CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[eldirector]

Atheism isn't a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

For some reason, I thought Atheism was the belief that this is no God. Agnostic was the lack of belief.

Maybe I've got it wrong.

 

[ATM]

Atheism isn't a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

A lack of belief would be agnosticism (without knowledge). Atheism (without god) is a belief, a faith. Are you certain you're an atheist? How did you get there from the neutral point of not being able to know?

I'm only a little more atheist than you. You and I agree that man has created thousands of gods over the years. I include one more on that list that you do...yours.

We both probably agree that many counterfeits exist, too. If you add one too many to that list, you do away with the original article they were attempting to copy. That's not sound reasoning. What would you call the counterfeits then? They wouldn't be counterfeits.

 

[singlesix]

Breathing is easy, we do it in our sleep. Is that really what you consider living?



What makes you say that?

I need to work on my jokes... didn't mean to offend anyone's beliefs ....

 

[ATM]

I need to work on my jokes... didn't mean to offend anyone's beliefs ....

No worries,

IAM

...not easily offended.

 

[PaulF]

Off-topic and mostly out of curiosity - Is there one big issue that you side with enough to consider yourself "liberal", or are you pretty much liberal on most stances (except guns, I assume)?

I've never noticed you discuss it much, just curious. I have a couple liberal stances... but my "hands off" issues being 1A and 2A (mostly Constitution-related stuff) make me typically label myself Conservative (or probably Libertarian-ish after this year.) I guess Constitutionalist is pretty accurate.

In reality, no label adequately describes my position.


I am socially very liberal. I am fiscally quite conservative. Politically...I am continually in no-man's land.

I don't trust any institution allowed to grow too large, or practice too covertly. Big government, bit business, big religion...I have a thorough mistrust of each. I want a government that only does the things with which it is expressly tasked, and does them at least as well as any other government on Earth.

 

[PaulF]

A lack of belief would be agnosticism (without knowledge). Atheism (without god) is a belief, a faith. Are you certain you're an atheist? How did you get there from the neutral point of not being able to know?

The Christian Bible is the (Christian) argument for the existence of gods. I have entertained the argument, considered it carefully, and rejected it. I do not believe that the being(s) described by the Christian Bible exist(s).

The same for Zeus and his buddies...and Thor and Odin...and Quetzalcoatl...and every other purported god I've encountered in my time on this planet.

Atheism is our default state. Religion...the belief in gods...is an entirely cultural phenomenon. If someone hasn't heard the story of your particular religion they will never be aware of the "existence" of your gods...this alone is a powerful argument against gods...how great can this being be, if someone else has to apologize its very existence?

We both probably agree that many counterfeits exist, too. If you add one too many to that list, you do away with the original article they were attempting to copy. That's not sound reasoning. What would you call the counterfeits then? They wouldn't be counterfeits.

There are religions operating today that are older than Christianity, which itself borrows heavily from other first-century Middle-Eastern religions. It's counterfeits all the way down, brother...

 

[ATM]

The Christian Bible is the (Christian) argument for the existence of gods. I have entertained the argument, considered it carefully, and rejected it. I do not believe that the being(s) described by the Christian Bible exists.

The same for Zeus and his buddies...and Thor and Odin...and Quetzalcoatl...and every other god I've encountered in my time on this planet.

Atheism is our default state. Religion...the belief in gods...is an entirely cultural phenomenon. If someone hasn't heard the story of your particular religion they will never be aware of the "existence" of your gods...this alone is a powerful argument against gods...how great can this being be, if someone else has to apologize its very existence?

There are religions operating today that are older than Christianity, which itself borrows heavily from other first-century Middle-Eastern religions. It's counterfeits all the way down, brother...

Good luck trying to find enough facts to overcome Truth. You will cling to fewer and fewer the longer this goes. You will run out.

You don't get to frame this to your liking, I can tear that all down. I know where this leads. You open your mind or you lose.

Choices. Consequences.

 

[foszoe]

Are these genuine questions or are you trying to get to a "gotcha" moment? And I mean that in the most genuine way. I enjoy these discussions and everyone's input.

just genuine questions. Not out to persuade anyone.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Christian Bible is the (Christian) argument for the existence of gods. I have entertained the argument, considered it carefully, and rejected it. I do not believe that the being(s) described by the Christian Bible exist(s).

The same for Zeus and his buddies...and Thor and Odin...and Quetzalcoatl...and every other purported god I've encountered in my time on this planet.

Atheism is our default state. Religion...the belief in gods...is an entirely cultural phenomenon. If someone hasn't heard the story of your particular religion they will never be aware of the "existence" of your gods...this alone is a powerful argument against gods...how great can this being be, if someone else has to apologize its very existence?



There are religions operating today that are older than Christianity, which itself borrows heavily from other first-century Middle-Eastern religions. It's counterfeits all the way down, brother...

As a Christian myself, there's lots of truth in your post. Christianity does borrow heavily from religions that existed before it. Enough, that it can't be dismissed as coincidence.

 

[foszoe]

"Addressing their unbelief" is an interesting thing to Christians.

Raving on the streetcorner, Internet, and local television that people like me are everything that is wrong with America isn't a position founded in respect for one's fellow man. Respect is the foundation of civility. Defacing our billboards and monuments, intimidating and ostracizing our children...these are not behaviors that inform us of your civil intentions.

I think your statement is a little outdated. In recent times, it is the atheist who is telling Christian the above. In the past, perhaps it went the other way.

 

[foszoe]

I personally use the Cambridge text which is the seventh edition, I believe that is the 1769 edition. My current bible is a Local Church Publishers edition. No apocrypha.

Thomas Nelson reverted to the sixth edition back in the 90's and we had to switch to giving World bibles in school when kids became free readers, because there are major differences. That is a joke they were very minor the 2d through 7th editions were limited to spelling corrections and consistency. The problem we had was in memorization kids committed heresy like saying upon instead of on and things like that.

Nenson then published the NKJV and called it the eighth edition.

Leaving "correctness" of a translation out of it, I do agree with the memorization part. Working from the same text built up the community. Now i quote things that don't match up and with everyone picking their own versions it just gets worse. Now when you recite the nine gifts of the Spirit, they don't match etc.

 

[PaulF]

For some reason, I thought Atheism was the belief that this is no God. Agnostic was the lack of belief.

Maybe I've got it wrong.

It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.

I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.

I am not conflicted. I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.

I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance. If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas. If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.

So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.

I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.

I am not conflicted. I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.

I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance. If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas. If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.

So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.

It sounds more like you think you could do a better job at being God than He can. Why does God need to fit into your box to exist? Logically I mean. God doesn't exist because he doesn't conform your idea of what he should be? Why would a god be constrained to be fully understood by people who clearly are not gods?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Who says God has to be nice? (He is) Why does God have to reveal himself? (He does)

 

[Woobie]

It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.

I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.

I am not conflicted. I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.

I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance. If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas. If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.

So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.

Its funny you say that, because there are a number of scriptures in the Bible that point to accessibility. There isn't a prerequisite level of knowledge placed on mankind for being able to understand on a basic level all they need to understand. The knowledge is there and knowable, but it isn't required to be known. In fact, reliance on your own intellect is pointed out as a stumbling block to faith.

The point made regarding consistency of belief systems presupposes there is no entity engaging in deceit. Just because 12 people believe 12 different things is not an indictment on God's consistency. It is evidence of deceit and an indictment on the gullibility and corruptibility of man.

It is knowable, brother. It is a matter of choosing to know it. And that is very difficult for some people, because it's a chicken/egg sort of conundrum.



In regards to your earlier statements, there is a great deal I agree with. Large institutions tend to be corrupt. That is man. We try to make things bigger, and we try to corrupt them. Usually the two go hand in hand. Church leadership has to hold each other accountable, which isn't always easy to do, and so it often isn't done or done well. But the point again, is not that God messed up, but that corruptible man is involved.

 

[ATM]

...The point made regarding consistency of belief systems presupposes there is no entity engaging in deceit. Just because 12 people believe 12 different things is not an indictment on God's consistency. It is evidence of deceit and an indictment on the gullibility and corruptibility of man.

It is knowable, brother. It is a matter of choosing to know it. And that is very difficult for some people...

Might I borrow this for another thread at some point? Pure gold (the whole thing).

 

[Woobie]

Might I borrow this for another thread at some point? Pure gold (the whole thing).

What have I done?!?! Lol

Its all yours, brother.

 

[PaulF]

It sounds more like you think you could do a better job at being God than He can. Why does God need to fit into your box to exist? Logically I mean. God doesn't exist because he doesn't conform your idea of what he should be? Why would a god be constrained to be fully understood by people who clearly are not gods?

I wanted to reply, because I enjoy our conversations. It's always good to see you, sir.

I have no idea how to respond to your post.

This is something that I have run into before. A matter of perspective, I think. You live in a world where God exists. He is central to the universe and to the function of absolutely everything within it. To imagine my position you must try to remove god from that world, and it falls apart in however many ways you choose to approach it.

I live in a world in which our species has had a long a long history of creating gods. Time after time those gods proved to be nothing more than fiction, the religious bureaucracies built up round them only functioned to serve the basest desires of our most ambitious brethren...greed, power, lust...control. To see your view I have to try to add your god to my world...to somehow set this one apart from the others...and it falls apart in however many ways I choose to approach it.

I don't think I could be a better god than your God. I don't believe in gods. I only think I could be a better PaulF.

 

[Woobie]

Once again, Paul, I readily agree with that third paragraph.

What I think is truly problematic and insidious is that people do so to God's truth. They hijack it for personal gain.

"For three monthly installments of $29.95, you too can have this prayer cloth blessed by Brother Simon."

And those are the easy ones to pick out.

 

[SSGSAD]

Who says God has to be nice? (He is) Why does God have to reveal himself? (He does)

God, is not nice .....

He IS a jealous God .....

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" .....

He is a vengeful God .....

But He loved us so much, that He gave US, his ONLY Son,

To intercede, on our behalf .....

FAITH is all you need .....

Grace, is a gift .....

Whosoever believes in him shall not perish,

but have everlasting life .....