A Christian take . . . .

[Nunyo Beeznis]

I am not looking to win proselytes nor am I looking to debate theology, faith, or religion. I am, however, willing to the best of my ability as a student and practitioner of the faith to answer any questions people might have. I ask only that the conversation remain respectful and civil.

[His Noodly Appendage]

M'okay.

How does 'dying for our sins' work?

How does punishing an innocent person reduce the culpability of the guilty?

If I so loved my sister that I hit myself on the head with a brick for her parking tickets, would it get her off the hook?

[Rathpig]

M'okay.

How does 'dying for our sins' work?

How does punishing an innocent person reduce the culpability of the guilty?

If I so loved my sister that I hit myself on the head with a brick for her parking tickets, would it get her off the hook?

That is a great place to start, and one of the reasons I have a complete disconnect from any Abrahamic religious philosophy. A creator deity and a damned creation just doesn't pass the basic logic test for me.

[Dlx2]

That is a great place to start, and one of the reasons I have a complete disconnect from any Abrahamic religious philosophy. A creator deity and a damned creation just doesn't pass the basic logic test for me.

You never kept an ant farm, only to sadistically dump bleach on it, laughing at their terrible plight?

No?

Me neither.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Are you actually interested in what a Christian believes or are you trying debate? I will not debate you, but I can and will answer questions.

In case you are serious - "dying for our sins" only works in the case of Jesus Christ. No one else can do it - and it is a misunderstanding to say that that His sacrifice reduces the culpability of the guilty. It does not negate temporal penalties. What it does it satisfy eternal penalties. It balances the scales. Think of it in terms of the conservation of energy or balancing an equation if it helps. It's kinda like playing Asteroid. Have you ever plaid Asteroid? If so - have you ever tried to get the ship to a dead stop at the center of the screen after you have moved? The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts you at rest back in the center of the screen.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Guys - there are other threads where you can discuss and feed into what you already believe. Kindly please let this thread be a place to ask questions and and find understanding.

[Rathpig]

Guys - there are other threads where you can discuss and feed into what you already believe. Kindly please let this thread be a place to ask questions and and find understanding.

I am speaking of course only for myself, but I am being extremely restrained.


My question is this:


What logical sense can be found in a creator deity, with the acclaimed attributes of omni-power, knowledge, and presence, damning their (his) own creation to eternal torment merely for existence? Is this not psychologically questionable?

This exists before and outside the question of possible "salvation".




(By the way, I do not completely understand a "no debate" clause on a discussion board and likewise do not comprehend the phrase "find understanding".)

[Pavlov's Dog]

Are you actually interested in what a Christian believes or are you trying debate? I will not debate you, but I can and will answer questions.

I know that I am not one of them, but most people here were Christians at one point, so they have an idea what Christians believe. You don't have access to some type of special information that other members of this forum are lacking.

[RexT]

Mod note:

It isn't considered unusual if someone doesn't want to debate. A simple conversation is fine, as long as there is no preaching. If you're willing to answer questions, including the expected follow up questions, no problem. If you refuse to answer those questions, It could be interpreted as preaching, which is frowned on.

Rex

[David B]

Hi Nunyo.

Thank you for your kind offer.

There are many things I would like to talk with Christians about, but often what I would chose to ask would depend on the sort of Christianity concerned.

So, to avoid talking at cross purposes, where do you stand on the literal truth of the OT origin accounts?

If you are the sort of Christian who views the Genesis accounts as allegorical, and accept an old Earth, and a God who works through evolution (perhaps giving it a bit of a nudge sometimes, then we can move on to other questions.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden Story, six thousand years or so ago, then I'd like to focus on why you believe that, and the evidence against such a position.

Of course there are other positions available as well.

If you clarified the sort of Christianity you wish to defend, then that would be helpful.

David B

[Febble]

Are you actually interested in what a Christian believes or are you trying debate? I will not debate you, but I can and will answer questions.

In case you are serious - "dying for our sins" only works in the case of Jesus Christ. No one else can do it - and it is a misunderstanding to say that that His sacrifice reduces the culpability of the guilty. It does not negate temporal penalties. What it does it satisfy eternal penalties. It balances the scales. Think of it in terms of the conservation of energy or balancing an equation if it helps. It's kinda like playing Asteroid. Have you ever plaid Asteroid? If so - have you ever tried to get the ship to a dead stop at the center of the screen after you have moved? The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts you at rest back in the center of the screen.

If we have questions, it is because there is something we do not understand. It is impossible to ask question about something you do not understand without calling what is being non-understood "into question" - in other words, making it the subject of debate.

In this case I don't understand why there should be such a thing as "eternal penalties", especially if the God you speak of is good.

But I suspect you will regard such a question as "debating". In which case, I don't know what kind of question wouldn't be.

[Ray Moscow]

Are you actually interested in what a Christian believes or are you trying debate? I will not debate you, but I can and will answer questions.

In case you are serious - "dying for our sins" only works in the case of Jesus Christ. No one else can do it - and it is a misunderstanding to say that that His sacrifice reduces the culpability of the guilty. It does not negate temporal penalties. What it does it satisfy eternal penalties. It balances the scales. Think of it in terms of the conservation of energy or balancing an equation if it helps. It's kinda like playing Asteroid. Have you ever plaid Asteroid? If so - have you ever tried to get the ship to a dead stop at the center of the screen after you have moved? The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts you at rest back in the center of the screen.

Some of us are former Christians. Would you like for me to explain to you why none of your core beliefs are true?

[Christina]

Hi Nunyo - thanks for the offer. I always have tons of questions and I'd rather discuss than debate.

I don't understand the whole thing about faith vs. works. I'm probably garbling this but it sounds like some Christians believe that 'good works' are the way into heaven and others feel that things like that are not important and the way into heaven is through having faith. What good is having faith if it doesn't motivate someone to take action in the world that they're in right now? What does 'do unto others' mean in that context?

[yautja_cetanu]

Some of us are former Christians. Would you like for me to explain to you why none of your core beliefs are true?

I'd be interested, maybe in a different thread. I have tended to find the things atheists (specifically secular humanists) are against are actually the same things I'm against, though I'd call myself a follower of Christ. Though obviously there are great ideological differences... so I'd definitely be interested.

For example Atheists (and many Christians) have a peculiar stance on the christian view of religion, morality and righteousness. I sometimes wonder if I'm really a christian but I think its mainly because of the fact that popular american christian culture is different to that of worldwide christian culture but has the most money and therefore the loudest voice... I'm shocked that christianity is even seen as "western" at all

[Christina]

In keeping with the spirit of the OP, I'll be happy to split off a debate on the truthfulness of the core beliefs of Christians if you'd like to continue with that. Some of us do enjoy discussions more than debates and it's nice to be able to have one every now and then.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

(By the way, I do not completely understand a "no debate" clause on a discussion board and likewise do not comprehend the phrase "find understanding".) Then perhaps this thread is not for you then.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Hi Nunyo.

Thank you for your kind offer.

There are many things I would like to talk with Christians about, but often what I would chose to ask would depend on the sort of Christianity concerned.

So, to avoid talking at cross purposes, where do you stand on the literal truth of the OT origin accounts?

If you are the sort of Christian who views the Genesis accounts as allegorical, and accept an old Earth, and a God who works through evolution (perhaps giving it a bit of a nudge sometimes, then we can move on to other questions.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden Story, six thousand years or so ago, then I'd like to focus on why you believe that, and the evidence against such a position.

Of course there are other positions available as well.

Ah a good question. :)

I'm a strange duck when it comes to Genesis in that I believe it to be true, but not in the way a fundie believes it to be true. For example, in Gen 1 & 2 I see three different creations - especially when you take into consideration other Biblical events that fit into the creation story such as the gifting of earth to Lucifer before the fall, the fall of Lucifer, creation statement from the Gospel of John. Further, I believe that Gen 2 is a separate creation from gen 1 which sets me at odds with many old school theologians.

So if you are asking am I a young earth creationist? The answer is no.

If you are asking if I am a Ham style fundamentalist who denies scientific evidence to try and prove my pet beliefs? Again the answer is no.

What I do believe is that Science and Scripture are actually in complete harmony. After all, God created the world and the scientific laws that govern it so why genesis deny science or science deny genesis?



If you clarified the sort of Christianity you wish to defend, then that would be helpful.

David BIf you refer back to the OP - I'm not interested in defending anything since I am not interested in debating any issue here. My goal is to simply answer questions to help bring understanding. I have studied as some length the various denominations and sects of the Christian faith so while I do not agree with everything they teach, I am quite capable of telling you what it is Catholics believe and why, what it is baptists believe and why, etc. as well as answer questions about general theological issues without the typical sectarian bias's.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Mod note:

It isn't considered unusual if someone doesn't want to debate. A simple conversation is fine, as long as there is no preaching. If you're willing to answer questions, including the expected follow up questions, no problem. If you refuse to answer those questions, It could be interpreted as preaching, which is frowned on.

Rex
I'm not interested in preaching at anyone. Like I said in the OP, I am not interested in winning converts. It's quite simply not my job to convert anyone and I personally detest the hard sell types that feel they need to beat every person the come across over the head with the bible until the are either unconscious or dazed and confused.

[Christina]

Then perhaps this thread is not for you then.

I've started a thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=16386#post16386) in TH to talk about the discussion vs. debate issue so that it doesn't have to take place in this thread and derail things. : ).

[Nunyo Beeznis]

If we have questions, it is because there is something we do not understand. It is impossible to ask question about something you do not understand without calling what is being non-understood "into question" - in other words, making it the subject of debate.

In this case I don't understand why there should be such a thing as "eternal penalties", especially if the God you speak of is good.

But I suspect you will regard such a question as "debating". In which case, I don't know what kind of question wouldn't be. Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you.

[dancer_rnb]

Is there such a thing as "Christianity"?

By the way, I looked semi seriously at Jehovah's Witnesses
and seriously at Christian Universalism at one time. Both take
the Bible very seriously. Are either the "REAL" Christianity?

For a while there, I believed mainline Christians who believed in
Hell were blaspheming heretics.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

I know that I am not one of them, but most people here were Christians at one point, so they have an idea what Christians believe. You don't have access to some type of special information that other members of this forum are lacking.Actually, I'm not certain that they do. I find that many who "were" Christian tend to have some very serious misconceptions about the faith and the attendant theology. However, if they already know what Christians believe, then this is not a thread for them.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm not interested in defending anything since I am not interested in debating any issue here. My goal is to simply answer questions to help bring understanding.


In others words, you want to preach and evangelise here with no one allowed to challenge anything you write? That sounds really fun (not).

To me, if someone asserts something, especially something outside normal probabilities like supernatural crap, he/she had better be ready to back it up or else STFU.

[Ray Moscow]

Actually, I'm not certain that they do. I find that many who "were" Christian tend to have some very serious misconceptions about the faith and the attendant theology. However, if they already know what Christians believe, then this is not a thread for them.

Here you go with one (of I'm sure many) of your unfounded assertions.

Your "were" above is insulting, as is your assertion that we don't understand a religion in which we were raised and or spent decades.

from the OP: I ask only that the conversation remain respectful and civil.

Yeah, right. See above.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Hi Nunyo - thanks for the offer. I always have tons of questions and I'd rather discuss than debate.

I don't understand the whole thing about faith vs. works. I'm probably garbling this but it sounds like some Christians believe that 'good works' are the way into heaven and others feel that things like that are not important and the way into heaven is through having faith. What good is having faith if it doesn't motivate someone to take action in the world that they're in right now? What does 'do unto others' mean in that context? The faith v works issue is one that is hotly contested between many Christian sects - mostly as a matter of semantics. All Christian sects agree that good works are just that - Good. The issue comes over the question of when these works are to happen in relation to salvation. Some people believe that good works need to be done in order to receive salvation, in effect earning salvation. Others believe that nothing we can do can earn us salvation but that good works come after salvation (I prefer the term "salvation experience" myself) are evidence of someone who is "saved."

IMO, the works debate has more to do with the term salvation and how it is understood by the various sects than it is about what people do.


I hope this at least begins to help :)

[Nunyo Beeznis]

In keeping with the spirit of the OP, I'll be happy to split off a debate on the truthfulness of the core beliefs of Christians if you'd like to continue with that. Some of us do enjoy discussions more than debates and it's nice to be able to have one every now and then.
I for one would appreciate that. :)

[Christina]

I'm going to temporarily lock this thread to split some of this off to a new one. In the meantime I hope that some of you will participate in the TH thread about debates vs. discussions.

ETA: I'm going to reopen without splitting it. Nunyo, it seems clear to me that at the moment there is a majority will that discussions = preaching and will therefore not be allowed to go unchallenged. I'd give up if I were you.

[Dlx2]

The faith v works issue is one that is hotly contested between many Christian sects - mostly as a matter of semantics. All Christian sects agree that good works are just that - Good. The issue comes over the question of when these works are to happen in relation to salvation. Some people believe that good works need to be done in order to receive salvation, in effect earning salvation. Others believe that nothing we can do can earn us salvation but that good works come after salvation (I prefer the term "salvation experience" myself) are evidence of someone who is "saved."

Defend faith-based salvation in terms of the Tragedy of the Commons, please.

[Rathpig]

Then perhaps this thread is not for you then.

I think you have focused on a contention and have skipped over what should be a central question to anyone's "discussion" of Christianity. The entire theology hinges on what seems to be either a malevolence or a contradiction.

I'll repeat my question:


What logical sense can be found in a creator deity, with the acclaimed attributes of omni-power, knowledge, and presence, damning their (his) own creation to eternal torment merely for existence?



At this point any "debate" is entirely up to you. If you will please just answer the question, I will move on without offering any counter argument.

[Febble]

Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you.

Well, perhaps we have different understandings of the word "debate". As a teacher I always encouraged kids to question the answers they were given, not merely to accept them from authority. Sometimes their questions arose because they had not understood something. Sometimes it was because it had not been made clear. Sometimes it was because I was wrong.

FYI I still call myself a Christian theist. And I'd still like an answer to my question: how could a good God demand the suffering of an innocent scapegoat because of something other people had done?

[dancer_rnb]

I think you have focused on a contention and have skipped over what should be a central question to anyone's "discussion" of Christianity. The entire theology hinges on what seems to be either a malevolence or a contradiction.

I'll repeat my question:

Originally Posted by Rathpig
What logical sense can be found in a creator deity, with the acclaimed attributes of omni-power, knowledge, and presence, damning their (his) own creation to eternal torment merely for existence?



At this point any "debate" is entirely up to you. If you will please just answer the question, I will move on without offering any counter argument.

Rathpig, I wonder if Nunyo knows there have been at least three different types of Universalism tied to Christianity just in the United States that don't accept this.

[David B]

Ah a good question. :)

Thank you:)

I'm a strange duck when it comes to Genesis in that I believe it to be true, but not in the way a fundie believes it to be true. For example, in Gen 1 & 2 I see three different creations - especially when you take into consideration other Biblical events that fit into the creation story such as the gifting of earth to Lucifer before the fall, the fall of Lucifer, creation statement from the Gospel of John. Further, I believe that Gen 2 is a separate creation from gen 1 which sets me at odds with many old school theologians.

A somewhat idiosyncratic position, perhaps, and one which I don't quite understand.

Perhaps you would expand on it?

I'd also be interested in an explanation of why, as it appears at first sight that you do, you take the Genesis creation accounts more seriously than any other creation myths.

So if you are asking am I a young earth creationist? The answer is no.

Splendid!

If you are asking if I am a Ham style fundamentalist who denies scientific evidence to try and prove my pet beliefs? Again the answer is no.

Again, splendid.

What I do believe is that Science and Scripture are actually in complete harmony. After all, God created the world and the scientific laws that govern it so why genesis deny science or science deny genesis?

Why indeed! But a literal interpretation of the creation stories, and the global flood would appear to be denied by science, don't you think?



If you refer back to the OP - I'm not interested in defending anything since I am not interested in debating any issue here. My goal is to simply answer questions to help bring understanding.

Referring back to the OP you refer to A Christian take - which I had supposed was your own.

My bold.

I have studied as some length the various denominations and sects of the Christian faith so while I do not agree with everything they teach, I am quite capable of telling you what it is Catholics believe and why, what it is baptists believe and why, etc. as well as answer questions about general theological issues without the typical sectarian bias's.

That would be a discussion of Christian takes, rather than a Christian take, don't you think?

I remain interested in why your particular Christian take would take the Genesis creation and Flood accounts more seriously (if indeed it does) than any other creation myths.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain?

David B

[Rathpig]

Rathpig, I wonder if Nunyo knows there have been at least three different types of Universalism tied to Christianity that I know of that don't accept this just in the United States.

Were I the debating-type rather than the discussing-type, I would offer a broader range of response, but I wasn't gonna go there since that philosophy doesn't make the billions of dollars that hell-fire generates.

Petty-God is what sells.

(Now between me and you, a certain discussion person could have denied a petty god and I would have moved on. Discussions with deists and universalists are not very exciting.)

[lao tzu]

Actually, I'm not certain that they do. I find that many who "were" Christian tend to have some very serious misconceptions about the faith and the attendant theology. However, if they already know what Christians believe, then this is not a thread for them.

Greetings Nunyo,

There is no need to be uncertain. The misconceptions you perceive among those of us who are former christians are simply a reflection of the misconceptions you are bound to find among those who are currently christians.

Christianity is not 'rocket science" in the sense that we can watch to see if the rocket blows up on the pad. Anyone and everyone can claim to be a christian — or former christian — without fear of contradiction. Christianity, even from its inception, has included such a broad range of theologies that there really is no method short of inquisition to prevent its natural splintering into mutually opposed sects. Evidence of this splitting can be found in the gospels themselves, with snide digs at Thomas in John, and proclamations of "special" relationships for one or another companion in both the canonical and non-canonical gospels.

The theology of christianity, like all other theistic faiths, has been, is now, and ever shall be a moving target. At best, your offer to answer questions about christianity is an offer of a single snapshot displaced by millennia from its origins and, without doubt, one that would be widely disputed were this a predominantly christian forum. So, my advice to you is to give up on any pretensions of being able to speak generally for your fellow adherents and instead concentrate on answering questions about your own personal faith.

As ever, Jesse

[Worldtraveller]

Jesse wins the thread. Can we call it done and move on??


...didn't thinks so. *sigh*

[Lanakila]

Since I don't really have any questions about Christianity because I used to be one I see no purpose for this thread. I don't mind debating Christianity with believers, and would like there to be a place to do such.

[Rathpig]

Jesse wins the thread. Can we call it done and move on??


...didn't thinks so. *sigh*

I have a question pending.

[David B]

Jesse wins the thread. Can we call it done and move on??


...didn't thinks so. *sigh*

I have a question pending.

And I, I hope, have an answer or so pending.

David B

[Dlx2]

Jesse wins the thread. Can we call it done and move on??


...didn't thinks so. *sigh*

I have a question pending.

As do I.

I might make mine into a new thread, though.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Is there such a thing as "Christianity"?

By the way, I looked semi seriously at Jehovah's Witnesses
and seriously at Christian Universalism at one time. Both take
the Bible very seriously. Are either the "REAL" Christianity?In my opinion and in the opinion of mainline Christianity as a whole, no. Neither is in truth Christian since they both in one way or another deny the identity of Jesus Christ and/or the nature of God.

For a while there, I believed mainline Christians who believed in
Hell were blaspheming heretics.
It's a very common believe actually. People have a hard time with the concept of hell mostly because of the way it has been presented. People tend to think of hell in the terms of the caricature of hell of a cavern full of flames with a horned and forked tailed devil.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

The faith v works issue is one that is hotly contested between many Christian sects - mostly as a matter of semantics. All Christian sects agree that good works are just that - Good. The issue comes over the question of when these works are to happen in relation to salvation. Some people believe that good works need to be done in order to receive salvation, in effect earning salvation. Others believe that nothing we can do can earn us salvation but that good works come after salvation (I prefer the term "salvation experience" myself) are evidence of someone who is "saved."

Defend faith-based salvation in terms of the Tragedy of the Commons, please.I'm not sure what you mean.

[dancer_rnb]

In my opinion and in the opinion of mainline Christianity as a whole, no. Neither is in truth Christian since they both in one way or another deny the identity of Jesus Christ and/or the nature of God.


It's a very common believe actually. People have a hard time with the concept of hell mostly because of the way it has been presented. People tend to think of hell in the terms of the caricature of hell of a cavern full of flames with a horned and forked tailed devil.

I have to disagree with you about JWs and Xtian Universalist being true Christians.

I think your idea of what people believe about hell is also an
oversimplification. The Lake of Fire seems to be more at the root of peoples
belief about hell.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Then perhaps this thread is not for you then.

I think you have focused on a contention and have skipped over what should be a central question to anyone's "discussion" of Christianity. The entire theology hinges on what seems to be either a malevolence or a contradiction.

I'll repeat my question:


What logical sense can be found in a creator deity, with the acclaimed attributes of omni-power, knowledge, and presence, damning their (his) own creation to eternal torment merely for existence?



At this point any "debate" is entirely up to you. If you will please just answer the question, I will move on without offering any counter argument. There so many misconceptions there that I cannot easily answer the question. I'd have to write a treatise to begin to answer that question and I am quite frankly not qualified to do that.
I'd have to deal with:

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.

The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything.

The assumption that God vindictively sends people to hell when they actually chose it and go there themselves willingly.

The assumption that the eternal torment they will suffer will be anything other than what they have chosen for themselves.

The false caricature of hell as a cavern of fire with prison bars and pitch forks.

Your question is not one that can be answered in any meaningful way in a single post. If you would like to dialog and deal with one issue, one aspect at a time - I'll be happy to do that - but if you are looking for a single post answer, I don't have it. sorry.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you.

Well, perhaps we have different understandings of the word "debate". As a teacher I always encouraged kids to question the answers they were given, not merely to accept them from authority. Sometimes their questions arose because they had not understood something. Sometimes it was because it had not been made clear. Sometimes it was because I was wrong.

There is a time for debate and there is a time for discussion and there is a time for lecture and presentation. A good teacher knows when those times are and what things can be debated - what things are not debatable - and when debate is not constructive. It's quite reasonable if both parties are willing to debate the verity of a point, but when it comes to dealing with what a given group confesses to believe - there is nothing there to debate. If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese - I can debate with you, should you be willing the truth of that belief, but your confession of belief is not something I can debate.


FYI I still call myself a Christian theist. And I'd still like an answer to my question: how could a good God demand the suffering of an innocent scapegoat because of something other people had done? Do you have a specific example in mind?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Okay, so:

*what knowledge - past, present or future - does an avowedly omniscient being lack?

* When you say 'chosen for themselves' do you mean that in the sense of 'thank you ma'am, may I have another?', or in the sense of choosing not to pay your bookie, and then getting your thumbs broken?

* if the former, why do we need salvation? If people choose to be tortured, isn't that their business?

* can they change their mind about wanting to be tortured?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Ah a good question. :)

Thank you:)

I'm a strange duck when it comes to Genesis in that I believe it to be true, but not in the way a fundie believes it to be true. For example, in Gen 1 & 2 I see three different creations - especially when you take into consideration other Biblical events that fit into the creation story such as the gifting of earth to Lucifer before the fall, the fall of Lucifer, creation statement from the Gospel of John. Further, I believe that Gen 2 is a separate creation from gen 1 which sets me at odds with many old school theologians.

A somewhat idiosyncratic position, perhaps, and one which I don't quite understand.

Perhaps you would expand on it?
To fully deal with this topic, it might behoove us to start a thread for creation topic alone. I'd be happy to go into detail then about what I believe about the Genesis account of creation.

I'd also be interested in an explanation of why, as it appears at first sight that you do, you take the Genesis creation accounts more seriously than any other creation myths. By other creation accounts do you mean non-Christian accounts?



Why indeed! But a literal interpretation of the creation stories, and the global flood would appear to be denied by science, don't you think?David, I know the flood is one of your pet topics - but I'm still not prepared or even willing to go into that topic as I told you on the other site once before. I do not have the knowledge to answer credibly concerning the flood. I've been far more interested in other aspects and topic than the flood.




If you refer back to the OP - I'm not interested in defending anything since I am not interested in debating any issue here. My goal is to simply answer questions to help bring understanding.

Referring back to the OP you refer to A Christian take - which I had supposed was your own.

My bold. If you want my own, I can give it. If you want a general take, I can give that as well. Or if you prefer the take of a specific sect I'll be happy to answer on that account as well to the best of my ability. I am generally versed, but I am far from omniscient!

I have studied as some length the various denominations and sects of the Christian faith so while I do not agree with everything they teach, I am quite capable of telling you what it is Catholics believe and why, what it is baptists believe and why, etc. as well as answer questions about general theological issues without the typical sectarian bias's.

That would be a discussion of Christian takes, rather than a Christian take, don't you think? As I see it, the divisions between the various sects are artificial and always over secondary or even tertiary issues. On all matters essential to the faith, all Christian sects agree.

I remain interested in why your particular Christian take would take the Genesis creation and Flood accounts more seriously (if indeed it does) than any other creation myths.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain?

David B David - I need you to answer what it is you mean by OTHER accounts and then I will answer as best I can.

[Ian Nerr]

On all matters essential to the faith, all Christian sects agree.

Which ones are those then?

David - I need you to answer what it is you mean by OTHER accounts and then I will answer as best I can.

Norse, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Yoruba, the Valaquenta, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

[Rathpig]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.

One would think that the all powerful creator of the universe would use that power in anything but a capricious manner. The problem is that capriciousness and chaos seem to be exactly how the power is wielded based on the claims made within the mythology.

The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything.

Omniscience means exactly that everything will be known. In fact it means everything down the the most minute detail must be known.

The assumption that God vindictively sends people to hell when they actually chose it and go there themselves willingly.

This is a "choice" that must by definition be known prior to creation by a creator with the power to alter the outcome. It is at best a charade and at worst a canard.

The assumption that the eternal torment they will suffer will be anything other than what they have chosen for themselves.

Again this is simply can not follow logically from the rest of the story. "Free will" is impossible based on the details of the construct. Something has to give because some aspect of the story must have been incorrectly understood.

The false caricature of hell as a cavern of fire with prison bars and pitch forks.

I do not think I have voiced that caricature in my question.




Now I know that my response probably lies outside the definition you have presented of "discussion", but the fact remains that a strong logical disconnect is present in the story. I would like for someone to explain how this logical disconnect can be solved without changing the basic elements of either the nature of the deity or the prescribed fate of humanity?

[Barbarian]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.That's not an assumption but a deducible statement of fact. If the decision-making of an omnipotent being is not capricious, it means that said being is influenced in his decision-making by something. That something cannot be his own creation, because then the entire 'I create/decide on something to influence me later on' is just a roundabout way of acting un-influenced, capriciously; it only pushes back the timing of the capricious decision, that of creating the something. Therefore that something has to be something not created by this omnipotent being.The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything.That's not an assumption either; it's the way the word used to be used. And again, what could have placed constraints on the knowledge of an omni-everything being?

[His Noodly Appendage]

That's not an assumption but a deducible statement of fact. If the decision-making of an omnipotent being is not capricious, it means that said being is influenced in his decision-making by something. That something cannot be his own creation, because then the entire 'I create/decide on something to influence me later on' is just a roundabout way of acting un-influenced, capriciously; it only pushes back the timing of the capricious decision, that of creating the something. Therefore that something has to be something not created by this omnipotent being.

Ooo. I like that.

[Febble]

Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you.

Well, perhaps we have different understandings of the word "debate". As a teacher I always encouraged kids to question the answers they were given, not merely to accept them from authority. Sometimes their questions arose because they had not understood something. Sometimes it was because it had not been made clear. Sometimes it was because I was wrong.

There is a time for debate and there is a time for discussion and there is a time for lecture and presentation. A good teacher knows when those times are and what things can be debated - what things are not debatable - and when debate is not constructive.

Everything is debateable, although I agree that there are times when there are some times that debate is not constructive. Perhaps. Well, let me rephrase - when there isn't time for debate, or when debate would hold up the proceedings.

But everything is debateable, and in a discussion forum (which this is) we don't have time constraints, and if someone wants to take an alternative tack, they can.

It's quite reasonable if both parties are willing to debate the verity of a point, but when it comes to dealing with what a given group confesses to believe - there is nothing there to debate.

Well, yes and no. If you simply want to tell us what your group believes (and perhaps you'd better define the group, as you clearly don't speak for all who call themselves Christians) then no-one is going to argue with you as to whether what you are saying is truly what you believe. At least I assume not. If you say X and Y are what you believe, we will, in general, assume you are not lying.

But this is not at issue. What is at issue is when you say "I believe X and Y" and someone says: "But if X is true, Y can't be - how do you resolve this?" then that is a reasonable question. It may be that the questioner has misunderstood X and Y, or it may be that there is a real contradiction between X and Y that you have not explained.

And as such, it is an entirely appropriate question. Just as if, in a physics class, some bright spark said "but Miss, last week you said light had a wavelength - now you are telling us it's made of particles! Both those things can't be true!" And a good teacher will respond in some way, if only to say: "Light can be usefully described as both a wave and as a particle, but resolving the two models is something that is quite complicated, and I don't want to get into today, because you have an exam next week".

If X is that God is good, and Y is that God required a horrible death from his only son as recompense for our sins, I'd like to know how X and Y are compatible. You may have an answer, or your answer may be that it's too complicated, or it's a mystery, and you just have to believe it, or something else.

But I'd like to hear what your answer is.

If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese - I can debate with you, should you be willing the truth of that belief, but your confession of belief is not something I can debate.

Agreed. I am not doubting that you believe what you say you believe. I want to know how you resolve the apparent contradictions in your beliefs.

FYI I still call myself a Christian theist. And I'd still like an answer to my question: how could a good God demand the suffering of an innocent scapegoat because of something other people had done? Do you have a specific example in mind?

Yes. The crucifixion.

Thanks.

Lizzie

[DMB]

Nunyo: I don't think you are in any position to speak for xianity as a whole. No-one is, not even the pope, even though he thinks that's what he does. Mnay people heer have years of experience of xianity and other religions. So the only authoritative thing you can contribute is about you and your beliefs.

Since this is a non-theist board, I would think that what most of us would be interested in would be
What you believe
How you came to believe it
How you reconcile specific beliefs with what most of us would see as contradictions


If we ask you questions about some of those things, they are sometimes going to be uncomfortable for you.

[perfessor]

Nunyo, you have said in a few posts that the devil-pitchforks-lake of fire version of hell is just a caricature. So my question (in two parts) is:

What is Hell? and

How do you know?

[Autodidact]

I am not looking to win proselytes nor am I looking to debate theology, faith, or religion. I am, however, willing to the best of my ability as a student and practitioner of the faith to answer any questions people might have. I ask only that the conversation remain respectful and civil. Hate to tell you this, Nunyo, but there are people here who know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than you do. I doubt there's much you could educate us about, other than, "How the heck do you keep on believing this ridiculous crap?"

[Autodidact]

Are you actually interested in what a Christian believes or are you trying debate? Not really. After all, I grew up in the U.S., it's not really possible to remain ignorant about what a Christian believes, although I do find that no two of them believe the same things, somehow each one of them feels qualified to speak for the entire faith. This is a debate forum, Nunyo. If you don't want to debate, go find a board in Outer Mongolia that doesn't know Christianity inside and out. I will not debate you, but I can and will answer questions. What makes you think you know something we don't? Arrogant much?

In case you are serious - "dying for our sins" only works in the case of Jesus Christ. No one else can do it - and it is a misunderstanding to say that that His sacrifice reduces the culpability of the guilty. It does not negate temporal penalties. What it does it satisfy eternal penalties. It balances the scales. Think of it in terms of the conservation of energy or balancing an equation if it helps. It's kinda like playing Asteroid. Have you ever plaid Asteroid? If so - have you ever tried to get the ship to a dead stop at the center of the screen after you have moved? The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts you at rest back in the center of the screen. Right, I got it. Something some other guy does gets me off the hook for what I did. That makes about as much sense as the rest of Christianity.

[Autodidact]

Guys - there are other threads where you can discuss and feed into what you already believe. Kindly please let this thread be a place to ask questions and and find understanding. Chances are great that you are the one who needs to do this. I'll just ask now: any former ministers here? Former theology students? Biblical scholars?

[Autodidact]

Hi Nunyo.

Thank you for your kind offer.

There are many things I would like to talk with Christians about, but often what I would chose to ask would depend on the sort of Christianity concerned.

So, to avoid talking at cross purposes, where do you stand on the literal truth of the OT origin accounts?

If you are the sort of Christian who views the Genesis accounts as allegorical, and accept an old Earth, and a God who works through evolution (perhaps giving it a bit of a nudge sometimes, then we can move on to other questions.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden Story, six thousand years or so ago, then I'd like to focus on why you believe that, and the evidence against such a position.

Of course there are other positions available as well.

Ah a good question. :)

I'm a strange duck when it comes to Genesis in that I believe it to be true, but not in the way a fundie believes it to be true. For example, in Gen 1 & 2 I see three different creations - especially when you take into consideration other Biblical events that fit into the creation story such as the gifting of earth to Lucifer before the fall, the fall of Lucifer, creation statement from the Gospel of John. Further, I believe that Gen 2 is a separate creation from gen 1 which sets me at odds with many old school theologians.

So if you are asking am I a young earth creationist? The answer is no.

If you are asking if I am a Ham style fundamentalist who denies scientific evidence to try and prove my pet beliefs? Again the answer is no.

What I do believe is that Science and Scripture are actually in complete harmony. After all, God created the world and the scientific laws that govern it so why genesis deny science or science deny genesis?



If you clarified the sort of Christianity you wish to defend, then that would be helpful.

David BIf you refer back to the OP - I'm not interested in defending anything since I am not interested in debating any issue here. My goal is to simply answer questions to help bring understanding. I have studied as some length the various denominations and sects of the Christian faith so while I do not agree with everything they teach, I am quite capable of telling you what it is Catholics believe and why, what it is baptists believe and why, etc. as well as answer questions about general theological issues without the typical sectarian bias's.

And what makes you think that you have a higher level of expertise in these matters than others here?

[Autodidact]

I know that I am not one of them, but most people here were Christians at one point, so they have an idea what Christians believe. You don't have access to some type of special information that other members of this forum are lacking.Actually, I'm not certain that they do. I find that many who "were" Christian tend to have some very serious misconceptions about the faith and the attendant theology. However, if they already know what Christians believe, then this is not a thread for them.

I see, so you assume that a bunch of people that you've never met are liars about their own beliefs and lives? O.K. then, a question: is such suspicion of other people, based on no evidence whatsoever, a part of your religion, or just a personal failing on your part?

[Autodidact]

Is there such a thing as "Christianity"?

By the way, I looked semi seriously at Jehovah's Witnesses
and seriously at Christian Universalism at one time. Both take
the Bible very seriously. Are either the "REAL" Christianity?In my opinion and in the opinion of mainline Christianity as a whole, no. Neither is in truth Christian since they both in one way or another deny the identity of Jesus Christ and/or the nature of God.

For a while there, I believed mainline Christians who believed in
Hell were blaspheming heretics.
It's a very common believe actually. People have a hard time with the concept of hell mostly because of the way it has been presented. People tend to think of hell in the terms of the caricature of hell of a cavern full of flames with a horned and forked tailed devil.

Well, this raises some interesting questions I'd like answered.
1. What percentage of people who call themselves Christian are True Christians? TM
2. Who gets to decide who is and is not a True Christian TM?

[Autodidact]

There so many misconceptions there that I cannot easily answer the question. I'd have to write a treatise to begin to answer that question and I am quite frankly not qualified to do that.
I'd have to deal with:

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously. No, actually, that would be the omnibenevolence part.

And here I thought you didn't want to debate, and yet you're doing just that.

The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything. Yeah, that's kinda what "omniscient" means.

The assumption that God vindictively sends people to hell when they actually chose it and go there themselves willingly. Who made the rules?

The assumption that the eternal torment they will suffer will be anything other than what they have chosen for themselves. The assumption that you know any more about what's going to happen after you die than anyone else does.

The false caricature of hell as a cavern of fire with prison bars and pitch forks. And I suppose you've visited and can provide photos of actual hell?

Your question is not one that can be answered in any meaningful way in a single post. If you would like to dialog and deal with one issue, one aspect at a time - I'll be happy to do that - but if you are looking for a single post answer, I don't have it. sorry. In fact, you don't have any of it. Now would you answer the question?

[Autodidact]

btw, Nunyo, I forgot to say thank you. Talking with theists like you is what makes fora like this worth participating in.

[Autodidact]

Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you. And this is what is so arrogant about you: the assumption, based on no information at all, that you know more about this subject and are in a position to teach us. I strongly doubt that this is the case.

[David B]

Ah a good question. :)

Thank you:)



A somewhat idiosyncratic position, perhaps, and one which I don't quite understand.

Perhaps you would expand on it?
To fully deal with this topic, it might behoove us to start a thread for creation topic alone. I'd be happy to go into detail then about what I believe about the Genesis account of creation.
By other creation accounts do you mean non-Christian accounts?

David, I know the flood is one of your pet topics - but I'm still not prepared or even willing to go into that topic as I told you on the other site once before. I do not have the knowledge to answer credibly concerning the flood. I've been far more interested in other aspects and topic than the flood.


If you want my own, I can give it. If you want a general take, I can give that as well. Or if you prefer the take of a specific sect I'll be happy to answer on that account as well to the best of my ability. I am generally versed, but I am far from omniscient!



That would be a discussion of Christian takes, rather than a Christian take, don't you think? As I see it, the divisions between the various sects are artificial and always over secondary or even tertiary issues. On all matters essential to the faith, all Christian sects agree.

I remain interested in why your particular Christian take would take the Genesis creation and Flood accounts more seriously (if indeed it does) than any other creation myths.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain?

David B David - I need you to answer what it is you mean by OTHER accounts and then I will answer as best I can.

I mean all the creation myths we know about.

Polynesian, Asian, Middle Eastern, Amerindian, African....

Creation myths seem to me to be a pretty ubiquitous feature of cultures, many of them featuring supernatural claims, and also claims that the culture of that creation myth is somehow more special than other cultures.

It is a genuine mystery to me why so many people seem to elevate on particular myth from the ancient middle east, (one which seems to have a lot of elements taken from the creation myths of earlier cultures, as far I I have been able to discover) and give that a status over and above any other creation myth.

Perhaps you can give me an inkling of why that should be?

David B (Also see's flood myths as needing perspective)

[nygreenguy]

Is empirical evidence required for belief? If not, what makes you think you are right?

If its personal experience, what makes your personal experience any different than those of other religions and the mentally insane?

[Jobar]

Nunyo, as others have pointed out, we can't seem to find what it is that Christians believe in common. As Autodidact puts it, what constitutes a 'true Christian'? What beliefs *must* you hold, to be one?

You say "I am, however, willing to the best of my ability as a student and practitioner of the faith to answer any questions people might have." Well and good. But you're on a site where most of us are not Christians, some even anti-Christian. You're going to have to accept that some/many of the questions we ask are going to be very difficult for you, or anyone, to answer. If you can't accept this, you should've known the job was dangerous when you took it!

[Ian Nerr]

He's not even posting.

[David B]

He's not even posting.

Let's give him a day or so before jumping to that conclusion.

Maybe he's thinking!

David B (is an optimist by nature)

[Ian Nerr]

I'm not saying he won't be back. I just think it's silly to fill the thread with all of us saying the same thing when he hasn't even posted in a while.

[Jobar]

Ian, if any of us were posting 18-page dissertations, I'd agree. But short and sweet re-statements or reiterations of the important questions we have about Christianity may serve to get his attention.

(Or run him off when he realizes he can't answer; sadly a very common thing. But David's right, in fairness we ought to give him at least a few days to return to this. Not everyone is a daily presence on these boards, after all.)

[nygreenguy]

He's not even posting.

Let's give him a day or so before jumping to that conclusion.

Maybe he's thinking!

David B (is an optimist by nature)

He sure finds time to be offensive in other posts (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=16188&postcount=38).

[Autodidact]

This reminds me of the old days at IIDB, when some poor ignorant Christian would wander in honestly thinking we hadn't heard this crap before, or he was going to teach us something new, and after gamely holding up their end of the conversation for somewhere between two posts and a few threads, would run frightened back to their Bible study.

[lao tzu]

He sure finds time to be offensive in other posts (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=16188&postcount=38).

Come on, greenie ... you're lucky I didn't bite down on that chew toy. American Idol is about as gagworthy as anything ever broadcast on TV.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

He sure finds time to be offensive in other posts (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=16188&postcount=38).

Come on, greenie ... you're lucky I didn't bite down on that chew toy. American Idol is about as gagworthy as anything ever broadcast on TV.people need to learn how to take a joke.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

I'm not saying he won't be back. I just think it's silly to fill the thread with all of us saying the same thing when he hasn't even posted in a while.Sorry guys - but for the next two weeks I am going to be working 16 hour days so I'm not going to have a ton of time. :(

[Nunyo Beeznis]

On all matters essential to the faith, all Christian sects agree.

Which ones are those then?

David - I need you to answer what it is you mean by OTHER accounts and then I will answer as best I can.

Norse, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Yoruba, the Valaquenta, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth The identity and nature of Jesus Christ, the aspects of his atoning passion and death, and the nature of salvation.

As for the non-Christian myths - I'm not all that familiar with any of them, but I'm not certain I need to be. I'm sure that many of them have aspects of the truth in them, but how many of them can be matched up to science?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.

One would think that the all powerful creator of the universe would use that power in anything but a capricious manner. The problem is that capriciousness and chaos seem to be exactly how the power is wielded based on the claims made within the mythology. I have read and studies the scripture for 20 years and have never seen any example of power being used in a capricious manner. Do you have any examples in mind? I'm fairly certain that what you apparently see capriciousness is most likely a passage out of context or misunderstood.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

N/m

[perfessor]

As for the non-Christian myths - I'm not all that familiar with any of them, but I'm not certain I need to be. I'm sure that many of them have aspects of the truth in them, but how many of them can be matched up to science?
Well since you're asking - I would say none of them, including the Old Testament one.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.That's not an assumption but a deducible statement of fact. If the decision-making of an omnipotent being is not capricious, it means that said being is influenced in his decision-making by something. That something cannot be his own creation, because then the entire 'I create/decide on something to influence me later on' is just a roundabout way of acting un-influenced, capriciously; it only pushes back the timing of the capricious decision, that of creating the something. Therefore that something has to be something not created by this omnipotent being.The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything.That's not an assumption either; it's the way the word used to be used. And again, what could have placed constraints on the knowledge of an omni-everything being? Christians believe that God refrains from violating the freewill of people because love requires a refection. I don't know if you have ever experience unrequited love, but I have. It sucks. As much as you might wish to view this as a case of detached and unemotional cause and effect - it's a love story. :)

[Nunyo Beeznis]

As for the non-Christian myths - I'm not all that familiar with any of them, but I'm not certain I need to be. I'm sure that many of them have aspects of the truth in them, but how many of them can be matched up to science?
Well since you're asking - I would say none of them, including the Old Testament one.But the OT account does. :)

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Everything is debateable, Everything? Global warming? Evolution? Gravity? 1+1=2? The value of Pi? The color of your eyes? Your age? Are you sure that everything is debatable?


FYI I still call myself a Christian theist. And I'd still like an answer to my question: how could a good God demand the suffering of an innocent scapegoat because of something other people had done? Do you have a specific example in mind?

Yes. The crucifixion.

Thanks.

LizzieGod did not demand the crucifixion. Where do you see that God demanded the Crucifixion?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Nunyo: I don't think you are in any position to speak for xianity as a whole. No-one is, not even the pope, even though he thinks that's what he does. Mnay people heer have years of experience of xianity and other religions. So the only authoritative thing you can contribute is about you and your beliefs.

Since this is a non-theist board, I would think that what most of us would be interested in would be
What you believe
How you came to believe it
How you reconcile specific beliefs with what most of us would see as contradictions


If we ask you questions about some of those things, they are sometimes going to be uncomfortable for you.
lol I never said I speak for anyone. I said I can tell you what the different sects believe - that is not me speaking for them - it's me relating to you what they say for themselves. :)

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Nunyo, you have said in a few posts that the devil-pitchforks-lake of fire version of hell is just a caricature. So my question (in two parts) is:

What is Hell? and

How do you know?I'm not prepared to answer this question at this time. I'll be happy to answer it down the road, but there are far too many questions already floating out there and I am only one person with about 15 asking various unrelated questions. Please allow time to get some of the open questions settled and I will be happy to address the issue of hell in the future.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

I am not looking to win proselytes nor am I looking to debate theology, faith, or religion. I am, however, willing to the best of my ability as a student and practitioner of the faith to answer any questions people might have. I ask only that the conversation remain respectful and civil. Hate to tell you this, Nunyo, but there are people here who know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than you do. I doubt there's much you could educate us about, other than, "How the heck do you keep on believing this ridiculous crap?"How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian? How can a blind man lecture the sighted on the colors of a rainbow? You might know a thing or two, but I'm willing to pit my knowledge against yours about what it means to be a Christian. :)

[lao tzu]

As for the non-Christian myths - I'm not all that familiar with any of them, but I'm not certain I need to be. I'm sure that many of them have aspects of the truth in them, but how many of them can be matched up to science?
Well since you're asking - I would say none of them, including the Old Testament one.But the OT account does. :)

Except for that pesky firmament thing.

Actually, you are already aware of some of the older myths. The OT creation tale is a direct descendant of much older ANE creation myths. The "rib" story is especially amusing, coming as it does from the tale of Nin-Ti ... one of the most ancient puns on record.

Nin-Ti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninti), check it out.

As ever, Jesse

[Nunyo Beeznis]

And what makes you think that you have a higher level of expertise in these matters than others here?I am a Christian. Those asking, are not. But if you are looking for formal qualifications - I do have a certificate of ordination, the requisite education to achieve that ordination, and nearly 20 years experience as a member of clergy under my belt. :) Actually, come to think of it, I technically have 2 ordinations.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Well since you're asking - I would say none of them, including the Old Testament one.But the OT account does. :)

Except for that pesky firmament thing.

What about that pesky firmament? What is the firmament?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

1. What percentage of people who call themselves Christian are True Christians? TM
2. Who gets to decide who is and is not a True Christian TM? I'll answer the second question first - God. And since God alone can see into the hearts of men - he alone knows the answer to the first question. I can only guess and/or accept the testimony of another's words and actions as to their Christianity.

[lao tzu]

How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian?

Since you ask, by using this facility common to our species known as "memory." Many, if not most of us atheists here in the West are former christians, myself included.

How can a blind man lecture the sighted on the colors of a rainbow?

Born blind, or blinded? This kind of unconscious insult is very common among theists. Not that I expect you to have noticed it, but constructing an analogy that places your audience among the "blind" is quite insulting, or would be if it were a novel accusation or one we could take seriously. As it is, it's simply another reason for us to disregard your position. Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully to avoid giving unwitting offense.

You might know a thing or two, but I'm willing to pit my knowledge against yours about what it means to be a Christian. :)

I'll take you up on that bet. In fact, I challenge you to present any christian doctrine I'm not better informed on than yourself. As I mentioned upthread, your only real possibility of discussing anything involving christianity we are not already familiar with would be to restrict your comments to your own personal beliefs.

In addition to what I once knew about christianity from the inside, I've added a great deal of further contextual material from the surrounding cultures, including the cultures and religions that spawned the god who adopted the Hebrew tribes. They say it's not really possible to understand one's own language until one knows another, and the same truism holds for religions. By your own admission, you lack this knowledge.

But, if you'd like to ask questions, I'd be happy to teach you a few things about your faith.

As ever, Jesse

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Actually it is quite easy to ask questions with the intent of building understanding without debating. It happens every day in classrooms around the world. It's generally called education. ;) However, if you do not feel that questions without debate are possible, then I do not believe that this is the thread for you. And this is what is so arrogant about you: the assumption, based on no information at all, that you know more about this subject and are in a position to teach us. I strongly doubt that this is the case. Doubt as you like. No skin off my nose. I'm not here to prove anything. :)

[lao tzu]

But the OT account does. :)

Except for that pesky firmament thing.

What about that pesky firmament? What is the firmament?

It's a thinly beaten, strong brass covering for the sky to which the stars were attached, in its earliest incarnation created to hold out the primal sea from which the earth/heavens were formed before being split. Hence the "waters above" and "waters below" you find in your creation mythology.

As ever, Jesse

[Nunyo Beeznis]

He's not even posting.

Let's give him a day or so before jumping to that conclusion.

Maybe he's thinking!

David B (is an optimist by nature)MAYBE I have a real life. MAYBE I have other things that I need to do other than post on here. :p I post when I can and for the next couple of weeks that may well not be all that often. I have 3 16 hour days staring me in the face this week. I'm going to be limited on free time.

[Rathpig]

I have read and studies the scripture for 20 years and have never seen any example of power being used in a capricious manner. Do you have any examples in mind? I'm fairly certain that what you apparently see capriciousness is most likely a passage out of context or misunderstood.

Genesis 6:6-7 (KJV) "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

It would seem that an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipowerful entity would be acting in a rather arbitrary manner to destroy his creation. One could say that this otherwise "perfect" God was disappointed by humanity due to the free will issue, but the capricious nature of destroying "beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air" must be noted.

Of course this is merely one of hundreds of instances, but this is early enough in the mythology to be a great starting point.


....most likely a passage out of context or misunderstood.

This one is completely cut-and-dry. No room for context and no room for interpretation. The Hebrew Yahweh threw a bit of a random tantrum. I've often wondered why he failed to see this coming with his omniscient power, but that isn't germane to the fact of killing animals in a fit of arbitrary rage.

Case closed: the Abrahamic God is capricious. Or was this planned and foreseen from creation making the entire story a bit of a cosmic game?


(I do understand the real reason for the story is that the Canaan sub-group "Hebrew" merely borrowed an older and common myth from the cultural milieu without thought of consistency or structure, but I would hate to let cultural anthropology ruin a good discussion. Because while you, Nunyo, was studying mythology, I was studying fact. It is a hard knock life....)

[Nunyo Beeznis]

How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian?

Since you ask, by using this facility common to our species known as "memory." Many, if not most of us atheists here in the West are former christians, myself included. please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.

I know that there are people who believe that they are former Christians, but just like you cannot accept the notion of GOD, I cannot accept the notion of someone who KNOWS God suddenly not knowing Him any more. Many people know ABOUT Him, but that's not the same as actually knowing Him. So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Except for that pesky firmament thing.

What about that pesky firmament? What is the firmament?

It's a thinly beaten, strong brass covering for the sky to which the stars were attached
Where does it say that in Scripture?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

In fact, I challenge you to present any christian doctrine I'm not better informed on than yourself. LOL Christianity is not about doctrine my friend, religiosity is about doctrine. You can be religious without being Christian and you can be Christian without doctrine.

[Nunyo Beeznis]

Rath - WHY did God repent of making man? What were the circumstances - according to scripture? :) A passage must be viewed in context.

[shipload]

So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.

A Christian?

What qualifies as A Christian? Every time I get in these discussions, I start in on what others, claiming themselves Christians, tell me is not really Christianity....like fundamentalism. Biblical literality is denied by many denominations of Christianity, whilst others demand it.

I've come to the view that to engage christians on what christianity is, is the road to confusion and madness.

Pardon me, Nunyo, but how can I believe that you are a true Christian? What makes you so sure you are the "true Christian" when so many other "true Christians" not only disagree with you, but will tell you you are mistaken, mislead and probably damned for your apostacy?

And...why are you a "Christian"? Why aren't you all "Jesusians" of "Joshuans"? There are many christs in, and out, of the modern bible. Cyrus, the King of Kings of Persia, is a christ in Isaiah. Samuel was a christ. David was a christ. Solomon was a christ. Bar Kochba was a christ. Christs were a dime a dozen in the ancient world....why do you use that title for one, and only one, highly dubious historical entity?

[lao tzu]

I know that there are people who believe that they are former Christians, but just like you cannot accept the notion of GOD, I cannot accept the notion of someone who KNOWS God suddenly not knowing Him any more. Many people know ABOUT Him, but that's not the same as actually knowing Him. So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.

Greetings once again, Nunyo,

As a former christian, I can remember what it was like to be a christian. Never having been one, however, I sincerely doubt your ability to know what it is like to be a former christian. After all, "How can a blind man lecture the sighted on the colors of a rainbow?" I hope you recognize the quote. Now, rather than stumbling any further in the dark, why not admit you're blind in this range? It's arrogant enough to claim to be able to speak for the beliefs of christians. When you extend that arrogance to speaking for my beliefs, however, I'm likely to get a bit snippy.

Telling me you will not accept my beliefs as genuine is unacceptable. It is the definition of trolling. I suggest you recant.

As to the firmament, I'll assume you're familiar with the passages in Genesis 1. The word translated as "firmament" is the Hebrew "raqiya'," given by Strong as ...

From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.

... itself derived from "raqa'" ...

A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal) -- beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

Certainly, as this was an actual barrier, one that could be used to hold back water, with gates to allow the flood waters passage, it is necessary that this barrier be a solid. One does not need to look that far afield to understand that a firmament is a solid thing, however. The word firmament derives "from Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin firmāmentum, from Latin, support, from firmāre, to strengthen."

Further information can be gleaned from the wiki on firmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament).

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Oh, and one more thing. There are many notions of god I can accept. Yours, however, is not among them, being little more than a syncretism of second millennium BCE Canaanite tutelary deities. I know the name of your god's father. Do you?

[Worldtraveller]

How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian?

Since you ask, by using this facility common to our species known as "memory." Many, if not most of us atheists here in the West are former christians, myself included. please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.

I know that there are people who believe that they are former Christians, but just like you cannot accept the notion of GOD, I cannot accept the notion of someone who KNOWS God suddenly not knowing Him any more. Many people know ABOUT Him, but that's not the same as actually knowing Him. So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.
I have a strong suspicion that Fred Phelps would disagree with you. I can find dozens within spitting distance of my cube at work that would disagree with you. All of them call themselves xians.

Your arrogance and actions (evasion, redefining terms, logical fallacies) in this thread bely your words, IMO.

[shipload]

Here's a question for you, Nunyo:

What is "salvation"?

I asked it of a seminarian, who took it back to her seminar. She reported back that of the 12 students and the professor in the class, they came up with five differing interpretations amongst them.

Christianity certainly lacks a whole lot of clarity when one starts talking to christians.

[Rathpig]

Rath - WHY did God repent of making man? What were the circumstances - according to scripture? :) A passage must be viewed in context.

Artfully missing the point is trite.

The capricious aspect of the myth centers around destruction of "beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air". You can't context out from under that arbitrary aspect of the tantrum.



I will also note that you have avoided my original question with misdirection, but we can walk this line or any other aspect of apologia. Abrahamism is a rather simplistic refutation.

[nygreenguy]

Is empirical evidence required for belief? If not, what makes you think you are right?

If its personal experience, what makes your personal experience any different than those of other religions and the mentally insane?

[shipload]

Oh, and one more thing. There are many notions of god I can accept. Yours, however, is not among them, being little more than a syncretism of second millennium BCE Canaanite tutelary deities. I know the name of your god's father. Do you?

I do! I do!

How about his god's consort? Can you name her?

Hey, Nunyo...You should check out Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. Very enlightening.

[shipload]

And what makes you think that you have a higher level of expertise in these matters than others here?I am a Christian. Those asking, are not. But if you are looking for formal qualifications - I do have a certificate of ordination, the requisite education to achieve that ordination, and nearly 20 years experience as a member of clergy under my belt. :) Actually, come to think of it, I technically have 2 ordinations.

Yeah...but you still haven't indicated which flavor...denomination.

[Dlx2]

Witnessing ITT.

I totally called it.

[dancer_rnb]

I am not looking to win proselytes nor am I looking to debate theology, faith, or religion. I am, however, willing to the best of my ability as a student and practitioner of the faith to answer any questions people might have. I ask only that the conversation remain respectful and civil. Hate to tell you this, Nunyo, but there are people here who know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than you do. I doubt there's much you could educate us about, other than, "How the heck do you keep on believing this ridiculous crap?"How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian? How can a blind man lecture the sighted on the colors of a rainbow? You might know a thing or two, but I'm willing to pit my knowledge against yours about what it means to be a Christian. :)

Wel,, if a man becomes blind at thirty......

[dancer_rnb]

Christians believe that God refrains from violating the freewill of people because love requires a refection. I don't know if you have ever experience unrequited love, but I have. It sucks. As much as you might wish to view this as a case of detached and unemotional cause and effect - it's a love story. :)

It doesn't seem like love to me. It seems like stalking.


Add: I'm not sure I've seen anything in this thread that I haven't heard before.

[DMB]

Nunyo: since you seem to attach prime importance to "knowing" your god, perhaps it might be an idea to start a thread just on this idea. It must be clear that this thread is not going to go anywhere. It is insufficiently specific.

[Rathpig]

It must be clear that this thread is not going to go anywhere.

I think this thread has clearly added to my understanding of both Nunyo and Christianity.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Nunyo: since you seem to attach prime importance to "knowing" your god, perhaps it might be an idea to start a thread just on this idea. It must be clear that this thread is not going to go anywhere. It is insufficiently specific.

On the contrary, it is far too specific.

Nunyo claims to want to tell us about Christianity in general, but in fact his (her? Apologies if I assume too much) knowledge and beliefs are limited to a very specific (and very American in my experience) Once-Saved-Always-Saved no-True-Christian-but-us subset of Christianity.

Two or three of his statements tell us everything we need to know about him and his religion, and it is nothing we haven't encountered a hundred times before.

I find it particularly ironic that Nunyo is trying to tell us that we cannot know anything about Christianity because we don't fit into his little pigeonhole of what a True Christian is, when in actual fact most of us would appear to have vastly more breadth of knowledge about Christianity in all its forms than him.

[RexT]

It must be clear that this thread is not going to go anywhere.

I think this thread has clearly added to my understanding of both Nunyo and Christianity.Ok, what would that be?

Nunyo is the same kind of person we have encountered a thousand times before. There is nothing uique about his Christianity we havent seen many times as well.

[Rathpig]

.....

Sarcasm, irony, and long walks on the beach. a/s/l?

[Ray Moscow]

Nunyo: since you seem to attach prime importance to "knowing" your god, perhaps it might be an idea to start a thread just on this idea. It must be clear that this thread is not going to go anywhere. It is insufficiently specific.

On the contrary, it is far too specific.

Nunyo claims to want to tell us about Christianity in general, but in fact his (her? Apologies if I assume too much) knowledge and beliefs are limited to a very specific (and very American in my experience) Once-Saved-Always-Saved no-True-Christian-but-us subset of Christianity.

Two or three of his statements tell us everything we need to know about him and his religion, and it is nothing we haven't encountered a hundred times before.

I find it particularly ironic that Nunyo is trying to tell us that we cannot know anything about Christianity because we don't fit into his little pigeonhole of what a True Christian is, when in actual fact most of us would appear to have vastly more breadth of knowledge about Christianity in all its forms than him.

Exactly.

But then again, we should not scorn the opportunity to learn at the feet of a master like Nunyo!

[RexT]

.....

Sarcasm, irony, and long walks on the beach. a/s/l?Yeah, I knew that. I just wanted to hear it from you.

I'm already inclined to agree with DMB that the thread isn't going anywhere. If it starts going toward sarcasm it may as well be closed or moved to TCR. Wouldn't you agree?

[Rathpig]

Wouldn't you agree?

As I am sure most everyone here is aware, I hate closed threads, edited threads, split threads, moved threads, and mods in general. I am the wrong person to ask. I would keep this fucker open until Nunyo cries, leaves, pisses his pants, or it becomes a non-issue through natural death.

(And this isn't sarcasm or veiled misdirection. This is my honest libertine view.)

[RexT]

Wouldn't you agree?

As I am sure most everyone here is aware, I hate closed threads, edited threads, split threads, moved threads, and mods in general. I am the wrong person to ask. I would keep this fucker open until Nunyo cries, leaves, pisses his pants, or it becomes a non-issue through natural death.

(And this isn't sarcasm or veiled misdirection. This is my honest libertine view.)Yup, your honest opinion is what I wanted and I'll take it under serious consideration. As long as Nunyo can at least muster some sort of minimal effort to answer questions, I'm inclined to keep the thread open. But sarcasm can be an indication that a thread isn't going so well, so I asked.

[Barbarian]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.That's not an assumption but a deducible statement of fact. If the decision-making of an omnipotent being is not capricious, it means that said being is influenced in his decision-making by something. That something cannot be his own creation, because then the entire 'I create/decide on something to influence me later on' is just a roundabout way of acting un-influenced, capriciously; it only pushes back the timing of the capricious decision, that of creating the something. Therefore that something has to be something not created by this omnipotent being.The assumption that being omniscient means that one must as Calvinists believe foreknow everything.That's not an assumption either; it's the way the word used to be used. And again, what could have placed constraints on the knowledge of an omni-everything being? Christians believe that God refrains from violating the freewill of people because love requires a refection. I don't know if you have ever experience unrequited love, but I have. It sucks. As much as you might wish to view this as a case of detached and unemotional cause and effect - it's a love story. :)I cannot see the relevance of your answer to my argument.

Decisions are processes with one or more possible outcomes. Up to a point, reasons restrict the possible outcomes and determine their probability of being chosen. If we reach the point where all reasons have been considered, and yet there is more than one possible choice, that choice has to be made in a random, capricious matter. Now, what kind of reason can an omnipotent omnicreator being have to do anything in any particular way? If he ever considers a reason, the origin of that reason has to lie in a previous decision of said god, and so on. So for such a god, you either have an infinite regress of reasons with no starting point, or you have a capricious decision at some point.

In fact, encountering the infinite regress is not a practical outcome; asking 'why' just a couple of times gets one to a divine decision whose capriciousness is hard to argue against. As an illustration, consider this question: why do you think your ministry here, of explaining intricacies of Christianity, is even necessary? Why is the Truth(tm) so convoluted that it needs detailed explanations, and why are there countless variant claims to said Truth(tm)? Surely many more people would have come to god if the Truth was simpler and more self-evident. Why do you think your god decided to give a particular shape to said Truth, and on what basis did he do that?

[Susannah]

How can anyone know anything about what it means to be Christian who is not in fact Christian?

Since you ask, by using this facility common to our species known as "memory." Many, if not most of us atheists here in the West are former christians, myself included. please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.

I know that there are people who believe that they are former Christians, but just like you cannot accept the notion of GOD, I cannot accept the notion of someone who KNOWS God suddenly not knowing Him any more. Many people know ABOUT Him, but that's not the same as actually knowing Him. So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.

I used to say this, too, back when I was a Christian. After all, if God had "sealed (us) with that holy Spirit" (Eph; 1:13), if we were now "born of God" (I John 5:1), and had the "witness of the Spirit" (per I John 5:6-10) how could that be undone?

It is quite simple; that witness and seal never existed. It was all in our imaginations, prompted by teaching given when we were too immature to know better.

I thought I knew God. I believed, and acted upon that belief, consistently. I studied my Bible, prayed and worked in the furtherance of the Gospel for many years, effectively, I may add. Unfortunately.

And then I learned, through study of the Bible, that it wasn't true. And I am no longer a Christian.

It does happen.

[Barbarian]

please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.A much better analogy would be realizing that your invisible friend was never real in the first place.

[Ray Moscow]

Since you ask, by using this facility common to our species known as "memory." Many, if not most of us atheists here in the West are former christians, myself included. please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.

I know that there are people who believe that they are former Christians, but just like you cannot accept the notion of GOD, I cannot accept the notion of someone who KNOWS God suddenly not knowing Him any more. Many people know ABOUT Him, but that's not the same as actually knowing Him. So I am very safe saying that only A Christian knows what it means to be a Christian.

I used to say this, too, back when I was a Christian. After all, if God had "sealed (us) with that holy Spirit" (Eph; 1:13), if we were now "born of God" (I John 5:1), and had the "witness of the Spirit" (per I John 5:6-10) how could that be undone?

It is quite simple; that witness and seal never existed. It was all in our imaginations, prompted by teaching given when we were too immature to know better.

I thought I knew God. I believed, and acted upon that belief, consistently. I studied my Bible, prayed and worked in the furtherance of the Gospel for many years, effectively, I may add. Unfortunately.

And then I learned, through study of the Bible, that it wasn't true. And I am no longer a Christian.

It does happen.

Ditto for me.

Nunyo, you just got your "inoffensive" belief dissected by someone who knows better.

Your assertion of "once a Christian, always a Christian" is a common one but comes across to ex-Christians as the height of bullshit and arrogance -- and an example of theology overcoming common sense. But thanks for sharing.

[David B]

He's not even posting.

Let's give him a day or so before jumping to that conclusion.

Maybe he's thinking!

David B (is an optimist by nature)MAYBE I have a real life. MAYBE I have other things that I need to do other than post on here. :p I post when I can and for the next couple of weeks that may well not be all that often. I have 3 16 hour days staring me in the face this week. I'm going to be limited on free time.

I can understand that.

I also note that you have a lot of difficult questions aimed at you from a lot of different people.

I'll resist the temptation to pile in in concerning your answers to date regarding those questions, not wishing to make the thread any more unwieldy.

Already you have so many questions to answer that perhaps you might consider answering a few of them in depth, while asking others in the thread for patience.

Better, I think, to respond to a few questions to the best of your ability than to spread yourself too thin, and give none of the points the consideration they deserve.

I'm sure that if you make a real effort to respond to a few points, it will be noted and appreciated by those you leave on hold in the short term.

Especially since you are particularly busy at the moment.

I'd appreciate it, though, if you could get back to (with a couple of typos cleared up) my

I mean all the creation myths we know about.

Polynesian, Asian, Middle Eastern, Amerindian, African....

Creation myths seem to me to be a pretty ubiquitous feature of cultures, many of them featuring supernatural claims, and also claims that the culture of that creation myth is somehow more special than other cultures.

It is a genuine mystery to me why so many people seem to elevate one particular myth from the ancient middle east, (one which seems to have a lot of elements taken from the creation myths of earlier cultures, as far I have been able to discover) and give that a status over and above any other creation myth.

Perhaps you can give me an inkling of why that should be?

David B

[Ray Moscow]

Everything is debateable, Everything? Global warming? Evolution? Gravity? 1+1=2? The value of Pi? The color of your eyes? Your age? Are you sure that everything is debatable?


Do you have a specific example in mind?

Yes. The crucifixion.

Thanks.

LizzieGod did not demand the crucifixion. Where do you see that God demanded the Crucifixion?

Jesus supposedly said so, for example:

Mark 14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Jesus wanted to call the whole thing off, but apparently God (the Father) insisted -- or demanded, with the penalty of noncompliance apparently being no salvation for anybody.

You see, some of us actually do read the Bible, unlike some who come here to teach us, who apparently do not.

[Worldtraveller]

please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in former Christians. You cannot suddenly UNKNOW your best friend. You can drift away - but that's not the same thing.
please do not take this as an insult - but I do not believe in Christians. You cannot suddenly KNOW an imaginary best friend. You can pretend - but that's not the same thing.

Cheers.

[Lucretius III]

16384Ah a good question. :)

I'm a strange duck when it comes to Genesis in that I believe it to be true, but not in the way a fundie believes it to be true. For example, in Gen 1 & 2 I see three different creations - especially when you take into consideration other Biblical events that fit into the creation story such as the gifting of earth to Lucifer before the fall, the fall of Lucifer, creation statement from the Gospel of John. Further, I believe that Gen 2 is a separate creation from gen 1 which sets me at odds with many old school theologians.

So if you are asking am I a young earth creationist? The answer is no.

If you are asking if I am a Ham style fundamentalist who denies scientific evidence to try and prove my pet beliefs? Again the answer is no.

What I do believe is that Science and Scripture are actually in complete harmony. After all, God created the world and the scientific laws that govern it so why genesis deny science or science deny genesis?





Ah one of those "Two Creation" types I haven't stumbled across one of those for ages .
So it is your belief that originally God created the World/Universe for Lucifer and his cohorts a long time ago (millions/billions of years ?) but then wiped them off the face of the Earth after their disobedience only to leave it empty until about 6,000 years ago when God created Adam to re-populate the Earth all over again and for Adam to do a very similar act of disobedience .
I always consdiered that to be a case of wanting "to have your cake and eat it" to be honest,wanting BOTH an OLD Earth and a YOUNG Creation .
In addition hardly shows God in a good light if he managed to get it all wrong not ONCE but TWICE either.
If by any chance I have misunderstood your beliefs I would like to know exactly what they are.

[Dlx2]

I'm also under the impression that Gnostics had a very different perspective on the identity and importance of Jesus.

Regardless, this thread has turned into a serious witnessing wankfest. I didn't expect it to go anywhere else, but Nunyo demonstrated once again that a christian posting on an atheist forum is really there to attempt to convert and/or to prove to themselves that they still have strong faith.

I can just imagine this guy over the dinner table with his wife.

"Honey, what did you do today?"

"Oh, I am trying to convert these poor heathens on the internet. One of them brought up the omnipotence/omnibenevolence dilemma, and I countered him by letting him know that hell was a personal choice, not a choice of God!"

"I'm so happy your two ordinations are so useful. Have you taken out the trash yet?"

[Lucretius III]

Have to say I was also not impressed with the implied arrogance of Nunyo Beeznis in supposing that he/she was in a position to give answers on the beliefs of other sects/groups of Christians, particularly as we probably have here de-converts from most, if not all, branches of Christianity alongside some still practising Christians.

[Lanakila]

I've asked these questions on Christian message boards and mostly received no answer, or lots of hand wringing:

1. What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit exists? Can you prove it or is it just a feeling?

2. What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit is inside of all Christians convicting them of sin, and leading and guiding them into truth? Can you prove it or is it just a feeling?

3. What evidence do you have of a personal devil or satan? Can you prove it or is it just a feeling? How is the belief in God=good Satan=evil different from the modalistic heresies of the past?

4. Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God? How can you know this? If you are taking it on faith, can evidence that shows the faults/contradictions/problems inside change your beliefs on who wrote/compiled/inspired the Bible?

[Rathpig]

"Oh, I am trying to convert these poor heathens on the internet. One of them brought up the omnipotence/omnibenevolence dilemma, and I countered him by letting him know that hell was a personal choice, not a choice of God!"


Abrahamism really is a horribly incoherent philosophy. Only in theology can you answer "2+2" equals "cornbread" and proclaim victory. When the ideas are not complete wordsalad, the non sequitur and poor cognition is almost as bad.

I think it is interesting and often hilarious, but I can see how it would be insulting to anyone who had moved beyond such a childish belief system or held a different system which was being summarily dismissed. The predictability of the exchange is really the most pitiful part.

[Autodidact]

As for the non-Christian myths - I'm not all that familiar with any of them, but I'm not certain I need to be. I'm sure that many of them have aspects of the truth in them, but how many of them can be matched up to science?

Does anyone know a good irony meter repair shop?

[Autodidact]

The apparent assumption that being being omnipotent means that one will or must use that power capriciously.

One would think that the all powerful creator of the universe would use that power in anything but a capricious manner. The problem is that capriciousness and chaos seem to be exactly how the power is wielded based on the claims made within the mythology. I have read and studies the scripture for 20 years and have never seen any example of power being used in a capricious manner. Do you have any examples in mind? I'm fairly certain that what you apparently see capriciousness is most likely a passage out of context or misunderstood.

It's your term, Nunyo, not his. However, I submit that killing children for calling an old man "Baldie" is capricious, just to choose a single random example. Or say, turning a woman into a pillar of salt just for taking a look back at her home as she leaves it. Stuff like that.

We see you haven't lost a lick of your arrogance, assuming that your understanding is superior to anyone else's.

[Autodidact]

Christians believe that God refrains fr