Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2011, 03:58 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(21-08-2011 06:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 07:01 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 04:51 AM)aurora2020 Wrote:  Yes, Mark, I am actually in Melbourne and it's a fantastic spring day but probably no where near how good it is there Undecided

Thanks for not getting offended! i love Melbourne actually. Was born and raised in Hobart.

Hobart, Tasmania? I have never been but I am studying some fossils collected from there and from a couple of locations in the North and South Sydney Basin.

Yes..Hobart in Tasmania...what are the fossils of? Is that your job? Where do you live?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 04:14 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(20-08-2011 12:28 PM)Sines Wrote:  It's not an issue about whether someone should seek death.

You are correct but...

As soon as the subject turned to suicide, I couldn't resist mentioning the Circumcillions. They would have to be the dopiest Christians ever born on this planet and I think it is worth knowing that such morons existed.

I'd laugh at the silly buggers if their story wasn't so tragic.

Believe nothing you hear and only half what you see
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 05:07 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(21-08-2011 04:14 PM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Circumcillions.

Quick wikipedia check...

Wow, so because Jesus once told Peter to put down his sword, the decided to use clubs. That is grade A classic christian loop-hole abuse. Even worse, actually, because there are several sections where Jesus is okay with swords. So they cherry picked a passage that they had to work around... instead of cherry picking a passage that would have let them do what they wanted.

...

Religious logic in a nutshell, people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 09:21 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(21-08-2011 03:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-08-2011 06:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 07:01 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 04:51 AM)aurora2020 Wrote:  Yes, Mark, I am actually in Melbourne and it's a fantastic spring day but probably no where near how good it is there Undecided

Thanks for not getting offended! i love Melbourne actually. Was born and raised in Hobart.

Hobart, Tasmania? I have never been but I am studying some fossils collected from there and from a couple of locations in the North and South Sydney Basin.

Yes..Hobart in Tasmania...what are the fossils of? Is that your job? Where do you live?

I live in Syracuse, New York. I have fossils from just south of Hobart that are a bivalve known as Eurydesma. I am doing research on them to try and reconstruct seasonal temperatures that they expierenced from Hobart in the south all the way to Bimbadeen/Allandale north of Sydney. The fossils are ~280 million years old. I was hoping to get to come down under this summer to visit the sites but alas, funding from the NSF did not go through. Damn budget cuts.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2011 09:54 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(22-08-2011 09:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2011 03:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-08-2011 06:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 07:01 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 04:51 AM)aurora2020 Wrote:  Yes, Mark, I am actually in Melbourne and it's a fantastic spring day but probably no where near how good it is there Undecided

Thanks for not getting offended! i love Melbourne actually. Was born and raised in Hobart.

Hobart, Tasmania? I have never been but I am studying some fossils collected from there and from a couple of locations in the North and South Sydney Basin.

Yes..Hobart in Tasmania...what are the fossils of? Is that your job? Where do you live?

I live in Syracuse, New York. I have fossils from just south of Hobart that are a bivalve known as Eurydesma. I am doing research on them to try and reconstruct seasonal temperatures that they expierenced from Hobart in the south all the way to Bimbadeen/Allandale north of Sydney. The fossils are ~280 million years old. I was hoping to get to come down under this summer to visit the sites but alas, funding from the NSF did not go through. Damn budget cuts.

Ah....eurydesma hey....by that you would mean a bivalved stationary epifaunal suspension feeder....a CLAM (LOL). I had a sneaking suspicion you were an expert on ancient clams! (LOL)



(21-08-2011 05:07 PM)Sines Wrote:  
(21-08-2011 04:14 PM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Circumcillions.

Quick wikipedia check...

Wow, so because Jesus once told Peter to put down his sword, the decided to use clubs. That is grade A classic christian loop-hole abuse. Even worse, actually, because there are several sections where Jesus is okay with swords. So they cherry picked a passage that they had to work around... instead of cherry picking a passage that would have let them do what they wanted.

...

Religious logic in a nutshell, people.

Interesting! Speaking of religious logic....anyone know why the Amesh don't like buttons or electric razors?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 03:52 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(19-08-2011 10:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mark.

First of all, don't you ever, ever, throw shit in my face. I'm wishing YOU peace and love and empathy. OK. I hope that YOU find it in your life. I’m not saying I’m a fucking hippy. Secondly, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any argument. STOP making pronouncements about me on a personal level. For one, YOU'RE WRONG because you don't know me. And for two, it has nothing to do with anything. I have no problem talking to you, but I have a huge issue with that sort of thing.

Next. Don't fucking ask for my input and tell me that you fucking invite it and then have a hissy fit and attack me on a personal level when I give it. That’s some bullshit, brother.

Now, if you can handle all of that, we can continue. If not, then just stop reading right now and we'll be done with it.

Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean.

---

OK. Let's put that business behind us.

I feel that you have made a lot of assumptions about my tone and about me and that they've led you to some place where you seem to think that I'm some kind of ranting lunatic who, if I was standing in front of you, would be 'filling you full of lead', pardner. I'm not. When you read what I write, you seem to think I'm screaming or something. I'm not.

Now, if you’re reading from this point on, understand that in terms of tone, if I was talking to you face to face, I’d be sitting and very calmly speaking to you. I’m not trying to attack you, I’m not being aggressive, I’m just talking.

There’s no reason for you to once again extend the hand of friendship because I have never batted it away.

The reason that saying the media is full of Christian propaganda is meaningless is the same reason that saying the media is controlled by Jews is meaningless. I’ve been talking a lot about the use of hyperbole and this is a perfect example of why I think it’s problematic. One can’t use these type of blanket non-descript statements in rational conversation. Not only are they devoid of fact, but they spread wrong ideas.

Quote: Re "Personally, I think that the good parts of religion (primarily its collected wisdom) outweigh the benefits of smoking."

And you accuse me of making meaningless comments! LOL

I offered a personal opinion. I said “I think this”. I can say, “Personally, I think getting kicked in the cock with steel toed boots is wonderful,” because I’m just saying what I think.

That’s very different than saying, “The media is full of Christian propaganda.” You’re making an objective statement about the nature of something.

Quote:RE "This argument holds no weight with me. It's nothing more than saying, "well they did it!" That just leads to a race to the bottom."

You've misunderstood my point...I'm adding balance to the issue. Also, I don't HAVE to prove everything I have to say. I have a right to express an opinion without being hauled over the coals by yourself.

I don’t know what you’re going on about here.

You presented an argument that I’ve heard many times before. I said that said argument holds no weight with my and I explained why. If you want to say that you use it to add balance and that I missed that point, fine. We can argue that point. But that’s been drowned out by this business of you saying you don’t have to prove everything you say, which I don’t see how it relates to this. And I hardly see how I dragged you over the coals.

Quote:Re "First of all, don't pass the rant buck over to Jesus." Mate ...I can do what I want. It's called free speech. If you disagree, you need to say why, not just order me around like some school teacher.

Can we leave free speech out of this? I obviously wasn’t donning my jack boots and throwing you into a cell on Robben Island.

We were talking about how I had felt like you had ranted and I felt that you deflected that but accusing Jesus of ranting. If you want to accuse Jesus of ranting, that’s fine. I just felt that you were passing the buck instead of talking directly to me. I’m not saying that you had to accept my accusation of ranting, but that you dodged the question by slagging another.

Quote:Re "Secondly, we've had issue before with you posting out of context quotes from the Bible."
Who are "we?" , and if you think the quotes are out of context, once again you need to say why. I'm all ears.

We is you and I.

We had a looooong conversation about it that spanned several pages and personal messages. I figured that you’d remember that and I figured we didn’t need to get into another long ass conversation about it because you knew where I stood.

I think they’re out of context because they’re out of context. All of those lines are parts of larger passages. You pull the lines from those passages, post them and then offer your interpreted meaning. But often, within their original context, their meaning is quite different. I demonstrated that once by randomly taking one of the quotes you had posted and reposting it in context, showing that it had quite a different meaning when viewed in its larger context.

Quote:Re "Third, that's ridiculous on many levels. No Atheist threatens to burn people in hell because they don't believe in hell. Jesus didn't say he'd burn people in hell, he said that hell was a consequence."

Mate...Jesus quite clearly threatened people with eternal hell fire. No matter which translation of the Bible one reads this is very obviously the case. You are playing word games and missing the point of the argument.

Let’s be specific. Jesus never said anything remotely like, “I’m going to take you to hell and I’m going to torture you there.” What he did say was along the line of, “Hell exists and it’s a shitty place you don’t want to go there. If you jump on my bandwagon, you get to go to heaven, a much nicer place, instead. If you don’t, I ain’t got no sympathy for you, yer going to hell. I leave the choice to you.”

I think there’s a difference between saying, I’m trying to save you from something shitty, and, I am going to do something TO you if you don’t play ball. I also think that difference is important.

Quote:Re "The notion that no Atheist ever threatens to kill people is ludicrous. It's puerile ‘our shit don't stink’ nonsense." "

Mate...it is not nonsense. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god. No one has ever murdered or threatened to murder someone because they (the murderer) doesn't believe in god. Some Christians, on the other hand, have murdered or threatened to murder others over the centuries because they (the ones to be murdered) don't believe in the Christian God.

You said, “He threatens to kill people or burn them in hell forever. No atheist ever does that.”

I said that it’s ridiculous to suggest that no Atheist has ever threatened to kill people. And it is. So if an Atheist says that only Theists threaten to kill people and that Atheists do not, then that’s the equivalent of an Atheist saying, our shit don’t stink. It’s a bold statement that is patently untrue.

The word never is being used here and never is a strong word. Never statements need to be scrutinised.

An Atheist can murder a Theist because the Theist believes in God just as easily as a Theist can murder an Atheist because the Atheist doesn’t.

Quote:I suspect you are not self confident enough to express what your real issue with me is.

Well, this is the second time that you’ve suggested that I have an inability to do something and it’s the second time that you’ve misjudged me by a pretty wide margin.

I don’t really carry secret agendas. I mean I’m human, but by and large, as a person, I don’t like to lie but I do like to say what I mean and mean what I say.

I’ve been pretty clear about what my issue with you is. You’re a very intelligent guy who can sometimes make pronouncements that are outrageous and inflammatory (which is it’s own issue) and then support those statements with questionable sources (the other issue). When you say things that I consider outrageous or inflammatory, I tell you straight up (which is not to say that that’s all you do, I frequently say that what you’ve said is reasonable or that I agree with you). If I think that your sources are questionable, or if I think they are lacking, I tell you straight up. When you came after me as a person, or when I felt that you went after someone else as a person, I told you straight up. I hold no ill will towards you, nor do I have any secret opinion about you as a person.

So stop assuming the worst with me. I have no vendetta against you. And stop assuming things about me personally because you’ve been pretty wrong about me and it gets in the way. I’m blunt. I swear. That’s all that’s going on.

ON EDIT: I just had a quick little think. What I realised is that I don’t think of things in terms of a state of being and that I generally assume that others are the same. But others are not always the same and I realised that you might fall into that category.

So, for example, if I say that an idea is puerile, I’m not saying that you ARE puerile. Or if is say that something is ridiculous, I’m not saying that you ARE ridiculous. I’m making no commentary on your state of being. If I licked a wall socket and someone said, that was foolish, they’d be right. But I would assume that they’re not saying that I AM foolish. Fool is not my state of being.

So obviously where I’ve said I felt that you were acting in a specific way, like bullying, I was saying I thought that you did that thing or acted that way. But if I react to a statement and say that it’s ridiculous, or puerile or silly, I’m not saying that you are these things.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Ok Matt....its been a few days and I've missed you. We have some good talks. Lets start up again. I will be very careful to not get "personal" and I hope you will do the same. Gee, there's a lot to cover . Here goes....

Re the media and Christianity....I think most people would agree that the pope, bishops, preachers and churches get a "good run" in the media. There are many Christian television and radio stations. If you look at any city in the USA on google earth and press "churches" they are everywhere. These churches advertise. In Australia churches run maybe 20-30% of schools. The internet is loaded with Christian propaganda. Now I don't have exact figures on all of this, yet I don't think too many people , apart from your good self, would argue with the generalisation that the media is full of Christian propaganda. I hear loud and clear that you think my statement is hyperbole, but I respectfully disagree. We could have long discussions about the meaning of "full of" or "media" or "propaganda" or "Christian" but sorry I can't be bothered. I will change my wording to
"in my opinion the media is full of Christian propaganda".

Re my "ranting" ....I hear it that you felt I was ranting. Sorry I didn't acknowledge that I understood you thought i was ranting. I am seriously interested in this because I don't want some people thinking i am ranting, so tell me where and why so that I learn.

Re "atheists/never etc". Ok...my point was that an atheist doesn't kill or threaten to kill people because of his atheism. It is true that atheists have killed people, but not because they (the killer) is an atheist ( although I guess it is just possible that has happened, so maybe 'never' is too strong a word). Literally millions of people have, on the other hand, been killed because of murderous Christian beliefs ie they murdered because of their Christian beliefs.

Re..."can sometimes make pronouncements that are outrageous and inflammatory (which is it’s own issue) and then support those statements with questionable sources (the other issue)" I hear it loud and clear that you think some of my pronouncements are outrageous and inflammatory. That is your subjective opinion, I hear it, and I would like to know where, so that I can consider it. The same goes for "questionable sources". You will have to be specific, otherwise I'm just guessing, ok?

Re "When you came after me as a person, or when I felt that you went after someone else as a person"... I'm mentioning this so that you don't think I'm ignoring it. I just point blank disagree with you about me "going after" anyone...so shall we just agree to disagree about this?

Re " I hold no ill will towards you, nor do I have any secret opinion about you as a person." I hear that. Thankyou. Ditto.

Re "So obviously where I’ve said I felt that you were acting in a specific way, like bullying, I was saying I thought that you did that thing or acted that way. But if I react to a statement and say that it’s ridiculous, or puerile or silly, I’m not saying that you are these things." Ok...I hear that. I'll try to remember that LOL.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 07:32 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
Eurydesma is a stationary epifaunal suspension feeding bivalve (clam). I am certainly not an expert on them however.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 10:02 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
Hey, Mark.

I'm glad that you've switched your stance from declaring that the media is full of Christian propaganda to thinking that the media is full of Christian propaganda.

I think that tons of people other than my good self would argue against the idea that the media is full of Christian propaganda and for the same reasons they'd argue against the idea that the media is controlled by Jews. Indisputably, there is Christian propaganda in the media. Indisputably, there are Jews working in media. But full of and controlled by, those are leaps I think many are unwilling to make. It is also my opinion that statements like those are meaningless, insupportable, outrageous and inflammatory. The parameters of the statements are vague, there’s no empirical evidence to support them, I feel that they are intolerable, shocking, injurious and slanderous towards the peoples involved and that statements such as those arouse feelings of anger and hostility towards the peoples involved by playing on the emotions of the listener.

As far as ranting, it's a dead issue to me. But if you're curious, go back and check out what I wrote on the matter.

I fail to see how an Atheist can't kill for their Atheism. I can quite easily imagine an Atheist killing a Theist simply for being a Theist. I also fail to see how the well documented fact that the religious have killed, a lot, to advance their religions adds to or subtracts from the argument that Atheists can or cannot kill to advance Atheism. If it’s a question of frequency, frequency is contextual. If the possibility exists then that is, to me, what is of concern because if the situation changes, then the frequency can change along with it.

Sometimes my assessment of the outrageous or inflammatory nature of your statements is subjective but sometimes it's objective. I have specified in the past which statements I thought we're either of those things and I will specify in future as well. To be clear for right now, I'm not saying that you are an outrageous or inflammatory person. You are much more than that and it would be dismissive of me to reduce your being to those two things, therefore, I will not.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 11:34 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(24-08-2011 10:02 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mark.

I'm glad that you've switched your stance from declaring that the media is full of Christian propaganda to thinking that the media is full of Christian propaganda.

I think that tons of people other than my good self would argue against the idea that the media is full of Christian propaganda and for the same reasons they'd argue against the idea that the media is controlled by Jews. Indisputably, there is Christian propaganda in the media. Indisputably, there are Jews working in media. But full of and controlled by, those are leaps I think many are unwilling to make. It is also my opinion that statements like those are meaningless, insupportable, outrageous and inflammatory. The parameters of the statements are vague, there’s no empirical evidence to support them, I feel that they are intolerable, shocking, injurious and slanderous towards the peoples involved and that statements such as those arouse feelings of anger and hostility towards the peoples involved by playing on the emotions of the listener.

As far as ranting, it's a dead issue to me. But if you're curious, go back and check out what I wrote on the matter.

I fail to see how an Atheist can't kill for their Atheism. I can quite easily imagine an Atheist killing a Theist simply for being a Theist. I also fail to see how the well documented fact that the religious have killed, a lot, to advance their religions adds to or subtracts from the argument that Atheists can or cannot kill to advance Atheism. If it’s a question of frequency, frequency is contextual. If the possibility exists then that is, to me, what is of concern because if the situation changes, then the frequency can change along with it.

Sometimes my assessment of the outrageous or inflammatory nature of your statements is subjective but sometimes it's objective. I have specified in the past which statements I thought we're either of those things and I will specify in future as well. To be clear for right now, I'm not saying that you are an outrageous or inflammatory person. You are much more than that and it would be dismissive of me to reduce your being to those two things, therefore, I will not.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Hi Matt, thanks for your reply.

Firstly , I have never commented on Jewish ownership of the media. Not a single word! You bought the topic up.

So...all I wrote was "the media is full of Christian propaganda" , subsequently reworded to "in my opinion the media is full of Christian propaganda".

I'm sorry, I honestly fail to see why this statement is "intolerable, shocking, injurious and slanderous towards the peoples involved and that statements such as those arouse feelings of anger and hostility towards the peoples involved by playing on the emotions of the listener."

Am I missing something here? Does anyone else reading this agree or disagree with ghost? Um...anyone else out there shocked or offended?

I agree an atheist CAN kill for atheism, but the point is they DON"T. Some Christians undeniably have in the past.

Thanks for saying I'm not outrageous or offensive.

Peace, love and empathy to you too, Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 03:31 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
While an atheist can kill for reason that involve his non-belief in god, non-belief in god is insufficient.

I hate having to talk about ought-is, because it's annoyingly philosophical, but it helps here. As the old saying goes, you can't get an ought from an is. And here is where christianity and atheism differ. Atheism is simply an 'is' statement. Or an is not, as the case may be. At most, for a strong atheist, it's a statement "God does not exist". There is no 'ought' associated with it. Nihilism and Secular Humanism can both come from this factual statement, but being personal philosophies, they require the persons own input on how they will let "God does not exist" affect their actions in life.

Christianity, on the other hand, is not just "God exists and so does Jesus". Christianity includes a philosophy on how one should act. It's more than just a statement about what is true. And that's why one can kill "In the name of Christianity". Remember, part of christian belief is that the bible is the infallible word of god. And if that infallible word tells you to kill people (The Old Testament is pretty big on killing, and Jesus said that none of the laws of the OT are over with), then it is not unreasonable for a person to kill, because of the personal philosophy that told them to do what god says, and that the bible is gods word.

This isn't me, as an atheist, trying to squirm out of being related to other atheist monsters. I have many allegiances that I do have to justify and explain. I'm a humanist and libertarian. These are both pretty big parts of my personal philosophy. Hell, I'm in favor of the war in the middle east (I pretty much agree with Hitchens), and I recognize that far too many of the other people in favor of it are in favor of it for the wrong reasons.

The point is, atheism is not a philosophy. It is a fact. This fact filters through my philosophy, and may contribute to how I decide to act, but then so does the fact that I find that oreo cookies are really tasty. I can't eat oreos in the name of oreos. I eat them in the name of me loving to eat tasty things. Likewise, I don't oppose religion in the name of atheism, I oppose religion in the name of rationality and humanism.

Also, I'm sure Fred Phelps must hate oreos. The bastard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: