When's the last time you heard something new from the Christians?

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus could've easily said,

Yes, Jesus COULD HAVE SAID that same sex marriage is a sin, but apparently he didn't.

Dude,nyour whole argument was that Xians are not bigots, they just believe what Jesus told them. It's a stupid argument, but you cannot even support that.

So, if you have to put words into Jesus' mouth in order to make him say what you want to believe, how are you not bigots?

Jesus spoke the same way about marriage as Christians do today. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Very very simple.

SO, STILL WAITING FOR EVIDENCE THAT JESUS SAID SAMESEX MARRIAGE WAS A SIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Or, admission that you were making shit up...?

 

[Politesse]

Jesus could've easily said,

Yes, Jesus COULD HAVE SAID that same sex marriage is a sin, but apparently he didn't.

Dude,nyour whole argument was that Xians are not bigots, they just believe what Jesus told them. It's a stupid argument, but you cannot even support that.

So, if you have to put words into Jesus' mouth in order to make him say what you want to believe, how are you not bigots?

Jesus spoke the same way about marriage as Christians do today. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Very very simple.

He didn't say that either. Are you a compulsive liar? You quoted him correctly earlier in the thread, so I know you know what he actually said, and it wasn't that.

 

[steve_bank]

WTF does that mean?

What do you think "physical laws" mean? We gotta be speaking the same language if you want a discussion.

You know it sounds ridiculous in a materialistic universe to say that the universe follows laws. But if you say it's random, then that also sounds ridiculous because anyone can tell the universe is ordered.

Materialism is bankrupt.

Philosophical and religious definitions of reality are useless but for something to believe in.

Scientifically the universe exists. People conflate scientific laws with civil laws.

Civil laws are conducted to be followed for a purpose.

In science models are the better words. Science laws are models of observation. When an experimental observation predicted by a model it is sometimes but not always called law. In science a law is not absolute.

Newton's Laws Of Motion do not work at very fast speeds and small atomic scale particles. Within bounds Newtonian mechanics work so well and predictably we trust them to work, like sending a probe to the moon.

The word materialism applied to science and philosophy is rather useless and meaningless. One of thousands of -isms. One can get a PHD in the use of ism-ology. The art of using -isms to sound profound.

We can debate science models vs philosophy on sconce forum. We can start by you define what you mean by obviously ordered in an objective sense. The observable universe is in constant change and motion down to atomic particles. To me philosophically the universe is chaos and violence. Another extinction level asteroid strike is when not if.

Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water. The question why that is so is unasnwearble and meaningless. Models in chemistry show how to create water from hydrogen and oxygen which the ultimate origins of which are not knowable. The BB theory does not explain ultimate origins, only initial conditions for a theoretical event. What led to the conditions is not known or modeled.

There is no need for a creator in sconce. It works regardless of a god existing or not. Theist proofs of god generaly reduce to a few categories.

I can not image the univwerse existing without god, therefore god exists.
It is obvious the biblical Abrahins god creted it ll, just look at it.

My favorite.

How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.
How you know the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.
How do you know god inspired it?
Because it is in the bible....and so on and so forth.

And the old standby when all else fails, I just know in my heart god exists and created everything. That's all the proof I need.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Absolutely, and as long as the (Christian) believer knows that any Rastafarian, Pastafarian, Muslim, Moonie, Latter Day Saint, Scientologist, et al.,ad infinitum, can make the exact same statement with the same level of zeal and fulfillment, then everything's wonderful, innit??? It's all good!

 

[ronburgundy]

But if you refuse to have conversations about anything other than the majority perspective in your country, you can't very well complain about a lack of novelty, can you?

But do you bring up novel perspectives by initiating a new thread for discussion?
Because my impression has been that you bring up a novel POV in the middle of a thread about something that is a majority or at least a plurality position.
Which may mean that it's not a case of refusing something new, but not wanting to derail to discuss something that is not-the-OP.

I may be wrong, but that's what the back of my mind is suggesting. But I threw out all my otherposter surveillance notes...

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

 

[Sarpedon]

The roll of the craps dice is random, but you will never roll a 14.

Just because something has constraints, doesn't mean it isn't random.

 

[Politesse]

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas. The impression the OP is complaining about is a natural outcome of the belief that only common ideas should be considered legitimate topics of discussion, or even belonging to the tradition under discussion. You can only maintain the impression that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, whichever) has no original thinkers is if you ignore the persistent minority fringe in those traditions.

 

[Politesse]

It's funniest to me when I'm accused of making up an idea personally when I know it to be fairly ancient, pervasive, and widespread. In real life, I was chatting with an atheist friend a few weeks back who absolutely refused to believe that the Eastern Orthodox perspective on Hell... existed? I even pulled Google up and showed him, and he still insisted that this was some wacky theology invented yesterday, against the evidence of his own eyes. In fairness, he was a bit drunk at the time.

 

[Rhea]

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas.

Or - maybe because your novel idea isn’t a “Christian” idea at all, and that makes it a derail in a thread about Christian ideas?

Your ideas are novel, and interesting. Just not Christian since they do not follow the tenets of the religion and often contradict those tenets. If it’s the beliefs of a one person fringe, then it’s not really a “religion” at all.

 

[Politesse]

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas. The impression the OP is complaining about is a natural outcome of the belief that only common ideas should be considered legitimate topics of discussion, or even belonging to the tradition under discussion. You can only maintain the impression that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, whichever) has no original thinkers is if you ignore the persistent minority fringe in those traditions.

Or - maybe because your novel idea isn’t a “Christian” idea at all, and that makes it a derail in a thread about Christian ideas?

Your ideas are novel, and interesting. Just not Christian since they do not follow the tenets of the religion and often contradict those tenets. If it’s the beliefs of a one person fringe, then it’s not really a “religion” at all.

Again, if you define anything that is unfamiliar as being outside the tradition, naturally you will never again encounter a new idea within that tradition. It is pretty clear, there.

I am once again tickled by the notion that I am the originator of... what, educated Christian agnosticism? You do me far too much honor, sir. I can't think of a single thing I believe that is actually unique. What are you even talking about?

 

[Rhea]

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas. The impression the OP is complaining about is a natural outcome of the belief that only common ideas should be considered legitimate topics of discussion, or even belonging to the tradition under discussion. You can only maintain the impression that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, whichever) has no original thinkers is if you ignore the persistent minority fringe in those traditions.

Or - maybe because your novel idea isn’t a “Christian” idea at all, and that makes it a derail in a thread about Christian ideas?

Your ideas are novel, and interesting. Just not Christian since they do not follow the tenets of the religion and often contradict those tenets. If it’s the beliefs of a one person fringe, then it’s not really a “religion” at all.

Again, if you define anything that is unfamiliar as being outside the tradition, naturally you will never again encounter a new idea within that tradition. It is pretty clear, there.

I am once again tickled by the notion that I am the originator of... what, educated Christian agnosticism? You do me far too much honor, sir. I can't think of a single thing I believe that is actually unique. What are you even talking about?

Didn’t say you were the originator, just said it was novel to me, some of what you say.


Here’s the point, which you’ve been unable to alight upon:
Christian apologists try to convert people with the same old tired not-believable stories century after century.
Nothing convincing has been generated in all the time I’ve heard it.
They all repeat the same short playlist in their conversion attempts.

You are not trying to convert. Moreover, your ideas don’t actually represent anything that is novel in terms of believability, it’s just a different sort of not-believable, unrecognizable as Christian. When pressed as to whether you even ARE a Christian, you usually demur.

 

[Politesse]

Here’s the point, which you’ve been unable to alight upon:
Christian apologists try to convert people with the same old tired not-believable stories century after century.
Nothing convincing has been generated in all the time I’ve heard it.
They all repeat the same short playlist in their conversion attempts.

And I explained exactly why it probably seems that way. What's the confusion?

 

[Rhea]

The confusion appears to be why you think your answer applies to this OP.

The other thread got me thinking. It's been a long long time since I heard something novel from the Christians trying to explain their beliefs.
Whether that be trying to sell their beliefs, or apologize for their beliefs or make excuses for their beliefs.

I do hear things that are new about how to look at the Christian religion from a few atheists, mostly because there are so few out there, so I haven't heard as many and also because science keeps discovering new things that almost always make the bible less believable.

But religion? All their stuff I heard 40 years ago, you know?

When's the last time a christian gave you an argument that was new and you had to look stuff up and decide how you felt about it?

First off, you generally decline to say that you are. Christian. Since this thread is clearly about Christians, and you usually saay you are not one,, one is unlikely to think that your opinions turn Christianity into something believable.

You don’t appear to actually believe in Chritianity, you just say the book has stuff that you like and find useful and that you take as allegory or whatever and you’re fine with people calling you that because you’re familiar with it. So by your own words, you are not a Christian coming up with something actually novel and new about why a person should be convinced by Christianity.

Second, what you say is personal interpretation, ususally, so it is neither bolstered nor refuted by looking things up. It’s just feelings. You don’t quote some truth or fact or story or event or even a book or a face on toast, you just say you feel good.

I’m talking in this thread about people who do, definitely define themselves as christian and try to convince others to become christian and become convinced of christianity as fact. The thread is about attempts to convince people - to convert.

You seem very put out that I won’t consider your ideas Christian when you yourself in your own thread say you don’t like to be considered just Christian. You are trying to re-write Christianity? That’s fine, you need to talk to the Christians about it and convince them of your truth.

But if you really REALLY want to be known for coming up with the Big New Idea, the New Good News - tell me what is your best argument that will make me believe your woo? Let’s see if it’s something that would change a person’s mind! Something novel that requires me to look up details and think really deeply to not accept it. Let’s see what’s so compelling about your religion that you feel is so novel and not getting good airplay and is really convincing and is actually christianity.

 

[Politesse]

Why would I have to have some grand project in mind for my statement to be true? That's all irrelevant... I could be Buddhist or Zoroastrian or an atheist, and my remarks on the silliness of your OP would be just as true.

 

[Rhea]

Politesse - I will broaden the question to ANY religion or belief in woo.

What new and compelling information do you offer that it is true and believable?

You seem to think that an answer to this question is, “I believe differently. I look at it differently. That’s novel.”

But that is not the question. The question is what is your argument? What evidence are you presenting? What reason are you espousing for belief that is both NOVEL (different from reasons to believe already given out ad nauseum) and COMPELLING (cause the listener to pause and think, “Oh, thaat’s something to think about”)?

I get that you think that WHAT you believe is novel and important.
I am asking about HOW you believe.

I don’t believe you have answered that question.