Importance of relationship with Christ

IFX

neuro-praxis wrote:

IFX. My post of Christians whose social and cultural work has changed the course of history dramatically was intended to demonstrate to you that Christians are indeed not gullible fools as you have outlined in previous posts.
Do not pretend that this was not your implication. It was. You implied that only an uneducated person would be "lured" into belief. Which is pure nonsense.

Incorrect, I stated that an uneducated person could easily lured into Christianity. I did not say "only" an uneducated person could easily be lured into Christianity. That is another straw man.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Now. You did not respond to my post about the bible's primary focus being on social justice.

I accept that the Bible contains elements of social justice and I respect that. However, I don't agree that the primary focus of the Bible or A Christian is social justice. Note social justice has nothing to do with spirituality. Spirituality or Theism or Christianity or Atheism is personnel issue not a social issue.
The Bible for examples contains many cases of genocide - thats is most definetly not social justice.

neuro-praxis wrote:

If the bible instructs Christians to care for the physical needs of those in the world, two thousand and three times in its sixty-six books, then you will agree that Christian doctrine does not advocate "spreading beliefs" but rather, whole-life care of the other.

I would prefer the Bible just focussed on social and human needs and not spiritual beliefs, unfortunately it does not.

neuro-praxis wrote:

The Christian happens to believe that whole-life care includes TELLING them about the love and redemption and forgiveness that we have received in God.

Well speak for youself. Many Christians are quite happy to keep their dogma to themselves.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Listen up. My experience of God in the last 10 years has been transformational, and I would be a fool not to share that with others. However I believe in earning the right to speak of such things, by loving others FIRST.

St. Francis of Assisi said: "Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

Well that's great for you. But we're not all the same. Some people find the Gospels or NT or Bible annoying, it does not inspire them.
We're not all the same. Please remember that and the fact that giving a starving person food is more important than spreading your spiritual beliefs.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I am sorry IFX, I don't know if you are a first year philo student or what, but my above post has been an utter rebuttal of your argument and I won't be returning to see any more subjective, muddy thinking on your part. Plus, reign in the aggression - it is very unbecoming.

I don't notice any rebuttal. You created a straw man. By misinterpreting my argument as Christians are stupid. A straw man is not a rebuttal.
You then made a point about references to social caring in the Bible. I agree with social caring, as I agree with giving starving people food. I am being consistent here. So there is no rebuttal.
However, I don't agree with the other parts of the bible, the genocides or the spiritual conclusions for example as they have nothing to do with social caring. Again I am being consistent, you have no rebuttal.
More to point, the crux of my argument is giving food to a starving person is more important than giving them your spiritual beliefs or your lack off. Again I am being consistent here, to atheism and all theism. Nothing should take precedence over feeding a starving person. You have no rebuttal.

Excelsior

One of these semesters, you'll get around to studying the positivists IFX. Your lectuerer will ruin it for you when he takes apart Ayer, who you will hold as a Messiah from the moment you first find him until that heart-breaking, crumbling disasterous point when the flaws in "I speak logic-osophy" you espouse come tumbling down on you.

I've been there. Or well, somewhere similar. You'll get through it.

Your total ignorance of the Bible, of historiagraphy and most crucially, what Christianity actually consists of makes conversation on a web forum impossible. Maybe over a pint we could hammer out some sense between us and speak in a language you could understand but your assumptions are so huge and so radicalised that its impossible*.

Case in point: Your assertion that many Christians don't feel the need to share "their DOGMA". Are they Christians because they follow Jesus who is the Christ who said, "Go into all the world preaching the good news, baptising and making disciples?" Or are they the Christians who like Neuro-praxis had just pointed out, wouldn't speak the good news without making it a concrete reality in the lives of their neighbours.

Go to your university's CU. Start some conversations with real people. You might be surprised at how much more coherent and complete Christianity can be than you imagine. You will certainly be better off.

*Where impossible means I'd prefer to watch a repeat of Don't Feed The Gondolas rather than go through the tedium,

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

One of these semesters, you'll get around to studying the positivists IFX. Your lectuerer will ruin it for you when he takes apart Ayer, who you will hold as a Messiah from the moment you first find him until that heart-breaking, crumbling disasterous point when the flaws in "I speak logic-osophy" you espouse come tumbling down on you.

I've been there. Or well, somewhere similar. You'll get through it.

What you are doing is simply attacking me, not logical.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic3.html
Why not just work your way through my argument and be specific about where the holes are?

Excelsior wrote:

Your total ignorance of the Bible, of historiagraphy and most crucially, what Christianity actually consists of makes conversation on a web forum impossible.

Can you be specific about where I have ignorant? Give an example perhaps?

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe over a pint we could hammer out some sense between us and speak in a language you could understand but your assumptions are so huge and so radicalised that its impossible*.
Case in point: Your assertion that many Christians don't feel the need to share "their DOGMA". Are they Christians because they follow Jesus who is the Christ who said, "Go into all the world preaching the good news, baptising and making disciples?" Or are they the Christians who like Neuro-praxis had just pointed out, wouldn't speak the good news without making it a concrete reality in the lives of their neighbours.

They are Christians because they call themselves Christians and they are consistent with the definition of the word in the English dictionary. That is not an assumption. It is a fact.

Excelsior wrote:

Go to your university's CU. Start some conversations with real people. You might be surprised at how much more coherent and complete Christianity can be than you imagine. You will certainly be better off.

This is just facile rhetoric.

Excelsior

IFX wrote:

Can you be specific about where I have ignorant? Give an example perhaps?

Your total ignorance of, just off the top of my head, any theology of hell.

Summing up myself...

Excelsior wrote:

You should meet some Christians. There'll be some at college who love talking about this stuff

You responded...

IFX wrote:

This is just facile rhetoric.

Oh Gracious God, where shall I flee from this undergrad mania?!?

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

I congradulate you or anyone who helps a poor person in a real way, i.e. give food, money, time, help etc. However, I don't consider spreading unproven dogma good, it's just a form of manipulation of those who aren't in a position to argue with you. It's a form of passive bullying.

As for me being a fundamentalist, yes I am fundamentally against bullies be they atheist or theist. I would say the exact same as what I am saying to you, to an atheist who considered explictly telling a starving person there is no God as important as giving them food.

My word. IFX, here are some things to think about:

1. Whether or not it is good to give a starving person food has not been proven. In fact in several belief systems, it would be considered BAD because you are enabling their own weaknesses, or (in another) it is considered bad that the very idea of charity as a virtue exists (some Libertarians).
2. What kind of actions are you imagining these Christian aid workers are doing that would somehow dissolve the ability of the poor to argue or disagree with what they say? Do you think that a piece of bread is being dangled in front of their mouth which they can have if only they'll convert to Christ? I hope you're not, because that's an incredibly insulting accusation. If this is what you are saying, then I demand that you provide evidence of actual cases, otherwise you are making things up.
3. If the atheist saw the starving man donate all of his food to his god, the atheist is honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways, so that he may live.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Your total ignorance of, just off the top of my head, any theology of hell.

You need to be more specific here. Point something specifically out to me I have got wrong. But perhaps in that thread. It would make more sense.

Excelsior wrote:

Oh Gracious God, where shall I flee from this undergrad mania?!?

[/QUOTE]
Why not make just points that is relevant to the thread?
Why persist at just casting facile slurs at me?

robindch

> Or at least none can produce proof which you would be willing to accept?

If the evidence is present, then I will tentatively accept it, like I tentatively accept everything else. The problem with the topics I quoted is that they are notorious for producing crap research, where they research at all. And, having read extensively on all of them, I've satisfied myself that there's nothing to any of them. Likewise, there is unlikely ever to be anything to any of them until the researchers in these areas can make some effort to get their act together.

> A thousand years ago, people believed in Thor.
> And still do today.

I always wondered if there are a few strange people out there who still worship Apollo, Zeus, or perhaps Mithra, some of the earlier gods to succumb to christianity's onslaught.

IFX

JustHalf wrote:

[*]Whether or not it is good to give a starving person food has not been proven. In fact in several belief systems, it would be considered BAD because you are enabling their own weaknesses, or (in another) it is considered bad that the very idea of charity as a virtue exists (some Libertarians).

Of course it has been proven, if you accept / belief it's good to stay alive.

JustHalf wrote:

[*]What kind of actions are you imagining these Christian aid workers are doing that would somehow dissolve the ability of the poor to argue or disagree with what they say? Do you think that a piece of bread is being dangled in front of their mouth which they can have if only they'll convert to Christ? I hope you're not, because that's an incredibly insulting accusation. If this is what you are saying, then I demand that you provide evidence of actual cases, otherwise you are making things up.

I do not generalise for all Christian workers belief it or not. I am talking about specific Christian workers who think it is just as important to give a starving person a bible as it is to give them food, this I find immoral.
My view would be that not all Christian's belief this, but a subset do.
My point is not specifc to Christians - it would be the same for a Muslim or Atheist worker who thought pushing their particular beliefs was just as important as giving a starving person food.

JustHalf wrote:

[*]If the atheist saw the starving man donate all of his food to his god, the atheist is honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways, so that he may live.

The atheist is not honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways. It is not implicit in atheism to convince anybody of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.

hairyheretic

robindch wrote:

I always wondered if there are a few strange people out there who still worship Apollo, Zeus, or perhaps Mithra, some of the earlier gods to succumb to christianity's onslaught.

Drop by the paganism forum sometime, you'll find more than a few to talk to. I couldn't say for sure who honours which deities, mind you. I can only speak for myself.

robindch

> I don't deny theat people have had experiences as you mention. But what is
> the source for those experiences and what is the fruit of them?

The source of these experiences is exactly the same for you as for them -- human brains. And you have convinced yourself that your experiences prove the existence of your god, just as surely as their experiences prove to them, the existence of their god or gods.

The common factor is the human brain and how it works. I know a guy who (when he's off his medication) is convinced that he's Jesus Christ; before that, he believed with total conviction that he was Napoleon. You share with this unfortunate man a total conviction in truth of personal beliefs. Do you think there's any chance that you could be mislead?

> I am not right it is my God who is right.

Hold on there. In between "you" and your god, there is the small matter of a belief that the god exists, and that it's the right one. It is your belief in both of these matters which mediates this truth. Again, do you think there exists the slightest chance that your brain may be misleading you, and that your belief may actually be faulty?

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

Of course it has been proven, if you accept / belief it's good to stay alive.

1. Even if I were to accept that, it would not prove that. For example, I believe I am the child of the people who claim to be my mother and father, but this is in now way a rigorous proof.
2. Why accept that it is good to stay alive? Or, given an accurate and reasonable reading of what I actually said, why accept that it is good to help others stay alive?

IFX wrote:

I do not generalise for all Christian workers belief it or not. I am talking about specific Christian workers who think it is just as important to give a starving person a bible as it is to give them food, this I find immoral.
My view would be that not all Christian's belief this, but a subset do.
My point is not specifc to Christians - it would be the same for a Muslim or Atheist worker who thought pushing their particular beliefs was just as important as giving a starving person food.

Provide examples of your very specific charge.

Also, it is incredibly insulting to these "starving people" that you say they are bereft of their faculties of reason; that they are "in no position to argue". Bullcrap. Just because you are poor doesn't make you weak, doesn't make you stupid, doesn't make you less of a person.

The only stage where these people would truly be in no position to argue, is where they are subject to forced "conversions", forced into Bible readings to get food, forced, forced, forced. Where a condition of receiving food is to undergo some sort of indoctrination. This is a serious charge and you need to back it up with something more than hearsay and loose argument, or shut up.

And if this is not the charge you are making, then what on earth is your problem?

IFX wrote:

The atheist is not honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways. It is not implicit in atheism to convince anybody of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.

It is implicit in honour to do good. The atheist would be bound by his sense of honour.

Let us be clear now. In the hypothetical situation I described, the atheist has two choices:

1. Leave the starving person alone, and let him starve, or
2. Try to convince the starving person of the error of their ways, so that they may live.

There are no other real choices. I am presuming that the atheist gave the starving person the food out of the goodness of his heart. Assuming this (which is entirely reasonable), then do you honestly believe that this same atheist would stand by and watch the man starve out of what he sees as ignorance?

No, he is honour-bound to make the second choice.

It is not his atheism that drives him here, but the goodness of his heart. And the goodness of his heart would require this man to take the second option, or be a disgrace to all that is good.

IFX

JustHalf wrote:

1. Even if I were to accept that, it would not prove that. For example, I believe I am the child of the people who claim to be my mother and father, but this is in now way a rigorous proof.
2. Why accept that it is good to stay alive? Or, given an accurate and reasonable reading of what I actually said, why accept that it is good to help others stay alive?

I assume you accept food keeps you alive, so your questions becomes why is good to keep someone alive.
I think it is fundamental to most theists or atheists it is generally good to keep somone alive, and it is pointless to this thread debating that.

JustHalf wrote:

Provide examples of your very specific charge.

This thread.

JustHalf wrote:

Also, it is incredibly insulting to these "starving people" that you say they are bereft of their faculties of reason; that they are "in no position to argue".
Bullcrap. Just because you are poor doesn't make you weak, doesn't make you stupid, doesn't make you less of a person.

Straw man. I never said they were explicitly weak people, please read the thread. They are in a weak position, low education literacy rates, starving. Again there is agreement that they are in a weak position as why is Brian or whoever going to help them in the first place?
And I repeat, if I was in their position, I would fall for the Christian spin too. So I am no weaker or stronger than them.

JustHalf wrote:

The only stage where these people would truly be in no position to argue, is where they are subject to forced "conversions", forced into Bible readings to get food, forced, forced, forced. Where a condition of receiving food is to undergo some sort of indoctrination. This is a serious charge and you need to back it up with something more than hearsay and loose argument, or shut up.

Straw man 2. They are not forced conversations, there is no condition of conversion for food. I never said there was. They are simple extremely biased versions of the facts or extremly biased education they are receiving.

JustHalf wrote:

And if this is not the charge you are making, then what on earth is your problem?

You don't appear to know what I am saying.

JustHalf wrote:

It is implicit in honour to do good. The atheist would be bound by his sense of honour.

Let us be clear now. In the hypothetical situation I described, the atheist has two choices:

1. Leave the starving person alone, and let him starve, or
2. Try to convince the starving person of the error of their ways, so that they may live.

There are no other real choices. I am presuming that the atheist gave the starving person the food out of the goodness of his heart. Assuming this (which is entirely reasonable), then do you honestly believe that this same atheist would stand by and watch the man starve out of what he sees as ignorance?

No, he is honour-bound to make the second choice.

It is not his atheism that drives him here, but the goodness of his heart. And the goodness of his heart would require this man to take the second option, or be a disgrace to all that is good.

Ok, firstly we cannot generalise for atheists in the same way we cannot generalise for Christians. Some Christians would believe it is just as important to give food as it is to give the bible, some would think it always more important to give food. Note - my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

However, as there is variance amongst Christians to my food / bible question there would be variance amongst atheists to your question.


Secondly, if the atheist tells them not to give up their food, one must ask why are they doing it? To promote their belief system or to keep the person alive. It can be either or both. Three possible conclusions.
In my question, the Christian who thinks the Bible is just as important as giving a starving person food, there is no need to ask the question why are the doing it, as there is only one conclusion. This Christian believes spreading their belief system is just as important as life itself, it is implicit in the answer.
Your question, is simple a question that asks another question.
It doesn't tell us anything conclusive. It is similar to this type of logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Thirdly, your question is far reomved from the real world, does it ever happen? My question regularly happens. Missionaries all around the world, many of whom as seen in this thread, believe giving food to a starving person is just as important as giving a person a bible.

John Wine

Hello,
I would consider myself a liberal Christian and I would agree with IFX on this issue. Food for a starving person should always come before a Bible.
Interesting debate though. There are some issues the Christian world needs to make clear to the non Christian world as I feel we are alienating a lot of the middle ground. If Christianity is not embracing the middle ground, something is going wrong.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I don't deny theat people have had experiences as you mention. But what is
> the source for those experiences and what is the fruit of them?

The source of these experiences is exactly the same for you as for them -- human brains. And you have convinced yourself that your experiences prove the existence of your god, just as surely as their experiences prove to them, the existence of their god or gods.

The common factor is the human brain and how it works. I know a guy who (when he's off his medication) is convinced that he's Jesus Christ; before that, he believed with total conviction that he was Napoleon. You share with this unfortunate man a total conviction in truth of personal beliefs. Do you think there's any chance that you could be mislead?

> I am not right it is my God who is right.

Hold on there. In between "you" and your god, there is the small matter of a belief that the god exists, and that it's the right one. It is your belief in both of these matters which mediates this truth. Again, do you think there exists the slightest chance that your brain may be misleading you, and that your belief may actually be faulty?

Absolutely not. The fact that I have met Jesus Christ and the fact that He has saved me from some pretty destructive behaviour, the knowledge that I saw the second coming of Christ is as real as the 8cm of snow sitting on th eground outside. I am quite sane and have the ability to recognize that which is real and that which is not.

The dreams that I have of visiting Old Trafford for a match are just that dreams.

The vision I had of the second coming wasn't a dream. it was real and vivid.

robindch

So, what you are saying is that your total confidence in your religion is based upon (a) your total confidence that your senses are reliably reporting the world around you and (b) your total confidence that your brain is correctly interpreting what your senses are reporting?

Excelsior

Robin, on what do you base your total confidence in the non-existence of the Christian God if not the data collected by your senses and the interpretation of said data by your brain?

robindch

> on what do you base your total confidence in the non-existence of the Christian God

I believe that the deity that people who describe themselves as christians imagine they believe in, is virtually impossible because their beliefs are vague, contradictory and unsustainable. The problem is not with the deity, but with people's beliefs concerning the deity.

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist.

This, of course, is quite separate from the fact that the very few common elements of the described deity -- omniscience, infinite love, existence of free will, perfection of the bible, exists "outside of space and time" (etc, etc) -- are contradictory, in the few instances where any solid meaning can be wrung from them anyway. This leaves a belief in god resting on the strength of people's conviction alone. This is not a very solid foundation.

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

So, what you are saying is that your total confidence in your religion is based upon (a) your total confidence that your senses are reliably reporting the world around you and (b) your total confidence that your brain is correctly interpreting what your senses are reporting?

Because I can distinguish that which is real and that which is not.

When you are hit with an overwhelming gut feeling to not get off a bus to go to someones house and find out the next day the very destructive lifestyle that was awaiting, I thank God for warning me.

When teenager is holding a knife to commit suicide and has an unseen physiacl grip on her arm preventing her from doing so. That is reality.

You bet I rely on my senses and God's communication to me, just as you rely on the scientists communication to you and choose to believe a whole load of unprovable theories, because you see all this evidence that points in that direction.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist..

Actaully not. All Christian denominations are quite clear on: the deity of Christ, The Bible being God's word, Jesus' once and for all sacrifice for the atonement of our sins, we look forward to the second coming and eternal fellowship with the Lord.

If the above is not agreed upon, then they would not be a Christian denomination.

robindch wrote:

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

The resurrection of Christ, explainable by some phenomenom?
My daughters healing last spring in the hospital, a phenomenon?

I would agree with you, but that phenomenon is named God.

robindch

> Just as you rely on the scientists communication to you and choose to
> believe a whole load of unprovable theories, because you see all this
> evidence that points in that direction.

...just to remind you: I don't "believe a whole load of unprovable theories". I do tentatively accept the accuracy of various ideas about the world -- gravity, electricity etc -- but only when I've examined the evidence for myself, fully aware that none of them are provable, because the concept has no meaning in science. If I haven't examined any evidence, then I have no opinion on whatever the topic is. But even when I find them accurate, I do not "believe" them in an uncritical religious sense, as you seem to think that I do, because this concept too no meaning in science. And nobody uses it.

And, by the way, I don't quire see whats wrong about tentatively accepting the accuracy of something if the evidence points that way. Isn't that the way that the courts operate, or do you believe that the courts should work without evidence and convict people because other people think they are guilty and not bother looking at the evidence at all?

> Because I can distinguish that which is real and that which is not.

So it's absolutely impossible for anything or anybody to fool you?

robindch

> All Christian denominations are quite clear on: the deity of Christ

Check out the well-known Nestorian Heresy and plenty of other heresies down through the centuries. In fact, the exact divine (or not) nature of Jesus has been one of the most argued-about issues within the thousands of different christian denominations.

Going through the rest of your post, I get the feeling that you didn't really understand what I wrote -- you seem to have difficult separating the form of a religion from its content. You are talking about content. I am talking about form.

BrianCalgary

A few problems here Robin.

1) if you don't accept Christs deity then you can not be a Christian because you are denying who He is. So no Christian denomination has ever denied the deity of Christ.

2) Which proofs do you deem acceptable. You accept proofs of a Big Bang, yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encounters of a livng God.

3) No I can't be fooled on matters relating to my Saviour, because I am His sheep and I recognize His voice.

4)Explain the difference between form and content?

robindch

> So no Christian denomination has ever denied the deity of Christ.

As I said above, there are plenty of denominations who call themselves christian for whom the deity of christ is an open question. It's only in your particular denomination that you are not allowed to question it. They have just as much a right to use the label 'christian' as you do.

> No I can't be fooled on matters relating to my Saviour, because I am His sheep and I recognize His voice.

Just as muslims who have similar experiences to yours attribute it to allah or Mohammed, and Indians who have similar experiences to yours attribute it to Ganesh, Vishnu, Brahma, Siva and others, and other people in other places atrtibute it to their own local god or gods. And yet, everybody still insists that they are right, just as you are, and that they can't be fooled, just as you can't be. And yet everybody says a different thing. Somebody must be wrong, musn't they? Or are you the only person who is completely right in this, and all the millions of people who have had similar experiences elsewhere are all wrong?

> You accept proofs of a Big Bang

Quoting from my message of yesterday evening:

I don't "believe a whole load of unprovable theories". I do tentatively accept the accuracy of various ideas about the world -- gravity, electricity etc -- but only when I've examined the evidence for myself, fully aware that none of them are provable, because the concept has no meaning in science. If I haven't examined any evidence, then I have no opinion on whatever the topic is.

So, just to recap: I do not accept proofs because proofs DO NOT EXIST. I really wish that you and other religious people could make a special effort to understand this point. Or, alternatively, simply explain why it's not understood.

> , yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies
> of their of their encounters of a livng God.

Again, they are not proofs (you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word). They are stories that people tell about experiences that they've had. Experiences which have been received through their senses and interpreted by their (sub-)conscious minds. You are choosing to interpret what your senses have experienced as 'god' and are flatly refusing to accept that it may have had a different cause or a different interpretation.

There has been plenty of interesting research done on these stories that people tell and the experiences that they've had. You can read a short account of it here:

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

You still say that it's impossible for you to make a mistake in any of this? Even though it's your own fallible brain that's doing the experiencing and the interpreting?

4)Explain the difference between form and content?

...when you tell me why you seem to think that accepting evidence is a bad thing.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

I believe that the deity that people who describe themselves as christians imagine they believe in, is virtually impossible because their beliefs are vague, contradictory and unsustainable. The problem is not with the deity, but with people's beliefs concerning the deity.

I have a large circle of friends and a much larger circle of enemies. They all have a fuzzy view of me to some degree and most of their accounts are contradictory. Except my nemesis The Greymalkin who sadly knows everything there is to know about me, of course.

So although my dad and my wife would disagree over some large aspect of my being like say, my temper, they both know me. This is possible because I am not a set of abstract Platonian principles floating out there waiting to be deduced by a person. Christianity, uniquely amongst the major world religions argues that God, like me, is a person.

You don't need to know me perfectly (only God and my number 1 enemy can manage that) to have a vibrant relationship with me.

Robindch wrote:

..in the few instances where any solid meaning can be wrung from them anyway. This leaves a belief in god resting on the strength of people's conviction alone. This is not a very solid foundation.

The Barthian proposition of the knowable person of Christ as the basis for theology, leaves most of these issues by the side of the road. Earlier you said that your criticism was more directed towards individuals belief than the God they believe in and I think that is clear here Robin. You seem to be addressing some late Victorian idea of who God is with the tools of the positivists. It bears little resembelance to the faith I live or share with the Christian communities I live in.

Robin wrote:

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

Anthropological and sociological explanations can go a long way to clarifying the causes of faith but you need to acknowledge the clear logical imperative that a socio-historical anthropological explanation does not rule out the existence of the God or gods there believed in. Your statement is true but your conclusion goes too far.

Let me put it this way; an evolutionary observation of a brain that encourages humans to extrapolate supernatural explanations for events would be perfectly in line with the claims inherent in say, the Christian God. (Please don't read this as an attempt to slip ID in through the back door- I am firmly in philosophical territory here).

Even if you reject that, the sufficiency of "logic", "reason" or any other bright myths of the modern era is severely called into question if they are left foundationless as an Enlightenment Era materialism of the type you embrace tends to do.

robindch

> You don't need to know me perfectly (only God and my number 1
> enemy can manage that) to have a vibrant relationship with me.

Not what I was talking about, as I suspect you know.

> You seem to be addressing some late Victorian idea of who God is with the
> tools of the positivists.

Not really. I'm just dealing with the properties of the deity that you and your religious on this board say they believe in, as extracted in long q+a sessions. I largely agree, though, in your assessment that this is a Victorian view, given that the earlier part of her reign was the period during which religion in began to disestablish itself successfully and began its evolutionary phase as a vibrant decentralized cultural force interested only its own propagation, rather than a static centralized one. Ever wondered, btw, why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

> Even if you reject that, the sufficiency of "logic", "reason" or any other
> bright myths of the modern era is severely called into question if they are
> left foundationless as an Enlightenment Era materialism of the type you
> embrace tends to do.

Lovely sentence. What does it mean? That you think that being reasonable is just for ungodly sissies?

Mr. Logic

robindch wrote:

Ever wondered, btw, why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

That's an interesting one. If the majaority of Christians on this site protestant that merits discussion as statisically it should be the other way around.
What do Protestants feel more motivated to spread the word?

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Not what I was talking about, as I suspect you know.

Of course. You reject this argument because it deals with the content and not the form of religious studies. The only difficulty is that you are incapable of launching any sustained attack on the credibility of Christian belief unless you move out of the territory of religious studies and into theology.

Robin wrote:

Not really ...I largely agree,

So are you addressing the inconsistencies within stated perspectives of individuals who claim to know a personal God, the god of Victorian middle class morality or actually engaging in a theological discussion about the importance of relationship with Jesus?

I don't think you quite know what you intend to do.

Robin wrote:

why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

Back when I moderated the first time, there was a Catholic co-mod. He got tired of the disputes that tend to occur here, as every successive mod has. Perhaps the Roman tradition builds bull**** detectors into her members.

My "lovely sentence" intended to argue that the epistemology you so confidently assert, a kind of naive materialism hiding under the cloth of skepticism has been shown to be wearing nothing. The foundations of individual Christian belief that you lambast are shared by the modernist, Enlightenment myth you proselytise with.

Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

A few problems here Robin.
2) Which proofs do you deem acceptable. You accept proofs of a Big Bang, yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encounters of a livng God.

There are a number of reasons why this one should be ruled out.
Firstly Brian, you do accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encouters with Scientology or Islam, either do we. So it is simple being consistent to do the same with Christianity.

Secondly, this violates the rules of logic, it is anecdotal evidence.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html

Thirdly, it also begs the question whether if you experience / imagine something in your head existing does is it actually exists. If I imagine the big bad wolf and he scares me, does the big bad wolf exist?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Usually for the proof of existence, more than an experience in the one's mind is required. If we assume God exists than we have to assume the Big Bad wolf also does.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I would be interested in a scientific experiement to investigate this sense data but I can't see how one would distinguish between this type of sense data and mild schizophrenia.

robindch

> Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about
> the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your
> conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I'm not saying that mine are any more weighty -- in fact, exactly the opposite and I've posted it twice in the last two days -- are any of you guys reading this? To say it for a third time: my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too) which as far as I can make out are infallible and different from each other.

It's Brian who's insisting that his are weightier than mind and I'd like to know why. Specifically, what I would like to understand is how somebody can assert that it is impossible for them to make a mistake. A response like "I am a sheep" doesn't suggest that much independently-minded thinking has been done about the topic