Looking for open debate on apologetics

[razeontherock]

Being born again is not the same as one proclaiming to be a Christian. I guess I was a tare then.

No arguments convinced me of either. My deconversion (if you can even call it that) was due to my own immaturity and pride. My returning to God was of no doing of my own.

Not that I was there or anything, but there is another possibility:

You were saved, but unproductive in the Kingdom. You fell away as part of being 'pruned,' but still called and waiting through His chastisement. His child the whole time, which had everything to do w/ you returning.

Either that or as you say, your first time through was nuthin'

Fortunately there will NOT be a test at the end of class. What counts is NOW

 

[razeontherock]

OK, but if mental activity ceases at death, what can it mean to say that the soul continues?

Something outside of our current physical existence, which our measurable "mental activity" is tied to. Here's some food for thought for you:

"Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 1 Cor 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

You might consider this a bold statement or perhaps even rude, but you are truly showing there to be quite a bit in this passage you always missed. You do this by referring to the limitations of our language running out, and exhausting our capacity. Every one of us tasting the powers of the world to come is the other way around: we are presently exhausting the capacity of language. We don't need to "wait for heaven" to get there. This is foreign to you, because you never experienced it.

This is a time in history when more and more people are becoming honest about it Even Pastors sometimes get saved!

 

[razeontherock]

If all things are possible, then why do you infer that it is not possible for people who believe that death ends all to have hope?

By the very definition of "hope," as he's using it. You are using the same word in a way which, in Christianity, is not hope.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'll be happy to give you an answer for the hope that I have but I won't debate it with you.

Correct In fact, a person wanting to debate such a thing is truly, truly missing the point of basic human decency and respect. Maybe we should re-name it secular inhumanism?

Interesting. And those who have a hope based on Islam or Scientology should never debate the hope in them either? Should they go through life insisting they have the only true source of hope, and never allow that hope to be questioned? Would it be inhumanism for them to question their faith?

When I was a Christian, I met many people who siad they had a hope in things that I, as a Christian, considered to be wrong. Having learned from scientific studies that the basis of their hope often had more to do with their identification with caring individuals in a community, rather than due to the specifics of their religion, I thought it would be good for them to understand that it might not be the specifics of their religion that was making them happy, but rather, the feeling of community.

Then one day somebody turned that argument back on me. Since I was arguing that Christianity must be true, for it worked for me, how did I know that it wasn't just the community of believers that was making my happy? I had no good answer to that question.

And the rest is history.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is wrong with a hope that leads to a fulfilling life here and now, and then one day ends? That sounds appealing to me.

You have every right to be interested in that, but you cannot compare it to the merits of Christianity as you say you want to. It's apples to oranges. This type of comparison any Christian should concede to you, as the Bible clearly teaches.

OK, so you concede that my life here, which in my view will eventually end, can be fulfilling and full of hope?

If I have the "apples" kind of hope--a hope for a good life here and now--and you have an "oranges" kind of hope, could we compare hopes to see which hope is better?

 

[doubtingmerle]

you are truly showing there to be quite a bit in this passage you always missed. You do this by referring to the limitations of our language running out, and exhausting our capacity. Every one of us tasting the powers of the world to come is the other way around: we are presently exhausting the capacity of language. We don't need to "wait for heaven" to get there.

Oh, I understand that you are not currently close to running to the limits of what language can express. In the example we were discussing, one would have exhausted all possible conversations in 1,000,000 to the power of 1,000,000 years. That is a very long time! I'm sure you are not close to that limit.

But if you live forever, then eventually you will have lived 1,000,000 raised to the 1,000,000 years, and find that you have "no less days" to live "then when you'd first begun"! Then what do you do? Repeat everything over again?

 

[razeontherock]

When I was a Christian, I met many people who siad they had a hope in things that I, as a Christian, considered to be wrong. Having learned from scientific studies that the basis of their hope often had more to do with their identification with caring individuals in a community, rather than due to the specifics of their religion

This is a non-sequitur, and a breach in logic. Science cannot do what you are crediting it with here. but now what you're saying isn't debate, while what I'm saying is - oh the irony!

I think part of the stigma we're having over "debate" here is just the usage of the word.

I thought it would be good for them to understand that it might not be the specifics of their religion that was making them happy, but rather, the feeling of community.

False dichotomy. Christianity IS relationships. Primarily w/ the Father, yes; but not in a vacuum. Other believers are absolutely essential for this to take place. Therefore what you're referring to as a mere "feeling," is actually much MUCH more than just that, within true Biblical Christianity. And the associated feelings are also holy (See my tagline quoting Harry)

how did I know that it wasn't just the community of believers that was making my happy?

Happiness to be found in Christianity IS largely attributable to the community of believers, so here you merely developed the above false dichotomy further. Likewise we are also to share one another's sorrows, and bear one another's burdens.

Understanding a few terms might short-cut your learning process to see what you were missing in your perception:

koinonia (translated many ways, perhaps including fellowship?)
Eucharist - also translated various ways, but I think easier to track down.

Do you know how to use blue letter Bible? I hear E-sword is even better. Makes all my hard copy resources obsolete!

 

[razeontherock]

OK, so you concede that my life here, which in my view will eventually end, can be fulfilling and full of hope?

If I have the "apples" kind of hope--a hope for a good life here and now--and you have an "oranges" kind of hope, could we compare hopes to see which hope is better?

Again you paint a false dichotomy:

1 Cor 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

Note the bolded word; this is not saying, as you seem to suggest, that Christianity dictates we have no hope in this life. If I had continued to perceive it that way, I surely would have fallen away just like you did, and my Faith never would have made it past 1984. (There were others factors in my case including my life being on the line, which also contributes to our different reactions)

So your quote here needs to be re-stated if we want to reflect reality:

"if you have apples and I have apples as well as oranges" - -


where were you going with that?

 

[razeontherock]

Oh, I understand that you are not currently close to running to the limits of what language can express. I'm sure you are not close to that limit.

WRONG!

2 Cor 9:15 Thanks [be] unto God for his unspeakable gift."

It takes no longer than a day, for in the day you seek Him with your whole heart, He will be found of you. Again, you're showing some ingredients you always missed. I'll try to be patient as they're so clear to me, and I don't have the ability to truly clarify them to you ...

As in my line of work impatience is a virtue - can i get a little help here?

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Then one day somebody turned that argument back on me. Since I was arguing that Christianity must be true, for it worked for me, how did I know that it wasn't just the community of believers that was making my happy? I had no good answer to that question.

And the rest is history.

So you were a Christian because it worked for you and made you happy? Not a very good reason. Now, since you say you want to debate apologetics, why do you think Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

 

[doubtingmerle]

When I was a Christian, I met many people who siad they had a hope in things that I, as a Christian, considered to be wrong. Having learned from scientific studies that the basis of their hope often had more to do with their identification with caring individuals in a community, rather than due to the specifics of their religion

This is a non-sequitur, and a breach in logic. Science cannot do what you are crediting it with here. but now what you're saying isn't debate, while what I'm saying is - oh the irony!

How do you know that scientists cannot determine that much of the good that people experience from cults comes from the fact that they are involved in a community of caring people?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I thought it would be good for them to understand that it might not be the specifics of their religion that was making them happy, but rather, the feeling of community

.

False dichotomy. Christianity IS relationships. Primarily w/ the Father, yes; but not in a vacuum. Other believers are absolutely essential for this to take place. Therefore what you're referring to as a mere "feeling," is actually much MUCH more than just that, within true Biblical Christianity. And the associated feelings are also holy (See my tagline quoting Harry)

Huh? I think I see what you are doing here. You are parsing my message into tidbits, and then responding to the tidbits out of context.

The word "they" in my phrase quoted above refers to Muslims and scientologists! Look at the context. That phrase in context does not refer to Christians! But you pull the phrase out of the middle of the sentence, then reinterpret "they" to mean Christians, and print a response that has nothing to do with the original sentence!

Once more, what I was saying is that people of many religions report that their religions work for them. Yes, their religions "work", but the reason those religions "work" may well be because the people that practice that religion are involved in a caring community.

When I hear Muslims testify that Islam gave them a wonderful experience, that does not prove Islam is true. They may be getting that feeling, not because of the specifics of their religion, but because of the benefits of being involved in a caring community.

And for goodness sake, please don't pull phrases out of the above paragraphs out of context and interpret the word "they" to mean something the original phrase didn't mean in context.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Happiness to be found in Christianity IS largely attributable to the community of believers, so here you merely developed the above false dichotomy further. Likewise we are also to share one another's sorrows, and bear one another's burdens.

You seem to be saying that you agree with me that much of the benefit of being a Christian comes from the fact that one finds himself in a caring communinty. Why not simply say that you agree with me on that point?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again you paint a false dichotomy:

1 Cor 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

Note the bolded word; this is not saying, as you seem to suggest, that Christianity dictates we have no hope in this life. If I had continued to perceive it that way, I surely would have fallen away just like you did, and my Faith never would have made it past 1984. (There were others factors in my case including my life being on the line, which also contributes to our different reactions)

So your quote here needs to be re-stated if we want to reflect reality:

"if you have apples and I have apples as well as oranges" - -

Huh? Where did I say anything that "Christianity dictates we have no hope in this life"? I didn't say anything remotely close to that, did I?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh, I understand that you are not currently close to running to the limits of what language can express. I'm sure you are not close to that limit.

WRONG!

Are you even reading what I write?

Once more, here is the entire post to which you responded:

Oh, I understand that you are not currently close to running to the limits of what language can express. In the example we were discussing, one would have exhausted all possible conversations in 1,000,000 to the power of 1,000,000 years. That is a very long time! I'm sure you are not close to that limit.

But if you live forever, then eventually you will have lived 1,000,000 raised to the 1,000,000 years, and find that you have "no less days" to live "then when you'd first begun"! Then what do you do? Repeat everything over again?
​

Do you understand what I was saying there. I am saying that you have not come close to having all possible conversations yet. And truly you have not yet had all possible conversations yet. As I mentioned in that post, one would need to live a long, long time to experience every possible converstation.

So why do you insist I am wrong when I write that you have not yet experience every possible conversation?

 

[doubtingmerle]

why do you think Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

Resurrections are very rare, so I would want good evidence before I believed in a resurrection.

If Christ had risen from the dead, would we not find early writers talking about the bodily resurection? But I don't find anybody mentioning that until the 4 gospels, which were written by unidentified authors long after the event they record. How is that convincing?

 

[razeontherock]

Huh? I think I see what you are doing here. You are parsing my message into tidbits, and then responding to the tidbits out of context.

And for goodness sake, please don't pull phrases out of the above paragraphs out of context and interpret the word "they" to mean something the original phrase didn't mean in context.

I'm pointing out holes in your logic. You don't like that. Thinking I'd stop, is just not the way things work. If you can present Truth, I can't shoot it down. I don't see that happening here. Benefits of community, are real benefits. That statement is both obvious, and stands on it's own. You're trying to conclude other things from that, which don't logically follow.

And no, science really can't distinguish between laughter that does good like a medicine, coming from community, or coming from an indwelling Holy Spirit. If they invent a microscope like that lemme know, ok?

 

[razeontherock]

Huh? Where did I say anything that "Christianity dictates we have no hope in this life"? I didn't say anything remotely close to that, did I?

Yup. If you didn't intend to, and you just ceded that point, fine. But then you need to re-think much of your stance. No need to thank me - I accept cash

What is really happening here is you haven't thought out the ramifications of your conclusions as thoroughly as you'd like to think. Other's perspectives are bound to reveal this, which is the primary purpose of communication IMHO.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you even reading what I write?

So why do you insist I am wrong when I write that you have not yet experience every possible conversation?

Because I DO read what you write, and apparently pay attention much more closely than you are comfortable with. I see the ramifications of your statements, and point them out to you; at least where they don't represent reality.

Your "every possible conversation" schtick started w/ the statement that eternal Life is not desirable. When conversing w/ someone who has a mind like a steel trap, moving the goalposts simply doesn't work.

 

[razeontherock]

Resurrections are very rare, so I would want good evidence before I believed in a resurrection.

If Christ had risen from the dead, would we not find early writers talking about the bodily resurection? But I don't find anybody mentioning that until the 4 gospels, which were written by unidentified authors long after the event they record. How is that convincing?

By amending your statements to reflect truth:

anyone writing about it WAS, by definition, Christian;

your "long after the event" accusation is completely inappropriate for the time period;

everybody knew who wrote the Gospels, it's only modernism that gunkifies that. Do you even know why the Gospels were written down, or what purpose the content served beforehand? Obviously not, so you merely prove you're speaking from ignorance.

Not a stable platform!