tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2880290626199582643..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Dr. Jaco Gericke's Deconversion Story: "Autobiography of a 'Died-Again Christian'"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5009994420731083032010-05-29T02:25:18.249-04:002010-05-29T02:25:18.249-04:00Who are you, Little Green Penguin? You must be a w...Who are you, Little Green Penguin? You must be a writer and a thinker. I need to read any books you have written, for surely you are a published author!? Please supply links.<br /><br />(This comment is not likely to be read at this late date, but I can but try!)Thin-icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10395122483673080901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66619531794433797732010-05-03T19:29:24.806-04:002010-05-03T19:29:24.806-04:00Here's Gericke's entire doctoral thesis, o...Here's Gericke's entire doctoral thesis, of which this was the appendix:<br /><br />http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-03192004-135203/ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27590987630044534032010-05-03T12:57:22.637-04:002010-05-03T12:57:22.637-04:00You know, I have something to say to Rob R., MMM, ...You know, I have something to say to Rob R., MMM, and the other Christian apologists on here:<br /><br />You're obviously very intelligent, well-read, philosophical, and given to deep thought. As you yourselves say, you are not like the vast majority of Christians, and understand Christianity from a much more sophisticated position than most believers do.<br /><br />However, your scope is far too narrow, and your well is already poisoned, so to speak. You are presupposing your faith is true. I suspect many of you have not done comparative religious studies, found out where the broad brushstrokes of the OT mythos came from, or researched the sheer jaw-dropping amount of pious fraud that went into the early centuries of Christianity.<br /><br />Your arguments are convincing, coherent, and forceful...and based on a system that did not exist and was never intended to exist by Jesus. You are arguing well...for a modern chimera that calls itself Christianity. You see the beauty of a cosmic escape plan...put there by a God who, being all-knowing and all-powerful, bears responsibility for the fact that said plan is needed.<br /><br />In short, you are puissant and well-spoken apologists; however, your object is rotten to the core.Little Green Penguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539613407130346541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62685022981189989522010-04-03T07:36:11.641-04:002010-04-03T07:36:11.641-04:00I found Jaco Gerickes name here:
Died again Christ...I found Jaco Gerickes name here:<br /><a href="http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/05/09/the-died-again-christian-syndrome-by-the-university-of-pretoria/" rel="nofollow">Died again Christian Syndrom</a> and then googled for it finding this page. <br /><br />I'm not sure what his position is and how he came to his conclusion, although I already have a slight idea how it came to be. Would anyone be interested in my comment on this once I'm ready?building constructionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303324156997404146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14441208401900889902009-12-17T15:01:19.791-05:002009-12-17T15:01:19.791-05:00Laurel wrote:That message is what fundamentalists ...Laurel wrote:That message is what fundamentalists have chosen to extract from the Bible.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>Now Laurel, here you are lecturing me on rationality but here you seem to want to label any orthodox view of Christianity as fundamentalist. Why? because fundamentalism is an insult and the accusation often does not represent an actual rational criticism but rather it is an exercise in guilt by association.</i><br /><br />I didn't use 'fundamentalist' as an insult, but to indicate an adherence to orthodoxy, i.e., adherence to the 'fundamentals'.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>But I expect that because atheists are irrational. (and I know that isn't strictly true, but why act in such a way that feeds it?</i><br /><br />Claiming that atheists are irrational doesn't make it true.<br /><br />Laurel: It's an ugly message that portrays a divine creator as irrationally blaming his own creations for not being perfect like "He" is<br /><br />Rob R:<i>If they were capable of that, I don't see how this is irrational. If they were not capable of that perfection, then you aren't dealing with the claims made about God and creation made by Christianity.</i><br /><br />The basic question is whether the claims made by Christianity are true. You believe them, I don't. Your task as an apologist is to prove them true. You can't.<br /><br />Laurel: and then requiring a savage blood sacrifice to appease his anger against his own creation<br /><br />Rob R: <i>And why is that irrational? Seems to me that to forgive an evil, an emotional loss is accepted. A self physical self sacrifice seems to me to convey the depths of this loss that is accepted. The resurrection conveys the completeness of redemption.</i><br /><br />It's irrational for a creator to blame and condemn his creation for the "evil" of not being perfect.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>You call it irrational. But that's only true if the dynamics of good and evil do not work as the Christian narrative implies. Even then, it isn't irrational. It's only wrong. The two are not the same.</i><br /><br />Blaming one's own creation for being imperfect and requiring a savage blood sacrifice in atonement for the failure of the imperfect creation, is, as I see it, profoundly immoral.<br /><br />Laurel: I see the worship of such a "God" as the response of the terrorized to the one who terrorizes.<br /><br />Rob R: <i> Well i wouldn't take a psychology class from you. I wouldn't identify what I see on sunday morning as anything resembling terror. </i><br /><br />Consider the condition known as "Stockholm Syndrome."<br /><br />Laurel: To have a personal hope is one thing...<br /><br />Rob R: <i>To have hope for no reason at all is one thing. To have a hope on the basis of a reasonable yet profound narrative of God and humanity is far better. </i><br /><br />The "God" narrative isn't reasonable. It requires a continuous suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />Laurel: As for the world being "undeniably broken," I disagree.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>well then don't complain. About anything. period. not pain, suffering, death, disease, slavery, torture. It just is what it is. And that's what atheism offers us. <br /><br />But no thank you. That is indeed a profound irrationality.</i><br /><br />In fact, life on earth <i>is </i> what it is, with all its pain, suffering, death, disease, slavery, torture. It is what it is, and no amount of praying is any indicator of how an awful circumstance will turn out. Believers have a whole range of pious rationalizations to explain why their "loving God" didn't save the young hikers lost on the snow-covered mountain, or save the teen-age girl who was tortured to death, or heal the baby born with hydrocephaly or the woman with metasticized lymphoma, etc., etc., etc.,. In the end, things either turn out as hoped and prayed for, or they don't. That's a fact.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66815643040051840422009-12-17T10:18:57.975-05:002009-12-17T10:18:57.975-05:00Rob R,
You and I would probably be in agreement o...Rob R,<br /><br />You and I would probably be in agreement on many points, mostly having to do with what we'd both consider to be "good" about Christianity. And this, I believe, is more true than I think you'd like to believe, since I think you also have a personal list of things you *don't* like about it, although it's kept secretly.<br /><br />The way you seem to get around most OT unpleasantries is by saying that <br /><br />1. an OT "you" might very well agree with them, but the present "you" can't be expected to defend them, because, well, we'd really be talking about two different "yous," and<br /><br />2. Jesus (I deliberately use the name, to put a point on the fact that he's identical to the God of the OT) wouldn't take you back to the OT and have you do anything that seems unpleasant to the present "you," because the present you is under a different covenant than an OT you would be.<br /><br />The issue simply doesn't exist. Problem solved!<br /><br />I did not foresee this defense, because I've never seen it used by anyone else. Every commentary or sermon I've ever run across that even touches on the morality of ANYTHING that was done in the OT at least attempts to explain why God was justified in doing what he did, or giving these kinds of commands. I've never been to seminary, but this stuff has been on my mind for probably 25 years, so I'm at least aware of most of what's out there on this.<br /><br />I should have started with a more innocent question: Had Jesus taken you back to the OT and asked you to do something much more innocuous, like observe dietary regulations, or anything else that is no longer in force, would you have said the same? (Or, what if he'd taken you back and simply had you watch and comment?)<br /><br />I don't think so - and I believe it's because you secretly *do* have a problem with some of what you claim to believe. As do I (albeit not secretly), and as does just about everyone else who claims to believe every jot and tittle, while really only going along with the parts belonging to their own, secret, "canon behind the canon."<br /><br />I don't think you've watched this stoning video yet:<br /><br />http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm<br /><br />As advertised at the site, I also practically went into shock when I first saw it, and even a couple of years later I've yet to muster up the courage to see it a second time.<br /><br />I was still shuddering a day later, when I passed it along to a friend in an email.<br /><br />I expect your experience will be the same.<br /><br />And, I expect that your explanation for your experience will match mine:<br /><br />You will have been overwhelmed by the sheer barbarity of this procedure. And it WON'T be because you're merely incensed by the fact that it would really be OK to do this, save for the fact that it's taking place in the wrong covenant.<br /><br />BTW, come to think of it, who's to say that stoning has actually been banned in our time?<br /><br />If God is in favor of the death penalty (and I'm not necessarily against it myself in cases of mass murder - I don't see any candlelight vigils held for executed Nazis, for anyone who wishes to disagree), why couldn't a "real" Christian advocate stoning?<br /><br />I think we share the same disease of wanting to love our neighbors more than the God of the Bible seems to allow, Rob R. And that includes what happens after the grave. But I'm not embarrassed to admit it. ;-)ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13013477519534919772009-12-14T22:31:13.240-05:002009-12-14T22:31:13.240-05:00God bless you Gandolf but there comes a time when ...God bless you Gandolf but there comes a time when I'm just going to have to take a page out of the book of John Loftus and say go read a book, specifically a couple, a college text book on logic and and an introduction to philosophy.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35040605669524035692009-12-14T17:28:38.612-05:002009-12-14T17:28:38.612-05:00Rob R -->"I don't believe this is true...Rob R -->"I don't believe this is true. We can have beliefs that are rational even if we don't always know the reasoning behind them. Morality is this way. Even if one does not have a strong grasp of morality, he can be rational to believe that murder is wrong."<br /><br />Sorry Rob my opinions is reasoning is exactly whats behind all morals.Even when we might not always understand the reasoning ourselves.The moral has still been reasoned to be reasonable.One can believe murder to be wrong quite easily through use of reason and thats how it happens,not many folks are going to enjoy being murdered so that just for starters helps most folks to reason murder isnt really so great.<br /><br />Tell me if you think folks ideas dont need to be reasoned to be reasonable,does that mean you simply agree with some people that happen to believe Aliens actually abduct people?,or do you do what i suggest, and reason whether the idea seems reasonable or not.<br /><br />While i agree we can have rational beliefs of certain things without quite really knowing the reason at the time, but we soon find reasons in the end for most beliefs that are actually rational. <br /><br />Rob R -->"So? rationality isn't decided by popular vote."<br /><br />You dont think so ..Oh well thats fine but i still disagree with you ,i think popular vote has a lot more to do with deciding these matters than you might like to give it credit for.<br /><br />With regard to women voting,it was popular vote that finally helped make changes.With regards to slavery,popular vote once again had a lot to do with what happened.With voting,its popular vote.With gay marriage,popular vote involved.Abortion,again popular vote involved.Global warming,popular vote involved.Matters of conservation ,popular vote also involved<br /><br />Rob R -->"The only way that you could say that Christian thought hasn't been engaged in the project of rationality is to be ignorant of it's history. But most atheists are."<br /><br />I dont agree.If i use history say to think about how long it has actually taken many christians to even agree that yes evolution actually does happen,i suggest reasoning tells me it seems many christians were neither using reasoning or being very rational.Stoning folks, was never so reasonable or rational.Burning witches wasnt really either.etc<br /><br />No i say one really needs to be quite ignorant of history to try and say christians havent really often been both irrational and unreasonable.Hell they still are so even today with some in Africa killing kids as supposed witches, and/or doing exorcisms etc.And some refuse their kids medical treatment killing their children in the process,due to being unreasonable and irationally believing god would heal if he felt like it.<br /><br />History right up to even today!! suggests christians dont really have such a very good track record of "thought" when it comes to the project of "rationality".<br /><br />However im not saying christians cant get involved in thought and the project of rationality no not at all,for instance i think maybe time will prove the likes of Bishop John Shelby Spong is using more thought and rationality.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17615091275569480132009-12-13T16:44:13.242-05:002009-12-13T16:44:13.242-05:00oh, if I didn't head my top post, it is the la...oh, if I didn't head my top post, it is the last one and for LaurelRob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70744049218461292642009-12-13T16:43:17.701-05:002009-12-13T16:43:17.701-05:00That message is what fundamentalists have chosen t...<em>That message is what fundamentalists have chosen to extract from the Bible.</em><br /><br />Now Laurel, here you are lecturing me on rationality but here you seem to want to label any orthodox view of Christianity as fundamentalist. Why? because fundamentalism is an insult and the accusation often does not represent an actual rational criticism but rather it is an exercise in guilt by association.<br /><br />But I expect that because atheists are irrational. (and I know that isn't strictly true, but why act in such a way that feeds it?)<br /><br /><em>It's an ugly message that portrays a divine creator as irrationally blaming his own creations for not being perfect like "He" is</em><br /><br />If they were capable of that, I don't see how this is irrational. If they were not capable of that perfection, then you aren't dealing with the claims made about God and creation made by Christianity.<br /><br /><em>and then requiring a savage blood sacrifice to appease his anger against his own creation</em><br /><br />And why is that irrational? Seems to me that to forgive an evil, an emotional loss is accepted. A self physical self sacrifice seems to me to convey the depths of this loss that is accepted. The resurrection conveys the completeness of redemption.<br /><br />You call it irrational. But that's only true if the dynamics of good and evil do not work as the Christian narrative implies. Even then, it isn't irrational. It's only wrong. The two are not the same.<br /><br /><em>I see the worship of such a "God" as the response of the terrorized to the one who terrorizes.</em><br /><br />Well i wouldn't take a psychology class from you. I wouldn't identify what I see on sunday morning as anything resembling terror.<br /><br /><em>To have a personal hope is one thing...</em><br /><br />To have hope for no reason at all is one thing. To have a hope on the basis of a reasonable yet profound narrative of God and humanity is far better.<br /><br /><em>As for the world being "undeniably broken," I disagree.</em><br /><br />well then don't complain. About anything. period. not pain, suffering, death, disease, slavery, torture. It just is what it is. And that's what atheism offers us.<br /><br />But no thank you. That is indeed a profound irrationality.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15493871137804830442009-12-13T16:09:41.331-05:002009-12-13T16:09:41.331-05:00next post of several,
God says it, you believe i...next post of several,<br /><br /><br /><em>God says it, you believe it, that settles it, right? Yet I never heard back an unqualified, "YES, YES, YES!!!"</em><br /><br />YES YES YES! God says it, I believe it. The problem is that you want me to believe only the things you find detestable but nothing else that qualifies it that has come after. Sorry ismellarat, I'm not going to believe my faith in part. I'm going to embrace the whole thing developments and all and you want me only to embrace a part.<br /><br /><em>It's amazing, the conundrums you can come up with, if you're strict with definitions and try not to care where the logic leads you.</em><br /><br />If I have said something illogical, you tell me the rule of logic that I broke. There are actual rules of logic. You can actually take college courses on them. You can actually specialize in them in grad school. It's not based on ismellarat's intuition.<br /><br /><em>Not "to pursue the evidence, wherever it may lead."</em><br /><br />No one does that ismellarat. Even you refuse to acknowledge that development is intrinsic to Christianity which has absolutely necessary implications for some of what you call the ugly parts of scripture (some of which I call the ugly consequences of sins against features humanity that we need to learn are extremely sacred) so it's not like you can claim to have followed the evidence.<br /><br />The evidence doesn't lead anywhere anyway. We must actively interpret the evidence. The idea that we can have a neutral interpretation of the evidence that will lead us to truth is a modernist myth that has not survived scrutiny.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32504983662956815622009-12-13T16:08:15.629-05:002009-12-13T16:08:15.629-05:00Next post of several
Ismellarat,
Doesn't &q...Next post of several<br /><br />Ismellarat,<br /><br /><br /><em>Doesn't "following Jesus" include doing and believing whatever is known to be in accord with what the Bible teaches?</em><br /><br />Whatever including everything and everthing? Of course not. The whole of scriptures is beneficial for the church as a whole and much of it is relevant for the growth of individual believers. It is for their growth and deepening of their relationship with God. While there are essential things, the question isn't whether someone believes everything in the bible and acts perfectly but rather whether one is faithful to Jesus and is in a positive relationship that is growing and alive. You can be growing and believe many wrong things. You can be growing and yet fail to act as you should. But that you are growing means that along the way, you will find corrections to many issues relevant to your situation.<br /><br /><em>How can "X is sin/heresy" have any meaning at all, when you allow X to be done/believed, as long as the object has Jesus in their heart?</em><br /><br />maybe the heresy is such that one really isn't truely following Jesus and has been mislead about Jesus to the point where they aren't on a fruitful path at all.<br /><br />And sin must be confessed and repented of when one is aware of it. If someone isn't aware of it, God may judge that he can overlook the sin. After all, Jesus said to forgive those who didn't know what they were doing when they crucified him. Paul said that God overlooked idolatry of the pagans and even made it possible for them to reach him and find him in a situation prior to the gospel even being preached to them.<br /><br /><em>I wouldn't even know what "having a relationship with Jesus" means, if a person could theoretically molest children,</em><br /><br />Me neither but even Paul has said that even those who knew neither Jesus or Moses demonstrated that they had the law written on their heart that would both judge them and defend them.<br /><br /><em>You asked if I meant you had you lived in those times, or the you who exists now. I think it's irrelevant,</em><br /><br />I can't help you understand why what i say is reasonable if you don't want to hear it. I explained why it most absolutely is certainly not irrelevant. You refuse to acknowledge that God's chosen people's relationship with him has developed and if you refuse to deal with that point, then you cannot possibly understand Christianity nor criticize it validly since worthwhile criticism takes understanding.<br /><br /><em>but let's say Jesus took you back in a time machine.</em><br /><br />Why would he put me in a position where the agreement he has with his believers has been reversed? until you deal with that, there is no rational reason I have to change my position. You can repeat yourself. But can you advance the discussion? One is a waste of time. The other makes all the difference.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23409231382652260132009-12-13T15:28:39.607-05:002009-12-13T15:28:39.607-05:00First post of several.
Gandolf,
Its maybe ration...First post of several.<br /><br />Gandolf,<br /><br /><em>Its maybe rational if its proved to be reasonable,</em><br /><br />I don't believe this is true. We can have beliefs that are rational even if we don't always know the reasoning behind them. Morality is this way. Even if one does not have a strong grasp of morality, he can be rational to believe that murder is wrong.<br /><br /><em>but as Laurels been trying to explain to you its now no longer accepted by everyone that faith beliefs are really so reasonable or rational.</em><br /><br />So? rationality isn't decided by popular vote. <br /><br /><em>But that doesnt prove that the atheists criticism of faith or christian belief,is a irrational thing to do.No not at all.</em><br /><br />I never implied otherwise.<br /><br /><em>Its irrational that more folks didnt criticise more long ago,but people were more superstitious and uneducated and full of fear of ending up in mythical places like hell.</em><br /><br />It's irrational that you think the center of Christianity is about avoiding hell though for so many great thinkers of the church, this is not their principal reason for becoming a Christian. I doubt this is true for Augustine. It's not true of C S Lewis. Christianity is just more complex than that.<br /><br />Fact is, Christianity has always dealt with Christicisms and doubts since the beginning and even during the middle ages when there was very little decent do we see a developement of argumentation for the existence of God.<br /><br />The only way that you could say that Christian thought hasn't been engaged in the project of rationality is to be ignorant of it's history. But most atheists are.<br /><br /><em>Whats also irrational is that many faith believers seem to think faithful folk should simply be able to do and believe what ever they jolly well want in this world</em><br /><br />yes, and many atheists are irrational as well. What's you're point?Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85065743059322805822009-12-13T13:02:21.119-05:002009-12-13T13:02:21.119-05:00Rob R wrote:
...but some Christians have a much d...Rob R wrote:<br /><br /><i>...but some Christians have a much deeper understanding. </i><br /><br />Do they?<br /><br />Rob R: <i>The central message about Christianity is about God's rescue plan for what is undeniably an unfortunate world, more specifically a broken world. That souls should be lost is a part of that, but we aren't gnostics who do not value this world and God's rescue plan is for this world, not the one for which we leave this one. </i><br /><br />That message is what fundamentalists have chosen to extract from the Bible. It's an ugly message that portrays a divine creator as irrationally blaming his own creations for not being perfect like "He" is and then requiring a savage blood sacrifice to appease his anger against his own creation for its failure in not being perfect as the means to human "salvation." I see the worship of such a "God" as the response of the terrorized to the one who terrorizes. It may be rational to do so under the circumstances of terrorism, but, as I see it, as a world-view, it's morbidly unhealthy.<br /><br /><i>The world is broken and the atheists have nothing to promise in order to fix it. So for us to look to Christ who's gaurantee is restoration, there is nothing irrational in that. It's just the choice between hope and despair. </i><br /><br />To have a personal hope is one thing. To insist and preach to others that the God/broken world/need-a-savior story is literally and historically true and to warn ominously that unbelief in it (which believers most certainly do) will lead to eternal punishment (sometimes modified to "estrangement from God") in an afterlife, is quite another.<br /><br />As for the world being "undeniably broken," I disagree. As a fundamental element of the "God" story, the "brokenness" is essential, but in reality, it can be reasonably argued that the world---more specifically, the people in it---have simply not yet become what they could and may yet someday become.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65722023888163072632009-12-13T09:57:49.774-05:002009-12-13T09:57:49.774-05:00I know I'm repeating myself to some, but don&#...I know I'm repeating myself to some, but don't want anyone to be misled about where I stand. I hope there's something beyond the grave, that everyone will come to agree is perfectly just. I don't want to be seen as "bashing Christianity" or any other religion in its entirety. But I see no need for the barbarism that seems to be such an integral part of these beliefs. Either believers should be publicly saying they embrace it, or they should admit that they have as much a problem with it as I do. I rarely see this mentioned (except by atheists, who seem to have their own set of problems they rarely mention), and think it's dishonest.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41979954804674430172009-12-13T09:40:09.865-05:002009-12-13T09:40:09.865-05:00Rob R,
"How well this person actually follow...Rob R,<br /><br />"How well this person actually followed Jesus is not a matter I can judge but I don't think that it's impossible that God's grace would cover them."<br /><br />Doesn't "following Jesus" include doing and believing whatever is known to be in accord with what the Bible teaches? How can "X is sin/heresy" have any meaning at all, when you allow X to be done/believed, as long as the object has Jesus in their heart? I wouldn't even know what "having a relationship with Jesus" means, if a person could theoretically molest children, if they somehow believed it wasn't a big deal, for example. "Maybe" answers can be just as problematic as yeses and nos.<br /><br />Me: It seems people can just wish away what they don't enjoy believing, while declaring that they do believe in the real article. <br /><br />Rob R: who does this? Me or your hypothetical Christian? And what do you mean by "enjoy?"<br /><br />Just about every Christian I've ever known! And you also, come to think of it, since last month I could not get you to publicly say that you would obediently and proudly bash a woman's face in with stones at Jesus' direction.<br /><br />I supplied a video for your edification:<br /><br />http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm<br /><br />You asked if I meant you had you lived in those times, or the you who exists now. I think it's irrelevant, but let's say Jesus took you back in a time machine. I think you said the present you would not follow such an order. So I don't understand. God says it, you believe it, that settles it, right? Yet I never heard back an unqualified, "YES, YES, YES!!!"<br /><br />Maybe I'd do it in your place by sheer virtue of being scared shitless. "Good God, it's all true, and if I don't obey him, I'll burn eternally." But this would sap any enthusiasm I otherwise might have had for spreading the Word. I'd probably go insane. But then I should see insanity being preached as being part of the package, and I don't see that.<br /><br />It's amazing, the conundrums you can come up with, if you're strict with definitions and try not to care where the logic leads you.<br /><br />I was so blind, back when the only conclusion I thought was acceptable had to be in accord with "isn't the Lord good."<br /><br />I thought the way I meant "enjoy" was obvious. People (not just Christians) tend to spotlight the good, and hush up the bad. I guess it's all about feeling secure in one's beliefs, or something. Someone once did a study on why people subscribed to certain newsletters. It was to have their worldviews confirmed. Not "to pursue the evidence, wherever it may lead." They don't "enjoy" having the rug pulled out from under them. I didn't either, but I guess I enjoyed pretending everything still made sense to me even less.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11220944727148557232009-12-13T08:01:32.431-05:002009-12-13T08:01:32.431-05:00Rob R -->"is one of the many rational reas...Rob R -->"is one of the many rational reasons that Christians have for following Jesus."<br /><br />Its maybe rational if its proved to be reasonable,but as Laurels been trying to explain to you its now no longer accepted by everyone that faith beliefs are really so reasonable or rational.<br /><br />Rob R -->"And irrational claims and criticisms are indeed extraordinary claims"<br /><br />Sure there are some extraordinary irrational criticisms...But that doesnt prove that the atheists criticism of faith or christian belief,is a irrational thing to do.No not at all.<br /><br />I think there is the good reasoning of "need" for criticism of faith beliefs to be happening.And thats what makes it such a rational thing to be doing.<br /><br />Its irrational that more folks didnt criticise more long ago,but people were more superstitious and uneducated and full of fear of ending up in mythical places like hell. <br /><br />Whats also irrational is that many faith believers seem to think faithful folk should simply be able to do and believe what ever they jolly well want in this world,and also expect non faithful folks should simply have to sit back shut up and not be interested at all in doing anything about it.<br /><br />Thats irrational.That is a extraordinary irrational criticism.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15928318258179379602009-12-12T15:44:09.096-05:002009-12-12T15:44:09.096-05:00In my experience, believers challenged by the view...<em>In my experience, believers challenged by the views of unbelievers often if not usually end up using the threat of hell/punishment---veiled or straight out---as a trump card against the unbeliever. Unbelievers need no such trump card.</em><br /><br />laurel, at the end of the day, the broad brushstrokes just don't get us anywhere.<br /><br />I'm sure there are some contexts where the threat of hell (or judgement) is a legitimate point.<br /><br />I get it and fully understand and have always known that Christians discuss these things in irrational ways. So do atheists. So do atheists who retain some of the flawed thinking that they had as Christians.<br /><br /><em>Unlike believers, unbelievers don't see themselves as having the threat of hell and punishment looming ahead of them if they fail to believe the doctrines of Christianity, thus they don't have a sense of urgency to double down as do believers.</em><br /><br />yes, the avoidance of judgment, be it an eternal hell or otherwise is one of the many rational reasons that Christians have for following Jesus.<br /><br /><br />I said, "And irrational claims and criticisms are indeed extraordinary claims."<br /><br />To which you replied:<br /><br /><em>None so extraordinary as, for example, an inerrant Bible, virgin births, resurrected dead, and bodily ascensions into heaven. Most of Christian theology requires a complete suspension of disbelief.</em><br /><br />Nonsense laurel. irrationality is the ultimate epistemic mistake. You do not want to put rationality as less important belief than a denial of something such as ressurection because without rationality, there are absolutely no rules whatsoever by which we may come to know things or believe things to be false.<br /><br />If you don't put a high priority on rationality, there is no reason whatsoever <br /><br /><em>As I see it, requiring belief in extremely extraordinary claims as a means to the end of the believer avoiding a threatened eternal punishment in hell is an immoral concept that amounts to, well, terrorism.</em><br /><br />I understand that your faith which you are still loyal to even as an atheist (as many atheists are often loyal to their former Christian perspectives as the best ones) is primarily about avoiding hell, but some Christians have a much deeper understanding. The central message about Christianity is about God's rescue plan for what is undeniably an unfortunate world, more specifically a broken world. That souls should be lost is a part of that, but we aren't gnostics who do not value this world and God's rescue plan is for this world, not the one for which we leave this one.<br /><br />The world is broken and the atheists have nothing to promise in order to fix it. So for us to look to Christ who's gaurantee is restoration, there is nothing irrational in that. It's just the choice between hope and despair.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59716501629155863682009-12-11T23:18:53.326-05:002009-12-11T23:18:53.326-05:00Rob R:
I (Laurel) wrote:
My point is that unlik...Rob R:<br /><br />I (Laurel) wrote:<br /><br />My point is that unlike believers often do when challenged by unbelief, non-believers challenged by believers don't have to double down in their unbelief. <br /><br />Rob R:<i>then my point remains. If what you say isn't irrelevant, it's just wrong. Atheists do indeed maintain some very silly and irrational ideas in order to criticize Christianity and they double their efforts to defend these ideas when they are challenged on them. And I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it certainly is true in my experience. </i><br /><br />In my experience, believers challenged by the views of unbelievers often if not usually end up using the threat of hell/punishment---veiled or straight out---as a trump card against the unbeliever. Unbelievers need no such trump card. <br /><br />Laurel wrote: Whatever "pet criticisms" they may have, the crux of the matter for them is that they just don't believe the extraordinary claims expressed by believers.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>The only value I see in this is this criticism is that we are accused of doubling up our effort in defending irrational ideas. And the fact is every position has people who do this.</i><br /><br />Unlike believers, unbelievers don't see themselves as having the threat of hell and punishment looming ahead of them if they fail to believe the doctrines of Christianity, thus they don't have a sense of urgency to double down as do believers.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>And irrational claims and criticisms are indeed extraordinary claims.</i><br /><br />None so extraordinary as, for example, an inerrant Bible, virgin births, resurrected dead, and bodily ascensions into heaven. Most of Christian theology requires a complete suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />Laurel wrote: Christianity involves quite a number of beliefs (quite extraordinary ones) as revealed in its creeds and doctrines.<br /><br />Rob R: <i>As it should and as I implied as much in the following statement that noted that beliefs were a means to an end. </i><br /><br />As I see it, requiring belief in extremely extraordinary claims as a means to the end of the believer avoiding a threatened eternal punishment in hell is an immoral concept that amounts to, well, terrorism.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49918687294605026162009-12-11T19:16:21.511-05:002009-12-11T19:16:21.511-05:00oops,
the link above that I intended was this.oops,<br /><br />the link above that I intended was <a href="http://thebarbwire.blogspot.com/2009/03/three-problems-of-evil.html" rel="nofollow">this.</a>Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69925102975076603362009-12-11T16:58:28.869-05:002009-12-11T16:58:28.869-05:00Ismeallarat,
Then you find out that the person wa...Ismeallarat,<br /><br /><em>Then you find out that the person was often asked about fundamental points of doctrine, and replied with something like, "oh, I don't believe that stuff, the Bible was written by superstitious old men anyway. I just put my trust in Jesus."</em><br /><br /><br />How well this person actually followed Jesus is not a matter I can judge but I don't think that it's impossible that God's grace would cover them.<br /><br /><em>It seems people can just wish away what they don't enjoy believing, while declaring that they do believe in the real article. </em><br /><br />who does this? Me or your hypothetical Christian? And what do you mean by "enjoy?"Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91246880067177712182009-12-11T16:52:43.046-05:002009-12-11T16:52:43.046-05:00Laurel,
By what means, as you see it, are these t...Laurel,<br /><br /><em>By what means, as you see it, are these things accomplished by Christianity---particularly the "thorough solution to the problems of evil?"</em><br /><br />Laurel, as I said before, a few short posts is too short to really explore these issues.<br /><br />the problem of evil (again, I am not speaking of the logical problem of evil for theism. I have dealt with that <a href="here" rel="nofollow">http://thebarbwire.blogspot.com/2009/03/three-problems-of-evil.html</a><br /><br />The problem of evil for atheism is that some evil's will never be fixed. This obviously includes all the evils of the past. (see what I last wrote to chuck immeadiately above for an elaboration. Of course the heart and central point of Christianity is that God will restore creation will judge evil and restore the victims and reward the martyrs.<br /><br /><em>Atheists aren't the ones making extraordinary claims, thus they don't have to struggle to maintain unbelief.</em><br /><br />What does it matter if beliefs may be extraordinary (whatever that means, sure what we believe isn't boring nor is it the metaphysical and epistemic poverty as materialistic atheism is) or that one may have to struggle to maintain them? A more important issue is whether we are epistemically responsible in holding these beliefs.<br /><br /><em>My point is that unlike believers often do when challenged by unbelief, non-believers challenged by believers don't have to double down in their unbelief.</em><br /><br />then my point remains. If what you say isn't irrelevant, it's just wrong. Atheists do indeed maintain some very silly and irrational ideas in order to criticize Christianity and they double their efforts to defend these ideas when they are challenged on them. And I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it certainly is true in my experience.<br /><br /><em>Whatever "pet criticisms" they may have, the crux of the matter for them is that they just don't believe the extraordinary claims expressed by believers.</em><br /><br />The only value I see in this is this criticism is that we are accused of doubling up our effort in defending irrational ideas. And the fact is every position has people who do this.<br /><br />And irrational claims and criticisms are indeed extraordinary claims.<br /><br /><em>Do you have an opinion on the non-theist "new" Christianity of John Spong? If so, do you find it a suitable companion of those things?" If not, why not?</em><br /><br />Besides that I'm a Christian and not a spongian and am not interested in a "new" christianity unless it's a reasonable development of the old Christianity yet still the same faith. I don't know how spong would respond to the issues raised. But I don't believe that he accepts completely the Judeo-Christian narrative and as such, I think that's a handicap.<br /><br /><em>Christianity involves quite a number of beliefs (quite extraordinary ones) as revealed in its creeds and doctrines.</em><br /><br />As it should and as I implied as much in the following statement that noted that beliefs were a means to an end.<br /><br /><em>Does such "following," IYO, require belief in a theistic God? If so, please explain.</em><br /><br />It entails it considering that strongly identifies himself with Yahweh. Can someone follow Jesus without being a theist? In some ways it would be an immatature relationship and whether it would please God is according to God's judgement of the situation which of course would include the circumstances in which such a situation arose.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89554220528036897532009-12-10T14:31:25.016-05:002009-12-10T14:31:25.016-05:00Al Moritz wrote: I don't know about most belie...Al Moritz wrote: <i>I don't know about most believers, but trust me, I would have easily embraced atheism a few years ago had the evidence allowed it. It didn't.</i><br /><br />Lack of evidence for the existence of a personal, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, theist God is what leads most if not all non-believers to unbelief.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7514896059679170172009-12-09T15:41:56.833-05:002009-12-09T15:41:56.833-05:00Laurel said:
"My point is that from a believ...Laurel said:<br /><br />"My point is that from a believer's position, there is so much to lose from retreating from the belief in a divine theist creator that <i>most</i> believers will find a way, any way, to circumnavigate and refute anything, scientific or otherwise, that threatens their belief in a theistic creator however non-ID that <i>anything</i> may be. IOW, as I see it, the scientific/theological conclusions of <i>most</i> theist believers are compromised by their profound need to continue believing the premises their theist faith is built upon."<br /><br />I don't know about <i>most</i> believers, but trust me, I would have easily embraced atheism a few years ago had the evidence allowed it. It didn't.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35041938658449910072009-12-09T15:13:09.477-05:002009-12-09T15:13:09.477-05:00Al Moritz said:
This does not take away the fact t...Al Moritz said:<br /><i>This does not take away the fact that a naturalistic origin of the universe is an extraordinary claim as well. </i><br /><br />Laurel responded:<br />Most believers are instructed in a whole array of extraordinary doctrinal claims long before they ever (if ever) hear about "extraordinary naturalistic claims," and by then, their "faith" is well-entrenched and absorbed, and they're most likely firmly predisposed to believe that things that contradict their "faith" are too extraordinary to be taken seriously.<br /><br />Al Moritz wrote: <i>Positing a naturalistic origin of the universe is full of philosophical and scientific difficulties which have nothing to do with: "...and they're most likely firmly predisposed to believe that things that contradict their "faith" are too extraordinary to be taken seriously." Even though you want to make it sound like there is a connection. </i><br /><br />My point is that from a believer's position, there is so much to lose from retreating from the belief in a divine theist creator that <i>most</i> believers will find a way, any way, to circumnavigate and refute anything, scientific or otherwise, that threatens their belief in a theistic creator however non-ID that <i>anything</i> may be. IOW, as I see it, the scientific/theological conclusions of <i>most</i> theist believers are compromised by their profound need to continue believing the premises their theist faith is built upon.<br /><br />Laurel wrote: Critics of the so-called New Atheists complain that the New Atheists argue against a bogus fundamentalist Christianity and not against the "true" Christianity.<br /><br />Al Moritz wrote: <i>Well, for one thing the New Atheists argue against a Christianity that does not accept mainstream scientific findings, something that isn't an issue with Catholicism and other denominations. For example, the Vatican does not endorse anti-evolutionistic Intelligent Design. </i><br /><br />Laurel: But we still haven't discovered what the alleged "true" Christianity is. It seems to me that once embarked into post-literalism, Christianity wanders off into a sort of warm gnostic froth that proudly distances itself from "simplistic" literalism while enjoying the advantages of the company of its multitudes of adherents.Lauregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01732658914212076243noreply@blogger.com