Questions about Christianity

[Daddy]

So, in other words, JMV really doesn't know anything? He just finds someway to tick people of?

Ah, that makes me feel better.

Uh, the fact that you've managed to piss off other Christians, seemingly even worse than I've ever managed to seems to show otherwise.

JMV: Pisses them off by claiming their god doesn't exist, their messiah doesn't exist, and their holy book is a load of bullshit with citations for this claim
Puu: Pisses them off by completely making something up about their religion while pretending to claim the moral/spiritual superiority of your own

What it appears like to me, and probably 90% of the other members, is that I know more about the history of your religion, its roots, its teachings, its contradictions, and its interpretations as a whole, while you close your mind to all other teachings except those taught in your specific church and fall back on fallacies to defend them

• You've yet to provide a supposed method to differentiate between literal and metaphorical passages in the Bible. Just claiming it doesn't work.  What's the criteria for such a claim


• You've yet to even attempt to provide any evidence supporting the claims made by the religions you follow: just anecdotal statements, passages which you've still not shown the criteria for being literal/metaphorical, logical fallacies, and bringing up that I'm an atheist.


• When I make a claim that may not be common knowledge I generally provide 1-5 sources for it(e.g. psychological effects of corporal punishment) which you seem to ignore and continue making an argument against.  Your religion should be about faith, not ignoring cited facts of reality.


• You cling to a millennia old explanation for the unknown, moral code, law book, book of stories, and such written by nomads to provide explanations for things they don't know, motivate the people in their tribes(do this for the tribe and you will be rewarded for eternity), unite the people in the tribe, and keep order in the tribe. While those might seem beneficial, they also cause hatred between those outside the tribe, demean humanity as a whole, and no longer are relevant considering how we've built large cities and governments and don't need the Bible for that purpose.  Your insinuations that atheists are somehow morally inferior, selfish, etc. is just silly. What motivation does an atheist have for starting a charity, helping those in need,  and whatnot?  None, but they still do it.  That is much more honorable than doing it to please a deity, spread the religion, and/or to secure the reward of eternal life. One does not require religion to lead a "good life" only the will to do so. One doesn't require religion to notice the beautiful things in nature or space.

[Veal]

So, in other words, JMV really doesn't know anything? He just finds someway to tick people of?

Ah, that makes me feel better.

No, you don't really know anything either.

[guff]

OH HOW THE TABLES HAVE TURNED 

[Veal]

OH HOW THE TABLES HAVE TURNED 

Actually it's been this way for 8 pages, looks like.

[the shortest route to the sea]

Thread is now about undermining the discussion going on in the thread.

[Slim]

So, in other words, JMV really doesn't know anything? He just finds someway to tick people of?

Ah, that makes me feel better.

not quite what i meant, but okay, you can go with that, i guess.
and jmv, i liked that post better because of the bullet points.

[rdl]

ok now get back to arguing my peons

[PuuMastaFunk]

Uh, the fact that you've managed to piss off other Christians, seemingly even worse than I've ever managed to seems to show otherwise.

JMV: Pisses them off by claiming their god doesn't exist, their messiah doesn't exist, and their holy book is a load of bullshit with citations for this claim
Puu: Pisses them off by completely making something up about their religion while pretending to claim the moral/spiritual superiority of your own.

...All right. Well, then I guess I'll just have to work harder, then.

What it appears like to me, and probably 90% of the other members, is that I know more about the history of your religion, its roots, its teachings, its contradictions, and its interpretations as a whole, while you close your mind to all other teachings except those taught in your specific church and fall back on fallacies to defend them.

The reason I use only the teachings I'm taught is because that's all I know. That's 17 years of the same thing being told to me over and over. So, whenever something's presented to me, I have only one point of view. So, is the Baptist view always good enough? Not all the time. Like I said, I can only give you one side of the Christian arguement. But, oh well, I'm never going to stop arguing against you just because I'm at the disadvantage. I'll learn more, whether I find someone who's willing to teach me, or I have to force someone to tell me.

• You've yet to provide a supposed method to differentiate between literal and metaphorical passages in the Bible. Just claiming it doesn't work.  What's the criteria for such a claim

Of course I can't provide you with a method. I'm not a preacher. I'm a seventeen-year-old from Arkansas that's fired up on Jesus. The only thing I can say is, "If it looks like symbolism, it probably is. If it doesn't, it probably isn't." That's pretty much the basis that I can give you. Like I said, you should ask someone who has actually made religion their job. All I can do is read a particular passage to you and tell you what I think about it. The Bible is different to everyone. People find the answers they need on their own. One verse to me might mean something different to, say, Zach. Or to even Det. That's because the Bible had a different way of answering each of our individual questions.

• You've yet to even attempt to provide any evidence supporting the claims made by the religions you follow: just anecdotal statements, passages which you've still not shown the criteria for being literal/metaphorical, logical fallacies, and bringing up that I'm an atheist.

That's because there is no evidence, James. I've told you, I believe through faith, not what some person has shown me. The biggest reason I believe is because I felt that God helped me come out of my depression. Your argument would be something like, "How can you be sure that it was God? Couldn't it have been your own strength and will that brought you out? Maybe you just eventually got tired of feeling depressed. Etc..." What would my argument be to that? "Well, I feel like God pulled me out of it." Again, "How can you be sure?" "I feel like God was the reason." It's the same freakin' argument over and over. There's no proof because faith doesn't run of proof. Webster's definition(s) of faith are:

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
2) Complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.
3) Institution to express belief in a divine power.
4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person.

Does that make any more sense to you? You have your proof (to an extent). I have my faith. That's why it's a constant battle between religion and science, because science demands proof, and religion can't supply it. Christianity demands faith, and science relies too much on proof.

• When I make a claim that may not be common knowledge I generally provide 1-5 sources for it(e.g. psychological effects of corporal punishment) which you seem to ignore and continue making an argument against.  Your religion should be about faith, not ignoring cited facts of reality.

Because, again, I use faith for my reasoning, JMV. I have never suffered from psychological effects other than my father dying. Corporal punishment has done nothing to my life except make it uncomfortable for a couple seconds. Heck, whenever I go to the office and I have a choice between corporal punishment and detention, I'm all for the licks! They're quicker, they go away faster, and I have the rest of my day to do whatever I want. Look, JMV, three facts! And again, faith and facts (oh, boy...) don't fit. Faith = Believing without seeing. Facts = Has been tested and proven many times over. Do you get the picture? You can't see God, you can't test God, so in my book, he can't be proven or disproven. But to you, since you can't see him or test him, it means that he doesn't exist. So, again, faith vs. logic. All I can do is give you scriptures out of a book that you don't even believe is factual, and tell you how I feel about it.

• You cling to a millennia old explanation for the unknown, moral code, law book, book of stories, and such written by nomads to provide explanations for things they don't know, motivate the people in their tribes(do this for the tribe and you will be rewarded for eternity), unite the people in the tribe, and keep order in the tribe. While those might seem beneficial, they also cause hatred between those outside the tribe, demean humanity as a whole, and no longer are relevant considering how we've built large cities and governments and don't need the Bible for that purpose.  Your insinuations that atheists are somehow morally inferior, selfish, etc. is just silly. What motivation does an atheist have for starting a charity, helping those in need,  and whatnot?  None, but they still do it.  That is much more honorable than doing it to please a deity, spread the religion, and/or to secure the reward of eternal life. One does not require religion to lead a "good life" only the will to do so. One doesn't require religion to notice the beautiful things in nature or space.

Why do I cling to it? Because, to me, it's truth. The Bible will never be obsolete to me. Besides, they had cities then, too. Maybe not as large as ours, but they were still cities. Jesus was born in a very large city. Also, it's not just a "Do this for the tribe" thing. It was something you did to praise God. The Baptist view (Heh, I never thought I'd say that...) is that once you have salvation, you will be rewarded forever (Heaven). But by doing good works, you increase your treasures that are in Heaven. By helping people with their problems, quitting addictions that you originally had, being an overall good parent, giving charity, and many other things were all ways of helping people. God loves that. He enjoys when we help our fellow man, because it's showing love. Sure, you don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to be a good person. I have several friends that are atheist that are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. But being nice means so much more for me, and I'm going to assume Christians in general, because, not only am I helping this person, but I'm serving God while I do it. So to you, that's "not as honorable". Well, when I do it for God, I'm not doing it for myself. I'm pleasing my King. And not only that, but it makes the person I'm being kind to see the love for my Christ work through me.

[Daddy]

...All right. Well, then I guess I'll just have to work harder, then.

The reason I use only the teachings I'm taught is because that's all I know. That's 17 years of the same thing being told to me over and over. So, whenever something's presented to me, I have only one point of view. So, is the Baptist view always good enough? Not all the time. Like I said, I can only give you one side of the Christian arguement. But, oh well, I'm never going to stop arguing against you just because I'm at the disadvantage. I'll learn more, whether I find someone who's willing to teach me, or I have to force someone to tell me.

You only hurt your argument by jumping into a debate with incorrect notions, incomplete understanding, and lack of citations.

A true quest for knowledge isn't trying to learn more about your religion and how to prove it: that results in a bias. Learning about the other view points, their arguments, their proofs, is an actual attempt at learning.

Dropping the assumption that your beliefs alone are right, and actually researching other religions,non religions, philosophies, and the likes are how you learn.  Not reinforcing indoctrinated beliefs while blocking out those which oppose it.

Of course I can't provide you with a method. I'm not a preacher. I'm a seventeen-year-old from Arkansas that's fired up on Jesus.

You're fired up on something you take the word of another for. You're fired up on a lack of evidence, proof, and everything because it sounds nice.

The only thing I can say is, "If it looks like symbolism, it probably is. If it doesn't, it probably isn't." That's pretty much the basis that I can give you.

That methodology is subject to extreme levels of subjectivity.  I'm pretty sure Det and YPR will find things to be metaphorical that you find to be literal. Zach or Alan might find something else metaphorical or literal. It's subjective, not a thing that can be replicated.

Like I said, you should ask someone who has actually made religion their job. All I can do is read a particular passage to you and tell you what I think about it. The Bible is different to everyone.

Hey I just typed out an entire paragraph for you to argue against your own point...

People find the answers they need on their own

Observational bias.

One verse to me might mean something different to, say, Zach. Or to even Det. That's because the Bible had a different way of answering each of our individual questions.

uh wouldn't that mean it's all metaphorical?

That's because there is no evidence, James. I've told you, I believe through faith, not what some person has shown me.

There is a difference between faith and ignorance.  The latter is rejecting facts of reality to strengthen beliefs. The former is looking at those facts, accepting them, and still believing.

The biggest reason I believe is because I felt that God helped me come out of my depression. Your argument would be something like, "How can you be sure that it was God? Couldn't it have been your own strength and will that brought you out? Maybe you just eventually got tired of feeling depressed. Etc..." What would my argument be to that? "Well, I feel like God pulled me out of it." Again, "How can you be sure?" "I feel like God was the reason." It's the same freakin' argument over and over. There's no proof because faith doesn't run of proof. Webster's definition(s) of faith are:

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
2) Complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.
3) Institution to express belief in a divine power.
4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person.

Actually my argument would be like "So God helped you specifically but not your father?" and yours would be "he had different plans for him" and I would be all like " =|".

Faith might not require proof, but it doesn't require rejecting truth.

Does that make any more sense to you? You have your proof (to an extent). I have my faith. That's why it's a constant battle between religion and science, because science demands proof, and religion can't supply it. Christianity demands faith,

The constant battle between religion and science is because science weakens the control of religion. It raises skepticism.  The Catholic church spent over 1500 years fighting science to keep its control.  In the last 100 years so they've realized that faith in your God and reasoning by science are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is people believing what you just said: that there is a "constant battle between religion and science" when there need not be.

and science relies too much on proof.

This is probably the most fucking retarded thing I've ever read.

Because, again, I use faith for my reasoning, JMV.

There's your problem. Use reason for your reasoning.

I have never suffered from psychological effects other than my father dying.

lol. Everything has a psychological effect on a person, even if small.

Corporal punishment has done nothing to my life except make it uncomfortable for a couple seconds. Heck, whenever I go to the office and I have a choice between corporal punishment and detention, I'm all for the licks!

...Your school smacks you?

They're quicker, they go away faster, and I have the rest of my day to do whatever I want.

Psychological damage is neither immediate nor obvious.

Look, JMV, three facts!

Where?

And again, faith and facts (oh, boy...) don't fit. Faith = Believing without seeing. Facts = Has been tested and proven many times over. Do you get the picture?

Apparently you don't get the picture.

Faith != rejecting facts.

You can't see God, you can't test God, so in my book, he can't be proven or disproven.

Nothing can be disproven. Just because you can't see him doesn't mean you can't prove him. It's the lack of proof that means you can't prove him.

But to you, since you can't see him or test him, it means that he doesn't exist

Wrong.

So, again, faith vs. logic

You need to drop that mentality.

All I can do is give you scriptures out of a book that you don't even believe is factual, and tell you how I feel about it.

And what makes that book more believable than the other hundreds of books?

Why do I cling to it? Because, to me, it's truth. The Bible will never be obsolete to me. Besides, they had cities then, too. Maybe not as large as ours, but they were still cities.

The cities came later and were never permanent. Nomadic settlements would build cities, stay for a few decades, and move again. 

Jesus was born in a very large city.

jesus was a city boy

Also, it's not just a "Do this for the tribe" thing.

and now for the argument

It was something you did to praise God. The Baptist view (Heh, I never thought I'd say that...) is that once you have salvation, you will be rewarded forever (Heaven). But by doing good works, you increase your treasures that are in Heaven. By helping people with their problems, quitting addictions that you originally had, being an overall good parent, giving charity, and many other things were all ways of helping people. God loves that. He enjoys when we help our fellow man, because it's showing love. Sure, you don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to be a good person. I have several friends that are atheist that are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. But being nice means so much more for me, and I'm going to assume Christians in general, because, not only am I helping this person, but I'm serving God while I do it. So to you, that's "not as honorable". Well, when I do it for God, I'm not doing it for myself. I'm pleasing my King. And not only that, but it makes the person I'm being kind to see the love for my Christ work through me.

Well an atheist does it for humanity. God just damns humanity.

[Lozal]

I love you, JMV.

[Slim]

I love you, JMV.

What you're feeling is lust, not love.

[hotlikesauce.]

Because I'm gay for Jesus.
Creator of all good.
A charitable carpenter,
That's why he's givin me wood.

Cause I'm gay for Jesus.
Let the people rejoice.
But it's not about lust, I don't want to nail him.
That was a poor word choice.

[Lozal]

What you're feeling is lust, not love.

No, that's what I'm feeling for you, Slim. <3

[burzumfan420]

Because I'm gay for Jesus.
Creator of all good.
A charitable carpenter,
That's why he's givin me wood.

Cause I'm gay for Jesus.
Let the people rejoice.
But it's not about lust, I don't want to nail him.
That was a poor word choice.

lol