(April 8, 2017 at 11:54 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 9:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Pseudoskepticsm is one of the possibilities.  What do you think?

Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

I think it is interesting that you mention ad hominem's here.  My comment was based on observation, and I gave one reason (although I'm open to others) for why we see this incoherence.  This post however seems to be mostly about discrediting and poisoning the well; about the person.   I would also say that this is an apt example of an often occurring response when the deficiencies of a modernist philosophy are brought up in these conversations.   That is to attack the person and redirect attention.
Now to the second part.   I think this is fitting, what often follows is an example of the classic foundationalism that was brought up.  That an extreme and untenable position is taken, in order to keep even the consideration of the conclusion from being made.   I think that you will find yourself quite impoverished intellectually, if we followed it consistently.  Which is why this philosophy has fallen out of popularity for most thinkers.
This is mostly out of context to the OP, but I wanted to clarify my intentions with some comments.  I'm not meaning to disparage others, but hope to shine a light on what is bad thinking.   I don't really keep track of; nor hold this against people.  But perhaps bringing it up will help you to see when it is occurring.  And I have often found, that extreme examples of bad thinking help me to notice the more subtle versions within my own thinking. I may also find it more often than I realized that it was occurring.    It's not against the man, but against the idea and method.  I'm not assuming anyone motivation, and holding it against them and their arguments.  It's a tentative conclusion based on what is seen.

Late to the party...but, other thoughts?

Twist yourself into knots trying to shed all the biblical shit -you- find disgusting......and you won't so much as have started shedding the shit -I- find disgusting.

(April 5, 2017 at 9:12 am)SteveII Wrote:

---

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

---

Perhaps you should take these lists to a christian forum and tell them what the characteristics of a nt christian are. They sure don't seem to know.

Every group wants to be judged by how it looks on paper rather than how its members actually comport themselves. Christians are no different.

In my continuing explorations into the enormous 180 degree change in 'mainstream' Christianity's view of divorce, from Christian marriage being widely held to be indissoluble 'back in the day' to todays easily attainable Christian sanctified and sacramentalized remarriages coming a dime a dozen, I found this humorous tidbit*:

In the view of historians such as Philip Williamson, the popular perception today that the abdication was driven by politics rather than religious morality is false, and arises because divorce has become much more common and socially acceptable. To modern sensibilities, the religious restrictions that prevented Edward from continuing as king while married to Simpson "seem, wrongly, to provide insufficient explanation" for his abdication.

So we see, for todays Christians, it isn't even IMAGINABLE that the plainly worded common marital vows (till death you do part, what God has put together let no man put asunder, yada, yada, yada) would EVER have been taken seriously by Christians, or even God/Jesus for that matter!!

I even induced a lengthy explanation from Drich by recounting how seriously marriage was taken when I was a kid (BTW, all my grade school classmates lived with their legally married and not cohabitating, since that was illegal too, birthparents except one kid who's mom had died and his dad, aware  of the 'death you do part' clause had been realized, had then married a widow) and how, according to Drich, that harsh take on marital vows wasn't really necessary after all.  I'm still finding his explanation of the liberalization of the divorce/remarriage thing a tough sled, plainly worded classic marital vows being what they are, and still not sure just why the Christians had to change things so drastically in so short a span of time. Hard to imagine a 'divorce lobby' picketing churches back then (as vocally as today's Christians seem to focus on family planning clinics) to induce a seismic change in church teachings and practice, and yet without churches being picketed, how else might such an ENORMOUS change been promulgated throughout Christendom ???

Is anyone aware of ANY church being bombed or attacked or terrorized back in the 60s or 70s to liberalize their stand on divorce/remarriage?  HOW the holy crap did that happen ???   Was there a pro-divorce equivalent of Westboro Baptist back then shaming the rest of the churches to accept divorce and remarriage???

Damn, I have stumbled on the mystery of the ages here !!!! 






*courtesy Wiki

(April 8, 2017 at 2:51 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: In my continuing explorations into the enormous 180 degree change in 'mainstream' Christianity's view of divorce, from Christian marriage being widely held to be indissoluble 'back in the day' to todays easily attainable Christian sanctified and sacramentalized remarriages coming a dime a dozen, I found this humorous tidbit*:

In the view of historians such as Philip Williamson, the popular perception today that the abdication was driven by politics rather than religious morality is false, and arises because divorce has become much more common and socially acceptable. To modern sensibilities, the religious restrictions that prevented Edward from continuing as king while married to Simpson "seem, wrongly, to provide insufficient explanation" for his abdication.

So we see, for todays Christians, it isn't even IMAGINABLE that the plainly worded common marital vows (till death you do part, what God has put together let no man put asunder, yada, yada, yada) would EVER have been taken seriously by Christians, or even God/Jesus for that matter!!

I even induced a lengthy explanation from Drich by recounting how seriously marriage was taken when I was a kid (BTW, all my grade school classmates lived with their legally married and not cohabitating, since that was illegal too, birthparents except one kid who's mom had died and his dad, aware  of the 'death you do part' clause had been realized, had then married a widow) and how, according to Drich, that harsh take on marital vows wasn't really necessary after all.  I'm still finding his explanation of the liberalization of the divorce/remarriage thing a tough sled, plainly worded classic marital vows being what they are, and still not sure just why the Christians had to change things so drastically in so short a span of time. Hard to imagine a 'divorce lobby' picketing churches back then (as vocally as today's Christians seem to focus on family planning clinics) to induce a seismic change in church teachings and practice, and yet without churches being picketed, how else might such an ENORMOUS change been promulgated throughout Christendom ???

Is anyone aware of ANY church being bombed or attacked or terrorized back in the 60s or 70s to liberalize their stand on divorce/remarriage?  HOW the holy crap did that happen ???   Was there a pro-divorce equivalent of Westboro Baptist back then shaming the rest of the churches to accept divorce and remarriage???

Damn, I have stumbled on the mystery of the ages here !!!! 






*courtesy Wiki

Actually the prohibition against divorce is not "plainly worded" but is just as equivocal as everything else in the Bible. Apart from death, Jesus also names adultery as an acceptable cause for marital termination. That sounds clear enough until he turns around and says a man who looks at a woman and desires her has committed adultery already in his heart. This puts the no divorce commandment in a hermeneutical quagmire.

Ah, but it seemed clear enough 'back in the day', so SOMETHING changed.

And what of those EXTREMELY clear (classical) marital vows ??

What undoes something likely that freely entered into, in a church, before God and congregation ??

From Wiki, and a tip of the hat to Bob Vander Plaats:

The Marriage Vow or "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family" is a political pledge created by Bob Vander Plaats, a former candidate for Iowa governor, and the Iowa-based conservative group; The Family Leader, a public advocacy organization affiliated with the Iowa Family Policy Center, that he heads.[1] Signing the pledge, created in early July, was a requirement to receive any support from the organization. Signing the pledge entailed supporting a monogamous heterosexual definition of marriage, as well as backing a ban on pornography, abortion, and Sharia Law. Notable signees include Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum


Personal fidelity to their spouse
Respect for the marital bonds of others
Fidelity to the US constitution
Support for “faithful constitutionalists” as judges
Opposition to any redefinition of marriage that falls outside of heterosexual monogamous relationships
“Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy”
Reform of anti marriage portions of welfare policy
Extended “cooling off” periods for those seeking a divorce
Legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act
Support for a federal marriage amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman
Opposition to human trafficking, sexual slavery, prostitution,
Prevention of seduction into promiscuity
Opposition to pornography. Although Plaats later clarified that the pledge just intended to prevent women from being coerced into pornography.[5]
Opposition to abortion and infanticide
Supporting safeguards to prevent sexual abuse in the military
Opposition to women serving in active combat roles in the military
Rejection of Sharia Islam
Rejection of all forms of anti-women totalitarian control
Recognition that childbearing is beneficial to “U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”
Commitment to downsizing the government
Defense of religious liberty and freedom of speech.



Your vorlon asks:

Kinda sounds like Salvation via actions, don't it ?? Is dear old Bob barking heresy ???

um . . .




er . . . .












uh . . . .

(April 8, 2017 at 12:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 11:54 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

I think it is interesting that you mention ad hominem's here.  My comment was based on observation, and I gave one reason (although I'm open to others) for why we see this incoherence.  This post however seems to be mostly about discrediting and poisoning the well; about the person.   I would also say that this is an apt example of an often occurring response when the deficiencies of a modernist philosophy are brought up in these conversations.   That is to attack the person and redirect attention.
Now to the second part.   I think this is fitting, what often follows is an example of the classic foundationalism that was brought up.  That an extreme and untenable position is taken, in order to keep even the consideration of the conclusion from being made.   I think that you will find yourself quite impoverished intellectually, if we followed it consistently.  Which is why this philosophy has fallen out of popularity for most thinkers.
This is mostly out of context to the OP, but I wanted to clarify my intentions with some comments.  I'm not meaning to disparage others, but hope to shine a light on what is bad thinking.   I don't really keep track of; nor hold this against people.  But perhaps bringing it up will help you to see when it is occurring.  And I have often found, that extreme examples of bad thinking help me to notice the more subtle versions within my own thinking. I may also find it more often than I realized that it was occurring.    It's not against the man, but against the idea and method.  I'm not assuming anyone motivation, and holding it against them and their arguments.  It's a tentative conclusion based on what is seen.

1) There is no incoherence in my position. I have been presented with no evidence for the exisence of any god. The logical position in that case is to conditionally reject all god claims.
2) You're accusing me of playing the man, not the ball when all your arguments (including this one) boil down to a version of "atheists know god exists they just don't want to admit it" (your "pseudoscepticism"one) or "atheists are crazy" (your "incoherent" one). Bit rich don't you think, especially when I wasn't attacking you but your falsehood.
3) Regarding bad thinking, I'd review your own posts before criticising others. When you are constantly posting PRATTs and ad homi.em attacks, you do not loom good accusing others of bad thinking. Now I'm attacking the man, but then again you inserted yourself as an argument into the debate.

(April 8, 2017 at 10:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 6:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And there goes most of the Christian population again. 'Striving to live by the teachings of Christ' would be a gross exaggeration of the effort most American Christians put into actually trying to live by the teachings of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

I think you could start by knocking off all the ones who aren't welcoming to foreigners, are pro-war, or unsympathetic to poor people or convicts. The ones who haven't taken the time to actually read an entire Bible. Most of the ones who show up to church once a month or less.

It's a pretty long list, and that's only for 'striving', not succeeding. Most of those folks aren't even trying. They're putting in the least effort they think they can get away with to avoid hell and the anger of their neighbors, and keeping the opinions that suit them personally whenever possible, which seems to be almost always.

See, that's the thing though. You say most Christians hate foreigners, like war, and don't have compassion for poor people/imprisoned people. I simply don't see that. What you describe above seems like really shitty people, and that has simply not been my experience. I mean, sure, there are bad seeds everywhere and we are no exception, but it has definitely not been my experience that most Christian people, or even many of them, are like that at all. I can't say I even know any Christian people being that way (not saying they don't exist though).   

I mean, my family and I were foreigners. We moved to the US from South America when I was 7 years old, and while we have become citizens since then, both my parents still have really heavy accents. No one was unwelcoming to us when we got here. I started off here at a Catholic school (2nd grade) and knew absolutely 0 English. None of those Catholic teachers/students/parents were ever mean to me or my family.  

I don't see anyone liking war, either. Or not having compassion for the poor. There are a TON of Christian charities. My church was always advertising volunteer opportunities and running fund raisers for the less fortunate.

I'm not saying we're all saints. Far from it. But I do think the majority of us are just normal human beings who really do try to follow the basic teachings of Christ. Again, I have lived in several places, but never lived in the deep south like you have, so maybe that's where our different experiences come to play.

---

(April 7, 2017 at 8:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: This is a famous comedy skit, but it does demonstrate how Christians twist what is a horrific act into some Disney movie. 

To clarify, we definitely don't think the crucifiction was anything other than a horrific, evil act. What we think is beautiful was the love and sacrifice Jesus made for us by having gone through it when He could have saved Himself. But the act itself of crucifying people (especially an innocent man like Jesus) is pure evil. The day that we remember the death of Jesus on the cross (Good Friday) is a somber day of prayer and reflection, not celebration. It's definitely not a Disney Movie.

Please. If nothing happens that God doesn't want happening then it is an act, not a sacrifice. What is with all the violence in your book? Why all the drama? Blinks everything into existence but cant find a less bloody way to get his message out?

That wasn't a sacrifice it was a pin prick. A sacrifice is when you don't get anything in return or expect anything in return. At the end of the book if you don't accept the love of Jesus you go to hell. That is not love, that is emotional blackmail. The soldiers of D-Day didn't do it for fame or attention and they stayed dead.

And who asked anyone to get involved with my decision making? I get to decide whom I forgive, not a third party. Nobody asked him to do that, not that he is a real magic man in any case. But i don't need his permission to live my life. 

He did save himself, where is he now according to you? Gone forever? No, up in heaven. That is somewhere. Losing something forever is a sacrifice, not a temporary magic trick. The story is a literary device to draw the reader in. It is an old underdog story and nothing new to Christianity. Prior polytheism had it's underdog deities who end up winning the day. The only thing that changed with Christianity was the name of the underdog and the method of his success.

My mom sacrificed for me, and did so WITHOUT violence and she wont get famous, and I am not selling her as a god and she is staying dead and wont be rewarded with followers. Your Jesus Character reads like a publicity stunt, not a sacrifice.