Lets face it...

[agua]

....
I'm not interested in going round and round forever though ... that seems to be what we are doing now at this point.

I agree.

 

[agua]

But even those groups that downplay the Bible tend to hang on to things like the Nicene Creed.

Yes; and that's likely because the creed doesn't present anything that attacks our emotional responses ( aside from the resurrection, of course) and I think many people today like the idea of Yahweh but think the Bible depicts Him as cruel/unkind. Justice isn't a popular quality.

 

[agua]

...
A well-known fake. No Christians I'm aware of accept it.

There's one on this forum be quiet shhh he will appear

 

[Radagast]

Here, by the way, is CF's view of the religious landscape, as expressed in the "faith icon" system. "Orthodox Christian" in this context means "accepting the Nicene Creed." The intent of these icons is that you can infer a great deal about the beliefs of the members from their icons.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think the KJVO's are wrong, and I don't think the KJV is a great translation (it was once mainstream, but it's in archaic English, and is not based on the best Greek texts); but doctrinally it doesn't actually make much difference whether you use the KJV or a more recent mainstream translation.

I may agree with you here in a manner of speaking ... doctrinally it doesn't seem to matter which translation is used, a wide variety of doctrines are extrapolated from them regardless.

It's well outside of historical orthodoxy. Every mainstream Christian group accepts Paul's writings as Scripture. The "Paul was a false apostle" argument generally comes from a subgroup of a few thousand people within the "Messianic Judaism" movement.

Hmm ..... idk. Like I said, the first time I even heard it, wasn't from a Messianic ... it was from my friend who had just converted to Orthodoxy. The next time I heard talk of it wasn't too long after, at Vineyard type church as well (in a discussion group). Otherwise I recall seeing discussions about it here at times on these boards (I would have to dig I imagine). I would find it hard to believe it's only a few thousand ? Hmm .... if it is, it is. But I would be interested in actual stats on that one.

It may be that very small fringe groups are over-represented on Internet fora like CF.

Well the first two times I remember hearing it, had nothing to do with teh internets or Christian discussion forums. Yet this only shows yet another point I made somewhere in this convo ... my exposure to this idea was early on in my own beginnings of serious exploration into Christianity, and so THIS was an idea that seemed as though it may be more "common" to me. Context.

Huh?

I could link to it, but I don't dig on linking to random posters posts to put them on the spot like that. I did that already once in this thread, I'll try and refrain from doing it more.

A well-known fake. No Christians I'm aware of accept it.

Likewise here, I'll refrain from links. But I will say, as an interesting side note ... the first time I came across the Urantia Book was back in the 90's when I was dating this girl and her parents had it (they were both atheists, btw). They had it in their library.

Mormonism is certainly outside historical Christian orthodoxy, and here on CF Mormons have a special (unorthodox) icon.

I would agree that there is substantial heterogeneity within broader Mormonism, with, for example, the Hedrickites sitting somewhere halfway between the LDS Church and historical orthodox Christianity.

Special icons aside, we could keep going back and forth, which are convos I lose interest in quickly, tbh. No offense meant whatsoever.

Here, by the way, is CF's view of the religious landscape, as expressed in the "faith icon" system. "Orthodox Christian" in this context means "accepting the Nicene Creed." The intent of these icons is that you can infer a great deal about the beliefs of the members from their icons.

I personally try to infer more about what a person believes by asking them directly and/or getting to know them typically. Not by labels, icons, etc. Those only tell me that such a person chose an icon, etc. And I've already given an easy example of where that system "failed" so to speak, as it typically does in every day life anyways (labels and affiliations). It only goes so far. This goes back to not taking people for granted, esp those who may have a "religious" mindset. In my experience at least. But I'm repeating myself at this point.

 

[Davian]

And I learn from yours. *Tip of the hat*

And I'm fully aware that I can share experiences that may even make Fox Mulder pull a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

lol.

 

[Chesterton]

Here's an example of an honest question: the term "Orthodox" with a capital "O". I thought it was a term that only applied to those who adhere to the Eastern/Oriental schism groups (who as I recall, consider themselves the "true" Catholics, yes ?), as well as some Catholics who may sometimes use the term in regards to themselves but not often (i.e. the Catholics are the "true Orthodox"). I have never encountered Protestants using that term in regards to themselves, with a capitial "O", until these forums. So would a Russian Orthodox consider a Protestant who fulfills the standards set forth by CF for "Orthodox" as being "Orthodox" ?

Capitalization does count sometimes. The difference between the idea of a "god" and the "God". In America anyway, one can be a "democrat" but not a "Democrat".

 

[Chesterton]

Sure, but not so much on a practical level.

I disagree. But anyway if you're going to argue a position, even for the fun of it, you should take that position.

I believed it to be funny. Also, while atheism is not a truth statement, it certainly does comport with the available evidence for biblical variety deities.

It is the only one I have ever known. It's not like I promote it.

Not always. I am here to learn, and have done much of that. Take, for instance, the posts by TillICollapse; I am so new to this religious stuff, and I learn from the experience he and others bring to these discussions.

However, when someone hangs something ridiculous out there for comment, who am I not to oblige?

Atheism certainly is a truth statement, but regardless, if you're going to be an atheist, then be one. Change your icon. Isn't is somewhat disingenious to attack the other's position, then when your position is attacked, you retreat behind the "seeker" icon and say "Oh, but I don't have a position to attack." What if there were a hockey game where one team had a goal to defend and the other didn't? Would that be a fair, honest game, philosophically speaking?

I have been presented with many, many conceptions of the Christian God. Made the universe, is the universe, is a Boltzmann brain, makes everything work, holds everything together, or just set things up and let it go, being of little significance (almost deistic). A God that made the Earth 6000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, or 14 billion - or just made it look that way. Just helped with abiogenesis, made people out of a rib, or was responsible for every cell division ever. Global floods, local floods, no flood. Undetectable, or seen everywhere. Comports with virtually all of science, barring a few miracles (whatever they are), or most of mainstream science has to be wrong for their beliefs to be right.

I was just in a thread where I was alternately being hammered with "stop complaining about not having evidence that does not exist" (I wasn't) and "we have as much evidence as the other (scientific) side".

If I were motivated (and I am not) I would make a checklist, and present it prior to engaging a religionist in discussion, to get a rough idea where they stand. What can start off as a seemingly coherent discussion throws me when I am confronted with a "but the global flood would have..."

For the third time, if you're seriously interested, read. The Nicene Creed has been mentioned in this thread. AFAIK, Christianity is the only major religion which purports to have actual creeds spelled out, and you won't find any side issues about floods or ribs or creation dates in them.

"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be so outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid...." - from Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Asking for a definition of 'definition' may cause you to appear as being difficult. If you are having trouble with the concept of falsifiability, I can help you there.

Yes I'm imitating you and being difficult. It's for your own good.

Did he 'speak it' out, Earth, then the rest of the universe? or did it happen in a manner that comports with inflationary theory?

I don't know, and you know that's irrelevant to the question.

Was that from a rib, or through the use of processes as described by the scientific theory of evolution?

I don't know, and you know that's irrelevant to the question.

lol. You just don't like being at the sticky end of the Socratic method.

You don't like me being difficult either. But that's not really the Socratic method. The method should have some specific aim in mind, rather than just evading having to answer, or making the other person appear foolish, without actually demonstrating why they're foolish.

I am still a nOOb at all this. My only real exposure to religion is what I have experienced here on this site (searchable at your leisure). I was almost 40 before it occurred for me to consider caring about religion.

Well Momma always said the internetz is like a box of chocolates; never know what you're gonna get. Not always the best place for serious learning.

 

[Davian]

I disagree. But anyway if you're going to argue a position, even for the fun of it, you should take that position.

My position is not one that makes a positive claim. No arguments required.

Atheism certainly is a truth statement,

Not as I use the term.

but regardless, if you're going to be an atheist, then be one. Change your icon.

I do not self-identify with the term, as I use it, or as you do.

Isn't is somewhat disingenious to attack the other's position, then when your position is attacked, you retreat behind the "seeker" icon and say "Oh, but I don't have a position to attack."

My position is, I am not convinced. Belief is not a conscious choice.

What if there were a hockey game where one team had a goal to defend and the other didn't? Would that be a fair, honest game, philosophically speaking?

I am not on any of the teams - I am only a spectator.

For the third time, if you're seriously interested, read. The Nicene Creed has been mentioned in this thread. AFAIK, Christianity is the only major religion which purports to have actual creeds spelled out, and you won't find any side issues about floods or ribs or creation dates in them.

Exactly. It does nothing to clear up all of those issues I just pointed out.

Yes I'm imitating you and being difficult. It's for your own good.

Imitated, but never duplicated.

I don't know, and you know that's irrelevant to the question.

I don't know, and you know that's irrelevant to the question.

Are you not sure of what you believe?

You don't like me being difficult either.

lol. Try harder.

But that's not really the Socratic method. The method should have some specific aim in mind, rather than just evading having to answer, or making the other person appear foolish,

Not the person, but what they claim as an accurate (but undemonstrable) description of reality. It seems to work.

without actually demonstrating why they're foolish.

Keep in mind that I am not here to convert, or promote. If I observe you to stumble over something, I may note it, but I will not insist that you dwell on it.

Well Momma always said the internetz is like a box of chocolates; never know what you're gonna get. Not always the best place for serious learning.

Yet it can be a great place to try out stuff you have learned elsewhere.

While I am new to religion, I am not new to the internet.

 

[Davian]

Well, not really. There is a lot of diversity on some of the details, but the vast majority of Christians have much more in common than they differ on. As a Protestant, for example, I would agree with about 95% of the statements in the Catholic Catechism.



I wouldn't know. People deliberately breaking the rules go straight onto my "ignore" list.



I would disagree with your interpretation of "reality."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The atheists are right.

Pfffft. Tell us something we don't know.

 

[Chesterton]

My position is not one that makes a positive claim. No arguments required.

It makes a grand, sweeping negative claim which requires argument.

Not as I use the term.

I do not self-identify with the term, as I use it, or as you do.

Well then lemon is not a fruit, as I use the term. You can get away with all kinds of ideas when you use semantics for propaganda.

My position is, I am not convinced. Belief is not a conscious choice.

What are you not convinced of, and what are you convinced of?

I am not on any of the teams - I am only a spectator.

But you post like a cheerleader.

Exactly. It does nothing to clear up all of those issues I just pointed out.

They're not "issues" for me or for Christianity. Nothing more than scientific curiosities, like where'd all the water on Earth come from?

Imitated, but never duplicated.

Thank goodness.

Are you not sure of what you believe?

Are you? Or are you sure of what you don't believe? Or are you sure of what you choose to neither believe nor disbelieve?

lol. Try harder.

Okay. How do you know you don't believe in anything?

Not the person, but what they claim as an accurate (but undemonstrable) description of reality. It seems to work.

Only if you go to the trouble to show the inaccuracy, which I notice you mostly stop short of doing. I say "I believe there's a God" and you ask "What color is his hair?" and you think you've actually done something?

Keep in mind that I am not here to convert, or promote. If I observe you to stumble over something, I may note it, but I will not insist that you dwell on it.

You're here to cheerlead as far as I can tell.

Yet it can be a great place to try out stuff you have learned elsewhere.

While I am new to religion, I am not new to the internet.

What have you learned elsewhere?

 

[agua]

....

Okay. How do you know you don't believe in anything?

Sorry Chesterton I could not resist some comic interlude.

 

[Davian]

It makes a grand, sweeping negative claim which requires argument.

Am I to defend claims that I have not made? In what way is that fair?

Well then lemon is not a fruit, as I use the term. You can get away with all kinds of ideas when you use semantics for propaganda.

Of what 'propaganda' do you accuse me of promoting?

What are you not convinced of, and what are you convinced of?

Of all of the god concepts that I have seen to date, they are not convincing, or appear to be of no significance.

But you post like a cheerleader.

Agreed. I do not have a ball in play.

They're not "issues" for me or for Christianity. Nothing more than scientific curiosities, like where'd all the water on Earth come from?

They are issues for me.

Thank goodness.

You try, but to be committed to the Socratic method, you need to be prepared to answer those questions put to you, and accept where those answers lead. You still evade and obfuscate.

Are you? Or are you sure of what you don't believe? Or are you sure of what you choose to neither believe nor disbelieve?

Evasion. First answer the question, then turn it around, if you like.

Okay. How do you know you don't believe in anything?

Where have I said that?

Only if you go to the trouble to show the inaccuracy, which I notice you mostly stop short of doing. I say "I believe there's a God" and you ask "What color is his hair?" and you think you've actually done something?

I am forced to stop by the rules of this site. You however, may preach at me all you like. Do you see me complaining about that?

You're here to cheerlead as far as I can tell.

Agreed. I do not have a ball in play.

What have you learned elsewhere?

I have learned that the phenomenon of belief does not require that said belief be an accurate description of reality. On the subject of religions, I came here to test that hypothesis, to see if those defending religious beliefs would produce something of significance, or simply be argumentative.

 

[Chesterton]

Am I to defend claims that I have not made? In what way is that fair?

In what way are you fair? You admit cheerleading the atheist view, yet are smart enough, or cowardly enough, to hide behind the "seeker" icon and not make any actual atheist claims on behalf of yourself. You obviously believe the atheistic, materialist, rationalist view of reality, but you will not be so bold as to put yourself out on a limb which someone just might be able to saw off. In terms of debate, it's effective, but not original; I've seen it before. My dear sir (and you might want to sit down for this), I am very, very close to calling you a scoundrel!

Of what 'propaganda' do you accuse me of promoting?

That atheism does not mean one believes there is no God.

Of all of the god concepts that I have seen to date, they are not convincing, or appear to be of no significance.

Answer the other question: what concepts are convincing?

Agreed. I do not have a ball in play.

Cheerleaders do have a ball in play. They cheer for one side, not both.

They are issues for me.

You try, but to be committed to the Socratic method, you need to be prepared to answer those questions put to you, and accept where those answers lead. You still evade and obfuscate.

Evasion. First answer the question, then turn it around, if you like.

I did answer, I said "I don't know". (I apologize for earlier implying that you don't read enough; it's apparent now you can't read at all. )
But seriously, the question was brought up in this thread or another one here, whether some people who ask strange questions about Christianity were being dishonestly difficult, or honestly ignorant. In this case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are honest, the reason being that there are modern Christians who are also confused as to matters such as these. One longstanding member here who frequents the Science forum seems to think the Bible is a science book, and that science can take a hike. I could write a lot on the subject, but if you're sincerely interested I'll point you to the Origins forum where there are (or at least used to be, I haven't browsed it in a while) some scientists who are Christian. Science stuff is discussed there. You can read there, but I'm not sure you can post because it's Christian only:

http://www.christianforums.com/f143/

and also to a BBC production about science and Christianity (about an hour long) which IMO is pretty decent overall.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=did+darwin+kill+god+bbc

Where have I said that?

My apologies, I could've sworn you said that. What do you believe in?

I am forced to stop by the rules of this site. You however, may preach at me all you like. Do you see me complaining about that?

C'mon, where have I preached at you, and what are you stopped short of doing? AFAIK, you can you express whatever you want so far as it's done in a civil tone.

I have learned that the phenomenon of belief does not require that said belief be an accurate description of reality. On the subject of religions, I came here to test that hypothesis, to see if those defending religious beliefs would produce something of significance, or simply be argumentative.

That's not something that need be a hypothesis. I think we all learn that at an early age.

 

[Chesterton]

dp

 

[TillICollapse]

Cheerleaders do have a ball in play. They cheer for one side, not both.

Actually that's only during the game. Otherwise, the rest of the time, they go for the players they want to go for, regardless of what team they are on.

Carry on ...

 

[Chesterton]

Actually that's only during the game. Otherwise, the rest of the time, they go for the players they want to go for, regardless of what team they are on.

Carry on ...

Hmm...did you just call Davian a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

 

[agua]

Actually that's only during the game. Otherwise, the rest of the time, they go for the players they want to go for, regardless of what team they are on.

Carry on ...

Errr. I've never heard of this happening. If a cheerleader for say, the Brisbane Bronos, was to after the game go and cheer a different team, or player from a different team, it would be seen as sacrilege The position implies loyalty and dedication to the one team in the same manner as the player, coach, manager, mascot etc.

 

[TillICollapse]

Hmm...did you just call Davian a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

Lol I can't read the bless-and-do-not-curse so I have no idea what you're asking. I can only imagine what it might be ... everything I can imagine, the answer would be "no" lol. I just made a point (one in jest) about cheerleading, not Davian lol.

Errr. I've never heard of this happening. If a cheerleader for say, the Brisbane Bronos, was to after the game go and cheer a different team, or player from a different team, it would be seen as sacrilege The position implies loyalty and dedication to the one team in the same manner as the player, coach, manager, mascot etc.

I'm not talking about cheering for the other team, I'm talking about the *players* apart from the games. They may cheer for one team, while date a player from the other team lol.