Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-02-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Bree, using that criteria, have there ever been any martyrs?

Christian martyr is actually an oxymoron because by definition a Christian cannot be a believer. There were both protestant and Catholic martyrs who died in defense of their faith. As such were they believers and not Christians as in "one in Christ."

Starboy · 02-02-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Christian martyr is actually an oxymoron because by definition a Christian cannot be a believer. There were both protestant and Catholic martyrs who died in defense of their faith. As such were they believers and not Christians as in "one in Christ."

Did you mean Christian or Catholic?

02-02-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Did you mean Christian or Catholic?

In the strict definition Christians are not believers and so no Christian can die for his beliefs. If Christians were believers there would be tempels in the New Jeusalem (heaven, Rev. 21:22).

Catholics are at best Christians-in-becoming and when they become Christians they will no longer be Catholic. Catholics are sinners and sinners can't be Christians because Christians have been set free from the law that is needed for the conviction of sin (1Jn.3:9).

What is wrong with the above argument is that in Catholicism we have the what is known as the "Church Truimphant" and these are the saints in heaven, who therefore are not sinners and are still Catholic. Protestants do not have these (at least not that they know about or they would have told us).

Starboy · 02-02-2003, 09:01 PM

Amos, you lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Radorth · 02-02-2003, 09:28 PM

Starboy, get off your soapbox for a minute and listen to what I'm saying. Paul says he was in the "third heaven" in the presence of God. The Bible says he worked miracles, and tells us of eight other extraordinary gifts experienced by Christians, spontaneous prophesying and speaking in tongues, words of knowlege, healing etc.

You can argue these never happened and that's fine. But if these things happened to you, you would call them evidence. Right? I'm merely saying that one can have convincing evidence of things "not seen."

Furthermore, I am asserting that so called "rational" people believe all sorts of nonsense without a shred of real evidence, certainly not the evidence you would demand for faith in God.

Rad

NOGO · 02-02-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Radorth
Yes, for making medicine, rockets and bombs. Otherwwise it's quite useful, and some of it I would call empirical. If you woke up from sleep speaking in a foreign language, never having heard it, would you consider that "anecdotal"? Or if an ulcer you had for ten years disappeared (as my brother's did) would you call that anecdotal? If you kept seeing what Washington and Franklin saw happening, which made them believe in the "invisible hand," is that anecdotal? If you give generously and it comes back to you just as Jesus said "good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over," is that "anecdotal?

Call it what you want. Call it "unscientific." It doesn't change spiritual realities.

If I woke up from sleep speaking a foreign language then I would first make sure that someone in the world can understand it otherwise how would I know it is a foreign language.

Yes I consider this anecdotal.

If it happened to me and I would confirm that indeed it is was foreign language which I did not speak before then I would indeed start speaking like you do. But I would not expect anybody to believe me.

The only way that I can believe in such things is if it were verified in a systematic fashion where no tricks are possible.

Until such a proof is given all such things are just fairy tales.

Mohammed split the moon in half and was apparantly reported by many witnesses.

You have no proof that Jesus' miracles are or were reported by eye witnesses. I am 100% sure that they were not.

Any view of the world which brings you to think that somehow God is interfering on your behalf is just nonsense.

I supose that Ossama believes that since he was successfull in destroying the World Trade Centre then God must be on his side. After all does anything happen on earth that God does not want done? This is what I mean by anecdotal. It is all in one's mind and cannot be verified independently.

I was raised into the Christian faith. I can now see the various stages in my life which brought me out of it. Some events are rather odd. Meeting such and such a person, having such and such a thing happen to me etc etc. Are all these conincidences.
It all seems as though God wanted me out and showed me the way.

This is not a joke. I am quite serious. It was a strange path that I took and can be interpreted as you do guided by the "invisible hand". Except that I no longer believe and see it for what it is, coincidental!

That is why I say that such thoughts are not reliable. People who believe, want to believe, and jump at anything as proof. This is how Christianity got started.

Starboy · 02-02-2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Starboy, get off your soapbox for a minute and listen to what I'm saying. Paul says he was in the "third heaven" in the presence of God. The Bible says he worked miracles, and tells us of eight other extraordinary gifts experienced by Christians, spontaneous prophesying and speaking in tongues, words of knowlege, healing etc.

You can argue these never happened and that's fine. But if these things happened to you, you would call them evidence. Right? I'm merely saying that one can have convincing evidence of things "not seen."

Furthermore, I am asserting that so called "rational" people believe all sorts of nonsense without a shred of real evidence, certainly not the evidence you would demand for faith in God.

Rad

Firstly, I find this argument to be circular. You use the bible to prop up your claim for the existence of god and you use god to prop up you claims from the bible. Without god there is nothing special about the bible.

Secondly, there are the facts and then there are the explanations of the facts. People do speak in tongues, prophesize, heal and so forth. Such things occur today under any number of circumstances, many of which have nothing to do with the bible or god. All investigated cases usually come up with delusion or fraud. History is replete with similar cases. These are common tricks to fool the gullible that have been passed down through the ages.

Thirdly, we have graduated as a species from explaining things by invoking supernatural causes. It has become such an integral part of our daily lives to use natural explanations to explain our surrounding that anyone using supernatural explanations is considered a kook. Except of course when it comes to religion. This is simply an historical remnant from a time that has come and gone and hopefully will eventually become a quant curiosity.

Face it Radorth, you are an anachronism.

Starboy

Irishbrutha · 02-03-2003, 02:28 AM

There aren't any Christian martyrs anymore. Only Christians that get killed for doing stupid things or breaking the laws of the country they're in. One or the other - and to me, this is not martyrdom - Bree

:banghead: And I thought getting you guys over believing you're the only freethinkers was gonna be hard. Geez. A missionary was shot to death just the other day for simply being a Christian, that is believing the tenets of Christianity. As does happen the world over. One need only look at a country like Sudan to find thousands of present-day martyrs every year. If your definition of "doing stupid things" means believing in a system of propositions contrary to the majority religion belief of the country one is in, then you're an even greater hypocrite than I thought. (Specifically if you cling to the idea that atheists are a persecuted minority in America and you're an American). You guys call yourselves open-minded, yet gleefully cheer on those despotic gov't's who kill their subjects daily. So great is your disdain for Christianity that when told of a situation in which one of its followers suffer, the true nature of your "freethought" is exposed in your approval. I fear the day when "freethinkers" gain prominence of any sort in this country.
-Shaun

Sabine Grant · 02-03-2003, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree
There aren't any Christian martyrs anymore. Only Christians that get killed for doing stupid things or breaking the laws of the country they're in. One or the other - and to me, this is not martyrdom.

Hi Bree.. If I were to follow your reasoning, it basicaly means that emprisonning and possibly executing an individual who " does stupid things" or " breaks the laws of the country they're in" is justified. Would that also apply to the woman in Africa who was sentenced to be stoned to death for commiting adultry or can she benefit of the status of being a martyr to the cause of women? technicaly she did break the laws of her country but does that justify her sentence? I believe not.

Such reasoning has to be applied to all individuals who challenge a system... or is it limited to only religious individuals?

Sabine Grant · 02-03-2003, 03:44 AM

Since Voltaire was quoted earlier as a Freethinker, I will use him as whom I consider to be a REAL freethinker. Francois Marie Arouet had the ability to exercise tolerance towards his opponants when they faced adversity. As Rousseau was escaping religious persecutions, he sheltered him in his own home. Despite of their verbal joutes, Voltaire could detach himself from his convictions to exercise a humanitarian response.

He did not allow prejudices to dictate his actions towards others. He despised prejudice. He despised stereotyping. He was a true non conformist who did not give in to peer pressure.

" L'Esprit de Tolerance" of Voltaire is what enhanced his freethinking. I cannot value freethinking without qualities similar to Voltaire's.

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

02-02-2003, 09:01 PM	#84
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Amos, you lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

02-02-2003, 09:28 PM	#85
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Starboy, get off your soapbox for a minute and listen to what I'm saying. Paul says he was in the "third heaven" in the presence of God. The Bible says he worked miracles, and tells us of eight other extraordinary gifts experienced by Christians, spontaneous prophesying and speaking in tongues, words of knowlege, healing etc. You can argue these never happened and that's fine. But if these things happened to you, you would call them evidence. Right? I'm merely saying that one can have convincing evidence of things "not seen." Furthermore, I am asserting that so called "rational" people believe all sorts of nonsense without a shred of real evidence, certainly not the evidence you would demand for faith in God. Rad

02-03-2003, 02:28 AM	#88
Irishbrutha Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 130	There aren't any Christian martyrs anymore. Only Christians that get killed for doing stupid things or breaking the laws of the country they're in. One or the other - and to me, this is not martyrdom - Bree :banghead: And I thought getting you guys over believing you're the only freethinkers was gonna be hard. Geez. A missionary was shot to death just the other day for simply being a Christian, that is believing the tenets of Christianity. As does happen the world over. One need only look at a country like Sudan to find thousands of present-day martyrs every year. If your definition of "doing stupid things" means believing in a system of propositions contrary to the majority religion belief of the country one is in, then you're an even greater hypocrite than I thought. (Specifically if you cling to the idea that atheists are a persecuted minority in America and you're an American). You guys call yourselves open-minded, yet gleefully cheer on those despotic gov't's who kill their subjects daily. So great is your disdain for Christianity that when told of a situation in which one of its followers suffer, the true nature of your "freethought" is exposed in your approval. I fear the day when "freethinkers" gain prominence of any sort in this country. -Shaun

02-03-2003, 03:44 AM	#90
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Since Voltaire was quoted earlier as a Freethinker, I will use him as whom I consider to be a REAL freethinker. Francois Marie Arouet had the ability to exercise tolerance towards his opponants when they faced adversity. As Rousseau was escaping religious persecutions, he sheltered him in his own home. Despite of their verbal joutes, Voltaire could detach himself from his convictions to exercise a humanitarian response. He did not allow prejudices to dictate his actions towards others. He despised prejudice. He despised stereotyping. He was a true non conformist who did not give in to peer pressure. " L'Esprit de Tolerance" of Voltaire is what enhanced his freethinking. I cannot value freethinking without qualities similar to Voltaire's.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.