Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
April 19, 2019, 07:14:04 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Breaking Stereotypes  (Read 35000 times)
LucyB
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2011, 06:51:16 pm »

There's a line in Napoleon Dynamite, when the chicken farmer looks at Napoleon and says; "I don't know what the hell you're talking about"....There is nothing you will ever say, nor any argument strong enough to erode one iota of my faith in Jesus.

Thank you, Innerlight!

When I first got interested in this discussion board, I wanted to understand common traits in people who become involved in churches like Walnut Creek. I think many of us have a tendency to take ourselves too seriously. I got the gist of DRIE's postings, but I honestly do not have the patience to decipher all of it. I appreciate people that are open to the viewpoints of others. DRIE makes some interesting points about the rational fallacies of Christianity, but fails to understand that Christians will not be phased by such arguments. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason. I believe in Jesus. I believe I am His friend and through His grace have the opportunity to be his partner in bringing love to my world. I love other people. I love the people at Walnut Creek. I really do. I am a Christian because, as the song goes: "He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own. And the joy we share as we tarry there, millions of others have also known."

I don't worry too much if I disagree with something (like the words to the song--which I changed to agree with me). Sikhs have a prayer in which they refer to God a "seed." I think that's kind of cool. God is the source and beginning of all things. I don't hate Muslims. I don't believe that genital cutting is an obligation required by the Qu'ran. I don't think it's fair to hate and despise people just because you don't understand them. Muslims have great respect for motherhood. God is loving and just. Kabbalah teaches that bad things happen to give us an opportunity to bring healing and light. I like that. I follow Kabbalah. I don't think being a Christian means that you need to dismiss all other systems of faith. From its inception, Christianity was strongly influenced by Hellenistic thought.

Isaac Newton said: I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

I appreciate reading the posts of people who can articulate an idea clearly and succinctly. There are many different belief systems represented on this site.


 
Logged
Anonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2011, 11:38:14 pm »

'Truth' or rather 'What is true' can be known, BUT ONLY by verifiable proofs.

Why is the above statement necessarily true?

Quote
It's been tested, observed, etc.... but I take nothing on faith, and no matter how much you say that you believe the earth is flat (hypothetically) doesn't make it true.

Do you really believe you "take nothing on faith" in your life?
Logged
danrudeisevil
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2011, 08:44:06 am »

For anonymous:

1. 'Truth' must be falsifiable. If something is to be true, it must also have the ability to be false. If something cannot be shown to be false, it by definition cannot been shown to be true. By corollary, if things cannot be shown to be false then everything must be true, which is of course not true of reality. Thats why
Quote
'Truth' or rather 'What is true' can be known, BUT ONLY by verifiable proofs.
is true because if it's not true then everything can be true (ie. "the sky is green" must be true then because it cannot be shown to be false). This is basic logic, and to deny its veracity is itself demonstrably false but also denies the efficacy of human reason.

2.  You are equivocating different definitions of 'faith'. Yes, I don't believe anything because I want it to be true and yes I don't have believe in that which not physically be tested (god), but yes I have faith in terms of the continuation of patterns. I have faith that my parents love me for example, because they have demonstrated it in the past and I have faith that pattern of behavior will continue. Or I have faith that gravity is a universal constant, not because I have observed it in every corner of the universe, but because a consistent pattern of its universality has been observed. In that sense I have faith, but again it is able to be falsifiable.
Logged
Captain Bible
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2011, 02:55:59 pm »

I have to admit something that will shock you. I've never read a book from Hitchens or Dawkins or any others like that!

What's wrong with Hitchens and Dawkins? I think they are great! Smiley
Logged

"When you divide the land by lot as an inheritance, you must set aside a donation to the Lord, a holy portion of the land, eight and one-third miles long and six and two-thirds miles wide. This entire tract of land will be holy." Ezekiel 45: 1
Innerlight
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136



« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2011, 07:31:08 pm »

Regarding the issue of Hellenism in Christianity.  While I do not doubt it influenced Christianity perhaps 100-200 years after the apostles.  I do not believe it influenced Christianity from its inception.  I believe the gospel message was a Jewish message, transformed by the resurrection of Jesus.   

Quoting heavily from Wright’s “What the Apostle Paul Really Said”:

"The cross was the one true moment when the one true God defeated the principalities and powers, in accordance with Jewish prophecy; it was therefore the moment when sin and death themselves were defeated.  “The Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures”.  In particular it was the moment when sin that had stood in the account against both Jew and Gentile was dealt with as it deserved, in the person of the one faithful Israelite, the Messiah in whom Israel’s vocation and destiny (to be the means of saving the world) was summed up and realized (Romans 3:21-26)." 

It is easier by far, historically, exegetically and theologically to suppose that Paul the Jew reflected Jewishly, in the light of the Jewish Scriptures on the one hand and the resurrection of Jesus on the other, on the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, in whom the promises had been fulfilled.  Easier by far to recognize that he came quickly to see that the claim was not only true, but relevant as it stood to the whole world, not least the pagan world where the essentially Jewish message of the deep and passionate love of the creator God for his whole creation was neither known or imagined.

Albert Schweitzer:
“Since all [Paul’s] conceptions and thoughts are rooted in eschatology, those who labor to explain him on the basis of Hellenism, are like a man who should bring water from a long distance in leaky watering cans in order to water a garden lying beside a stream.”   

Logged
Anonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2011, 03:41:32 am »

For anonymous:

1. 'Truth' must be falsifiable. If something is to be true, it must also have the ability to be false.

Oh? Why is this the case?

I mean, of course if you come from the perspective that human reason is the epitome in determining Truth, and work backwards to develop the necessary and required assumptions to get there (which is backwards from a logical standpoint, you should never take a conclusion - ie human reason being supreme - and derive the truth of the necessary assumptions and still call the conclusion logical!), this statement nearly has to be true. But simply because this assumption is needed to support your main point, that being the supremacy of human reason over all other things, does not actually make it true.

You cannot develop the premises and assumptions required to support a particular belief system and claim they are valid because they support your desired conclusion.

Quote
If something cannot be shown to be false, it by definition cannot been shown to be true. By corollary, if things cannot be shown to be false then everything must be true, which is of course not true of reality. Thats why
Quote
'Truth' or rather 'What is true' can be known, BUT ONLY by verifiable proofs.
is true because if it's not true then everything can be true (ie. "the sky is green" must be true then because it cannot be shown to be false). This is basic logic, and to deny its veracity is itself demonstrably false but also denies the efficacy of human reason.

How can your statement (the one I quoted previously) be proven false?


Quote
2.  You are equivocating different definitions of 'faith'. Yes, I don't believe anything because I want it to be true and yes I don't have believe in that which not physically be tested (god), but yes I have faith in terms of the continuation of patterns. I have faith that my parents love me for example, because they have demonstrated it in the past and I have faith that pattern of behavior will continue. Or I have faith that gravity is a universal constant, not because I have observed it in every corner of the universe, but because a consistent pattern of its universality has been observed. In that sense I have faith, but again it is able to be falsifiable.

Perhaps. Do you actually believe anything is True and not just merely true? The difference being something which is always true, whether you call it absolute truth or universal truth or some other similar phrase, or something which just appears true?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317



« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2011, 08:03:26 am »

I think the idea that truth must be provable is called empiricism. Or, perhaps rationalism.

Following that line of thinking, something like the concept of "love" doesn't exist because it can't be proven.

Or take creationism vs. evolution. Neither can be proven. However, logically one has to be the right or "true" and the other false. Either God created the universe, or, he didn't. Because we can't go back and watch the world form, or repeat it in a test tube, we can't prove it. Both, ideas are "theories". However, one of those theories is the correct one, and one is incorrect. They both can't be true and they both can't be false.





Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
danrudeisevil
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2011, 06:05:53 pm »

If your reasoning about creation/evolution were true, then creationism can't be proven true either which undermines your belief in Adam, sin etc. , yes I follow, but if you say that creationism is true because of the bible, we then can determine wether or not its historically accurate (it's not) a valid science document (which it isn't)

Also, is germ theory a theory? Not that a doctor would do this, but if you disbelieved germ theory just because its a theory, he would be justified in denying you antibiotics and vaccines. Do not equivocate the scientific meaning of 'theory' and the colloquial use of 'theory'. This line of thought will end up ultimately in a grievous solipsism.

You're right, empiricism is wrong and faith knows all. Wait....if religionists had had their way during the renaissance and enlightenment, empiricism would have never got hold and you'd most likely be dead by 40 or dead by childbirth or half of your children likely to die within their first 5 years, and you'd be a serf defecating in a bucket wondering why you have cholera. You definitely wouldn't be enjoying sitting in an airconditioned glass and steel house with artificial lights, running water, refrigeration, and the ability to communicate instantly with people around the world from a magical glowing box.

Back in the day, why did the sun get blotted out midday? God's sending the 4 horsemen. Why do people get sick? Demons or God's judgement. God was the explanation for everything because man knew nothing. Now we know how eclipses work and germ theory, and with new scientific advancement God gets pushed further back into his box.

To answer the person previous. I believe that men get pee shivers because an evil elf stands behind them and shakes them whilst urinating. Prove me wrong.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317



« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2011, 07:07:36 pm »

Let's back up. I wasn't making a statement for or against evolution. I was disagreeing with your reasoning when you say that for an idea to be true it must be provable.

I picked the creation/evolution debate to use as an example. I said that neither can be proven since neither can be observed or repeated. I said both are theories. My point was, some think God created the universe, while others think it evolved. The fact that neither of these theories can be proven does not mean that both are false.

Here is another example. Take the existence of God. An atheist would say there is no God. I say there is a God. Neither of us can prove God exists. However, one of us, logically, must be wrong since we are talking about opposites. God exists. God does not exist. My point, again, is not to argue the existence of God, it is to challenge your belief that for something to be true, it must be provable. Whether or not God exists is not at all affected by whether or not you or I believe God exists. Or, by whether or not we can prove God exists.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
danrudeisevil
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2011, 09:03:53 pm »

If you think that 'god' can neither be proven or disproven (I agree with you by the way), that is to say that god cannot be known in any meaningful way by humans (to claim you feel God's presence is to admit to a personal type of proof, for example, though there is a nuerochemical and testable explanation for this). I have to point out that you as a christian cant make that claim in a logical way:

Lets compare the christian God (notice the uppercase) and Zeus. Both, by your definition, cannot be proven to exist. That means that they are both unprovable, or put another way, both are equally true or false since they are both equally unknowable by human understanding. If one is true, it is as true as the other one; two unknowable things are equally unknowable. This is utterly incompatible with the christian faith. To admit that you cannot prove or disprove god is to admit deism at best, atheism at worst (i.e. you cant prove Zeus so you don't believe in him). As a humorous aside, I think this is kind of like Shroedinger's Cat: the cat is equally dead and alive simultaneously.

This can be viewed another way by way of inversion: I say, "for something to be true, it must be proved" (provable, the word I used before was used because the contingent thing has yet to be hypothetically verified). If I invert this it becomes, "for something to be proved, it must be true" which holds true. Proof and truth (to avoid equivocation, 'true-ness')are contingent on each other because they are invertible, logically.
Since both concepts have this contingency, to negate it is to negate only one concept (if you negate both, the contingency still holds). If you negate this statement it becomes: "for something to be true, it must not be proved" the inversion of which is , "For something to be proved, it must not be true". This inversion is bogus. If you think I'm toying with the language, try putting 'can/cannot' in place of 'must/must not' and the same result is produced.

To sum up:
God cannot be proven or disproven,
I don't believe in the concept of god, so I cant believe in any gods
You believe in concept god, so you have to believe in all gods

Your challenge to my 'belief' is demonstrably false; my belief is demonstrably true which is why I believe it! This is the core of everything I 'believe' to be true, is to reduce statements essentially into mathematical equations. If the math doesn't work, dont believe it.

2+2=5? Proof it doesn't doesn't mean it isn't true?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317



« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2011, 06:55:21 am »

Quote from: drie
If you think that 'god' can neither be proven or disproven (I agree with you by the way), that is to say that god cannot be known in any meaningful way by humans (to claim you feel God's presence is to admit to a personal type of proof, for example, though there is a nuerochemical and testable explanation for this). I have to point out that you as a christian cant make that claim in a logical way.
Again, whether or not I can prove God (big "G", THE god) exists, in no way reflects on whether or not God exists OR whether or not I can know him.

You are changing the meaning of the terms (by exchanging the word provable with knowable) in the middle of the discussion. The idea that the existence of God can't be "proven" (by scientific method) DOES NOT mean that God doesn't exist or can not be known. That is a different theory.

Here is that one. It is a separate argument (as in the debate term, not that I am fighting with you Smiley ) from the "God exists/God does not exist" argument. I say, "God can be known." Someone else says, "God can not be known." These are opposite statements. One of them must be true. Either God can be known, or God can not be known. We can't prove it scientifically, but that does not mean that both statements are false.

Quote from: dria
That means that they are both unprovable, or put another way, both are equally true or false since they are both equally unknowable by human understanding. If one is true, it is as true as the other one; two unknowable things are equally unknowable.
Whoa! Where to begin. Again, my point. Just because something is "unprovable" does not mean that thing is not true. It could be true, but not scientifically provable.

Just because something is unprovable doesn't mean it is "unknowable". I know something of "love", but I can't prove it exists. I can't prove God exists, yet in spite of that I can "know" God. (You disagree that God exists, and is knowable, I understand).

"If one is true, it is as true as the other one" is not logical.

I guess I don't believe that everything that is true can be reduced to mathematical equations. Mathematically, we can not prove God does not exist, nor can we prove he exists. Yet, logic would tell us that one of those statements must be true because they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. You and I have opposite beliefs. Logic dictates that one of us must be correct and one of us must be wrong.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2011, 08:50:02 am »

Linda, that was an astute set of observations regarding provable vs. knowable (as in "to know via fellowship") and with regard to the logic that the two statements (God does exist, or, God does not exist) cannot both be true.
Logged
danrudeisevil
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2011, 10:06:29 am »

Provable and knowable are inexorably linked. Try 'plugging in' the word 'knowable' into my previous equations and you get roughly the same thing. I am very careful (most of the time) to avoid equivocating terms that are integral to the discussion.

Your thing on love is a long laughable one punch knockout gag against agnostics and athiests that hasn't been used for a long time by anyone with a shred of intellectual decency. The original is "prove to me you love your wife" or any variation thereof. It itself is a soft form of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" because if I can't prove it, I'm wrong; if I can you'll say my definition of 'love' is wrong. I can't win, and if you want to use that tactic, fine, but don't think by being intentionally misleading you'll earn my respect. I don't have a wife, but if the question were posed to me of my parents I can give you loads of proof, to which if you say that 'love' is some nonpalpable ideal, not only are you insulting me and my parents by that insinuation, but since love is unknowable (like god) it is irrelevant.

The God you believe in is by your admission knowable to a certain extent by man kind, which means it has the ability to be proven or falsified (from what you have said before, I firmly think you are a deist). The apotheosis of this (and by Paul of Tarsus admission in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19) that if Jesus' resurrection is true, then God is true, if the opposite.....

Here's a breakdown:
Christian God- There isn't even conclusive proof Jesus was a real person let alone resurrected, so now we downgrade to...
Judaic God-Exodus has been falsified, it didn't happen (even by admission of Israeli archeologists!), so now we downgrade to...
Theistic god-Historically, one who has positive character attributes. One word, tsunamis. so now we downgrade to...
Paley-ian god- The watchmaker god, check out Hume's response, and darwin's. we now downgrade to...
'first cause' god- At this point all we can know about him is that he started the universe and 'fine-tuned' the cosmos

I've left out some nuances, yes, but the point is that as scientific knowledge increases, the religions or concepts of god that have more specific revelations are the ones disproven first. Now the only concept of god that you can legitimately have is a completely unknowable 'first-cause'. I personally believe that the 'first-cause' is Stewie Griffin.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317



« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2011, 11:00:04 am »

It seems as though you have resorted to ad hominem. You have not proven anything. I shall bow out of this discussion with two quotes.

The Refutation of Bishop Berkeley by Samuel Johnson
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

And, Romans 1 which I'm sure anyone with a shred of intellectual decency would not quote. Wink :
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

I know there is a creation because I can experience it with my senses. Because there is a creation, there must be a Creator.

I wish you the best DRIE.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 11:34:10 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1181



« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2011, 12:12:41 pm »

It seems as though you have resorted to ad hominem. You have not proven anything. I shall bow out of this discussion with two quotes.

The Refutation of Bishop Berkeley by Samuel Johnson
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

And, Romans 1 which I'm sure anyone with a shred of intellectual decency would not quote. Wink :
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

I know there is a creation because I can experience it with my senses. Because there is a creation, there must be a Creator.

I wish you the best DRIE.



I agree. Creation is the best evidence we have for God.  That's where my theism starts.
Logged

Glad to be free.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2011, 01:48:24 pm »

When it comes to religion, I hate gamesmanship.  I take it all very seriously.  

Quote from: DRIE
Here's a breakdown:
Christian God- There isn't even conclusive proof Jesus was a real person let alone resurrected, so now we downgrade to...
Judaic God-Exodus has been falsified, it didn't happen (even by admission of Israeli archeologists!)

Proof?  No.  In this post-modern age there is no such thing as proof, only evidences that convinces the individual.  Is there evidence that Jesus existed?  Abundant, the four Gospels being among the most obvious, not to mention Paul's own eyewitness testimony.  Just because you don't like that testimony does not eliminate it from existance; it is still there.  The early church fathers who wrote no part of the Bible state over and over again in their letters and books to each other how they met the men who knew Jesus.  More evidence.  Don't like that evidence either?  Too bad, it exists.  

Numerous secular documents exist that mention Jesus, like the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, circa AD 55-120) who wrote, "Christians who were hated...Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius," or Lucian of Samosata, circa AD 100-200, who mockingly wrote, "The Christians you know worship a man to this day...the crucified sage," or Suetonius court historian for emperor Claudius wrote, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome" (see Acts 18:2 for the biblical account of this secular record), along with Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion who also mentioned Jesus.  Don't like that evidence?  Too bad, it is all there for all to read.

Numerous Jewish references to Jesus exist as well (see Sanh. 43a, 10:11, 7:12, Klausner, JN, 28, Josephus in Jewish Antiquities).  Don't like that evidence?  Too bad, it is all archived for the duration of human history.

Oddly, it is both historically and intellecutally dishonest (I borrowed the phrase from DRIE) to make untrue claims about factual evidences.  Not only has no one "proven" that Jesus did not exist, the evidence, both in secular writings, personal letters, official Roman histories, and Jewish polemics is ample evidence that Jesus did exist.  Why do atheists delight in saying there is no evidence for Jesus to have existed when all these documents are still available for everyone to read today?  Time to come up with a new and more honest means of denying Jesus, rather than the patently false one of saying, "History proves Jesus never even existed."  Intellectually and factually dishonest.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 02:18:52 pm by EverAStudent » Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2011, 02:05:35 pm »

Linda, provable and knowable are entirely different concepts, as you correctly pointed out.  I can more or less "prove" that President Obama is head of my country from all the evidences in the media, but I cannot be his buddy in a personal and friendly way, that is, I can prove his existance but I cannot realy know him.

Similarly, I can know a penpal via the letters he sends me, but I cannot "prove" he exists because the letters might all be forgeries as a joke from some unseen person on the other end. 

In that respect, it is possible to both prove someone else's existance and not know them, and, to know someone else but not be able to prove their existance. 

In God's case, all we have are His letters to us by which to know Him, and to observe within ourselves the changes His Holy Spirit brings upon us, but we cannot necessarily prove His existance.  We take it on faith that His letters are real (and not human forgeries) and we take in on faith that He does exist.  That is intellectual honesty
Logged
Anonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2011, 03:01:30 pm »

If your reasoning about creation/evolution were true, then creationism can't be proven true either which undermines your belief in Adam, sin etc. , yes I follow, but if you say that creationism is true because of the bible, we then can determine wether or not its historically accurate (it's not) a valid science document (which it isn't)

You mean because something cannot be proven it undermines my faith?


Quote
You're right, empiricism is wrong and faith knows all. Wait....if religionists had had their way during the renaissance and enlightenment, empiricism would have never got hold and you'd most likely be dead by 40 or dead by childbirth or half of your children likely to die within their first 5 years, and you'd be a serf defecating in a bucket wondering why you have cholera. You definitely wouldn't be enjoying sitting in an airconditioned glass and steel house with artificial lights, running water, refrigeration, and the ability to communicate instantly with people around the world from a magical glowing box.

Your [see above] is a long laughable one punch knockout gag against theists that hasn't been used by anyone with a shred of logic.

Whether or not what you say is true has no bearing on the actual truth of religion. From a logical standpoint, what you said is absolutely irrelevant in the "is Christianity true?" question.

Quote
Provable and knowable are inexorably linked. Try 'plugging in' the word 'knowable' into my previous equations and you get roughly the same thing. I am very careful (most of the time) to avoid equivocating terms that are integral to the discussion.

Are they? How does gravity work? What about electromagnetism?

(answer that without using their actual observed actions. You can fairly easily say "I know this will happen, because it's happened before" but it's rather difficult to prove gravity for example)



I realize you have no desire to engage in an actual discussion, so I'm not sure why I bother even posting, but you are not making consistent points overall. Your overwhelming significance placed on both rationalism AND empiricism simultaneously indicate to me your worldview in fact is just as internally inconsistent as I initially believed. Add in your nature of deflecting questions, playing an "omg I'm so hurt! you jerks!" card, and overall trying to sound smart and demeaning... you have some serious soul searching to do. It is not normal to search out people online and (try) to act smarter than them and troll them. If you truly are as empiricist and rationalist as you claim to be you should have desire to look inwards and understand the internal strife and conflict which leads you to this condescendingly superior attitude.

Logged
Captein
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2012, 03:29:41 pm »

Quote from: DRIE
It is preposterous to say I hate God, if I did it would presuppose that he exists.... rather I say I hate the proposition of God

Quote from: EAS
I am uncertain why you made the last post, as it illustrates my point:  if you hate the idea of something you must necessarily hate the idea's real world and faithful implementation of it.  If you hate the idea of a Spiderman, you will hate movies that faithfully re-enact that idea.  If you hate the idea of witchcraft, you will hate the witchcraft that modern practitioners attempt to perpetrate.

If you hate the idea of a holy, just, loving, forgiving, jealous, wrathful, and sin-hating God, then you will hate much of the Bible (the faitfhul revelation of that same God) and you will hate the actual God Himself (when you get to meet him some day).  

Hating or loving an idea means nothing about whether the idea is true or false.  Similarly, the presence of an idea does not mean the idea has a real world faithful implementation.  But if you hate the idea, you will hate the reality (if or when it exists).

Quote from: DRIE
I rest my case then, the only corollary to that is the fact that since you believe god is real and I actually do hate him, the onus is on you to prove he is real.

It is possible I misunderstood, but I thought the goal of this dialogue was to establish whether or not it was fair to say that atheists who hate the idea of God by extension hate God Himself (if He exists) or whether it is "preposterous to say atheists hate God."  

As for whether God genuinely exists, that is an entirely robust subject all of its own.

Thanks for having engaged in the topic.  Have a great day.

It's a little late, but I think there is some confusion and distraction here. From what I gathered, DRIE is saying that atheists cannot hate God because we do not believe in Him. The analogies were a little off-key, I think. Atheists do not see Christianity in the same way you do. To us, it is nothing but a pervasive idea. Some people may hate the consequences of that idea, in the same way that you may hate them (Catholic priests abusing children), but because the positives of Christianity are greatly reduced for non-Christians, the bad may outweigh the good on one particular moral compass. So it's not that some atheists hate God, but hate Christianity. How about this example: If you found out a major tenet of Hinduism was to kill your first born, would you feel hate toward the idea of Hinduism within people, or toward Vishnu?
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2012, 09:26:11 pm »

Hello Captein,

First, you were correct, the poster known by the abbreviation DRIE was contending that he did not hate God Himself (because he asserts that God does not exist and thus cannot be hated) but he hates the idea of God (because the idea of God is that God hates sin, judges sin, and gave up His own Son's life to die as a sacrifice for sin...all things DRIE found inherently immoral).

You stated that some "atheists hate Christianity" while others hate the idea of Christianity, but they do not hate God.  If you wish to make that distinction, you are free to do so.  However, I believe that is a distinction without a difference.

For example, Catholicism is not God, nor is it an idea, it is the real world implementation of a devotion to God.  More precisely, it is the real world implementation of how some people interpret what God told them to do via the Bible, specifically, that is worship or devotion. 

Some things that people in Catholicism do (like the pedophile scandal) is not part of the ideal implementation that anyone embraces, but it is an aberrant practice not endorsed by the worship of God, not embraced by God, and not embraced by the official religion.  It is futile to hate God, the idea of God, or the Catholic practice of worship simply because some people in that religion did something that violated the tenets of that religion. 

For what reason would you hate the idea of Christianity?  Is it because some of the people who worship according to Christian devotions are also aberrant in some of their beliefs or practices (we call them sins)?   Well, there are no perfectly good Christians any more than there are some perfectly good atheists.  No human is perfect. 

If you want to hate God or Christianity with valid cause, you must first find in the blueprint of Christianity (the New Testament) directives and commands that you find intolerable and intrinsically worthy of hating, even if they were perfectly implemented by perfect people.  Tell us what those intrinsically hateful things are about biblical Christianity and we can certainly discuss those.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1