FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2006, 07:40 AM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: vienna/austria
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by punk77
Is this another way of saying that arguements that could win over credulous, uninformed people are of no use against people who now know a thing or two about science/conmen and have more information/knowledge on which to judge Christian claims.
No, certainly not. What I meant is that trying to extract a firm factual base for belief only from the gospel narratives is disregarding Christian development up to now.
By the way, it is not only the gap of time which renders such a task unsuccessfull but also the difference in level : no sense in trying to prove faith by fact (sounds trivial but is continually done).
michael wellenberg is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:08 AM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have asked many of my Christian friends why they don't base their entire faith around ONLY Jesus' words (as attributed to him in the Gospels) and not Paul's or anyone else's. They never have an answer.
Do they have no answer, or do they have none that you agree with?

The reason they don't base their faith around only Jesus' words is that they believe the entire Bible to be God's words. Given that they do believe that, it logically follows that they should attempt to conform their faith to everything in the book.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 10:08 AM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
It should be noted that Half-life has a history of this. He starts a thread where he seems to question his faith and then suddenly a few pages later it turns that he really didn't and he goes back to his fundie arguments. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Julian
Yeah, that's true. Perhaps he's desperately trying to hang onto his faith. That's the impression I get. I don't see him as just trying to wind us up, though perhaps I'm wrong.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though.

David B
David B is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 05:58 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 3,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven
Given the "logic" he employs for/against Christianity, I'm not sure if his "questioning" is worth a damn.
The point is that he is doing it, not how well he is doing it. Think of the millions who never question at all, never even conceive that the bible could be wrong about anything.
jackrabbit is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 06:05 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 3,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
It should be noted that Half-life has a history of this. He starts a thread where he seems to question his faith and then suddenly a few pages later it turns that he really didn't and he goes back to his fundie arguments. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Perhaps. But if that's what he is doing, he should know by now that every argument he makes is easily ripped to shreds, and he is basically playing straight man when people who really are questioning come through here. Poorly thought out religious arguments are fodder for lurker deconversion.
jackrabbit is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 06:30 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The belly of the beast.
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David B
Yeah, that's true. Perhaps he's desperately trying to hang onto his faith. That's the impression I get. I don't see him as just trying to wind us up, though perhaps I'm wrong. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though.
He COMPLETELY ignores me whenever I make any attempt to clarify things for him, however. In fact, I'm not even going to bother replying to anything he says anymore.
Spitfire is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 10:00 AM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Google "Febble" if you need to find me.
Posts: 6,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bishop
The Catholic Church, for instance, I think does not believe that people go to heaven (prior to the second coming, of course) unless they are canonised. Nonetheless, the not-yet-elevated Cardinal Ratzinger spoke at Pope John Paul II's funeral about the late pontiff "looking down on us from a window in God's house", thus bolstering the view of a current heaven or presupposing Jay Pee Two's inevitable elevation to sainthood. In either case, as one of the most learned catholic theologians in the church (certainly in the Cardinalate), he most certainly knew better.
My understanding is that saints are simply people in heaven. Canonisation is a recognition of this. You don't need to be canonized to go to heaven, but you get to be canonized if it is clear that you did. Hence the requirement for a miracle - it proves you are there.

Canonisation simply gives the faithful a useful list of people to call on. But we have All Saints day, in recognition of all the saints we don't know about. And of course we are allowed to call on people we think are in heaven, even if they haven't been canonised yet (Mother Teresa, JPII) - in fact we are encouraged, because that way, we might get a miracle that would allow canonisation of said saint.

(The catholic church is at its worst when it comes down to these sorts of technicalities IMO).
Febble is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 11:01 AM   #38
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackrabbit
Perhaps. But if that's what he is doing, he should know by now that every argument he makes is easily ripped to shreds, and he is basically playing straight man when people who really are questioning come through here. Poorly thought out religious arguments are fodder for lurker deconversion.
I agree with jackrabbit. I was looking at this site for a good while before I plucked up the courage to make a post. The responses to questions on this site affect a far greater number of people than just the people taking part in the actual debate which is why I thanked some people in my first post even though I had not been in direct contact with them:notworthy:.
punk77 is offline  
Old 04-02-2006, 07:57 AM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackrabbit
The point is that he is doing it, not how well he is doing it. Think of the millions who never question at all, never even conceive that the bible could be wrong about anything.
And my point is that if you can easily be swayed by simple arguments in one direction, you can also be easily swayed backed by simple (or even bad) arguments.

If you question something, you really have to invest some thought and logic in it.
Sven is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.