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

[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.

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.

Of course I realize that. The unfortunate reality is that throughout the history of God's dealings with mankind the vast majority have misunderstood. In Noah's day only 8 souls were saved in spite of 120 years of preaching by Noah, trying to get others to listen (II Peter 2:5). In I Kings 19:10 Elijah bemoaned that he believed he was the only one left who continued to champion for God.

It is deeply troubling to see so many who are misguided, yet believe that they are serving God. Jesus spoke of such people in Matthew 15:9 - "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." My fervent wish is that all would join the few of us who accept only what the bible teaches and reject the creeds of men. It is possible to live and worship according to the teachings in the bible and nothing else. It's not popular by any means but "unpopular" does not mean "impossible."

I believe these people are sincere, but it is possible to be both sincere and be wrong at the same time.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For purposes of this thread I will be the man who stepped down from that pulpit 18 years ago. Anyone, believer or skeptic alike, is welcome to challenge me.

I'm afraid I do not have time for debunking your claims, and if you do that, you will beat pretty much any non-theists in the thread. I do not know whether that is productive.

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.

If by "demonstrate" you mean "prove" in a mathematical sense, that may not be doable (I would have to know more details to see whether you incur contradiction, but probably you're too smart for that).
If you mean "show beyond a reasonable doubt", it is done by pointing out that some of the claims about what is just you make are unreasonable. But for that matter, you can claim otherwise, and there is no persuasion if you insist. Then again, if you were arguing against a common ancestor between mosquitoes and humans, you could surely do that consistently as well, and even though it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such common ancestor, you could simply say it is not (as you can do in the moral case), so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Bilby may not approve of god, but god doesn't need Bilby's approval.

It's not about what he needs. God does not exist and neither does Yahweh (i.e., the biblical creator), but Yahweh is a supervillain, worse than Thanos (e.g., you can find a case here).

God is by definition omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect), but he does not exist, either.

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.

However, it is unjust to send humans to Hell for failing to believe that God exists, or for reckoning that Yahweh is a supervillain, or for having same-sex sex, or for whatever you think they are sent to Hell.
On the other hand, assuming otherwise for the sake of the argument, it would also be unjust for Christians to escape the punishment they deserve. If God decided himself to suffer in order to save humans for the punishment they deserve as a result of their deeds, that is unjust - he would be helping humans (some or all; that is not the point) avoid just punishment.

In fact, a rule that everyone gets the punishment they deserve unless they trust someone else who suffers for them - in which case they avoid the punishment they deserve - is unjust.

So, the rule that non-Christians (or whoever you think goes to Hell) go to Hell is unjust because it is an unjust punishment. But if one assumes it is just, then it it unjust to save Christians as long as they too deserve Hell.

Then again, of course you can say that that is not true, and make a different assessment consistently. For that matter, you can consistently argue that the Moon Landing or the Holocaust did not happen, or that humans and mosquitoes have no common ancestor. It would be unreasonable on your part. You would be failing in making the epistemic probabilistic assessments that you should given the available information. But that does not need to involve contradiction, and the same goes for the moral case. So, what do you expect to accomplish? (I mean, seriously, not in role-playing mode).

 

[Rhea]

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

I have been attempting to only ask clarifying questions. I have a lot to say on this “sacrifice” derail, but I have not said it. I put in a request to moderators to split the thread, but they have not replied yet.

I don’t think I have strayed. I have tried to not stray from topic.

To ALL: MAY I PLEASE REQUEST
That if you are an atheist and you would like to debate or challenge a theist on a particular doctrine that you start your own thread for that? The intent of this one is to see what that debate looks like BETWEEN THEISTS to see what kinds are arguments are useful or believable to other theists.

 

[remez]

But I did not intend or want to have ME arguing with theists.

Got that. You just get the insult theists with your poor reasoning and no need for defense.

A "VERY COMMON" but weakly created get-out-of-burden pass.

(Note....... before you object .......... I patterned that after you, post 10.)

So of course I am not derailing my own thread by debating theology with you.

Just to be clear...............I was not trying to debate any theology with you.

Since you were here criticizing and/or ignoring theistic reasoning, I logically concluded that it was properly your burden to address your poor reasoning or lack there of....

And....................

Since you continually fail to see your hypocrisy regarding your proper burden I'll allow you to proceed as exposed.
I'm fine with that.

Now we're done...........should you want it to be.

 

[Atheos]

In respect to Rhea's request I'll rescind my attempts.

 

[abaddon]

... what that debate looks like BETWEEN THEISTS...

What theists? So far there's one theist in the thread and he prefers trolling to responding.

It's overwhelmingly an atheist forum, obviously.

 

[Atheos]

*** Mod Note

The "Sacrifice" derail has been moved to its own thread.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Atheos is not actually a theist, though....

 

[Atheos]

Irrelevant. I was attempting to defend the position I held when I was a theist exactly as I would have back then. I've forgotten very little (if anything) and know exactly how I would have done so. I believe Poe's Law would have taken care of the rest. But the gig is up now.

 

[Politesse]

Irrelevant. I was attempting to defend the position I held when I was a theist exactly as I would have back then. I've forgotten very little (if anything) and know exactly how I would have done so. I believe Poe's Law would have taken care of the rest. But the gig is up now.

Well, I'm game to continue this conversation with a past life, but my real point is that the only theist not outright insulted by the "here's a playground now fight" approach of the OP is not themselves a Christian at present. Do you think you would have been willing to particpate in this thread at that time in your life?

 

[Rhea]

In respect to Rhea's request I'll rescind my attempts.

No, Atheos - yours WERE on target. They were discussions of theological beliefs put up to be debated by other theists. I was hoping one of the theists would address YOU and those real ideas, not me and some straw-man of mine.

 

[Rhea]

Well, I'm game to continue this conversation with a past life, but my real point is that the only theist not outright insulted by the "here's a playground now fight" approach of the OP

It did not occur to me that discussing your faith with other theists so that atheists could hear a non-combative version of real arguments would feel like “a fight.”

I stand corrected.

is not themselves a Christian at present. Do you think you would have been willing to particpate in this thread at that time in your life?

I thought theists did this all the time? Shared their beliefs and interpretations and encouraged atheists to hear it.

That’s not even snark. It genuinely did not occur to me that an invitation to discuss religion in front of atheists without interruption would be an insult.

 

[Politesse]

Well, I'm game to continue this conversation with a past life, but my real point is that the only theist not outright insulted by the "here's a playground now fight" approach of the OP

It did not occur to me that discussing your faith with other theists so that atheists could hear a non-combative version of real arguments would feel like “a fight.”

I stand corrected.

is not themselves a Christian at present. Do you think you would have been willing to particpate in this thread at that time in your life?

I thought theists did this all the time? Shared their beliefs and interpretations and encouraged atheists to hear it.

That’s not even snark. It genuinely did not occur to me that an invitation to discuss religion in front of atheists without interruption would be an insult.

It's not as though it is difficult to find such conversations... I find you to be remarkably disingenuous.

 

[Rhea]

It's not as though it is difficult to find such conversations..

I find them difficult to find. There is SO MUCH chaff, I cannot find the wheat. I buy books, but that’s just one person, not two (or more.). The forums for Christians are heavily populated with childish tired old apologetics. I was hoping the higher level of conversation here would yield an interesting discussion.

. I find you to be remarkably disingenuous.

I know. People say that. I’ve tried to help that, but it’s not my nature. If it helps, imagine I am deep on the spectrum, it will begin to make more sense. I am being genuine here. I have no interest in, nor patience for, “gotcha” bullshit questions because it does not interest me to “win points” in some conversation game. I seek to understand other people and how they think. I do not know any other way of achieving that than the way I know to ask. I understand that most people take that kind of autistic relentlessness as having a double meaning, but... well, it just doesn’t. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Politesse]

It's not as though it is difficult to find such conversations..

I find them difficult to find. There is SO MUCH chaff, I cannot find the wheat. I buy books, but that’s just one person, not two (or more.). The forums for Christians are heavily populated with childish tired old apologetics. I was hoping the higher level of conversation here would yield an interesting discussion.

. I find you to be remarkably disingenuous.

I know. People say that. I’ve tried to help that, but it’s not my nature. If it helps, imagine I am deep on the spectrum, it will begin to make more sense. I am being genuine here. I have no interest in, nor patience for, “gotcha” bullshit questions because it does not interest me to “win points” in some conversation game. I seek to understand other people and how they think. I do not know any other way of achieving that than the way I know to ask. I understand that most people take that kind of autistic relentlessness as having a double meaning, but... well, it just doesn’t. Sorry to disappoint.

I apologize if I have genuinely misread you. It... actually did not cross my mind that you might have actually meant it. In fairness, I spend a lot of time on the internet.

 

[Atheos]

Irrelevant. I was attempting to defend the position I held when I was a theist exactly as I would have back then. I've forgotten very little (if anything) and know exactly how I would have done so. I believe Poe's Law would have taken care of the rest. But the gig is up now.

Well, I'm game to continue this conversation with a past life, but my real point is that the only theist not outright insulted by the "here's a playground now fight" approach of the OP is not themselves a Christian at present. Do you think you would have been willing to particpate in this thread at that time in your life?

I respect your viewpoint this may have looked like an attempt to create a virtual arena and toss a bunch of Christians in like gladiators to fight for the amusement of a skeptical audience. I don't believe that was anyone's intention, but I can certainly empathize with why it would look like that. And if I'm brutally honest I guess there's just no way it wouldn't have turned into that sort of thing. I would have been every bit as leery.

I did try to share what I believed with others through (more primitive) social media in those days, from the days of 300 baud modems dialing into computer bulletin boards to the advent of a globally connected Internet with newsgroups for every possible special interest imaginable, to the WWW and on. It was actually through such activity that I came to realize how wrong I was about many of the inviolate truths I held sacred. For me the Internet was a Godsend. It saved me from God.

Honestly, I'm not sure where we go from here. It's a bit of a pointless exercise for me to try to evangelize you (or anyone else here) into the cult-like place from which I escaped.

 

[Rhea]

I apologize if I have genuinely misread you. It... actually did not cross my mind that you might have actually meant it. In fairness, I spend a lot of time on the internet.

You did misread me. Apology accepted. I have sent 25 years on the internet, 19 of them right here with the Internet Infidels->Secular Web->Free Ratio Debate Board-> Talk Freethought, if that means anything.

 

[Angry Floof]

Whether it was asked sincerely or rhetorically, either way a Christian should be uncomfortable with the question.

 

[Politesse]

Whether it was asked sincerely or rhetorically, either way a Christian should be uncomfortable with the question.

To have a conversation with another Christian? We do it all the time...

 

[Angry Floof]

To have a conversation with another Christian?

Yeah, that's the ticket.