R
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is not the definition of atheism. I recommend we all double check definitions to avoid confusion:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]"
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do believe either your cheese has slipped from your cracker or you misunderstand the point.
It sure sounds like it to me:I don't have faith.
We know what's observable around us because we do. We get credit for that much.
We know much more beyond the fact that Earth is not flat. So no, I don't contend that.
I'm just commenting on the other person's definition of atheism but
Let's talk about agnostic theism. Is anyone familiar with the topic?
I would have to say, without intending to offend anyone, that I'm always amused and entertained by the way that some folks are continually splitting off more and more specific and convoluted definitions of their religious viewpoints. I am an orthodox Christian and my position, I feel safe to say, is defined clearly. Most of those outside of religion will say that they find Christianity's claims trivial and easy to reject. That's their prerogative if they feel like saying it. However, I'm obliged to wonder if they really think that's the case, then why the need for all this hair-splitting of definitions? Those who don't believe in astrology--myself included--feel no need to split ourselves up into aastrologers, agstrologers, anti-astrologers, agnostic astrologers, strong and weak aastrologers, and so forth.Let's talk about agnostic theism. Is anyone familiar with the topic?
What is their to discuss. It's a paradoxical term that someone has found a loop hole to connect the two with.
I'm sorry but this isn't necessarily a comment on your general worldview but I've had enough conversations with theists here and elsewhere to know that contradiction and paradoxes do not concern them. Why should this spectre of a "paradox" concern you? Not that I agree that it's a paradox. I'm going to guess that there are many religions people can practice while still admitting that details of a deity are "unknown". Did you read the description?
Agnostics believe that God is completely unknowable.
The bible describes the God as infinite, which means a finite being will never be able to have a complete understanding of God.
However this does not mean that we can not know and understand what God has given us to know about Him.
In fact in the three years I have been here I have seen well educated atheist and agnostics arguments/challenges beaten back with the simplest understanding of a God given precept.
"Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshiped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church." Wikipedia
Christian [N]
the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament ( Acts 11:26 ; 26:28 ; 1 Peter 4:16 ). Easton's Bible Dictionary
Agnostic Theism is not true. It is true that you can believe in God but not be sure of His existence. However, that is not Agnostic Theism. If you believe in God but you are unsure of His existence then that simply means that you have doubts.
Did you know that many saints struggled with doubts? Many of them were also very firm in their faith. However, many of them did struggle with doubts from time to time as well. The Catholic Church has a thorough explanation of things that helps with doubts. There were many prolific and very intelligent writers in the Catholic Church. You should read some of the writings of the saints. I think you would be surprised at just how intellectual these people were. They were very smart and had an intimate relationship with our God.
Hmmm...Wikipedia.
When you are going to offer a definition of something, it's appropriate to post the complete definition, or at the least, insert (...) so people will know that it is incomplete.
Now we can see that part that was left out, was the very part that speaks of Jesus.
The quote you presented doesn't say that agnostic theists don't believe that Jesus is God. Christians do believe that Jesus has a 'special relationship' with God (if Jesus didn't have a special relationship with God then Jesus would be just a human). Christians also believe Jesus is 'in some way divine'. The phrasing is vague because Christians understand how this is possible in different ways.
But I was speaking of the larger phenomenon of agnostic theism. Not just the Christian version.
The quote you presented doesn't say that agnostic theists don't believe that Jesus is God. Christians do believe that Jesus has a 'special relationship' with God (if Jesus didn't have a special relationship with God then Jesus would be just a human). Christians also believe Jesus is 'in some way divine'. The phrasing is vague because Christians understand how this is possible in different ways.
"Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshiped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church." Wikipedia
My point is that one cannot logically be both a Christian and an Agnostic simultaneously.
Until one 'signs on', freely confessing that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, who voluntarily offered up His life as a sacrifice for our sins, shedding His very blood for our redemption, and arose from the dead, how could he remotely call himself a Christian.
"...applies only to the properties of God."This can be compared to someone practicing Hinduism, for example, since, because Ganesh is not real, they are, in effect only engaged in the properties of Ganesh.
"You've got it backwards."
Originally Posted by Beth-Zur
My point is that one cannot logically be both a Christian and an Agnostic simultaneously.
rpeg said: "Your either misusing the word "logic" or something else is askew. I know you don't represent the majority of Christians and that I should not paint with broad brushstrokes but I've had enough conversations with theists to know that they regard "logic" as a man-made province incapable of understanding "spirituality". If you're suggesting that logic must be used in this instance while others argue logic should not be used in other instances of experiencing faith then again, something is wrong here."
Moving on...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?