Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[Giordano]

Blame Jesus for that one.

I do, rest assured. Or at least what he is quoted as saying,

 

[tsig]

In great detail, Giordano? I work with what I have before me, the Catechism and the Saints and the Doctors of the Church and the Apologists I am familiar with, sifting through it to the degree I am able, looking for the truth. If you are a seeker after God, I would point you in the direction of Ravi Zacharias as most in keeping with the rationalist bent of this forum. Beyond that what can I say? As I said to Frozenwolf, it begins with the conceptualisation of a transcendent One. Without that idea, nothing I or any apologist small or great say will have any traction in your mind.

Cpl Ferro

As always, first the faith then the understanding.

 

[pakeha]

In great detail, Giordano? I work with what I have before me, the Catechism and the Saints and the Doctors of the Church and the Apologists I am familiar with, sifting through it to the degree I am able, looking for the truth. If you are a seeker after God, I would point you in the direction of Ravi Zacharias as most in keeping with the rationalist bent of this forum. Beyond that what can I say? As I said to Frozenwolf, it begins with the conceptualisation of a transcendent One. Without that idea, nothing I or any apologist small or great say will have any traction in your mind.

Cpl Ferro

Ravi Zacharias?
Really?
How is someone who a declared homophobe possibly in keeping with a rationalist bent here or elsewhere?

 

[Donn]

Thanks for the discussion, Frozenwolf.

Lol, that's Ferro code for never speak to you again.

 

[abaddon]

Frozenwolf, if you're so honest, name when I have said that people have never done "terrible things in the name of Christianity."



Blame Jesus for that one.



"To give truth to him who loves it not, only multiplies ways of misinterpretation."
--Ravi Zacharias

Thanks for the discussion, Frozenwolf.

Cpl Ferro

You realise, of course that Ravi Zacharias is a charicture, right?

 

[CplFerro]

You seem to have forgotten a particularly lengthy debate we had where you tried to label Nazi Germany an "atheocracy" claiming it was based on the teachings of Nietzsche, while denying that religion had anything to do with it.

And, so, Frozenwolf, my holding that Nazi Germany was in substantial part an atheocracy, because it was developed as an official, virtually mandatory, Nietzschean racial religion to emulate Judaism and displace Christianity, means that I have said that no terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ? And, you style yourself honest by saying this?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And, so, Frozenwolf, my holding that Nazi Germany was in substantial part an atheocracy, because it was developed as an official, virtually mandatory, Nietzschean racial religion to emulate Judaism and displace Christianity, means that I have said that no terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ? And, you style yourself honest by saying this?

Cpl Ferro

Read my exact words carefully next time:

I gave you a definition and a series of arguments to go with it. You chose to ignore them. I find it strange that your highest moral priority is to disassociate yourself from Christians you find undesirable in order to keep your group affiliation pure, rather than to address the fact that yes, people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. I would think that the latter would be a greater concern for one calling himself a Christian, or for any moral human being for that matter. Instead, you shovel these undesirable elements off to the side, or dishonestly refer to them as atheists.

I never said you stated no terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ. I pointed out that you would rather use your weak apologetics to twist the facts by claiming that those people weren't "true Christians."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

By the way, you're still repeating the same false claims. I already debunked your arguments about Nietzsche in another thread. Try again.

 

[CplFerro]

Read my exact words carefully next time:




I never said you stated no terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ. I pointed out that you would rather use your weak apologetics to twist the facts by claiming that those people weren't "true Christians."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

By the way, you're still repeating the same false claims. I already debunked your arguments about Nietzsche in another thread. Try again.

Frozenwolf, you were implying that I would never admit terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ, and you know it.

But, at least we both agree that terrible things have been done in the name of Christ.

And, you are right in that I would characterise those who have done such terrible things as probably not being true Christians. Some may have, badly misled, but others were probably merely power-hungry types, sadists, and the like, who took opportunities for inflicting harm and procuring gain as they could.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Frozenwolf, you were implying that I would never admit terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ, and you know it.

Oh, I know your position. You stated before that people can fake devotion to Christ, and that this is your explanation for bad Christians, who in your book are not true Christians because you want to redefine the group in order to exclude them. You also went so far as to say that people who do bad things in the name of Christ are really atheists.

Getting back to the topic, you still haven't answered the question of how exactly you know what God is thinking when he judges people irredeemable. Or do I have to presuppose and fully accept the existence of a transcendent One in order to comprehend the answer as you do?

 

[CplFerro]

Oh, I know your position. You stated before that people can fake devotion to Christ, and that this is your explanation for bad Christians, who in your book are not true Christians because you want to redefine the group in order to exclude them. You also went so far as to say that people who do bad things in the name of Christ are really atheists.

Getting back to the topic, you still haven't answered the question of how exactly you know what God is thinking when he judges people irredeemable. Or do I have to presuppose and fully accept the existence of a transcendent One in order to comprehend the answer as you do?

It's a faith, dear Frozenwolf. We have the accounts in the Gospels and associated writings, augmented by the great interpreters and apologists, filtering down into my own poor apologetics. If you don't conceive of the One, if you think there is no such thing, then the answers I give will be gibberish to you. Perhaps pray on it for insight.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It's a faith, dear Frozenwolf. We have the accounts in the Gospels and associated writings, augmented by the great interpreters and apologists, filtering down into my own poor apologetics. If you don't conceive of the One, if you think there is no such thing, then the answers I give will be gibberish to you. Perhaps pray on it for insight.

Cpl Ferro

But in another thread, you said this about prayer:

The primary purpose of prayer is to glorify and thank God, not to beg for goodies. The rain falleth on the just and the unjust alike.

In other words, you already have to believe in and accept God in order for prayer to work, and even then, it doesn't sound like it would be of much use for gaining insight since it's only to glorify and thank God. In other words, by your own reasoning, prayer cannot be used to help a nonbeliever conceive of a transcendent being.

Why don't you start by providing some evidence for God? That's standard operating procedure on a skeptical forum, after all.

 

[pakeha]

Frozenwolf, you were implying that I would never admit terrible things were ever done in the name of Christ, and you know it.

But, at least we both agree that terrible things have been done in the name of Christ.

And, you are right in that I would characterise those who have done such terrible things as probably not being true Christians. Some may have, badly misled, but others were probably merely power-hungry types, sadists, and the like, who took opportunities for inflicting harm and procuring gain as they could.

Cpl Ferro

I read your reply with interest and with due respect I point out that there is a class of believer who uses torture and pain in the name of Jesus with the purest of intentions- to oust an evil spirit.

I think we've all of us read of exorcists. I assure you they really exist and are convinced what they do is legitimate and ultimately, charitable.
Frightening people, IMO.

 

[abaddon]

It's a faith, dear Frozenwolf. We have the accounts in the Gospels and associated writings, augmented by the great interpreters and apologists, filtering down into my own poor apologetics. If you don't conceive of the One, if you think there is no such thing, then the answers I give will be gibberish to you. Perhaps pray on it for insight.

Cpl Ferro

You have ancient writings, of uncertain provenance and authorship, devoid of any evidence of authenticity, which cannot even agree with itself, which have been used to intentionally inflict suffering and to shore up tyranical regimes. Why would you accept such baloney?

 

[Giordano]

You have ancient writings, of uncertain provenance and authorship, devoid of any evidence of authenticity, which cannot even agree with itself, which have been used to intentionally inflict suffering and to shore up tyranical regimes. Why would you accept such baloney?

Not only accept, but apparently devote a large part of one's life to the study of these writings. That is the past I have trouble understanding. But I have not been filled appropriately with the right spirit and I am doomed to never see the truth until I am... I am particularly disturbed that so many people, now and in history, chose the wrong supreme being, or none at all. They will just never see or experience it. Sad, isn't it?

 

[CplFerro]

But in another thread, you said this about prayer:

And, I believe that's true, Frozenwolf. God is not a vending machine into which we pop prayer tokens so that out pop blessings. Prayer is about deepening a relationship. It's my understanding of prayer that, since we can't change God, we can change ourselves, and in becoming different, God may respond to us differently. It's not inconceivable that prayers for intercession will be granted, just not the primary thing.

In other words, you already have to believe in and accept God in order for prayer to work, and even then, it doesn't sound like it would be of much use for gaining insight since it's only to glorify and thank God. In other words, by your own reasoning, prayer cannot be used to help a nonbeliever conceive of a transcendent being.

Why don't you start by providing some evidence for God? That's standard operating procedure on a skeptical forum, after all.

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, faith is a gift. If you bother to pray for faith, sincerely, then you have in effect received some faith.

On evidence for God, my primary evidence is that there is something rather than nothing. I'm presuming you're a materialist, and you believe in astrophysics, and that will tell you that the universe is not eternal but came into existence at some point. What would bring it into existence was not nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, but Something, a primary Fact from which all other facts derive, and this Something is necessary, rather than as the Universe is, which is contingent.

But, that's an originating way of looking at it. I also look at it as a master Order behind the mutable chaos of the Universe. The Symphony requires a Composer (creator) and Conductor (sustainer) because it remains contingent, lacking its own reason to exist, existing in the realm of Becoming rather than Being. God is Being.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Donn]

Lol, that's Ferro code for never speak to you again.

Clearly, I was wrong. Sorry.

 

[Donn]

Prayer is about deepening a relationship. It's my understanding of prayer that, since we can't change God, we can change ourselves, and in becoming different, God may respond to us differently. It's not inconceivable that prayers for intercession will be granted, just not the primary thing.

A pretty good reply. It speaks about a complex relationship and, if I believed there could be a god, I would feel it rings true.

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, faith is a gift. If you bother to pray for faith, sincerely, then you have in effect received some faith.

I don't get this. If faith is a gift - and gifts are given, not self-originated - then it's saying that you must be given the urge to pray for faith and without that gift, you cannot pray in the first place.

On evidence for God, my primary evidence is that there is something rather than nothing.

If your god is the primary cause of something (before nothing) then it must have been nothing too.

Q.E.D

Or, maybe, nothingness is more tricky and there never was nothing - there always was something? Too esoteric for me, but a possibility.

Even after establishing such a distant god, you have all your work ahead of you connecting it from there to here: a personal prayer-worthy, faith-worthy god. You know, the one that damns babies for Adam's (who did not exist) sin and so on.

You say it's your experience and emotions that make that connection, but that's skeptical turf: how can you show that it's not just your many biases, mistakes, self-deceptions and so on, that are fooling you?

 

[CplFerro]

You have ancient writings, of uncertain provenance and authorship, devoid of any evidence of authenticity, which cannot even agree with itself, which have been used to intentionally inflict suffering and to shore up tyranical regimes. Why would you accept such baloney?

Because globally-extended Christian European civilisation went to the Moon, abaddon. The personality, mission, and fate of Christ are indelibly stamped on the character of this civilisation, just as is classical Greece, and the Golden Renaissance. Take these three things together and we have the modernity that freed the slaves, that landed on Luna, and that devised these devices that allows you and I to intercourse so. Islam didn't do this, nor Hinduism, nor any other world religion, but Christianity had a hand in doing so. That's a big reason why I take the writings about Christ seriously.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Dr. Keith]

Because globally-extended Christian European civilisation went to the Moon, abaddon. The personality, mission, and fate of Christ are indelibly stamped on the character of this civilisation, just as is classical Greece, and the Golden Renaissance. Take these three things together and we have the modernity that freed the slaves, that landed on Luna, and that devised these devices that allows you and I to intercourse so. Islam didn't do this, nor Hinduism, nor any other world religion, but Christianity had a hand in doing so. That's a big reason why I take the writings about Christ seriously.

Cpl Ferro

Just gonna skip the Dark Ages, Spanish Inquisition, Persecution of Copernicus, Crusades, American Slave Trade and Manifest Destiny, eh? And all those ones and zeroes, they're not Arabic ones and zeroes are they? Nah, probably Roman numerals.

Well done!

 

[CplFerro]

Clearly, I was wrong. Sorry.

That's okay, Donn.

Prayer is about deepening a relationship. It's my understanding of prayer that, since we can't change God, we can change ourselves, and in becoming different, God may respond to us differently. It's not inconceivable that prayers for intercession will be granted, just not the primary thing.

A pretty good reply. It speaks about a complex relationship and, if I believed there could be a god, I would feel it rings true.

Well, that's better than nothing.

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, faith is a gift. If you bother to pray for faith, sincerely, then you have in effect received some faith.

I don't get this. If faith is a gift - and gifts are given, not self-originated - then it's saying that you must be given the urge to pray for faith and without that gift, you cannot pray in the first place.

Yes. At least, that's the Catholic understanding. I think of it as being given a prompting by the Holy Spirit, like a small flame that can be used to create a large one. And, doing so involves further prayer.

On evidence for God, my primary evidence is that there is something rather than nothing.

If your god is the primary cause of something (before nothing) then it must have been nothing too.

Q.E.D

Or, maybe, nothingness is more tricky and there never was nothing - there always was something? Too esoteric for me, but a possibility.

It's a bit trickier than that, as I see it. I was reading a book by W.T. Stace called The Philosophy of Hegel, in which he differentiates between being and existence. Existence, he says, involves space and time, whereas being involves eternity. He was using examples like the Platonic ideas as having being but no existence. White is real (has being) but there exists no “white” anywhere in the world, there only exist white things. Whereas the white things exist, but they lack an eternal reality; as a friend called it, they are of the “mutating appearances” of the world, or the Becoming.

Now, I would situate the Creator as having Being but not existence, in the sense I just gave. He doesn't exist anywhere, any more than whiteness exists anywhere, but he is a logically prior entity as regards the existent Universe. I don't know if this is correct or not, but it gives you a sense of how one might conceptualise a being that precedes creation, so that there was/is/will be an eternal Something (Being) prior to the created Something (Becoming).

Even after establishing such a distant god, you have all your work ahead of you connecting it from there to here: a personal prayer-worthy, faith-worthy god. You know, the one that damns babies for Adam's (who did not exist) sin and so on.

You say it's your experience and emotions that make that connection, but that's skeptical turf: how can you show that it's not just your many biases, mistakes, self-deceptions and so on, that are fooling you?

Granting the existence of a Creator, I realise such a being is alienating. God is an alien entity, even if I am made in His image. Jesus, as Logos-made-flesh, overcomes that alienation. That's a compelling concept. So, combine that with what I mention to abaddon, two posts up.

Cpl Ferro