How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[pookie]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We share the same answer. Why indeed would the size of the universe, the big bang, and so on be mentioned to such people? Let’s not stop there, though. Why not mention how to build a space shuttle or a deep space telescope while we’re at it? Why can’t I turn to something like “2 Rocket Propulsion 13” in my Bible?

Excellent question. Why didn’t Jesus, instead of walking on water, or multiply fish and loaves of bread to prove his divinity, instead explain germ theory or pasteurization or vaccines? Learning any of those would have improved billions of lives during history and been incontrovertible proof of his knowing stuff way beyond his era.

Too complicated? Why not simply condemn slavery, torture and promote equality between the sexes? Why isn’t anything he said out of character for someone living when he did?

Because mankind is left to discover pasteurization, the combustible engine, and the i-pod. [/quote]

Well yeah, but that leaves the Bible as a completely useless book. You’ve got the history and fables of old jewish goat herders and a mythical story about a godlike figure. Occurs in about a hundred other cultures.

I’m sure we’ll eventually cure the remaining diseases, cancer, maybe even aging. We’ll have fairer, more ethical societies, etc. What use does the Bible have?

[Sloth]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We share the same answer. Why indeed would the size of the universe, the big bang, and so on be mentioned to such people? Let’s not stop there, though. Why not mention how to build a space shuttle or a deep space telescope while we’re at it? Why can’t I turn to something like “2 Rocket Propulsion 13” in my Bible?

Excellent question. Why didn’t Jesus, instead of walking on water, or multiply fish and loaves of bread to prove his divinity, instead explain germ theory or pasteurization or vaccines? Learning any of those would have improved billions of lives during history and been incontrovertible proof of his knowing stuff way beyond his era.

Too complicated? Why not simply condemn slavery, torture and promote equality between the sexes? Why isn’t anything he said out of character for someone living when he did?

Because mankind is left to discover pasteurization, the combustible engine, and the i-pod.

Well yeah, but that leaves the Bible as a completely useless book.[/quote]

Sure, to the atheist.

[Sloth]

[quote]pookie wrote:

I’m sure we’ll eventually cure the remaining diseases, cancer, maybe even aging. We’ll have fairer, more ethical societies, etc. What use does the Bible have?

[/quote]

Now, if you go curing aging what are you going to do about the population?

[Jab1]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Push,

However, most Bible prophecy scholars would interpret the Jeremiah passage you mentioned, “a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,” as applying to the Jews during the Millennial Kingdom.

Yeah, so what do you mean by, “So what you are saying is that all of the modern day Christians are wasting their time because Jesus wasn’t talking to them anyway?”

well, unless you are a Jew of the Millennial Kingdom then the covenant is not for you.

You’re almost there. Unless you are a Jew of the Millennial Kingdom then the Millennial Covenant will not be for you.

Oh well, as a god hating Heathen I don’t think I am invited anyway.

Oh, you were invited alright. You just declined. No problem, there’s probably another party waiting for you where you’ll fit in just fine. Dress for warm weather.[/quote]

A fine example of Christian morality; gloating over the eternal torture of a fellow human.

If your god is real I will fight with all my puny power against such a dictator that condemns people eternally for finite “sins” which usually make very little sense. As I’ve said before I will never understand your submission, your willing slavery.

[forlife]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
If meditation can affect the brain - where is the meditation occurring? [/quote]

In the brain. Processes in the brain affect the chemistry of the brain, which affects processes in the brain, which further affects chemistry of the brain…

[forlife]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Everyone legislates their beliefs onto other people - to claim anything different is ludicrous . . .[/quote]

Not really. I know many Christians who take a “live and let live” approach to life. They have their religious beliefs, but don’t feel it is their duty to spread the good word to others, instead respecting the individual’s right to find truth in his own way.

That is very different from evangelists who are 100% convinced that they are worshipping the “true god”, and feel that their god expects them to convert as many people as possible to their way of thinking. They feel justified in doing anything that furthers the purpose of their god, regardless of what others think about it, because they have “the truth”, after all and the end justifies the means. The Inquisition is one example of this.

[forlife]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I zipped into this thread initially for one reason and only one - the hootin’ scoffers crawled out of the woodwork like palmetto bugs in a south Florida trailer house after the cat spilled the kitchen garbage can in the middle of the night. You, Oleeme, and the atheist revivalists jeered and taunted. Squealed and grunted. Guffawed and chortled.

So the Pats, Steels and I (and a few others) responded. We do so sometimes with a bit of an edge. The blade slices deep once in awhile and the atheists yelp like wounded dogs. “No, you can’t talk to us that way! Only we can wield the sword! No fair!”

Well it is fair.

But if you wish to discuss it civilly and with respect I am completely compliant with that idea. And I appreciate your overture to do so.[/quote]

Pure poetry

Sounds good to me. I will try to honor that, and appreciate if you let me know when I fall short.

[pookie]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if you go curing aging what are you going to do about the population?[/quote]

It’s a big universe.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Yes.

Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that billions of people are unreasonable in their faith, despite believing just as sincerely as you do, while only those who believe in your particular god are “reasonable”? I mean, I can see disagreeing with people who see the world differently from you, but come on…we’re talking about faith here, which your compadres have defined as beliefs NOT informed by evidence. You have no more evidence than the billions of other believers, yet you feel confident in your atheism toward all of their gods except your own. If that doesn’t give you pause, I don’t know what would.
[/quote]
Well, this is actually irrelevant to the argument. What people believe is correct or if people believe in gods other than God is a different topic.

To answer what you are concerned about though, I do not think people are unreasonable in their faiths, why would they be wrong and I am right. Secondly, most people worship the one God, not many that suites many purposes and truth be told, poly theism is actually a misnomer, even in polytheistic faiths there was always the one main God over all the others. So technically the other gods werenâ??t the same as Zeus or Jupiter, etc. That however is a separate conversation.
Most religious people worship the one God, not some other gods. They may call Him something else, but they still worship God.

That which sets “things” in motion has to necessarily exist outside the causal chain.

You are assuming without evidence that things were set in motion, while dismissing the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Yet you accept without question the idea that your god has always existed.

Who said I accepted anything with out evidence? Secondly, I did not dismiss the possibility that matter has always existed. It doesnâ??t matter to me if it has. Itâ??s existence is still contingent on the existence of something else, which is contingent upon something else, etc. time be damned. There is not a single object physical or metaphysical, in the universe, parallel universe or otherwise of something that did not come from something else, period. Now, while things can be infinite, logic arguments cannot be, because it begs the question, hence the argument is invalid, so to break the chain, logically, there has to be a stop to it, hence the unmoved mover/ uncaused, cause. I.E. God. I arrive at that definition because something that exists outside the causal chain has to necessarily have a certain set of properties. It cannot be caused itself for one and can cause.

t down further and what do you get? You get to a point where everything thing in the universe shares commonality.

All the more reason to recognize the possibility that everything in the universe is comprised of the same building blocks, rather than positing a supernatural force which magically violates this common rule.

y be true, but there is a reason it is that way. I want to know why. That’s just the way it is, is not sufficient to me.

Yet you seem satisfied with the idea that your god has always existed, “just because that’s the way it is.”. At least apply the same standard consistently to other ideas. [/quote]

I am more satisfied with the something from something definition, rather than something from nothing.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Come to Kansas City, For Life. We are gathering there soon for an arm-wrestling match to settle all this. You are officially invited. Like I said in the other thread, the winner gets the girl. (Don’t let that keep you from coming though)

Can I send Prof X in my place? He would probably enjoy the prize more than me anyway.[/quote]

Prof X would lose against Push…Trust me, Push strong like bull.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Creating gods to suit your own purpose is one thing. Discovering via the exercise of pure reason as Aristotle did, is a whole other. The cosmological argument was not an exercise in creating a god to suit a need.

Aristotle also reasoned that the universe was made up of five elements, that the Earth was the centre point of this universe and that the five elements had a natural place and tended towards it (explaining why bubbles of air rise in water, flames rise in the air and stones sink in water.)

He was wrong about those things not because he was stupid but because he didn’t have all of the information. We now have far more information available and can see that the cosmological argument is fallactious.[/quote]

Considering the best minds for centuries have been unable to refute it, please enlighten me to the refutation. I’ll submit your name for the Nobel Prize, hence there after.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
One observation. These discussions always assume that Christianity is solely bible based. Indeed, as if the faith was founded on the bible to the exclusion of the church and it’s clergy/apostles. So when the teaching role of clergy, the theology and/or doctrines of the church (whichever, to avoid getting into denominations), are raised about how, where, when, and to who verses and covenants are targted, it’s dismissed as waffling.

Actually, it’s hard to assume anything except a few basics, such as the Bible is important and Jesus is da man. For the rest, there are about as many variations are there are participants.

We’ve got the rare Catholic, who’s ok with most of science and believe in “progresssive Revelation”, where God can over time reveal new information. Helps them stay current with two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Chief Cat likes to wear dresses with giant ridiculous hats, and claims to be infallible while uttering gems of wisdom such as “condoms help spread HIV.”

There’s the even rarer Orthodox, who tend to have their ducks in a row. Easier, since none of them had a new thought since 1054. Their hats are funny, but in a serious, who-died way.

You’ve got your Protestant, who apparently never met a sect or a schism they didn’t like. So from Anabaptist, Baptist, Calvinists… all the way to Waldensians, they seem intent on having a sect for each letter of the alphabet. I’m sure some of them would like funny hats, but picking a model would probably cause another schism and double the sects into hatted and hatless groups.

Popular around here, you got your Evangelicals or Born-Again (which seem to be the same thing) who are big on Sola Scriptura and take great pleasure in pointing out that everyone else is going to Hell. They all seem to miss the “judge not” admonition that Jesus made. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in about everything Jesus said, except when he talked about people going to Hell.

We have the Mormons, although I’m not sure if we’ve had one here. They’ll argue for hours that the second “m” in Mormon is not optional, thus proving that it is. They believe in batshit insane stuff, like magic underwear and that’s its OK for daddy to fuck all their sisters and five mothers.

We even have a Flood Geologist. While this isn’t really a sect of Christianity and would be easier to classify among clowns, he exhibits the same rabid fanatism that most of the others do when you ask for a shred of evidence. He’ll go on about stuff that will make you think the Mormons are damn smart.

And then there’s pat, who’s just confused.

Oh, and Haney, who hasn’t been around for a while, but was about the only one who seemed to try to live the “Christ” part of Christian, as far as I’m concerned.

So that’s quite a menagerie… any assuming you see on our part might only be because we’re tailoring our arguments for some particular belief; or we’re trying to stay generalist enough so that all the deluded participating feel equally insulted. Gotta stay fair, you know.
[/quote]

And then you have this atheist, who doesn’t know why he believes what he believes, but is damn certain he’s right.

And how, exactly am I confused? Where exactely is this confusion.

[pat]

[quote]Chushin wrote:
pookie wrote:

Actually, it’s hard to assume anything except a few basics, such as the Bible is important and Jesus is da man. For the rest, there are about as many variations are there are participants.

We’ve got the rare Catholic, who’s ok with most of science and believe in “progresssive Revelation”, where God can over time reveal new information. Helps them stay current with two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Chief Cat likes to wear dresses with giant ridiculous hats, and claims to be infallible while uttering gems of wisdom such as “condoms help spread HIV.”

There’s the even rarer Orthodox, who tend to have their ducks in a row. Easier, since none of them had a new thought since 1054. Their hats are funny, but in a serious, who-died way.

You’ve got your Protestant, who apparently never met a sect or a schism they didn’t like. So from Anabaptist, Baptist, Calvinists… all the way to Waldensians, they seem intent on having a sect for each letter of the alphabet. I’m sure some of them would like funny hats, but picking a model would probably cause another schism and double the sects into hatted and hatless groups.

Popular around here, you got your Evangelicals or Born-Again (which seem to be the same thing) who are big on Sola Scriptura and take great pleasure in pointing out that everyone else is going to Hell. They all seem to miss the “judge not” admonition that Jesus made. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in about everything Jesus said, except when he talked about people going to Hell.

We have the Mormons, although I’m not sure if we’ve had one here. They’ll argue for hours that the second “m” in Mormon is not optional, thus proving that it is. They believe in batshit insane stuff, like magic underwear and that’s its OK for daddy to fuck all their sisters and five mothers.

We even have a Flood Geologist. While this isn’t really a sect of Christianity and would be easier to classify among clowns, he exhibits the same rabid fanatism that most of the others do when you ask for a shred of evidence. He’ll go on about stuff that will make you think the Mormons are damn smart.

And then there’s pat, who’s just confused.

Oh, and Haney, who hasn’t been around for a while, but was about the only one who seemed to try to live the “Christ” part of Christian, as far as I’m concerned.

So that’s quite a menagerie… any assuming you see on our part might only be because we’re tailoring our arguments for some particular belief; or we’re trying to stay generalist enough so that all the deluded participating feel equally insulted. Gotta stay fair, you know.

I admit I smiled at some of that.

But why do you find it necessary to be so derisive?[/quote]

'Cause he’s got no leg to stand on? Just a guess based on observation…If you can’t beat’em, berate them.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…If God did it, why such a huge fucking waste of space in the Universe? Why not build one solar system that works perfectly and not bother with all the rest?

Cockster, this was pretty lame, bud. You, a little bitty man in Mexico telling God that He wasted a bunch of space.

I really and truly did LOL. I’m not kidding.

So what is all of the rest of the universe for and why isn’t it mentioned in the good book?

When you stand before Him in judgment some day and if you’re not screaming bloody murder at Him about how He never revealed Himself to you during your life on this earth you might just want to take a minute and ask Him this question.

That would be one of a huge list of questions that I would have, but first I would have to admire the shear bonkers lunacy of it all, how any being could be that evil but still envoke such love.

Yeah, you go ahead and point your long bony index finger at Him while you smirk with your yellowed British teeth. See what happens, itty bitty poquito hombre. At that time you will likely remember today as you typed your palabras de arrogancia. [/quote]

I would put good money on the fact that my teeth are whiter than yours at least they had better be given that I have just paid a small fortune to have them done.

Poquito hombre doesn’t really work by the way it means a small bit of man, which might be what you are into but doesn’t really do it for me. Hombrecito or Chaparrito is what you are looking for.

And just because I choose not to grovel before a fairy tale made up to control people and followed by people too lazy to look for real answers that doesn’t make me arrogant.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:
Well, this is actually irrelevant to the argument. What people believe is correct or if people believe in gods other than God is a different topic.[/quote]

Not really, since it underscores the point that people can fervently believe in a god which is different from the god you believe in just as devoutly. Logically, it is impossible for both to be right, so obviously devotion and faith have nothing to do with the actual correctness of a person’s beliefs. There are thousands of gods, and billions of believers, and everyone believes their god is the “true god”, while practicing active atheism when it comes to all the other gods.

Most religious people worship the one God, not some other gods. They may call Him something else, but they still worship God.

What if they believe god is a woman, or god is a Triune being, or god is without body/part/passions, etc. etc. etc.? Even among Christians, there are myriad conceptions about the nature of “god” which contradict one another.

I did not dismiss the possibility that matter has always existed. It doesn’t matter to me if it has. Its existence is still contingent on the existence of something else, which is contingent upon something else, etc. time be damned.

If it has always existed, how could its existence be contingent on something else? By definition, if it has always existed, there was no creator.

There is not a single object physical or metaphysical, in the universe, parallel universe or otherwise of something that did not come from something else, period.

Including your god? What created your god, and if the answer is that your god has always existed, then logic requires acknowledging that matter/energy have always existed, without needing to invoke a god to explain it.

[pookie]

[quote]pat wrote:
There is not a single object physical or metaphysical, in the universe, parallel universe or otherwise of something that did not come from something else, period.[/quote]

And you know that how?

[Sloth]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now, if you go curing aging what are you going to do about the population?

It’s a big universe.
[/quote]

I’m thinking that if aging could be “cured”, it’d come a whole heck of alot sooner than interplanetary (life supporting) travel. Now that would be a serious debate. A “cure” for aging is found, but is ultimately illegal throughout the world due to the obvious population issue.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Well, this is actually irrelevant to the argument. What people believe is correct or if people believe in gods other than God is a different topic.

Not really, since it underscores the point that people can fervently believe in a god which is different from the god you believe in just as devoutly. Logically, it is impossible for both to be right, so obviously devotion and faith have nothing to do with the actual correctness of a person’s beliefs. There are thousands of gods, and billions of believers, and everyone believes their god is the “true god”, while practicing active atheism when it comes to all the other gods.

Most religious people worship the one God, not some other gods. They may call Him something else, but they still worship God.

What if they believe god is a woman, or god is a Triune being, or god is without body/part/passions, etc. etc. etc.? Even among Christians, there are myriad conceptions about the nature of “god” which contradict one another.
[/quote]
The true nature of God, we can not know from where we are standing. It is still not relevant to the argument unless you want to concede that God exists, now you want to discuss his true nature, and which religion / sect has the more correct view.

I did not dismiss the possibility that matter has always existed. It doesn’t matter to me if it has. Its existence is still contingent on the existence of something else, which is contingent upon something else, etc. time be damned.

If it has always existed, how could its existence be contingent on something else? By definition, if it has always existed, there was no creator.

If you take time out of the equation, everything is infinite. In a moment where matter does not move or change you lose time, but it does not mean the matter does not exist, and it does not mean the matter did not come from somewhere. Suspended animation if you will.

Even if the universe were infinite, it could not exist with out cause. But even empirical science can trace the universe’s beginning to a time and place. So there is no empirical precedent for the ‘always was’ theory. Not in the known universe anyway.

Even if the matter/energy were there eternally it does not shake off the problem of contingency.
The universe is subject to these laws; something outside the universe is not. An uncaused, cause, by definition, is not subject to the causal chain and hence the law by which the causal chain is bound.
Even in quantum theory, though things do not behave predictably, the events are not without cause. What it does show it’s instantaneous causation in certain circumstances and that in itself is interesting as the effect does not follow the cause but that they happen simultaneously.

There is not a single object physical or metaphysical, in the universe, parallel universe or otherwise of something that did not come from something else, period.

Including your god? What created your god, and if the answer is that your god has always existed, then logic requires acknowledging that matter/energy have always existed, without needing to invoke a god to explain it.[/quote]

Again, being an uncaused, cause, by definition gives “it” certain properties. It cannot be caused itself, it cannot be bound by the causal chain, and it can cause things to happen, in or out of space/time.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There is not a single object physical or metaphysical, in the universe, parallel universe or otherwise of something that did not come from something else, period.

And you know that how?
[/quote]

You got me there, I can’t know for sure. But if you know of something that wasn’t the result of something else you likely found God.