LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Randy Carson]

I can't remember whether you told me that you were a Christian or just your wife was, but have you ever actually read a book about Christianity written by a Christian that explains what Christians believe?

My wife was a christian, as are her family. As such, I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that I could find a book, even a collection of many books, that would tell me "what christians believe." That subject is as varied as there are christians. The thousands of different sects and denominations attests to that perfectly, even though a lot of christians seem to assume that what they believe is the only set of beliefs christians have.

That sounds more like an excuse than a sufficient reason. If you were interested in the origins of the universe or some other cutting edge science would you NOT read several physicists simply because their ideas were in conflict? Or would you read them all to try to understand the arguments?

Or if you wanted to understand ATHEISM, for cryin' out loud, you would read Hitchens, Dawkins, Carrier and Ehrman to name just a few even though their views do not coincide perfectly, right?

So, if you wanted to understand what Christians really believe, you could probably get the basics in just two or three books. It would be no trouble at all.

It would depend on the strength of the post and its pedigree.

This is the correct answer.

[IATIA]

Or if you wanted to understand ATHEISM, for cryin' out loud, you would read Hitchens, Dawkins, Carrier and Ehrman to name just a few even though their views do not coincide perfectly, right?

There is nothing to understand about atheism. It is simple. We do not believe in gods. For me, the reason is that there is no god, for others, god has neglected to make itself known. We do not need "Hitchens, Dawkins, Carrier and Ehrman to name just a few" to tell us what we already know. They are for you that you might step into the light of reason.

[Godscreated]

Because you hate God, a perfectly reasonable answer. This goes for all who answered my last post.

GC

Translation: "I am too lazy and stupid to support what I'm saying with facts or examples, and to respond to any of the other challengers to my claims, so I will simply reiterate my previous unsupported assertion and apply it to everything that's happened in the discussion since I left.

GodsCockwallet"

I've said it before, I'll say it again: you god people love to simply ignore things you can't refute. Learn to read, dipshit.

I need not demonstrate it you all do all the time in your post, so why should I spend the time re-posting all the crap you throw out there.

GC

[Bob Kelso]

You and those other Christian nincompoops on this forum are proof that god does not exist. If he can't send better representation than you provide there's no way he could have created the universe.

He did. His name was Jesus.

How convincing.   

Seriously though, Randy, if your Jesus was the best god could provide then he's an inept motherfucker. Has coming down and speaking for himself crossed his mind lately? I'm expecting a better answer than the whole free will shtick. 

Just no way to get  decent discussion out of spoiled brats.

GC

A "decent discussion" meaning "Jesus circle-jerk".  Don't worry, GC, I've known more than a few S.Baptists in my time; I'm happy to provide translations. 

-Star

Oh, and my new favorite word: twatwaffles.

Love that word. Makes me heart sing. 

[Redbeard The Pink]

I need not demonstrate it you all do all the time in your post, so why should I spend the time re-posting all the crap you throw out there.

GC

No, dumbass. You don't get to just make a claim and offer no evidence. I realize the baseless superstition you ascribe to would have you believe otherwise, and that's probably why you're such an idiot to begin with.

Simply quoting our words still wouldn't prove your point. You would have to show how our words definitively indicate anger at god and not, say, your dumb ass, for instance. Profanity and verbal aggression don't always indicate anger, for one thing, and even if we granted that our posts are generally angry, you'd still have to prove that this anger is directed at god and not something else.

Besides, it's obvious that you know your god doesn't exist, and that you're simply mad at atheists for knowing something that you wish you could admit to yourself. Your refusal to expound on your arguments is only evidence that you're too busy being angry at atheists to think of anything else except how angry you are. Any denial or claims you make to the contrary are only further evidence of this anger. I know this because it's just obvious from your posts. I don't need support or examples because anyone can read your posts and tell that you're just angry at atheists. Why do you hate atheists?

[robvalue]

I'll give you my best guess why atheists receive the hostility they do: insecurity. People are often afraid of things that are different.

I got bullied at school for just sitting on my own, minding my own business, refusing to copy everyone else. They didn't like it. They made the effort to come over and abuse me. I realized later in life it is because they were afraid of me on some level, and afraid what others would think if they didn't show hostility to me.

[Esquilax]

That sounds more like an excuse than a sufficient reason. If you were interested in the origins of the universe or some other cutting edge science would you NOT read several physicists simply because their ideas were in conflict? Or would you read them all to try to understand the arguments?

Sorry Randy, but I've played this game before, sufficient to never want to play it again. There's actually a fundamental difference between talking to christians of different denominations as a christian, versus talking to them as an atheist; the way the claims are treated. You can see it here in the board if you look: a christian with doctrinal differences with another christian will rarely disagree with that other christian no matter how severely the differences diverge. Instead, we get this "hey, we all believe in the same Jesus," stuff, and that's roughly the end of it.

Each and every one of those christians will then turn around and act like theirs is the only set of christian beliefs in existence when talking to an atheist. And woe betide you if you ever try to take some of the beliefs from one of those other christian denominations into a discussion with a christian who doesn't share them: "Christians don't believe that!" They say, witheringly. "See? You don't know anything about the beliefs you insult!" If you're an atheist you're not an ally to the cause, there's no common agreement big enough to set aside disagreements over the particulars, and so all those doctrinal differences that were just hey, no big deal when the christians were talking amongst themselves are suddenly evidence that the atheist doesn't know what they're talking about if any of us try to bring them up after having them presented to us as "Things Christians Believe" by someone else in another thread.

It's easy for you to say that I should read up on all the conflicting views, you'll never have that knowledge come to bite you in the ass here if you try to use it. With me, with any atheist, I've got to read up on all that stuff and then find out exactly what parts of the stuff I've read any given christian believes before I begin the discussion, and at that point it's just simpler to let them explain and research the specifics of the relevant claims as we go. What you're asking me to do might be good in theory, but it's next to useless in practice, leaving me with a whole bunch of knowledge that's about as useful as fantasy stories that I have no way of using. I just have to sit there waiting until I find, say, the one catholic who believes the exact same stripe of Catholicism as the author of the book I read so I can bust out some arcane portion of the catechism, or the new testament, that he interprets in exactly the right way, so that he can nod his head in agreement before I begin to disagree. It's just not worth the effort. Religion is just too evasive to try that one.

That said, it isn't like I never read christian writing, or research what I'm talking about either. It's just that doing so in advance of any current discussion is stockpiling knowledge for a use that may never come, and that is otherwise useless. If I'm going to do any reading on these subjects in my spare time, it's going to be for fun; just last night I was listening to an analysis of an apologetics book by Cornelius van Til, and I've done the same for other apologists and religious writings. I'm just not willing to accumulate all this stuff into one big pile and label it "What Christians Believe," because if I did that, the very next christian I talked to would find at least one thing in that pile that "No True Christian Believes!" It's a losers game.

[Rhondazvous]

There is neither justice nor mercy in the cross.

God set Adam up. For him to then condemn the whole human species for the so-called sin of a man who had no concept of good and evil is injustice.

It's not mercy to forgive people who should never have been condemned in the first place.  

To believe that this is justice is to believe that might makes right with god. To believe god had a great plan in sacrificing Jesus, you have to believe that the end justifies the means.

You've been misinformed by a very poor teacher.

Here's a twist on ad hominem. He has no legitimate answer so he attacks my hypothetical teacher.

I can read and I know what the Bible says.

[Esquilax]

There is neither justice nor mercy in the cross.

God set Adam up. For him to then condemn the whole human species for the so-called sin of a man who had no concept of good and evil is injustice.

It's not mercy to forgive people who should never have been condemned in the first place.  

To believe that this is justice is to believe that might makes right with god. To believe god had a great plan in sacrificing Jesus, you have to believe that the end justifies the means.

You've been misinformed by a very poor teacher.

See, Randy? This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post: your situational awareness of other christian beliefs vanishes completely when you're talking to an atheist. You were presented with an interpretation of the biblical narrative that didn't line up with your own, and instead of considering that, hey, there are thousands of denominations of christianity, and millions more personal interpretations besides, maybe this one is just one you don't personally subscribe to, instead you just dismiss it as wrong, and impugn the character of whoever told the poster that. Your specific christian beliefs are just "What Christians Believe," and if anyone presents a view of christianity that deviates from that, then it can just be dismissed out of hand, and so can the person posting it. All that work reading through books on christianity is utterly wasted, because the things learned within isn't Randy's specific beliefs, and so the conversation is simply dropped.

"No, you're just wrong."

It happens so often, and in part I don't blame you because what was said didn't align with what you believe, so you shouldn't be expected to defend it. But I absolutely do blame you for shutting down the conversation instead of explaining your take on the subject matter, and for assuming that what was presented was just "misinformation," rather than a separate interpretation of events, because it didn't align with what you already believe. You just got through telling me that the fact that christian interpretations conflict is no excuse not to engage with them all equally, there's simply no way to square that with you dismissing a view of christianity that doesn't align with yours out of hand.

[Rhondazvous]

So, first you ask for my interpretation in an attempt to trip me up, then you get pissed when I give a reasonable explanation that does not allow your argument to work?

You have it backwards.  You are unwilling to see the demise of your argument and thus find fault with everyone except yourself.

Which, I guess, is what he's trying to do with me. He thinks he can play the same trick on everybody and no one will notice. I know many synonyms for stupid, but I can't think of one that adequately describes it at his level.