Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(11-10-2013 06:51 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  In such a case, why call yourself Christian? ... It just seems so... dishonest.

tl;dr - If the Bible isn't a literal account, then being Christian makes no sense.

I see nothing dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Christian Atheist. Anymore than I find anything dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Buddhist Atheist, or a Gwynnies Atheist. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-10-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 03:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 06:51 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  In such a case, why call yourself Christian? ... It just seems so... dishonest.

tl;dr - If the Bible isn't a literal account, then being Christian makes no sense.

I see nothing dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Christian Atheist. Anymore than I find anything dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Buddhist Atheist, or a Gwynnies Atheist. Tongue

I agree with all but the last point. I am a gnostic Gwenyth as I have seen much proof of her existence. I am however agnostic towards any claims of divinity by or for Miss Paltrow.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
12-10-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 03:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 06:51 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  In such a case, why call yourself Christian? ... It just seems so... dishonest.

tl;dr - If the Bible isn't a literal account, then being Christian makes no sense.

I see nothing dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Christian Atheist. Anymore than I find anything dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Buddhist Atheist, or a Gwynnies Atheist. Tongue

Maybe not, but it's fucking weird. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
12-10-2013, 04:01 PM
Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 01:31 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 12:13 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  The NT isn't clear about anything at all. And historically there is no "core" set of beliefs within Christianity, Christians have disagreed about everything there is to disagree about, including if Jesus even existed at all.

I respectfully disagree, but happy to discuss further. Maybe I should clarify - I think the bible makes some truth claims, and I think to deal with those truth claims a chrisitian must either choose a path of ignorance or to abandon their intellect.

When Liberals claim the bible doesn't endorse slavery, for example, they are favoring the acceptable view over the reality. When fundies admit slavery is endorsed, but then claim that we have to view it in "context," or that it was not "bad" slavery but good slavery, they abandon their intellect. In my view slavery is wrong period, (wait for PJ to jump in here) and the only way you can justify what the bible says is to ignore it, or to ignore you intellect.

The point being, I think a Fundie read of the NT is more in line with its intent, and Paul's expressed purpose in writing most of it, than the Liberal's "modified" read.

Cheers

Okay, I see now and good point. A man who tries to reconcile his faith with reason winds up cleaving his mind two. The further a man follows reason, the further he moves away from his faith. If he goes all in toward reason he becomes an atheist. If he goes all in toward faith, he becomes a psychopath whom no one wants to be around and will avoid like the plague. Liberal Christians try to live in two worlds, and while utterly dishonest, are safer than true Christians.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Crimson Flyboy's post
12-10-2013, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 04:34 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 03:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I see nothing dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Christian Atheist. Anymore than I find anything dishonest or inconsistent or irrational or nonsensical about calling myself a Buddhist Atheist, or a Gwynnies Atheist. Tongue

I agree with all but the last point. I am a gnostic Gwenyth as I have seen much proof of her existence. I am however agnostic towards any claims of divinity by or for Miss Paltrow.

I have no direct evidence for the existence of the Gwynnies. Most of what I've seen comes from the Gospel According to Cantor who very well might be a shill assigned by the Jews in charge of Hollywood to come up with an antidote to this outta control Jesus bullshit. "Sure, Johnny'll give it a go. How 'bout this?" "Yeah, get that shit over to the CGI guys asap." ... But in the interest of self-preservation I'm also reserving judgment on the divinity of the Paltrow. Big Grin

[Image: gwynnie.jpg]

P.S. This post was inspired by an excellent provocative post by Doc Mark over on his blog. Was Christianity Roman Government Propaganda?

(12-10-2013 03:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe not, but it's fucking weird. Consider

We prefer "touched". It's less pejorative and more accurate. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-10-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(11-10-2013 11:23 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  
kingchosen Wrote:No.

It's not that black and white.

I think it is, though maybe I'm not clear on what I mean.

I don't mean to say that only Christians who believe in magic Jesus are real Christians, or that belief in Adam and Eve are mandatory beliefs for Christians. The point was that the only source for Christian's knowledge about God or Jesus comes from the Bible, and the stories that explain it involve magic that so many modern Christians reject. From employing the scientific method, you'll find out that the great flood never happened, and that a lot of other stories didn't either. Others also conflict with well-documented, cross-referenced history.

So, assuming someone doesn't believe in all the stories that conflict with science and history (ie. almost every story I know of except for the ones that involve non-magic Jesus and his disciples), then everything in the Bible that reveals the nature of God is a fabrication of man.

If the stories that tell us what God said or did are fabrications, then we have nothing to go on for knowledge about God. How do we know what God wants of us? We don't. All we have are fictional stories. Everything that is Christianity is built on those stories; the creation story, sins, God's miracles and punishments... It lays out a picture of what God did, what he is like, and what he wants us to do. We only know those things if the stories are true. If they aren't, we don't know them.

In that case all you have is a book written by men who never saw or heard from God, had no historical examples of God to share, and who just wrote down what they thought the creator of the universe was like. One giant, multi-author opinion piece.

Either the Bible is accurate and we know what God is like through real events, or the Bible is not accurate, and we have nothing upon which to base our beliefs. Without the stories being historical accounts, everything we say we know about God would be baseless.

*note: I mean "we" as in people in general

Well said. The bible, the basis of belief, is bollocks, so god concept is bollocks too.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 03:01 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  ...
St Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the 4th century and is one of the 8 founding Doctors of the Church, didn't believe that the creation of earth happened in 7 days. Although to be fair he thought it happened all at once.
...

Ah yes, the good ol' days of the 4th century.

A time when the ability to speculate and assert were the talents required to become a 'doctor'.

I am thankful that we live in more enlightened times.
[Image: William-Lane-Craig.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
12-10-2013, 08:35 PM
Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 06:15 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:01 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  ...
St Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the 4th century and is one of the 8 founding Doctors of the Church, didn't believe that the creation of earth happened in 7 days. Although to be fair he thought it happened all at once.
...

Ah yes, the good ol' days of the 4th century.

A time when the ability to speculate and assert were the talents required to become a 'doctor'.

I am thankful that we live in more enlightened times.
[Image: William-Lane-Craig.jpg]

Craig would have fit in well in the 4th century.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 09:28 PM by Elesjei.)
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 03:01 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The way I see it is that you are equating the bible as being only a historical work. There are many aspects to the bible that are figurative or allegorical. The entire book of Job is considered to be a giant parable of sorts. Also Jesus regularly used stories to show who God was.

And that's the point. If the stories are allegorical, how does the story-teller know what God is like?

If God actually smote Jim-Bob for homosexuality, then we'd know that he disproves of homosexuality. But when the stories aren't historical, and the smiting of Jim-Bob never occurred, then how the hell do we know that God doesn't approve of homosexuality?

All we are left with are the words of a story-teller whose opinions carry no weight, since they are bereft of evidence if he has no actual events to draw conclusions from.

It's like me declaring that God likes short shorts. How do I know this? Well, here's a story I made up to explain God's feelings about short shorts.

Not exactly evidence of anything. That's why, without the Bible being factual, there isn't really anything to go on for the religion. Being a part of it is more absurd when you consider the stories to be allegorical. It's the same with every religion, really, whether the stories are oral or written.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
13-10-2013, 12:50 AM
Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(12-10-2013 09:24 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:01 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The way I see it is that you are equating the bible as being only a historical work. There are many aspects to the bible that are figurative or allegorical. The entire book of Job is considered to be a giant parable of sorts. Also Jesus regularly used stories to show who God was.

And that's the point. If the stories are allegorical, how does the story-teller know what God is like?

If God actually smote Jim-Bob for homosexuality, then we'd know that he disproves of homosexuality. But when the stories aren't historical, and the smiting of Jim-Bob never occurred, then how the hell do we know that God doesn't approve of homosexuality?

All we are left with are the words of a story-teller whose opinions carry no weight, since they are bereft of evidence if he has no actual events to draw conclusions from.

It's like me declaring that God likes short shorts. How do I know this? Well, here's a story I made up to explain God's feelings about short shorts.

Not exactly evidence of anything. That's why, without the Bible being factual, there isn't really anything to go on for the religion. Being a part of it is more absurd when you consider the stories to be allegorical. It's the same with every religion, really, whether the stories are oral or written.

And that's why Christians will never admit that the bible is non-historical, no matter how much they know it's true.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: