I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism. Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hi
> Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
I would challenge that. It may be true if you buy into the religion blindly which, of course, many do. But a number of intellectuals, by applying critical thinking, have come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really does exist. CS Lewis is an obvious example.
I believe that is the case for me. I like to think, and my thinking has led me to the conclusion that there must be something behind the universe, and that of all the religions vying the explain that Something, historic Christianity wins by a mile.
When you're convinced that Christianity is true, there is still a lot of room for critical thought. I like to think about theology and debate various theological positions.
Also, I can trust in my mind because I believe I am made in the image of God. It is God's nature to be rational and He has created us with rational minds. On the other hand, if matter is all there is and we are here only because of chance, how can we trust our minds?
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There
Yeah, good point. To our atheist colleagues here, who pride themselves in their thinking prowess, preaching Christ is indeed foolishness. It goes against everything they assume and believe to be true, and against common sense. How *could* it possibly be true?
Yet if it *is* true, then evidence, logic, and reason will ultimately reveal that if you dig deep enough. And I think that is precisely the case with Christ. There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every ser
There is no truth, there is only perception. Believe nothing, question everything. Teach questions, not answers. Solutions aren't the problem.
re:"historical evidence", "virtually every serious scholar" and "universally"; I think our definitions of these terms are wildly divergent to put it mildly, but I won't go into it here;).
There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every serious scholar will admit that)
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it round
If Jesus was not really historical, why is it that every major religion acknowledges his existence, in spite of the fact they believe the others to be heresy? I would think Muslims would be champing at the bit to deny Christ and hence, Christianity, but they don't. Instead, they argue the finer points of the Crucifixion, etc... If Jesus never existed, why can't the billion+ Muslims figure this out? They'd love more than anyone else to discredit all of Christianity, yet do not deny Christ's
Islam did not exist until 600 years after Jesus was supposed to live. To say that they acknowledge his existence as evidence to his existence is intellectual dishonesty. Islam is another religion, not a scholarly organization out to prove the existence/non-existence of Jesus.
Calling the Bible stories fiction is really a stretch, especially in light of the fact that you have no way of proving so. The best argument you could make would be that you, personally haven't observed divine intervention. Even though I'm a Christian, and don't recognize the Koran, I realize that I can't call it fiction without departing from logical argument territory.
Likewise the Harry Potter books. Just because I've never observed any wizards, doesn't mean they're not holed up in a magical tavern hiding from the rest of the world.
I personally have no doubts that there was a Jewish middle eastern dude named Jesus of Nazareth that went around and taught some good things. It's all over history. Where the GP gets off thinking there was no "Jesus the man," I don't know.
HOWEVER....I just have a hard time believing all the myths, such as that he was the son of a God, even though I was raised on them. If you don't think the Koran is fiction, what are your thoughts on the Bhagavad Gita? Egyptian Old Kingdom pyramid texts or other books? Th
I would think Muslims would be champing at the bit to deny Christ and hence, Christianity, but they don't.
That's because you're ignorant (I'm using the word literally here, not as an insult -- there are things you are unaware of.) Muslims worship the same god; they consider Jesus one of their prophets. They just think Christians worship incorrectly (exactly the same complaint many Christians make of each other.)
Calling the Bible stories fiction is really a stretch, especially in light of the fact th
It's all over history. Where the GP gets off thinking there was no "Jesus the man," I don't know.
No, in fact, it isn't all over history. You're just parroting what you've been told. As it turns out, there is no evidence backing up the existence of Jesus himself. There are two kinds of secondary evidence: (1) The bible, and (2) the existence of Christians as a cult well after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Jesus only got "all over history" as the religion took hold. The same pattern, by the way, th
The writings of Josephus, for one. I trust scholars when they say it's for realsies. And I mean real scholars, not bible scholars who believe in magic.
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)
In fact, it's not really very prevalent in history at all. There are only a few cryptic references to what may have been that "jesus" and even those most likely refer to something else.
What is all over history is the mess left by the religion, not any sort of actual historical person.
If your standard for finding something untrue is that you haven't personally seen it, your understanding of the world will be very limited indeed. If anyone could turn water into wine, Jesus would probably be regarded as just another preacher. The fact that we can't, and that no one has been able to reproduce this feat, is evidence that He was God. But you seem to regard this as evidence the story isn't true. I'm curious, by what leap of logic are you able to state something untrue? Can you prove it f
If your standard for finding something untrue is that you haven't personally seen it
My standard for finding an extraordinary claim true is multifaceted. First, I look for corroboration. If you tell me the sky is green outside, I will turn to other observers and ask, "what color is the sky outside?" If all the observers report "green", then I have corroboration. In history, this is a key mechanism for validation: historians try very hard to find information from more than one source that agrees on a par
And yet it is when nature does go out of her course, i.e., does something theory doesn't predict, that both science and religion are enlightened. Had Tycho Brahe adjusted his measurements of the heavens to fit with the Greek theories of epicycles - so as not to be thought a liar - we'd still believe the Earth the center of the Universe.
But of more interest: having personally observed miracles myself, I don't have the luxury of writing off someone else as a liar. To Christians, the Bible stories are onl
When I was child, I would take two strips of metal I'd found on the road, stick them in the electrical outlet, and hold on to each with one hand. By some yet unexplained reason, I was never electrocuted, yet my brother managed to get shocked pulling a out a plug.
Years later in my high school electronics class, we passed around a transformer - 12v to 120v - with a 9v battery and had "fun" shocking ourselves by holding the high voltage leads in each hand and touching the battery to the 12v side. Which pr
I'd consider saving the life of someone more important, but consider a direct contravention of the laws of physics to be a more compelling argument. Incidentally, I do know someone who recovered from a coma after we prayed for her, after the doctors had assured the family there was nothing more they could do, and they should be prepared for her death.
But there's always the contingent of people willing to assert that, "She would have recovered anyway..." and maybe they're right. I don't have the requisit
In any problem, if you find yourself doing an infinite amount of work,
the answer may be obtained by inspection.
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hi
Re:Still doing that? (Score:2, Informative)
> Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
I would challenge that. It may be true if you buy into the religion blindly which, of course, many do. But a number of intellectuals, by applying critical thinking, have come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really does exist. CS Lewis is an obvious example.
I believe that is the case for me. I like to think, and my thinking has led me to the conclusion that there must be something behind the universe, and that of all the religions vying the explain that Something, historic Christianity wins by a mile.
When you're convinced that Christianity is true, there is still a lot of room for critical thought. I like to think about theology and debate various theological positions.
Also, I can trust in my mind because I believe I am made in the image of God. It is God's nature to be rational and He has created us with rational minds. On the other hand, if matter is all there is and we are here only because of chance, how can we trust our minds?
Re: (Score:1)
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. To our atheist colleagues here, who pride themselves in their thinking prowess, preaching Christ is indeed foolishness. It goes against everything they assume and believe to be true, and against common sense. How *could* it possibly be true?
Yet if it *is* true, then evidence, logic, and reason will ultimately reveal that if you dig deep enough. And I think that is precisely the case with Christ. There is plenty of historical evidence for His existence and crucifixion (virtually every ser
Re: (Score:2)
There is no truth, there is only perception.
Believe nothing, question everything.
Teach questions, not answers.
Solutions aren't the problem.
re:"historical evidence", "virtually every serious scholar" and "universally"; I think our definitions of these terms are wildly divergent to put it mildly, but I won't go into it here;).
Bogus claim (Score:2)
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it round
Re: (Score:2)
Two points:
Re: (Score:2)
You should really get on top of the people over at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise the Harry Potter books. Just because I've never observed any wizards, doesn't mean they're not holed up in a magical tavern hiding from the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
HOWEVER....I just have a hard time believing all the myths, such as that he was the son of a God, even though I was raised on them. If you don't think the Koran is fiction, what are your thoughts on the Bhagavad Gita? Egyptian Old Kingdom pyramid texts or other books? Th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because you're ignorant (I'm using the word literally here, not as an insult -- there are things you are unaware of.) Muslims worship the same god; they consider Jesus one of their prophets. They just think Christians worship incorrectly (exactly the same complaint many Christians make of each other.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, in fact, it isn't all over history. You're just parroting what you've been told. As it turns out, there is no evidence backing up the existence of Jesus himself. There are two kinds of secondary evidence: (1) The bible, and (2) the existence of Christians as a cult well after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Jesus only got "all over history" as the religion took hold. The same pattern, by the way, th
Re: (Score:1)
Jopsephus (Score:2)
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Josephus (Score:2)
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it ISN'T "all over history".
In fact, it's not really very prevalent in history at all. There are only a few cryptic references to what may have been that "jesus" and even those most likely refer to something else.
What is all over history is the mess left by the religion, not any sort of actual historical person.
Re: (Score:2)
If your standard for finding something untrue is that you haven't personally seen it, your understanding of the world will be very limited indeed. If anyone could turn water into wine, Jesus would probably be regarded as just another preacher. The fact that we can't, and that no one has been able to reproduce this feat, is evidence that He was God. But you seem to regard this as evidence the story isn't true. I'm curious, by what leap of logic are you able to state something untrue? Can you prove it f
Re: (Score:2)
My standard for finding an extraordinary claim true is multifaceted. First, I look for corroboration. If you tell me the sky is green outside, I will turn to other observers and ask, "what color is the sky outside?" If all the observers report "green", then I have corroboration. In history, this is a key mechanism for validation: historians try very hard to find information from more than one source that agrees on a par
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it is when nature does go out of her course, i.e., does something theory doesn't predict, that both science and religion are enlightened. Had Tycho Brahe adjusted his measurements of the heavens to fit with the Greek theories of epicycles - so as not to be thought a liar - we'd still believe the Earth the center of the Universe.
But of more interest: having personally observed miracles myself, I don't have the luxury of writing off someone else as a liar. To Christians, the Bible stories are onl
Re: (Score:2)
When I was child, I would take two strips of metal I'd found on the road, stick them in the electrical outlet, and hold on to each with one hand. By some yet unexplained reason, I was never electrocuted, yet my brother managed to get shocked pulling a out a plug.
Years later in my high school electronics class, we passed around a transformer - 12v to 120v - with a 9v battery and had "fun" shocking ourselves by holding the high voltage leads in each hand and touching the battery to the 12v side. Which pr
Re: (Score:2)
I'd consider saving the life of someone more important, but consider a direct contravention of the laws of physics to be a more compelling argument. Incidentally, I do know someone who recovered from a coma after we prayed for her, after the doctors had assured the family there was nothing more they could do, and they should be prepared for her death.
But there's always the contingent of people willing to assert that, "She would have recovered anyway..." and maybe they're right. I don't have the requisit