Pyrrho

Here is what "Rational BAC" states in another thread:

So, the real answer to your question is no, "Rational BAC" does not have a rational foundation for his or her beliefs, as "Rational BAC" has no interest in reason at all. Of course, being inconsistent, we can expect that "Rational BAC" may very well say otherwise.

BadBadBad

RBAC,

BBT did win. He's got your two premises nailed. They are quite irrational, and you've done nothing to defend that. He's illustrated gargage in garbage out quite nicely.

I personally find your point of view interesting, not rational, but interesting. If most other christians believed as you do, christianity wouldn't be nearly as offensive. Your views, that is, plus the exclusionary premise that I'm saved and honored, you're damned and dishonored. You have a thread on fundies being a minority, but I hope you'll agree you are a big minority as well. A party of one, I would describe you as.

If you would admit that your beliefs are irrational, you wouldn't get nearly as much grief here. For example, I believe it's irrational to spend good money on the lottery. You'd really have a more rational argument for buying the lottery tickets than betting on God wouldn't you? It's a fact that someone wins isn't it? It's still not a very rational thing to do though IMO. It's something lot's of people do, and I wouldn't fault you for it.

If I was with you at the convenience store, and said "hey RBAC, what a waste of money, why are you doing that?" Then you responded, "I know it's silly. I just like to do it anyway." You'd get no argument from me. If you want to come here and argue though that it is rational and in fact a smart thing to do, and why don't I do it with you, well that's where we find ourselves isn't it?

Another thing too. We're here to talk about Christianity. You've thrown out so much of the Bible and you've left the door open to so many other things, that I hardly see how you relate your beliefs to what has historically been called Christianity. Why don't you start a thread listing what few parts of the Bible you think have anything rational to say about religion. I suspect once we get down to brass tacks with you, we'll find that there's virtually nothing left, and perhaps you'll agree that we can just throw the Bible in the trash. You'll still maintain your rational beliefs just the same of course.

Rational BAC

I threw open the thread somewhat and posted a general overall view of my belief system. I thought it was a better way to determine if my belief system as a whole was rational (or at least more rational than a Fundies belief system) than was debating details with Bumble Bee. And a lot easier for me. I hate point by point stuff.

Now remember that I am not really fudging here, but many of my propositions and "beliefs" are just conjecture. Raising the flag just to see if anyone salutes (and that includes myself) Episcopalians are always somewhat skeptical and always like to question their faith in all different manners. And it is never really considered blasphemous. That is the way I was raised---can't help it.

I do have problems with the trinity. I do have problems with original sin. I do have problems with the real meaning of the resurrection. I have always had questions about those things--------and of course they are basic to even mainstream Christianity. I think that--------- it is when any Christian puts his blinders on and stops questioning his faith---------that is when he is no longer truly an honest Christian.

Anyway ---not to anyone's particular surprise--not even mine. ---there is a general consensus on this forum -----

----(general consensus, hell---it was more like 99.99%---------I think somebody or other gave me credit for something rational somewhere back there but that was about it) ----

--- that my belief system is not rational. You will never convince me, but I defer to your judgement. Let us all learn to live and let live.

And I am keeping my moniker.


---------------------------------------------------------

PS --

I may use this thread to raise up a few more flags (questions I have about Christianity)---just to see if anyone salutes. ---------When I think of them. So far no-one has saluted at all.

But I can tell that I seriously p----d the Fundies off. ----I can tell from various posts in different threads that they are definitely sure I am going straight to hell. I can assure them that I am not.

Tarnaak

Well, at least RBAC can rest in peace now

Tarnaak

I would be interested to know, how you "know" which way your headed. I'm not one to judge, but I would find it interesting how you 'rationalize' this one out...

Radorth

Re: BBT

I don't think the story of Muhammed's life is made up, or his sayings, in the Koran. The hadiths were of course written much later, and are far less trustworthy. You have no proof at all that the Koran is "just a made up story."

Stories written near the fact, by eyewitnesses are, unlike the Hindu god stories, to be taken seriously, and deserve to be proven false. Such generalizations as yours belie your own disregard for using any kind of consistent historical method.

For these reasons, even many "skeptics" have bemoaned the corruption, embellishment and liberties taken with the original stories of Jesus and Muhammed. Of course in Muhammed's case, the originals paint a picture of a man with bloody hands.

In any case, it is perfectly rational to decide there was truth to the stories of many eyewitnesses- far more rational than making gratuitous assertions like BBT's here. We know stories get blown out of proportion, but when you have so many witnesses, who are making detailed and even negative statements, you have a choice of making distinctions like Durant and Klausner did, or just calling them all liars and lunatics. I have said before that if there were only one or even two Gospels, and no Acts, or letters by James, Peter Paul and John, I wouldn't buy the former.

Rad

Rational BAC

OK---

#12--------What the hell. We are on a roll here. ----And 12 is a very good number-----

This one is about St Paul ------

--------I mean you have the 4 Gospels which, give or take a little bit, tells the story of Jesus Christ. ------------So what is Paul all about? Hell, he never even met Jesus.

I know most of the story about how he was a persecutor of Christians and got struck by God somehow or other and went blind and then refound his sight. And had an epiphany of some kind and decided to spread the Jewish cult of Christianity to the gentiles and all that stuff. And he succeeded very well. -----

Very well indeed. --------- We got almost 2 billion Christians on this Earth and all due to Paul and his works and his writings. Without Paul, I think that Christianity would have remained a minor cult of Judaism. So he done good that way. Or maybe not.

Did Paul corrupt the very simple and very basic teachings of Jesus?

That is the question. Personally I don't know for sure whether Paul was inspired directly by God or not. Maybe so. But he sure had some strange ideas. Won't get into some of his strange ideas right now. I am sure the atheists among us will jump right in though.

I think that the primary thing that Paul did was to try and define what salvation to a Christian entailed. Salvation, per Paul was by grace and not works. Much discrepancy on that point in the Bible, but if you read Paul-------it is definitely Grace---which means that Hitler and Stalin -----if either happened to, on their deathbeds, accept Jesus as their saviour------then BINGO ---into Heaven they went. That is a real bummer for me to accept. Don't know about you.------------------Personally I think "works" has to be more important and should overide Paul's idea of grace. -And Hitler and Stalin and so many other of the lowest of the low are burning in hell right now. ----------But maybe that is just me. Any Fundies want to answer that one?

Paul can be a longy--------will leave him go for now.

Rational BAC

Back to Paul again--------

If you look at the New Testament, aside from the Gospels, most of it is written by Paul in his epistles. Epistles are just a fancy name for letters. Sounds real fancy but that is all they are. Letters written to various churches in early Christendom.----Kind of like memos from an egocentric CEO to his underlings.

So why were a bunch of stupid letters written to address day by day activities of some damned church somewhere somehow so important that they were incorporated into the Bible?

Damned if I know. I think that the Council of Nicea ( assume where the basic Bible was put together) just needed some filler. Or maybe there was more to it than that.

Anyone know? Theists and especially Fundies welcome on this one.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Rad, while your thread derailing attempt is certainly admirable, it's really all for naught since in our last serious altercation I realized you were the online equivalent of a brick wall. Unlike the esteemed Rad Police, I actually don't plan on dealing with you after telling you I wasn't going to bother. I know, I know, when, say, Fenton tells you he's not going to bother replying to you anymore, he responds within an hour anyway but not me. Sorry, I hate to disappoint.

It is fun how you can know my entire set of opinions on every detail of both Islam AND Christianity from that one sentence you quoted. Very admirable psychic reading abilities. Aside from being completely wrong, of course, but that never stopped any psychics before.

Anyway RBAC thanks for conceding defeat. That's a very rare occurence here. Of course, it sounded like more of a "I don't want to bother, so I'll say you win even though you haven't changed my mind in the slightest" but I'll just pretend, I guess. While I now have my opinion confirmed that your name should not contain "Rational", admitting defeat at least means I could consider you a "Reasonable BAC".

-B

Rational BAC

Bumble Bee--

Reasonable BAC works fine for me ---but I am not going to change anything.

You are stuck with Rational BAC for better or worse.