Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 10-23-2002, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin:
You may have clothed this in courtesy but it's still very patronizing.

Perhaps ~ it surely was not intended to be that way.

I'm glad to hear that.

If I opened your eyes to how a comment might be seen by someone else then I think it was worth saying what I did.

On the other hand you might dismiss what I say based on a belief that I am hypersensitive and see things no-one else does

.

Quote:

However, let us not slay any messengers here as a diversion.

It seems to me you are alive and kicking - but I respect your desire not to get off topic.

Quote:

The fact remains that Christians cannot address the questions I have posed.

And Joel has simply kept his Christian blinders on in sure form.

Your first notice of only what you find patronizing of me, the perceived anti-christ, is also standard practice.

I think I've explained before - in posts you probably haven't seen - that my intention in being here is not to answer every theological question. It would be impossible and in most cases it would make no difference to the views of those asking them. They would reject the theological answer anyway.

Joel said he's here to answer questions which means it's appropriate to consider whether he has done so or not.

But I'm not and I never was.

Quote:

Shall I offer you good tidings now, HelenM ~ at the dire risk of imposing upon your Christian sensibilities or merely bow to you gracefully in silence?

I will leave that to you to decide, sir (?)

take care
Helen

Buffman · 10-23-2002, 04:19 AM

Joel

I think a lot comes down to personal intepretation of any evidence that is presented.

I'm sorry Joel. That is where your formal education is rather incomplete. There is an extremely effective methodology for reducing to an absolute minimum, if not totally eliminating, subjective interpretations of verifiable evidence. Personal interpretations play only an initial role. They are called a hypotheses. All you are offering is just one more "He said, she said," type hypothesis. That is a totally worthless approach to revealing accurate knowledge. I have heard theists making that same argument for decades. Christian vs Muslim, Jew vs Christian, Hindu vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, on, and on, and on. All subjective arguments because they have no verifiable evidence or standardized methodology used to arrive at the most objective conclusions available at that time.

It's not so much the amount of experience but the actual experiences.

Once again you are offering subjective observations that no one can confirm other than you. Thus you are now saying that you are incapable of interpretational error. That your senses and intellect can never be fooled or in error. That your knowledge of the universe is so extensive and complete that you must be correct about everything? Don't you see or comprehend that that is what you have just indirectly alleged?

I believe in things that are supernatural because, in my lifetime, I have dealt with these types of things.

OK! Fine. Then you must have some verifiable evidence arising from those supernatural experiences. Please present it. I am very anxious to have you share it with me. However, if you have no verifiable evidence, then you have only another subjective (personal) interpretation of whatever it was you believe you experienced. I have seen many devoutly religious people have very dramatic experiences that they described as supernatural. I have also had some very practical experiences with folks who have ingested artificial drugs who also claimed to have had supernatural experiences. Neither group is lying. They sincerely and adamantly believe what they are relating. For them, it was as real as real can be. However, my formal education, training and experiences have taught me otherwise.

For me to not acknowledge that supernatural things do exist, would for me to contradict my own conscience, when I know for sure that they do.

I am well aware of just how sincere you are in that belief.

No, I wouldn't say that personal experience is my sole proof, but it is definitely part of it.

I would tend to label this as "waffling."

I'm sure that it would be reasonable to say that personal testimony plays an important role in a courtroom,...

Of course it does...when there is no verifiable evidence in the case. Then we return right back to the "He said, she said" situation and who the jury believes. That's why innocent people can get convicted of crimes they did not commit...and why DNA evidence has become such a major player in criminal cases.

My intent here is not to criticize anyone for any belief or disbelief they might have.

I appreciate and understand that. However, you came here claiming to be able to answer questions about Christianity for folks who appear to know far more about it than you do. In my "Welcome" I cautioned you about that. Evidently you choose not to heed that caution. Thus, you can not expect me to heed yours about identifying the failings of your belief system. It is only fair play.

I started this thread so people could ask questions about Christianity and so that hopefully I would be able to give them reasonable or at least acceptable answers.

So when are you going to begin providing verifiable answers rather than quotes from your flawed sacred textbook...and it is very flawed... whether you wish to believe that or not.

I must apologize for not answering this question. I mentioned in an earlier post that I would rather not deal with what is wrong in other systems of belief. If someone actually uses another version of the Bible, then I would gladly have a one-on-one discussion with them. I assure you that I have studied things such as the apocyrpha rather thoroughly. Actually, while I was studying systematic theology at the university I attend, I would deal with things such as this for about 4 hours in a classroom everyday, and 6-8 hours a day in the library doing research. I'm sure that one of the new members who has recently posted in the introduction area of the forum, Scottsman (Matt), would vouch for me that I am not one to challenge or attempt to correct another Christian belief unless someone with that belief willingly wants to have that discussion with me; as we do not agree on everything. The thing that I feel is most important is the Gospel of Christ and that Christians agree that Christ is our means for salvation.

My question dealt exclusively with the Christian faith belief system. No other system was mentioned. If, as you claim, you have studied these other Christian Sects, then you know that they consider their holy books to be just as inerrant as you consider yours to be. So why are they wrong and you right? You still have not been able to explain how those so-called sacred texts were assembled and why the differences. The objective answer is not complex. The subjective one is. Additionally, either you do or you don't except the entire Judeo-Christian Protestant Bible as inerrant. You don't have the luxury of only claiming the Gospels as inerrant. (Nice try!)

I hope this adequately answers your post, and I do apologize for not answering your previous question.

I'm afraid that it doesn't even come close to answer any of my posts. However, I completely appreciate the problems you face while attempting to accomplish your "stated" goal. Belief in the supernatural is based on faith, not fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will actually be more comfortable with your own faith beliefs. Verifiable evidence is not required for faith. It is required for fact.

Thank you for your contributions; but I must follow Ronin's wise decision and allow you to continue along the journey you have chosen for yourself without any further input from me. Please be happy, healthy and always learning new and exciting things. I wish you well in your studies.

Stephen T-B · 10-23-2002, 05:00 AM

Buffman�s gone, so my elaboration won�t offend him.

Faith does not require facts; faith requires belief.
When facts are supplied, faith is supplanted by knowledge, and while possessing knowledge is useful, faith is the key to everlasting life.
This seems perfectly clear to me; I wonder why it isn�t perfectly clear to Christians who are forever seeking evidence that would replace their faith with knowledge.

Joel, I think you would understand better what�s going on here if you could come to terms with the fact that many of those who visit this forum are not seeking faith; we are interested in knowledge.

sighhswolf · 10-23-2002, 05:48 AM

"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Does evil exist along side good from a theists concept?
Does evil exist in the heavenly realm, in this gods residence?
I see this verse as an indication that "evil" does exist.
Does an all powerful creator of the universe and everything it contains have an "evil" side to his nature?
The verse indicates yes, if this creator "thinks"
evil, then it goes without question that he is indeed capable of inflicting evil upon his creations.
So that the being becomes the author of "evil" as well as "good".

Could it be that the creator does not have control over certain aspects of the physical laws
of the universe, and that he is capable of mistakes in his judgments and /or actions?

To repent:

1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind
transitive senses
1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition
2 : to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for

If the creator of the entire universe and everything in it, feels regret for actions he has contemplated it would indicate a deviation in thought.
If he changes his mind it points to the fact that he considered a course of action at some prior time to have been in error and in need of reexamination.
The verse suggests that this being had to examine an issue in retrospect.

The theists attributes to god the following characteristics: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the universe.
Most say that god is incapable of anything but good, is also incapable of error, and will never contradict himself.
Yet the verse above shows very clearly that this god is capable of having to rethink and ammend his actions.
It indicates to me that this pure being also has an "evil" side to his nature.
And that by his recorded actions in this verse, he does contradict himself.
The lord repented of the evil he sought to inflict upon his people.

This loving god has considered inflicting evil
acts on HIS people.
EVIL...not punishment, not retribution, not correction.
Without playing the semantics game, consider the verse and read it word for word, and tell me what it says to you.

Because my personal interpretation is that:
Evil exists.
This god is capable of evil acts.
This god is capable of making errors in judgment.
And this god may not be so infallible, indeed the verse indictaes very clearly a mistake in thinking has occured.

All of these indications point to a very "HumanLike" being, not a supreme all powerful creator who is supposedly able to mold reality in any shape he chooses.
Wolf

Kosh · 10-23-2002, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HoosierGuy28:

What I will do is highly recommend a book that deals with criticisms of Christianity and gives support for the canonicity of the Protestant Bible. "The Evidence That Demands A Verdict" or "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" (This is an updated version of the first one) The author for both of these books is Josh McDowell. He also has a section in this book that deals with evidence of the Deity of Christ. I personally have several of his books and I am very supportive of what he has to say.

Yes Joel, we are quite familiar with Josh McDowell. Apparently you haven't perused OUR library for 6 hours a day yet. Allow me to provide a link which contains a thorough trashing of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", as well as Lee Strobels work, and many others. I do hope you'll read it!

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.shtml" target="_blank">SecWeb Library, criticism of apologetics</a>

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

Perchance · 10-23-2002, 06:40 AM

Hi Joel,

Thank you again for the answers. However, I think this touches on one of my most fundamental disagreements with Christianity (civilly, however).

The idea that "The Bible and/or Christian thought are all you need" saddens me. I think there will always be new things, that one book cannot possibly be for all time, and that one deprives oneself of lots of benefits by just sticking to one book and one system of thought. I suppose my attitude has been shaped by growing up in a world where science and communication and ideas change at a dizzying pace, but this is my world and this is the way I like it. So becoming a rock in a stream, to choose an image, seems to be attempting an artificial standstill of the river that doesn't work. The river still sweeps by on either side of the rock, and eventually the rock crumbles away.

I couldn't ever just hold onto the Bible. I'm afraid of what I might miss.

-Perchance.

Mageth · 10-23-2002, 06:55 AM

HoosierGuy28:

As you can see, they were literally given a command, and they willingly chose not to listen.
At that point, they had knowledge of sin. Most likely, that is why the tree was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Because of that sin, they experienced a physical and spiritual deadening at that very moment.

Are you saying they had no knowledge of sin before eating the fruit? Then how could eating the fruit be a sin to them, if they had no knowledge that eating the fruit (or even disobeying god) was a sin?

Goliath · 10-23-2002, 07:27 AM

Brian,

Quote:

I would say that a definition being the "most inclusive" is not necessarily an advantage of that definition.

Apparently you either didn't catch (or purposedly ignored) the part where I said that the defintion of atheism which includes weak and strong atheism is more consistent with the etymology of "atheist" ("theist" meaning "one who believes that a god exists," and "a" meaning "not"). Again, my definition is more consistent. Yours is not.

Quote:

Well, many of the people that frequent this board, it seems to me, can tell the difference. However, it is only a small fraction of a minority of atheists in the country (or even the world) that frequent this board.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

If most atheists that you encounter in real life *DO* understand the difference, then we just have different experiences, is all.

I guess we do.

Sincerely,

Goliath

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 08:03 AM

Ronin,

Quote:

Ah, well ~ always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
You are in company, Joel ~ no Christian has ever been able to openly and honestly address the simple questions I have posed.

I completely understand why you would not ~ and why you avoid other interests that would expose your 'faith' to the warm light of reality.

Many of these infidels have been equally snared at one point in their lives, so be sure that we do not fault you.

My best to you in your life's journey ~ one human to another ~ living, loving, breathing.

Actually, I can't even recall what your question was. I am here to have serious discussions with people about Christianity, and the initial impression I got from you was that you are just here to engage in personal attacks on people, so you must excuse me if I ignore some (if not all) of your posts.

Joel

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 08:18 AM

K,

Quote:

Allah sent the Prophet to tell us He was real and Mohammad is definitely a historical figure. The ancient Greeks made absolutely amazing accomplishments under the guidance of Zeus and the other Olympians. I have personal experience that tells me the earth is flat.

If you feel there is adequate evidence for Islam then why aren't you a Muslim? Are you a follower of Zeus and the other various demigods? If you have personal experience that the earth is flat, then please share it with me.

You are committing a logical fallacy here, unless you can honestly tell me you believe in these things. Maybe not in your claims that the earth being flat because realistically earth can be flat, but if you're talking about the planet Earth, then your claim is something that can be disproven. Of course, then it would be a matter of what you're comparing it to, because if people claim the universe is flat, I see no reason why they wouldn't say the earth is flat too.

Quote:

It would be ridiculous to say that a critical thinker would accept any of these as evidence. Do you have any evidence to support Christianity that is better than these?

As I've said in my earlier posts, I'm not going to attack various belief systems, so there is no need for me to attack Greek mythology or Islam. Christianity stands on the doctrine and merit of Christ, not on anything else.

Joel

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

10-23-2002, 04:19 AM	#132
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Joel I think a lot comes down to personal intepretation of any evidence that is presented. I'm sorry Joel. That is where your formal education is rather incomplete. There is an extremely effective methodology for reducing to an absolute minimum, if not totally eliminating, subjective interpretations of verifiable evidence. Personal interpretations play only an initial role. They are called a hypotheses. All you are offering is just one more "He said, she said," type hypothesis. That is a totally worthless approach to revealing accurate knowledge. I have heard theists making that same argument for decades. Christian vs Muslim, Jew vs Christian, Hindu vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, on, and on, and on. All subjective arguments because they have no verifiable evidence or standardized methodology used to arrive at the most objective conclusions available at that time. It's not so much the amount of experience but the actual experiences. Once again you are offering subjective observations that no one can confirm other than you. Thus you are now saying that you are incapable of interpretational error. That your senses and intellect can never be fooled or in error. That your knowledge of the universe is so extensive and complete that you must be correct about everything? Don't you see or comprehend that that is what you have just indirectly alleged? I believe in things that are supernatural because, in my lifetime, I have dealt with these types of things. OK! Fine. Then you must have some verifiable evidence arising from those supernatural experiences. Please present it. I am very anxious to have you share it with me. However, if you have no verifiable evidence, then you have only another subjective (personal) interpretation of whatever it was you believe you experienced. I have seen many devoutly religious people have very dramatic experiences that they described as supernatural. I have also had some very practical experiences with folks who have ingested artificial drugs who also claimed to have had supernatural experiences. Neither group is lying. They sincerely and adamantly believe what they are relating. For them, it was as real as real can be. However, my formal education, training and experiences have taught me otherwise. For me to not acknowledge that supernatural things do exist, would for me to contradict my own conscience, when I know for sure that they do. I am well aware of just how sincere you are in that belief. No, I wouldn't say that personal experience is my sole proof, but it is definitely part of it. I would tend to label this as "waffling." I'm sure that it would be reasonable to say that personal testimony plays an important role in a courtroom,... Of course it does...when there is no verifiable evidence in the case. Then we return right back to the "He said, she said" situation and who the jury believes. That's why innocent people can get convicted of crimes they did not commit...and why DNA evidence has become such a major player in criminal cases. My intent here is not to criticize anyone for any belief or disbelief they might have. I appreciate and understand that. However, you came here claiming to be able to answer questions about Christianity for folks who appear to know far more about it than you do. In my "Welcome" I cautioned you about that. Evidently you choose not to heed that caution. Thus, you can not expect me to heed yours about identifying the failings of your belief system. It is only fair play. I started this thread so people could ask questions about Christianity and so that hopefully I would be able to give them reasonable or at least acceptable answers. So when are you going to begin providing verifiable answers rather than quotes from your flawed sacred textbook...and it is very flawed... whether you wish to believe that or not. I must apologize for not answering this question. I mentioned in an earlier post that I would rather not deal with what is wrong in other systems of belief. If someone actually uses another version of the Bible, then I would gladly have a one-on-one discussion with them. I assure you that I have studied things such as the apocyrpha rather thoroughly. Actually, while I was studying systematic theology at the university I attend, I would deal with things such as this for about 4 hours in a classroom everyday, and 6-8 hours a day in the library doing research. I'm sure that one of the new members who has recently posted in the introduction area of the forum, Scottsman (Matt), would vouch for me that I am not one to challenge or attempt to correct another Christian belief unless someone with that belief willingly wants to have that discussion with me; as we do not agree on everything. The thing that I feel is most important is the Gospel of Christ and that Christians agree that Christ is our means for salvation. My question dealt exclusively with the Christian faith belief system. No other system was mentioned. If, as you claim, you have studied these other Christian Sects, then you know that they consider their holy books to be just as inerrant as you consider yours to be. So why are they wrong and you right? You still have not been able to explain how those so-called sacred texts were assembled and why the differences. The objective answer is not complex. The subjective one is. Additionally, either you do or you don't except the entire Judeo-Christian Protestant Bible as inerrant. You don't have the luxury of only claiming the Gospels as inerrant. (Nice try!) I hope this adequately answers your post, and I do apologize for not answering your previous question. I'm afraid that it doesn't even come close to answer any of my posts. However, I completely appreciate the problems you face while attempting to accomplish your "stated" goal. Belief in the supernatural is based on faith, not fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will actually be more comfortable with your own faith beliefs. Verifiable evidence is not required for faith. It is required for fact. Thank you for your contributions; but I must follow Ronin's wise decision and allow you to continue along the journey you have chosen for yourself without any further input from me. Please be happy, healthy and always learning new and exciting things. I wish you well in your studies.

10-23-2002, 05:00 AM	#133
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Buffman�s gone, so my elaboration won�t offend him. Faith does not require facts; faith requires belief. When facts are supplied, faith is supplanted by knowledge, and while possessing knowledge is useful, faith is the key to everlasting life. This seems perfectly clear to me; I wonder why it isn�t perfectly clear to Christians who are forever seeking evidence that would replace their faith with knowledge. Joel, I think you would understand better what�s going on here if you could come to terms with the fact that many of those who visit this forum are not seeking faith; we are interested in knowledge.

10-23-2002, 05:48 AM	#134
sighhswolf Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Charlotte,NC USA Posts: 379	"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Does evil exist along side good from a theists concept? Does evil exist in the heavenly realm, in this gods residence? I see this verse as an indication that "evil" does exist. Does an all powerful creator of the universe and everything it contains have an "evil" side to his nature? The verse indicates yes, if this creator "thinks" evil, then it goes without question that he is indeed capable of inflicting evil upon his creations. So that the being becomes the author of "evil" as well as "good". Could it be that the creator does not have control over certain aspects of the physical laws of the universe, and that he is capable of mistakes in his judgments and /or actions? To repent: 1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life 2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind transitive senses 1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition 2 : to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for If the creator of the entire universe and everything in it, feels regret for actions he has contemplated it would indicate a deviation in thought. If he changes his mind it points to the fact that he considered a course of action at some prior time to have been in error and in need of reexamination. The verse suggests that this being had to examine an issue in retrospect. The theists attributes to god the following characteristics: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the universe. Most say that god is incapable of anything but good, is also incapable of error, and will never contradict himself. Yet the verse above shows very clearly that this god is capable of having to rethink and ammend his actions. It indicates to me that this pure being also has an "evil" side to his nature. And that by his recorded actions in this verse, he does contradict himself. The lord repented of the evil he sought to inflict upon his people. This loving god has considered inflicting evil acts on HIS people. EVIL...not punishment, not retribution, not correction. Without playing the semantics game, consider the verse and read it word for word, and tell me what it says to you. Because my personal interpretation is that: Evil exists. This god is capable of evil acts. This god is capable of making errors in judgment. And this god may not be so infallible, indeed the verse indictaes very clearly a mistake in thinking has occured. All of these indications point to a very "HumanLike" being, not a supreme all powerful creator who is supposedly able to mold reality in any shape he chooses. Wolf

10-23-2002, 06:40 AM	#136
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Hi Joel, Thank you again for the answers. However, I think this touches on one of my most fundamental disagreements with Christianity (civilly, however). The idea that "The Bible and/or Christian thought are all you need" saddens me. I think there will always be new things, that one book cannot possibly be for all time, and that one deprives oneself of lots of benefits by just sticking to one book and one system of thought. I suppose my attitude has been shaped by growing up in a world where science and communication and ideas change at a dizzying pace, but this is my world and this is the way I like it. So becoming a rock in a stream, to choose an image, seems to be attempting an artificial standstill of the river that doesn't work. The river still sweeps by on either side of the rock, and eventually the rock crumbles away. I couldn't ever just hold onto the Bible. I'm afraid of what I might miss. -Perchance.

10-23-2002, 06:55 AM	#137
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	HoosierGuy28: As you can see, they were literally given a command, and they willingly chose not to listen. At that point, they had knowledge of sin. Most likely, that is why the tree was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Because of that sin, they experienced a physical and spiritual deadening at that very moment. Are you saying they had no knowledge of sin before eating the fruit? Then how could eating the fruit be a sin to them, if they had no knowledge that eating the fruit (or even disobeying god) was a sin?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.