/thread?threadID=526650
We are subhuman according to this person claiming to believe in Jesus. Regardless of how other people wish others would behaive does not re arrange the thoughts in this person's head.
This makes the Bible a weapon. This thread shows the mindset of the zealot and you can see the same hatred and bigotry in the people who slammed planes into buildings.
THAT IS WHY WE DO IT! To get people, if anything, who really want peace, to stop using their holy books as political tools and weapons to justify treating others the way this person would suggest.
Go read my response in that thread. Who is more for freedom? Me? Or this Christian who claims only they should be in charge?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Even if the site was making money, so what? What's wrong with making money? Are you a communist? Did you miss the little mention below the politics forum that many atheists here lean libertarian?
I would only disapprove of making money if there were con artistry or scamming involved, but as this site is dedicated to attacking all manner of credulity (and in particular the biggest offender, theism), it's quite the opposite of what I'd disapprove of.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
Hi Triften,
Even though I’m bummed that your two hours of typing got wiped out, I appreciate you taking the time and thought to respond to my posting. I’ll try to reply a little to each section. I’ll number each section according to each particular block quote of mine to which you responded:
1—What you’ve said here is not explicit on the blasphemechallenge.com main page. Perhaps that should be addressed? Nevertheless, this challenge is akin to calling people to something like a "baptism"; a demonstrative declaration before the public of one’s belief. The impetus of what I’m seeking is: Are you absolutely sure that what you believe is true? Because, if by some remote chance it is not true, and these proclamations do end up amounting to real blasphemy (or something like it), then the stakes are immeasurable. You are dealing with souls, and . . .
2 & 3—Let’s stick with the word "soul" and not even bother now with what it means beyond what we commonly believe about the quality of each individual that gives him or her great worth. (I never mention the soul’s relationship to the whims of any god; you’re tossing me in with your pre-conceived generalizations . . . Let’s talk first!) Whether Platonic, Christian, or naturalist, each individual (as you convey) has immeasurable value. I get a sense that the Blasphemy Challenge, whether intentional or not, is trifling with souls from the outset. At least fundamentalists know to preach a sermon with arguments before making the altar call.
I never said that respect equals going along with anything? And if, for some reason, I’m afraid you’re going to be thrown into a lake of fire, or I’m afraid you’re going to run into a truck, or about to walk off a cliff, I could possibly be delusional, but probably not disrespectful. Also, let’s not worry too much about what one another is thinking, but about what one another is saying.
In response to your 4 worldview points:
-- I suggest replacing a word in 3): "Using abstract thought, we SHOULD treat others as we’d like to be treated." Many people DON’T do this. So where do you come off using your abstract thought that way? Why not use it just to build a better mouse trap, get rich, or just figure out why men have nipples? None of your comments adequately justify morality within a naturalistic worldview. (Even though I’m not denying your own morality.) The jury is still way out on the mind/body problem and what you said about animals.
4—No, Christianity (as one religion) is based on both evidence and faith. There are four gospels, in particular, that present evidence of Jesus as the Christ. Perhaps you just think the evidence is bad or unconvincing, and you’re welcome to say so honestly. (See above about "soul."
. If the BC is about choosing between reason OR faith, it’s an unjustifiably forced dichotomy, and actually even bad science. (Woops, that probably opens up a new can I’ll have to delve into in a subsequent posting!)
5—Let’s think about logic. Aquinas in his Summa, for example, makes logical arguments ad nausea. You could say everyone one of his arguments is weak, faulty, or based on unproven premises, etc. But it would be unobservant to say that he did not make every noble attempt to be logical, thoughtful, and exquisite. My country preacher just gave us 45 minutes of his best logic today. He might later come to me and ask me to clarify where his logic was weak, unfounded, or unconvincing, etc. But being expository in his approach, he wants every main point to be logically and cogently grounded in an authority outside of his own little head. So perhaps you should call your rivals "unconvincing" instead of illogical or irrational.
Your comments about the bane of religious history might give the appearance of a firm deductive conclusion, but I venture to say that they’re really composed of so much one-sided induction that it’s puzzling. If you’re talking here about Christianity, you’re giving a poor representation if you’re just citing the embarrassing acts of "Christendom" without taking into account the ocean of righteous acts committed by obscure followers of Jesus. For every individual theist who has stifled thought and resorted to violence, don’t you think I could name at least two who discovered a cure, took in an orphan, or built a hospital? The tone of the whole RRS project seems to be locked on more abstract universals of religious history with little thought about the particular reality of a religious life. Of course, none of what I’m saying here proves theism to be true, but you have not yet proven it be false. (No time and space yet to discuss how a Christian worldview laid the foundation for modern science to thrive.)
6—Our nation’s governmental history is 200 years of "fair, moderated debate," or at least "fairly moderated debate." And one moment the Christians tell me they are losing, and in another the secularists tell me they are losing. Therefore, we ALL must be losing! No need yet to brush up on logical fallacies. As mentioned, your one-sided picking and choosing within your polemic is itself fallacious. Again, many thinking theists are rational and logical, they just might be wrong. I’ve seen nothing on this site that convinces me they are wrong.
7—Romanian example = Argument from anecdote. Sorry, we Christians invented that with our "personal testimonies." You seem to be proving yourself as a pragmatist, and arguing against you here would serve no purpose (That’s a joke, son!) Seriously, as most theists, I believe in a lot of absolutes. It is absolutely true that abstinence (almost by definition) will stop STDs and unplanned pregnancies. It is also absolutely true that people are not heeding the call of abstinence. Therefore, it is absolutely true that STDs and unplanned pregnancies are rising. So what’s your point? If you can demonstrate a case of abstinence that led to an STD or unplanned pregnancy, I’ll sneak in your name for a Nobel Prize. (And we should all check the drinking water!)
8—I entertain the idea lately of legal partnerships, and believe that certain civil rights must be protected for gays and all sects. However, "marriage" is a fundamentally theological and metaphysical concept, and, as that debate rightly remains in the realm of the theological, I would also assert that any discussion of what we know as "marriage" must always borrow capital from the Judeo-Christian tradition to remain legitimate. It’s a "family argument" among us theists that we work to settle.
9—You’re back to making me a straw man; I’ve never posited an "argument" here of "my god says so."
10—Nope, again, if you will...."Soul" for the sake of this argument = the qualities of an individual that make him or her valuable. Still applies, as it is not necessarily Platonic or religious in nature.
11—From within a Judeo-Christian framework, "prove to me atheism is true" is a rational and warranted challenge. I can see how it could be interpreted as unwarranted from outside of that framework. We must, however, attempt to get inside the framework of opposing belief systems (or "hermeneutical circles"
in order to communicate fairly and effectively. Or else, we each just toss out bombs from within our own little worlds and wonder why nobody pays attention. That amounts to "fundamentalism," that I think this website is guilty of.
12—Conceded. The rail system actually is astounding when you put it that way! Now that you’ve brought out some properties of things that cause astonishment, explain to me the ontological nature of "astonishment" without being circular. Naturalists are trying to do this, and are impressive, just not yet convincing.
Also, it should be understandable why some would say that trains, factories, and computers made by men are astounding; one’s own circulatory system made by bland chance and time is just absurd. Naturalists are having a harder and harder time taking the absurdity out of the latter, and I sense that it’s starting to tick them off. Just me.
13—No intention to say emotions are not useful. They are just not useful all that much in truth-finding. Mind/body philosophy and science has yet to solve whether emotions are merely products of our brains.
14—Not sure how I implied that I speak for all Christians. Actually, I only speak for all Christians with blonde hair who were born in April. Seriously, I’m ill-equipped to speak for anyone but myself, who happens to be a Christian, though many or most of my arguments here should not require one to be a Christian to agree with them. Edwards was just an example of one Christian who understood the grandeur of nature, given as an example of how one’s religion can enhance appreciation of nature. If I can’t convince anyone here that some religious people can love nature through the lens of their theology, then I’ll just stop talking and go play backgammon.
Jonathan Edwards is among the most Google-able of all Christian thinkers, since he wrote exhaustively and his works are public domain. If you’re dead-set on reading the piece I mentioned, I’ll be glad to help you find it online.
Thanks again, Triften, for your response. Of course it would get tedious to continue tic for tac on all of these points, but if there’s one or two main ones you’d like to joust with me on some more, feel free.
Warm regards,
gottheflu (but getting over it)
Hi Brian37,
Forgive me for poor web etiquette and shouting with all caps. I thought that the best way to reply to your points:
I think I can safely answer for them.
How offensive would it be for you to deny pink unicorns or vampires?
I NEVER SAID I WAS OFFENDED. I THINK MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS ALSO "UGLY, PAROCHIAL", AND SPEAKS WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, BUT I’M NOT NECESSARILY OFFENDED BY HIM. I JUST WONDER WHY HE SAYS WHAT HE SAYS.
IF HALF OF THE WORLD HAPPENED TO BELIEVE IN PINK UNICORNS OR VAMPIRES, I WOULD AT LEAST ENTERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY AND CONSIDER THEIR EVIDENCE. BUT SINCE ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY CLAIMED PINK UNICORNS OR VAMPIRES ARE REAL, WE RIGHTLY SHOOT THEM UP WITH MEDICATION AND LOCK THEM AWAY. THEISM, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE, IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE COSMOS, MEANING, AND THE DEEPEST INTUITIONS OF THE HUMAN BEING. PINK UNICORNS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE JUST PLAIN NONSENSE; VAMPIRES, WE ALL KNOW, ARE NOW EXTINCT.
The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is numbers and history of tradition.
The Christians who would be offended probibly wouldnt talk to us anyway. NO, ACTUALLY A LOT OF THEM WOULD. SHOULD I ROUND THEM UP FOR YOU?
But atheists do engauge Christians all the time who DONT take this as personal, nor should they.
If a Christian is offended by this then maybe they should be brave insted of insisting on atheist's silence and debate us. We are not afraid of debate nor should they be.
NEVER WOULD EVEN THINK ABOUT SILENCING AN ATHEIST WITH ANYTHING EXCEPT A WELL-ARGUED APOLOGETIC. (I HOPE SOMEDAY). I’M NOT SAYING "SHUT UP." I’M SAYING "EXPLAIN YOURSELF" IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH SOULS (AND PLEASE DON’T ALSO THINK I MEAN A CHRISTIAN OR PLATONIC VIEW OF SOULS HERE.)
People in general whatever the issue are afraid of things they are unfamilure with. So because they are afraid we should remain silent because it makes them uncomfortable. YES, ASKING THE PUBLIC TO SELL THEIR SOULS MAKES ME A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE. MAYBE IT’S THE FLU MEDICATION IN ME? NO, IT’S JUST THE RESPONSE THE B.C. PEOPLE ARE WANTING, SO I GRANT THE RESPONSE, ALONG WITH WARRANTED DISCUSSION.
Atheists try time after time to ease their fears. We dont barbaque kittens. We dont sacrafice goats or howel at the moon. BUT YOU ASK PEOPLE TO SELL THEIR SOULS (http://blasphemechallenge.com)
Atheists simple see no evidence for a god and dont see a need to believe in one. TAUTOLOGOUS
As "Dangerous Talk" host said last night. There is a war. Not a phyiscal one, nor should either side resort to any forcefull violence. But it IS a war of ideas. I THOUGHT BILL O’REILY SAID THAT! Atheists arnt afraid of taking theists and they should not be afraid of debating us. As the host said last night, "May the best idea win". WHICH IS WHAT I’M SAYING. AND LET ALL BE FAIR, HUMBLE, AND RESPECTFUL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
It is important and both sides would claim that the future of humanity is at stake. So I think not bringing this out in the open and debating it would do a disservice to all of humanity.
If you are worried about people on either side being "thin skinned", then maybe both sides should ask those withing "why"?
Why do they have to be afraid of us, and why should we be afriad of them?
I DON’T KNOW WHO "THEY" ARE, BUT I KNOW WHO "I’ IS, AND I DID NOT MEAN TO INDICATE THAT I AM AFRAID OF YOU. WHETHER I AM OR NOT IS MY OWN PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM.
WHILE YOU’RE BUSY TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN FOR ATHEISM WITH SUCH FUNDAMENTALIST/EVANGELICAL FERVOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEAT ONE BAD IDEA AT A TIME.
THANK YOU, SAPIEN, FOR PROVIDING SUCH A FORUM.
Hi Al,
I never intended to claim, till now, that theism answers these metaphysical questions with complete satisfaction. I just meant that naturalism does not adequately explain them. Many theists offer an answer that might not be true, but it is cogent: that beauty and the good are qualities that abide within the nature of God himself. "Getting a sense" of beauty and the good do not apply to God, as if he were to somehow grow in the experience of them. They are properties that end metaphysically in his own nature. Of course not far removed from Platonic and Neo-platonic ideas.
I would never state that "everything needs a creator or first cause." I would, however, say, that everything within the physical realm of contingency needs a cause. As to whether God needed a cause, or ever needs anything, I’ll have to ask him that tonight when I hear his voice in my head. (Yes, it’s kind of a combination of George Burns and Morgan Freeman.)
Hi again, Deludegod,
Point well taken. I just think most of you guys have an over-simplified view of "Fundys."
And your good line about "understanding" seems to almost be a direct quote of St. Augustine.
I don't think there is any problem in making money as long as like you said there is no scamming involved. If the people donating are aware of what they're giving money too, then it is perfectly fine in my opinion.
Like I know if I give 10% of my paycheck to the RRS, I will receive financial blessings.
(I through the wink in this time so people would know I was being sarcastic...YEAY!)
You faulted naturalism by pointing out that there are things it cannot explain adequately. You then suggest that your supernaturalism does, but as I've pointed out, it does not. The very same metaphysical inquiries such as "why are things this way and not that way" could just as well be asked of the supernatural realm. But more than just failing to answer them, you've added an additional layer of ontology, the defensibility of which is questionable. Very few people would question that there is a thing called the natural world, but the existence of a supernatural world is highly questionable.
So a) you did not solve the metaphysical conundrums you faulted naturalism for, and b) in your failed attempt to do so, you've added an additional, unsupported layer of ontology: the existence of a supernatural realm. How does this advance our understanding of reality in any way? You've taken one problem and created two. Parsimony wins out here, in my view. I'd take naturalism with all its faults than supernaturalism which fails to correct those faults and adds an additional failing.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
"gods" are an attempt to explain the world around us. But when you consider when the concept was first uttured back when humans were ignorant it would be advisable to give up debunked ideas that really dont help humanity in reality.
It is within our species nature to have a sense of control. If we think we know how something works it makes us feel in control. But having that "feeling" is not the same as being right.
"god" as a concept is merely a bad guess knowing what we know now. Filling in the gaps with "god" doesnt do us as a species any good and is quite apt to retard human progress or set us back by clinging to it.
It probibly stems from our species seeing parents as greater than us, in turn the early humans merely projected the earth as being a bigger parent. That ahtropromorphism turned later on into a concept with more human like qualities, then polytheism popped up then onto monotheism.
If you look at the words used in these ancient texts they reflect the days of kings and "obediance to one". That is why Allah/Yahwey/Jesus are mentioned as the one and absolute ruler. But those books were written for those people during that time.
And they do not reflect a culture of pluralism or questioning of authority.
THATS BECAUSE those people back then have a different culture than we do today. Those books were never usefull and "bind" which is what "worship" means, were written to get people to be monocromatic and follow the rulers of that time.
I never said YOU were afraid of me. But far too many Christians are. They would rather silence me than consider the possibility that they are wrong.
Far too many, and again, I am not talking about YOU personally, dont want competition to their religious concepts. They dont want a non-Christian president. They sell lies about how evil we are and how we want to rip the bibles out of their hands and burn down churches.
We are doing this to get the conversation out there so that it can no longer be ignored. If you cannot see what fundementalism of any religion does, you must not turn on your TV that much.
We are doing this to show atheists that they can speak out. We are doing this to show even other labels of other religions that they have been lied to about the nature of OUR Constitution.
We are doing this to take back the word atheist away from those who lie and falsely sell us as goat sacraficers who howl at the moon and froth at the mouth.
We are doing this because we are tired of being marginalized. We also see so much great potintial in the world's population to solve issues of famine, desease and war squandered on issues that should be left outside of government.
We are doing this to free ourselves from the "binds" of tunnel vision. We see a much better way to look at the world rather than using ancient myth.
We know that we cant force anyone to believe anything or give up anything they believe. But we can bring the issue up and make case for ourselves. If we convince you without forcing you we have done nothing to harm you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Not a problem. The reason I come here is to spend time discussing things. If I wanted to just respond with "U R teh stoopid!" there are plenty of other websites to go to.
Hmmm, well, I'm not one of the site admins so perhaps it should be a little more obvious. Then again, I think Sapient's main idea was to get attention. It got some people to come here and ask about it, right?
Pascal's Wager is invalid. There's an equally large chance that what you are doing will get you sent to hell. We have no proof of immortal souls so the stakes aren't immeasurable. On the one hand you have hate, fear, a tenth of your income and a seventh or more of your time, and on the other, you have the freedom to think and choose.
I don't think we _shouldn't_ bother with working out the meaning. Otherwise, our discourse will be meaningless if we are using different definitions.
I see no reason to believe that humans have immortal souls nor that there's a god to offend, so blaspheming means nothing.
Fair enough.
You'll have to prove to me that there is a risk that I'll be thrown in a lake of fire before I heed your warnings.
I meant "we are capable of" to keep it factual. It is my opinion that people should.
My morality is what I think people should do. Your morality is what you think people should do. If we both base those on facts and rational thinking, then, if we conflict, we can sit down and talk about it to reach and agreement.
Actually, there is one gospel written years after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, then three more written afterwards, based on that original. I'd recommend you'd look into some of Rook's postings regarding Jesus mythicism. He's got those ducks in a row.
One can still apply logic to incorrect information. The train of thought would be logical, just incorrect.
I never said that people with religious belief never did any good. I just pointed out that religions are interested in maintaining influence and will protect said influence with force, intimidation, and fear.
The reality is that religion allows people to believe things without evidence. Then, when religious persons use those beliefs to make decisions that affect others, there can be no discussion because "that's what they believe *shrug*."
No, please do. Explain to me how Christianity laid the foundation for modern science.
There can be give and take. However, when a majority with a majority of representation in government claims they are being oppressed, please take it with a grain of salt.
I don't agree that the Romanian example is argument from anecdote. There is a distinct correlation between the civil unrest and the population swelling due to outlawing abortion and contraception.
The point is that the "abstience only" education approach is not working, obviously. Unless the plan is to let people eventually just die of STDs? I never said actual abstinence doesn't prevent those things, jsut that you then end up with ignorant people, who don't know what to do when real life happens. It would be akin to telling a new driver to "not skid", instead of teaching them how to handle their car in a skid. (Admittedly, that's argument by analogy.)
Why must it? Christians didn't invent marriage. People have been marrying each other long before Christianity came along.
I didn't not mean to strawman you, I was arguing against faith (belief without evidence) in general.
If you feel you have evidence, please present it.
If it is not religious in nature, then there is no danger of going to hell.
So it is a warranted challenge, but in order to show it to a believer, we must examine why they believe in god and show that those beliefs are unfounded.
Do you believe in a god? If so, what is that god and what evidence do you have of said god?
Astonishment is subjective. It's that which causes amazment and wonder. What may amaze one person, may not amaze another.
Evolution is not random chance. The circulatory systems we have are the ones that have worked the best for the environments that they developed in. Why should this claim be absurd?
No? I think our emotions, thanks to evolution, can give us valuable information about our environment. Gleaning said information may require some examination after the fact.
I implied your statement about my idea of the Christian worldview being narrow to mean that you had said information. To claim so would, in my mind, be akin to "speaking for all Christians."
I wouldn't argue with your claim about religious people loving nature.
This is about discussion and sharing information, yes? Please point me to the particular piece you mentioned
Joust? I don't think we're even done setting up the lanes.
I'm not the one to argue against the historicity of Jesus, there are others here better suited for that. I wouldn't mind continuing the morality discussion and perhaps some science or Pascal's wager, if you like. All up to you.
-Triften
Spoof of "It's A Wonderfull Life" to follow.....
"Every time an atheist thinks a theists gets their brain back"
Your post reminds me of the Sam Keneson(sp) comedian who was famous in the late 80s,
Talking about the starving children adds on TV.
EDIT: If this post gets deleted please understand I didnt initually see what catigory I was in. It was just ment to be silly and no one should take offense to it. But if it does, then it should be. That will remind me to look closer at where I am posting.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
2nd Reply to Edger....[Sorry if you're not sure to whom I'm addressing in some of these. I guess I should have downloaded Firefox like they suggest]
Edger,
The condescension wrought throughout your second reply is about to cause me to ignore you, and certainly goes against the spirit of this "Kill ‘em with Kindness" category, but of course you’ll probably insist that Christians have been condescending to everyone throughout history anyway. And your last comment, showing your lack of understanding of my own political stances, (I am not necessarily big on "Bushy," and I realize GOP does not stand for God’s Own Party) shows the heights to which you over-generalize. That is the main problem throughout your polemic, and it makes you to be a very unattractive conversation partner.
In one last attempt to clarify my answer to you: People in our brand of democracy must continue to have a right to bring whatever ideas they have to the public forum, whether they be based on the Humanist Manifesto, the Bible, the Koran, fairytales, what Rosie says on TV, or whatever source has formed their worldview and view of what a good society should be. If the running political success of those with a Christian worldview, or with any particular religious worldview, continues to put your Fruit of the Looms in a wad, then go live somewhere in which certain types of worldview are banned from the table of discourse. But beware; last time I visited one of those countries, it was all I could do to keep Akmed from chopping off my head.
No disrespect intended by not checking out your illustration, but I'll take a chance and say, Come on! This seems to be a really poor way to argue by anecdote. For every nut case like this, I can point to forty-eleven other Christians and theists who are extremely safe, quiet, unassuming, and non-threatening. There's a reason why the nut-cases like you mentioned make the news; they're novel and piss everybody off! So what. Ignore them and be alert for Christians and theists who represent their case with more reason, temperence, compassion, etc. Believe me, they're out there.
gottheflu,
Could you make it more clear where your responses are directed?
Thanks,
-Triften
I never intended to answer any metaphysical question adequately, nor do I claim to be able to do so. For now, I do say that metaphysical goings on, including a being we can call "God," is not outside the realm of possibility. And the discussion involving this possibility is why we properly listen to theologians, philosophers, TV preachers, and Oprah.
Another answer to Brian37,
Theism has not been successfully debunked, therefore atheism remains marginalized in America's free market of ideas. Then again, so many Christians tell me THEY are being marginalized these days! It just keeps getting more confusing! Nevertheless, there was actually a time and place when Christians were marginalized all the way to the catacombs and beyond. I would not wish that on you or anyone.
In response to the OP (the rest of this thread kinda defies description - WOW!) I'd answer the question 'why encourage blasphemy' with a very simple answer: Because religious fundamentalism is wrong.
Yes, I admit, this is an opinion. The same as it's an opinion that Adolf Hitler was wrong to round up a bunch of human beings and stick them in an oven, or that Pol Pot, or Saddam or any other widely accepted nutcase was wrong to do whatever they did. When something is wrong the right thing to do is to stand up against it and fight the bugger.
So the blasphemy challenge (as I see it) is a call to arms, a flag in the sand. If enough people stand under it we'll beat the tyranny of religious fundamentalism once and for all. In practice this is a pipedream but small steps add up and they do say if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Historically speaking our predecessors have accomplished a great deal. Christians are no longer allowed to, literally, burn and torture people who disagree with them. They've conceeded that the earth is round and I'm sure it won't be long before they accept that people evolved from apes and other such things that the modern man sorta takes as read.
In christan terms all we're doing is infiltrating the temples and kicking over some furniture. I'm sure you can relate to that particular metaphor.
the Baby Jesus Show R18 - Episode 2 now on youtube
REPLY TO REDEEMINATOR,
No need to soften it and call it "opinion." Let's all stick our necks out a little and just say it is a FACT that Hitler and Sadaam were evil. I'm game if you are.
I think your posting was supposed to, among other things, convince me that professors of Christianity have done as many dangerous and idiotic things throughout history as non-Christians? Not really a news flash for me.
You also justify the Blasphemy Challenge as a rallying cry to gather together unashamed atheists to go on the offensive en masse. Well, alrighty then. I see no reason why you folks shouldn't give it your best shot. I only plead that you keep your battle within the realm of arguing for ideas, or else you might commit some of the same atrocities as Hitler, Sadaam, and those damn Christians.
Your posting offered no proof that atheism is true, and I guess you had no desire to do so. But if your growing movement is devoid of defensable argumentation for why atheism is true, gimmicks like the Blaspheme Challenge are the only way you'll maintain momentum. And that's what's causing you guys to keep one foot in the sophomoric and the other in the scary!
By the way, leaving out the fact that countless Christians have been burned and tortured by non-Christians, and continue to be so in great number throughout the world today, is a convenient omission from your perplexing one-sided history lecture.
gottheflu,
Atheism is true in that theistic claims have not been proven true. There are plenty of arguments of against various theistic claims proving those false. Therefore, there is no evidence for a theistic god to exist.
As far as your fears of atheists rioting in the streets:
To quote Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
If anyone starts killing people because of their religion or lack thereof, I'll be fighting against them (hopefully) along side you.
I think that you'll find that the non-Christians who killed Christians (and in fact the Christians who killed Christians) did so because of faith or ideology. From persecution by Jews reported in the Bible, to Christians rooting out "heretics" in their midst, to the Bolsheviks purging the influence of the chruch in the name of Marxism, to the Muslim/Christian civil wars in various African nations.
Faith and ideology of any sort destroy rational discourse and any chance of compromise.
-Triften
1st off, I'm glad you didn't loose your head in your travels (really). My 2nd post was condescending, intentionally. When my contentions are circumnavigated or intentionally misinterpreted my feathers get a bit ruffled. Consider the baseless insinuations you've made of me in your response before you get upset over a condenscending reply. I think Jesus musta said something about that?
Anyway, yes, people do have a right to bring whatever ideas they have to the public forum. Fundamentalists even have the right to insist everyone adhere to their religious doctrines. They should never have the right, under constitutional law, to enforce it. Your idea that "democracy" will take care of itself neglects the most basic principles laid down by our founding fathers. These principles were put into place so the majority could never violate basic rights of the minority.
The fundamentalists (an incredibly well funded, solid voting block) you tacitly defend, though they make up a small portion of society, are doing everything in their power to instill their biblical "morals" on all. I believe if they become the majority, they will rewrite our constitution and effectivley outlaw the democratic process as we know it.
I will fight them with every once of my being.
Hi again, Triften. You have a nice tone, and seem genuinely willing to discuss ideas, so it’ll be good to go at it a little more. This time I’ll just blurt out the comments, and it should be close to obvious which of your thoughts they match.
Good point that you reminded me that my question was akin to Pascal’s Wager. It’s good to know I’m tracking with such a noble figure. Ultimately, though, it’s probably not the same. I bring up the question to demonstrate a commonality the RRS Blaspheme Challengers have with fundamentalists. I really need to explain this better: Thinking theists should never assume that, rationally speaking, there is absolutely no chance that they are wrong. It will always be within the realm of possibility that theism is false. However, we rightly assert that the odds are so strong in favor of us believing in God that it is perfectly justifiable to do so. On the other hand, the blatant call to blaspheme by the RRS proves that they allow no possibility whatsoever that atheism is false. You must admit that if they thought there was even the slightest possibility that atheism is false, they would not piddle with the lives of valuable human individuals (I’m dropping the term "souls"
and make such a challenge. This is the kind of unattractive confidence we see throughout fundamentalism. So, in a nutshell, the RRS is made up of fundamentalists.
Of course there’s really no point in me proving to you that you’ll be thrown into a lake of fire. I’m sure you’ve heard that from the gospels and such. The appeals are pretty explicit and self-explanatory. If you don’t believe them, then I don’t know what else I can do to convince you in this stage of our conversation.
It is not just your OPINION nor mine that people should treat others how they’d like to be treated. It is a hard core FACT that they should. It is also a hard-core fact that if I release an apple, it will fall to the ground. Naturalism can give an adequate explanation of why the latter fact is true, but not the former.
I haven’t looked at Rook yet, but, yes, it is quite possible that one gospel, Mark, was written first, then Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark on occasion, and possibly from a lost gospel, Q. Perfectly fitting that they would do this, while making each telling of the story their own, from their own perspectives. Then John comes along with his even more grandiose theological perspective.
You get my point when you say, "One can still apply logic to incorrect information. The train of thought would be logical, just incorrect" in regards to Aquinas, etc. Which refutes the point by the RRS that theism is not rational.
Protecting influence with force, intimidation, and fear, has little to do with believing in God, loving Jesus, or praising Allah. It just has everything to do with being an "ass." And theists aren’t the only asses around, by far.
It seems to be inaccurate to say that Christians believe without evidence, or at least that statement needs to be qualified. The Bible reports what Jesus did. The Bible writers, especially the writers of the gospels, go all out to show that what Jesus accomplished gives tremendously strong evidence to believe he is Christ and Lord. But, of course, many did not believe in biblical times, and still don’t today. An important factor in this is the work of the Holy Spirit, which you undoubtedly reject as any viable premise. Nevertheless, I would recommend Alvin Plantinga, WARRANTED CHRISTIAN BELIEF, for an exhaustive explanation of how the Holy Spirit works to make Christian belief come out of cognitive faculties operating justifiably from within the epistemic environment for which they were designed.
Back to the abstinence issue: I’m sorry if it comes across as cold-hearted, but Lady Wisdom goes crying through the streets, and she falls in the ashes, because nobody will listen to her. The way that we prevent ignorant people from doing foolish things is to incessantly point them to Wisdom. Abstinence outside of marriage will always be wise. (The fact that abstinence was brutally enforced by a dictator has little to do with governmental wisdom and everything to do with oppressive power.) No pragmatic purpose will ever lead me to call ignorant people to live unwisely. In relation to your analogy, some people just have to be told that they have no business getting behind the wheel of a car. If they keep doing it anyway, I suppose tossing a drivers manual in the seat is better than nothing.
Therefore, making condemns available to kids in dire situations has to be an option. (Nevertheless, jolly good that the dictatorship was overthrown.)
As for marriage, I did not say that Christians invented marriage. But I continue to assert that it is a JUDEO-Christian concept. The "Judeo-" part allowing for Adam and Eve, whom, of course, you don’t believe to have existed. Allowing that they did exist, they no doubt were placed in a marital bond that was deeply theological in nature. And it can be argued that all pagan religions, in some fashion or another, act out a theological (or at least metaphysical) impulse when they attempt to make the "two become one flesh."
Contrary to many theists who are strict evidentialists or narrow foundationalists, I feel no compulsion to present evidence (outside of what the Bible states) to prove theism or Christianity as true. Evidences are interesting and useful to a degree, I suppose. But my belief in God is properly basic and does not require decisive proofs to be justified. Just like the fact that I am within my epistemic rights to believe that I am not actually a brain in a vat. Similarly, I am within my epistemic rights to believe that my memories are what they seem, and not downloaded into my brain by a mad scientist five minutes ago. I have absolutely no evidence to prove either case, and I am justified in not worrying about it. Similarly, my faith in God is a properly basic function of my cognitive faculties operating within the epistemic environment for which they were designed. Therefore, no evidential proofs are required to make faith rational (even though, of course, this leaves the door wide open for you to be as skeptical as you like). Obviously, you would respond by saying that "I don’t have any sense whatsoever in my own mind that belief in God is properly basic!" The reason I would have it and you would not is another long argument.
Well, it’s getting late now, and I can respond to more later, unless my comments are giving you the heeby-geebies, and you’d rather hand me my hat.
Warm regards again,
gottheflu (but now almost over it!)
You don't even know your acronyms you're so stupid. ROFL
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
Please remember this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forums and the rules are more strict here.
Please refrain from personal attacks and profanity.
Thank you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Rofl is the standard term thanks.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
is there no one from RRS that can give me a logical answer as to my question? I'm honestly really curious....
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
The wording mainly comes from Brain Flemming's movie where he talks about how that is what his school had told him it was. If you get a chance to watch it he uses the phrase at the end.
But don't you see that it was wrong? Isn't it apparent that it was used under the wrong context.
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
It's not about the validity of the statement - it doesn't matter for them either way, since they think there is no God. What it's really about is that they got Penn to do it and they can't get him to do another.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
As far as his claimed religious beliefs, I don't think such insincerety was particularly noble. "I might as well believe, because you know, no big deal."
I think you are confusing "no belief in god" ("weak" atheism) and "believing there is no god" ("strong" atheism). I have seen no evidence of god, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists. I will not claim that there is no god, but I can show flaws in claims that others make about god.
Sorry to bring them up again, but do you believe unicorns exist? Probably not, as we have no evidence that they really exist. On the other hand, neither of us could say unequivically that no unicorns exist. If you were open to the possibility of unicorns existing, you could describe yourself as an "agnostic a-unicornist".
What I am quite certain of, is that many of the claims about god made in the bible are false and demonstratably so. We can examine evidence to show this. The difference lies in evidence.
What information do you use to calculate your probability of the existence of a god who would be eternally offended by blasphemy?
And now I must ask, how is blaspheming destroying their lives?
If you can prove it, please do so. Here you are calling me closed-minded and I don't really appreciate it.
Many of the appeals are just that appeals with no actual evidence behind them.
Actually, treating others kindly and working together is an important survival trait. Naturalism explains why people should work together just fine. We are all, at some level, related and we are all (currently) stuck on this little safe island of life together in a sea of harsh vacuum. I think that's a good reason to view our lives as precious.
(skipping the comment on the gospels since Rook's articles are very thorough.)
But it is ultimately based on irrational beliefs (the incorrect information that logic is often applied to) so it is irrational.
I never said they were. I broaded my statement to ideologies in general. Irrational beliefs of all kinds lead to being an ass.
We have no evidence that they Bible was written by eyewitnesses and the existence of Jesus is not corroborated by outside sources. You'd think that if some guy were doing miracles, someone else would have heard about it (other than the gospel writers).
Additionally, the bible is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Perhaps we can do a little book loan exchange.
Excepting point to wisdom doesn't work in this case. You end up with people who don't listen to your advice having more children than people who do. Then their children are more likely to not listen to wisdom and they get more and more plentiful.
And they will keep doing it anyway because Christian culture teaches people that they are hopeless sinners.
When did I say that abstinence was enforced by a dictator? Abortions were illegal. If abstinence were enforced, they'd penalize people for getting pregnant. They didn't, they penalized people for ending pregnancies.
We seem to agree here, but, when is it dire? Do we wait until they are hormone-addled with their pants of then dive through the window? I hope you'll say, "no, we should educate them sometime in highschool, or perhaps junior high."
My argument is that it isn't solely a Judeo-Christian concept. Every culture has marriage of some kind, even those that have had no influence from Christianity.
So are you trying to claim that all religions aretrying their best to worship Jesus but don't know it?
Naturalism can explain why people have a strong tendency to want to mate for life.
The problem with reformed epistomolgy is that one can then take ANYthing as a basic fact. Again, rational discourse is utterly destroyed by such a stance. This seems to be just a convoluted way to say "I don't know why."
You went from mentioning the Bible as evidence, then took the stance of basic function. Which is it?
Why would your comments give me the heebie-jeebies? Well, I guess the idea that someone thinks its okay to hold beliefs without evidence is a little frightening. People who hold such beliefs have the ability to do things that hurt other people without there being any hope of reasoning with them.
Anyway, glad to hear you're feeling better.
-Triften
No. It isn't. Just because there was a particular incident that caused Jesus to tell them that DOES NOT IN ANY WAY imply that that particular incident is the ONLY way. If it WAS, Jesus would have said, "any who attribute an act of the HG to satan", or something similar. He would not have said "BLASPHEMY", which is an adjective that can be used to describe MANY acts.
Lets try an example using some real-world things. A group of kids are playing jump-rope, saying a particular rhyme. Someone comes along and says playing jump-rope is bad. By the "logic" you're trying to use, it would mean that only playing jump-rope while saying the particular rhyme that those kids were saying is what was bad. Obviously its ridiculous to think that is what they hypothetical person meant, since if it WAS they would have said, "That rhyme you're saying is bad".
Do you understand yet?
No. It isn't. Just because there was a particular incident that caused Jesus to tell them that DOES NOT IN ANY WAY imply that that particular incident is the ONLY way. If it WAS, Jesus would have said, "any who attribute an act of the HG to satan", or something similar. He would not have said "BLASPHEMY", which is an adjective that can be used to describe MANY acts.
Lets try an example using some real-world things. A group of kids are playing jump-rope, saying a particular rhyme. Someone comes along and says playing jump-rope is bad. By the "logic" you're trying to use, it would mean that only playing jump-rope while saying the particular rhyme that those kids were saying is what was bad. Obviously its ridiculous to think that is what they hypothetical person meant, since if it WAS they would have said, "That rhyme you're saying is bad".
Do you understand yet?
You say that the citation of denying the holyspirit is "taken out of context". Who, pray tell, determines what the proper context is? When one cites Lev 18:22 to proclaim that homosexuality is wrong, are they taking it out of context? Could belief in jesus' divinity and the resurrection possibly be the result of taking the entire NT out of context? How do we objectively decide on this "context"?
Whether Mark 3:29 has a proper or improper "context" is beside the point. What the challenge has done is engender a debate on religious beliefs, when for too long they have been beyond reproach, and simply had to be "respected". Don't become too concerned about whether the holyspirit has been accurately blasphemed or not. Be concerned about proving that the holyspirit actually exists.
Just for good measure...
I hereby declare the actions of a person that is doing it from God's grace as an evil act. Do I have it covered now?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Indeed, I don’t think that the shock value comes from the potential of having committed an unforgivable act as much as it is shocking to theists that so many atheists are willing to publicly deny god.
For too long society at-large has become accustomed to a dynamic whereby the theist position is considered the “default” position and the atheist position is considered the “alternative” or “extreme” position. Society at-large just assumes that atheists will stay hidden and quiet in their own little corners of society.
I believe that no matter what the nature of a YouTube based video campaign, whether it was blasphemy or denial or the Holy Spirit or anything else asserting an atheist position, it would still incur the same reaction from the fundamentalist-minded Christian theists. If we urged thousands of people to post videos saying that “I deny the historical existence of Jesus.” It would incur a similar reaction.
The point of focusing on this particular issue in Mark is that there are a significant number of biblical literalists in the Christian theist fundamentalist world who do interpret this passage that way.
Clearly not all so-called Christians are a homogenous group. So what? What does it matter that there are many Christians who would not interpret 3:29 the same way? Obviously atheists who post their YouTube videos to deny the Holy Spirit don’t believe in the Holy Spirit to begin with, nor do they accept the premise that their actions are an unforgivable act. Again, so what?
The denial videos work for the intended audience—the literal-minded fundamentalists. If you interpret Mark 3:29 differently, that’s great for you. In fact, it indicates to me that you have at least an inclination to think for yourself more than most theists do.
You can read can't you? I mean I'm sorry to tell you but taking the one passage as it has been done is out of context and any bible scholar will tell you the same. Who determines it? Well in any book, doesn't the story?
Apples and oranges man. You site a passage from a chapter in the bible that is telling you do's and don'ts and you compare that to this situation? Remember my football analogy?
No proper context when it comes to the bible, ESPECIALLY the new testament, is exactly the point. The only reason I even found this site is because this so called challenge is based on what I can only call a lie; RRS lying to fulfill the purpose of getting attention. I don't have to prove anything to someone or a group of people that won't believe me anyway. It's like proving to you that there are ghosts went you don't believe in them; how probable is it you will just up and believe until you yourself actually see a ghost? I tell you that I know the holy spirit exists because I have what I can only describe as a relationship with God and Jesus. How will you understand that if you are not one of the elect, the chosen to understand? Of course you will doubt, but that's your purpose on this planet and it simply proves the point of the bible in my eyes.
The rest of what you said was irrelevant symok because you are basing it on the wrong conclusion. This is the ONE AND ONLY TIME in the entire new testament that Jesus describes an unforgivable sin. If there were more, he would have said so and to think there are more is untrue. You who do not believe how can you sit there and try to explain what you don't understand? You are 100% wrong symok because there are no other ways according to the word of Jesus. It IS the ONLY way...and as I said, until you actually want to dive in to understand the whole thing, you...are....wrong.
Now you are just being silly to the point of being preposterous. As it is I don't think you even understand what you are talking about now...
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
Any bible scholar? Or just those that you consider to be bible scholars? The fact that there are thousands of christian denominations, each with different sets of beliefs, indicates to me that the bible's "context" is anything but clear. I don't think you'd have to search too hard to find a self-professed christian who disagrees with your reading of the bible.
To answer your first question: Yes, I can read. Thank you for asking.
Until we clearly define this "context" of yours, there's really no meaningful way to separate the apples from the oranges. On whose authority must do's and don'ts be treated differently than this situation? Yours, or that legion of "bible scholars" you have on speed dial?
By the way, since footballs are made from pigskin, you might want to discontinue using football for biblical analogies (Lev 11:7-8).
If you haven't proven that the holyspirit exists, you have no means for properly demonstrating if we've blasphemed it or not. It makes about as much sense as taking issue with me, should I claim that Santa actually lives at the South Pole (as opposed to the North Pole, as any bible scholar will tell you).
That's where your wrong. Prove the existence of your god, your jesus and your holyspirit, and I, for one, will certainly believe.
Without seeing a ghost: 0% probabilty.
With seeing a ghost: 100% probability.
Same percentages apply to god.
If I (or anyone else here) is not one of the "elect", why are you bothering with this discussion? Based on your statement, if I don't believe in god, it's because god made me that way.
Silly? Preposterous? Maybe you're just taking me out of context.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Razor, is there a way, according to your understanding of passages, to guarantee a trip to hell without ending up in jail? If there is, I suggest you suggest it instead of criticizing the current challenge.
The main thrust of the challenge is for advertisement and declaration of freedom from religious tyranny. Not to end up in hell, which none of us believe in in the first place.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I've "debated" (And I use that term loosely) many theists. Some of them have shown some degree of intelligence, and some have just been blithering idiots. You're deffinitely on the low end of the scale.
You have COMPLETLY ignored my point.
Jesus says the unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the holly spirit". In my first post I gave the deffinition of "blasphemy", and stated that to deny the existance of something holy fits that deffinition.
(A): Denying the HG is impious. (From definition of "impiety"
(B): Acting impious towards holy things is blasphemous. (From definition of "blasphemy"
(C): Denying the HG is blaspheming the HG. (From A and B)
(D): Blasphemy against the HG is unforgivable (From the Bible)
Conclusion: Denial of the HG is unforgivable (From C and D)
Unless you can pull out a dictionary from 2000 years ago showing that blasphemy meant something different back then, we MUST use the modern definitions of the words. Disproving (A) or (B) is the ONLY way to disprove (C), and thus (D). (See the following truth table: Implication)
Your interpretation is based on your delusion of a "loving" god that doesn't "want" to punish anyone. Our interpretation is based on the deffinitions of the words used. Your blathering about "context" is as irrelevant as it is pathetic.
OK we can play that game all day long. Because different denominations have different interpretations doesn't make any single one of them correct. I remember once I heard all organized religion is wrong and I still see that true today. Being Christian does not mean I follow a domination or a single person's ideas; it means having a relationship with God and following his word. His word is revealed though the writings of others not to mention when you meet up with someone else and discuss, otherwise known as fellowship.
Man that sounds like an oxymoron. Let's denounce the holy spirit but wait, it doesn't exist. So exactly what are you denouncing? Either you believe it to exist or you don't and if you believe it to exist then you'll understand in which relevance the sin is committed against it. Because you say you don't believe, how can you denounce something you don't believe in? Even now you use it in the wrong context and to be honest, are starting to sound more and more ridiculous.
That is not for me to do. Hell my existence proves it but I wouldn't be enough. How can I prove it to you if you won't believe no matter the proof? Besides, as the bible states, in context, if you were meant to believe, that gift is given only by God, not by your choice or will. Not even many Christians understand that but it's there clear in text...
The discussion is the fact that you used something from the bible out of context. That's what I've been asking and the excuses that have been given are not valid. Trying to validate a wrong with more wrongs doesn't make it right. We can argue about this all day long but the reason it all sounds silly at this point is because either you are choosing to try to get me rilled up, which you won't do, or being facetious for the sake of attention. The fact that the so called challenge is based on a sham is still the issue at hand and the question remains - why was it used in the wrong context?
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
Agreed. At the very most, only one can be correct, and by all indications, none are correct. Just like you, many practicioners of these several denominations feel that the "word" is revealed to them, and that they have the proper interpretation -- so who do we believe? If you can present a clear and obvious set of criteria for the proper interpretation and context, there would not be any further confusion on the matter, either in regard to the many different (and therefore false) interpretations, or whether blaspheming the holyspirit is unforgivable. I have asked for this before, as have others. Your continued refusal to do so makes clear to me who is playing this game all day long.
What are we denouncing? Surely you can figure that out. We are denouncing your belief in the holyspirit. We are denouncing subscription to an absurd myth which hitherto lacks the slightest shred of proof. To denounce the holyspirit is to precisely drive home the fact that one doesn't believe in it. Your continued inability to understand this makes clear to me who is starting to sound more and more ridiculous -- or rather, has been sounding that way for quite some time now.
It is for you to do. You're the one who believes in it. How does your existence prove it?
As I said in the above quote, prove that it exists, and I'll believe. You previously asked me if I can read. I'm beginning to wonder if you can.
One has to wonder why so many christians don't understand, if it's so "clear", as you say. god must have sent them the wrong gift.
Once again -- please explain, clearly and concisely, how this "context" is determined. Sorry, lobbing a power word like "fellowship" at me doesn't make the "context" any clearer.
Mark 3:29 says what it says. We need you to explain your context in full before we can accept that it doesn't say what it says.
It is indeed based on a sham - the sham of christianity. And it's used in the wrong context because you still won't tell us what the right context is!
There are no theists on operating tables.
My interpretation is not something I made up. Please understand me in that I am not coming from "this is my belief and everyone else is wrong." When the bible has the words in black and white and yet people want to impose their own will over it, that's when you see these confusing stances. Thing is you must take those with a grain of salt becuase they usually show their biases. It's people like Luther and many others that were completely anit-establishment that showed many of the truths of the bible.
But why? What is that so important to denounce my beliefs? You have the right in this nation to not agree with them...why take the next step? Why base your judgements on a group of people before you get to know the individual?
See now you are saying you denounce my beliefs in the HS and not the holy spirit itself. If you denied the HS itself, wouldn't that almost mean you'd have to acknowledge its existence? If not, why denounce it at all?
If you knew me, you'd understand but your prejudgements reject me as an individual before you even allow yourself to. If I came up to you and stood with someone who I said, "this is Jesus", you'd reject me and say it was some friend of mine. Again, it's impossible for you to understand any proof if you are that hell bent against it. I've proved it, and I go on proving it, but you don't understand it...
No. Think of it like if you got a bottle rocket for a present. But instead of using it learning how rockets work, you decided to use it to kill a bird. Now was that the purpose of the present or how the person who gave it to you intended? Was it that person's will for you to do that? Same thing here; God did not give this gift for us to say "well I like that but this other part doesn't make any sense so I'll just ignore it."
How else must I explain it? Read Mark 3:20-30. But really read it. Understand where Jesus' words describe verse 29 and how 28 and 30 put it into context.
Here is another example as to why its important to do so: if I told you I had a hamburger for lunch and ended up in the hospital, what would you conclude? If I forgot to tell you that I was in the hospital not for food poising but because I stepped on a nail walking out of the restaurant, wouldn't that be a big piece of the story that explains why I ended up where I did? If I didn't tell you about the nail, would you jump to the conclusion to boycott (or denounce however you wanna do it) that eatery but all the while you based it on a conclusion that was false?
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
razorphreak, I have presented you with a clear argument using strict propositional logic to PROVE you are wrong. If you can't refute my argument in similar fassion you really should just give up and leave.
Note that if you ARE right I have made LAUGHABLY easy for you to prove yourself, as well. ALL you have to do is show that Propsition A OR (NOTE: NOT BOTH) Proposition B is false. If you're right, it should be a snap to do.
My argument takes the form of:
(( A /\ B ) -> C ) -> D.
If either A or B is false, it comes down to:
( F -> C ) -> D
F -> D
F
And you will have proven yourself to be correct. Logic is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
LOL WHAT? dude are you serious?
OK first I feel like you aren't even addressing the issue; you are trying to make something new. Second obviously you have failed to even read the bible or you wouldn't even be trying to make this....point or whatever you call it. And third, what you wrote both times made no sense especially in the case that, and guess what, I already did prove you wrong.
You base your whole argument on the fact that the bible didn't mean only one way sin to the HS and yet, to date, you have not shown me one passage to show otherwise. You cannot assume what Jesus meant if you don't understand Jesus' words to begin with. All your logic proved nothing to the book that I'm sure you haven't read nor understand, and based on your "conclusion", I wonder did you pick this off a different site because it sure doesn't sound like your own thoughts.
By the way, did you even read what I posted the first time?
A. In order for the denial of the holy spirit (what the hell is HG?) was impious, you must first acknolwedge that it exists. Are you doing this?
B. According to who? Webster or the bible?
C. not according to the definition in the bible
D. Which you did not accurately understand how you do such a thing; real the full passage dude and next time include verses 28 and 30 to understand 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
Mark 3:29 is there "in black and white". There is nothing "in black and white" stating "please see above. This is not a general statement, but only applicable in this context".
So you take the entire bible "in black and white"? With two incompatible creation stories? Four gospels, incompatible in various details? Do you take the entire book of Leviticus "in black and white"?
If the credit goes to Luther (and many others) for showing the truths of the bible, one has to wonder 1) Why it took 14 centuries for such truth-finding to occur (or longer, if you include the OT), and why so many other false readings have proliferated under the aegis of christianity in the subsequent 6 centuries.
Why? Because these beliefs have no credible foundation. Because some want prayer in public schools based on these unfounded beliefs. Because some want these unfounded beliefs taught in school alongside science. Because legislators pass policy in deference to these beliefs. When this happens, it affects us all - and as long as these unfounded beliefs are given undue respect, it will continue to happen. It cannot continue to happen. That is why.
If your beliefs can be proven, they will gain respect of their own accord -- otherwise they belong in the trash bin with the Flat Earth Theory.
And exactly what individual do I have to get to know?
So I need to believe in the holyspirit in order to deny its existence? I think not. Pick some mythical being that you don't believe in, and apply your "logic" to that.
What do you mean, I reject you as an individual? Did I inadvertently make some Jungian reference to you or something? I don't see what you as an individual have to do with it.
Now if you brought someone to me and said "this is jesus", yes, I'd probably say it was some friend of yours, or at least some dude you bribed with a candy bar. If I brought up someone and said they were Krishna or Santa, would you believe me, or would you reject me as an individual? Now, if you got your friend to walk across the water or make a fig tree wither, I might start to buy the jesus claim. Turn water into wine? I like what I'm seeing, getting better.... Kill him in front of me and he rises from the dead? We'd be close, we'd really be close!
You're mistaken: the last thing I am hell bent against is proof. What I am hell bent against is faith. Faith is worthless, proof is everything. But you have not proven it, and you have not gone on proving it. Don't kid yourself by saying that you have.
Does the bottle rocket come with an instruction manual? I would hope so. Apparently you have the instruction manual for the bible. Share it with the rest of us please!
Actually, let's run with your very weak analogy. Suppose that the bottle rocket was built over the course of thousands of years by several different people. Then it was rebuilt dozens of times after that, with different materials, with imperfections finding their way into the design with each rebuilding. Even with instructions, how functional do you think it would be? Through multiple translations and manual copying, that's essentially the form you have the bible in today. Quite a gift, I should say.
The parable of the Hamburger and the Nail notwithstanding, I don't understand why you quibble interminably on the definition of blasphemy, rather than cutting to the quick and proving your god exists. As I've already said, this is a direct challenge to your beliefs. That the medium for this challenge was blasphemy predicated on Mark 3:29 is entirely tangential. Instead of harping on the "context", prove that your beliefs are true; then the proper context should readily become clear. Are you up to the task of proving the existence of your god? Or is it easier to blather on about the reading of one verse, and skirt the primary issue entirely?
There are no theists on operating tables.
That's would be interesting, creationists would have to believe in evolution to deny it. Christians have a lot of gods to believe and deny. And a librarian who puts books in the fiction section would have to believe in all of that in which he/she puts away.
Why are you refusing to answer the question?
No, it does not. There is no proviso in Luke 12.
The fact that you keep running from answering my question interests me more.
If you read what I said above, I state that "basically, you have a case for Mark 3, but what about Luke 12"?
So why don't you just answer?
As long as you beg the question.
Please follow your own advice.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
As I was rereading your post and after thinking about it for some time, I couldn't help but think two things: 1. We're going in circles because of the avoidance to the question itself that I posed. How i circles? By attacking the very faith that brought me to this forum to ask questions to try to understand. Instead of harping on the context as you put it but yet I posted this thread solely on the question of the challenge and it became a prove my faith issue. The other thing I thought? How trivial it seems to me to say use verses 28 and 30 from the same passage and how it seems no one wants to.
Anyway if you want to discuss that let's do it. If you want to discuss my faith, I'm sure there are several threads for that.
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
I agree we're going in circles, but who's steering? Your central premise is that Mark 3:29 is being taken out of context. I've asked you multiple times now to clearly define your context. You respond with ambiguities..."black and white...Martin Luther"...blah blah blah". Most recently I asked how you reconcile your "black and white" reading of the bible with the multiple inconsistencies throughout (I gave the creation stories and the gospels as examples). If you had laid down your criteria for reading the bible in its proper context by now, that would be one less circle we would be making.
As far as why I, for one, brought the debate to bear on your faith: That is the point of the challenge (as if I haven't already made that clear). If I don't believe in the holyspirit, and if I don't believe in hell, it is inconsequential to me whether you consider blasphemy of the holyspirit unforgivable. No god, no jesus, no holyspirit exists to dub me forgiven or unforgiven! The challenge has brought the theists out of the woodwork, and they are called upon to defend their beliefs. If your holyspirit exists, PROVE IT!!! Then, and ONLY then, do we need to examine if the sin is actually unforgivable. To harp on that question in advance is to put the cart before the horse.The circles will stop as soon as you start giving some concrete answers.
Matthew mentions the destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 A.D. You're off to a bad start. Go back and try again.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Why did you refuse mine? Why did you change the verse? I asked you this and you come back with Luke 12? Answer me then why you did not use Luke 12 in the challenge then?
OK todangst....
To understand why, you must understand who Luke is. Luke was a physician who gave it up and became the apprentice of Paul. His writing styles were influenced by the previous writers Matthew and Mark. It is accepted that Matthew wrote his around 50 AD, Mark around 57 AD, and Luke around 60 AD. Make no mistake that they all knew each other because the then new Christian movement was new so they tended to stick together (wouldn't you if you were hunted?). It is also accepted that Luke drew influences from the writings of Matthew and Mark but still made it his own in several ways. Remember of the four gospels, Paul and Luke were the only one's who were not followers who were actually with Jesus when this happened. So the probability that he based chapter 12 on the writing of Matthew and/or Mark is not only good, it's certain. Add to that the understanding that Mark, the apprentice of Peter, and Matthew were there with Jesus or, in the case of Mark, gathered the material from Peter who was obviously there...and you have the fact that Matthew and Mark would have more detail about this one specific event than Luke. This is the reason John is so different than the other three and why Luke wrote it as he did. This is the reason why Luke has no "proviso" - it does not in any way mean it did not happen. It is differences in writing styles...not an difference in facts.
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
I did in my very first post...the one that started this thread, and the one that only todangst responded directly to. YOU however chose to attack my faith and debate the existances of Jesus, the HS, and my ill advised stance on faith.
Once again, I did. You took this thread elsewhere and forced me to respond differently each time.
Either you really don't understand what you are talking about or are just really looking for a fight. Matthew 24, the ENTIRE chapter, is about the return of Jesus, after his death, and the signs in which to observe when he will return. It's much like revelation in that is has a lot of symbolism. It was NOT about the specific destruction of the temple by the romans in 70 AD but the PREDICTION of what will happen when Jesus returns.
Please....Using earthly justifications for spirtual things is why you are obviously going to be scraping the bottom of justifictions to these things you say...all the while thinking you are wise are simply wrong.
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