Page 6 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tetraquartz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 246
Location: California

12 Apr 2010, 11:28 am

Sand wrote:
And if you face reality is this not the facts of life about the results of Christianity? Does this not leave you in despair?


Well, in my case, I suppose I should feel some degree of despair, because I have become too great of a fool for Christ. Ah, yes, what a dismal life, there's no hope for gratification or reward in this world. How did Christians get to be so insane? Yet, since Jesus was accused of sorcery and Paul was accused of going insane, it's not such bad company, since I admire them so much.


_________________
Never assume you know what I'm thinking, just ask for clarification. :mrgreen:
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'. " -- Hans Asperger (1938)


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:39 am

Tetraquartz wrote:
Sand wrote:
And if you face reality is this not the facts of life about the results of Christianity? Does this not leave you in despair?


Well, in my case, I suppose I should feel some degree of despair, because I have become too great of a fool for Christ. Ah, yes, what a dismal life, there's no hope for gratification or reward in this world. How did Christians get to be so insane? Yet, since Jesus was accused of sorcery and Paul was accused of going insane, it's not such bad company, since I admire them so much.


Aside from my incapability to accept the basics of faith that believe without question that a supernatural force is responsible for he inception of the universe and its main focus is the human race, the repeated failure of all religions to instill basic decency and compassion in the bulk of its followers discourages me from placing any confidence in its processes.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 11:41 am

AngelRho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.


They are free to indulge in immorality just as much as any of us are free. They are also free, just as other are, to indulge in MORALITY and do those things which would be a GOOD testimony to the faith. Further, they are free to turn away from immorality.

Church leaders (any church here) have an awesome responsibility to emulate Christ-like behavior. Those that fail do so at the risk of destroying not only their own credibility but that of the church they lead.

The best thing to be done, I think, in any church (Catholic or Protestant) is to take every measure possible to make sure that leaders are the best witnesses of the faith. If they are consistently wrong, get rid of them. But like I said, they aren't reflective of the actual teachings of Christ and the Bible and should not be used as an example of what ALL Christians believe and practice.


To an extent, the ability to remove horrible leadership depends upon the form of Church government. Some are more democratic and some are more hierarchical. In both situations corruption occurs, where the members of the Church with a democratic system of rule can threaten the elected leader if they preach something they don't want to hear and where the Church government is hierarchical the leadership is there with only their higher ups to worry about which is nearly identical to Wal-Mart and other corporations. There is not a system of mere human government which cannot be undermined with sin.

What is truly sad is what you make a reference to in your second and third paragraphs, that people perform the association fallacy, or fallacy of composition, in regard to one part being representative of the whole. "I have a notebook, and the first page is written upon, therefore all pages of the notebook are written upon." Some people perform this fallacy on purpose, for rhetorical purposes, such as to persuade.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

12 Apr 2010, 11:57 am

i think 2nd peter 3:3-4 clearly illustrates christianity's position as to "the burden of proof."



and i still like the LOLCATBIBLE version better. i mean, if you're going to feed me a bunch of "because i said so" it might as well have sugar on it.


oh yeah, and sand..... how dare you imply that people might associate the actions of an organization's leadership with the members which compose that organization and follow said leadership's leadership.....

2nd peter 3:3-4 really is the foundation of everything you're running into, here. "my god is totally real, showed up to prove it (but only really put in enough effort to prove it to a few people and didn't bother to leave any lasting proof), and even though we killed him for it, he's gonna come back and bring me f***tons of ice cream and presents. ...he just hasn't yet... ...and didn't leave any info as to when he would... and he knew you would totally think i was lying, so his buddy told me [i]don't worry, dude. just because you'll sound crazy and people will point out how crazy you sound and that you have absolutely nothing to go on but really shaky hearsay that is not only contradicted by evidence but also contradicted by itself, doesn't mean that guy i told you is going to come back with ice cream and cookies isn't actually coming back. it just shows those damn infidels are infidels.[i] and that is proof enough to dispel all of your evil blaspheming lies!"



seriously, how do you argue with that? 2nd peter 3:3-4 ftw.

bring up the book of Job. that one's way more fun.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 12:08 pm

waltur wrote:
i think 2nd peter 3:3-4 clearly illustrates christianity's position as to "the burden of proof."



and i still like the LOLCATBIBLE version better. i mean, if you're going to feed me a bunch of "because i said so" it might as well have sugar on it.


oh yeah, and sand..... how dare you imply that people might associate the actions of an organization's leadership with the members which compose that organization and follow said leadership's leadership.....

2nd peter 3:3-4 really is the foundation of everything you're running into, here. "my god is totally real, showed up to prove it (but only really put in enough effort to prove it to a few people and didn't bother to leave any lasting proof), and even though we killed him for it, he's gonna come back and bring me f***tons of ice cream and presents. ...he just hasn't yet... ...and didn't leave any info as to when he would... and he knew you would totally think i was lying, so his buddy told me [i]don't worry, dude. just because you'll sound crazy and people will point out how crazy you sound and that you have absolutely nothing to go on but really shaky hearsay that is not only contradicted by evidence but also contradicted by itself, doesn't mean that guy i told you is going to come back with ice cream and cookies isn't actually coming back. it just shows those damn infidels are infidels.[i] and that is proof enough to dispel all of your evil blaspheming lies!"



seriously, how do you argue with that? 2nd peter 3:3-4 ftw.

bring up the book of Job. that one's way more fun.


This is a perfect example of the type of quasipolemic diatribes that I am tired of.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 12:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.


They are free to indulge in immorality just as much as any of us are free. They are also free, just as other are, to indulge in MORALITY and do those things which would be a GOOD testimony to the faith. Further, they are free to turn away from immorality.

Church leaders (any church here) have an awesome responsibility to emulate Christ-like behavior. Those that fail do so at the risk of destroying not only their own credibility but that of the church they lead.

The best thing to be done, I think, in any church (Catholic or Protestant) is to take every measure possible to make sure that leaders are the best witnesses of the faith. If they are consistently wrong, get rid of them. But like I said, they aren't reflective of the actual teachings of Christ and the Bible and should not be used as an example of what ALL Christians believe and practice.


To an extent, the ability to remove horrible leadership depends upon the form of Church government. Some are more democratic and some are more hierarchical. In both situations corruption occurs, where the members of the Church with a democratic system of rule can threaten the elected leader if they preach something they don't want to hear and where the Church government is hierarchical the leadership is there with only their higher ups to worry about which is nearly identical to Wal-Mart and other corporations. There is not a system of mere human government which cannot be undermined with sin.

What is truly sad is what you make a reference to in your second and third paragraphs, that people perform the association fallacy, or fallacy of composition, in regard to one part being representative of the whole. "I have a notebook, and the first page is written upon, therefore all pages of the notebook are written upon." Some people perform this fallacy on purpose, for rhetorical purposes, such as to persuade.


I am well aware I cannot persuade you of anything. But perhaps my disappointment in the entire religious concept can carry a bit of the deep repulsion I feel for the immense deception of the whole business.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

12 Apr 2010, 12:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
waltur wrote:
i think 2nd peter 3:3-4 clearly illustrates christianity's position as to "the burden of proof."



and i still like the LOLCATBIBLE version better. i mean, if you're going to feed me a bunch of "because i said so" it might as well have sugar on it.


oh yeah, and sand..... how dare you imply that people might associate the actions of an organization's leadership with the members which compose that organization and follow said leadership's leadership.....

2nd peter 3:3-4 really is the foundation of everything you're running into, here. "my god is totally real, showed up to prove it (but only really put in enough effort to prove it to a few people and didn't bother to leave any lasting proof), and even though we killed him for it, he's gonna come back and bring me f***tons of ice cream and presents. ...he just hasn't yet... ...and didn't leave any info as to when he would... and he knew you would totally think i was lying, so his buddy told me [i]don't worry, dude. just because you'll sound crazy and people will point out how crazy you sound and that you have absolutely nothing to go on but really shaky hearsay that is not only contradicted by evidence but also contradicted by itself, doesn't mean that guy i told you is going to come back with ice cream and cookies isn't actually coming back. it just shows those damn infidels are infidels.[i] and that is proof enough to dispel all of your evil blaspheming lies!"



seriously, how do you argue with that? 2nd peter 3:3-4 ftw.

bring up the book of Job. that one's way more fun.


This is a perfect example of the type of quasipolemic diatribes that I am tired of.


my point exactly :)


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 12:25 pm

Sand wrote:
I am well aware I cannot persuade you of anything. But perhaps my disappointment in the entire religious concept can carry a bit of the deep repulsion I feel for the immense deception of the whole business.


Sand, from what I can tell by the other posts you've made, you want hollow vague morality and you hate politicians. Politics is the deception you see, but because of people politicking in the various systems of Church government you've blinded yourself in the matter so as to never see anything other than the politics and the worst examples.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 1:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am well aware I cannot persuade you of anything. But perhaps my disappointment in the entire religious concept can carry a bit of the deep repulsion I feel for the immense deception of the whole business.


Sand, from what I can tell by the other posts you've made, you want hollow vague morality and you hate politicians. Politics is the deception you see, but because of people politicking in the various systems of Church government you've blinded yourself in the matter so as to never see anything other than the politics and the worst examples.


If we're talking about one unique group of pseudo-Christians or another group, then certainly it can be argued as deception. There are charismatic church leaders that go on and on at the end of their church service with staged "healing." Yet when that poor paralytic kid in the wheelchair comes forth, even if he actually makes it to the platform, suddenly the preacher is "out of time" or for some other reason "can't see you right now." The masses don't see the paralytic. They just see the people complaining of migraines or demon possessions suddenly becoming miraculously "cured" after getting "slain in the spirit." All these "healings" are simply psychological altered states of consciousness induced either by some kind of hypnotic power of suggestion these people have practiced to an art form or it's some kind of in-the-moment peer pressure kind of thing (everyone else fell out, so I did, too). I'm told that these people even have plants in the audience to kick things off, but I'm not entirely sure of that being true. It would not be surprising, at least.

Those things ARE illusion and can be demonstrated to be so. More preachers than not really try to be honest people and present the Gospel honestly. At some point the reality of Hell and eternal damnation as the result of an eternity separated from God have to be part of the conversation. Nobody likes to be called a sinner, much less wrong about anything. The largest congregations act more like mass support groups led by a motivational speaker than an actual congregation engaged in corporate worship. At some point aspects of immorality have to be pointed out. Most people in general just want to be told that what they're doing is OK and not to worry about it. The deception is two-fold: Promising people that which cannot be delivered, and telling people what they want to hear. You'll find MOST churches really do try to avoid this, even at the cost of scaring unbelievers away.

And that reminds me of something else. I don't believe unbelievers really have a place in church. I think church is a place for believers to meet to worship together (what I mean when I say "corporate" worship, that is, communal worship by a body of believers) and to study God's word in application to our lives. Any unbeliever who begins attending church is one who is seeking God and recognizes that need. That person is already convinced and just needs to learn more before publicly accepting Christ. The typical church will show its true colors, which means there's nothing to deceive people about. There is nothing to hide. I wholly disagree that the purpose of ALL churches is deception.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

12 Apr 2010, 1:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am well aware I cannot persuade you of anything. But perhaps my disappointment in the entire religious concept can carry a bit of the deep repulsion I feel for the immense deception of the whole business.


Sand, from what I can tell by the other posts you've made, you want hollow vague morality and you hate politicians. Politics is the deception you see, but because of people politicking in the various systems of Church government you've blinded yourself in the matter so as to never see anything other than the politics and the worst examples.



so is god apathetic to the plight of the abused catholic parishioners, or is he simply powerless to intercede?

maybe he's teaching those kids a lesson?

maybe he was teaching all the other victims of the catholic church a lesson?

or is god not the best example of christianity?

sand isn't blinded from your True Faith by the crimes committed in its name. he's just not so easily convinced by arguments such as "because we say so" and "because someone else said so a long time ago" and he apparently feels the need to share some spare reality with those that lack it. very "christian" of him, no?

when e. s. jones (christian missionary) asked ghandi, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" ghandi replied with, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

he had a point. he wasn't saying "all christians are child molesters, adulterers, murderers, thieves, warmongers, and brigands." he was saying "you don't practice what you preach." and he really did have a point.

but we should just ignore ghandi and sand alike. they're both just throwing thinly veiled insults with no real purpose, right?


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 2:08 pm

so is god apathetic to the plight of the abused catholic parishioners, or is he simply powerless to intercede?

Neither. Divine intervention comes in many forms, not the least of which includes using people, even unbelievers, to carry out His will. It could be that this is what is happening with all the media attention that has been given to the European (and even American) abuse scandals.

maybe he's teaching those kids a lesson?

Perhaps.

maybe he was teaching all the other victims of the catholic church a lesson?

Perhaps. I don't necessarily buy into that idea, though, because I'd think God would want His people to emulate Christ, that is, present the Gospel, try to persuade, and pray that the people witnessed to are in God's hands and it is then up to them to accept/reject the message. Besides, if you look at the results in Central and South America, the Catholic church is still THE church. Because there is no challenge to faith, people just accept themselves as being Catholic (because what else is there?) rather than Christian. They might attend mass twice a year, but otherwise have no REAL belief or conviction.

or is god not the best example of christianity?

I'm not sure how to answer this one. I think Jesus, for whom Christianity is named, is the best example of Christianity, and we identify Jesus as both the Son of God and God Himself. Otherwise, you'd have to look at the early disciples and just try to make a judgment call.

Quote:
sand isn't blinded from your True Faith by the crimes committed in its name. he's just not so easily convinced by arguments such as "because we say so" and "because someone else said so a long time ago" and he apparently feels the need to share some spare reality with those that lack it. very "christian" of him, no?


I never said you had to accept what I have to say!

Quote:
when e. s. jones (christian missionary) asked ghandi, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" ghandi replied with, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."


Agreed, Ghandi did have a point. But on the other hand, no human being, whether it's me, you, the Pope, or Ghandi is perfect. Ghandi had to make up his own mind, but for all the good he did, he still wasn't perfect. In fact, as long as God and Christ are perfect, and as long as Christians are imperfect only pathetically struggling to reach perfection, we'll never be like Christ.

It's a good thing we don't depend on our own goodness for salvation, isn't it? But because we believe, the least we can do is the best we can and just pray that God will continue working on us/in us to make us just a little bit better every day.

Quote:
but we should just ignore ghandi and sand alike. they're both just throwing thinly veiled insults with no real purpose, right?


There's a wide gulf between ghandi and sand. Ghandi, at least as far as I understand, didn't resort to insults to effect change when it was needed the most. He demonstrated more through his actions and encouraged his followers to win the world over with the power of Love. It's not UNLIKE what Christians should strive for in their daily conduct as they follow the teachings of Christ. Sand, on the other hand, deliberately resorts to a psychological trap common in debate that plays on the emotions of his opponent. This accomplishes nothing short of sand's own personal amusement. That's the way it looks, anyway. Regardless of the intent, it does not support any of his points. I interpret those kinds of things as a de facto concession. All he has to do is admit he has no more to say! What's the harm? Not knowing how to further proceed is not defeat. It just means that IF YOU CARE then you should take an opportunity to examine what has been said and what you have learned before formulating a decent response. If you have to change your mind about something, there's no shame in that, either. But concealing insults behind the veil of intellectualism is no way to persuade anyone of anything. It only shows that you aren't REALLY any more knowledgeable than those you say you're trying to educate.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 2:23 pm

I find it fascinating that when I point out the irrational acceptance of belief in things that clear thinking has proved untrue, and research confirms in many ways it is untrue, this is taken as an insult. Perhaps it is taken as insulting because the believer is suddenly face to face with his or her gullibility and that is extremely uncomfortable.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 3:36 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I wholly disagree that the purpose of ALL churches is deception.


I didn't claim that it was, nor did I mean to imply that. The purpose of politicians is to deceive and benefit from others, which is not the purpose of the Church.



Tetraquartz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 246
Location: California

12 Apr 2010, 3:37 pm

Sand wrote:
I find it fascinating that when I point out the irrational acceptance of belief in things that clear thinking has proved untrue, and research confirms in many ways it is untrue, this is taken as an insult. Perhaps it is taken as insulting because the believer is suddenly face to face with his or her gullibility and that is extremely uncomfortable.


Just to chime in here once again, because I have been interested in following this conversation, I hardly have found anything said here to hold enough validity to cause me any discomfort... though the act of communicating is exhausting at times. That has to do with my own personal limitations though, and not on my lack of faith. :)


_________________
Never assume you know what I'm thinking, just ask for clarification. :mrgreen:
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'. " -- Hans Asperger (1938)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Apr 2010, 4:25 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand, from what I can tell by the other posts you've made, you want hollow vague morality and you hate politicians. Politics is the deception you see, but because of people politicking in the various systems of Church government you've blinded yourself in the matter so as to never see anything other than the politics and the worst examples.


From what I have read of the worthy Sand, he is a straight-shooter and he expects goodness and justice from his fellow man. I used to expect that too. Then I wised up. The only goodness and justice I have come to expect is my own. Since I have generally low expectations of the human race, I am rarely disappointed or offended. If one invests little in the human race, then when they fail to come through, one loses little.

Nothing ventured, nothing lost.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 5:04 pm

Sand wrote:
I find it fascinating that when I point out the irrational acceptance of belief in things that clear thinking has proved untrue, and research confirms in many ways it is untrue, this is taken as an insult. Perhaps it is taken as insulting because the believer is suddenly face to face with his or her gullibility and that is extremely uncomfortable.


Acceptance of Christ and the plan of salvation is not irrational at all. Early Christians had to think clearly when they made that decision. Being openly Christian meant a very real possibility of untimely death at the hands of your persecutors. Taking such a leap of faith could not be decided on a whim. My understanding of early church tradition is that some congregations, new converts had to wait at least a year before they could take part in church ceremonies like baptism and communion. I think the idea was to give a new convert enough time to change his mind or to see if he'd really thought things through and was friendly towards his brother Christians. I doubt these people could often distinguish between their friends and enemies within the church. For a new convert to officially, formally, publicly join a congregation, one had to be sure this person was a clear-thinker and rational. Otherwise, their persecutors could exploit his weaknesses and use him against his church.

Research neither "confirms" nor "denies" anything about faith. Your obsessive, irrational reliance on it does, however, bely your own misgivings on matters of faith. You cleverly use psychology to illicit irrational, emotional responses from believers, and then you hide behind your puny "science" and "research" as a way to conceal your guilt. Your self-righteous indignation towards believers reflects a closed mind and a shallow intellect. The only thing that makes what you say true is the fact that YOU say it; and what is truly sad, in my opinion, is that you'll just keep saying it until you make yourself actually believe it. A truly rational person, on the other hand, would trust in objective evidence to stand on its own merits--not set emotional traps for those you fear hold superior, objectively/subjectively more solid beliefs than yours.