Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Poem]

Given the rest of the essay, yes.

Specifically?

 

[Darat]

Specifically?

It's a short essay so me summarising it doesn't seem to be worth anyone's time rather than readining it for yourself.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That would also apply to atheists presumably?

Atheism is not a belief: rather, it is a lack of belief.

 

[acbytesla]

...that happens to be the subject of the OP...don't be irritated that I focus on it.

Given that you wrote the OP, it is hardly wrong to criticize that it's wrong.

In your words - it's moronic because?

Collins wrote a book and gave his reason. He was hiking in the Pacific Northwest and came across a waterfall that froze into three branches. That convinced him that the Trinity was true.

That would also apply to atheists presumably?

It includes everyone.

I was answering why Paul discouraged what you consider 'thought'. You assumed those verses you cited, so why shouldn't I assume Paul's dramatic conversion story? Both of us are assuming Paul thought and wrote of such things...not necessarily that such was truth.

I'm not. Why would anyone do that?

Not following you.

The point is that faith is is a cultural, even a legal insistence. There is no room for questioning. People go along to get along. It is not acceptable to point out anything that goes against the group. So, when in The Emperor's New Clothes when the child notices that the King is naked. The peasant villagers who deep down have always known the Clothes were not there. They are not going to suddenly laugh at the king. No, they would not think, out of the mouths of babes. No, that is too risky.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Which verses would you cite would give such
grounds for their violence?

To what else would you attribute their behavior?

To what would you attribute the systematic racism, misogyny and child abuse that they have only just recently begun to back off from?

 

[acbytesla]

Spreading the word by the sword started pretty much with Constatine and goes on to this very day. Actually, before Constatine. Sure, there are lulls in violence by Christians from time to time. But I don't believe for a second that we have seen the last of them.

What is your point here?

Maybe that Christianity is not the religion of love as it is so widely proclaimed?

This. But it's more than that. It isn't a rational argument where religion is spread by persuasive discussion of the evidence. No, it's the enforcement of the group and or powerful. People are either gullible or practical. Or both.

 

[Poem]

To what else would you attribute their behavior?

...that they are actually not followers of Christ.

To what would you attribute the systematic racism, misogyny and child abuse that they have only just recently begun to back off from?

See above.

 

[Darat]

...that they are actually not followers of Christ.

See above.

In your opinion. Who is to say that your opinion should hold for other people?

 

[Poem]

Atheism is not a belief: rather, it is a lack of belief.

Hmmm...that could be a rabbit hole.

I certainly understand the atheist stance.

 

[Poem]

In your opinion. Who is to say that your opinion should hold for other people?

Based on my limited understanding of how Jesus said his followers should behave.

 

[Poem]

Given that you wrote the OP, it is hardly wrong to criticize that it's wrong.

Correct - but you were complaining about obsession.

Collins wrote a book and gave his reason. He was hiking in the Pacific Northwest and came across a waterfall that froze into three branches. That convinced him that the Trinity was true.

A citation would help. That is not my understanding of why he has faith.

I'm not. Why would anyone do that?

I'm not following you.

The point is that faith is is a cultural, even a legal insistence. There is no room for questioning. People go along to get along. It is not acceptable to point out anything that goes against the group. So, when in The Emperor's New Clothes when the child notices that the King is naked. The peasant villagers who deep down have always known the Clothes were not there. They are not going to suddenly laugh at the king. No, they would not think, out of the mouths of babes. No, that is too risky.

Pretty much agreed....certainly not in church...but plenty of believers do attempt to deal with the awkward stuff. I posted the RCC stance on the OP....and dismissed it outright.

 

[Darat]

Hmmm...that could be a rabbit hole.

I certainly understand the atheist stance.

Which god or gods do you believe in?

 

[Poem]

Which god or gods do you believe in?

I don't.

I remain very interested in Jesus Christ.

 

[Darat]

Based on my limited understanding of how Jesus said his followers should behave.

But Christian religions are not based on just what Jesus said, they haven't been from their very beginnings so for around 2000 years.

Now if you ask me for example if the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church or not I can choose to answer either objectively or from my own religious background.

Objectively - yes they are because they claim to be, from my own religious background no they are not. That religious background says they worship graven images - icons and the crucifix - which "Christians" don't, they pray to other entities than God - the saints and Mary - which Christians don't and so on. Roman Catholics would of course disagree with my theological answer, whilst of course at the same time maintaining any other Christian religion is deficient.

 

[Darat]

I don't.

I remain very interested in Jesus Christ.

So you are an atheist as that is all atheism means - despite the additional stuff many people try to load onto and into atheism.

And I'm endlessly interested in religions, I find the topic fascinating.

 

[Poem]

So you are an atheist as that is all atheism means - despite the additional stuff many people try to load onto and into atheism.

Agnostic.

And I'm endlessly interested in religions, I find the topic fascinating.

Indeed.

 

[Thermal]

Agnostic.

The argument endorsed by many here (and it's solid) is that you believe in a god or you don't, and that's the difference between being an atheist or a theist. An agnostic is a brand of atheist that takes a page from Sagan's book, and says "but I have nothing to rule out a god, I just haven't run across the evidence."

Kind of like you are pregnant or aren't, or dead or alive. You can mince out a small area where you are in the process of impregnating, or in the process of dying, but it's transitionary and fleeting, not an established stance.

The arguments as presented in threads like this are Christian v anti-Christian, not Christian v Atheist.

 

[Darat]

Agnostic.

Indeed.

Nope - agnostic is a belief about limits of knowledge - i.e. "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".

You don't believe in a god or gods therefore you are an atheist i.e. " a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".

 

[Poem]

The argument endorsed by many here (and it's solid) is that you believe in a god or you don't, and that's the difference between being an atheist or a theist. An agnostic is a brand of atheist that takes a page from Sagan's book, and says "but I have nothing to rule out a god, I just haven't run across the evidence."

Kind of like you are pregnant or aren't, or dead or alive. You can mince out a small area where you are in the process of impregnating, or in the process of dying, but it's transitionary and fleeting, not an established stance.

The arguments as presented in threads like this are Christian v anti-Christian, not Christian v Atheist.

You accept that the 'transitionary' can last a while? Quite a while?

 

[Darat]

You accept that the '
transitionary' can last a while? Quite a while?

Doesn't have to be the same all your life, some people at certain points can and do change their beliefs. For example Saint Teresa of Calcutta for much of her life lost her belief in god, she described it as a "spiritual darkness", she no longer felt the presence of god.