over 90% of historians (Christians and non-Christians) believe Jesus existed

[Zeluvia]

Every single religion's core rests solely on the basis of specific doctrine and nothing more. In the religion of Islam, both Sunnis and Shiites subscribe to one book: the Koran. Can anybody care to explain the split in Islamic denominations? The Sunnis and Shiites disagree on political bloodline and government, it does not change the Koran, so is the same with the religion of Buddha. For Christianity, Catholicism was completely paganized in its origin and even adopted practices that were forbiddable by the documented words of Jesus himself, Protestantism arose as an answering solution to Catholicism by solely editing the things that were deemed distasteful by Church law. The evolution of religions is not entirely tied with the evolution of doctrine or even misinterperatation, but for political ambitions and answers to politcal crises that arise long after the orthodox, the doctrine and rules of adherence to a religion, are thus founded. That is orthodox, regardless of POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, all denominations, sects, etc of a religion are solely united under the basis of that religion's foundation, or unifying core belief.

Okay, I will bite, cause I admit to some confusion.

First off, I will agree to political and economic influences in SOME of the splits between religious sects and denominations, but it certainly doesn't explain it all.

And although the difference between Shia and Sunni arose from a dispute about the inheritance of the "prophets" mantle, there are now Doctrinal differences and Koran interpretation differences. This of course is because each side could use the SAME book to support their position.

Now, elsewhere on this same forum, there is a discussion about soteriology...

If I understand your point correctly all the differences in soteriology could be explained by political interpretations and MIS-interpretations of the same book for a HUMAN reasons, not related to any real doctrinal issues?

So, if you could show the HUMAN motivation for the interpretation being different, you could arrive at the one true and correct interpretation, by a process of throwing out all the interpretations that had political and economic motivations and caused division to further HUMAN goals?

Is that correct?

[Truth be Told]

So, if you could show the HUMAN motivation for the interpretation being different, you could arrive at the one true and correct interpretation, by a process of throwing out all the interpretations that had political and economic motivations and caused division to further HUMAN goals?

It's rather simple, all it takes is a few snips of taking things out of context in what might be considered an excuse for a specific motive. If the disagreement is political, then each other side is succeptable to each own's interperatation of doctrine based on personal justification of what they seek to look for in inspiration.

[Zeluvia]

Okay, then help me understand the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.

[Gaytheist]

No. All atheists are part of the atheist Borg, and share one set of thoughts. What is this "disagreement" of which you speak?

[Gaytheist]

I've read a few who have (when apporate). Again, did Jesus call people vipers, hyprocrites, and Satan? I seem to recall him doing just that (when earned). Now do you have a real argument or are you here to rant?

Crystal

I agree, Crystal. Not only are Christians allowed to insult people, to call them rude names and generally to be obnoxious and impolite, their religion requires them to do so! To emulate Jesus, Christians should avoid rational arguments and merely call other people names. I couldn't agree more.

[lilpixieofterror]

I agree, Crystal. Not only are Christians allowed to insult people, to call them rude names and generally to be obnoxious and impolite, their religion requires them to do so! To emulate Jesus, Christians should avoid rational arguments and merely call other people names. I couldn't agree more.

I see you love to cut things up and throw them out of context. Have you noticed where I have said there is a time and a place for it? Sometimes you need to be a little rude to make a point, other times that is totally inappropriate to do. Now if you like to find where i have 'avoided rational arguments' or 'merely called other people names'. You're welcome to do so. My bet is the links you find will be where you threw a hissy fit or stevec's nonsense. Have fun crying gaytheist.

[Frogwarrior]

Sigh. Yet another who doesn't realize that ad hominem attacks are not fallacious when used in tandem with rational answers.
Ah well. Some day I'll get used to it.

[jimbo]

Frogwarrior,

Sigh. Yet another who doesn't realize that ad hominem attacks are not fallacious when used in tandem with rational answers.
Ah well. Some day I'll get used to it.

Rational discourse between mature adults does not include childish insults. The use of insults often indicates that a person is insecure in his or her position.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Gaytheist]

I'm not crying, Crystal, I'm agreeing with you. Rudeness is very Christian. Unfortunately for you, it's also a virtual admission of defeat in an argument.

Speaking for myself, I prefer to converse with people who can argue the merits without resorting to childish name-calling. Personal preference of mine.

[Frogwarrior]

Frogwarrior,



Rational discourse between mature adults does not include childish insults. The use of insults often indicates that a person is insecure in his or her position.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Really? When I see it, it's usually that the one giving the insults is doing so because the other person is battier than Dracula.

'Course, you'd like to think that 'cause you're so often on the receiving end. For good reason.

[Frogwarrior]

I'm not crying, Crystal, I'm agreeing with you. Rudeness is very Christian. Unfortunately for you, it's also a virtual admission of defeat in an argument.

Speaking for myself, I prefer to converse with people who can argue the merits without resorting to childish name-calling. Personal preference of mine.

I find that more than slightly ironic considering Gaytheist's rather childish "NO U!!!" there. And the smugness. Definitely the smugness.

Note that I'm addressing GT in the third person. This is because I prefer to converse with people who can argue rationally without whining about matters of style.

[Carpedm9587]

Sigh. Yet another who doesn't realize that ad hominem attacks are not fallacious when used in tandem with rational answers.
Ah well. Some day I'll get used to it.

I don't think they're fallacious, FW. I think they're just childish and rude.

Michel

[Lazy Agnostic]

Crystal,
It's been a few days, now. Will you be continuing our real conversation?

Here's a reminder where we left off, post#345

Hi, Crystal,
I'm glad you wish to have a real conversation on this, without any (as you say) crying, whinnying, insults, ranting, or ad hominem attacks. Let's continue.

LA
In response to my question: can you name some widely-respected apologists who endorse Christians indulging in derision and insults?, you reply
LPOT
I've read a few who have
LA
Please name them.
LPOT
You think I go around and did a study on this? I have no clue...


LA
So the answer is no, you can't name a widely-respected apologist who endorses derision and insults by Christians. Would you like to review your reading list? I see from previous posts, you suggest 15 or 20 minutes of research is generally adequate; please take a few days, if necessary.

LPOT
..,but I can tell you that I have yet to find one that hasn't insulted an oppent in some way, shape or form when it is necessary
LA
Were you looking to find a widely-respected apologist who hasn't insulted an opponent, or you just don't recall encountering any? That an opponent has perceived insult doesn't indicate that the widely-respected apologist attempted to insult---or that he endorses derision and insult by Christians.

LPOT
That's nice and since when did somebody disagreeing on an issue mean that I was wrong?
LA
In this case, it appears most, with the possible exception of a few you can't name, widely-respected apologists would disagree with you. That could be an indicator that you're wrong.

Should you be willing to consider the possibility you could be wrong on this?

LA
What are the criteria for "earned" in this case? How many times does Jesus use this?
LPOT
From what I can read, it seems to be those who show that they have no interest in learning the truth and would rather argue just to argue.
LA
Is this criterion your interpretation or are there supportive writings of scholars?

LPOT
It depends on the context if it is alright to do or not....Do insults have a time and a place?
LA
That's what we'll be trying to determine with this real conversation.

Be well,
LA