Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 09-23-2004, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

The issue is NOT whether you have a right to think or say or believe what you want to; it's a matter of whether your thoughts or beliefs are best in light of the greater truth.

A "greater truth" which you presume to know.

Quote:

For example, as a father who is in a position and exercises authority over my children, ... they have the right on any given day or at any time to think or act or even believe that they are ultimately in control of their own decisions and destiny, but in the end, I will consider their choices and actions, and deal with them accordingly.

Send 'em to eternal Hell without supper, eh?

Umm, so much for free will, then. God supposedly gives us "free will" but "deals with" our thoughts, beliefs and actions "accordingly". Main message? Toe the line, or else! Your "free will" was only given to you with the big caveat that you must absolutely conform your will to God's will.

Beetle · 09-23-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

The problem with this thinking is that "God has made this Jesus ... both Lord and Christ." Now, I'm sure Atheists will respond "but that's your opinion and you have a right to it, just as we have a right not to believe it"; but the Bible confronts the idea of relativism and condemns it by stating that God has placed Jesus Christ on the throne. While atheists may argue that this is debatable, or moreso untrue, you ought to consider the warning found in Scripture that not only tells of those who will deny the truth, seek to cast off the bonds of Christ, display outright aggression not only toward God but even the thought of God, but in the end, receive their due reward.

Actually, the atheist (and agnostic ... don't forget us agnostics!) response is "Gee, that's a very radical claim. And you're evidence to support this claim is?"

Conservative Christians are stuck in the loop of saying we should believe what the Bible says about God and then saying we know the Bible is trustworthy because God said so. Where did he say that? In the Bible! It doesn't get more circular than that. We've examined the Bible and have come to the same conclusions about it that you evidently have regarding works such as the Koran or Hesiod's Theogony (or else why have you rejected Zeus? Are you angry at him?).

Plognark · 09-23-2004, 09:19 AM

Huh, Rev. Timothy G. Muse's posts might be the most painfully silly examples of rapidly-spinning circular logic i've ever seen.

And IrishGuy's concept of what atheism is may be the biggest, fattest, overstuffed stawman i've seen in months.

All in one thread, i'm impressed :thumbs:

Bright Life · 09-23-2004, 09:19 AM

Okay, let me get this straight,

Your assertion

Quote:

The problem with this thinking is that "God has made this Jesus ... both Lord and Christ."

This claim is based on the Bible, resource which atheists do not accept as factual.

Atheist response to your assertion

Quote:

"but that's your opinion and you have a right to it, just as we have a right not to believe it"

More specifically, it is your right to believe what this book says, but since there is no proof of its claims, don't expect us to accept it.

Your reply to the Atheist response

Quote:

but the Bible confronts the idea of relativism and condemns it by stating that God has placed Jesus Christ on the throne.

This claim is also based on the Bible, which atheists do not believe. Therefore it holds no more weight than your first statement. Furthermore, your response indicates you are not listening to the other participants in the discussion

Atheist response to your assertion

Quote:

While atheists may argue that this is debatable, or moreso untrue,

You're a little off on this reply also. No atheist is going to say this is debatable. They will say that this is a classical circular argument--What the bible says is true because the bible says it's true.

Your reply to the Atheist response

Quote:

you ought to consider the warning found in Scripture that not only tells of those who will deny the truth, seek to cast off the bonds of Christ, display outright aggression not only toward God but even the thought of God, but in the end, receive their due reward.

So, instead of offering any proof, you provide a threat of eternal damnation from the resource we are questioning. Basically, I can't prove it's true, but you better believe it's true, or the main character will kill/eternally torture you.

You continue with circular arguments from the main character of your book here:

Quote:

Even evangelicals today begin at the wrong starting point, for when we proclaim to people "you need to be saved", it does not mean much unless the issue of Christ's rule and dominion is first addressed. Otherwise, athiests and everyone else are free to say "That's nice for you, but I don't think I need to be saved, or want to be saved." However, the Bible condemns such thinking by declaring that Christ Jesus (not the individual) is in charge! This is the message continually affirmed by the apostles. In Acts 2:16, Peter states "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Jesus himself states in Matthew 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Basically, you're saying: you have no right to an opinion, because the main character in my bible says you don't. It says he's in charge. It even says he's in charge in several different chapters!

Yet even MORE circular arguments:

Quote:

The truth is Scripture and prophesy pointed to Jesus as the coming Lord and Savior. Having been raised from the dead, he now sits enthroned above all.

Like on the day of Pentecost, not all will accept this message and some will even laugh and make fun (Acts 2:13); but just like through the early church, the kingdom of God will continue to be proclaimed, the ministry of Christ and the witness of his resurrection will be presented, many will come faith and salvation through repentace and confession, and the church of Christ will triumph even amidst various forms of opposition.

So, more it's true because it says it's true. Counting the hits, and making up others, the authors of your book claim that prophesies have been fulfilled. It covers the absolute nonsense factor by saying that even if people think this book is stupid and they laugh at it, enough people will believe the story to make the book a bestseller, even start a movement.

Quote:

In light of reality, sinners, called by God "repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ (to you)." (Acts 3:19-20)

In the light of this fabricated construct, those guilty of special crimes picked out by the book's protagonist must become willing servants to the character so that he will have mercy on them, and agree that he won't torture them eternally.

Well, Tim, as you may have guessed, I remain wholly unconvinced.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse · 09-23-2004, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beetle

Actually, the atheist (and agnostic ... don't forget us agnostics!) response is "Gee, that's a very radical claim. And you're evidence to support this claim is?"

Conservative Christians are stuck in the loop of saying we should believe what the Bible says about God and then saying we know the Bible is trustworthy because God said so. Where did he say that? In the Bible! It doesn't get more circular than that. We've examined the Bible and have come to the same conclusions about it that you evidently have regarding works such as the Koran or Hesiod's Theogony (or else why have you rejected Zeus? Are you angry at him?).

In the end, even the "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" will not fly. Going back to my earlier illustration, I as a father, who is in a position and exercises authority over my children... my childre have a right to think or believe as if they ultimately in charge of their decisions and destiny, but in the end, I will deal with their choices and actions accordingly. Here's the point. My children may argue that the argument for them to submit to my authority and respond appropriately is circular because "I" am the one that tells them I am in charge, and how do I do it, ... through my own WORD! But, in the end, their "circular argument" will not hold up, and they will not only receive their just reward, but additionally (on top of that!) be declared guilty and responsible for rejecting the word I gave to them.

On that same subject, it doesn't matter if the word is spoken, or given, guarded, preserved and propagated from one generation according to God's wisdom and pleasure, it still remains his word. Whether you recognize it as his word is an issue for another thread.

Bottom line: The circular argument, though it appears to float well, will also sink like a ton of bricks.

Plognark · 09-23-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Does anyone else ever feel like their talking to a ...well....you know...brick? :banghead:

Did you even read the previous posts regarding circular logic? :wide:

Mageth · 09-23-2004, 09:50 AM

Rev:

There are two kinds of people. Those that mature and outgrow the need for a Father Figure in their lives to tell tell them what to think and how to behave, and those that don't.

Your religion is handy for those that don't.

chapka · 09-23-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

In the end, even the "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" will not fly. Going back to my earlier illustration, I as a father, who is in a position and exercises authority over my children... my childre have a right to think or believe as if they ultimately in charge of their decisions and destiny, but in the end, I will deal with their choices and actions accordingly. Here's the point. My children may argue that the argument for them to submit to my authority and respond appropriately is circular because "I" am the one that tells them I am in charge, and how do I do it, ... through my own WORD! But, in the end, their "circular argument" will not hold up, and they will not only receive their just reward, but additionally (on top of that!) be declared guilty and responsible for rejecting the word I gave to them.

Would this apply equally if you commanded your children to have sex with you? If not, how is your authority over them any less valid in that situation? How do they have a "right to think or believe" that that's wrong, if they don't have such a right with regards to commands you actually give?

Rev. Timothy G. Muse · 09-23-2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapka

Would this apply equally if you commanded your children to have sex with you? If not, how is your authority over them any less valid in that situation? How do they have a "right to think or believe" that that's wrong, if they don't have such a right with regards to commands you actually give?

I do not wish to debate the issue of the morality of God here (& sidetrack the thread) but to point out that in light of the revelation and authority of God, it is unwise for men to disregard or deny these.

Mageth · 09-23-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I do not to debate the issue of the morality of God here (& sidetrack the thread) but to point out that in light of the revelation and authority of God, it is unwise for men to disregard or deny these.

???

This post is as circular as the rest of your argument. You may regard it as "unwise" because you "see the light" of God's "revelation and authority". That's all part of your belief system, of course. We atheists? We don't "see the light", so to speak, so we don't consider it "unwise" to "disregard" something we lack belief in.

Get this through your head, Rev: we atheists lack belief in said God, do not see any such "revelation", and obviously don't grant a God we lack belief in any "authority". Your veiled threat of how "unwise" that may be (according to your beliefs) do not phase us.

You're basically just regurgitating Pascal's Wager here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2004, 09:19 AM	#13
Plognark Contributor Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 14,952	Huh, Rev. Timothy G. Muse's posts might be the most painfully silly examples of rapidly-spinning circular logic i've ever seen. And IrishGuy's concept of what atheism is may be the biggest, fattest, overstuffed stawman i've seen in months. All in one thread, i'm impressed :thumbs:

09-23-2004, 09:50 AM	#17
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Rev: There are two kinds of people. Those that mature and outgrow the need for a Father Figure in their lives to tell tell them what to think and how to behave, and those that don't. Your religion is handy for those that don't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.