For Silent Running

[2_Fatal]

Hello!

SR, would you be so kind as to provide your reasons for embracing the Wiccan faith. Subsequently, would you please provide your reasons for rejecting Christianity.

Thanks so much,

Take care.

[technomage]

Hi, 2_Fatal,

SR, would you be so kind as to provide your reasons for embracing the Wiccan faith.

Wicca is a form of mythos that, for me, allows me to gain a greater experience of God without having to force myself to try to believe events that I am persuaded did not happen.

Like Judeo-Christianity, we have our myths--a creation myth, a ritual cycle, several social myths, and the like. Unlike many (but not all) Judeo-Christians, I do not suggest that the myths I use to gain experience of God are required to be historical events. Indeed, such a requirement makes the myths dependent upon the science.



[/quote]Subsequently, would you please provide your reasons for rejecting Christianity.[/quote]

Said as briefly as possible: "The path did not fit my foot."

That reason will not suffice for anyone else on the planet, nor do I encourage anyone--any one at all--to leave Christianity.

This is a very brief answer, for which I apologize, but unfortunately I'm absolutely swamped at work. I'll try to add more later, if you like.

[2_Fatal]

Wicca is a form of mythos that, for me, allows me to gain a greater experience of God without having to force myself to try to believe events that I am persuaded did not happen.

Interesting. Are you persuaded that Christ never rose from the dead? If He was/is not God incarnate, then who was/is He?

Like Judeo-Christianity, we have our myths--a creation myth, a ritual cycle, several social myths, and the like. Unlike many (but not all) Judeo-Christians, I do not suggest that the myths I use to gain experience of God are required to be historical events. Indeed, such a requirement makes the myths dependent upon the science.

If your experience of God is not rooted in an actual event/being that happened/exists, would you venture to call this a delusion?

[/quote]Subsequently, would you please provide your reasons for rejecting Christianity.[/quote]

Said as briefly as possible: "The path did not fit my foot."

If something truly did happen, like the resurrection, would you still reject it?

That reason will not suffice for anyone else on the planet, nor do I encourage anyone--any one at all--to leave Christianity.

This is a very brief answer, for which I apologize, but unfortunately I'm absolutely swamped at work. I'll try to add more later, if you like.

Oh no, it is quite understandable. I thank you for your prompt response and would love for you to elaborate some more.

[technomage]

---Quote---
Wicca is a form of mythos that, for me, allows me to gain a greater experience of God without having to force myself to try to believe events that I am persuaded did not happen.
---End Quote---
Interesting. Are you persuaded that Christ never rose from the dead?

I am.

If He was/is not God incarnate, then who was/is He?

Neither Lord nor liar nor lunatic, but a moral preacher and attempted reformer in early first century Judea.

Jesus was a historical person--of that I have no doubt. He preached against some of the excesses of the Pharisees (some of these sermons are recorded, though the accuracy of the records we have suffered between the sermon and the writing), and no doubt of the Sadducees (though if he did, almost all of these sermons are lost). Whether he was primarily a "wisdom teacher" or an "apocalyptic teacher" is a matter more of doubt and controversy than of certainty.

---End Quote---
If your experience of God is not rooted in an actual event/being that happened/exists, would you venture to call this a delusion?

As with so many other things, the best answer is "It depends."

I believe that God exists, and I have had experiences that I attribute to the presence or activity of God, but in a very strict sense, I do not "know" if God exists. I have no objective evidence that I could present to a neutral viewer, nothing I could take to a lab ... nothing. I have my own experiences, and my own faith.

Subsequently, would you please provide your reasons for rejecting Christianity.

My primary problem with Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, is not Jesus--but the Gospels themselves. Arguments of traditionalists to the side, the Gospels are accurate accounts--but they are accurate accounts of the "Jesus Legend" as that legend developed in the 40 to 60 years after his death. The documents do not reflect the reality of Judea under Pilate, but of late first-century Christianity--a Christianity that had already changed tremendously from the teachings of the son of a carpenter.

Based on my research, you do not worship Jesus of Nazareth, but a series of mid-to-late first century legends regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

---Quote---
Said as briefly as possible: "The path did not fit my foot."
---End Quote---
If something truly did happen, like the resurrection, would you still reject it?

If the Resurrection happened in a manner that could be known, then one would be a fool to ignore it. I have never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I do hope that "fool" is not on my resume.

But would I reject it? 2_Fatal, even the resurrection does not give warrant to a false claim. If the other claims made about Jesus in the Gospel are false, yet the resurrection truly happened, then we have something entirely different going on.

[2_Fatal]

I am.



Neither Lord nor liar nor lunatic, but a moral preacher and attempted reformer in early first century Judea.

Jesus was a historical person--of that I have no doubt. He preached against some of the excesses of the Pharisees (some of these sermons are recorded, though the accuracy of the records we have suffered between the sermon and the writing), and no doubt of the Sadducees (though if he did, almost all of these sermons are lost). Whether he was primarily a "wisdom teacher" or an "apocalyptic teacher" is a matter more of doubt and controversy than of certainty.



As with so many other things, the best answer is "It depends."

I believe that God exists, and I have had experiences that I attribute to the presence or activity of God, but in a very strict sense, I do not "know" if God exists. I have no objective evidence that I could present to a neutral viewer, nothing I could take to a lab ... nothing. I have my own experiences, and my own faith.



My primary problem with Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, is not Jesus--but the Gospels themselves. Arguments of traditionalists to the side, the Gospels are accurate accounts--but they are accurate accounts of the "Jesus Legend" as that legend developed in the 40 to 60 years after his death. The documents do not reflect the reality of Judea under Pilate, but of late first-century Christianity--a Christianity that had already changed tremendously from the teachings of the son of a carpenter.

Based on my research, you do not worship Jesus of Nazareth, but a series of mid-to-late first century legends regarding Jesus of Nazareth.



If the Resurrection happened in a manner that could be known, then one would be a fool to ignore it. I have never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I do hope that "fool" is not on my resume.

But would I reject it? 2_Fatal, even the resurrection does not give warrant to a false claim. If the other claims made about Jesus in the Gospel are false, yet the resurrection truly happened, then we have something entirely different going on.

Thanks for your time angel-pie,

I am currently reading your exchange with seanD:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=123029&page=3

[Krusader]

Thanks for your time angel-pie,

I am currently reading your exchange with seanD:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=123029&page=3

For your information, it was not always that way.

[libreesprit]

Dear Fatal and Co.,
I am a Christian who took a long time to come back [grew up as and am in most ways a catholic still] , but since I am endlessly curious ,and could accept 'believe ',nor the bible as sufficient for
my own soul .I left ,joined a left wing party [always sinced 25 yrs interested in politics ,which is life and how we manage community and shared resources etc ] and became an atheist,which could be said of the majority of medium educated people in the West. A little education is a dangerous thing ,because because what you know is very limited ,but because you have a little more formal education then the 'silly believer ' you feel superior.Of course the 'silly believer ' is to blame too ,because they insist in simply 'believing' and so you have conflict which tends to polarise people.
Christians especially in U.S. are afraid that if someone takes a path which is not theirs that they will be lost ,but if the intention of the person [in this case Silent Running ] is for the good ,and is not of pride and personal power , the road will lead them round again
to the Original Creator and saviour which is J.C.
I became lost for a very long time 25yrs , and I studied every religion
taught multicutural education ,and even did Hindu chants ,but they all were missing something ,and it was not until I allowed Jesus to enter and heal me that I got my wonderful life back.
Sorry ' Silent Running' but my knowledge also tells me that we have, and are still but soon to be ended ,been living through a period of willful deceit on on a massive scale and as a result false gods and beliefs have replaced the truth on an unprecedented scale since Christianity began . It is only Christ who could have brought us out of the swamp we were in ,and I would like to say to my Pagan friends ,because they are my friends ,for they are mostly seekers ,
what is the result of ie. final result of your beliefs if you were to bring them to conclusion ,could they have brought about the kind of modern western democracy,which is the fruit mostly of Western Christian Culture and the most advanced society ever known to humanity ? By their fruits shall ye know them .Those who criticise Christianity ,need to be more precise in their arguments ,and the Christians need to stretch themselves without fear to know their wonderful scientific designer ,and stop this God is a mystery ,therefore scientific study is dangerous stuff .It is true that you may know God first with your heart ,but then you must allow him to inspire your mind .When we split God into either or we create
a space for evil, which definitely exists although there are some who would deny it.
I know that the west is not perfect and that there is room for considerable criticism,but what other Religion could have brought about the VAST connectedness which has been instigated by following the God of Jesus Christ ,how would we have been saved from our endless karmic deficit ?? in such a relatively short period of time. ?

[technomage]

my knowledge also tells me that we have, and are still but soon to be ended ,been living through a period of willful deceit on on a massive scale and as a result false gods and beliefs have replaced the truth on an unprecedented scale since Christianity began

While I respect your beliefs, calling your beliefs "knowledge" is a misuse of the word, as "knowledge" implies that the beliefs are both justified and true. You may feel that your beliefs are justified, but if they are not true (as I propose they are not), then your feeling of justification is misplaced.

[libreesprit]

I wonder if you actually read my post. If that is all you have to say ,not a single question ,but the supposition of a lie on my part and a presumption that my knowledge is not knowledge . I have spent a lifetime working to reveal as much scientific evidence as possible to support what I now believe. You show me that you are a 'believer' , not a 'knower' but unfortunately at the moment what you choose to believe, is as I said incapable of bearing long term fruit ,to which you make no comment.
Would you care to comment on the the fact that most 'pagans' and others are living off the back of a Christian ' if imperfect human society', it's lack of perfection being the human side of it and not the Creators will . It is for sure that certain simpler ways of being can be learned from, looking at past ways of good practise in all cultures. According to the church I am a bit of a pagan myself [a celt] , but the next and neccessary step in the process of evolution was J.C .,and I think that if he had not come as saviour you would not be there in front of your computer,on the other side of the world 'speaking' to me , It is the ignorance of the christian community that does'nt see that either. The only difference between them and you is that they have chosen the Pied Piper who will lead them home . But we can only come home when we are ready . If you have read the 'prodigal son ' story it was just as well he came back before his father died, or the story would have had a different ending. WE live in different time periods like seasons ,and when we miss the chance to sow the seed ,we can wait an awfully long time before we can plant again.
You have, as I said made so many suppositions .That I have not knowledge to back my beliefs,and you propose, without knowledge, to say that they are not true.
I will take some time to look at your other posts before making further comment .

[2_Fatal]

While I respect your beliefs, calling your beliefs "knowledge" is a misuse of the word, as "knowledge" implies that the beliefs are both justified and true. You may feel that your beliefs are justified, but if they are not true (as I propose they are not), then your feeling of justification is misplaced.

Justin, I see you doing this quite frequently. You state that Christianity is, well, false. However, you never seem to provide clear examples of how exactly our beliefs are false.
Would you please be so kind and perhaps substantiate your assertions.
Why don't you create a thread in 'apologetics 101' and highlight everything that is false within the Bible etc.

I think it would be beneficial for you and others to have these issues addressed out in the open, where they can be scrutinized.

Thanks.

[technomage]

I wonder if you actually read my post.

Yes, actually. Nothing in your post is precisely new, and I have been precisely where you are at.

If that is all you have to say ,not a single question ,but the supposition of a lie on my part

Wait one second, Libre--we need to make a clarification here. I am not, and do not, accuse you of speaking a "lie," and there is a dramatic difference between a "lie" and an "error." Yes, based on the evidence I have available to me (publically available evidence, no "secret knowledge" here, nor anything of the sort), your beliefs are in error. However, I am quite certain that you earnestly and sincerely believe what you posted, therefore, the term "lie" is quite incorrect.

and a presumption

Not a "presumption"--and by the way, I think the word you are looking for here is "presupposition." I do not presuppose that Christianity is incorrect: I reached that conclusion after years of research, and incidentally refuted my own Christian beliefs in the process.

that my knowledge is not knowledge.

For an assertion to be knowledge, it must be true, it must be justified, and it must be believed or accepted by the person who claims "I know." If any one of these conditions is not fulfilled, it is not "knowledge," no matter how sincerely held. You believe your assertions--one condition is fulfilled. You feel those assertions are justified--two conditions fulfilled, though the standard for "justified belief" is far too subjective to be universally applicable. But if your beliefs are false (again, as I posit they are), then your beliefs cannot be termed "knowledge," no matter how sincere your belief in them may be.

I have spent a lifetime working to reveal as much scientific evidence as possible to support what I now believe.

I'm happy for you. Immanuel Velikovsky spent a lifetime "working to reveal as much scientific evidence as possible to support" what he believed--that does not make his beliefs truth, nor is it relevant in your case.

Would you care to comment on the the fact that most 'pagans' and others are living off the back of a Christian ' if imperfect human society'

Nope--because besides being a highly questionable assertion on your part, it is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is true.

The one, sole, and only criteria for truth is "Did it happen?" There are several claims made as core elements of Christian doctrine that do not fulfill that criteria. I've discussed some of those elements in other threads, please feel free to examine those threads at your leisure.

[technomage]

Hi, 2_Fatal,

<snip>

As a complete and total side point--I have ceased using my legal name on the forum to avoid problems in real life.

You state that Christianity is, well, false. However, you never seem to provide clear examples of how exactly our beliefs are false.

I don't have leisure to search through TWeb right this minute, but I have provided specific examples and evidence against:
* Jesus as a prophet (specifically, the accuracy of the Olivette Discourse)
* The Virgin Birth
* Inerrancy of the Gospel accounts
* The traditional "author attributions" of the Gospels
* The Resurrection

Why don't you create a thread in 'apologetics 101' and highlight everything that is false within the Bible etc.

Because I have a life--one that makes serious demands upon my time, and precludes spending 40+ hours per week on TWeb.

Because TWeb has a post length limit, and posting specific arguments against even one asserted "error" in the Bible far exceeds those limits.

And most importantly, because I am far more interested in studying the Bible for what it actually is, rather than in trying to persuade "True Believers" as to what it ain't.

[2_Fatal]

As a complete and total side point--I have ceased using my legal name on the forum to avoid problems in real life.

My apologies, please forgive me.

I don't have leisure to search through TWeb right this minute, but I have provided specific examples and evidence against:
* Jesus as a prophet (specifically, the accuracy of the Olivette Discourse)
* The Virgin Birth
* Inerrancy of the Gospel accounts
* The traditional "author attributions" of the Gospels
* The Resurrection

Right. I have seen your interactions with seanD, and others. It seems that you do indeed provide evidence for your position, however, I would also claim the same for your opponents.
Therefore, it seems that your points, although valid to an extent, are insufficent to conclude that Christianity is false.

Also, just out of curiosity, have you debated JP Holding on some of the above issues? What alternate theory do you propose for the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ?

Because I have a life--one that makes serious demands upon my time, and precludes spending 40+ hours per week on TWeb.

Because TWeb has a post length limit, and posting specific arguments against even one asserted "error" in the Bible far exceeds those limits.

And most importantly, because I am far more interested in studying the Bible for what it actually is, rather than in trying to persuade "True Believers" as to what it ain't.

Understandable, although, do you have a website that you can contribute to when you are able, which demonstrates why Christianity is false? Do you think that if you wrote a book on why Christianity is false, it would survive the scrutiny of Christian scholarship? Are your arguments that compelling?
Further, I think if you can prove Christianity is false, you should not so much persuade a believer that Christianity is false , but demonstrate it.
I believe, and should think many agree, that this would be a noble thing to do. After all, I and many other Christian's surely don't want to live a lie.

Thanks for your time, baby-doll.

[technomage]

It seems that you do indeed provide evidence for your position, however, I would also claim the same for your opponents.

In Sean's case, the "evidence" he provided was demonstrated (without exception, IIRC) to be incorrect, wrongly interpreted, or in some cases completely bogus. (The last refers to assertions he had made in good faith but were blatantly false, not to dishonesty. Sean's a good kid.)

More to the point, however, debate is a horrible way to investigate the veracity of a claim--not just religious claims, but any claim. The only question that a debate settles is "Which of the participants is more skilled in argument?" But remember, 2_Fatal, arguments can be won by better evidence, or they can be won by lies and audience-pleasing rhetoric. Either is useful in a debate, but only the former is useful for honest inquiry.

Therefore, it seems that your points, although valid to an extent, are insufficent to conclude that Christianity is false.

If my posts were the total of my evidence, I would agree.

Also, just out of curiosity, have you debated JP Holding on some of the above issues?

I do not debate (or generally interact) with Mr. Holding. Some of that is personal, and I won't go into it here, but some of that deals with the style and manner of his presentation. His "The Impossible Faith" article is a splendid example: even if every single historical assertion Holding makes in the article is correct (a situation I doubt: Holding is good, but some of his assertions are somewhat qestionable), the article is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

What alternate theory do you propose for the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ?

I've discussed my thoughts on the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels in the "What happenned on Easter" thread.

Understandable, although, do you have a website that you can contribute to when you are able, which demonstrates why Christianity is false?

The putative veracity (or lack thereof) for Christianity is not a primary interest in my life. I'm far more interested in Wiccan theology (or polytheology as the case may be), but I don't tend to discuss it here ... it's not really relevant to this board.

Do you think that if you wrote a book on why Christianity is false, it would survive the scrutiny of Christian scholarship? Are your arguments that compelling?

I do not expect someone who has an a priori belief in any specific assertion to find arguments contrary to that assertion to be "compelling." Come on, 2_Fatal--have you ever tried to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus didn't return "invisibly" in the 1910s? In almost all cases, a "True Believer" cannot be persuaded by argument--even if the argument is correct and compelling.

Further, I think if you can prove Christianity is false, you should not so much persuade a believer that Christianity is false , but demonstrate it.
I believe, and should think many agree, that this would be a noble thing to do. After all, I and many other Christian's surely don't want to live a lie.

Not a "lie"--a "lie," again, requires that you already know an assertion to be false, but espouse it anyway.

At the very worst, Christianity can be called a "positive error." While incorrect, it has made greatly beneficial changes in the lives of many individuals, and (to some extent) to the world at large. Yes, there are individuals and periods of history where Christianity has been maladaptive, but the same accusations of adaptive and maladaptive can be said for any religious group or philosophical school.

[2_Fatal]

In Sean's case, the "evidence" he provided was demonstrated (without exception, IIRC) to be incorrect, wrongly interpreted, or in some cases completely bogus. (The last refers to assertions he had made in good faith but were blatantly false, not to dishonesty. Sean's a good kid.)

Interesting, I didn't reach that conclusion from surveying your interactions with him.

More to the point, however, debate is a horrible way to investigate the veracity of a claim--not just religious claims, but any claim. The only question that a debate settles is "Which of the participants is more skilled in argument?" But remember, 2_Fatal, arguments can be won by better evidence, or they can be won by lies and audience-pleasing rhetoric. Either is useful in a debate, but only the former is useful for honest inquiry.

Right, so I am not seeing why debating the evidence is a horrible way to investigate the veracity of a claim.

If my posts were the total of my evidence, I would agree.

This is what I am trying to get from you, some compelling evidence that can demonstrably prove Christianity to be false.

I do not debate (or generally interact) with Mr. Holding. Some of that is personal, and I won't go into it here, but some of that deals with the style and manner of his presentation. His "The Impossible Faith" article is a splendid example: even if every single historical assertion Holding makes in the article is correct (a situation I doubt: Holding is good, but some of his assertions are somewhat qestionable), the article is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

I find it hard to believe that you would refrain from interacting with someone, who has clearly done their homework, due to personality issues. Granted, some people are hard to deal with, but if truth is on the line, I believe we can look past these failings and address the substance of the issue at hand.
I am sure Holding would disagree with you in regards to The Impossible Faith, but I guess you are content with your unchallenged conclusions?

I've discussed my thoughts on the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels in the "What happenned on Easter" thread.

Yes, you provided your evidence, it was challenged and proven to be insufficent. Where exactly is the totality of your evidence that proves Christianity to be false?

The putative veracity (or lack thereof) for Christianity is not a primary interest in my life......

You could've fooled me.

I do not expect someone who has an a priori belief in any specific assertion to find arguments contrary to that assertion to be "compelling." Come on, 2_Fatal--have you ever tried to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus didn't return "invisibly" in the 1910s? In almost all cases, a "True Believer" cannot be persuaded by argument--even if the argument is correct and compelling.

You are aware of the scholars, which started out attempting to disprove Christianity, and thus came away believers in Christ, are you not?
I still affirm that if your evidence is in fact correct/compelling then many "true believers" will abandon the faith. Indeed, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

Not a "lie"--a "lie," again, requires that you already know an assertion to be false, but espouse it anyway.

Apparently you know Christianity is a lie, and we Christian's are just ignorant. I am asking you to dispell our ignorance, will you be so kind?

At the very worst, Christianity can be called a "positive error." While incorrect, it has made greatly beneficial changes in the lives of many individuals, and (to some extent) to the world at large. Yes, there are individuals and periods of history where Christianity has been maladaptive, but the same accusations of adaptive and maladaptive can be said for any religious group or philosophical school.

If Christ has not been raised....