How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

I gladly entertain atheists regularly, as I find that a good bit of what they have to say is far more pertinent than what religious folk talk about. But yes, some of them do take their convictions to a whole new level of persistence. I recently compared what one atheist on this site was saying to what the very relgious people he despised were saying, that the similarities between how they represent their respective points of view were remarkable. But, shall we say, less hard-nosed atheism is more about taking a skeptical view of God's existence rather than insisting vehemently that God does not, or even, cannot exist.

So do you consider those hard nose 'atheists' true atheists? If so then atheists are not skeptics. Perhapse they are not atheists but antitheists. Atheist is more indicative of not anti-god sentiment but avoidence of religous conviction and embracement religous and moral skepticism. Antitheism would indicate the assertion of no god as opposed to the opposite assertion that all of theism makes. What do you say to this?

@Solace,

Solace,

Try to appreciate, that this favoured premise of a personal god which is generally quite detailed, the acception, his toiletry habits are not shared with us. This is as likely as any other flight of the imagination to become real. That which is without foundation, has the same probablity of manifestation as, that which is without foundation----------no surprises here!:cool:

@boagie,

Quote:

There were responses to the original question, yes, but I saw no attempt to justify the scripture, just attempts to deflect responsibility for claiming to believe the scriptures by ignoring those scriptures that cast the original doubt into the mind of the person who started the thread. And it is a doubt that is shared by many.

Then I encourage you to reread the posts. No one attempted to 'deflect responsibility'. When faced with such an accusation from boagie, I responded - you can refer to those arguments if you like.

Quote:

As for the message being for everyone, I could quote another scripture, "Many have been called, few have been chosen." Yes, the message is for everyone, but that doesn't mean that everyone is meant to understand it.

And your quote would only support the fact that not everyone will understand, so what's the point?

Quote:

Dirt and stone and air and water and trees and animals, and so on and so forth, also comprise the world. There's nothing in the verse that signifies that God was making a distinction, nor that he wasn't making one.

And so man would be included.

Quote:

As you say, in the OT the term was "God's chosen people". Do we assume that because of the New Testament God no longer chooses who is or isn't his child? If so, then let me remind you about the "few have been chosen" part. That's from the New Testament. If it doesn't make you different from others to be God's child, then why call yourself Christian? Why bother with a label, a distinction?

God didn't chose or leave out any humans from being his children, even in the OT. Instead, some of his children were his chosen people - those who worshipped him.

From scripture, I would argue that everyone is the child of God. To be a Christian would be to turn to that scripture for guidance.

Quote:

If everyone at the outset is a child of god, what need then of the totalalitarian ambitions of Christianity, or any world religion for that matter. What they don't embrace they must smite, a lot of smiting going on

There isn't such a need - instead, there is the abuse of teachings by some. This abuse is a terrible shame, but not a "need" that Christianity has.

Quote:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things as a meaningful unity" - Albert Einstein

Nietzsche said something very similar to this in "The AntiChrist". I think they're right.

Quote:

I agree with boagie. And it suggests that Christians don't actually believe that everyone is God's child, they just like to pretend they do. Cause, hey, we don't want to offend you while we smite you.

Right, because I so often smite people.

Seriously, Solace. These sorts of accusations are useless.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

I gladly entertain atheists regularly, as I find that a good bit of what they have to say is far more pertinent than what religious folk talk about. But yes, some of them do take their convictions to a whole new level of persistence. I recently compared what one atheist on this site was saying to what the very relgious people he despised were saying, that the similarities between how they represent their respective points of view were remarkable. But, shall we say, less hard-nosed atheism is more about taking a skeptical view of God's existence rather than insisting vehemently that God does not, or even, cannot exist.

Couldn't that also be called agnosticism?

@Zetherin,

This talk of atheism - the word is understood in different ways. In some schemes of categorizing atheists, agnostics are considered atheists.

@Didymos Thomas,

It seems that the system is not gradiated enough how about this:
Antitheists-complete denial of a the possibility of a god
Atheism-chooses not to believe on the grounds of no proof or need
Agnostic-believes that god is likely but that we cannot know his nature and remains skeptical of god
pantheist- believes in a higher order and the teachings available by spiritual leaders and groups but has no set rules in his beliefs
Defined Theist- Has chosen a specific religion to follow as a guide for how to live one's life but sees it as open to reasonable interperetation
Fundamental theist- Believes in the direct and literal translation as applied today and holds staunchly to it.

Just an idea, every now and then terms need a purposeful redefining if only in this thread alone.

@Zetetic11235,

As long as we are willing to clarify our use of these terms, I don't see the point in developing a particular system for them.

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

Then I encourage you to reread the posts. No one attempted to 'deflect responsibility'. When faced with such an accusation from boagie, I responded - you can refer to those arguments if you like.

Can you provide a link to a post in this thread that said anything pertinent about the list of things mephistopheles pointed out in his original post? Something that actually directly adresses the issues, that is, and doesn't brush it off.

Quote:

And your quote would only support the fact that not everyone will understand, so what's the point?

Point being God knows full well who will understand the message, and if understanding the message is relevant to being God's child, which I should hope it is, elsewise God cultivates ignorant children, then preordination of salvation is the only reasonable catalyst.

Quote:

And so man would be included.

And so any of the elements which make up the world could have been included or excluded, we simply don't know. It's presumption either way.

Quote:

God didn't chose or leave out any humans from being his children, even in the OT. Instead, some of his children were his chosen people - those who worshipped him.

If God didn't choose who his people were, then why were they called his Chosen People? Who is doing the choosing here? If you're going to say the people, then you're suggesting that there's absolutely no divinity involved in the decision at all, and that, in fact, the Jews being God's Chosen People was just a wild claim made by the Jews, supposing to impose their will upon God.

Quote:

From scripture, I would argue that everyone is the child of God. To be a Christian would be to turn to that scripture for guidance.

From scripture I can show you that everyone is most certainly not the child of God. New Testament scripture says outright that most people are, in fact, the children of the Devil. Not to put too fine a point on it, actually, if you read that New Testament scripture you'll quickly realize that, according to the scripture, you probably don't actually know anybody who fits the criteria for being a child of God, but everyone you know very easily fits the criteria for being a child of the Devil. But hey, if you don't like what the scripture says you can go right ahead and do what just about everyone that I've shown this scripture has done, you can just ignore it. Christians are good at ignoring things that they don't like which are written in the Bible.

@Solace,

Quote:

Can you provide a link to a post in this thread that said anything pertinent about the list of things mephistopheles pointed out in his original post? Something that actually directly adresses the issues, that is, and doesn't brush it off.

See the 4th and 15th posts for direct responses. Further discussion can also be found by reading subsequent posts.

I would also consider your first post in the thread a direct response, which is why I thanked you for it.

Quote:

Point being God knows full well who will understand the message, and if understanding the message is relevant to being God's child, which I should hope it is, elsewise God cultivates ignorant children, then preordination of salvation is the only reasonable catalyst.

Why is understanding the message relevant to being a child of God? God does not cultivate children - parents and society do that.

The issue was whether or not the Word was for everyone. If you want to talk about salvation, that is another issue and not limited to listening to or understanding some of the Word.

Quote:

And so any of the elements which make up the world could have been included or excluded, we simply don't know. It's presumption either way.

No it isn't. Let's go back to the quote:

"For God so loved the world"

The world. The passage does not contain any qualifiers to exclude any part of the world, therefore it is most reasonable to conclude that no part of the world is excluded.

The only way you could possibly continue with the idea that man is somehow excluded from 'the world' in this context is to ignore the context of the passage. Here it is:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Obviously, belief is something men do/have, not rocks or trees. Not only are men included in 'the world', men are the focus of the phrase.

Next time you refer to scripture, consider the context of the phrase you use. Selecting half lines to focus on, while ignoring context, can provide justification for damn near anything. It's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Quote:

If God didn't choose who his people were, then why were they called his Chosen People?

God, of the Old Testament, did chose his people. They are refered to as the Chosen People and are the Jews. However, Chosen People is not equivilant to children of god. This is evident in the fact that Jesus did not limit his audience to Jews, the Chosen People, yet still lead his audience in prayer "Our father".

Quote:

If you're going to say the people, then you're suggesting that there's absolutely no divinity involved in the decision at all, and that, in fact, the Jews being God's Chosen People was just a wild claim made by the Jews, supposing to impose their will upon God.

Only if we make the mistake of taking the text literally. We are spekaing of scripture, with figurative language. Allegory.

Quote:

From scripture I can show you that everyone is most certainly not the child of God. New Testament scripture says outright that most people are, in fact, the children of the Devil. Not to put too fine a point on it, actually, if you read that New Testament scripture you'll quickly realize that, according to the scripture, you probably don't actually know anybody who fits the criteria for being a child of God, but everyone you know very easily fits the criteria for being a child of the Devil. But hey, if you don't like what the scripture says you can go right ahead and do what just about everyone that I've shown this scripture has done, you can just ignore it. Christians are good at ignoring things that they don't like which are written in the Bible.

Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible.

In any case, if you'd like to compare notes on scripture, I'm game. Jesus is pretty clear about the issue in the Synoptic Gospels. John takes a different stance and contradicts the other three. The commentary following the Gospels is all over the place. I prefer to rely on the words attributed to Jesus, and go with which ever opinion is most agreed upon by the authors of the Gospels.

Cherry picking snippets of scripture is pretty useless (as you have done so far with your quote from John 3:16).

@Didymos Thomas,

Wow, it strikes me as remarkably short-sighted that you chastise me for "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" and then try to justify a faith to which you feel the need to add a qualifier "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible." So you practice selective Christianity then. If you agree with what's written in the scripture you believe it, but if the scripture calls into question your preset conclusions of how and what things are, you write it off as irrelevant. (And I'm not talking about stories that defy science, like the flood. I'm talking about passages that confront your notions of who and what God's children are, idealogy about their nature, and so on...) It's no wonder then that non-Christians look at professing Christians and scratch their heads. You say to them, read the Bible, you can learn something worth knowing, but just skip those passages that call into question my idealogy.

@Solace,

Thomas,

My impression is that your own postion is abscure, you do not wish to be pinned down. Muddying the waters so that there can only be confusion allows you to maintain your place, of-- non-committment---of no-place. Christianity for you is not an entity, it to is obsurity as well, yet, I don't think your comfortable even in this no man's land. Even if someone wished to agree with you Thomas, they would need to find out where you are, I do not think even you know, where you are.:confused:

@boagie,

Quote:

Wow, it strikes me as remarkably short-sighted that you chastise me for "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" and then try to justify a faith to which you feel the need to add a qualifier "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible."

I warned you against taking phrases out of context (ie, your use of John 3:16) - that's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Not all Christians accept all of the Bible, some do not accept any part of the New Testament. That's simple fact.

Quote:

So you practice selective Christianity then.

Do thinkers practice selective philosophy when they reject the notions of some philosophers? No.

Quote:

If you agree with what's written in the scripture you believe it, but if the scripture calls into question your preset conclusions of how and what things are, you write it off as irrelevant.

You are making incorrect assumptions about why I accept some scripture and reject others. My rejection/acceptance of scripture is based on a number of concerns - date written, political environment, intended audience of the text. It's called scholarship.

My personal views are more nuanced - some scripture I neither wholly reject nor wholly embrace - sometimes I have to admit I just dont understand. I'm at this point with Revelations - either it's the result of the author's experiaments with hallucinogens, or I just dont get the book.

Quote:

It's no wonder then that non-Christians look at professing Christians and scratch their heads. You say to them, read the Bible, you can learn something worth knowing, but just skip those passages that call into question my idealogy.

Actually, I would advise people to read the whole of the New Testament - even the parts I question.

Quote:

My impression is that your own postion is abscure, you do not wish to be pinned down.

You constantly make these sorts of suggestions, when you have a terrible habit of dropping confused lines of silly criticisms and then conveniently do not reply to them.

I try to answer every question posed to me as openly and honestly as possible. Of all the people, I would expect you, a moderator, to avoid these useless, and insulting, insinuations.

Quote:

Muddying the waters so that there can only be confusion allows you to maintain your place, of-- non-committment---of no-place.

Again, you say I muddy the waters - sorry boagie, but not everything is black and white. Religion is certainly not black and white, however often you try to treat it as such.

I still have no idea what you mean by my 'non-commitment'. Sounds like a hollow criticism coming from someone remarkably and blindly biased against anything relating to religion.

Quote:

Christianity for you is not an entity, it to is obsurity as well, yet, I don't think your comfortable even in this no man's land.

Because Christianity is not an entity. There are Christian entities, certain churches and organizations, Christian individuals, but "Christianity" is not an entity. It's a faith tradition.

Honestly, I have lost all concern for what you think - your habit of making snide and confused comments, and only restating your opinions as evidence, has lead me to the conclusion that you do not care about my explanations - you just look for new opportunities to spead your bigotted opinions about religion, which I have to add, are ignorant and ill-informed.

Quote:

Even if someone wished to agree with you Thomas, they would need to find out where you are, I do not think even you know, where you are.

Agree with me on what? The totality of my religious philosophy? I've never presented such a thing.

They can, however, agree with me on particular points which you seem unable to even comprehend - for example, the fact that Christianity is not an entity, a unified whole. Or they might agree that literal interpretations of the Bible are misguided and lead to contradiction.

But, hey, you'd prefer to make accusations about my character than actually address any issues. So, what's your point boagie?

@Didymos Thomas,

There was no offense intended, you do not really seem to disagree with the what I have said, other than to say, in your face. The position you have taken is a most powerful one, a bit like Socrates, stating that he knows nothing, therefore gaining what litttle in the way of control that might be possiable. I don't know why you take offense at the wondering, you have been quite verbal about the obsurity of your beliefs. If I have offended, as I suspect I have, you have my sincere apologies. Surprised

@boagie,

Quote:

There was no offense intended, you do not really seem to disagree with the what I have said, other than to say, in your face.

I disagree with what you've said - goodness man, how could you miss that point? In case you missed it:

Quote:

I try to answer every question posed to me as openly and honestly as possible.

How is that obscurity?

Quote:

I don't know why you take offense at the wondering, you have been quite verbal about the obsurity of your beliefs.

No, I have not advanced any notion of obscurity in my beliefs. What you have taken as obscurity is my treatment of the whole of Christianity - as a broad and diverse group. My Christian views do not represent the whole of Christianity, only me as a Christian.

Quote:

If I have offended, as I suspect I have, you have my sincere apologies.

Damn right you have, but I do appreciate this apology. It's easy to offend when being persistent in over-generalizations and negative insinuations draw from those over-generalizations. Might be something for all of us to keep in mind.

@Didymos Thomas,

boagie is a mod? Woah that's scary, lol.

DT, you recommend the whole New Testament, and I said up front the scripture that talks directly about what it means to be a child of God or a child of the Devil is from the New Testament. Since your reply to that was "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible.", I can only assume that you choose to ignore that scripture. I honestly see "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" here, to recommend the philosophy contained in a book but choose to ignore a certain part of that philosophy. It's not like I'm pointing out some small nuance of idealogy. I think that recognizing what the Bible says about who and what God's children are should be a huge issue with any Christian. But I guess I'm wrong about that.

@Solace,

Quote:

boagie is a mod? Woah that's scary, lol.

And a damn fine one, too. Hehe.

Quote:

DT, you recommend the whole New Testament, and I said up front the scripture that talks directly about what it means to be a child of God or a child of the Devil is from the New Testament. Since your reply to that was "Not all of us accept everything that is written in the Bible.", I can only assume that you choose to ignore that scripture.

You assume I ignore what scripture? Maybe that's the problem - assumptions.
I mentioned that Christians might reject portions of the New Testament to show that even if there are passages in the New Testament to support a given perspective, not all Christians may find that convincing as some may reject the books from which the passages come.

Quote:

I honestly see "a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity" here, to recommend the philosophy contained in a book but choose to ignore a certain part of that philosophy.

What book? The Bible? The Bible is a compilation of books.

As a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity I cannot accept the whole of the New Testament because some of the texts, Revelations for example, I do not understand very well. How can I advocate a philosophy I do not wholly understand?

I also have to consider the political environment when looking at these texts, and consider the way the political atmosphere influenced the writings. I cannot honestly, with integrity, accept spiritual teaching that exists to promote a political end rather than spiritual development. In my opinion, there are parts of the New Testament which are just that - politically motivated writings.

Quote:

It's not like I'm pointing out some small nuance of idealogy. I think that recognizing what the Bible says about who and what God's children are should be a huge issue with any Christian. But I guess I'm wrong about that.

Try as you might to be disparaging, I've offered to compare notes on these scriptural issues. Again, if you would like to have this particular conversation, I'm game.

@Didymos Thomas,

Okay, here it is then. If you tell me afterward that, for whatever reason, you don't accept the given book that this passage comes from, I'll leave it there and I won't question you on it.

1 John 3:8 "He that committeth sin is of the Devil;"

and 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;"

I realize that I'm just taking parts of those verses, but those are the parts that refer directly to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss the rest of those verses, as well as the ones around them or whatever, then let's do that too. If you feel this subject is better taken up in private or a new thread, either is good by me.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Okay, here it is then. If you tell me afterward that, for whatever reason, you don't accept the given book that this passage comes from, I'll leave it there and I won't question you on it.

1 John 3:8 "He that committeth sin is of the Devil;"

and 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;"

As far as I know this "part" of the bible are letters. I sometimes wonder why pastoral letters are included in the bible. Letters are meant to address issues for particular audiences. I think one can be "christian" without reading any of them.

@midas77,

As far as I know everything from Romans to Jude are letters. That's the majority of the New Testament. Do you dismiss this whole section of the Bible just because they were written in the form of letters?

@Solace,

I don't dismiss them. They must be understood as letters, thats my point. It seems I just don't like dwelling on letters that is not supposed to be addressed to me. But I do agree there are some enlightening passages, but as DT states it must be put into context.

Philosophy Forum

How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know