If Christianity does turn out to be the right religion...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["My point is that Paul disagrees with your previous claims about original sin."]

And so? Paul's authority is just another claim or assumption.

Quote: ["Err, check that, the Holy Spirit through the pen of Paul disagrees with your previous claim about original sin."]

And another one.

Quote: [" Praise the Lord we don't get Christian Theology from Jmdewey60."]

Your character-attack has no bearing. Personally I would find it easier to get along with Jmdewey60's version of christianity.

Quote: ["By Adam sin passes to all men."]

Another claim or assumption, turned into an absolute: "....ALL men". Sorry, you can't speak on my behalf, and I'll meet an alleged non-mundane existence WITHOUT being a sinner.

double-posting

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

By Adam sin passes to all men.

So are you claiming that Jesus sinned, because that would be the contradictory argument to what I said?

It's Paul's argument that through Adam sin passes to all men (Romans 5:12), does Paul ever say Jesus sinned? David said he was conceived in sin. That's one of the many reasons for the virgin birth, so original sin wouldn't pass to Jesus. Another reason for the virgin birth was to circumvent the blood curse pronounced on Jeconiah and all his offspring.

reply to post by bogomil

But that's only indirectly related to OP.

So the topic of this thread should be comparing Christianity to other available philosophies?
A lot of times I loose track of what thread I am in and just go off of what others post on the thread, imagining it would be something close to the topic.
I have a narrow bandwidth of Christian doctrine that I find acceptable, so I do not promote it too much in general. I don't especially want to convert people of other religions to become Christian.
I am more interested in doing outreach to fundamentalists and evangelicals who I think are worse off than a lot of alternative religions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's one of the many reasons for the virgin birth. . .

He was still a man, or do you think he was something else? Also if Jesus was the son of David, or from that lineage, he would have gotten it from his father, meaning Joseph. Mary found herself pregnant before she had slept with her fiance in an intimate sort of way. It is not beyond the possibility that there was some sort of artificial insemination going on by way of the Holy Ghost, maybe to pick out a specific sperm, or whatever. Or do you think God donated his own sperm, or maybe just created a super sin-free sperm? I would go with Joseph=unwitting sperm donor.

Fine, don't obey Him and go to hell. He's offering you a way out and then you say "screw you, I'd prefer a God in my image" to the ruler of the universe. Don't you understand your blood is in your hands? All those other people may be spared in judgement, but you are responsible for your own eternal destiny.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

But that's only indirectly related to OP.

So the topic of this thread should be comparing Christianity to other available philosophies?
A lot of times I loose track of what thread I am in and just go off of what others post on the thread, imagining it would be something close to the topic.
I have a narrow bandwidth of Christian doctrine that I find acceptable, so I do not promote it too much in general. I don't especially want to convert people of other religions to become Christian.
I am more interested in doing outreach to fundamentalists and evangelicals who I think are worse off than a lot of alternative religions.

edit on 25-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, I didn't mean to patronize you. It's just that forum admin has decided on a 'stay with topic' policy, and I don't like to have my posts removed. Personally i wouldn't mind a bit of roaming though.

Your attitude on christianity is sympathetic to me, and confronted with the possibility, that christianity could be (at least partly) right, I would say that the 'do good' christianity (unconditionally, without pricetags) would go home with a 'god' of compassion. But then most religions have a compassionate faction.

Originally posted by 547000
Fine, don't obey Him and go to hell. He's offering you a way out and then you say "screw you, I'd prefer a God in my image" to the ruler of the universe. Don't you understand your blood is in your hands? All those other people may be spared in judgement, but you are responsible for your own eternal destiny.

You're just preaching your assumptions. There's not a shred of evidence or even a communication-option in this post based on circular premises, presenting ONE version of christianity.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by 547000
Fine, don't obey Him and go to hell. He's offering you a way out and then you say "screw you, I'd prefer a God in my image" to the ruler of the universe. Don't you understand your blood is in your hands? All those other people may be spared in judgement, but you are responsible for your own eternal destiny.

You're just preaching your assumptions. There's not a shred of evidence or even a communication-option in this post based on circular premises, presenting ONE version of christianity.

Why do you have the mistaken assumption that I'm trying to prove anything?

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by 547000
Fine, don't obey Him and go to hell. He's offering you a way out and then you say "screw you, I'd prefer a God in my image" to the ruler of the universe. Don't you understand your blood is in your hands? All those other people may be spared in judgement, but you are responsible for your own eternal destiny.

You're just preaching your assumptions. There's not a shred of evidence or even a communication-option in this post based on circular premises, presenting ONE version of christianity.

Why do you have the mistaken assumption that I'm trying to prove anything?

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

That's what I said: You are preaching.

What I guess you wanted to say to me was: "WHY should I try to prove anything" (that you don't do it is obvious and don't need further attention).

Then stop giving me attention. Why are you even making posts directed at me if you feel no attention is deserved?

As for the ones who aren't pedantic, if the one who calls the shots says do X or suffer Y, and after hearing it you still don't do X, then the consequence of Y is on your own hands.

Originally posted by 547000
Then stop giving me attention. Why are you even making posts directed at me if you feel no attention is deserved?

As for the ones who aren't pedantic, if the one who calls the shots says do X or suffer Y, and after hearing it you still don't do X, then the consequence of Y is on your own hands.

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

I can stop paying attention to your lack of evidence or proof, but that's not the same as stopping to pay attention to your preachings? This is not a church, and if you claim something, I can claim the opposite, even in the primitive form of "Is, isn't, is...."

So basically, your assumptions are just speculative postulates, maybe or maybe not related to topic, and they are completely wrong from square one. There are versions of christianity giving better answers than yours and there are other religions giving even better answers.

So.....you're just wrong (I hope, you don't expect ME to validate anything either. That would with your attitude be a waste of time for both of us).

Of course it's postulates. Everything we believe is based on postulates. Others just accept different postultes.

I think you are plainly wrong. (Don't ask me to validate it). Now go be pedantic to someone who enjoys it. Shoo.

Originally posted by 547000
Of course it's postulates. Everything we believe is based on postulates. Others just accept different postultes.

I think you are plainly wrong. (Don't ask me to validate it). Now go be pedantic to someone who enjoys it. Shoo.

First of all. You are not in a position of even implying anything about where/if I join ATS or not. That's the job of moderators.

Secondly: There's an area of knowledge-seeking NOT based on postulates (outside of what we 'believe'). It's called rational reasoning, objective procedure etc, and that's the one I basically rely on. I am not suggesting postulates as 'truths', I prefer some evidence along the way.

To call this pedantery is just a tactical maneuver to avoid inconvenient opposition, and I certainly hope to relate to topic from such an objective perspective. But be it from me to suggest any censorship on you. Preach all you like, but accept the response.

Oh, please, you're far more interested in debating the postulates themselves then what we can deduce from them. That is mostly what you do.

And all knowledge is based on postulation. You assume some truths are self evident and you construct a reality based on them with deduction and induction. A postulate that can be proven is a theorem, and I'm not proving anything.

reply to post by 547000


I have taken an active 45+ year interest in existential questions, including such as the present subject. And being a 'doer' rather than a 'talker', the impact of this interest has been considerable on my life. So I'm not into it just for the sake of bickering, as you imply. Hence I'll disregard the present theist fad of making character-analyses of opposition (instead of concentrating on factual arguments); it's only tactical diversion.

When your religion has gone astray into the fascistic end of ideology in a societal context (which it often has), that's not something which can be considered with academic disinterest; neither is the interference from christianity with pure knowledge-seeking to be taken lightly.

There is a distinct difference between subjectivity and objectivity, reaching all the way to epistemology. First in an epistemological position can we start to talk about a relativistic 'everything is a postulate'. And even if you would go to such an ultimate epistemological position, the intermediary pragmatism would still have to be considered.

It's all very well (and contrary to theist tradition) suddenly to become relativistic, but there's is no assured feed-back from the uncertainties of epistemology (where we actually know much more than we did in the high-time of the church). You DO sit with a computer and have access to all the benefits of objective procedure, rational reasoning, deductive logic etc, in spite of e.g. poor old DesCartes being uncertain of his own existence.

Science/logic/rational reasoning describes the observable cosmos quite good; the observable cosmos being a 'relative reality' territory with a trustworthy 'map'.

This can not be compared to the 'map' of theists. The theist map is made on non-observable claims and the outcome is tens of thousands of 'religions' and thousands of 'gods'. So do you want to carry the 'everything is postulates' into the solipsistic end, where all the religions and all the 'gods' are 'real' on equal subjective terms?

Being a metephysicist/'mystic' myself means that I'm not closed to trans science/logic considerations. But it doesn't mean that ANY claim can be considered valid, just to fill out a vacuum-knowledge.

So if I, according to OP; should relate to an alleged 'truth' (to some extent, my insert) of christianity, I would require

a/ To know WHAT christianity

and b/ To be able to form my own opnions, attitudes and conclusions rather than relying on pre-digested doctrines which from debating-unwillingness are "true, because they are true".

Your approach is imo just a way of making room for unhindered preachings. You don't want any validation, so.....

....consider my above text as a 'counter-preaching'. And as a sermon is expected to be many-worded, I'm not doing badly either.

reply to post by bogomil


All rational forms of knowledge are based on postulates. Whether the postulates are ultimate truth or not is a different story. If you claim to have knowledge that doesn't rely on other postulates please do tell. Even science is based on postulates. Even math. Even philosophy. The only knowledge which is not based on postulates is direct experience. And you will not accept that either.

You seem completely unable to discuss things that don't agree with your postulates. Every quip you make is about assumptions. Do you not see that if postulates can be proven, they are no longer postulates?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by bogomil

 

All forms of knowledge are based on postulates. Whether the postulates are ultimate truth or not is a different story. If you claim to have knowledge that doesn't rely on other postulates please do tell. Even science is based on postulates. Even math. Even philosophy. The only knowledge which is not based on postulates is direct experience. And you will not accept that either.

You seem completely unable to discuss things that don't agree with your postulates. Every quip you make is about assumptions. Do you not see that if postulates can be proven, they are no longer postulates?

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

That's what my post was about, but you skipped the part from the practical application in mundane life to the epistemological position. So I repeat my central question:

Is solipsism the proper and only endresult?

Or can you work with 'relative realities' as an alternative?

Say: If you were dragged away early in the morning by nazis or hard-core commies (or for that sake the inquisition formerly) would your reaction be: "Well. it's only an expression of unfalsifiable postulates"? It's not a constructed example, it lies at the heart of mandkind's problems with self-established 'authorities'.

Mankind DOES relate to 'local' truths. Inside a 'local' frame (a relative reality) there are lots of functional approximate truths, definitely suited for 99% of our activites. And in such contexts 'assumptions' are assumptions in a tangible way. You don't assume about gravity; if you do, you're dead.

As an individual you MAY sit in endless philosophical uncertainty concerning absolute truths as the ultimate reference-points. In which case you can deny the value of science/logic as a map of cosmos. I believe, you'll find that difficult.

And also you have to accept the egal value and truth of religions competing with your own on THAT trans-cosmic level of 'relative reality', because none of you have any true reference-points whatsoever. In that case..what are you doing here?

Unlike theists I don't have to operate in a context of 'absolutes'. I can live according to the existential limitations put on my knowledge and options for finding knowledge, without having to resort to speculations beyond that.

But just in case, ......you may have misunderstood my position. I'm not 'gnostic'.

So, the keyword is 'solipsism' (either expressed as total relativism or as 7 billion competing 'truths').

No, you're completely missing the point. There's nothing to discuss if it is proven. You're in a forum for religion asking for proof for each assumption. The best that can be done is discuss what we can deduce from statements we have to accept as postulates to understand the reasoning. All you're doing is saying prove it, even when people are discussing things that can't be proven. It's really irritating, because you're assuming it's people's goal to prove what they're saying 100%.