Why I am not a Christian. [Archive]

View Full Version : Why I am not a Christian.

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 11:45 AM

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 11:46 AM

For Rusty
Post# 19140

Since it seems Dr. E is letting his silence speak for his motives, we'll try someone else...Rusty:

1. The seemingly absent God.

Why absent? Did you not get the Xmas present you wanted? Problem of evil? What? By my paradigm I would expect God to not be nosing in very much.

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God: i.e. Trinity, omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

Trinity: Very simple notion and no different in principle than ANE concepts of hypostases and the Platonian Logos. You'd be hard-pressed to call such intelligent people "illogical" in their thinking. Omni stuff: Too vague for a reply as it stands.

3. The vast opinions held by differing Christians. It seems to me that God didn't get his message out very well - notice I said to me. I know I'm being ego-centric, but that's what the question was about, now wasn't it.

It is indeed. Still waiting for an answer on that myself.

4. I don't believe the Bible has to be inerrant for Christianity to stand - but it would make more sense to have a "foundation" for Christian belief. If the Bible is inerrant, it does on the face value at least have discrepencies that may or may not be argued away - but the very idea that I would have to apologize for God's word - to me offends the very concept of God.

Why? To note my own saying, there's nothing education can do that ignorance cannot overcome. I'll add "an agenda" as well.

5. How Christianity, when viewed from a global perspective (to me, again) is no more than another answer for life's great mysteries. I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I have been a Christian most of my life - and maybe one day I will be again, but I can't currently accept that it's anything other than man's seeking the unknown in yet another way.

Vague, but perhaps discussable.

6. The concept of original sin, and the depravity of successive generations seems (to my thoroughly modern mind) incompatible with the definition of the Christian God by most people.

Tell me what you think of http://www.tektonics.org/origsin.html

7. If by one man, all were condemned. And Jesus really, trully came to solve this eternal problem for mankind, then by one man all will be saved. If not, then Jesus really didn't do much.

Correct.

8. I believe in a historical Jesus, but I think if he were alive today, he'd be surprised at what's happened in his name.

Correct to a good extent. The social world we live in has a lot to do with that however.

9. My own personal journey in life.

I can't argue with that obviously. But then again personal testimony was not the way the early church evangelized. You never see Peter or Paul telling non-believers to convert becase Jesus made them feel good and freed them from their habit of smoking mustard leaves.

Some of these if you choose to pursue them may be suitable for a new thread.

__________________
There is nothing that technology and education can do that stupidity and ignorance cannot overcome.

"If your opponent is of choleric temper, try to irritate him. If he is arrogant, try to encourage his egotism. " -- Sun Tzu

Tekton Apologetics Ministries --
Correcting Blatant Stupidity Since 1995

geebob

February 19th 2003, 12:08 PM

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God... omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

I welcome you to post a thread on this one in the theology 101 section.

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 12:23 PM

1. The seemingly absent God.

Holding:
Why absent? Did you not get the Xmas present you wanted? Problem of evil? What? By my paradigm I would expect God to not be nosing in very much.

Rusty:
I know in your paradigm, you would expect God to not be nosing about, but in the Christian worldview - which is highly reliant upon the Bible, God is indeed closely involved in our daily lives. But it seems strange to me, that the only people who God speaks to in an audible voice are found in mental institutions. Now, there may be theological explanations for God's diminished 'visible' presence, yet I (notice the personal) haven't seen a convincing one as of yet.

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God: i.e. Trinity, omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

******:
Trinity: Very simple notion and no different in principle than ANE concepts of hypostases and the Platonian Logos. You'd be hard-pressed to call such intelligent people "illogical" in their thinking. Omni stuff: Too vague for a reply as it stands.

Tisdale:
Excuse my ignorance, but what does ANE stand for. I would appreciate the clarification. From what I understand of hypostases, there are three underlying states of reality: the One, the Nous, and the Psuche. Although it may be similar in construct to the Trinity, it doesn't make it any more logically tenable.
Also, what I meant by the "omni stuff". The old argument that if God knew that man would fail, why did he create man anyway? Wouldn't that make him the horribly wicked? And could God have created man without the temptation to sin? Lot's of theological depth to many answers, but philosophically i think these questions are unanswerable, and thus will remain a cause of my doubt.

3. The vast opinions held by differing Christians. It seems to me that God didn't get his message out very well - notice I said to me. I know I'm being ego-centric, but that's what the question was about, now wasn't it.

Holding
It is indeed. Still waiting for an answer on that myself.

TISDALE:
Thanks for the honesty.

4. I don't believe the Bible has to be inerrant for Christianity to stand - but it would make more sense to have a "foundation" for Christian belief. If the Bible is inerrant, it does on the face value at least have discrepencies that may or may not be argued away - but the very idea that I would have to apologize for God's word - to me offends the very concept of God.

Holding:
Why? To note my own saying, there's nothing education can do that ignorance cannot overcome. I'll add "an agenda" as well.

Tisdale:
As I stated, these were all my personal opinions, but it doesn't seem strange to you that an omniscient, omnipotent being needs you or me, or Craig, or anyone to convince others that He exists. It does to me, and conflicts with my understanding of the Christian concept of God (which admittedly may be flawed) :)

5. How Christianity, when viewed from a global perspective (to me, again) is no more than another answer for life's great mysteries. I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I have been a Christian most of my life - and maybe one day I will be again, but I can't currently accept that it's anything other than man's seeking the unknown in yet another way.

Holding:
Vague, but perhaps discussable.

Tisdale:
This is about the view that Christianity is just another way of rendering the world around us understandable. I truly believe that Christianity is indeed just another mythology, which, rather than being constructed, evolved to meet the needs of those who eventually believed in it. From their perspective (and your's I'm sure), Christianity is a blessing.

6. The concept of original sin, and the depravity of successive generations seems (to my thoroughly modern mind) incompatible with the definition of the Christian God by most people.

******
Tell me what you think of http://www.tektonics.org/origsin.html

Tisdale:
I think I understand you point to mean: Adam broke the law of God, thus setting the precedent for punishment for sin. Because we are sinners (discusses elsewhere I assume by you), we in turn are inheriters not of Adam's sin, but of his punishment - the legal precedent for punishment for sin. Interesting. But I think the concept of punishment for sin is inseparable from that of depravity. See, you admit in another article - linked to from the one above, that the concept of total depravity is valid. So, as I understand it, you are saying: Adam sinned, but we didn't inherit his sin, we inherit the punishment for our own sins. Why do we sin? Because we are sinful by nature - thanks to Adam. Does anyone else see the problem with this? If TD isn't the result of Adam's fall - then what is it the result of? Sorry so long.

7. If by one man, all were condemned. And Jesus really, trully came to solve this eternal problem for mankind, then by one man all will be saved. If not, then Jesus really didn't do much.

Holding:
Correct.

Tisdale:
I would only add, that my point is: it seems to me that if Jesus' work is truly to correct the fall of man, then all men must eventually be "saved."

8. I believe in a historical Jesus, but I think if he were alive today, he'd be surprised at what's happened in his name.

Holding:
Correct to a good extent. The social world we live in has a lot to do with that however.

Tisdale:
Granted.

9. My own personal journey in life.

Holding:
I can't argue with that obviously. But then again personal testimony was not the way the early church evangelized. You never see Peter or Paul telling non-believers to convert becase Jesus made them feel good and freed them from their habit of smoking mustard leaves.

Tisdale:
I didn't say it was the way the early church evangelized - wasn't even my point. But I do seem to remember Paul giving his testimony several times in the book of acts.

Holding:

jpholding

February 19th 2003, 01:20 PM

Yo Rusty,

Looks like we cut some chaff out already, and had some cut for us, so:

Item 1: I know in your paradigm, you would expect God to not be nosing about, but in the Christian worldview - which is highly reliant upon the Bible, God is indeed closely involved in our daily lives. But it seems strange to me, that the only people who God speaks to in an audible voice are found in mental institutions.

My paradigm is the Christian worldview -- the other you speak of is more a view of certain deviants like Benny Hinn. If you take the Bible as a whole God actually was closely involved in people's lives for a period that amounted to a minuscule portion of the time that man has existed (even by young earth standards) and with only a minimum of the population that has ever lived. I think the other view involves a misplaced expectation based on the idea that the Bible's snapshots reflect a panorama.

Item 2: GeeBob suggested a move on this, so I'll just sum and link. ANE is Ancient Near East. You idea of hypostases is not what I was referring to. I have an item on this at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html that maybe we can discuss later. For the other I will just point to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html and leave it aside for later.

Item 4: As I stated, these were all my personal opinions, but it doesn't seem strange to you that an omniscient, omnipotent being needs you or me, or Craig, or anyone to convince others that He exists.

Not really. But after years of dealing with the range of human excuses and wild ideas (Jesus went to India, was stolen from Mithra, etc), it may just be a matter of experiental perspective.

Item 5: This is about the view that Christianity is just another way of rendering the world around us understandable.
In that case, I am sure it is such a way, but whether it is just a mythology is of course the question at issue. This seems then not so much a reason as an explanation. I would expect a genuine religion to meet genuine needs.

Item 6: I think I understand you point to mean: Adam broke the law of God, thus setting the precedent for punishment for sin. Because we are sinners (discusses elsewhere I assume by you), we in turn are inheriters not of Adam's sin, but of his punishment - the legal precedent for punishment for sin.

Correct.

But I think the concept of punishment for sin is inseparable from that of depravity. See, you admit in another article - linked to from the one above, that the concept of total depravity is valid. So, as I understand it, you are saying: Adam sinned, but we didn't inherit his sin, we inherit the punishment for our own sins. Why do we sin? Because we are sinful by nature - thanks to Adam. Does anyone else see the problem with this? If TD isn't the result of Adam's fall - then what is it the result of?

Libertarian free choice plays a role, I'd say, though that we have weakened physical bodies also probably comes into the picture. We are born "selfish" by nature and that tendency isn't corrected. If we're already there I'm not as much concerned about how we got there. :smile: You may wish to check my item on Unconditional Election (ulip.html) if you have not already.

item 7: would only add, that my point is: it seems to me that if Jesus' work is truly to correct the fall of man, then all men must eventually be "saved."

What about, "All men must have that option open to them"?

Item 9: I didn't say it was the way the early church evangelized - wasn't even my point. But I do seem to remember Paul giving his testimony several times in the book of acts.

Oh I know, I was just making a statement about the irrelevance of personal testimony on the first century. But what you read a Paul's "personal testimony" is actually legal defense speeches rather than testimony.

I'm gone for much of the rest of the day...later,

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 01:40 PM

In regards to the trinity being illogical...why? Light is quantifiably of a dual ontology. (Wave and particle) If multiple ontology is quantifiable in a natural phenomina, then what is the difficulty of seeing a multiple ontology in God?

ANE = Ancient Near East.

Satori

February 19th 2003, 04:43 PM

Rusty, let's not forget there is a great deal about christianity which is morally and ethically repugnant, and the fact that it is inherently an irrational mindset based on wild presumption after presumption after presumption.

Satori

The Laughing Man

February 19th 2003, 05:02 PM

Gee, Satori. Don't hold back. Care to elaborate? What exactly are these things that you are refering to?

flipper

February 19th 2003, 05:44 PM

Pilgrim:

Light is quantifiably of a dual ontology. (Wave and particle)

The two are mutually exclusive in the sense that we understand waves and particles. It may be more accurate to say that it is an attribute of light quanta to have both wave and particle-like properties.

Pilgrim

February 19th 2003, 05:46 PM

flipper:
Pilgrim:

The two are mutually exclusive in the sense that we understand waves and particles. It may be more accurate to say that it is an attribute of light quanta to have both wave and particle-like properties.

His point was not that we don't understand God completly but that a thing existing with a multiple ontology seems illogical. I merely pointed out that it is not.

Rusty T

February 19th 2003, 05:58 PM

1st Item My paradigm is the Christian worldview -- the other you speak of is more a view of certain deviants like Benny Hinn. If you take the Bible as a whole God actually was closely involved in people's lives for a period that amounted to a minuscule portion of the time that man has existed (even by young earth standards) and with only a minimum of the population that has ever lived. I think the other view involves a misplaced expectation based on the idea that the Bible's snapshots reflect a panorama.

Tisdale:
This idea that I presented is greatly represented in the type of Christianity that I was "brought up in." And is prevalent in many denomination and groups that many (not you of course) would not consider deviant by any means. If you don't mind, could you explain to me why you think the Christian God would stop regular "visual" communication with His people? And again, my original point was that God (who has the power to display Himself in unquestionable ways) chooses to not do so - or in fact is incapable of doing so. What in your paradigm explains this lack of "voice". Thanks.

Maybe we should take these issues one at a time and exhaust them.

Item 2.
You idea of hypostases is not what I was referring to. I have an item on this at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html that maybe we can discuss later. For the other I will just point to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html and leave it aside for later.

Tisdale:
I read your article in part (at lunch at work, and in breaks). It seems that for me to understand God, I must not understand God in terms that I am familiar with, but in ANE thought in mind. However, doesn't this seem to be just another case of God made in the image of man? If these thoughts of "hypostases" were common in the ancient world (My example was actually from Greek philosophy and were associated sometimes with the Greek gods), why should they be considered more valid interpretations of the nature of God? Could it not be the case that their understanding of God was influenced by their thinking? And a God who relies on his creation to adopt the thought processes of ancient civilizations in order to begin to understand Him, doesn't seem quiet reasonable. Again - we can agree to discuss this further (hopefully after I've had more time to study it).

Item 6.

Libertarian free choice plays a role, I'd say, though that we have weakened physical bodies also probably comes into the picture. We are born "selfish" by nature and that tendency isn't corrected. If we're already there I'm not as much concerned about how we got there. You may wish to check my item on Unconditional Election (ulip.html) if you have not already.

Tisdale:
Born into "selfishness" as a result of what? And "weakened" by what? If we are "already there" hasn't been established. In fact I would say that the understanding of sin in Christian terms is just that - a Christian understanding, and in no way universal and applicable to mankind.

Item 7

What about, "All men must have that option open to them"?

Tisdale: I will grant you that, if you grant that mankind has a choice on whether to be depraved at birth. If no choice is made in my depravity, then no choice should be required by God's "fix" of this situation.

If you want to pick one of these topics and discuss it, please let me know, and maybe we can discuss it more fully.

Whew! long day.

jpholding

February 19th 2003, 09:43 PM

Yo Rusty, looks like more chaff is flying off to a central topic or two. :smile:

Item 1: This idea that I presented is greatly represented in the type of Christianity that I was "brought up in." And is prevalent in many denomination and groups that many (not you of course) would not consider deviant by any means.

The lesser form you might have in mind is probably that which centers in individualism and the idea of Jesus as "personal savior". Correct? If so that too would be an aberration -- not as serious as a Benny Benny Hinn Hinn aberration, but a definite departure from the reality of the early church. The difference though is not in the faith but in the social science context. Individualism is a relatively modern mutation. As an aside I'll admit to being somewhat insulated from the typical church of today. My present fellowship is highly intellectually-oriented.

If you don't mind, could you explain to me why you think the Christian God would stop regular "visual" communication with His people?

I think my point is more that "regular" communication of all sorts never really started in a systematic way. You have God talking to Abraham in the Bible, but how often? Maybe a dozen times over 20-30 years. I don't even recall words with Isaac though I may be wrong. We have some with Jacob over an enormous life; then it's 400+ years of silence until Moses. And so on. If I had to put it any way I would say that God communicates only when it serves His purpose to do so. And then, that we don't get systematic communication because every act of sin (if I may use that startling word!) -- within my paradigm, of course -- is a way of telling God to get lost. Now I don't know if you're married, but I can tell you that if I spent a great part of my time doing things my spouse found offensive, if I were her I would not talk to me either! To me the lack of voice is normal -- and reflects our condition as rebels against the Divine Order.

Maybe we should take these issues one at a time and exhaust them.

OK. This one seems promising. Just quick comments on this one, and then we have one more that seems to be meaty.

I read your article in part (at lunch at work, and in breaks). It seems that for me to understand God, I must not understand God in terms that I am familiar with, but in ANE thought in mind.

Well, then, this relates back to the issue we're discussing in the Contrived Gospels thread as to whether it's on us to do a little learning or on God to "kiss our patoot". :smile: Think so?

However, doesn't this seem to be just another case of God made in the image of man?

Hmm, you've met a man with a hypostasis? :smile: No, not really. There are only a limited set of logical choices about what God can be like. I would expect some of God's traits to be like ours if He created us. I would moreover expect God to have to follow certain logical laws, and the premise of the hypostasis was that the divine can or does only touch the earthly through a hypostatic intermediary. But given enough guesses, if you will, someone is bound to be right.

And a God who relies on his creation to adopt the thought processes of ancient civilizations in order to begin to understand Him, doesn't seem quiet reasonable.

If a hypostatic relationship is a logical conclusion describing the nature of deity to the created order; and if the philosophers of the ANE and the Greeks came up with it logically; then all I see here is that they reasoned it through and came to the right conclusion. I don't see that "reliance" is in view at all.

Item 6: Born into "selfishness" as a result of what? And "weakened" by what?

As a result of having bodies that have needs. The baby needs to be fed -- it doesn't care if it wakes anyone up. That by itself is not depraved, but training a person to delay gratification for the sake of others is probably one of the most difficult tasks imaginable, just to use the present example. (Hypothetically the pre-Fall state was one of "needlessness" in pratice...and whether you take Genesis as literal history or as allegory for the human condition probably does not make a difference.)

In fact I would say that the understanding of sin in Christian terms is just that - a Christian understanding, and in no way universal and applicable to mankind.

How much do you know about concepts of sin in other cultures? All the ones I know have more or less the same concept. Heck, even Buddhism recognizes the same core problem (desire) as central. The only other way I know of is just to deny that good or evil actually exist.

Moving on down... :smile:

Rusty T

February 20th 2003, 12:44 AM

Thanks for an interesting discussion so far. How about we focus on the nature of the Trinity being logically untenable (my position)? As this is a proposal for a discussion (not a format debate), should this be a thread in Theology 101?

Rusty

carlnm

February 20th 2003, 03:26 AM

Greetings,

I would like to present a new take on why I am not a Christian, and indeed have moved from Christianity to deism/agnosticism.

The fallacy of the initial writer for why he has not chosen Christ(ianity), I feel, was his stress on individual arguments (for the record, I would contend that the majority of his reasonings are quite error-some) instead of a more widesweeping epistemological discussion.

To start, I shall make an assertion that I hope will not be controversial (among both Christians and non-Christians): God is not blatently interacting in/with the world at the present time. I personally have not experienced an event that is best explained by the conduct of a deity. Perhaps others in this forum have, but God(s) have not blessed my existence with such miraculous feats, for if He had communicated or interacted with my life in such a way that made it apparent that He exists, Christ is mankind's savior, etc. I would instantly revert to Christianity. But he hasn't, and so (for me, at least) I can not say that Christianity is "blatently true."

Flowing from this assertion, I now contend that since no religion seems to be obviously true (contra Romans 1) and the world -as I have experienced- can be well explained by naturalistic explainations, agnosticism is the epistemologically "best" place to be. I, an 18 year old, aspire to become a NT scholar, but at the present time I admit lack of competancy to determine the validity of Christianity, religion, philosophy, or almost anything. For most people, the move to evangelical Protestantism seems to be a quick, emotional one that is often void of scholarly intellectual inquiry.

The reason I am not a Christian is because I frankly admit lack of sufficient knowledge in any field related to ascertaining the validity of any religion. For agnosticism literally means "without knowledge," and I would speculate very, very few people do rigorous study and conclude after countless hours (and a Ph.D?) that Christianity is probably true. Questions I often contemplate is if it is actually possible for humans to successfully recognize truth (the nihilism position) and if so when can such a line be drawn. NT scholars have widesweeping conclusions and beliefs, and I wonder why this is if the evidence towards Christianity is unequivocally pointing towards Christ as savior (I find it too improbable that all liberal scholars are simply letting their presuppositions dictate their conclusions).

Is there any way for a mere human to have studied anything (pertaining to religion) enough to sufficiently reach a sufficient conclusion? I am hopeful there is, but to me it seems certainly possible that God has obfuscated the truth of Himself, the validity of any religion, and Christ from scholarly understanding. I wonder why the scholarly liberal position appears so tenable, why God did not make the evidence more blatent or interact in my life directly (which would supercede scholarly historical understanding). So for now I am only 18 and hopeful I may fulfill my dreams of a lifetime study of the NT, but I assert that it is arrogant for most people to claim to be Christians (in relation to knowledge) and that the question imposed onto us (or me as an individual) non-Christians is a simple answer: "I don't know enough and maybe I never will even if I do conduct rigorous study." I feel that the question of "Why" in regards to the selecting of a religion is best imposed upon those who ARE of a particular religion or belief (Christians in this forum), for since I am simply "without (sufficient, competant) knowledge" the question has little meaning when expressed to myself, or probably any passive agnostic

FINAL NOTE

I have not discussed a number of issues directly pertaining to my prior statement (such as the role of the Holy Ghost, nihilism as a competing philosophy, or whether NT evidence points towards Christ's historicity in the Pauline, Synoptic, and/or Johanine sense) because that was not my intent, but instead to merely provide an introductory statement hopefully worthy of discussion.

Carl
February 20

Blake Reas

February 20th 2003, 03:58 AM

Whats up you have many of the same interest I do and we are about the same age. Maybe we can but heads on some issues ehh?:brow:
I disagree with you assertion that a jump to protestant Christianity is a quick leap. I hope that you find Salvation in your Journey friend. Keep up some conversation with me it would be interesting.
In Christ,
Blake

jpholding

February 20th 2003, 07:48 AM

tizzidale:
Thanks for an interesting discussion so far. How about we focus on the nature of the Trinity being logically untenable (my position)? As this is a proposal for a discussion (not a format debate), should this be a thread in Theology 101?

Rusty

Howdy,

Yes, why not? And I do believe Theo 101 is the place. I'm pressed for time just now, so if you would check that area and see -- I think there are other Trinity threads there already -- you can start one up.

Be warned: My explanation for the Trinity even convinced one Skeptic here that the concept was coherent. :wink:

Hey Carl. Going through some thought processes in life? :smile:

Rusty T

February 20th 2003, 09:23 AM

I will do so later today. I too am pressed for time. But just to let you know, I hope we are both going into the discussion without immutable beliefs. I will try to keep an open mind while discussing my point of view with honesty. This means I will not try to blow smoke up your *** when I don't know something. I will not expect you to either. If something needs to be further researched, I will let you know, and come back to that.

Thanks,

rusty

Rusty T

February 20th 2003, 09:49 AM

You know, Carl, I made it my POINT that my reasons were indeed very personal. I was not intending to anything other than that. So to call my "reasonings" errorsome, without some explanation is itself a fallacy.

Also, you continue to commit the same "fallacy" that you accuse me of committing. Notice:

I personally have not experienced an event that is best explained by the conduct of a deity

Oh, oh, Carl, watch those personal experiences! How is this any different from my assertion #1 that God is seemingly absent?

But he hasn't, and so (for me, at least) I can not say that Christianity is "blatently true."

Ouch, don't you hate it when you unwittingly do exactly what you just criticized someone for doing? I feel your pain.

The reason I am not a Christian is because I frankly admit lack of sufficient knowledge in any field related to ascertaining the validity of any religion.

Again, those personal pronouns! Such a scholarly and intellectual approach to your personal experiences. . . . My original point, which addresses this question is: I can not accept the idea of a God that has the power to make himself known unequivocably, yet doesn't. A God that isn't known a priori, either has to not want to be discovered or has a purpose for this discovery process. If the latter, then the idea of hell for those who do not discover him is a tremendous wickedness (and I know there are Christians who do not believe in a literal hell).

Please, Carl, spare me aggrandizement.

Rusty

carlnm

February 21st 2003, 03:14 AM

First, your tone is unusually (maybe usually for you?) caustic. I am simply trying to continue (the flow) of dialogue in a cordial, civil manner.

>>You know, Carl, I made it my POINT that my reasons were indeed very personal.

The question itself implies the individuality and "personal" nature of the answer given.

>>So to call my "reasonings" errorsome, without some explanation is itself a fallacy

I clearly expressed at the end of my document that my statement was an introductory one that would "hopefully" be worthy of dialogue, and NOT that it was intended to be a thorough refutation of everything contra-Carl.

>>I made it my POINT that my reasons were indeed very personal.

Great, so is mine and I rather consistently employed careful wording to make that blatent. In the brief statement I made concerning your initial post, I stated "I contend," making it apparent that I felt your reasoning was errorsome from my perspective alone.

You expressed why you are not a Christian. I am not saying that your reasoning is or is not valid, but only that I felt it was (...not valid). Ironically, I also stated that I don't know enough concerning (almost) anything to sufficiently be certain (or believe or know the most probable).

>>How is this any different from my assertion #1 that God is seemingly absent?

Where did I state that our reasoning was of completely dissenting modes of thought? More importantly, I only used that assertion to establish my basic philosophical concept of knowledge, it was not a "reason" in-and-of-itself.

>>watch those personal experiences!

I would and now bifurcate between the validity of your experiences with that of mine. A number of your arguments are based on conjecture (you suspect Christ would not be pleased at the -any?- religions based off him or events in his name), while the statement which you are referencing is based on actual events that have transpired in my life. I also made clear that maybe others have experienced occurances which are best explained by a deity, but I had not.

>>Such a scholarly and intellectual approach to your personal experiences. . . .

I declared my dream to be a NT scholar ("scholarly and intellectual approach") which is how I would hope to find or ascertain religious validity, and not based on my emotions or experiences ("personal experiences..."). I feel your statement is, quite frankly, confused.

Your tone seemed brutal. The thrust of your arguments in your last post did not.

Good day,

Carl

RolandJS

February 25th 2003, 10:51 PM

02-19-2003 @ 02:43 PM
Satori:
Rusty, let's not forget there is a great deal about christianity which is morally and ethically repugnant, and the fact that it is inherently an irrational mindset based on wild presumption after presumption after presumption.
Satori

Please give at least three specifics of your choosing. Your assertions are very broadbrushing and mildly negative.
To hand you a fourth specific, are you saying that Christians build their case just like Evolutionists build their case? From one bone, presupposition upon presupposition, educated guess upon educated guess?
Roland

Matthew

February 26th 2003, 12:59 AM

I am pleased to see Rusty here as well as carlnm, a fellow deist it seems. At this point I am still very strongly a skeptic. At this point I will post why I do not buy into the Christian faith.

1.) I believe that there are numerous Bible contradictions (Resurrection narratives I believe contradict, Peter's denial of Christ accounts contradicts, Field of Blood contradictions, the temptation of Christ, etc.)

2.) I believe the Bible contains errors ( rabbits chewing cud, a global flood, Jesus' reference to his disciples not tasting death until they see him coming in his kingdom, the reference to Abiathar made in Mark 2:26, Jacob using striped rods to influence how sheep mate)

3.) I believe the Bible contains some myths ( Creation account, Flood account, one baby grasping the heel of his brother as they are being born)

4.) I believe the Bible contains legends ( like the resurrected saints coming out of their graves)

More to come!

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 01:21 AM

I believe the Bible contains errors ( rabbits chewing cud,No, Matthew just reads the practice of rumination into the Bible, although the language is more general and compatible with the rabbits' practice of refection — see Do rabbits chew their cud? The Bible beats the sceptics (again) … (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp) a global flood I must have missed your refutation of the articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp#geology)Jesus' reference to his disciples not tasting death until they see him coming in his kingdom then take Dee Dee on with Preterism — Feral McTill chickened out of that!the reference to Abiathar made in Mark 2:26, which just says "in the time of" an individual who was identified by his best known attribute even if he had not yet attained that position. This is no different from talking about "World War 2 happened in my grandfather's time" even though he wasn't my grandfather at that time since I wasn't born! You evidently know of J.P. Holding's more refined explanation which is yet to be countered. Jacob using striped rods to influence how sheep mate. Yes, that IS a Bible error, but a REPORT of an error (sympathetic magic) which was hardly an ENDORSEMENT of this, since God made it clear that it wasn't this silliness what was influencing the sheep but God Himself.

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 01:51 AM

Hiya, Matthew.
I'm not sure what your objection to Jacob grasping Esau's heel would be, but you may be interested in the following:

A newborn baby'a grasp is so strong that if they grasp your finger, they can support all their body weight on that grip.

http://www.mothersbliss.co.uk/life/cando.asp

Matthew

February 26th 2003, 02:22 AM

Socrates-

No, Matthew just reads the practice of rumination into the Bible, although the language is more general and compatible with the rabbits' practice of refection — see Do rabbits chew their cud? The Bible beats the sceptics (again) …

Hmmm..Does AnswersInGenesis rebut the arguments made by Jeffrey Justice whose articles made to "The Skeptical Review" effectively rebut the "answer" that Norman Geisler mae in his book When Critics Ask?

I must have missed your refutation of the articles here

Socrates, for crying out loud- I never said I was going to debate the scientific arguments for or against the flood. I didn't post and never had any intention of posting any rebuttals of pro-flood arguments. If you don't like the fact that I am not addressing their arguments, too da*n bad!

then take Dee Dee on with Preterism — Feral McTill chickened out of that!

Hey look mister, I only agreed to come on here and explain why I am skeptical to JP and to an extent why I didn't buy into his explanations. I will be very forthcoming and say that while I don't buy into preterism..I never-the-less won't debate it with Dee Dee because I am not that well-informed on the issue. I have some preliminary skepticism about it.

which just says "in the time of" an individual who was identified by his best known attribute even if he had not yet attained that position. This is no different from talking about "World War 2 happened in my grandfather's time" even though he wasn't my grandfather at that time since I wasn't born! You evidently know of J.P. Holding's more refined explanation which is yet to be countered.

Well I looked at his refined explanation and I didn't think that there was that much substance to it. I am still going to order the BAG lexicon that Till used and any updated version to it. Personally I do suspect that Till was spot on about this in his rebuttal although I think he might've erred about Milna and Rohrbaugh.

Yes, that IS a Bible error, but a REPORT of an error (sympathetic magic) which was hardly an ENDORSEMENT of this, since God made it clear that it wasn't this silliness what was influencing the sheep but God Himself.

Oh yes Socrates, how clever of you! The old "reporting-but-not-endorsing" quibble. Unfortunately, the text doesn't say that God commanded Jacob to practice this- Jacob seems to have done this on his own initiative. He at least learned it somewhere, from someone and apparently he must have witnessed it in action for he was very confident that it worked and would work in his case.

The only problem with saying God was working behind the scenes, is that such an action on God's part would merely serve to re-inforce Jacob's misconception that such false things occur in nature, as well as anyone else reading the text back in those times who believed that such things might occur. Saying the Bible describes this but doesn't endorse it is tantamount to saying that the Bible describes God ultimately working behind the scenes but doesn't endorse it. And anyoen reading the text who hadn't any insight into the workings of modern genetics would've also have come away with the impression that such things do happen in nature!

Alden

February 26th 2003, 02:27 AM

02-19-2003 @ 02:43 PM
Satori:
Rusty, let's not forget there is a great deal about christianity which is morally and ethically repugnant, and the fact that it is inherently an irrational mindset based on wild presumption after presumption after presumption.
Satori

How I do love a good logical fallacy! This one is a hasty generalization. Although, generalizations usually have some semblance of fact. It's also begging the question.

Matthew

February 26th 2003, 02:32 AM

Captain-

My objection was simply that this strikes me as being a myth. I don't doubt that babies can do this- I have seen it before while I worked at "Babies'R'Us". My objection is that in this account the two babies seem to jostle each other in the mother's womb-like unborn babies would be concious of each other in a womb like that. For one baby to grasp the heel of another-it seems ridiculous to believe that a baby would be knowingly concious of who his baby brother was and would be concious enough to deliberately and knowingly grab his heel after jostling with him in the womb. This was the basis of my objection.

Matt

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 03:32 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
No, Matthew just reads the practice of rumination into the Bible, although the language is more general and compatible with the rabbits' practice of refection — see Do rabbits chew their cud? The Bible beats the sceptics (again) …
-------------------------------------------------------------

M: Hmmm..Does AnswersInGenesis rebut the arguments made by Jeffrey Justice whose articles made to "The Skeptical Review" effectively rebut the "answer" that Norman Geisler mae in his book When Critics Ask?Hahahah! :rofl: that fount of zoological wisdom, which still hasn't retracted its nonsense about ostriches, and wimped out on debating JPHolding on it. So how exactly does this Tillite prove that the Bible MUST be referring to the modern category of rumination and not what is now called "refection"? More likely, this Tillite doesn't rebut the arguments of the Ph.D. scientist who wrote the AiG article.

And Feral McTill tries to assure us that he's really reasonable and won't try that "bat=bird" furphy so beloved of Godhaters (including that Alward nobody who endorses various village atheist gutter sites who use that!"), yet he tries this one which is almost as daft.

--------------------------------------------------------------
I must have missed your refutation of the articles here
--------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates, for crying out loud- I never said I was going to debate the scientific arguments for or against the flood. I didn't post and never had any intention of posting any rebuttals of pro-flood arguments. If you don't like the fact that I am not addressing their arguments, too da*n bad!Well, you brought it up! Evidently this was to give the impression that your reasons for rejecting Christ have some intellectual basis. But evidently not, since you accept these objections on faith. This shows that your real reason for rejecting God is that you think that if He exists, then His purpose is to provide you with a girlfriend.

----------------------------------------------------------
then take Dee Dee on with Preterism — Feral McTill chickened out of that!
----------------------------------------------------------
Hey look mister, I only agreed to come on here and explain why I am skeptical to JP and to an extent why I didn't buy into his explanations. I will be very forthcoming and say that while I don't buy into preterism..I never-the-less won't debate it with Dee Dee because I am not that well-informed on the issue. I have some preliminary skepticism about it.But that's all you need since you're just looking for excuses to reject a God who doesn't think He owes you a girlfriend.

------------------------------------------------------------
which just says "in the time of" an individual who was identified by his best known attribute even if he had not yet attained that position. This is no different from talking about "World War 2 happened in my grandfather's time" even though he wasn't my grandfather at that time since I wasn't born! You evidently know of J.P. Holding's more refined explanation which is yet to be countered.
------------------------------------------------------------

Well I looked at his refined explanation and I didn't think that there was that much substance to it. I am still going to order the BAG lexicon that Till used and any updated version to it. Personally I do suspect that Till was spot on about this in his rebuttal although I think he might've erred about Milna and Rohrbaugh.Oh, just "might've" erred (and it's Malina)? Anyway, if you have a problem with Abiathar, then you must think that I'm also in error about the war in the days of my grandfather.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that IS a Bible error, but a REPORT of an error (sympathetic magic) which was hardly an ENDORSEMENT of this, since God made it clear that it wasn't this silliness what was influencing the sheep but God Himself.
------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes Socrates, how clever of you! The old "reporting-but-not-endorsing" quibble. Yes, it is clever. And I have yet to see your refutation. The Bible is very frank about reporting the failings of its heros, and assumes some common sense in its readers so that it doesn't have to spell out "this is wrong".

Unfortunately, the text doesn't say that God commanded Jacob to practice this — Jacob seems to have done this on his own initiative.Exactly, so what's your beef?He at least learned it somewhere, from someone and apparently he must have witnessed it in action for he was very confident that it worked and would work in his case. He could have witnessed a con artist practising this. But sympathetic magic was common practice in those days.
The only problem with saying God was working behind the scenes, is that such an action on God's part would merely serve to re-inforce Jacob's misconception that such false things occur in nature, as well as anyone else reading the text back in those times who believed that such things might occur. No, in Genesis 31:10–13, God made it clear that He was responsible, not that silly magic. So M's idea that somehow this was teaching false genetics is just not supported by the text.

Matthew to Capt. Ochre about heel grasping:

My objection was simply that this strikes me as being a myth. I don't doubt that babies can do this — I have seen it before while I worked at "Babies'R'Us". My objection is that in this account the two babies seem to jostle each other in the mother's womb-like unborn babies would be concious of each other in a womb like that. For one baby to grasp the heel of another-it seems ridiculous to believe that a baby would be knowingly concious of who his baby brother was and would be concious enough to deliberately and knowingly grab his heel after jostling with him in the womb. This was the basis of my objection. The text doesn't say anything about Jacob intentionally grasping Esau's heel. Just that he grasped it. And you agree that it's possible, so where's the myth? Neither is it a problem for twin babies to jostle in the womb.

Matthew

February 26th 2003, 05:05 AM

Socrates-

Hahahah! that fount of zoological wisdom, which still hasn't retracted its nonsense about ostriches, and wimped out on debating JPHolding on it. So how exactly does this Tillite prove that the Bible MUST be referring to the modern category of rumination and not what is now called "refection"? More likely, this person doesn't rebut the arguments of the Ph.D. scientist who wrote the article.

All I asked was if this author had rebutted the arguments that Jeffrey Justice and other fellow skeptics had brought forth. This has nothing to do with wether or not Till made a mistake about the ostriches. If Till made a mistake-then he made a mistake. But Till didn't write the part about rabbits chewing cud.

And Feral McTill tries to assure us that he's really reasonable and won't try that "bat=bird" furphy so beloved of Godhaters

Boy you seem to me, determined to write off everyone who is not a Christian as a God-hater. Why the name-calling here?

(including that Aylward nobody who endorses various village atheist gutter sites who use that!"),

Aylward nobody? Boy Socrates, I am stunned. I have to admit you are the most self-righteous Christian I have ever met. I am certain that deep spiritual arrogance of yours will take you very far in life!

Well, you brought it up! Evidently this was to give the impression that your reasons for rejecting Christ have some intellectual basis. But evidently not, since you accept these objections on faith. This shows that your real reason for rejecting God is that you think that if He exists, then His purpose is to provide you with a girlfriend.

Yes I did bring this up Mr. Spiritual Snob, and I the more I read from either side confirms my skepticism. About my thinking of what God's purpose is-no I do not think that His sole purpose is to fulfill my prayer regarding my singleness. My reason for skepticism was honestly studying the Bible, I have come across many things which make me skeptical of it-plenty of material that forms the basis of my preliminary skepticism. But you know something- I am willing to admit I am wrong and that I have made a mistake. Yes, I know that's impossible for you to believe, but I can fess up to having made an error in judgement.

But that's all you need since you're just looking for excuses to reject a God who doesn't think He owes you a girlfriend

Boy you never tire of making self-righteous judgements do you? You never tire of making self-righteous judgements regarding people's inner motives. You know if you continue to talk to me, I would rather you look at my straight in the eyes rather than down that pompous nose of yours. Being a superspiritual snob isn't going to impress everyone!

Oh, just "might've" erred (and it's Malina)?

Hmmm...is Mr. Pharisee here going to stone me for a simple typo? Which I apologize for?

Anyway, if you have a problem with Abiathar, then you must think that I'm also in error about the war in the days of my grandfather.

No Socrates, although I think it's impossible for you to believe this, I am not as stupid as you want me to be. I have a problem with Abiathar because of the fact that the authors of the BAG lexicon seemed to have indicated otherwise. Who knows, perhaps they admitted they made an error in the updated version about what they wrote in their previous publication back in 1960.

Yes, it is clever. And I have yet to see your refutation. The Bible is very frank about reporting the failings of its heros, and assumes some common sense in its readers so that it doesn't have to spell out "this is wrong".

Oh my goodness. You want to see my refutation? Well, excuse me while I re-invent the wheel and rediscover modern genetics then. This was not about the "failings" of it's heros. The only "failings" were moral failings. You know..that concept you call "sin". Nobody ever knew it possibly a "failing" on Jacob's part until the 19th and 20th century science of genetics called it into question and found it wanting. The Bible doesn't assume any "common sense" about it's audience in this particular case because back then everyone nearly everyone believed these kinds of breeding practices were valid. The only time the description-yes, endorsement-no, explanation works, is in regards to sin .

Exactly, so what's your beef?

My "beef" was that God didn't explain to him beforehand that this was a flawed breeding practice. Therefore God can't blame Jacob if his misconception gets re-inforced or if anyone else's misconception is further fed. If God had revealed to Jacob that this method was flawed to begin with and that he was only allowing it to settle the score with Laban..your argument would work here bud.

He could have witnessed a con artist practising this. But sympathetic magic was common practice in those days

Yes of course he could've. But why would this "sympathetic magic" be limited primarily to con-artists? How would you be able to distinguish between the con-magic of a con-artist and the magic that genuine people really believed happened back then?

No, in Genesis 31:10–13, God made it clear that He was responsible, not that silly magic. So M's idea that somehow this was teaching false genetics is just not supported by the text.

So, the Bible explains that God was responsible and not the "silly magic" and yet this would not have the effect of re-inforcing the misconception that people might have had? The Bible doesn't condemn Jacob's practice- the Bible only implies that God was working behind the scenes. There's no endorsement or condemnation of this act whatsoever. It's only with the findings of modern science have Christian scholars made an embarrassing retreat of this sort when they construct explanations like these.

And who is M? Is that McTill? That this is teaching false genetics IS revealed by modern science.

You know Socrates, I have just about finished talking you. You seem to do nothing but slap people with ad hominems and make self-righteous generalizations about their inner motives. I bet you're the only Christian here who thinks his dung doesn't stink.

jpholding

February 26th 2003, 10:30 AM

Yo Matthew,

I did look over Justice's material and considered it in my response on that subject. Didn't name him, since others use the same reasons, but I recall that I did address the material. You can check me.

On Abby bear in mind that my main argument comes from Casey and doesn't really revolve around the meaning of epi, but the meaning or the arch-word. In fact I agree with BAGD that epi there means "in the days of".

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 11:09 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Hahahah! that fount of zoological wisdom, which still hasn't retracted its nonsense about ostriches, and wimped out on debating JPHolding on it. So how exactly does this Tillite prove that the Bible MUST be referring to the modern category of rumination and not what is now called "refection"? More likely, this person doesn't rebut the arguments of the Ph.D. scientist who wrote the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M:
All I asked was if this author had rebutted the arguments that Jeffrey Justice and other fellow skeptics had brought forth. This has nothing to do with wether or not Till made a mistake about the ostriches. If Till made a mistake-then he made a mistake. But Till didn't write the part about rabbits chewing cud.He was the editor, so anything published by him is tarred. And for goodness's sake, about biology although he's an English teacher.

----------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
And Feral McTill tries to assure us that he's really reasonable and won't try that "bat=bird" furphy so beloved of Godhaters
----------------------------------------------------------
M:
Boy you seem to me, determined to write off everyone who is not a Christian as a God-hater. Why the name-calling here?It's a mere statement of fact. Anyone who would raise such a stupid argument has only himself to blame.

----------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
(including that Aylward nobody who endorses various village atheist gutter sites who use that!"),
----------------------------------------------------------

M:
Aylward nobody? Boy Socrates, I am stunned. I have to admit you are the most self-righteous Christian I have ever met. I am certain that deep spiritual arrogance of yours will take you very far in life!Hahaha why defend a person like that who endorses such nonsense? Anyone who links to such garbage really isn't too bright (e.g. Bible says π=3, bat=bird, killing Saul contradiction ...).

----------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Well, you brought it up! Evidently this was to give the impression that your reasons for rejecting Christ have some intellectual basis. But evidently not, since you accept these objections on faith. This shows that your real reason for rejecting God is that you think that if He exists, then His purpose is to provide you with a girlfriend.
----------------------------------------------------------
M:
Yes I did bring this up Mr. Spiritual Snob, and I the more I read from either side confirms my skepticism. About my thinking of what God's purpose is-no I do not think that His sole purpose is to fulfill my prayer regarding my singleness.Well, your hysterical reaction just confirms it (really, on a debate board it's best not to lose your cool). Best to get this out in the open rather than trying to kid yourself and everyone else here. You were honest before, to your credit, so why stop now?

My reason for skepticism was honestly studying the Bible, I have come across many things which make me skeptical of it-plenty of material that forms the basis of my preliminary skepticism. But you know something- I am willing to admit I am wrong and that I have made a mistake. Yes, I know that's impossible for you to believe, but I can fess up to having made an error in judgement.Sure. But it seems strange to bring up supposedly intellectual smokescreens then refuse to defend them.

------------------------------------------------------------
But that's all you need since you're just looking for excuses to reject a God who doesn't think He owes you a girlfriend
------------------------------------------------------------

Boy you never tire of making self-righteous judgements do you? You never tire of making self-righteous judgements regarding people's inner motives.Nothing to do with my any righteousness of my own, self or otherwise, but merely what you said yourself. Best to seek counselling rather than avoid the real problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Anyway, if you have a problem with Abiathar, then you must think that I'm also in error about the war in the days of my grandfather.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M:
No Socrates, although I think it's impossible for you to believe this, I am not as stupid as you want me to be. I have a problem with Abiathar because of the fact that the authors of the BAG lexicon seemed to have indicated otherwise. Who knows, perhaps they admitted they made an error in the updated version about what they wrote in their previous publication back in 1960. Why? There are loads of other examples even in modern parlance where one can say "in the days of X" and identify X with a title he acquired later. Would there be anything wrong with describing a War of Independence Battle of being in the days of Washington, the President? Sometimes it's reasonable to be anachrononistic to clarify the person talked about.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is clever. And I have yet to see your refutation. The Bible is very frank about reporting the failings of its heros, and assumes some common sense in its readers so that it doesn't have to spell out "this is wrong".
----------------------------------------------------------------
M:
Oh my goodness. You want to see my refutation?The refutation of "not everything reported in the Bible is approved in the Bible"?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Exactly, so what's your beef?
-------------------------------------------------------------
M:
My "beef" was that God didn't explain to him beforehand that this was a flawed breeding practice. JPH argues that this was a good didactive practice.

M:
So, the Bible explains that God was responsible and not the "silly magic" and yet this would not have the effect of re-inforcing the misconception that people might have had? The Bible doesn't condemn Jacob's practice- the Bible only implies that God was working behind the scenes. There's no endorsement or condemnation of this act whatsoever. It's only with the findings of modern science have Christian scholars made an embarrassing retreat of this sort when they construct explanations like these.Care to document that? Perhaps you also believe that the Church taught a flat Earth, or deny that Galileo's main opposition came from the Aristotelian scientists trying to protect Ptolemaic astronomy.

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 11:13 AM

02-26-2003 @ 06:32 AM
Matthew:

Captain-

My objection was simply that this strikes me as being a myth. I don't doubt that babies can do this- I have seen it before while I worked at "Babies'R'Us". My objection is that in this account the two babies seem to jostle each other in the mother's womb-like unborn babies would be concious of each other in a womb like that. For one baby to grasp the heel of another-it seems ridiculous to believe that a baby would be knowingly concious of who his baby brother was and would be concious enough to deliberately and knowingly grab his heel after jostling with him in the womb. This was the basis of my objection.

Matt

Matthew,
I just reviewed the text, and I see nothing to indicate that the Bible is saying the one infant was conscious of the other (though the silence on that matter shouldn't be taken to mean that they couldn't have been conscious of each other--babies do supposedly perceive the sounds of heartbeats & the like--both babies had a heartbeat), nor that there was a physical contest as to which would be born first.
It would appear that observers made note of the fact that one grasped the other's heel and found that they could project a degree of competition on the infants (haven't you heard parents do that?), which would make a certain degree of sense in a society where the firstborn was privileged. It's also quite possible that the lads were continually reminded of the circumstances of their birth as they competed later in life.

Sorry to spend such time on a minor point. That one just stuck out to me, initially. Have fun with Socrates. :wink:

Matthew

February 27th 2003, 12:25 AM

Normally I love being able to have debates and discussions with people I disagree with. But my exchange with Socrates has become rather personal. This will be my last response to Socrates. I am so disgusted at his behavior, that after this I will have nothing more to do with him, ever.

It's a mere statement of fact. Anyone who would raise such a stupid argument has only himself to blame.

Or it could be ignorance. There are quite a bit of ignorant people in this world. Being ignorant is not necessarily the same as having anti-theistic motives deep down inside and certainly doesn't give you any liscense to spew out your putrid judgement like that.

Hahaha why defend a person like that who endorses such nonsense? Anyone who links to such garbage really isn't too bright (e.g. Bible says p=3, bat=bird, killing Saul contradiction ...).

And if someone really wasn't that bright, does that give you any right to act so condescending with a stick up your superspiritual tush like that? That you are condescending AND mocking speaks volumes of your Christian character and the call to love people. I don't see any love in you: all you have is scorn and derision.

Well, your hysterical reaction just confirms it (really, on a debate board it's best not to lose your cool). Best to get this out in the open rather than trying to kid yourself and everyone else here. You were honest before, to your credit, so why stop now?

My hysterical reaction? Your attitude confirms to me that you are pretty delusional about your own righteousness and spiritual superiority. You don't seem to deny that you act like a condescending, super-spiritual snob. In fact, your attitude seems that as long as you think you're right or know one's inner motives then your snobbery is fully justified. Otherwise you wouldn't make all this psychological commentary or assault people with ad hominems like you seem very fond of.

Nothing to do with my any righteousness of my own, self or otherwise, but merely what you said yourself. Best to seek counselling rather than avoid the real problem.

I think that's a load of crap; I think your attitude reeks of self-righteousness and snobbery. And as for your suggestion of counseling, well, since this suggestion was unsought and un-requested, you know where to stick it bud.

There are loads of other examples even in modern parlance where one can say "in the days of X" and identify X with a title he acquired later. Would there be anything wrong with describing a War of Independence Battle of being in the days of Washington, the President? Sometimes it's reasonable to be anachrononistic to clarify the person talked about.

Seems to me like you're comparing apples and oranges. Modern day parlance or anachronisms are a different matter than what the BAG lexicon scholars wrote about. I would take their word over yours any day. If they argue that epi refers to "in the presence of" or "during the administration" of Abithar, well..I will take their word over yours.

JPH argues that this was a good didactive practice.

I don't agree with everything JPH argues for. Right now, I am not really taking anyone's word for anything unless they are an qualifed scholar. JP isn't really a qualified scholar.

Care to document that? Perhaps you also believe that the Church taught a flat Earth, or deny that Galileo's main opposition came from the Aristotelian scientists trying to protect Ptolemaic astronomy

No I don't Socrates. I have wasted enough time responding to you as it is. I would love to discuss and exchange with you if you were a lot more humble, civil, and friendlier, but you are very far from that- except to other young-earth creationist Christians. At this point, I have no further desire to diaouge with you-ever. Until I have assurance that you have changed your snobbish ways, at this point I don't want to have anything to do with you-ever!

This will be the last thing I ever say to you Socrates, learn to become a more civilized, respectful, friendlier human being or go and fry in your own hell.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 04:39 AM

If you can't take the heat ... someone needs to learn that biblical love isn't soppy sentimentality but may sometimes mean what we call "tough love" — see this discussion about αγαπη (agape) [When JPH's search engine decides to work, I'll enter the URL :argh:]. And my illustrious namesake was good at showing up pretentions, and this would include claiming to have intellectual justifications when in reality it's an emotional issue.

J. J. Ramsey

February 27th 2003, 05:02 PM

02-27-2003 @ 03:39 AM
Socrates:

If you can't take the heat ... someone needs to learn that biblical love isn't soppy sentimentality but may sometimes mean what we call "tough love" see

Let me guess, it's this article:
[url=http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html]Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (]this discussion[/url).

Socrates, what you are doing isn't tough love; it's slander. I am sure that you know all the Scripture verses on judging, and I am sure you know that "judge not" is an oversimplification. Yet what the Scriptures do condemn is self-righteous judgment, the kind that usually lends itself to slapdash character assasinations. And what do you do? Call people you have barely heard of "God-haters"! Compared to you, "Church Lady" from Saturday Night Live is a saint. :eww:

You have pointed out that your illustrious namesake "was good at showing up pretentions." I daresay that if the real Socrates were alive today, you would not want to meet him, for he would, well, you get the idea . . .

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 11:21 PM

J.J.R., whom the atheists love as much as Lenin loved "useful idiots" because of his constant attacks on the reliability of Scripture, craven capitulation to naturalism, and unequal yoking with known God-haters against Biblical creationists, whinged:

Let me guess, it's this article:
Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html).About the only thing Ramsey's got right. Although in this case I was thinking more of What is "Agape" and How Did It Work? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html). And your refutation is, what? You're probably against that, if you follow that Trophy Case who we first heard of while spitting venom against JPHolding. He's just found someone else to spit at while he swings to and fro with every wind of doctrine, seking pseudo-intellectual excuses to justify an emotionally motivated unbelief.

Socrates, what you are doing isn't tough love; it's slander.Then call the flippin' police!I am sure that you know all the Scripture verses on judging, and I am sure you know that "judge not" is an oversimplification.Yeah, because of John 7:24. Yet what the Scriptures do condemn is self-righteous judgment, the kind that usually lends itself to slapdash character assasinations. None of which applies here, because what I say is truthful.And what do you do? Call people you have barely heard of "God-haters"! Because it's true, as amply shown by the inordinate amount of time they spend attacking on Biblical theism.Compared to you, "Church Lady" from Saturday Night Live is a saint. Once again, JJR applies his hypocritical double standards. Anything goes when it's to attack YECs, but he can't take the slightest thing in return. JJR is also happy to call creationist Ph.D. scientists "liars" and question their credentials, on the say-so of known atheists.

OckhamsRazor

June 8th 2004, 12:54 AM

Mr. Holding suggested I could address a few of my points made in another thread in a new one. I will do so, rather than crowd Jim Eiselle's thread out. Here was my original post. I will then post Mr. Holding's response, and my response to him.

1. The seemingly absent God.

2. The seemingly illogical nature of the Christian God: i.e. Trinity, omnicience vs omnipotence, etc.

3. The vast opinions held by differing Christians. It seems to me that God didn't get his message out very well - notice I said to me. I know I'm being ego-centric, but that's what the question was about, now wasn't it.

4. I don't believe the Bible has to be inerrant for Christianity to stand - but it would make more sense to have a "foundation" for Christian belief. If the Bible is inerrant, it does on the face value at least have discrepencies that may or may not be argued away - but the very idea that I would have to apologize for God's word - to me offends the very concept of God.

5. How Christianity, when viewed from a global perspective (to me, again) is no more than another answer for life's great mysteries. I don't hate Christianity. In fact, I have been a Christian most of my life - and maybe one day I will be again, but I can't currently accept that it's anything other than man's seeking the unknown in yet another way.

6. The concept of original sin, and the depravity of successive generations seems (to my thoroughly modern mind) incompatible with the definition of the Christian God by most people.

7. If by one man, all were condemned. And Jesus really, trully came to solve this eternal problem for mankind, then by one man all will be saved. If not, then Jesus really didn't do much.

8. I believe in a historical Jesus, but I think if he were alive today, he'd be surprised at what's happened in his name.

9. My own personal journey in life. As I stated, I have been a Christian most of my life - "borned-again" when I was 12. But ever since I was young, I had questions about things that even today have no good answer in my mind - and I can't count the times I was told I had to trust God - but I couldn't turn off that question mill in my head. I've lived life as a Christian - loving this Jesus that I was told to love with all my heart. And I've lived life as a non-theist, believing that Christianity is simply an accident of history. I can trully say, I've never felt more free than when I threw off the "chains" of religion.

Anyway, those are my two bits. Good night everyone.

Rusty
The absense of God:
I'm going to assume you're refering to the problem of pain: first, a good couple of references- CS Lewis The Problem of Pain, -The Bible The Book of Job. I don't pretend to have all the answers on this but I think I can help.
#1 Evil= evil doesn't exist as such. It is not a thing, it is the lack of something. Evil is really taking a good thing and warping it. The issue of pain plays greatly into the concept of free will. If you didn't have a choice you wouldn't be real. You'd be a robot. God wishes you to choose Him rather than not give you a choice. Another thing many of us forget is just this: can you really argue that many of the painful things you go through precisely because of your own choices. Those are called consequenses. God doesn't enjoy seeing you suffer but he will allow it for various reasons. It seems to me that usually it's because of our own sins. Sometimes it's just the state of the world with sin in it, sometimes we don't have an answer now, and you're not the first to ask them. I don't think it's wrong of you to ask the questions but then you need to be willing to accept the answer God gives you. I would encourage you to not give up too quickly thinking God has answered or that what you think is automatically the answer, take your time and pray and first read the book of Job that should help. It will seem a bit rough but it will help if you open your self to it. I assure you Jesus does love you even when things seem harsh.

The Trinity is not illogical it is simply difficult; just like the concept of infinity is difficult. The meaning of it is: One what: God, Three whos Father, Son , Holy Spirit, eternally distinct yet all fullly God and they are perfectly unified they are one. This is a difficult concept for us because we have no comparison to understand it with. Many things can be understood like God is our Father, but it gets hard when we hear "God is infinite".

Christianity is not having any trouble getting it's message out at all. First the Bible says that "Narrow is the way and few are they that find it" this is the first thing we must keep in mind. Secondly, there are certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith that all true Christain churches hold to, things like the Virgin Birth, the Sinlessness of Christ, the Physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, The Holy Trinity, ect... If a church denies the truth of any of these doctrines, and the few others, they are not Christian. To be Christain you have to believe Christian things.

First off: we don't apologize for the Bible, that is a mis-interpretation of the word apologetics. The word apologetics has nothing to do with embarrasment or apology; it has to do with "giving an answer". To explain the truths of the scripture; to be able to tell people the evidence for what we believe. People who say they find discrepencies in the Bible usually don't know the basics of interpretation of the Bible. You don't hear "it's raining cats and dogs" and then run out expecting to see k9's and felines skydiving. You need to realize that the Bible uses idioms (figures of speach) there is also hyperbole such as plucking out ones eye if it offends you.. it means to go to serious measures to prevent your self from falling into serious sins. You need to keep in mind the terms of the day. What I mean is that sometimes you'll see words that people will say teach that the Bible believed in myths. For example; the verses that use the word Hades in the greek. In greek mythology the word Hades was the name of the world of the dead, the Bible uses the term in order to make reference to the place we all go when we die. If we had said the Bossom Of Abraham to some of the readers of greek, they would have been clueless. Instead the writter uses the term of the day for the afterlife to denote the true afterlife. It's the same thing as when we use the word Saturday, we don't worship Saturn, but we use the word to denote the seventh day of the week. We should not take the history of a word to interpret the passage (there maybe some exceptions).

As far as Christianity being just another search for truth: this is quite wrong. The vast majority of the worlds religion is about what you have to do to get to God. Christianity is about what God (Jesus) did to get to you and so you could be with Him. This makes Christianity very diffrent from other religions.

Original Sin: One, if you put a bit of synide in a bucket of water, is not the whole pail of water then poisened? Two: all sin passes through the seed of man, this is why Jesus was born of a virgin.

Jesus' provision: Jesus did provide for the eternal life of all men. He gives us the right to choose for it or against it. It is a free gift you cannot earn it. You simply ask Jesus for the gift of eternal life in the knowlege and admission to Him that you need Him to save you because of your sin. You simultaneously make the decision to the best of your ability to believe that He died for all your sins and that He physically raised from the dead.

Yes if you've been living trying to get your self to heaven by your efforts you'll be miserable. Beyond that you need to realize that God's teachings are gaurd rails to keep you from going over the cliff of sin. I'll tell you this, I didn't know that I would regret my being with a woman before I was married but I sure do now. I wish I'd stayed in the gaurd rails. The chains as you call that may not be chains, they may be a rope holding you on the side of a cliff you're dangling over. They hurt because of the pressure but falling to the rocks kills.
I hope you'll reconsider your path. Ps Bertrand Russle didn't read the Bible very closely when it came to his objections, they all have very simple explainations. I think maybe Russle didn't want to believe so he found excuses not to believe but I can't judge his heart. Also the most death and destruction that came from an idea was not Christianity, it was communism. A system based on much the same beliefs that Russle held himself. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

~Electric