Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2011, 09:56 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(06-08-2011 03:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The issue is this. Show me one Christian doctrine that says die as quickly as possible. So you can say they should think X all you want, but they don't.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the bible says that you should die as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure there's no scripture to back up that idea. We're just arguing about how logical it would be to welcome death if it were, in every conceivable way, better than life.

Remember the Heaven's Gate cult? I say "remember" because they don't exist anymore - all of the members drank cyanide and arsenic until dead. Because there was nobody left to spread their message, the religion died. Doesn't this seem like a logical reason for a religion to argue that suicide is a bad idea? If all the Christians suddenly died today, it's unlikely that the religion would continue... not impossible, but unlikely, due to a huge lack of missionaries and preachers.

In the interest of weighing evidence, is it more likely that Christianity teaches that suicide is wrong because the bible says so (do you have a scripture reference that refers to suicide as sinful?) or because it doesn't wish to die out? I'm not as interested in what you believe about your position on this issue as why you believe it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 06:21 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(17-08-2011 03:30 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(17-08-2011 01:46 PM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 02:25 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I just watched a documentary about the horrific wrong-way highway crash in New York two years ago, where 8 people were killed, including 4 kids. In one heartbreaking scene, a witness tears up talking about how he tried to revive one of the little girls who died. He kept praying, "Jesus, make her wake up!" But she didn't.

Now this man is evidently a Christian, and if you asked him he'd probably say the little girl is in a "better place" and is going to spend eternity with God etc. etc. That's presumably what he believes. But if he does, why is he crying? Isn't it a good thing the girl got to heaven sooner rather than later, so that she didn't have to spend more time in this imperfect world but began her beautiful eternal life asap? In fact, under these assumptions isn't mourning a selfish activity? We're just thinking of the pain we the living feel rather than celebrating the good fortune of the ones who have been granted a shortcut to God's side.

But the guy does mourn, and I suspect it's because deep down he doesn't believe his religion's crap about the afterlife any more than you or I do. Death really is the end, and this little girl's life ended way too soon, which is a tragedy. He might not be able to articulate that, but in his heart he knows it, and that's why he cries.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

Do you know he would say that? Was the girl a Christian? He might not have known if she was. Besides that weeping for this little girl did not contradict his belief. He was sad that he would not see this little girl for some time is a possible explanation. This grief could have just stemmed from a sadness that sin is in the world. And If I were to tell you there was a lady whose husband got hit by a car in front of her when an ambulance arrived one man reported her saying while standing over him. "Let your will be done Lord" The man died later and she cried saying she wished she could be with him. then I saw a video of a family just after their father had died in a tornado standing over one of his children. The news asked the son how he felt about it the reply was amazing very much like "Dad would have wan't to die that way and hes in a better place any way so I am sad that I will miss him but he is in a better place" Christians have died for their faith in moslim countries in communist ones they have been tortured and killed yet they remain faithful till the end.
http://www.persecution.com/ I mean I don't see the point of this post when you see and hear about things like this. Or Gen.Jackson for exampl...

First of all, I see you joined today. Welcome to the forum. We don't have a lot of defenders of traditional religion here, and outside perspectives--if they're thoughtful--add to the discussion.

Let me address some of your points.

I tried to make it clear I was not criticizing the man for mourning the girl. Quite the opposite. He's a human being. The little girl's death was a tragic waste. Of course he should mourn. Any decent person would. My question, rather, was whether mourning someone's death, if you're a Bible-believing Christian, is consistent with your beliefs about the afterlife.

Having read what people said in the previous pages (I hope you did too) and thinking about it some more, I've come to a clearer understanding of where I think the inconsistency lies.

Why do we mourn someone's death? Here are some possible reasons:

A. Personal loss. A loved one, or someone else we care about, is gone. We're bereft. There's a hole in our lives. We miss the person more than words can say.

B. Empathy for others' loss. We anticipate, or observe first-hand, how devastated the deceased person's loved ones are, and we feel for them.

C. Loss for the world. The person brightened the lives of others and/or contributed positively to the world. Now that positive force is gone. We'll never know what more they could have done or contributed had they lived. (Schubert died at 31, one of the great losses to the human race. Janis Joplin died at 27.)

D. Sympathy for a bad death. The person suffered greatly before he/she died--through illness, through accident, through personal torment . . . Decent people feel the pain of their fellow creatures and empathize with them.

E. Tragedy of a life cut short. The person died too young, before fully experiencing the wonder of life on earth.

For someone who believes in heaven and also believes that the deceased is now there, it seems to me A through D are underlying reasons for mourning that are consistent with those beliefs. But I don't see how E is. If you truly think the little girl is in an infinitely better place right now, it doesn't make sense for you to say, "What a pity she didn't have the experience of living out her life." She's got the better deal: more heaven, way less suffering on earth.

One last thing: Your remark about the man not knowing whether the girl was a Christian leads me to think you might be considering the possibility he was upset because he didn't know whether she was "saved" or not. And of course unsaved people go to hell, not heaven. I have no idea if that was in his mind, but I personally find that kind of thinking repulsive.

ADDENDUM: Another possible reasoning for mourning is that deep down, we're really mourning for ourselves.

Hi cufflink, just thought i'd say thanks for your nicely logical points (A-E). And your appendum. You don't seem to have drawn a response...so i just wanted you to know I got a lot from what you wrote.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 10:19 PM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(18-08-2011 06:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi cufflink, just thought i'd say thanks for your nicely logical points (A-E). And your appendum. You don't seem to have drawn a response...so i just wanted you to know I got a lot from what you wrote.

Thanks, Mark. I appreciate that.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 07:18 AM
 
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(17-08-2011 03:30 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(17-08-2011 01:46 PM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 02:25 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I just watched a documentary about the horrific wrong-way highway crash in New York two years ago, where 8 people were killed, including 4 kids. In one heartbreaking scene, a witness tears up talking about how he tried to revive one of the little girls who died. He kept praying, "Jesus, make her wake up!" But she didn't.

Now this man is evidently a Christian, and if you asked him he'd probably say the little girl is in a "better place" and is going to spend eternity with God etc. etc. That's presumably what he believes. But if he does, why is he crying? Isn't it a good thing the girl got to heaven sooner rather than later, so that she didn't have to spend more time in this imperfect world but began her beautiful eternal life asap? In fact, under these assumptions isn't mourning a selfish activity? We're just thinking of the pain we the living feel rather than celebrating the good fortune of the ones who have been granted a shortcut to God's side.

But the guy does mourn, and I suspect it's because deep down he doesn't believe his religion's crap about the afterlife any more than you or I do. Death really is the end, and this little girl's life ended way too soon, which is a tragedy. He might not be able to articulate that, but in his heart he knows it, and that's why he cries.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

Do you know he would say that? Was the girl a Christian? He might not have known if she was. Besides that weeping for this little girl did not contradict his belief. He was sad that he would not see this little girl for some time is a possible explanation. This grief could have just stemmed from a sadness that sin is in the world. And If I were to tell you there was a lady whose husband got hit by a car in front of her when an ambulance arrived one man reported her saying while standing over him. "Let your will be done Lord" The man died later and she cried saying she wished she could be with him. then I saw a video of a family just after their father had died in a tornado standing over one of his children. The news asked the son how he felt about it the reply was amazing very much like "Dad would have wan't to die that way and hes in a better place any way so I am sad that I will miss him but he is in a better place" Christians have died for their faith in moslim countries in communist ones they have been tortured and killed yet they remain faithful till the end.
http://www.persecution.com/ I mean I don't see the point of this post when you see and hear about things like this. Or Gen.Jackson for exampl...

First of all, I see you joined today. Welcome to the forum. We don't have a lot of defenders of traditional religion here, and outside perspectives--if they're thoughtful--add to the discussion.

Let me address some of your points.

I tried to make it clear I was not criticizing the man for mourning the girl. Quite the opposite. He's a human being. The little girl's death was a tragic waste. Of course he should mourn. Any decent person would. My question, rather, was whether mourning someone's death, if you're a Bible-believing Christian, is consistent with your beliefs about the afterlife.

Having read what people said in the previous pages (I hope you did too) and thinking about it some more, I've come to a clearer understanding of where I think the inconsistency lies.

Why do we mourn someone's death? Here are some possible reasons:

A. Personal loss. A loved one, or someone else we care about, is gone. We're bereft. There's a hole in our lives. We miss the person more than words can say.

B. Empathy for others' loss. We anticipate, or observe first-hand, how devastated the deceased person's loved ones are, and we feel for them.

C. Loss for the world. The person brightened the lives of others and/or contributed positively to the world. Now that positive force is gone. We'll never know what more they could have done or contributed had they lived. (Schubert died at 31, one of the great losses to the human race. Janis Joplin died at 27.)

D. Sympathy for a bad death. The person suffered greatly before he/she died--through illness, through accident, through personal torment . . . Decent people feel the pain of their fellow creatures and empathize with them.

E. Tragedy of a life cut short. The person died too young, before fully experiencing the wonder of life on earth.

For someone who believes in heaven and also believes that the deceased is now there, it seems to me A through D are underlying reasons for mourning that are consistent with those beliefs. But I don't see how E is. If you truly think the little girl is in an infinitely better place right now, it doesn't make sense for you to say, "What a pity she didn't have the experience of living out her life." She's got the better deal: more heaven, way less suffering on earth.

One last thing: Your remark about the man not knowing whether the girl was a Christian leads me to think you might be considering the possibility he was upset because he didn't know whether she was "saved" or not. And of course unsaved people go to hell, not heaven. I have no idea if that was in his mind, but I personally find that kind of thinking repulsive.

ADDENDUM: Another possible reasoning for mourning is that deep down, we're really mourning for ourselves.
I will admit I have not read ALL the pages before this one but a great deal of them. As said pain and suffering are a result of sin in the world and it is a sad thing that the consequences of it things like this happen. Jesus wept at the tomb for several reasons many can tell you one of which for the people who were weeping. For their grief ,that we a humans have to watch our loved ones go away and we miss them. Sometimes they don't go to a better place. Well maybe I should give you an example. I remember when my grandmother who was a Christian died I wasn't really sad because as far as I knew she was in a better place. I did cry because my dad started crying (she was his mom) and I thought about how much he might miss her thinking of when he was young and what she did for him. So I did cry a little but not because she died. Huh Repulsive! I should think he would be sad. Wouldn't you cry if someone you knew died and suffered that type of punishment! Just because she was a little girl does not mean she was exempt of punishment for the sins that all of us do every day. Also crying can be the result of four things things sadness ,intense pain, happiness , and emotional stress. It could have been more than just crying for sadness sake.

Now yes I did just join the forums and am happy that I am welcomedSmile. If you are wondering I found the site through a debate on YouTube on creation a link to this site was put up during the debate. It sent me to the Bible contradictions and atrocities pages. I went down the list (not to be rude) but on each one it I nearly laughed at the atheist contradictions. I then registered so that I could defend what I believe.
Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 07:39 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(19-08-2011 07:18 AM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  
(17-08-2011 03:30 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(17-08-2011 01:46 PM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 02:25 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I just watched a documentary about the horrific wrong-way highway crash in New York two years ago, where 8 people were killed, including 4 kids. In one heartbreaking scene, a witness tears up talking about how he tried to revive one of the little girls who died. He kept praying, "Jesus, make her wake up!" But she didn't.

Now this man is evidently a Christian, and if you asked him he'd probably say the little girl is in a "better place" and is going to spend eternity with God etc. etc. That's presumably what he believes. But if he does, why is he crying? Isn't it a good thing the girl got to heaven sooner rather than later, so that she didn't have to spend more time in this imperfect world but began her beautiful eternal life asap? In fact, under these assumptions isn't mourning a selfish activity? We're just thinking of the pain we the living feel rather than celebrating the good fortune of the ones who have been granted a shortcut to God's side.

But the guy does mourn, and I suspect it's because deep down he doesn't believe his religion's crap about the afterlife any more than you or I do. Death really is the end, and this little girl's life ended way too soon, which is a tragedy. He might not be able to articulate that, but in his heart he knows it, and that's why he cries.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

Do you know he would say that? Was the girl a Christian? He might not have known if she was. Besides that weeping for this little girl did not contradict his belief. He was sad that he would not see this little girl for some time is a possible explanation. This grief could have just stemmed from a sadness that sin is in the world. And If I were to tell you there was a lady whose husband got hit by a car in front of her when an ambulance arrived one man reported her saying while standing over him. "Let your will be done Lord" The man died later and she cried saying she wished she could be with him. then I saw a video of a family just after their father had died in a tornado standing over one of his children. The news asked the son how he felt about it the reply was amazing very much like "Dad would have wan't to die that way and hes in a better place any way so I am sad that I will miss him but he is in a better place" Christians have died for their faith in moslim countries in communist ones they have been tortured and killed yet they remain faithful till the end.
http://www.persecution.com/ I mean I don't see the point of this post when you see and hear about things like this. Or Gen.Jackson for exampl...

First of all, I see you joined today. Welcome to the forum. We don't have a lot of defenders of traditional religion here, and outside perspectives--if they're thoughtful--add to the discussion.

Let me address some of your points.

I tried to make it clear I was not criticizing the man for mourning the girl. Quite the opposite. He's a human being. The little girl's death was a tragic waste. Of course he should mourn. Any decent person would. My question, rather, was whether mourning someone's death, if you're a Bible-believing Christian, is consistent with your beliefs about the afterlife.

Having read what people said in the previous pages (I hope you did too) and thinking about it some more, I've come to a clearer understanding of where I think the inconsistency lies.

Why do we mourn someone's death? Here are some possible reasons:

A. Personal loss. A loved one, or someone else we care about, is gone. We're bereft. There's a hole in our lives. We miss the person more than words can say.

B. Empathy for others' loss. We anticipate, or observe first-hand, how devastated the deceased person's loved ones are, and we feel for them.

C. Loss for the world. The person brightened the lives of others and/or contributed positively to the world. Now that positive force is gone. We'll never know what more they could have done or contributed had they lived. (Schubert died at 31, one of the great losses to the human race. Janis Joplin died at 27.)

D. Sympathy for a bad death. The person suffered greatly before he/she died--through illness, through accident, through personal torment . . . Decent people feel the pain of their fellow creatures and empathize with them.

E. Tragedy of a life cut short. The person died too young, before fully experiencing the wonder of life on earth.

For someone who believes in heaven and also believes that the deceased is now there, it seems to me A through D are underlying reasons for mourning that are consistent with those beliefs. But I don't see how E is. If you truly think the little girl is in an infinitely better place right now, it doesn't make sense for you to say, "What a pity she didn't have the experience of living out her life." She's got the better deal: more heaven, way less suffering on earth.

One last thing: Your remark about the man not knowing whether the girl was a Christian leads me to think you might be considering the possibility he was upset because he didn't know whether she was "saved" or not. And of course unsaved people go to hell, not heaven. I have no idea if that was in his mind, but I personally find that kind of thinking repulsive.

ADDENDUM: Another possible reasoning for mourning is that deep down, we're really mourning for ourselves.
I will admit I have not read ALL the pages before this one but a great deal of them. As said pain and suffering are a result of sin in the world and it is a sad thing that the consequences of it things like this happen. Jesus wept at the tomb for several reasons many can tell you one of which for the people who were weeping. For their grief ,that we a humans have to watch our loved ones go away and we miss them. Sometimes they don't go to a better place. Well maybe I should give you an example. I remember when my grandmother who was a Christian died I wasn't really sad because as far as I knew she was in a better place. I did cry because my dad started crying (she was his mom) and I thought about how much he might miss her thinking of when he was young and what she did for him. So I did cry a little but not because she died. Huh Repulsive! I should think he would be sad. Wouldn't you cry if someone you knew died and suffered that type of punishment! Just because she was a little girl does not mean she was exempt of punishment for the sins that all of us do every day. Also crying can be the result of four things things sadness ,intense pain, happiness , and emotional stress. It could have been more than just crying for sadness sake.

Now yes I did just join the forums and am happy that I am welcomedSmile. If you are wondering I found the site through a debate on YouTube on creation a link to this site was put up during the debate. It sent me to the Bible contradictions and atrocities pages. I went down the list (not to be rude) but on each one it I nearly laughed at the atheist contradictions. I then registered so that I could defend what I believe.

Hi, welcome back, I would like to discuss your above comments with you. Would you value that? Before I do, however, could you go back and address the issues that myself and cufflink have bought up? If you don't it just leaves conversations "hanging in the air" and we don't learn from each other. Regards, Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 07:56 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(19-08-2011 07:18 AM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  Repulsive! I should think he would be sad. Wouldn't you cry if someone you knew died and suffered that type of punishment! Just because she was a little girl does not mean she was exempt of punishment for the sins that all of us do every day.

Sorry, but I have to stick to what I said. The notion that God punishes little kids by sending them to hell "for the sins that all of us do every day" is really, really, really repulsive. (Did I say really repulsive? Yeah, I think I did.)

Of all the crazy things about traditional Christianity, the craziest is the doctrine that every one of us is a wretch who deserves endless torture--in a place that God himself created!--but that in his infinite mercy he has given us an escape route, which has nothing to do with how good we are but only with whether we believe in Jesus . . . Man, that is screwed up.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
19-08-2011, 08:16 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(19-08-2011 07:18 AM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  I will admit I have not read ALL the pages before this one but a great deal of them. As said pain and suffering are a result of sin in the world and it is a sad thing that the consequences of it things like this happen. Jesus wept at the tomb for several reasons many can tell you one of which for the people who were weeping. For their grief ,that we a humans have to watch our loved ones go away and we miss them. Sometimes they don't go to a better place. Well maybe I should give you an example. I remember when my grandmother who was a Christian died I wasn't really sad because as far as I knew she was in a better place. I did cry because my dad started crying (she was his mom) and I thought about how much he might miss her thinking of when he was young and what she did for him. So I did cry a little but not because she died. Huh Repulsive! I should think he would be sad. Wouldn't you cry if someone you knew died and suffered that type of punishment! Just because she was a little girl does not mean she was exempt of punishment for the sins that all of us do every day. Also crying can be the result of four things things sadness ,intense pain, happiness , and emotional stress. It could have been more than just crying for sadness sake.

Now yes I did just join the forums and am happy that I am welcomedSmile. If you are wondering I found the site through a debate on YouTube on creation a link to this site was put up during the debate. It sent me to the Bible contradictions and atrocities pages. I went down the list (not to be rude) but on each one it I nearly laughed at the atheist contradictions. I then registered so that I could defend what I believe.

Welcome, MrLittleLawyer. Due to the nature of this being an atheist webpage, we don't get enough opinions or thoughts from religious believers. I hope you'll stick around and continue to post.

I would recommend a quick read of the common "debate fallacies" if you plan to write in often. I mention it because of the Appeal to Ridicule (a red herring argument) that you mention in response to the atheist contradictions (unless you didn't mean to make a point with that, although I wonder why you even brought it up if you didn't). Anything can be ridiculed, even your beliefs - and you'll probably get that a lot here - but it's important to know the fallacies so you can spot them in your opponents' arguments, too.

Please, defend what you believe. Be polite and expect (or demand) politeness from your foes. And watch out for where your argument oversteps a logical boundary if you want to win us over Wink
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 08:42 AM
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
(19-08-2011 07:56 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(19-08-2011 07:18 AM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  Repulsive! I should think he would be sad. Wouldn't you cry if someone you knew died and suffered that type of punishment! Just because she was a little girl does not mean she was exempt of punishment for the sins that all of us do every day.

Sorry, but I have to stick to what I said. The notion that God punishes little kids by sending them to hell "for the sins that all of us do every day" is really, really, really repulsive. (Did I say really repulsive? Yeah, I think I did.)

Of all the crazy things about traditional Christianity, the craziest is the doctrine that every one of us is a wretch who deserves endless torture--in a place that God himself created!--but that in his infinite mercy he has given us an escape route, which has nothing to do with how good we are but only with whether we believe in Jesus . . . Man, that is screwed up.

You're so right about that! What makes these ideas even more ridiculous (although that is barely possible lol) is that they were just MADE UP by Paul, who didn't give a toss about what the real Jesus said or did. He had never met Jesus. So these ideas ABOUT Jesus would have been totally foreign to the REAL Jesus (assuming, of course, he actually existed).

Saint Paul, the true founder of Christian dogma, was obsessed with the idea of sin. He invented the concept of "original sin" which so dominates fundamentalist Christian thinking. He was the original source of Christian paranoia! What were his qualifications? A superficial understanding of Jewish scripture, an ability to speak and write in Greek, and a very active and manipulative imagination! Jesus would have been VERY PISSED OFF with the heretical stories Paul wrote about him. Try explaining that to a typical fundie and they just don't get it because of all the years of brainwashing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2011 10:50 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Do Christians REALLY believe what they say?
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
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 05:51 PM
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

Hi Ghost, thanks for replying. I want you to know I have read your reply a number of times because I am trying to understand you. I also would like you to know I've tried not to "interpret" it, but just take it at face value. I appreciate that you are genuine.

Let's admit something. Talking over the internet is in many ways a difficult way to communicate. Inevitably people read things into what is written that are not really intended by the author. Its the nature of the medium. We don't have the other clues such as non verbals, auditory tone etc and we don't "know" the other party. This has happened with you and me. For example, you have wished me peace, love and empathy. I haven't felt it due to the way you have worded your arguments. I care deeply about my relationship with you, and I offer you peace, love and empathy too, but I strongly suspect that you haven't felt that from me. This has resulted in our discussions drifting off the issues and becoming personal. Who is at fault? It doesn't matter. We are both "right" and we are both "wrong". We have failed to communicate effectively. Let's blame the internet, but also blame ourselves.

Because of the limitations of this medium, it is probably best that we all use language that doesn't goad others unnecessarily. For example instead of me writing:
"that's fucking bullshit man and you know it, " I should write:
"I acknowledge your perspective because... but disagree with you because I think you should consider this from the following angle..." That is far less confrontational and far more likely to actually get the other to see the argument differently. It may "dampen down" the impact of the statement, but it means the other party is far more likely to "get it".

All of us ( and definitely me too ) need to remember to slowly digest and read the other party's argument without letting our emotions and our egos inhibit that happening. Many is the time I have got half way through some else's post and instead of actually digesting what he or she has written I'm already composing my own response to make me "right". Let's admit we both have have a need to be "right". So does everyone else on the forum. In some of us, it is more strongly developed. Consider our exchanges: "you said this, I said that, so you're wrong because...." It can become a battlefield of egos, rather than a discussion of the actual issues. I think we could both benefit from putting our egos in our back pockets for a while.

We all (me included) need to remember to acknowledge that we have understood the other party, even if we don't agree with them. They have taken the trouble to share their thoughts with us and are usually keen to know that they have been heard and understood.

It warms my heart that you gave me some credit for being intelligent. We all like to think that the other party is at least recognising there are elements of value in our arguments. I return the compliment.

It is 10 am here and a beautiful day. I just have to for a ride rather than sit inside tapping on the keyboard. Later this evening I will discuss all of the specifics you mention, and I will try to strictly apply my own guidelines. I'm looking forward to doing that, but right now don't want to miss out on my vitamin D.

Warm regards, Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: