Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[Rhea]

In other words, if you can refute their religious claim by just saying “I disagree” then why would you not accept the refutation of YOUR religious claim by encountering me, who disagrees?

That’s my logic.

And by your challenge I addressed your logic back in post 31.
You have conveniently ignored it.
You presented a challenge and won't defend what you believe.
You are guilty of what you are complaining about.
So whats up?

What’s up is that your post was kind of frenetic and incoherent, so I decided that I would not spend time deciphering it.

My question in this thread is to ask theists who disagree with EACH OTHER to show us how they would resolve the finding of “truth.” I had expected it would be as easy as getting an answer when I say, “I interpret your bible this way,” and they immediately have no problem responding, “well, you’re wrong, because you’re not a believer and you’re not reading it right.” So I wanted to observe what the refutations sounded like when they are both believers.

Some theists thought this was a “trick question.”
Others seem to be saying “I’ll argue with you because I can just dismiss you, but I won’t argue with another theist in front of you, about the same topic.”

Which is fine, if that’s the answer. That would make sense, I guess.

 

[Rhea]

Here is the other example that caused me to start wondering in this direction:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-and-outspoken&p=667099&viewfull=1#post667099


And includes these statements:

You are probably not going to like what I have to say now – this is the same mistake that a lot of Christians make by trying to read the Bible literally.

There were members in this church who wanted to meld their original faith and practice with this new one of Christianity – and this is precisely the point of the first part of that scripture.

It can also be read to mean that believers should ...

Those kinds of statements that purport to KNOW what the bible meant and claim the authority to tell a reader of the same book that they are wrong about an interpretation, knowing that other Christians will disagree. Ruth even says so, “it’s a mistake a lot of Christians make,” and so their argument should easily convince those other christians so no one is doing it wrong anymore, yes?

 

[Politesse]

So there is no damage done when christians disagree with each other on matters of theology/belief/practice? No reason to talk to each other about what things are claimed to be “true”?

You seem to really like hyperbole. No, bad beliefs can certainly cause damage, especially if they result in tangible harm to another human being, in which case, as I have said, I am quick to speak up. I'm also happy to have a discussion of theological matters, for any reason, or to respond to questions obviously. I have no patience for endlessly re-hashed apologetic arguments though, and ultimately see little point in telling someone else what to believe. Has anyone ever been impressed or changed by such diatribes? In any case, I think God is a complex enough subject of thought that multiple correct perspectives are possible. You discuss the infinite, and imagine that there is only one right way to think about it?

I’m not asking you to “speak for god,” specifically, I am asking you to speak about your beliefs.

I don't see how I could accuse someone of "misrepresenting my(?!) deity" without taking it upon myself to speak for God.

When an atheist says, “this Christian thing is not even consistent with it’s own book!” Christians are quick to say (as I outlined in my OP) that we are wrong about our interpretation. You post here a lot. Perhaps you have never once said, “well, actually...” to any post about christianity. In which case, you probably have nothing to say to any other christian with whom you disagree about christianity, and I therefore have nothing to learn from you about it. Because, indeed, who can argue about the nature of someone else’s thoughts that have no basis in fact or reality and are merely thoughts.

You're making some weird leaps there. I'm happy to have conversations about faith, but argument and accusation are a different matter. I disagree that people's thoughts about any issue whatsoever have "no basis in fact or reality and are merely thoughts" - which seems to be deep, fundamental understanding of cognitive psychology- or that, if this was your implication, that religious thoughts are any more or less a conversation about reality than anything else. It is more than possible to talk about something real, and disagree about it, and equally possible to see little point in fighting over the matter. I can and have posted opinions about how the Scriptures are interpreted, and I don't think this means "just opinions" whatever that might mean, but I'm more than happy to have a conversation based on the actual evidence of the text. If someone is talking about a portrayal of the text or however it was taught to them and is uninterested in learning anything new, I tend to quickly lose interest in them as well. Whether or not they are Christian, and religious labels mean little to me anyway. If you're making a good point (or a stupid claim) it is good or poor whether you claim this label or that as your social identity.

 

[Rhea]

You seem to really like hyperbole.

I don’t mean to use it, I don’t actully care for it, but I’m falling into it to try to make the topic as clear as possible. Sorry about that.

No, bad beliefs can certainly cause damage, especially if they result in tangible harm to another human being, in which case, as I have said, I am quick to speak up.

[...] I'm happy to have conversations about faith,

So, in the statements made in this thread by theists, is there anything you would discuss with them? Specifi stuff has been written.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What skeptics often fail to take into consideration in this discussion is the concept of justice. Yes, God is good and loving, but he is also just (which is an inseparable component of being good.) The bible is quite clear that the "Wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). If we can but accept this principle as the same sort of brute fact that skeptics often are willing to accept the existence of an uncreated universe as a brute fact, we can move on to the fact that since sin was committed justice would not be served without death.

Human beings have the ability to allow, accept, sometimes even embrace injustice. The scriptures teach that God is perfect and just in all of his ways. Not just some of his ways, all of them. Accepting injustice would taint that perfection. What often seems trivial to us (accepting an apology in lieu of restitution) would be impossible for us if we weren't so easily satisfied with injustice.

The scriptures also teach the role of animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement for sin. The book of Hebrews covers this over several chapters, but a key verse is Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The writer makes a point that sin is "remembered" every year. The deaths of these animals in sacrifice was not a solution. They only forestalled the consequences.

But this does teach that it is possible for someone else to pay the debt owed in behalf of the guilty party. The problem is that all had sinned (Romans 6:23) and therefore nobody was in a position to pay for someone else's debt.

And so it came to pass that God took it upon himself to take on the flesh of mortal men, to be tempted with sin in all points like we are, yet live without sin and then pay the price for all of us. This was an act of love, in which he purchased salvation for all mankind and made it possible for all people to have eternal life. Justice was satisfied, the scales were balanced. God then set forth the terms by which one comes to accept this gift of salvation, and the terms are not grievous.

"Sacrifice" is only difficult when one mocks it and refuses to accept what the bible actually teaches about it.

Are you aware that using the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular reasoning? Why should someone believe that the bible is correct rather than the Koran?

 

[Atheos]

What skeptics often blah blah blah...

Are you aware that using the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular reasoning? Why should someone believe that the bible is correct rather than the Koran?

Not trying to prove the bible is true. I'm presenting christian theology and appealing to the bible because it is the source book. This is not a discussion about comparative religions or even about whether or not the bible is the one true book that reveals god to mankind.

On a side note I would encourage you (if you haven't already done so) to read the first 2 paragraphs of my first post in this thread. You might find that context helpful.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What skeptics often blah blah blah...

Are you aware that using the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular reasoning? Why should someone believe that the bible is correct rather than the Koran?

Not trying to use the bible to prove the bible is true. I'm presenting christian theology and appealing to the bible because it is the source book. This is not a discussion about comparative religions or even about whether or not the bible is the one true book that reveals god to mankind.

On a side note I would encourage you (if you haven't already done so) to read the first 2 paragraphs of my first post in this thread. You might find that context helpful.

Well, most atheists/agnostics were believers at some point. But thank you for defending the believer side in order to keep the dialog going. But I'd like to get back to the central issue of this thread: why do believers always believe that their religion is correct vs competing religions? When you were a pastor, why did you assume that your beliefs were correct? Did you ever wonder if the Mormons had it right? Or the Muslims?

 

[remez]

Atheist presents a challenge of this sort.......... Here is some theistic reasoning and here is how I can use it to turn the tables back onto the theist and oh oh oh..... please believe me this is not a trap.

In other words, if you can refute their religious claim by just saying “I disagree” then why would you not accept the refutation of YOUR religious claim by encountering me, who disagrees?

What a silly belief you have there. I certainly cannot REFUTE a religious claim with "I disagree". That would be completely unreasonable.
........ WOW.
If you can't reason where that is wrong then you're just too far gone to get it.

Simply disagreeing does not REFUTE your opponents position.

Your response to that reasoning was..............

What’s up is that your post was kind of frenetic and incoherent, so I decided that I would not spend time deciphering it.

How typically shallow. You can't defend your reasoning so blame it on the theist. So why should I believe you would take seriously anything a I would have to offer? Thus your behavior here is disingenuous because you only want to mock the 1I types. Your reasoning was poor and needed a defense. You were the one bemoaning that it boils down to the epistemology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

Follow up question: How does a sacrifice that's not actually a sacrifice do this?

God "sacrificed" his "only son" to atone for mankind's sins, but Jesus was actually god, did not die, and if we're being honest didn't actually atone for any sin because there was a condition attached.

Jesus/God suffered a bit of discomfort, spent a relatively brief time in Hell (which he created), then went to Heaven to sit at the feet of...himself...and then didn't really absolve anyone of their sins, because unless you accept all the above without question, you're still eternally fucked.

It has emotional meaningfulness. It makes no rational sense, unless one conflates emotions and rational thought. This Jesus guy was so generous for all of us is kinda the direction it takes. Some people really get into that, the ooo-aaaah aspect of things. certainly forgiveness can be achieved without murdering an innocent person, but one must remember that humans are fond of human sacrifice, even their own kids. The more valuable the individual the greater the value of the bribe.

In reality, not emotionality, the Jesus guy only suffered, he didn't get wasted.

So when you disagree with them, do you ever talk about it?
Does it matter to you that they might be misrepresenting your deity?

Who am I to speak for God?

Well Played.

 

[Angry Floof]

In another thread, a christian says they will show us how to be christian. I’d like to propose a discussion where we get to see yiu talk to each other about what’s accurate.

Non christians, clarifying questions only please, not argument.

Good thread. I'm also curious about the experience of God. I would expect that someone who directly experiences the presence of an unconditionally loving, all powerful God would be a changed person, at least a very different person from the usual ideologically driven religious people we actually deal with in reality.

It's not that I don't believe that people can't experience transcendent, transformative, humbling experiences with what they perceive as a higher power or an ego-demolishing connection with the cosmos. I do believe we can experience such things. I just don't believe those experiences, when genuine, are truly reflected in the religious and cultural stories that people usually give them. It's hard to think about the life changing, transcendent states that we call spiritual experiences as being sourced in a story about human sacrifice and patriarchal control. Seems quite limited and even corrupt.

Now, metaphorically, meeting one's deepest suffering and humbly surrendering the ego might well be reflected in such a story as the Christ story, dying to the self and transcending the limits of human ego and ignorance, but that experience needs no story to make it real or true. We use stories to represent things that don't otherwise have a concrete representation, or at least not an easily articulated one. But we choose the symbols and metaphors that allow us to maintain a connection to that deeper, inexplicable experience of existence, and knowing this, why anyone would choose such a ghoulish and demented metaphor, especially one that when taken literally serves as an ignorance-enforcing, tribalistic social dominance machine in the world, for something so intimately meaningful is, well, "depraved" is the most apt word I can think of.

 

[Rhea]

Atheist presents a challenge of this sort..........

It was not a challenge. It was a discussion theme. Don’t play if you don’t like the format.

How typically shallow. You can't defend your reasoning so blame it on the theist. So why should I believe you would take seriously anything a I would have to offer? Thus your behavior here is disingenuous because you only want to mock the 1I types. Your reasoning was poor and needed a defense. You were the one bemoaning that it boils down to the epistemology.

Your posts have been very combative. I don’t wish to have a discussion with someone who is in such a mood, lashing out. I would be interested if you wanted to talk about your theology/beliefs/interpretations with the other theists on the thread, but my intent was never for ME to argue the interpetations, and so - I won’t be.

 

[Atheos]

Not trying to use the bible to prove the bible is true. I'm presenting christian theology and appealing to the bible because it is the source book. This is not a discussion about comparative religions or even about whether or not the bible is the one true book that reveals god to mankind.

On a side note I would encourage you (if you haven't already done so) to read the first 2 paragraphs of my first post in this thread. You might find that context helpful.

Well, most atheists/agnostics were believers at some point. But thank you for defending the believer side in order to keep the dialog going. But I'd like to get back to the central issue of this thread: why do believers always believe that their religion is correct vs competing religions? When you were a pastor, why did you assume that your beliefs were correct? Did you ever wonder if the Mormons had it right? Or the Muslims?

A lot of the foundational content in that first post I linked spoke to that subject. The church of Christ is a non-denominational group, gathered around the bible as the only reliable source of authority in worship, salvation and doctrine. "Speak where the bible speaks, be silent where the bible is silent. Call bible things by bible names..."

Speaking of which this would be a good time to note that you referred to me as a "Pastor." In the bible the term "Pastor" is only ever used to refer to the ordained Elders of a local congregation of the church, and never used to refer to the preacher (unless that preacher also happens to be an ordained Elder.) I was never called "pastor" during my ministry except by mistake by outsiders who didn't know this.

Getting back into character, the church of Christ rejects all creeds of men. It's either scriptural or it's not. That is how we can be sure that we are part of god's elect.

As such, the church of Christ does not "add to" the word of god by using pianos or other musical instruments in worship. "Sing" is authorized (Ephesians 5:9) but no authority is given to use musical instruments.

One might ask if God would reject worship that involved the use of musical instruments. We do not choose to tempt God in this way, for there is a way that is right and cannot be wrong. Nadab and Abihu may not have thought it mattered what fire they used to light the incense offering (Leviticus 10:1-2). They were struck down with fire from God to warn everyone for all time that it is not pleasing to God when people tamper with what he has said.

 

[remez]

It was not a challenge. It was a discussion theme. Don’t play if you don’t like the format.

Please...... hence why I was discussing your reasoning. Is that not allowed?

Your posts have been very combative. I don’t wish to have a discussion with someone who is in such a mood, lashing out.

Again so typical........you're projecting again.....
Quit playing victim and defend your reasoning. Sometimes discussions need venture into areas where your reasoning is wrong. That's not combative, that's normal give and take. You earlier said to me...............

Typically, these conversations don’t include the christian being willing to talk about HOW they know they are right. But I’m game, lay it down if you’ve got it. That’s kinda what sparks this thread - to find out what are their criteriia for truthiness.

Well I laid down the case (discussing) that your reasoning is wrong. I gave you reasons and evidence. I know........... How untheistic of me. Perhaps that is why you missed it?

I would be interested if you wanted to talk about your theology/beliefs/interpretations with the other theists on the thread, but my intent was never for ME to argue the interpetations, and so - I won’t be.

You are after the reasons that theists differ....fine. I get that.
But.............
I'm challenging your stated reasoning as to why you said it mattered. Your reasoning is all messed up on several levels.
You think that simply disagreeing with someones position refutes that position.
You are asking for theistic reasoning on one hand and ignoring it when it is overtly given.
You seem to be asking theists for their reasoning while at the same time assuming the faith has no reasoning.
Those are issues important to the thread you created and reasonably on the table for discussion.


SO........ as far as what you are interested in.................................


Remember, I even played your little game and provided an example of a theistic disagreement, juxtaposed with your reasoning.
You ignored it as well. So what am I supposed to believe about sincerity of what you want?

 

[Rhea]

Please...... hence why I was discussing your reasoning. Is that not allowed?

Anything is “allowed”. But I did not intend or want to have ME arguing with theists. I’ve already heard enough times that as a nontheist I’m doing it wrong. So I wanted to just hear you discuss the reasoning with the other theists. And that is why I’m not responding when you want to argue with me. I tried to make that clear in the OP.

You think that simply disagreeing with someones position refutes that position.

No. I do not think that.
Rather, I see that theists think that when they tell me that I can’t read what’s clearly written and that it must be interpreted by them. (“You have to read it with the holy spirit” kinds of answers, or “you have to understand it in the context of....” something.). So when THEY say that simply disagreeing with me refutes my point, I’m saying, “okay, let’s hear you all do it.”

Is that more clear for you?

Remember, I even played your little game and provided an example of a theistic disagreement, juxtaposed with your reasoning.
You ignored it as well. So what am I supposed to believe about sincerity of what you want?

I’m not playing a little game.
I am proposing a discussion between theists.
So of course I am not derailing my own thread by debating theology with you. You may call that “ignoring,” and I will continue to do it.

 

[Rhea]

Have you ever paid a visit to religiousforums.com? I am an occasional contributor at that site, and both ecumenical and interfaith conversations abound.

Yeah, I used to hang out at some Chistian sites and ask questions. Some of them were abysmally poor at explaining theur supporting reasons. It was not really interesting. I was hoping for a higher quality of discourse here.

 

[bilby]

Not trying to use the bible to prove the bible is true. I'm presenting christian theology and appealing to the bible because it is the source book. This is not a discussion about comparative religions or even about whether or not the bible is the one true book that reveals god to mankind.

On a side note I would encourage you (if you haven't already done so) to read the first 2 paragraphs of my first post in this thread. You might find that context helpful.

Well, most atheists/agnostics were believers at some point. But thank you for defending the believer side in order to keep the dialog going. But I'd like to get back to the central issue of this thread: why do believers always believe that their religion is correct vs competing religions? When you were a pastor, why did you assume that your beliefs were correct? Did you ever wonder if the Mormons had it right? Or the Muslims?

A lot of the foundational content in that first post I linked spoke to that subject. The church of Christ is a non-denominational group, gathered around the bible as the only reliable source of authority in worship, salvation and doctrine. "Speak where the bible speaks, be silent where the bible is silent. Call bible things by bible names..."

Speaking of which this would be a good time to note that you referred to me as a "Pastor." In the bible the term "Pastor" is only ever used to refer to the ordained Elders of a local congregation of the church, and never used to refer to the preacher (unless that preacher also happens to be an ordained Elder.) I was never called "pastor" during my ministry except by mistake by outsiders who didn't know this.

Getting back into character, the church of Christ rejects all creeds of men. It's either scriptural or it's not. That is how we can be sure that we are part of god's elect.

As such, the church of Christ does not "add to" the word of god by using pianos or other musical instruments in worship. "Sing" is authorized (Ephesians 5:9) but no authority is given to use musical instruments.

One might ask if God would reject worship that involved the use of musical instruments. We do not choose to tempt God in this way, for there is a way that is right and cannot be wrong. Nadab and Abihu may not have thought it mattered what fire they used to light the incense offering (Leviticus 10:1-2). They were struck down with fire from God to warn everyone for all time that it is not pleasing to God when people tamper with what he has said.

Wow. That God sounds like a total cunt.

Why the fuck would anyone worship such an entity, even if they had proof of its existence?

This seems to be the same error belived of mafiosi - mistaking fear for respect. Why would anybody want to worship this Stalin-esque being?

These 'worshippers' remind me of the beaten wives who declare their love for the men who abuse them - "It's my own fault he got angry, I used the wrong matches to light his incense".

Fuck that shit.

If such a god did exist, it would be the moral duty of all humans to oppose his tyranny.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have you ever paid a visit to religiousforums.com? I am an occasional contributor at that site, and both ecumenical and interfaith conversations abound.

Yeah, I used to hang out at some Chistian sites and ask questions. Some of them were abysmally poor at explaining theur supporting reasons. It was not really interesting. I was hoping for a higher quality of discourse here.

I had the exact same experience, as if I was attempting to have a discussion with a very young person about a subject of which they were only able to think in the simplest of terms. Some of them had discovered language and liked to use different and bigger words, as if those words would somehow convince me. But it was just more language, nothing of substance, so it still failed.

In the end I realized the conversation was only about emotions and how they emotionally perceived everything, as if they were on drugs. It was futile, perhaps because it seemed to me they were chasing dragons, after some kind of reward, an emotional nirvana. Just very weird overall, my expectations were too high perhaps. I think a person who's life is based on scientific naturalism and who understands that emotions are part of his or her makeup is very different from a person who lacks that awareness and goes through life making all decisions emotionally.

What I've come to understand is that bipolar behavior occurs on a scale. It can be debilitating because the emotional takeover of the brain completely compromises a person's judgement in the extreme forms while robbing them of self awareness. Religious individuals tend toward this end of the scale in my experience.

 

[Politesse]

A lot of the foundational content in that first post I linked spoke to that subject. The church of Christ is a non-denominational group, gathered around the bible as the only reliable source of authority in worship, salvation and doctrine. "Speak where the bible speaks, be silent where the bible is silent. Call bible things by bible names..."

Speaking of which this would be a good time to note that you referred to me as a "Pastor." In the bible the term "Pastor" is only ever used to refer to the ordained Elders of a local congregation of the church, and never used to refer to the preacher (unless that preacher also happens to be an ordained Elder.) I was never called "pastor" during my ministry except by mistake by outsiders who didn't know this.

Getting back into character, the church of Christ rejects all creeds of men. It's either scriptural or it's not. That is how we can be sure that we are part of god's elect.

As such, the church of Christ does not "add to" the word of god by using pianos or other musical instruments in worship. "Sing" is authorized (Ephesians 5:9) but no authority is given to use musical instruments.

One might ask if God would reject worship that involved the use of musical instruments. We do not choose to tempt God in this way, for there is a way that is right and cannot be wrong. Nadab and Abihu may not have thought it mattered what fire they used to light the incense offering (Leviticus 10:1-2). They were struck down with fire from God to warn everyone for all time that it is not pleasing to God when people tamper with what he has said.

Wow. That God sounds like a total cunt.

Why the fuck would anyone worship such an entity, even if they had proof of its existence?

This seems to be the same error belived of mafiosi - mistaking fear for respect. Why would anybody want to worship this Stalin-esque being?

These 'worshippers' remind me of the beaten wives who declare their love for the men who abuse them - "It's my own fault he got angry, I used the wrong matches to light his incense".

Fuck that shit.

If such a god did exist, it would be the moral duty of all humans to oppose his tyranny.

I note that no one is following the rules set out in the OP, including the person wrote the OP...

 

[Atheos]

Au contraire. I'm setting forth my religion without apology, and showing why it is the correct one. It is my (bible-supported) conviction that many people who believe themselves to be christian are unfortunately misguided. Jesus warns of this during the sermon on the mount:

Matthew 7

:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I heartily welcome anyone, christian or skeptic alike, to demonstrate anything that is in error about the biblically based truths I am defending in this thread.

Bilby may not approve of god, but god doesn't need Bilby's approval. I will continue to attempt to present the truth with steadfastness here and we will see if it touches Bilby's heart.

 

[abaddon]

Au contraire. I'm setting forth my religion without apology, and showing why it is the correct one. It is my (bible-supported) conviction that many people who believe themselves to be christian are unfortunately misguided. Jesus warns of this during the sermon on the mount:

Matthew 7

:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I heartily welcome anyone, christian or skeptic alike, to demonstrate anything that is in error about the biblically based truths I am defending in this thread.

Bilby may not approve of god, but god doesn't need Bilby's approval. I will continue to attempt to present the truth with steadfastness here and we will see if it touches Bilby's heart.

Do you realize that there are other Christians who think you're wrong about some of your bible-supported convictions? Why is it that they don't find your say-so (er, "convictions") about the word of God to be true?

I want to add that I do respect how you... of all 2 or 3 of the alleged theists here... tried to know, and to share, the theology -- the standard to sort out the opinions.