Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

[cvanwey]

I don't think the gospel of Voltron would keep the world from destroying eachother. Also, there is really no comparison to a cartoon and the historicity of Christianity. If anything, the creationists would be the "aVoltronists" and the darwinists would be the lovers of make believe cartoons.

I feel you have taken my last part too seriously, and missed my point(s)

My first point being, a larger majority of the American population, at times, assert the Christian God at work, the political arena, around mixed company, and also elsewhere. Maybe, if only mostly casually in passing, or, maybe even more authoritative at times...

My point also being, if these assertions were not so widespread, frequent, and often ethnocentric/arrogant in nature, then you may not see a group labeled 'atheists' emerge.

My point also being, that if someone wants to climb the ranks in the political arena, or maybe other professions as well, the announcement of 'atheism' might certainly be 'occupational suicide.'

But in addressing your assertion to the 'historicity of Christianity', do you really want to open this can of worms?

 

[Tone]

I feel you have taken my last part too seriously, and missed my point(s)

My first point being, a larger majority of the American population, at times, assert the Christian God at work, the political arena, around mixed company, and also elsewhere. Maybe, if only mostly casually in passing, or, maybe even more authoritative at times...

My point also being, if these assertions were not so widespread, frequent, and often ethnocentric/arrogant in nature, then you may not see a group labeled 'atheists' emerge.

My point also being, that if someone wants to climb the ranks in the political arena, or maybe other professions as well, the announcement of 'atheism' might certainly be 'occupational suicide.'

But in addressing your assertion to the 'historicity of Christianity', do you really want to open this can of worms?

My point is...just what I said...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I.E. ... Re-think the extent to which this issue you're bringing into the discussion, under and around what Genetically Modified Skeptic states in the OP video [at 2:00 to 2:30], has any full bearing upon whether the earliest Christians were in fact co-participating in some kind of "culturally sanctioned hallucinations."

You need to do the rethinking. At that time stamp he says,

"4. Must not be merely an expected response to common stressors and losses (ex. the loss of a loved one)..."

What he's saying is that the hallucination of a loved one who recently died is not a mental disorder, but is expected, particularly if it is culturally sanctioned. How that is anything but severely damaging to the central claim of Christianity is beyond me.

If you're going to pitch this here, then you need to explain to the members of the opposing team why you actually have the right kind of balls to pitch in this game. Why? Because I don't want to waste my time "batting" with phantom assertions only to then be told, "See, you can't hit a home-run if your life depended on it because your such a poor batter (or poor Apologist)."

Pitch what? I'm going directly off of what was stated in the video that you posted.

I.O.W. What's you're scholarly angle and support? And in asking this, I hope to goodness it doesn't amount to us simply having to sift through yet more Richard Carrier stuff.......but if it is, I guess go ahead anyway.

I specifically clarified to you that Richard Carrier and his ideas are not relevant to what I'm saying. Again, please re-read, and re-think.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You need to do the rethinking. At that time stamp he says,

"4. Must not be merely an expected response to common stressors and losses (ex. the loss of a loved one)..."

What he's saying is that the hallucination of a loved one who recently died is not a mental disorder, but is expected, particularly if it is culturally sanctioned. How that is anything but severely damaging to the central claim of Christianity is beyond me.



Pitch what? I'm going directly off of what was stated in the video that you posted.



I specifically clarified to you that Richard Carrier and his ideas are not relevant to what I'm saying. Again, please re-read, and re-think.

To be more direct: my point is that I highly doubt that the Resurrection of Jesus qualifies, in any kind of way, as a sort of "mass hallucination," even of the kind that could have been supposedly "culturally sanctioned" within the 1st century Jewish social environment. Moreover, and on top of this, I'm pretty sure that my own view of Christianity, in and of itself as it stands today, doesn't qualify as "delusion."

 

[cvanwey]

My point is...just what I said...

Okay, then apparently, you 'spun' what I stated, to instead present a straw man. Kool...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To be more direct: my point is that I highly doubt that the Resurrection of Jesus qualifies, in any kind of way, as a sort of "mass hallucination," even of the kind that could have been supposedly "culturally sanctioned" within the 1st century Jewish social environment.

Because why? Were the disciples not of the same culture?

Moreover, and on top of this, I'm pretty sure that my own view of Christianity, in and of itself as it stands today, doesn't qualify as "delusion."

Because why? Because the atheist in the video said so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because why? Were the disciples not of the same culture?

Here's the thing: you wouldn't have even brought up this additional little tangent if you hadn't already read it somewhere else. So, until you produce a source that ties together your allegation that the earliest Christian disciples were just joining in together with "culturally sanctioned" brain spasms, I have nothing upon which to progress further with you on this point.

Because why? Because the atheist in the video said so?

So, do you think I'm "deluded"? And if so, how does the DSM-5 describe my mental condition?

 

[Tone]

Okay, then apparently, you 'spun' what I stated, to instead present a straw man. Kool...

Yeah...we'll call it...a reverse strawman!

 

[cvanwey]

Yeah...we'll call it...a reverse strawman!

You did not address my points, and instead created your own, in it's place. Inventing your own post hoc 'term' does not change your action

 

[Tone]

You did not address my points, and instead created your own, in it's place. Inventing your own post hoc 'term' does not change your action

What do your points have to do with the OP? Also, all your points are true for the reverse as well, IOW, you could say the same for evolutionists.

*This is my point...

 

[cvanwey]

What do your points have to do with the OP?

Post #119

Also, all your points are true for the reverse as well, IOW, you could say the same for evolutionists.

*This is my point...

Great, but you asked a specific question, for which I gave a specific answer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here's the thing: you wouldn't have even brought up this additional little tangent if you hadn't already read it somewhere else.

The resurrection is the bedrock foundation of Christianity, these are apologetics forums, and you're discussing "culturally sanctioned hallucinations." Putting those together, my mind immediately goes to the frightened, hiding disciples. But I guess you're focusing on modern-day Christians and whether or not they are delusional.

So, until you produce a source that ties together your allegation that the earliest Christian disciples were just joining in together with "culturally sanctioned" brain spasms, I have nothing upon which to progress further with you on this point.

There are tons of scholars who propose that the disciples hallucinated. I thought this was common knowledge.

So, do you think I'm "deluded"?

I think that you delude yourself when you say stupid people don't exist. But I'm sure you meant the question as it pertains to your Christian faith. I think you've seen enough on these forums to warrant a serious crisis of faith, and I think your faith is buoyed merely by the existence of other Christians. It is a "The emporer has no clothes"-type of delusion.

And if so, how does the DSM-5 describe my mental condition?

Like I said, the existence of other Christians is what keeps you afloat here. To paraphrase Sam Harris:

If you think that chanting Latin words over your pancakes and syrup transmutes your breakfast into the flesh and blood of Elvis Presley, then you're insane; if you believe that chanting Latin words over crackers and grape juice turns your snack into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, then you're Catholic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The resurrection is the bedrock foundation of Christianity, these are apologetics forums, and you're discussing "culturally sanctioned hallucinations." Putting those together, my mind immediately goes to the frightened, hiding disciples. But I guess you're focusing on modern-day Christians and whether or not they are delusional.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is open to the discussion of any possible psychological abnormalities that may exist or have existed within the mind of any Christian who has attempted to 'defend' the Christian faith, whether she lived in A.D. 49 or A.D. 2019.

There are tons of scholars who propose that the disciples hallucinated. I thought this was common knowledge.

...it's common for skeptical scholars to think that the early disciples hallucinated on the whole, but I haven't heard of the separate angle where it's presented as a "culturally sanctioned" form of hallucination, different from the typical hallucinations we associate today with drug-use or schizoid type mental symptoms. Regardless, I've implied that you need to post a source for your assertion in relation to what Genetically Modified Skeptic briefly mentioned in the OP video, but if you don't want to provide one......I suppose I'll have to go find something myself, as is often the case here on CF. Oh well!

I think that you delude yourself when you say stupid people don't exist. But I'm sure you meant the question as it pertains to your Christian faith.

The specific conversation we both had pertaining to the 'existence of stupid people' was long ago, and I don't even remember the overall context of it.

I think you've seen enough on these forums to warrant a serious crisis of faith, and I think your faith is buoyed merely by the existence of other Christians. It is a "The emporer has no clothes"-type of delusion.

I had my crises (plural) of faith long before I came to these forums, NV. Moreover, my beliefs have been, for the most part, built on study and research apart from most of what I've found here on CF. Of course, this isn't to say that I would give a shout-out to the likes of @Quid est Veritas?, @zippy2006, @ViaCrucis, @Silmarien, @FireDragon76, and at least a dozen others whom I've crossed paths with over the past several years here and then dare to claim that I haven't learned anything from them, because I have. But the core of my own understanding of the Christian faith has come for the most part through my own ongoing research over the years, as well as from spiritually tinged experiences within my life and family--both good and bad--that have gone along with all of that. So, just because many other people have come forth in droves during the past 3 or 4 years here on CF within what appears to be a mounting social situation where people are feeling increasing doubt and despair, don't for a moment think that I do too and am on the cusp edge of a crisis. The truth is, even if all of my friends and acquaintances here on CF disappeared tomorrow, my faith would remain intact because it has been what it is before they ever came along ...

No, I'll be the Omega Man if I have to be.

Like I said, the existence of other Christians is what keeps you afloat here. To paraphrase Sam Harris:

If you think that chanting Latin words over your pancakes and syrup transmutes your breakfast into the flesh and blood of Elvis Presley, then you're insane; if you believe that chanting Latin words over crackers and grape juice turns your snack into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, then you're Catholic.

Funny, but you'll get no cigar for that one, just a bill from the Emperor's tailor.

 

[Tone]

Post #119



Great, but you asked a specific question, for which I gave a specific answer.

Yeah, but it's kind of off topic. I understand you to be saying that atheists are a suppressed minority so that is why many have become proactive. Okay, that seems fair,you have that right.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is open to the discussion of any possible psychological abnormalities that may exist or have existed within the mind of any Christian who has attempted to 'defend' the Christian faith, whether she lived in A.D. 49 or A.D. 2019.

Ok. Personally I've never experienced something that was not real. At least, as far as I know, that's the case. So it is difficult for me to empathize with those who experience hallucinations. It is something that I simply don't understand. But apparently it is also normal. The point is that nothing abnormal or supernatural had to occur after Christ's death for Christianity to begin.

...it's common for skeptical scholars to think that the early disciples hallucinated on the whole, but I haven't heard of the separate angle where it's presented as a "culturally sanctioned" form of hallucination, different from the typical hallucinations we associate today with drug-use or schizoid type mental symptoms.

Anachronism. Why are you saying that those things were not culturally acceptable 2000 years ago?

Regardless, I've implied that you need to post a source for your assertion in relation to what Genetically Modified Skeptic briefly mentioned in the OP video, but if you don't want to provide one......I suppose I'll have to go find something myself, as is often the case here on CF. Oh well!

If I say that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, do I need a source for that? Or can we just accept that which is common knowledge and move on?

The specific conversation we both had pertaining to the 'existence of stupid people' was long ago, and I don't even remember the overall context of it.

The context was this: I was saying that the Bible is simple, and that this must be the case, because there are stupid people in this world and comprehension of the gospel message is required for salvation. But you love to lean on your own understanding so much that you would say that stupid people do not exist rather than give up your hermeneutics.

I had my crises (plural) of faith long before I came to these forums, NV. Moreover, my beliefs have been, for the most part, built on study and research apart from most of what I've found here on CF. Of course, this isn't to say that I would give a shout-out to the likes of @Quid est Veritas?, @zippy2006, @ViaCrucis, @Silmarien, @FireDragon76, and at least a dozen others whom I've crossed paths with over the past several years here and then dare to claim that I haven't learned anything from them, because I have.

So your crises of faith have simply stopped? Are you saying that you had a misunderstanding of something and that you've resolved it? I had a "crisis of faith" nearly 20 years ago and here I am, an atheist. What did I miss? If it's off topic, feel free to send it to me in private. Because I can assure you that as my faith was dying I cried out to every Christian I knew. Some seemed to care, and others didn't, but not a single one of them got into the tar pit with me to wrestle me out. They didn't want to look at the questions I was asking because they already knew the answer and they suppressed the truth in self-righteousness. And so my faith sunk and drowned. Best thing for me, though, really.

The same thing happens here on these forums. Very few answers are to be found. Occasionally I get overly cocky and say something that's wrong, and someone like the people you poked - well, mainly just ViaCrucis - will come out of nowhere to correct a tiny issue. But as for the massive issues, he's nowhere to be found because he knows there are no real answers. And he rarely, if ever, gives a follow up answer. Another of that bunch corrected me on an issue, then lied and said I did not accept correction. I can't name him because it's against the rules to call someone out as a liar. But he knows who he is. And if any of those users have agape love, I've not been seeing it.

I'm aware that I'm hated here. Is it my fault, their fault, or Satan's fault? Or is it Christ's? Where is the agape love for a sinner? Who among those people bears fruit? I haven't seen it. I've seen indifference... at best.

If not a single one of Christ's ambassadors can love an atheist, then atheists will be reinforced in their conclusion that Christ simply isn't there. When Christ said to love your enemy, he meant a person who literally was fixing to gouge your eyes out. But Christians today cannot even love a guy who says things on the internet. Kind of a sad state of affairs. If you want to convince an atheist, try playing the game you will actually win - because that game certainly isn't logic, facts, evidence, or reason. It's love. You should have the capacity to love the atheist to a profound extent because of Christ who lives in you. You should love atheists to the extent that it is a psychological abnormality.

Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

They certainly could be. Actually, it's the best weapon you've got.

But the core of my own understanding of the Christian faith has come for the most part through my own ongoing research over the years,

The wisest man to have ever lived, according to the Bible, has told you to lean not on your own understanding, but to trust in the Lord your God with all your heart. I've reminded you of this repeatedly. Your heart has obviously hardened, and you profess yourself to be wiser than the wisest man who ever lived.

as well as from spiritually tinged experiences within my life and family--both good and bad--that have gone along with all of that. So, just because many other people have come forth in droves during the past 3 or 4 years here on CF within what appears to be a mounting social situation where people are feeling increasing doubt and despair, don't for a moment think that I do too and am on the cusp edge of a crisis. The truth is, even if all of my friends and acquaintances here on CF disappeared tomorrow, my faith would remain intact because it has been what it is before they ever came along ...

No, I'll be the Omega Man if I have to be.

Interesting. This goes back to another frustration I had with you. Recall,

Suppose I track 100 random Walmart customers who had purchased a Snickers bar and asked them if advertising of any form significantly influenced their decision to buy a Snickers. I would expect that their responses would indicate that the Snickers company was spending far more money than necessary on advertising. The reality, of course, is that people just don't know how they're influenced. The church has managed to advertise itself far better than any candy bar, and it has made a lot of sales.

Your response, essentially, was that advertising had no effect on you. So in rejecting my point, you prove my point.

Funny, but you'll get no cigar for that one, just a bill from the Emperor's tailor.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't know. Are they? Let's see what this atheist has to say ... and consider the extent to which his recommendations (for other atheists and by proxy, for Christians) are wrong or right!

Any worldview, any at all, is just the result of a lot of fudging by the brain to try and mash together a few apparent facts into a coherent narrative. Some atheists have the idea that their own stories are somehow more objective than those of those ‘other people’.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. Personally I've never experienced something that was not real. At least, as far as I know, that's the case. So it is difficult for me to empathize with those who experience hallucinations. It is something that I simply don't understand. But apparently it is also normal. The point is that nothing abnormal or supernatural had to occur after Christ's death for Christianity to begin.

I've never experienced any hallucinations of any sort for any reason either, BUT I think we can't say for sure either way whether Christianity as we (might) understand it today required a literal Resurrection. I lean toward thinking it did, but I can also consider a scenario that, even though I don't like it, is more fitting for a skeptic's imagination.

Anachronism. Why are you saying that those things were not culturally acceptable 2000 years ago?

Actually, I meant that I haven't heard of this angle before. No, I don't 'mean' that it isn't possible or that it couldn't be true. I just, to this point, haven't come across this angle. Besides, it's not like I claim to know everything ... In this case, I owe a debt to Genetically Modified Skeptic for bringing to my attention the concept of "culturally sanctioned hallucinations." Now I'm aware of an additional possibility that I need to contend with.

If I say that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, do I need a source for that? Or can we just accept that which is common knowledge and move on?

If I were uneducated and hadn't heard that water is H2O, then some kind of authoritative scientific source might be helpful...

The context was this: I was saying that the Bible is simple, and that this must be the case, because there are stupid people in this world and comprehension of the gospel message is required for salvation. But you love to lean on your own understanding so much that you would say that stupid people do not exist rather than give up your hermeneutics.

Perhaps we mean something slightly different from one another in our respective usages of the term "stupid." Of course, a hermeneutical discussion would have to ensue between us to sort this out I think.

So your crises of faith have simply stopped? Are you saying that you had a misunderstanding of something and that you've resolved it?

There's 'doubt' and then there's 'crisis of faith,' and I think we need to keep from confusing these concepts if we can keep from it since they're not synonymous, even if doubt may play a part in the latter. As far as finding solutions to some of the problematic ideas, concepts and doctrines in Christianity, I'd say that there are a few that I have found answers, even if those answers may not prove satisfactory to the aesthetic demands of other people.

I had a "crisis of faith" nearly 20 years ago and here I am, an atheist. What did I miss? If it's off topic, feel free to send it to me in private.

I can't say for sure what you've missed since faith for each on of us, as I understand it epistemologically, is contingent on more than just evidence or on direct experiences of God that some people think must be had for verification.

Because I can assure you that as my faith was dying I cried out to every Christian I knew. Some seemed to care, and others didn't, but not a single one of them got into the tar pit with me to wrestle me out.

.....what does getting into "the tar pit" mean to you? Or what should it mean to me?

They didn't want to look at the questions I was asking because they already knew the answer and they suppressed the truth in self-righteousness. And so my faith sunk and drowned. Best thing for me, though, really.

As I tell others here, I am sorry that happened like that, but I'm under no impression that your faith can simply be built by having "all" of your questions answered and so reach some kind of conclusive closure; I know I don't have closure like that, which is why I'm in the camp of Pascal and Kierkegaard.

The same thing happens here on these forums. Very few answers are to be found.

...sure, we may not always get the number (or quality) of answers we'd like to have, but this can be the case in almost any field of human inquiry where we're talking about something very significant to the human experience.

Occasionally I get overly cocky and say something that's wrong, and someone like the people you poked - well, mainly just ViaCrucis - will come out of nowhere to correct a tiny issue. But as for the massive issues, he's nowhere to be found because he knows there are no real answers. And he rarely, if ever, gives a follow up answer. Another of that bunch corrected me on an issue, then lied and said I did not accept correction. I can't name him because it's against the rules to call someone out as a liar. But he knows who he is. And if any of those users have agape love, I've not been seeing it.

...well, what does Agape mean to you?

I'm aware that I'm hated here. Is it my fault, their fault, or Satan's fault? Or is it Christ's? Where is the agape love for a sinner? Who among those people bears fruit? I haven't seen it. I've seen indifference... at best.

I for one don't hate you, although I will admit that I find your intransigence and unwillingness to explore other frames of thought to be a bit irritating at times.

If not a single one of Christ's ambassadors can love an atheist, then atheists will be reinforced in their conclusion that Christ simply isn't there. When Christ said to love your enemy, he meant a person who literally was fixing to gouge your eyes out. But Christians today cannot even love a guy who says things on the internet. Kind of a sad state of affairs. If you want to convince an atheist, try playing the game you will actually win - because that game certainly isn't logic, facts, evidence, or reason. It's love. You should have the capacity to love the atheist to a profound extent because of Christ who lives in you. You should love atheists to the extent that it is a psychological abnormality.

I'm all for loving people, but sometimes I get the eerie feeling that when people tell me they want me to be more loving, they really just want me to be silent, remain so, and let them have their way.

Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

They certainly could be. Actually, it's the best weapon you've got.

... could be, or is? Which is it?

The wisest man to have ever lived, according to the Bible, has told you to lean not on your own understanding, but to trust in the Lord your God with all your heart. I've reminded you of this repeatedly. Your heart has obviously hardened, and you profess yourself to be wiser than the wisest man who ever lived.

Sure, the Bible indicates that Solomon got a 'double-portion' of Wisdom, but even with that supposedly being the case, the so-called wisest man on earth still screwed up---big time! The way I figure it, and being the philosopher that I attempt to be, I probably shouldn't simply trust everything Solomon said without thinking through as many of the overall contexts that I can which surely surrounded and worked within his mind during his life.

Besides, One who is greater than Solomon has already come, and I'll be the first to tell you that I ain't Him.

Interesting. This goes back to another frustration I had with you. Recall,

Suppose I track 100 random Walmart customers who had purchased a Snickers bar and asked them if advertising of any form significantly influenced their decision to buy a Snickers. I would expect that their responses would indicate that the Snickers company was spending far more money than necessary on advertising. The reality, of course, is that people just don't know how they're influenced. The church has managed to advertise itself far better than any candy bar, and it has made a lot of sales.

Your response, essentially, was that advertising had no effect on you. So in rejecting my point, you prove my point.

You're right: people don't know how they're influenced, which is kind of why I made that other thread about Deception and the Devil.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've never experienced any hallucinations of any sort for any reason either, BUT I think we can't say for sure either way whether Christianity as we (might) understand it today required a literal Resurrection.

Right. And we can't say for sure whether or not alien abductions are real, either. All we can do is use our judgment to say what is likely and what is not.

I lean toward thinking it did, but I can also consider a scenario that, even though I don't like it, is more fitting for a skeptic's imagination.

You "lean" that way? You're not fully convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

Actually, I meant that I haven't heard of this angle before. No, I don't 'mean' that it isn't possible or that it couldn't be true. I just, to this point, haven't come across this angle. Besides, it's not like I claim to know everything ... In this case, I owe a debt to Genetically Modified Skeptic for bringing to my attention the concept of "culturally sanctioned hallucinations." Now I'm aware of an additional possibility that I need to contend with.

Ok. Like I said I don't fully grasp how hallucinated work so my contributions on the matter would be rather useless.

If I were uneducated and hadn't heard that water is H2O, then some kind of authoritative scientific source might be helpful...

That's a pretty unlikely "if".

Perhaps we mean something slightly different from one another in our respective usages of the term "stupid." Of course, a hermeneutical discussion would have to ensue between us to sort this out I think.

You're hilarious.

There's 'doubt' and then there's 'crisis of faith,' and I think we need to keep from confusing these concepts if we can keep from it since they're not synonymous, even if doubt may play a part in the latter.

I never doubt whether 2+2=4. I never doubt that if I drop a pencil, it will fall. Things that are true generally are not doubted.

As far as finding solutions to some of the problematic ideas, concepts and doctrines in Christianity, I'd say that there are a few that I have found answers, even if those answers may not prove satisfactory to the aesthetic demands of other people.

2+2=4 isn't "true for me but not true for you." If Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, it wouldn't be "true for me and not true for you."

I can't say for sure what you've missed since faith for each on of us, as I understand it epistemologically, is contingent on more than just evidence or on direct experiences of God that some people think must be had for verification.

More than evidence or direct experience? Such as...? And don't say properly basic. Assuming Christianity is true doesn't make it true.

.....what does getting into "the tar pit" mean to you? Or what should it mean to me?

Making a genuine effort to put forth the best answer possible.

As I tell others here, I am sorry that happened like that, but I'm under no impression that your faith can simply be built by having "all" of your questions answered and so reach some kind of conclusive closure; I know I don't have closure like that, which is why I'm in the camp of Pascal and Kierkegaard.

Your belief is that a man rose from the dead, and btw he also happened to be the creator of the universe. For a claim like that, it needs to be absolutely airtight.

Or... do you believe that I eat the flesh and blood of Elvis Presley in pancake form? How can I get you to "lean" that way?

...sure, we may not always get the number (or quality) of answers we'd like to have, but this can be the case in almost any field of human inquiry where we're talking about something very significant to the human experience.

I have yet to see a major Christian issue resolved in a satisfactory way. Scientific theories may have problems, but they do resolve major issues in a satisfactory manner.

...well, what does Agape mean to you?

Oh, please.

I for one don't hate you, although I will admit that I find your intransigence and unwillingness to explore other frames of thought to be a bit irritating at times.

I don't think you hate me. You don't come across that way at all.

I'm all for loving people, but sometimes I get the eerie feeling that when people tell me they want me to be more loving, they really just want me to be silent, remain so, and let them have their way.

Oh. Is that why you asked me what I meant by agape love? I'm not asking Christians to be quiet. I'm doing the opposite. I'm asking for answers.

... could be, or is? Which is it?

Could be, if utilized.

Sure, the Bible indicates that Solomon got a 'double-portion' of Wisdom, but even with that supposedly being the case, the so-called wisest man on earth still screwed up---big time! The way I figure it, and being the philosopher that I attempt to be, I probably shouldn't simply trust everything Solomon said without thinking through as many of the overall contexts that I can which surely surrounded and worked within his mind during his life.

So you just cherry pick the Bible then. Interesting.

Besides, One who is greater than Solomon has already come, and I'll be the first to tell you that I ain't Him.

Nor do you listen to him, either!

You're right: people don't know how they're influenced, which is kind of why I made that other thread about Deception and the Devil.

Ok, I'll check it out if I can find the time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. And we can't say for sure whether or not alien abductions are real, either. All we can do is use our judgment to say what is likely and what is not.

Perhaps, but whether were talking about the Resurrection of Jesus or an alien abduction, there are always at least some subjective nuances of personal value wrapped up in our respective assessments of such reported phenomena, especially so if those phenomena are stuck in the past.

You "lean" that way? You're not fully convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

...Why is it that I get the feeling you've never read Pascal or Kierkegaard (among others)? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me these two questions.

Ok. Like I said I don't fully grasp how hallucinated work so my contributions on the matter would be rather useless.

If that's the case, then might be say that you're contributions in assessing the matter might also be useless as a corollary?

You're hilarious.

... I'm glad you think so. I guess I'm ready for America's Got Talent, then?

I never doubt whether 2+2=4. I never doubt that if I drop a pencil, it will fall. Things that are true generally are not doubted.

2+2=4 isn't "true for me but not true for you." If Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, it wouldn't be "true for me and not true for you."

... in the case of the latter, it could be true "to" me while seemingly untrue "to" you since it, unlike math, is embedded in the past and remains a problem for the Philosophy of History and the cognitive complications of Lessing's Ditch rather than a concurrent problem of "simple" arithmetic logic.

More than evidence or direct experience? Such as...? And don't say properly basic. Assuming Christianity is true doesn't make it true.

We've had this discussion already. Remember? I told you in the past that when it comes to assessing the qualities of the Christian faith, I'm neither a Foundationalist nor a Plantingian Reliabilist.

Making a genuine effort to put forth the best answer possible.

Unfortunately, Christian Faith always comes by way of more than > just finding what we think is the "right" information. So even if we get out of the 'tar pit' of incredulity by finding what we might think is the so-called "best explanation," this doesn't mean we'll end up finding faith by way of some kind of automatic default.

Your belief is that a man rose from the dead, and btw he also happened to be the creator of the universe. For a claim like that, it needs to be absolutely airtight.

Airtight? Lol! It can't be; it won't be; and it never can be as long as we're merely contemplating any of this while stuck in our limited, mortal human bodies using human brains. It's just not going to work like that, and this is partly the reason I've offered my Aesthetic Argument thread, despite the fact that I'm sure it can be improved.

Aesthetic Arguments of Beauty and the Appeal of Christianity

Or... do you believe that I eat the flesh and blood of Elvis Presley in pancake form? How can I get you to "lean" that way?

I have yet to see a major Christian issue resolved in a satisfactory way. Scientific theories may have problems, but they do resolve major issues in a satisfactory manner.

Not exactly, they don't, and in saying this, I'm going with Catherine Z. Elgin on the matter. I think you're being a bit too mechanistic in your assumption about 'how' the Christian faith is supposed to work.

Oh, please.

I don't think you hate me. You don't come across that way at all.

Oh. Is that why you asked me what I meant by agape love? I'm not asking Christians to be quiet. I'm doing the opposite. I'm asking for answers.

And I'm more than willing to help you find some, withe emphasis on that last word, "some," because that's all any other human being can help you find.

Could be, if utilized.

You may have to explain this more so I can grasp what you're getting at. Do you mean to say this in a vain that infers what I'm getting at in my recent thread:

What's really missing? The evidence or ... something else?

So you just cherry pick the Bible then. Interesting.

Actually, I think it is you who is doing the cherry-picking, but then again, I do understand that dealing with the biblical figure of Solomon can be tricky ... even for Christians.

Nor do you listen to him, either!

That's your own personal evaluation based on what you assume is the "proper" interpretive praxis. My interpretive praxis is obviously different than yours, but that's to be expected to some extent, really, since we're different persons.

Ok, I'll check it out if I can find the time.

Enjoy!

 

[com7fy8]

Let's see what this atheist has to say ... and consider the extent to which his recommendations (for other atheists and by proxy, for Christians) are wrong or right!

He says not to say Christians are sick. But let each one speak for oneself and find out what is really true about each one.

I have been one to use the let each one speak for oneself approach, but the person might not know. So, I see now that this approach could be questionable.

some who tend to think that religion is a psychological malady in need of a cure

I would say each individual's character has a lot to do with what religion is for that person.

Religion can be used to control and use people, yes, I would say. But this can work only if I have the character which makes me able to be fooled! And if I can be fooled, and if there is no religion to fool me, I will find other ways to fool my own self.

No matter what authority you use, whether it is atheist logic and evidence or the Bible, if I can fool myself, I will, somehow.

So, I need how only God is able to change my character and guide me according to all which really is true.