Greeting from a Christian
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2013, 12:32 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 12:37 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 10:59 AM)DarthMarth Wrote:  And before you start them, no, I am not terribly interested in getting into seven separate debates, one on each reason.
Considering that you acknowledge that these points have already been addressed by atheists (and theists, by the way) in the past, I am inclined to agree that there's no need to debate them all over again.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
01-03-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(28-02-2013 01:29 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 10:51 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Sure, well said and all, but both are very much needed. I get that cops don't like IA, and I get that (some) devs don't like QA, but neither group would be as effective without their quality counterparts.

Besides, IA is looking for cops to screw up so they can be punished. I've never heard of IA trying to help cops be better cops - all they do is beat up the bad cops. As a software QA engineer I like to build a better relationship with my developers. I don't punish, I don't belittle, I don't keep score. All I do is help them find flaws in their code so they can fix the flaws and create better code. So far, going on 15 years now and I seem to have good relationships with all the devs I've worked with - they know I'm here to help rather than to destroy.

Then again, who knows what they say behind my back...

Hmmm, I recall finding a sense of humor in you earlier. Perhaps you have none where QA is concerned?

My comments were completely tongue-in-cheek. It's an ongoing joke within our department.

So, joking aside, we strive for the same. Quality is, after all, our goal.
Sorry to derail the thread but I felt a reply is needed.

Sure, I do have a sense of humor, especially towards tech stuff including QA, but the "Devs Vs. QA" mentality is not really a funny issue for me because it happens all too often and it's a constant battle to get developers to realize that QA is not antagonistic - it's an ongoing professional endeavor for me to fight this battle on behalf of me and the QA staff that reports to me. It requires patience and expertise and good people skills and not every QA person has those. Sorry if I didn't recognize the humor there.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
01-03-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
A theist that didn't come to insult, proselytize, or ignore? I had forgotten it was possible.

Hola and don't listen to KC. He will lead you straight to hell. HoC will lead you to the promise land and Chas will take you to Hooters Thumbsup

“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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-03-2013, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 07:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 10:59 AM)DarthMarth Wrote:  Does the hypocrisy and ignorance of people who claim to adhere to "Christian ethics" mean that they don't exist? I don't think so any more than I think humanity's continuing inability to find the "right" form of government means we should give up on political philosophy.
Irrelevant, and Fallacy of the False Anaolgy. I didn't say "they" didn't exist, but every Christian has their own take on almost everything. I simply said there is no real coherent "body" of anything which can be called "Christian Ethics", and anything in any individual set simply reflects, just an individual "take", (commonly called "cafeteria belief systems" these days), on things. It's a mish-mash of ancient Hebrew law, (which Paul said they were free from, yet continued to use when it was convenient), and other stuuf ALL from the culture of the day, which TO THIS DAY, continues to evolve.
(01-03-2013 10:59 AM)DarthMarth Wrote:  I believe the driving force behind how Christians live is not doctrinal arguments but the unchanging nature of God (admittedly not the best parallel with political philosophy).
Apparently you never studied Theology. God "does things' and even the word "existence" REQUIRES change. A static being is a dead being. It's simply Speical Pleading to say god "creates", yet is "changeless". It's one of the major problems in Philosophy and Theology. Asserting "changelessness" while ascribing "activity" is linguistically meaningless.
The moral system in the OT is derived from ancient Near Eastern culture, cooked up entirely 100 % by humans. There is NO instance where it differs from it's culture, or "speaks" originally to that culture. Scholars know who and when and where almost every line come from, and when it was written, and why. If you have an example, let's hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
(01-03-2013 10:59 AM)DarthMarth Wrote:  This is a bit of a caricature of the "penal substitution" view, which is not the only paradigm for salvation, or the first. It's actually one of the more recent ones, largely codified in the 16th century by John Calvin, who, being a former lawyer, gave it a very legal tone that resonates in modern, western culture but was foreign to the 1st century.
Actually that is incorrect. Paul and Augustine grafted the notion of Original Sin onto the growing cult, and used a changed view of the OT texts to justify it. You need to read the ENTIRE link you provided. They got it from somewhere, and Saul of Tarsus was already talking about it in his letters. He changed the Hebrew concept of "atonement" to the Zoroastrian "purification" view, because he wanted to compete on familiar, and competitive,. terms with the Greek Mystery cults, and then the Councils fought over it for centuries. An d Jesus, (if he ever existed, and it's a BIG IF), never said a word about "salvation".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic+origins
"The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion", whereas, "it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth" (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.). Thomas Aquinas

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 12:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A theist that didn't come to insult, proselytize, or ignore? I had forgotten it was possible.

Hola and don't listen to KC. He will lead you straight to hell. HoC will lead you to the promise land and Chas will take you to Hooters Thumbsup


Perceptive fellow. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
01-03-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 10:59 AM)DarthMarth Wrote:  Irrelevant, and Fallacy of the False Anaolgy. I didn't say "they" didn't exist, but Christian has their own take on almost everything. I simply said there is no real coherent "body" of anything which can be called "Christian Ethics", and anything in any individual set simply reflects, just an individual "take", (commonly called "cafeteria belief systems" these days), on things.
Like I said, not the best analogy. I didn't mean that there is one coherent "body" of Christian ethics, but that they are all based on the same source, interpreted in myriad ways. It comes down to whether Christians really are capable of perceiving the character of God and basing their lives on that, or only believe that they are, which just goes back to the question of whether a personal God exists. The ability of the Bible to be taken so many different ways by different people is astounding in and of itself, whether for or against its credibility.
(01-03-2013 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Apparently you never studied Theology. God "does things' and even the word "existence" REQUIRES change. A static being is a dead being. It's simply Speical Pleading to say god "creates", yet is "changeless". It's one of the major problems in Philosophy and Theology. Asserting "changelessness" while ascribing "activity" is linguistically meaningless.
The moral system in the OT is derived from ancient Near Eastern culture, cooked up entirely 100 % by humans. There is NO instance where it differs from it's culture, or "speaks" originally to that culture. Scholars know who and when and where almost every line come from, and when it was written, and why. If you have an example, let's hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
If I can conceive of a God who is changeless and yet acts dynamically, is the concept still meaningless?

As for the OT, the law is actually different in a few ways. It is considered to be given directly by God, unlike, say the Code of Hammurabi, which was a set of wise, exemplary judgments made by the king, who was thought to be the emissary of the gods. IIRC, the format of many of the laws, "You shall ____" or "You shall not ____", as opposed to records of exemplary judicial decisions, is unique to Yawhism. As are the first and second commandments--exclusive worship of one god with no icons was unheard of in the paganistic ANE world.
(01-03-2013 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually that is incorrect. Paul and Augustine grafted the notion of Original Sin onto the growing cult, and used a changed view of the OT texts to justify it. You need to read the ENTIRE link you provided. They got it from somewhere, and Saul of Tarsus was already talking about it in his letters. He changed the Hebrew concept of "atonement" to the Zoroastrian "purification" view, because he wanted to compete on familiar, and competitive,. terms with the Greek Mystery cultsThen the Councils fought over it for centuries. An Jesus, (if he ever existed, and it's a BIG IF), never said a word about "salvation".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic+origins
Original sin is not penal substitution. Paul is the main (you could argue only) source of the doctrine of original sin, but penal substitution did not come until much later. You have to distinguish what Paul is actually saying from later interpretations of Paul.

As to your assertion, since you say Mark has no salvific teachings by Jesus:


Mar 10:17: And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Mar 10:26: And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"
Mar 13:13: "And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."
Mar 13:20: "And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days."

The concept of salvation or "eternal life" changing over time is not the same as Paul copying it from Zoroastrianism and adding it to Christianity where it was totally absent before. I will give you that the New Testament has a very different concept of salvation or eternity than the Old.

"Know that we own minds that could devour the sun/And what we've done will remain although it's gone" - Scar Symmetry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
I've got another question:

Have you ever read the Qur'an, sacred Hindu texts and other religious scriptures like the Book of Mormon?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 04:44 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 03:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I've got another question:

Have you ever read the Qur'an, sacred Hindu texts and other religious scriptures like the Book of Mormon?


How about non-fiction?


... Sorry, I couldn't resist. It is too hard a target to not have a go at!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
01-03-2013, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 05:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 02:26 PM)DarthMarth Wrote:  Like I said, not the best analogy. I didn't mean that there is one coherent "body" of Christian ethics, but that they are all based on the same source, interpreted in myriad ways.

Oh really. And what would that be, and what ethics are you talking about, and please name the sources for each, why you think each of them are authentic, and what community of the many of the early church that particular text refects. Certainly you can't mean the collection of texts that ended up in the New Testament ?

(01-03-2013 02:26 PM)DarthMarth Wrote:  If I can conceive of a God who is changeless and yet acts dynamically, is the concept still meaningless?

Absolutely. I can conceive of a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto, and humans have immagined all sorts of nonsence. Changless and action are incompatible. It is illogical. Mentation is mental activity, and change. Is your god sentient ? If so it changes. Do you have any Neuro science background ? Actually that is not really the problem. The problem is you and any theist cannot say anything about your god, including that it "exists", which does NOT require the dimesion of time. All we have evidence for, in this universe is spacetime. If your god requires spacetime, it is not the creator of Reality, as it cannot be the creator of a dimension required for it's own existence. I defy you to say anything logical or coherent about this problem. No one can, and Philosophy and Theology have been wrestling with this for a number of years now. ANYTHING you say about god, I can say "requires time" You have no way around this.

(01-03-2013 02:26 PM)DarthMarth Wrote:  As for the OT, the law is actually different in a few ways. It is considered to be given directly by God, unlike, say the Code of Hammurabi, which was a set of wise, exemplary judgments made by the king, who was thought to be the emissary of the gods. IIRC, the format of many of the laws, "You shall ____" or "You shall not ____", as opposed to records of exemplary judicial decisions, is unique to Yawhism. As are the first and second commandments--exclusive worship of one god with no icons was unheard of in the paganistic ANE world.

Wrong. That's what you have been told. Scholars know where ALL the elements of the "law" come from, and when and where they were in place in the Ancient Near East, and why they were placed into the law. Obviously you have no backgroud in this area. It's one my areas in school. Sorry. Your concept of where monotheism came from is utterly false and historically inaccurate. The PRIESTS wrote the laws, in collusion with the political officials, and it was a long and complex process. I see you actually have no clue about the actual Ancient Near East.

You are seriously not doing Babble quotes and expecting anyone here to actua;ly believe someone named Jesus actually said them, I hope. The salvation paradigm, and your Penal whatever is where CERTAIN SECTS began to deal with it, NOT where the church in general began to deal with it, or where it came from No scholar disputes that. Why would you actually think that what is in Mark was actually spoken by Jesus. Mark had no clue, and he was not an eyewitness. Do you know anything about the New Testament, or the debates in it's scholarship. The writers/editors of Mark placed those words in his mouth. It's called a "literary device". There is no evidence he ever said anthing of the sort.
The Hebrews did not believe in immortality, so we know no one asked the question in Mark 10:26. You do now there was no immortatlity in Hebrew culture, right ?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rl.../lecture-1

Oh well, I see you actually, just like all the others have very little or even a basic actual academic background. So I'll leave you to the others. I suggest you actually look at the links, I gave, and discuss them if you care to. Have you even taken Biblical Studies 101 at a reputable University ? The above course from Yale is a good place to start.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: Greeting from a Christian
(01-03-2013 03:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I've got another question:

Have you ever read the Qur'an, sacred Hindu texts and other religious scriptures like the Book of Mormon?
Own them, really need to get around to reading them. Blush

Bucky: I enter an Alford plea. Trying to gain ground with you is not worth taking an online Yale course, slogging through walls of text, and being belittled. Good day.

"Know that we own minds that could devour the sun/And what we've done will remain although it's gone" - Scar Symmetry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DarthMarth's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: