Who Believes?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
543

[quote]Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
forlife wrote:
It would be cool if Christians and believers of other religions focused on common values across all faiths. The unifying concept I find across these different belief systems is love. If religion limited itself to encouraging and fostering love, rather than judgment, discrimination, and condemnation, the world would be a lot better off.

There actually is a religion based off this idea of unity, it’s called “Baha’i” (Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith). One of my co-workers follows this faith and it’s quiet interesting. They reference a lot of other religions and their beliefs, but put their own spin on them.

Edit: Here’s a video explaining their religion: What is the Baha'i Faith? - YouTube

Talk about being a commitment phobe. Yeah, I love all people, because they are my family. I do not hate Muslims, and I do not hate people who worship Ba’al. I hate heretics.

You hate heretics, but do not hate people from other religions? You will have to explain the logic in this, cause I see none of it.

Okay, it is like this. My neighbor is Muslim, every Saturday I go over there during College football, watch television, and eat bbq. I do not hate him, I just do not like the Muslim religion. Yeah they have some good ideals, but it’s heretics.

Just to clarify: A heretic is SOMEONE who holds views and beliefs that are in opposition to the doctrines and opinions of the church. So according to your belief in hating heretics, you should hate your friend just because he believes in something different than yourself.

So now that that’s cleared up, will you start hating your friend just because he’s different than yourself?

A muslim isn’t a heretic, to a Roman Catholic.

cough Crusades cough cough

And? Are you confused with the apostate? A heretic proffesses the christian faith, but dissents from established dogma and doctrine. An apostate isn’t even a proffessed christian. Then there are the schismatics, of course.

I don’t think the term Heretic simply applies to those who have professed a faith and dissents from established dogma and doctrines. I believe it applies to anyone who has different doctrines that your own.

"The term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”"

None of this matters. Didn’t he identify himself as a Catholic? So a muslim would not be considered a heretic.[/quote]

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

544

[quote]forlife wrote:

How do you objectively answer that question then? Historical accounts of many different religious myths are dismissed as false, so why should the account of Jesus be any different?

[/quote]

My point in the previous post was that the logic of the argument was different, which I think you’re OK with. To answer your question, the account of Jesus should absolutely be held to the same standard as any other religion claiming a “God-Man.” To be perfectly honest with you, most of my education/exploration has been in Christianity vs. other religions (and I include Atheism as a “religion”) currently in existence. None of these make such a claim, but clearly you’ve pointed out at least one religion in the past that has made similar claims.

I’ll have to do some research to really answer the question of why believe Christianity over the religion of Osiris-Dionysus (any sources you know of would actually be much appreciated). The question now becomes which of these actually makes a stronger case based on the available historical evidence?

…But notice that in all of this, we are in fact going through a logical process of paring down the possibilities toward real, objective Truth (it’s not just all subjective when you start talking about religion). There’s still a logical construct that I’m ascribing to (namely that the “God-Man” concept trumps other forms of religious systems) and then a weighting of the available evidence given competing claims to that title. We’re not strictly relegated to blind faith.

545

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
forlife wrote:
It would be cool if Christians and believers of other religions focused on common values across all faiths. The unifying concept I find across these different belief systems is love. If religion limited itself to encouraging and fostering love, rather than judgment, discrimination, and condemnation, the world would be a lot better off.

There actually is a religion based off this idea of unity, it’s called “Baha’i” (Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith). One of my co-workers follows this faith and it’s quiet interesting. They reference a lot of other religions and their beliefs, but put their own spin on them.

Edit: Here’s a video explaining their religion: What is the Baha'i Faith? - YouTube

Talk about being a commitment phobe. Yeah, I love all people, because they are my family. I do not hate Muslims, and I do not hate people who worship Ba’al. I hate heretics.

You hate heretics, but do not hate people from other religions? You will have to explain the logic in this, cause I see none of it.

Okay, it is like this. My neighbor is Muslim, every Saturday I go over there during College football, watch television, and eat bbq. I do not hate him, I just do not like the Muslim religion. Yeah they have some good ideals, but it’s heretics.

Just to clarify: A heretic is SOMEONE who holds views and beliefs that are in opposition to the doctrines and opinions of the church. So according to your belief in hating heretics, you should hate your friend just because he believes in something different than yourself.

So now that that’s cleared up, will you start hating your friend just because he’s different than yourself?

A muslim isn’t a heretic, to a Roman Catholic.

cough Crusades cough cough

And? Are you confused with the apostate? A heretic proffesses the christian faith, but dissents from established dogma and doctrine. An apostate isn’t even a proffessed christian. Then there are the schismatics, of course.

I don’t think the term Heretic simply applies to those who have professed a faith and dissents from established dogma and doctrines. I believe it applies to anyone who has different doctrines that your own.

"The term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”"

None of this matters. Didn’t he identify himself as a Catholic? So a muslim would not be considered a heretic.

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.[/quote]

I gave my definition, Muslims are not heretics. I guess they could be since they consider the Bible part of their doctrine. I am more likely to put them in the area or false teachings.

546

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.[/quote]

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong.

547

[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
I’ll have to do some research to really answer the question of why believe Christianity over the religion of Osiris-Dionysus (any sources you know of would actually be much appreciated). The question now becomes which of these actually makes a stronger case based on the available historical evidence? [/quote]

You should be able to pull up some good sources through a quick Google search, but the reference for the info I posted earlier is:

Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘original Jesus’ a Pagan god?” Acacia Press, (1999).

Beyond looking at whether the Osiris/Dionysus stories are more or less historically accurate than the Jesus stories, I would encourage you to investigate how one might have informed the other. There are quite a few parallels between the two, more than would be expected by chance alone.

I couldn’t agree more! Any material claims made by religion are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny we apply to any other theory. It’s refreshing to see a Christian who isn’t afraid to dig into the actual facts, and hopefully is open minded to the possibility that his current beliefs may or may not be grounded in objective reality.

548

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
forlife wrote:
It would be cool if Christians and believers of other religions focused on common values across all faiths. The unifying concept I find across these different belief systems is love. If religion limited itself to encouraging and fostering love, rather than judgment, discrimination, and condemnation, the world would be a lot better off.

There actually is a religion based off this idea of unity, it’s called “Baha’i” (Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith). One of my co-workers follows this faith and it’s quiet interesting. They reference a lot of other religions and their beliefs, but put their own spin on them.

Edit: Here’s a video explaining their religion: What is the Baha'i Faith? - YouTube

Talk about being a commitment phobe. Yeah, I love all people, because they are my family. I do not hate Muslims, and I do not hate people who worship Ba’al. I hate heretics.

You hate heretics, but do not hate people from other religions? You will have to explain the logic in this, cause I see none of it.

Okay, it is like this. My neighbor is Muslim, every Saturday I go over there during College football, watch television, and eat bbq. I do not hate him, I just do not like the Muslim religion. Yeah they have some good ideals, but it’s heretics.

Just to clarify: A heretic is SOMEONE who holds views and beliefs that are in opposition to the doctrines and opinions of the church. So according to your belief in hating heretics, you should hate your friend just because he believes in something different than yourself.

So now that that’s cleared up, will you start hating your friend just because he’s different than yourself?

A muslim isn’t a heretic, to a Roman Catholic.

cough Crusades cough cough

And? Are you confused with the apostate? A heretic proffesses the christian faith, but dissents from established dogma and doctrine. An apostate isn’t even a proffessed christian. Then there are the schismatics, of course.

I don’t think the term Heretic simply applies to those who have professed a faith and dissents from established dogma and doctrines. I believe it applies to anyone who has different doctrines that your own.

"The term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”"

None of this matters. Didn’t he identify himself as a Catholic? So a muslim would not be considered a heretic.

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

I gave my definition, Muslims are not heretics. I guess they could be since they consider the Bible part of their doctrine. I am more likely to put them in the area or false teachings.[/quote]

According to your OWN definition, you are incorrect.

"1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. "

#1 and #3 are things Muslims believe/do. So how could you say they aren’t Heretics in your eyes.

Note: To all other viewers of this thread, I am not religious and do not categorize people into groups based on beliefs. I’m just trying to prove my point about religious people’s doctrined hate of others. Funny, this all started by my posting of a unifying religion!

549

[quote]Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong. [/quote]

I’m finding with religious topics, everyone is wrong except yourself.

550

[quote]Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong. [/quote]

You are wrong for assuming I’m wrong :wink: No, there is two sides, Orthodox and Heresy. Conservative and Liberal. BIA gave a correct definition, he just does not understand the definition he gave.

I am considered an Orthodox Roman Catholic. Heretics are not Muslims, they are Christians that do not believe in the Orthodox doctrines of the Faith.

  • Brother
551

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
forlife wrote:
It would be cool if Christians and believers of other religions focused on common values across all faiths. The unifying concept I find across these different belief systems is love. If religion limited itself to encouraging and fostering love, rather than judgment, discrimination, and condemnation, the world would be a lot better off.

There actually is a religion based off this idea of unity, it’s called “Baha’i” (Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith). One of my co-workers follows this faith and it’s quiet interesting. They reference a lot of other religions and their beliefs, but put their own spin on them.

Edit: Here’s a video explaining their religion: What is the Baha'i Faith? - YouTube

Talk about being a commitment phobe. Yeah, I love all people, because they are my family. I do not hate Muslims, and I do not hate people who worship Ba’al. I hate heretics.

You hate heretics, but do not hate people from other religions? You will have to explain the logic in this, cause I see none of it.

Okay, it is like this. My neighbor is Muslim, every Saturday I go over there during College football, watch television, and eat bbq. I do not hate him, I just do not like the Muslim religion. Yeah they have some good ideals, but it’s heretics.

Just to clarify: A heretic is SOMEONE who holds views and beliefs that are in opposition to the doctrines and opinions of the church. So according to your belief in hating heretics, you should hate your friend just because he believes in something different than yourself.

So now that that’s cleared up, will you start hating your friend just because he’s different than yourself?

A muslim isn’t a heretic, to a Roman Catholic.

cough Crusades cough cough

And? Are you confused with the apostate? A heretic proffesses the christian faith, but dissents from established dogma and doctrine. An apostate isn’t even a proffessed christian. Then there are the schismatics, of course.

I don’t think the term Heretic simply applies to those who have professed a faith and dissents from established dogma and doctrines. I believe it applies to anyone who has different doctrines that your own.

"The term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”"

None of this matters. Didn’t he identify himself as a Catholic? So a muslim would not be considered a heretic.

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

I gave my definition, Muslims are not heretics. I guess they could be since they consider the Bible part of their doctrine. I am more likely to put them in the area or false teachings.

According to your OWN definition, you are incorrect.

"1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. "

#1 and #3 are things Muslims believe/do. So how could you say they aren’t Heretics in your eyes.

Note: To all other viewers of this thread, I am not religious and do not categorize people into groups based on beliefs. I’m just trying to prove my point about religious people’s doctrined hate of others. Funny, this all started by my posting of a unifying religion![/quote]

  1. Muslims are not part of the Catholic Church, so they can not be heretics.
  2. Muslims are not part of the Catholic Church, so they can not be heretics. They have their own established attitude, they just are not part of my Church, which does not necessarily make them heretics.
552

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
forlife wrote:
It would be cool if Christians and believers of other religions focused on common values across all faiths. The unifying concept I find across these different belief systems is love. If religion limited itself to encouraging and fostering love, rather than judgment, discrimination, and condemnation, the world would be a lot better off.

There actually is a religion based off this idea of unity, it’s called “Baha’i” (Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith). One of my co-workers follows this faith and it’s quiet interesting. They reference a lot of other religions and their beliefs, but put their own spin on them.

Edit: Here’s a video explaining their religion: What is the Baha'i Faith? - YouTube

Talk about being a commitment phobe. Yeah, I love all people, because they are my family. I do not hate Muslims, and I do not hate people who worship Ba’al. I hate heretics.

You hate heretics, but do not hate people from other religions? You will have to explain the logic in this, cause I see none of it.

Okay, it is like this. My neighbor is Muslim, every Saturday I go over there during College football, watch television, and eat bbq. I do not hate him, I just do not like the Muslim religion. Yeah they have some good ideals, but it’s heretics.

Just to clarify: A heretic is SOMEONE who holds views and beliefs that are in opposition to the doctrines and opinions of the church. So according to your belief in hating heretics, you should hate your friend just because he believes in something different than yourself.

So now that that’s cleared up, will you start hating your friend just because he’s different than yourself?

A muslim isn’t a heretic, to a Roman Catholic.

cough Crusades cough cough

And? Are you confused with the apostate? A heretic proffesses the christian faith, but dissents from established dogma and doctrine. An apostate isn’t even a proffessed christian. Then there are the schismatics, of course.

I don’t think the term Heretic simply applies to those who have professed a faith and dissents from established dogma and doctrines. I believe it applies to anyone who has different doctrines that your own.

"The term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”"

None of this matters. Didn’t he identify himself as a Catholic? So a muslim would not be considered a heretic.

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

I gave my definition, Muslims are not heretics. I guess they could be since they consider the Bible part of their doctrine. I am more likely to put them in the area or false teachings.

According to your OWN definition, you are incorrect.

"1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. "

#1 and #3 are things Muslims believe/do. So how could you say they aren’t Heretics in your eyes.

Note: To all other viewers of this thread, I am not religious and do not categorize people into groups based on beliefs. I’m just trying to prove my point about religious people’s doctrined hate of others. Funny, this all started by my posting of a unifying religion![/quote]

Um, 1. refers to, as an example, a Christian who holds a heretical view of HIS church’s doctrines.

  1. is vague. But a muslim could only be a heretic in the eyes of other muslims if he doesn’t conform to established muslim attitudes, beliefs, or doctrines.

A unifying religion? An atheistic wish, really.

553

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong.

I’m finding with religious topics, everyone is wrong except yourself.[/quote]

Well, it is just you in this situation. An heretic, here is an example for you, would be someone who is in the Church that would say that you do not have to drink wine for communion, you can use grape juice.

  • Brother
554

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong.

You are wrong for assuming I’m wrong :wink: No, there is two sides, Orthodox and Heresy. Conservative and Liberal. BIA gave a correct definition, he just does not understand the definition he gave.

I am considered an Orthodox Roman Catholic. Heretics are not Muslims, they are Christians that do not believe in the Orthodox doctrines of the Faith.

  • Brother[/quote]

Wasn’t assuming you were wrong. For the sake of arguement I conceeded you may have given a bad definition somewhere in the conversation that would include muslims as heretics. Basically, saying I don’t care who gave what definition. A muslim isn’t a heretic.

555

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

Well, considering he gave his own definition on what a Heretic is that agrees with my definition, I’d have to say you’re wrong.

If he gave any definition contrary to what I’ve said, he’s wrong. Which makes both of you wrong.

You are wrong for assuming I’m wrong :wink: No, there is two sides, Orthodox and Heresy. Conservative and Liberal. BIA gave a correct definition, he just does not understand the definition he gave.

I am considered an Orthodox Roman Catholic. Heretics are not Muslims, they are Christians that do not believe in the Orthodox doctrines of the Faith.

  • Brother

Wasn’t assuming you were wrong. For the sake of arguement I conceeded you may have given a bad definition somewhere along the lines that would include muslims as heretics.[/quote]

Yeah, I understand. I was only being sarcastic. Because really an argument what orthodox and heresy means and is defined. This has already been established. It is like a friend of mine an Evangelical of the old variety believes all these people on TV, etc. are heretics and is pretty disgusted with what they are doing to the religion. The man is on the verge of starting a new religion (just a new name) since true Evangelicals have lost their name to liberals.

556

raises hand

I may not be a heretic, but can I at least be a heathen?

557

[quote]forlife wrote:
raises hand

I may not be a heretic, but can I at least be a heathen?[/quote]

Apostate seems more fitting, I think.

558

[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
To determine the validity of Christianity, you need not waste your time offering "proof for a particular belief system). There’s really only one question that needs to be answered - Was Jesus or was he not God (like he claimed to be)?

How do you objectively answer that question then? Historical accounts of many different religious myths are dismissed as false, so why should the account of Jesus be any different?

For example, you mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. In reality, there are many accounts of non-Christian religious figures predating Jesus, that were similarly brought back from the dead. Why should these accounts be dismissed, without holding the Christian account to the same objective standard?

Life Events Shared by Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus

The following stories appear both in the bible and in religions that predated Jesus:

Conception
God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).

A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.
[/quote]
Please share these other “virgin” births? I thought one was concieved the old fashioned way by Zeus and the other by a reanimated corpse (and wasn’t Horus the resulting birth, and Osiris the reanimated corpse?). My sources also tell me that Osiris is the son of Nut, a goddess of the sky…There’s other things to question, but let’s start here?

559

[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
I’ll have to do some research to really answer the question of why believe Christianity over the religion of Osiris-Dionysus (any sources you know of would actually be much appreciated). The question now becomes which of these actually makes a stronger case based on the available historical evidence?

You should be able to pull up some good sources through a quick Google search, but the reference for the info I posted earlier is:

Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘original Jesus’ a Pagan god?” Acacia Press, (1999).

Beyond looking at whether the Osiris/Dionysus stories are more or less historically accurate than the Jesus stories, I would encourage you to investigate how one might have informed the other. There are quite a few parallels between the two, more than would be expected by chance alone.

…But notice that in all of this, we are in fact going through a logical process of paring down the possibilities toward real, objective Truth (it’s not just all subjective when you start talking about religion). There’s still a logical construct that I’m ascribing to (namely that the “God-Man” concept trumps other forms of religious systems) and then a weighting of the available evidence given competing claims to that title. We’re not strictly relegated to blind faith.

I couldn’t agree more! Any material claims made by religion are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny we apply to any other theory. It’s refreshing to see a Christian who isn’t afraid to dig into the actual facts, and hopefully is open minded to the possibility that his current beliefs may or may not be grounded in objective reality.[/quote]

Thanks for the source. I’m going to do some digging and thinking. But on your second point about influence, there is another alternative that I’ve heard from Christian scholars that seems like it could potentially fit here - that God actually revealed some knowledge about the coming salvation to other pagans (just like he did to the prophets in Israel/Old Testament). I guess the thought would be akin to something like a revelation about how the American empire will eventually fall, which is then published not as a historical work but a novel or something. Then it turns out to be eerily accurate against all odds. BTW, I’m not necessarily saying this is the case here since I haven’t even really looked into it yet, but just pointing out that the “influence” does not necessarily have to work in only one direction through time, especially when dealing with a God that is outside and not subject to space-time.

I know what you mean but I don’t think the unwillingness to dig into facts and really search for truth is exclusive to Christians or even religious folks in general. As human beings, we generally like our comfort and it’s a hell of a lot more comfortable to just sit back and think you’re right about everything than to really challenge yourself. What I’ve found though is that your belief in anything will be much more meaningful to you if you have to do a little work to justify to yourself why you’re willing to believe. And you can sometimes find something that does actually change your current way of thinking provided that you go into the process with some intellectual honesty

Personally, I’d never want to follow Christianity if I didn’t think it was true. Why make the sacrifices that it requires of me if it’s all a bunch of garbage? Better to live hedonistically if when I die that really is the end. I’ve tried that lifestyle and eventually you end up feeling empty and wanting more - the key is still to fill that void with truth, though and not just a bunch of feel-good garbage. I’ll now step down from my soap-box…

560

[quote]yusef wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

  1. Muslims are not part of the Catholic Church, so they can not be heretics.
  2. Muslims are not part of the Catholic Church, so they can not be heretics. They have their own established attitude, they just are not part of my Church, which does not necessarily make them heretics.

Who are you to deny my right to be a heretic? What if I try really hard?[/quote]

Alright, but first you’ll have to go through oh about 7 years of schooling to be confirmed, have your first confession, and first communion. Ready?

561

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
raises hand

I may not be a heretic, but can I at least be a heathen?

Apostate seems more fitting, I think.[/quote]

Only if you consider Mormons to be Christians, which many people (mistakenly) don’t.

562

[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
But on your second point about influence, there is another alternative that I’ve heard from Christian scholars that seems like it could potentially fit here - that God actually revealed some knowledge about the coming salvation to other pagans (just like he did to the prophets in Israel/Old Testament).[/quote]

If that were the case, wouldn’t “god” tell these people that he was going to sire a son in Jerusalem, rather than misleading them with stories about other mythical figures that actually lead them away from the “true” religion? The Hebrew god is very specific about only worshiping the true god, and not following after false gods.

Doesn’t it seem far more likely that these stories of messianic figures from ancient cultures like Greece, Rome, and Egypt were copied into later stories among the Jews, much as we know happened with other pagan traditions like Christmas being celebrated on the feast of the Son of Isis (12/25), etc.?

Agreed. I think it is dishonest to insist on having absolute knowledge, whether the insisting is done by believers or by hard core atheists. Why not simply admit that we don’t know, instead of pretending like we do?