Respecting Christians

[cj.23]

The claim? Who first made this claim? So the answer to my question was nowhere.

I answered your question about where in the Scriptures. As to the claim, Paul appears to be the earliest author to assert the divinity of Jesus in the Epistles. Others may know more. I recommend Dunn's excellent Unity and Diversity in the New Testament for a full exploration of these issues. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unity-Diversity-New-Testament-Christianity/dp/0334024366

Good book

cj x

 

[dafydd]

I don't read a lot of fiction.

 

[westprog]

The odds are pretty good they belong to a sect supporting the Athanasian Creed, which does use the words "ignem aeternum" in a fairly no-nonsense way. Failing that the Apostle's and Nicene Creed still imply it, and from what I hear coming out of Westboro and the Vatican, the concept of eternal damnation isn't altogether outmoded.

An interesting choice. Between the two major traditions of Christianity, you've chosen Catholicism to represent one, and for the Protestant tradition - the Westboro Baptists. I know that Westboro is beloved here - and certainly they condemn atheists to hell - but I'm fairly sure that Westboro condemns everybody to hell who isn't one of their own.

As for Catholicism - they certainly believe in hell, but I wonder what pronouncements you've heard from Rome saying that atheists are all going there?

If the person you're arguing with is using a nonstandard definition of terms, it's up to them to make this sufficiently known. The onus should not be on the rest of the world to determine exactly what wrinkles each person has ironed into their use of "Christian." It's a common term with a common meaning, part of which is the acceptance of everlasting torment.

So which is it you have a problem with? The idea that Hitler will suffer eternal separation from God, or the idea that you and your friends are damned and that your Catholic neighbour is OK with that?

 

[westprog]

Pardon me for saying so, but that is typical of the usual evasive answer. The bible is either the infallible word of god or it isn't.

No arguing with deep faith.

 

[westprog]

Here is a guidebook that contains all morality you ever need

It beats me why some atheists believe this stuff. It seems deeply ingrained. I can get it from obscure protestant sects, but I really don't see why someone should be so firmly wedded to the particular religion he doesn't believe in - to the extent that he cannot accept any other belief for him to not accept.

 

[dafydd]

It beats me why some atheists believe this stuff. It seems deeply ingrained. I can get it from obscure protestant sects, but I really don't see why someone should be so firmly wedded to the particular religion he doesn't believe in - to the extent that he cannot accept any other belief for him to not accept.

An atheist wedded to a religion? Now that's a novel concept. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Can you tell me which religion I am wedded to yet don't believe in?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

An interesting choice. Between the two major traditions of Christianity, you've chosen Catholicism to represent one, and for the Protestant tradition - the Westboro Baptists. I know that Westboro is beloved here - and certainly they condemn atheists to hell - but I'm fairly sure that Westboro condemns everybody to hell who isn't one of their own.

As for Catholicism - they certainly believe in hell, but I wonder what pronouncements you've heard from Rome saying that atheists are all going there?

So which is it you have a problem with? The idea that Hitler will suffer eternal separation from God, or the idea that you and your friends are damned and that your Catholic neighbour is OK with that?

I think you're trying to insult me to change the subject. That's about the only reason I can think you'd ask questions so obliviously retarded as these. The answers are "yes" and "both," by the way, and obvious loaded question is obvious.

An atheist wedded to a religion? Now that's a novel concept. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Can you tell me which religion I am wedded to yet don't believe in?

The Church of the Subgenius. We are all Brides of Dobbs, the difference is atheists don't get lube.

 

[cj.23]

Dudes (and ladies) can we stop using "retarded" as a perjorative? OK, political correctness is unfashionable, but in the context you could just employ stupid, idiotic, or many other terms and be just as offensively ad hominem without disparaging people with learning disabilities?

cj x

 

[AvalonXQ]

Dudes (and ladies) can we stop using "retarded" as a perjorative? OK, political correctness is unfashionable, but in the context you could just employ stupid, idiotic, or many other terms and be just as offensively ad hominem without disparaging people with learning disabilities?

cj x

I agree.

But I also must respond with this:

 

[dafydd]

Dudes (and ladies) can we stop using "retarded" as a perjorative? OK, political correctness is unfashionable, but in the context you could just employ stupid, idiotic, or many other terms and be just as offensively ad hominem without disparaging people with learning disabilities?

cj x

Only one person used it. Address them please.

 

[cj.23]

Two actually. The previous posts where it was employed by a different poster have been moved to Abandon All Hope. That was why I made a polite request: I doubt it's an infringement of any rule to use it, but it jars.

cj x

 

[Legend]

You know what "idiotic" once actually meant, right?

 

[sphenisc]

You know what "idiotic" once actually meant, right?

Sure - arising spontaneously or from an obscure or unknown cause.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Dudes (and ladies) can we stop using "retarded" as a perjorative? OK, political correctness is unfashionable, but in the context you could just employ stupid, idiotic, or many other terms and be just as offensively ad hominem without disparaging people with learning disabilities?

cj x

I'm sorry you feel offended, but my answer is no. I'm a firm advocate that the best way to defang hurtful terms is to coopt their meaning into something else. Anything else will do, so long as it doesn't share the same context.

Language changes, and I feel changes like this one should be encouraged. In this case, the txting Facebook generation have given us a rare gift - an alternate definition to an old step on the euphemism treadmill that is just as intuitive and incisive as the original, while meaning something entirely different. No forced-sounding "sea kittens" here. If this use is encouraged, instead of getting our panties in a bunch over it, perhaps we will see the reference to the handicapped only in the more pedantic dictionaries, to be read by bored kids who think "that's where it came from?"

I did not intend to imply westprog is mentally handicapped. You know I didn't, as "differently abled" did not appear in your flurry of synonyms. Nor is this a term like "Christian," where there exists universal creeds officially accepted by most churches which we can use to compare to an individual's belief and find out if they're using it right.

So if I know what I mean, and you know what I mean, why are you getting upset about an archaic use of the term you know wasn't intended? Let it die the slow and ignominious death it deserves.

 

[Mycroft]

An atheist wedded to a religion? Now that's a novel concept. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Can you tell me which religion I am wedded to yet don't believe in?

I think what he's referring to is the tendency of some atheists to instruct the believer in the tenets of his religion without acknowledging that there are many variations to all the major religions. Or what I've seen recently is to insist that a God they don't believe in has very specific attributes.

It's understandable if someone who was raised religious and later rejects religion to maintain the reference of the specific religion they were raised in, but it's not logical to argue against all religion while only maintaining the specific religious reference.

 

[westprog]

An atheist wedded to a religion? Now that's a novel concept. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Can you tell me which religion I am wedded to yet don't believe in?

It's a general tendency I've seen for a long time now - that when Christians assert that they don't believe x,y or z, they are assured that in fact they should - that the authentic version of Christianity requires that they do so. In general, the attachment is to bible-heavy fundamentalism.

I really don't know how this can be logically justified. The people claiming this don't think that there's any evidence to support the inerrant bible. They don't think that fundamentalism is logical or well-founded in any way. Nevertheless, they feel aggrieved and cheated when someone describing himself as a Christian refuses to be bound by Leviticus.

It's perfectly possible to make a reasoned argument against all forms of Christianity. It shouldn't be necessary to insist that people fall in line with some imagined non-existent consensus.

 

[westprog]

I think you're trying to insult me to change the subject.

I've been discussing your post. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, but I think that's the way the forum is supposed to work

That's about the only reason I can think you'd ask questions so obliviously retarded as these. The answers are "yes" and "both," by the way, and obvious loaded question is obvious.

It's loaded to the extent that you haven't given any indication as to why your Catholic neighbours think that you are going to hell, or are OK with that, or why you think that.

I'm sure that some Catholics think that all atheists are going to hell, and I suggest that you might find those Catholics uncongenial companions.

The Church of the Subgenius. We are all Brides of Dobbs, the difference is atheists don't get lube.

 

[westprog]

I think what he's referring to is the tendency of some atheists to instruct the believer in the tenets of his religion without acknowledging that there are many variations to all the major religions. Or what I've seen recently is to insist that a God they don't believe in has very specific attributes.

It's understandable if someone who was raised religious and later rejects religion to maintain the reference of the specific religion they were raised in, but it's not logical to argue against all religion while only maintaining the specific religious reference.

Exactly so. CJ didn't get where he is today without pointing out that Christianity predates the Bible. It's odd, because there seems to be an insistence that Biblical fundamentalism is harmful nonsense, but it's the only acceptable form of harmful nonsense.

 

[dafydd]

It's a general tendency I've seen for a long time now - that when Christians assert that they don't believe x,y or z, they are assured that in fact they should - that the authentic version of Christianity requires that they do so. In general, the attachment is to bible-heavy fundamentalism.

I really don't know how this can be logically justified. The people claiming this don't think that there's any evidence to support the inerrant bible. They don't think that fundamentalism is logical or well-founded in any way. Nevertheless, they feel aggrieved and cheated when someone describing himself as a Christian refuses to be bound by Leviticus.

It's perfectly possible to make a reasoned argument against all forms of Christianity. It shouldn't be necessary to insist that people fall in line with some imagined non-existent consensus.

I am atheistic towards all gods and all religions. i don't give a toss what believers believe as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others or pass laws based on their delusions. Why the emphasis on Christianity?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I've been discussing your post. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, but I think that's the way the forum is supposed to work

It's loaded to the extent that you haven't given any indication as to why your Catholic neighbours think that you are going to hell, or are OK with that, or why you think that.

I'm sure that some Catholics think that all atheists are going to hell, and I suggest that you might find those Catholics uncongenial companions.

Were it most anyone else, I would patiently explain why the assumptions implicit in their questions are invalid, and how this implies hidden accusations I'm sure they didn't intend. However, in the past you have demonstrated ample enough intelligence to recognize flaws in your own arguments, and ample enough closed-mindedness to use them anyway, so I will simply choose not play along with your feigned innocence.

The question is whether the Creeds - Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian - can be considered default Christian belief, particularly regarding damnation. I argue they can be, on the basis that even the most obscure, Athanasian, is officially subscribed to by the sects of the great majority of Christianity.