It works for me!
Offline
Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting. I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery. There is mystery everywhere though, right? I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus. I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.
I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that. But I highly recommend it from my experience with it. I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus. I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life.
I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody. I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed.
So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what? What is the purpose of this site? Do you have something better to offer? If so, what is your gospel?
- Login to post comments
Functional nihilism? That is an interesting way to describe Christianity (though I'm not sure you meant to).
You're so tied to the hope of a life to come that you render what you have worthless.
The main problem we have with Fonzie and most other theists is that they can't show how their religion "works for them" in any non-magical way and they assume that any other way of life can't work because it lacks their particular brand of magic.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Functional nihilism was directed at you folks
On hope: that's a theological debate. "Hope" in a non-linear sense, both I guess, now and thereafter.
On the magic: through negation, what would fit that request? And plan on me getting all post-structural on you. Zizak in da house.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
Not sure what you mean - I probably explained myself poorly.
By magic, I mean the theistic description of how their belief in the supernatural affects them in a supernatural way, i.e. salvation of the soul, feeling better after you felt sick (without medical proof you had a disease) and claiming divine healing of <x>.
It's almost as silly as those who claim divine healing after successfully undergoing medical treatment.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Someone also asked : "why did you lie ?"
Can he manage that one without a paradigm shift ?
And yes, I do have an interest in his wellbeing as it happens. The drug he's taking for his mental condition can be extremely dangerous when not taken under strict supervision of a doctor. I've seen what can happen to people who don't take regular bloodtests when using lithium, especially people in his age-group. It really isn't very pleasant at all. I've asked him repeatedly to consider taking a bloodtest asap. He's ignored me every time.
I'm guessing that might be more or less the whole idea.
Try post #439 for starters. Rather amusingly, he has to repeat it in post #442, because you completely ignored it. Amazing, huh ?
And if you want to read my "reason for living" again, I refer you to post #819 of your first thread, where you also asked me about my "product", yet another question I recently answered yet again.
Would you like to re-read everyone else's answers as well ? Some are so recent (Bobspence & NoDeity spring to mind) that you claiming it never happened is just laughable, but sure, if you're really being serious, I'll go and get the post numbers for ya. Just ask.
Now, I'm still waiting for the answer to my question : Why did you lie ?
I admit I haven't followed the thread, for that I apologize. Kudos for trying to work out some the mentioned stuff.
On functional nihilism. The functional part is the cognitive choice to "continue" in a social membership based on the premise of chance. The nihilism part is where the dissonance is managed by the meaningless state of affairs (of which is not escapable).
It's cool with me, cause you buy my products, you eat the food I prepare, you watch the movies I make go to the schools I teach at. The "my" is the magic believers etc.
My point is that you just have a different drug that treats the same condition.
Now of course, I don't believe that, but would if I was I'd chose to be a hobbsian functional nihilist
I missed the lie question.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
No need to apologise, you're welcome here, but I would strongly recommend reading the whole thing, and his first one, before jumping in. Seriously, it will save us both a lot of frustration.
Er...yeah. I'm not sure how that relates to anything that's going on in this thread. You might want to start a new one, or this one could end up a bigger mess than it already is. ("Fonzie" really dislikes philosophers, btw)
LOL ! Oh, I don't blame you. I've only repeated it about 40 times or so. (The sarcasm here isn't directed at you, btw
)
"Fonzie"'s dishonesty is really quite amazing. He's now at the point where he's actually arguing against himself.
Again, lovely description of Christianity..Why are you confusing it with atheism?
I really wish theists would stop saying "Life has no purpose without (a) God" when they mean "My life has no purpose without (a) God".
You claim to borrow from your God to make you feel special - all you are showing is that you have a need to feel adequate around those who bring a purpose to their lives without dragging a deity into it.
When I need a reality fix, I go to reality. When you need a reality fix, you go to Yahweh. Seems like you're shortchanging yourself.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Phrasing your questions and answers in silly little parables seem to bear more fruit with this guy, it seems to be his language, go figure.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
StDissonance,
I would say it's reverse paranoia for me - I believe everything that happens to me happens for my good. Some things need to be nihlated, true. Other things brought to light.
Don't have any taste for movies.
I am looking for the "new release" however of anonymous', "Life, the Better Way", at least the trailer, maybe a cartoon? Nothing like that has ever been done here, by him. I noticed he reached back for an oldie - JCgadfly's "a better way" and BobSpence's "reasoned discussion" but - "where's Elmo the anonymous?" I think you'd be looking a long time for that post.
Fonzie,
If it takes half a chicken half a day to lay half an egg, how long does it take a one-legged rooster to stomp the seeds out of a watermelon?
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
If your basis for determining what to believe is how happy it makes you or how fulfilling your life feels, then you should probably just continue being a Christian. Your posts suggest that you're extremely happy with Christianity. I cannot promise that you will be happier as a non-Christian; I can only promise reality.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That actually makes more sense than what he just said.
Now you're getting upset because I didn't make you a cartoon ?????
Are you completely insane ?
You ASKED for it !!!
What is wrong with you ??? Can't you even remember a post you made a few days ago ??? Here, I'll quote if for you :
YOU wrote that ! I know you don't read what we write, but can you at least try to read your own stuff ??
I gave you the post's number IN THE SAME REPLY !!!!!!!
You're repeating questions I answered THREE YEARS AGO !!!
Can somebody please explain this to me ? I give him the number of the post, and his reply is "I think you'd be looking a long time for that post".
?????????????????
If he's really that happy, then why does he have to lie all the time ? What's the point of him lying about things that don't even have anything to do with religion ?
He has some doubt or he wouldn't be here, carrying on like he does. Either that or he is so dumb he thinks he's going to convert someone with his preachy bs.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"I really wish theists would stop saying "Life has no purpose without (a) God" when they mean "My life has no purpose without (a) God"."
I can only assume that you hold the monopoly on "purpose." Meaning that it's self-assigned, and thus meaningless outside of your own private world? Doesn't sound much better than my magical fantasy
NOTE: I am always 50/50 on the satire
"When I need a reality fix, I go to reality. When you need a reality fix, you go to Yahweh. Seems like you're shortchanging yourself."
Uh. . . At what point do I short change myself? And by what rubric? Some difficult calculation and definitions are in order.
My point here is that once you exit that naturalist paradigm and discuss things such as "worth" or "value" or "meaning" my fantasy becomes quite similar to your reality.
If I was asked does life have purpose without God? My answer would be "i don't know" because I would have no reference for that reality. To me, your challenge isn't that my reality is pretend, it's just that you don't like it and don't want any part of it. If we meet here, each of us have more ground and dialogue about progress is much more achievable. If not, I'd enjoy making arguments that your reality is just as socially constructed as mine
and get all pomo/psych on you 
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
So you don't believe objective reality exists? Interesting...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
When you use the phrase "objective reality" lots of things flash:
1. The necessity of objective science that utilizes empirical frameworks to develop cures for my children.
2. The unique hegemonic nature of "utility" that necessarily follows from deductive frameworks.
So, in a paradox, I adapt. Now I have lots of "experiences" in the mystical that are meaningless to you. But I can present my "belief" in a mystical, fantastical deity as the "defender" against the hegemon. And my choice of deity (my Christianity) is the "best" tool available. Now don't conflate "God" and my belief in God in the "it works" discussion. My argument is that God is not necessary, but my belief in God is. This belief has value etc.
On a side note, an "objective reality" exists before and operates before my brain can process it (eyes to brain, conscience etc.)--so empirically, an "objective reality" can never be defined with immediate certainty.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
So you believe that an absolute God has a place in your subjective reality?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Does it hurt when you slap yourself? Your question assumes too much. My reality (subjective objective or the paradox) as per your suggestion is made of up ingredients that I can place and displace at will. To that end, we will go in circles until you (without agreement) give me the option of not accepting your definition. If not, than I'm crazy and somehow you are not
.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
ex-minister,
Don't know but perhaps some chickens are running around preaching with an eggshell on their head.
Well, if you can answer that one, then you can answer this :
Why did you lie ?
Why do you even insist on lying when religion isn't even involved ?
Anonymouse,
With all due respect you are the liar and have never offered (no post # of yours has it) a better way of life as the OP asks - but, not to insult you, you know that. I have described my faith in great detail from different angles. You have never done anything but attack my faith, mock the LORD, and mischaracterize. Any old fool can ridicule what he doesn't understand, and rage and laugh. Strike out on your own anonymous, be a man or woman or whatever you are and show the better path of life. Don't try and make a career out of tearing down instead of building up.
In your next post offer your way - the better way, the unknown way of anonymouse.....
"The way i, anonymouse think is the best way, the way that is better than Christianity is: _____________________"
Respect ? You're kidding, right ? A few posts ago, you expressed the notion that it would be better that I had never been born. You literally said that. Would you like me to list all the insults you've thrown at me, all because I dared to ask you a simple question ?
Oh wait, here's another one ! :
Am I ? Then I'm calling your bluff. AGAIN ! : Prove it or apologise.
If you'll remember, I'll already offered proof of your lies in regard to your first thread. And you keep piling up new, even more absurd lies as well : Just a few posts ago, you called a question you already answered with "yes", "a question without an answer". Exactly how absurd are you planning on getting ? Then you claimed JC and other people never answered your question, which is in direct contradiction WITH YOURSELF !
Here, another quote of yours you no longer wish to remember :
Can you guess to whom you adressed that comment ? Need some help looking up YOUR OWN WORDS ??
Not only did I give you your answer before I even registered here, I just gave you the post number in my last reply ! Seriously,You are unbelievable.
Okay, for future reference : If you REALLY don't want to insult people, then DON'T ! Calling somebody a liar without being able to prove it ? THAT'S AN INSULT ! Okay ? So are your accusations of being in league with the devil and other jibber jabber.
I never asked you that ! I asked you why you lied ! And before I asked you that, I proved you were a liar.
So now have the simple decency to answer a simple question I've repeated for far too many times :
Why did you lie ?
I have ASKED YOU A QUESTION !! How is that attacking your faith ? Is it my fault you find this question so frightening that you won't stop running from it ?
And for the last time : You cannot mock something you don't believe exists !!! I asked you twice now to remember that !
And AGAIN, please explain how it is possible to mischaracterize the word "yes" !
AGAIN : I am not "raging" or "laughing" or "mocking", or whatever word you think makes you sound wise. I AM ASKING YOU A QUESTION !!
It goes like this : WHY DID YOU LIE ?? Why do you lie even about things that have nothing to do with religion ? WHY DID YOU DO THAT ?
AGAIN : I AM ASKING YOU A QUESTION ! How is that "tearing down" ??
Answer it !
You actually have the gall to demand that I answer your question AGAIN ? When you have been dodging mine for longer than I can remember ?? And when I've only just given you the post's number so can look for yourself ??
...
Excuse me, I had to pick up my jaw from the floor.
Okay, sure, I'll repeat myself. Again. Why not ? Let's just call this thread Groundhog Day and be done with it.
In your first thread, #819. Which you will find on page 17. You uttered the following falsehood : "My faith has application-Yours doesn't". Please re-read my reaction carefully and you'll find my answer. AGAIN.
(And just in case you'd like to lie once more and deny the thread is yours, the proof is still in post #553, on page 12 of this thread. Actually, there is more proof. It just didn't all fit in one post)
SO...
Will you now FINALLY answer my question ?
Why did you lie ?
Why do you even lie when religion isn't even involved ? Why did you do that ?
Please explain.
He is just doing the fingers in ear LALALA thing.
Nothing anyone says can get past this immense wall of faith. We all tried to reason but he has and will only accept one reason and it is a fictional one.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Anonymouse,
You came on with this question "would you kill an innocent child if God told you to" post #294. I tried to tell you I believe direct revelation has ended - but you wanted your "pull quote". So then I told you in essence I have killed the most innocent child with my sins - Christ. You then twisted that to say I would kill an innocent child, I'm an child killer, &c in #390. You mischaracterized that (lied and slandered actually) by twisting the answer that by my sins I killed the most innocent child (which was the reason for the object lesson of Abraham being instructed to sacrifice Isaac - to illustrate what God did in the gospel), The lies and slander from you mean nothing to me, just pointing them out for your personal consideration.
But it's true you are dishonest in this mischaracterization, and a liar. I can find no place I have lied to you. It's true I haven't given you the answers you want, but as far as I know in good conscience I haven't lied to you.
You have not contributed anything of value to this discussion. I have posted what "Works for Me" but you have brought nothing to the table. I am left to conclude you have nothing and to hope that will change. It's not a change I can perform, but I'll pray for you. If there is change it will be in the death of the innocent Christ for your sins. An awakening would be painful but eternally joyful.
Actually, the question originated in #290. I merely picked it up because you didn't answer it, and the person who asked it gave up.
Let's bring the whole quote here, since you obviously can't be bothered to look it up :
Your answer :
I took "yes" to mean "yes".
HOW EXACTLY IS THAT A MISCHARACTERIZATION ???
PLEASE EXPLAIN !
Btw, if what you are saying here is that you STILL haven't answered this question EITHER, then I'm just going to have to add it to the list of unanswered questions and repeat it AGAIN.
No, it is not.
AGAIN : I TOOK "YES" to mean "YES" ! EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS A MISCHARACTERIZATION !!
If you can do that, then yes, I will be a liar. If not, than I'm still waiting for an apology.
From your cornucopia of lies, I have picked your desperate attempt to claim the "what faith you" thread isn't yours. I pointed out that you repeated EXACTLY THE SAME PERSONAL DETAILS in both threads. I posted the most extreme example from that, AND I JUST GAVE YOU THE POST # WHERE I DID THAT !
Sure, I'll do it again : #553 on page 12.
When I first brought that up, you denied several times the thread was yours. That was a lie. I was wondering why you did that. Hence the question :
Why did you lie ?
As yet unanswered.
I have answered your questions several times, and I just gave you, AGAIN, the number of the post where I first did that ! How many times are you simply going to pretend that didn't happen ?
As for the rest of my contributions : Two questions. I explained why they were relevant and defended them against your objections. You have answered one, are now trying to claim you didn't (Apparently, when you say "yes", you mean nothing at all ?), and I am doing my very best to get the other one answered as well. I have not let your threats and increasingly viscious attacks discourage me. How is that not a valuable contribution ?
And btw, why exactly do you keep accusing me of "mocking god" and "attacking your faith", when the question "why did you lie" has nothing to do with religion at all ???
Care to explain that one too ?
That would be a conclusion based on ignoring pretty much everything I have posted here. Not very honest, to say the least.
And btw, I'm not the only one you accused of "having nothing". You've issued several general declarations accusing us all of having nothing to offer. I've given you the post where other individuals answered your questions, AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR ANSWERS !
How do you explain that one ? Can't wait, but will probably have to.
You can perform a change for me, and I've been practically begging you to do it for months : ANSWER THE QUESTION :
Why did you lie ?
(And if it turns out that "yes" from you doesn't mean anything at all, then I'm forced to repeat the other question as well : If god asked you to kill an innocent child, would you do it ? Yes, or no ? And please remember, I already pointed out why you can't dodge that question. Your own definition of god creates the question in the first place. )
That works too, I guess, but I really thought it was even simpler than that.
Here's the quote again :
Anonymouse wrote:
Fonzie wrote:So is that a "yes" I see before me, or not ?
How is taking "yes" to mean "yes" a mischaracterization of what he said ?
(btw, we had another christian show up in this thread, who had no problem answering "yes" as well. I don't remember "Fonzie" taking issue with that)
I want to know when you killed this "christ" fellow, and why did you kill him? What did he do to you ? Why are you running around freely if you killed someone? Shouldn't you be jailed at the least?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
robj101,
We should all be jailed - that's the good news of the gospel. While we were still sinners Christ died for the ungodly. In Christ we are set free - God has paid the price in slaying the Perfectly Innocent with all men's sin (who believe in Him) from all time are laid on Him, and in Him we who believe in Him are set free. The trap is broken and we have escaped!
That whole scenario is the most stupid, illogical and immoral story. There is absolutely no point in the symbolic death of an 'innocent', and no way does it make sense to say that the death of someone who had nothing to with whatever 'sins' any individual committed against some third party are somehow wiped away. Did JC's death restore the stolen property that the thief took? Did it bring back to life the victim of the murderer? Did it undo whatever trail of harm some other misdeed may have caused? The most it could do was make the perpetrator feel better, that he was offered a free pardon.
IOW, it does NOTHING to address the actual harm caused by whatever sins were or will be committed.
It is just a stupid, primitive, 'blood sacrifice' idea to appease the angry God. It is disgusting. Fonzie, you should be deeply ashamed for admitting to revelling in such crap.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Sins of the father, the theory. I didn't kill anyone and I don't feel obligated to pay for any "sins" (dur) that anyone may or may not have committed before I even set foot on this planet.
Edit: "Thats the good news of the gospel" .... ya rly, he said that.
And who magnanimously set this trap you speak of and on who's authority?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Gosh. My question remains unanswered. I'm, like, surprised.
Guess I'll just throw it in the group then.
Okay, this is for everyone : If I take his "yes" to mean "yes", am I mischaracterizing his words ?
This is directed at Fonzie and Fonzie only. I can understand how you could find it hard to navigate your way through life without the Bible, I personally do not navigate my life very much, I kind of just let stuff happen on it's own. It is good that you don't force your beliefs on others. I do not think your fooling yourself, depending on how you look at the bible you can get good morals and ideals out of it if you look hard enough but you do not need to get them from the Bible. You can be as happy as us but I think that it would be harder to because of the whole 'you have free will but if you do wrong I'll cast you into a pit of eternal torture' thing.Finally, I do not have a gospel if you don't count the law because hat's a good place to get morals from, the place that will kick your ass if you don't follow there's.
Oh and I think this thread has become pointless because it is mostly just insults and rants at the moment (sorry if I am wrong).
No need to be sorry
Nice answer to his OP, btw. I hope he'll remember this one for a little longer than the other ones.
edit : And I think it's worth pointing out, that calling someone dishonest when you can actually prove it, is not an insult. It's more like a warning to others. (But if my repeated attempts to get him to answer a simple question have appeared rant-like, I do apologise)
BobSpence1,
First, I've missed you.
Know that the reaction you have to the "word of the cross" is textbook scientifically reproducible 1 Cor 1.18-25, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart'. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God,k the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jerws and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
While it is true that wrongs have consequences and some irreversible results we are all a part of fallen humanity and sin. You or I may have done things we can't even comprehend as far as the result. It's not a matter of my "my sins are not as bad as yours" or vise versa.
But God is God, and He says, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". The blood of the Perfect Lamb pays the debt for all men, for all time, for those who believe.
The way forgiveness comes not only delivers us from the debt of sin but the love of it and the power of it. Through God's Spirit we can be empowered to become master of our lusts and partake in the freedom of the children of God.
I am experiencing the power and joy of deliverance in Christ. Also I am seeing many idols of man tip over, things offered as man's solutions, wise things, things better than this - the foolishness of God.
Bob, are you really going to the "stupid Christian" angle?
On stupid: The Gospel is a unique narrative, even by skeptical standards. Most "gave up" on the copycat religion angle 10 years ago (Mithra, Horus etc.). Even Wilkins changed his mind about the historical uniqueness of the Gospel (as a skeptic and leader in his field). In essence, even as a concoction, it is in no way stupid. There is no other (and really, no other) religious premise where the god figure (head) ends "sacrifice." It is also the only where humyn behavior is meaningless (for salvation).
On illogical: My first thought is so what? But that's a little dismissive. Your next two sentences are inductive. They both assume the "death" occurred and expand (or induce) general conclusions. You reduce the story to the absurd. In doing so, you can become the moving target. For example, you force me answer irrelevant questions (stolen property, back to life). While it is clear that I hold more knowledge of the Gospel, you escape this by manufacturing a straw version to escape real dialogue. Simply an appeal to emotion and authority that is absent.
On immoral: You have no analysis here. You just tossed it in cause' it's a word you think I (as a theist) will get my attention.
"It is just a stupid, primitive, 'blood sacrifice' idea to appease the angry God. It is disgusting. Fonzie, you should be deeply ashamed for admitting to revelling in such crap."
Prize winning distraction.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
?
I thought Bob was replying to "fonzie".
That quote has absoluely nothing to do with scientific evidence - it is just the sort of thing you would expect someone to say in defence of such beliefs.
Wrongs have consequences which in many cases are not fully reversible, due to many basic facts about the world, such as the Law of Entropy, which can be basically understood as a expression of such things as the virtual impossibility of putting a shattered glass object back together as it was, or all the milk spilt onto the ground back in the glass, or bring a decayed corpse back to life. But even that fact is not an adequate answer to what I said - nothing in the 'wiping away of sins' bit in the Crucifixion addresses restitution to the victims in any form, even though they are the ones who have suffered from the 'sins'.
That is merely the Christian version of the ancient belief in the need for 'blood sacrifice'. All the rest of it is purely superstitious nonsense.
You are experiencing the effects of a bunch of chemicals released in your brain when you get into this state of worship and belief. Christianity is just another one of those 'idols'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No, I am not saying Christians are 'stupid', merely that they are still human and subject to falling for powerful 'memes' like we all are.
All belief systems have unique features, and also incorporate aspects of other belief systems, not necessarily deliberately or consciously.
It was arguably not 'stupid' in the context within which it was written, of limited factual knowledge of the world and even of the well-springs of human nature.
But now, the attempt to justify a bunch of ancient superstitions is arguably 'stupid', or at least misguided.
"They both assume the death occurred" ?? Are you saying JC didn't actually die? Wouldn't explicitly negate the idea of it being a sacrifice??
I am merely taking the story at face value, and making explicit observations to point out that it does not address whatever real harm that resulted from the sins, purely offering the sinners a free pass to eternal life, if they will 'believe', which totally fails to address the problems of society and individuals that lead to the sins in the first place, indeed is arguably counter-productive to that end, and I regard that as deeply immoral. Especially given the central significance of this event for the Christian ideology.
OTOH, any actual 'good' resulting from the event is purely conjectural, and can only be justified if you presume the truth of the supernatural aspects of the story. Which is the actual 'appeal to emotion'.
My analysis within that post specifically addressed the immorality of the situation. That's is why I 'tossed it in'.
'Blood sacrifices to appease Gods' are an ancient idea, prevalent in many early (and in some more recent ones) cultures, and the crucifixion story clearly fits the general scenario. The reference Fonzie made to the 'need for the spilling of blood' explicitly supports that idea.
To repeat, I was not saying Christians are 'stupid' - although I will make an exception in your case, based on your response.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
OK, so it's not a prima facie stupid, it's a stupid that requires comparison and cultural anthropology? Of which I answered and you just repeated yourself.
Your sin/cross analysis only goes to serve the "immoral" premise, of which I answered and you repeated yourself. You are conflating "immoral" with "error." It's the error you see in the narrative, yet outside of bad church behavior (much later), you have not connected the dots.
Yes, you are saying Christian's are stupid. So, why are you lying (seems to the good part of the thread)?
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
I repeated myself because your 'objection' was not relevant, and that still applies.
They are arguably stupid if they cling to the nonsense that is Christian doctrine after having the anomalies pointed out to them. Or to put it more charitably, they have become so psychologically dependent on it that they cannot let it go, or even concede to any of the problematic aspects, as appears to be the case with Fonzie.
You did not appear to comprehend my original argument, and still apparently do not. I still see no real answer from you.
I see in the narrative a failure to address the real problem of immoral behavior, which is what I am assuming is most validly identified as 'sin'.
Insofar as the purpose of the scenario is to resolve 'sins' which do not result in actual injury or harm to other people or society at large, such as the 'original sin', then it is only addressing a purely notional set of transgressions, which have no significance to mankind in general. It is a theological issue within the particular set of beliefs. In that case it is arguably not deserving of the label 'immoral', except in the sense where it might make naive followers think that real immorality can be 'cleansed' by blood sacrifice or other irrelevant rituals. Irrelevant to the actual instance of immoral behavior.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Oh boy, if that was the only question "fonzie" never answered, this thread would be under a 100 posts, and actually readable.
BobSpence1,
I wasn't saying this is scientific text but allegorically LIKE science repeatable experiments = Luther had a similar experience as Bunyan, &c. Your reaction to the gospel as one "wise in this world" is also repeatable and common. "Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth, but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." So for you to be a believer in Christ would be an exception - I believe hearts have fallen on that word recent.
The thing you mention - wrongs righted - do happen, but not completely because some things can't be reversed. You can't undo adultery or murder of the husband such as king David did - or killed Christians such as Paul had done. But John the Baptist mentioned righting such wrongs being signs of real repentance. And remember Zacchaeus who Jesus told to get down from the tree the same way he got up - he didn't float him down, and Zacchaeus was changed that day, his eyes opened to Jesus' being the Messiah and he started repaying "half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything I restore it fourfold". And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost".
You then go into scientific reduction to "chemicals reacting". We could reduce life to "experiencing gravity" or "converting energy from food to foot-pounds", and romance to "cave man hunts game" but the difference between the effects of the gospel and various forms of "reformation" done with "education about effects of alcohol" or "say no to drugs" or PSA's are "outside-in" efforts whereas the gospel is "inside-out". That's a big difference, and worlds apart. If you don't change the water in the tower it doesn't do any good to change the pipes and faucets.
Christianity could be approached wrongly as an "idol" - you're right about that possibility, but it would be a misrepresentation of it. Believing in Christ and being born into Christ by the will of the Holy Spirit into fellowship with God, sins forgiven - that's not an idol because it is the real God and Savior and Spirit. If you were worshiping a "statue" or material "cross" or "ceremony", or perverting grace into "sinning so grace may abound" - it would be representing a false Christianity and would be holding up an idol as if it were the real thing. But in reality it isn't "what's happening now" - in authentic Christianity.
I repeat, people having similar experiences in response to accepting the same set of beliefs, is entirely unremarkable, not really comparable to a scientific experiment, which is only significant if it is proving something unusual and previously unexpected, and I am not denying that people can have such experiences, so it really is not much point in you bringing such things to my attention.
Now if you had repeatable demonstrations of an actual miracle, that would be interesting.
Your last comment there, something about "for me to be a believer in Christ.." I can't honestly make sense of what you are trying to say there.
I did not expect wrongs to be totally righted, although technically a truly omnipotent God could totally reverse any situation, including bringing someone back to life.
My beef was that that aspect, the harm caused to the victim by such acts as stealing or murder, was not even addressed in the core Christian scenario, even in some partial compensatory sense, even in the form of an abject apology. That harm is, in my view, what really needs to be addressed, and what is required of the perpetrator is to do what they can to compensate the victims and/or their dependents/relatives/family, independent of any religious considerations. In the scriptures, it appears to at best an afterthought. I am speaking about true ethical and proper behaviour toward the people we share this life with.
Anything else is just ritual, meaningless to anyone not having bought into the dogma associated with it.
I used that phrase about chemicals, not to apply to all emotional reactions, but as applying to such situations as "I am experiencing the power and joy of deliverance in Christ", where there is no reality justifying such a reaction, it is so unfocused. And sure, it was meant at least partly to denigrate, trivialize, that particular category of experience, namely religious exultation, which does appear to be close to what can be induced by various drugs.
I don't see Christianity as an "idol", I don't see where you got that. But I do see what you describe there as a fantasy which gets you to the equivalent of a drug-induced 'high'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1,
I meant you as one "wise in this world" would be an exception if you were a believer.
It seems just as likely that you are in a fantasy as me. you have chemicals driving your perception too. How do you know you haven't fallen for a misconception?
BTW it was shown in Scripture that witnessing miracles didn't cause faith as you propose.
I still don't get what you are trying to say in your first sentence there.
I did not say chemicals really drive our perceptions, they can certainly affect our perception. I have had little experience of drinking alcohol to the point of being actually drunk, but enough to appreciate just how much such a simple chemical can do to both one's perceptions and thoughts. I hope you accept the potency of that particular chemical.
About misconceptions, by basing my assumptions about the world on empirical evidence, I have access to vastly more information, from a wide range of sources, so I can be more confident that it relates to reality because there are so many different angles on the same subject that I can cross-check.
Whereas if the essentials of your experience are based on your internal emotional reactions and the words in one collection of ancient writings, you are on far shakier grounds to claim that you are perceiving something 'real'.
I am pretty sure that the point of the references to miracles in the Bible is largely to demonstrate God's power. And I agree that such miracles would certainly not be intended to 'cause' faith, since if you actually witnessed a convincing miracle, you would not need faith to believe in His power - they are intended to give the witnesses direct evidence of God, so to inspire belief.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology