We Need Another Christianity Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

  1. I am not atheist. There seems to be a grand scheme that forces nature to obey it, and I’m fine with it if you want to call that “God.”

[/quote]

Then morality, good actions and evil actions, would be defined by IT. Take your caricature of the “Christian point of view” at face value. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Chri…well, your point of view of Christianity…is accurate. How would it invalidate a God whose actions and will define what is good or evil? If nature, which we’re part of, is obligated to obey than your view of this god’s moral worth means squat. It doesn’t even begin to invalidate it. If anything, your own ‘moral’ opinion is invalidated by it.[/quote]

Who said anything about God’s “moral worth?” Who’s to say he gives a flying fuck what we do at all? With us being here for… well lets say one hundred thousand years or so, and “Him” not interfering yet, that would suggest we are left to our own devices. Oh right, he was messing around the middle east a couple of millennia back… lol dude you’re getting me off track again. All I’m saying is that if you’re a Christian, you have to accept what I wrote in the OP as true. There is no way around it.

You’re the ones claiming to know “His will.” Not I.

102

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
…like the ass needs another hole.

I’m sorry. Continue.[/quote]

I seem to notice Christine, you’ll drop some vitriol and hatred, but when the conversation gets serious, you run away. Why are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs?[/quote]

Ha! Sorry, I just meant that this argument had been done to death and never goes anywhere.

I didn’t think that was hating.

Whatever ya’ll believe is cool with me. Faith requires no proof, so what is the point of arguing it?
[/quote]
Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

If you take a stance on an issue, I think you should know about your stance, why it’s your stance and have stuff that defends that stance otherwise how do you know if you’re right? I am not satisfied with a guess are you?

If that’s the worst thing you have to fear, your life is awesome.

103

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What country is your country, Ben?[/quote]

Norway.

Don’t get me wrong, the church here serves it’s purpose in regards to weddings, funerals and so on. However a survey a few years back concluded that 72% of the population did not believe in a personal god. Some would still call it a “christian” country, but I think that is a ludicrous statement considering the low church attendance. We are in reality an atheist nation.
[/quote]

Ben your country didn’t get to where it is by being atheist. Atheism is a recent development. Your country is at the periphery of Europe, so it has been able to avoid the devastation of Europe’s wars. Last but not least your country has been very fortunate to enjoy a bonanza from the North sea oil fields, so a good deal of your prosperity is a matter of luck.

Just because your country is mostly atheist now, you would be a fool to believe that could not change within your lifetime and the change could be to something you find to be much worse than Christianity.

Since 1990 420,000 immigrants have moved into Oslo and they now make up twenty nine percent of the population. A large number of them are muslims and in Norway they see a land of nonbelievers that is ripe for takeover.

One of my answers to your remark that Christianity is bullying is you should go visit Saudi Arabia and get some perspective on what real religious bullying is. I would also like to suggest that you take a look at what early Christianity was like before it was institutionalized and made an instrument of the Roman state.

The early Christianity that came from Jesus was very tolerant and allowed for a wide range of belief or even disbelief. ie the Gospel of Thomas (aka the doubting Thomas). If you consider the ideology that Jesus taught, I think even as an atheist you can find merit to much of what he was teaching.

The fact that Norwegians have no religious foundation whatsoever is not going to serve them well in maintaining their culture against the growing islamization of their country. Your attitude of rah rah rah it’s so great we are atheist here is going to come back to haunt you. [/quote]

Christianity is benign these days compared to a country like Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t mean we should forget how the church acted in Europe (and the rest of the world), when they were strong.

About Norway, it has something like a 10% immigrant population, and yes they primarily live in Oslo. They are mostly Pakistani and Somalian, not to mention a shit load of Swedes. And no, they are not twirling their fucking mustaches planning to take over the country. Take your fear mongering somewhere else.

104

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Pat,

  1. God himself could step out of the clouds right now and proclaim what I wrote to be a filthy lie, and it would STILL be true. It simply cannot be argued against, which is why people are attacking my origins and everything else instead of responding to the OP.
    [/quote]
    You’re claiming what you wrote as falsehoods are true no matter what? Or am I totally missing what you are saying is an eternal truth.

You’re just a religion hater, or specifically Christianity? It seems to me you have some horrific misconceptions about Christianity.
If you clarify your position, it would help me understand your stance a little better. What do you believe?

Incorrect, you have an obligation to get it right. What you wrote is not correct, but it is also very general. Be specific and I can tell you your error.
When you make claims it is you obligation to make sure your factually correct. You can’t just say anything at all and claim that I have to prove your wrong. The job of religion and religious people, specifically is to relieve suffering, to help people and to bring peace where ever it’s possible, not do harm and evil. Not all men suffer and there is no perpetual suffering for God’s amusement.

And I am not a creationist, you don’t have to worry about that. Careful with your assumptions.

105

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

[quote]

Number of followers equals truth? Well gee, those Hindus must really be on to something then.

106

[quote]pat wrote:
You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.[/quote]
Proof, please.

107

Alright Pat, how’s this:

God created man with free will and then tempted him to disobey. Then God cast man aside and watched him suffer for his transgression.

Simple, and straight out of Genesis.

108

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing to me is more illogical that atheism. It requires you to believe that all existence has it’s dependence ultimately on nothing.[/quote]
Like squating_bear suggested, it may be that God is not dependent on time. But we could theorize the same thing about the materialization of world / universe without any subject creator. It makes just as much sense. Because if you don’t have to explain what became before God, it is the same as saying that you don’t need to explain what became before materia that just happened to be. Just like God just happened to start being. Maybe there has always been materia - maybe there has always also been a God.
[/quote]

God cannot be time dependent, and many things in the universe and in fact in existence are time independent. We interact with timelessness all the time. I am not sure what time has to do with it?
If God were an abstract of the material world then he would in fact be a fairy tale. God, by definition is the creator, that on which all must ultimately derive their existence. Whether this happens in temporal succession or not, it irrelevant to the issue. That doesn’t mean that causation isn’t at the core of our understanding it, it’s that causation isn’t dependent on time necessarily, though our interaction with it is generally a temporal succession.

[quote]

[quote]
So why couldn’t it be that first became materia, then God, then maybe both were destroyed for some reason, then God came first, materia second, then some unicorn force, whatever… This is essentially the egg before chicken or the other way around debate, if you believe there is a God. If you don’t believe, then it is just that the world came to be without God. What’s so illogical about either or any of the options I gave? No one can know. You can merely believe. And isn’t that what it comes down to?[/quote]

I am going to spare you walking you through the process, this link is the basis off of which I argue. Cosmology is the root of the argument for the existence of God. What this does is necessarily prove by logic alone that a ‘Necessary Being’ must exist. From their I can make a damn strong inductive case that this ‘Necessary Being’ is God. It’s not long so I hope you do read it, because I will refer to it.
It has arguments and counter arguments alike. It’s a good idea to know what’s already known in order not to retread the same tired old information.

I cannot make a good argument that a unicorn exists, I can make an incredibly good argument that God exists.

Now be warned this guy Tirib is probably going to troll my posts and make cockamamie ad hoc statements and try to refute them with epistle Romans from the Bible. You can do with it what you want but I will not be responding to him, I ignore his posts. If you have any questions about any points he makes you can ask me.
Yes, we’re both Christian, but the similarities end there. I don’t need and I won’t be using Scripture to make my points. Scripture is for believers, not non-believers. So I leave it out of the discussion.

109

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
…like the ass needs another hole.

I’m sorry. Continue.[/quote]

I seem to notice Christine, you’ll drop some vitriol and hatred, but when the conversation gets serious, you run away. Why are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs?[/quote]

Ha! Sorry, I just meant that this argument had been done to death and never goes anywhere.

I didn’t think that was hating.

Whatever ya’ll believe is cool with me. Faith requires no proof, so what is the point of arguing it?
[/quote]
Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

If you take a stance on an issue, I think you should know about your stance, why it’s your stance and have stuff that defends that stance otherwise how do you know if you’re right? I am not satisfied with a guess are you?

If that’s the worst thing you have to fear, your life is awesome.[/quote]

One of the definitions of faith is the belief in something without any proof. I’m not attempting to insult anyone with this statement.

I have not attacked your belief system in this thread, so I don’t know why you have become so defensive.

And no, that is not the worst thing I have to worry about. The lady in my dream was really persistent though in trying to convert me.

110

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:No postulation of certainty is unassailable. It’s a trite answer, but the only one I can give. >>>[/quote]Are you saying that you don’t know anything for sure?
[/quote]

Not at all. Cogito ergo sum. I know I exist on some level. How much I can trust my senses is another issue altogether.

Fine, lets start there then. I exist, I know this.[/quote]
You believe you exist because you have the possible illusion / hallucination of thinking. Read: possible.

How could Descartes prove that WE ARE on the basis that we SEEM to think? I disagree with the guy. Where’s the logical certainty?[/quote]

That’s not what he asserted. He asserted that he has an awareness and that ‘that’ at least must exist. Becuase ‘awareness’ is a something, not a nothing. He never ‘seemed’ to think. His assertion is that what we call ‘thinking’ is an awareness an that exists. He did make a mistake, but it’s not his epistemology, it was his possession. If was the foray in to skepticism.[/quote]
So he meant that something exists even if it was just an illusion? If not, thanks anyway for the explanation. Made me think.[/quote]

No, he was trying to determine the ‘nature’ of existence. He was going on, not what ‘seems’ to exist, or what is obvious, but what can he ‘prove’ exists. His process included purging all physical existence or anything that can be perceived by physical senses. In short, since senses can be deceived, they are not reliable sources of information.
He drilled down on what he can ‘know’ to exist. In his mind the only think he could prove to him self was that this experience of ‘thinking’ was the only thing he knew was happening. In other words he knew that he was aware of something. He knew that something has to exist otherwise he could not be aware of it. Nothing can’t be perceived at any level, so Descartes basically proved that ‘existence’ exists. Whether we interpret it accurately or not is another matter, but something rather than nothing exists, or you could’t perceive it indeed, there would be no ‘you’ illusory or otherwise.

111

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

BTW, Ben, Sloth is right. You come here with you dick out, thinking you can beat relgious people as stupid and full of shit. Then if somebody calls you on it you whine? Man up and take it like you dished it.

[/quote]

I just don’t feel like helping Gregory set up his “you have no base to argue from nyuck nycuk” spiel by playing 20 questions with him.

Please dish away.[/quote]

When appropriate. I have no need for a rant at the moment.

112

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

Who said anything about God’s “moral worth?”[/quote]

Your first post is full of moral indictment. It’s obvious you/we’re supposed to judge the morality of God. Come now, your language and choice of how to sum up Christianity in one short post makes it all too obvious. Let’s not go making absurd denials of intent?

So this god of yours, to whom the forces of even nature must bend too, could not have ‘interfered’ in the middle east. At least not in the way the Christians say. Why not, if the forces of nature bend to him? Why couldn’t he have chosen to deposit revelation of himself in a way that an individual such as yourself might reject? What rules from your human mind-- which is bound by nature, which is in turn bound by ‘him’–bind him?

[quote]… lol dude you’re getting me off track again. All I’m saying is that if you’re a Christian, you have to accept what I wrote in the OP as true. There is no way around it.

You’re the ones claiming to know “His will.” Not I.
[/quote]

I don’t have to accept it. You’ve yet to prove why I have to accept your point-of view of my point of view. All you’ve done is state your point of view, after all.

By the way, you are making claims about ‘his will’ by rejecting what a god would do, how ‘he’ would act, and what he would have to reveal to us. You have from the start been arguing that ‘god,’ for who the forces of nature bends, must act/have acted in accordance to your satisfaction.

113

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Alright Pat, how’s this:

God created man with free will and then tempted him to disobey. Then God cast man aside and watched him suffer for his transgression.

Simple, and straight out of Genesis.[/quote]

He didn’t cast man aside… He threw him out of the garden. If your going on Genesis, suffering came through man. When given a choice man chose to disobey God even though they knew the consequences of doing so. He said ‘Don’t do this or bad things will happen’ and they did it anyway. The whole point of freewill is the ability to choose. If you cannot choose then you don’t have freewill.

I get the sense you are arguing that God gave man freewill and then punished him for exercising it. I would agree except they were warned and when it came down to it, they took the word of a snake over God’s. Eve and then subsequently Adam chose death for the sake of the knowledge of Good and Evil.
That story has implications strait to today…Good and evil, good or bad, religious or non-religious we all still wear clothes…Yeah, yeah, nudists…They still wear clothes most of the time though.

114

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Christian point of view : God was bored and needed a set of doormats/housepets that he could use from time to time as a punching bag, so he created Man, but He gave him free will so he would transgress and could then be punished! And transgress he did…so He cast man aside so He could gleefully watch him suffer for his disobedience – and yea suffer man did, but he didnt do quite as badly as God expected him to, and as years went by, Man evolved, and he actually had a LOT of fun creating obstacles for himself and then overcoming them, and worse, man forgot that he was being punished ---- and WORST OF ALL, man all but forgot that he was initially created by a bored God to worship Him!

So He decided to remind Man that - he, as in, man had a superior being who was watching him, and that Man was being punished and that he better make it look like he’s suffering, AND that the only way out of his punishment (should he eventually realize that he was being punished) was to accept His Son as the messiah, etc. Well “some” took it to heart and as for the others, they carried on like nothing ever happened.

So the “believers” combined their forces and waged war on the “unbelievers” and massacred many of them so that they could save their heathen souls from the horrible punishment of life on earth followed by afterlife in the eternal pit of fire ---- and the list of “believers” grew… and the story rolls on!

[/quote]

In case we’ve forgotten what kind of language you chose, and how you presented it.

115

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

[/quote]

Number of followers equals truth? Well gee, those Hindus must really be on to something then.[/quote]

Where did I make the argumentum ad populem or argument beased on the popularity of a stance? I didn’t say because a bunch of people believe it’s true, it’s true. I said there is evidences to what we believe otherwise we wouldn’t believe it. Faith isn’t a complete lack of proof. Faith is a belief in something you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And by that definition, all live in faith.

116

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

[/quote]

Number of followers equals truth? Well gee, those Hindus must really be on to something then.[/quote]

Where did I make the argumentum ad populem or argument beased on the popularity of a stance? I didn’t say because a bunch of people believe it’s true, it’s true. I said there is evidences to what we believe otherwise we wouldn’t believe it. Faith isn’t a complete lack of proof. Faith is a belief in something you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And by that definition, all live in faith.[/quote]

What is your evidence?

117

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

[/quote]

Number of followers equals truth? Well gee, those Hindus must really be on to something then.[/quote]

Where did I make the argumentum ad populem or argument beased on the popularity of a stance? I didn’t say because a bunch of people believe it’s true, it’s true. I said there is evidences to what we believe otherwise we wouldn’t believe it. Faith isn’t a complete lack of proof. Faith is a belief in something you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And by that definition, all live in faith.[/quote]

There’s very little we can know “beyond a shadow of a doubt”

A very convenient way to define faith to prove your point.

118

[quote]Christine wrote:<<< One of the definitions of faith is the belief in something without any proof. >>>[/quote]I will be helping Ben demonstrate that that’s exactly what you do with regard to every single thing you and he and every other unbeliever claim to believe.

119

deleted

120

It is amazing, Sloth, that despite the brevity of my post you still manage to put words in my mouth. I presented the idea in the language it needed, and I mean every word. I’m not here to judge the morality of God, I’m here to question your beliefs. I hope that’s all cleared up now.

And “could” God suddenly decide to interfere after letting us mind our own business for ages? Sure.

“Could” he choose a roundabout illogical way to do it, for some mysterious reason? Sure.

He could be speaking through me right now, to test your faith. Careful now.