It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by raingirl
I'm sory, but that's somewhat flawed logic. Would you apply the same logic to any other theory/concept/whatever that is untestable,
Originally posted by raingirl
I accept your point that it's not about me personally, but about people in general. However, i still beg to differ. For starters, i would ask where you observe such a trend from. In Christians that i know, i must say i have observed no such trend. Perhaps the concept of sin *does* instill such things in people - but from what i have seen this is not true of the way that this concept appears in the Christian context.
Originally posted by raingirl
You're right, such a concept has been hugely abused in the past. But political leaders are notorious for twisting religious texts to suit their needs. It's the same with muslim extremists today...
Originally posted by raingirl
Further, it is far from an "obvious conclusion" that sinners have less value, and "unsaved sinners have essentially no value". If you read the Bible, you will find that this could hardly be further away from what it teaches.
Originally posted by raingirl
I'm simply saying that my logic is based on the fact that there is a God - that is the foundation of what i'm arguing. Take away this foundation and my logic crumbles.
Originally posted by raingirl
Too bad we can't prove it either way, eh? :p
Originally posted by raingirl
It is no presumption. I accept, since that i cannot prove the bible, that there is the possibility of me being wrong. I base my statement that God (not Gods, plural, for i believe in only one god) would care about me being perfect on what is in the Bible.
Originally posted by raingirl
You're misunderstanding my statement. God does not NEED us. God LOVES us. He knows that the best thing for us is to walk our journey of life with Him. Our sin is damaging to our relationship with him -- pulls us away from what is good for us -- and God sees this fault in us, and it hurts Him.
Originally posted by raingirl
This 100% self sufficient God is indeed self sufficient. It's not God who's incomplete with out us. WE are incomplete without God.
Originally posted by raingirl
One last thing on sin >> definitionally, i think we would have different ideas of what it is. I would define it as anything that involves our disobediance to God.
Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Semantics, what name it goes by is immaterial, as is an extant God, the point is that there is such a thing as being a bad person.
You ommitted a key point, the part about it being designed to be untestable.
We are both arguing from anecdotal evidence. I imagine formal studies have been performed if either of us cared enough to look them up.
History proves otherwise. Surely you've heard of the witch trials? The Inquisition? These types of things were still going on in the US even within the past 100 years - illegally yes, but the law turned a blind eye making it open season nonetheless. There are several recorded cases of minority religion lynchings even into the early part of the 20th century in the US.
quote: Originally posted by raingirl
I'm simply saying that my logic is based on the fact that there is a God - that is the foundation of what i'm arguing. Take away this foundation and my logic crumbles.
"god" is far from fact. There is nothing of subtance on which to base such a conclusion at all. Leprechauns are as much "fact" as gods.
You were doing fine until that last part in bold. If god is self sufficient, nothing can hurt him, as "hurt" implies vulnerability and lack of self sufficience. If it is god's nature to provide the best for us, why doesn't he? Google for the riddle of epicurus if you are not already familiar with it.
(hint, the story of adam and eve does not resolve the problem)
quote: Originally posted by raingirl
Too bad we can't prove it either way, eh? :p
...to be more specific, we can't prove it to eachothers satistfaction.
It should probably be pointed out that since you are the one claiming god exists, you must have some credible basis for making such a claim no? Your admission that it can't be proven suggests otherwise (btw, it also makes you an agnostic).
Maybe, maybe not. But that still doesn't explain why god would care if we found meaning in life without him.
How many people do you know who are "complete"? I didn't know any in my 40 years as a Christian.
Originally posted by raingirl
You ommitted a key point, the part about it being designed to be untestable.
But don't you see... before you've even given this belief a chance, you've already assumed that it is not true in the first place.
Originally posted by raingirl
We are both arguing from anecdotal evidence. I imagine formal studies have been performed if either of us cared enough to look them up.
I would agree with you partially. However bear in mind that it is you who made the assertion in the first place, and i haven't seen any evidence, evenof the anecdotal nature from you as yet.
Originally posted by raingirl
I agree with you. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see that this, while showing that christians in history have behaved appalingly, it fails to prove that what the bible says about Jesus is false. Nor does the bible, endorse such behaviour, it is contrary to its teachings it at the most basic level.
Originally posted by raingirl
The Bible cannot logically be blamed for people in history that have twisted its teachings to suit their own means.
Originally posted by raingirl
In fact, if you read the bible, as no doubt you have at least in part, you'll find warnings of false teachers who do such things. That such events in history occurred cannot logically be used as evidence against christianity.
Originally posted by raingirl
"god" is far from fact. There is nothing of subtance on which to base such a conclusion at all. Leprechauns are as much "fact" as gods.
I really don't see what you're getting at. All i am saying is that from the Christian point of view, which accepts that there is a God (obviously), the idea of sin makes sense.
Originally posted by raingirl
In other words, my logic depends on the assumption that the Christian God is true -- for which i can pull out much evidence, if you would wish to hear it. (And for the record, leprechauns are cool even if legendary, butdon't have much to do with this )
Originally posted by raingirl
As for your riddle: have you read Lee Strobel's "case for faith"?
Originally posted by raingirl
I do have a credible basis for making such a claim - if you woudl care to explore that i can reference writings by historians and such for such evidence if you would like me to
Originally posted by raingirl
Maybe, maybe not. But that still doesn't explain why god would care if we found meaning in life without him.
Read Ecclesiastes . Maybe some things are meaningless whether or not we think them to be so.
Originally posted by raingirl
Dare i venture to ask how many years you have not been a Christian? Or would that be too revealing as far as your age is concerned?
But don't you see... before you've even given this belief a chance, you've already assumed that it is not true in the first place.
Of course I have! That's the proper position for unsubstantiated claims.
Anecdotal evidence is worthless, so I have not offered it up, nor will I. I would be willing to discuss it as an asside just for edification, but not as a point central to the discussion. Since I'm too lazy to back my claim up, I retract it. Sorry for wasting your time on that point.
The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires.
What you call "twisting", they called "proper interpretation". No-one is the authority on what the Bible means. Any book that makes claims that it is god's word is going to result in the same types of behavior if it is accepted "as gospel". This is an unavoidable consequence of claiming absolute truth where there is no universally agreed authority on what it means, which is exactly what the Bible suffers from. So yes, the Bible is to blame for these "abuses".
I wasn't referring to meaninglessness, but rather, godless meaning. No where in the Bible will you see meaning without god. Yet it exists!.
All he presented were the "expert" opinions of Christian apologists. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but his approach seems unworthy of any more of my time.
Originally posted by daedalas
Why do Atheist ever have a disordered mind, because athiest beleifs differ from yours? GreatTech, have you ever once opened your mind to the possibility of that there is no god.
Now I know that at the phrase "there is no god" you immediately yell "NO! of course not!" but humor me.
Have you ever just opened your mind for a second and thought for a while.
Originally posted by spamandham
I think it's more than semantics. Sins can involve arbitrary cultural edicts such as what types of food to avoid, etc., that have nothing to do with causing harm to innocents.
Originally posted by raingirl
We cannot prove Christianity to be false - by all means try, if you succeed i guarantee you'll be famous -- and hence, to be logically fair, one must allow the possibility - if no more than the possiblity - that it is true.
Originally posted by raingirl
This is by no means a polished definition, but I would argue that an interpretation is valid if the text as a whole supports such an interpretation. Note that I have said "as a whole". I would argue that if we were allowed to take any line of any text in isolation we could probably make any meaning of it that we chose.
Originally posted by raingirl
An extreme example, but if i took the story of cinderella (i'm aware there are many, but say we take the grims version) and said that it inspired me to believe that i should kill every human on the planet... do you think it would say more about me, and the thoughts i bring to the text... or do you think it says more about the text?
Originally posted by raingirl
"The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires."
I don't really agree with this, but why not test this as a judge of a book. Let's say I'm really evil... and ... say i want to kill everyone that lives in america.
Originally posted by raingirl
All he presented were the "expert" opinions of Christian apologists. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but his approach seems unworthy of any more of my time.
Just for curiosity's sake, could i ask what you found unsatisfying to you?
Originally posted by raingirl
That it was not his opinion, but those of others? Or that you disagree with what Christian apologists would argue -- in which case I would perhaps ask why?
Originally posted by raingirl
Also, how did you go from considering yourself to be a Christian to not being one, if i may ask a personal question? Perhaps you could describe your life as a Christian, if that's not too personal?
Christianity is not a true or false proposition, it is a religion. Some of the tenets may be true, some false, and others subjective. The specific claim we were discussing is the claim that "every human on the planet is sinfull".
This is by no means a polished definition, but I would argue that an interpretation is valid if the text as a whole supports such an interpretation. Note that I have said "as a whole"...
You would not use such a standard for any other book, and would likely point out that it is a meaningless diversion to anyone who tried to use such a tact for some other book.
quote: Originally posted by raingirl
An extreme example, but if i took the story of cinderella (i'm aware there are many, but say we take the grims version) and said that it inspired me to believe that i should kill every human on the planet... do you think it would say more about me, and the thoughts i bring to the text... or do you think it says more about the text?
If the text were filled with stories of Cinderella massacring nearby villiages and such acts were depicted as commands from god, and if Cinderella went about killing everyone for minor legal infractions also as commands from god, and then psycho Cinderella's bipolar switch flipped and she went around saying it's ok to break those trivial laws and love your enemies now instead of massacring them as she had previoulsy demanded, then yes, I would say that says something about the text.
...and now if you have some book that claims it is "the truth", and that book happens to support your murderous desires, you have just found a way to justify those actions. That book now lessens a dissincentive toward sociopathic behavior, which will result in more such bahavior on average. Without the Bible to justify slavery, the peculiar institution would probably not have lasted as long as it did. Baptist preachers relieved Southern society of their collective guilt using the Bible to justify slavery.
I finally read the Bible. "As a whole" I interpreted it as crap.
Originally posted by raingirl
That said, i hope you will forgive me for saying that i feel that my posts are falling on deaf ears: i do'nt feel you are considering this with an open mind.
Originally posted by raingirl
Christianity is not a true or false proposition, it is a religion. Some of the tenets may be true, some false, and others subjective. The specific claim we were discussing is the claim that "every human on the planet is sinfull".
Christianity by it's very nature claims to be a matter of true or false.
Originally posted by raingirl
As i have said before, what i am arguing is that the claim that "every human on the planet is sinful" logically makes sense if Christianity is indeed true.
Originally posted by raingirl
Actually, i would indeed use such a standard. Not for "any other book" as you put it, but for *any interpretation of a book*, which is what my statement was about. It's what, in the literary world, is known as "textual integrity" of a reading.
Originally posted by raingirl
You're missing the point. Obviously if the stories were filled with massacre, it would say something about the text.
Originally posted by raingirl
I would, perhaps, ask why it is that "as a whole" you interpreted it to be "crap", if you actually read the whole bible, as your statement would imply... but perhaps that, once again, would lead nowhere.
Originally posted by raingirl
To take an approach to Christianity where one supposes themself to be absolutely certain that it is untrue is in fact, not logical at all, for there is no proof that should make us so absolutely certain.