Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[thaiboxerken]

I didn't say that; I said that I'd wager they'd find 10 chosen at random invalid.

Make it happen, then.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This thread highlights one of the things I dislike most about Christianity - the idea that loving every other human being is a good and desirable thing.
.. snip...
Respecting one another is, in my opinion, a good thing to strive toward. Treating all human beings with a certain amount of dignity just because they're human like you is an important part of a healthy society and a happy life. It's a good idea to respect your enemy, to remember that he is a human being just like you, with his own perspective, experiences, and desires.

But love? I reserve that for a small, select group of people, who I can count on the fingers of two hands.

Dave: I appreciate your PoV on that.

If you accept the model of love as sacrifice, and apply the love for others as "make a sacrifice for another," you can vary the depth of sacrifice you make for others, but apply it nonetheless. Maybe your offering respect, even to your enemy, is an expression of that.

Those in your closest circle will tend to get more from you, but your general approach can be consistent in being focused on more on selflessness, and less on selfishness.

DR

 

[godless dave]

I guess I don't see that as love at all. Nor do I see sacrificing for others as necessarily a good thing. It is a good thing in certain circumstances - parents make sacrifices to raise children, volunteers sacrifice their free time to help others - but bad in others - someone married to an alcoholic is making sacrifices too.

Being selfless is good, but putting too much emphasis on selflessness encourages people to be doormats, to allow themselves to be taken advantage of.

 

[gentlehorse]

No, just the ones that think that if they see an apparent contradiction, there's no need to have a deeper understanding to determine if it's an actual contradiction.
Basically the ignorant fools who discount all apologetics as being devoid of reason.

How do you reconcile the above with:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[six7s]

154, I want you to know that I love you. I'm so sad that you have dedicated your life to something so evil and dangerous, but I need you to know that I don't hold it against you. If only you would just turn from the path you've been following, and come into the light. I'm sure you're doing it for reasons that make sense to you right now, but soon you'll come to see the light of Reason and Science, and you'll see how much better off you really are without the evil influences on your life.

I'm telling you this because I don't want you to suffer in ignorance. No-one needs that. Follow me, 154 - I want you to be free! Don't you want to be free?

Nominated

 

[Robo Sapien]

!!! Biblical contradiction alert !!!

hebrews 11:5 - enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because god had translated him.

hebrews 11:13 - these [abel, enoch, noah, abraham, sarah] all died...

 

[six7s]

You are not open-minded or hearted. You are closed. You are set against.

How much spinach do you have to eat to be so ironic that it burns?

 

[six7s]

All of us have biological drives to do things that are sinful; all of us are expected to refrain.

No

For starters, 'sinful' is so vague as to be meaningless in a critical thinking discussion

Likewise 'expected to refrain'... expected by whom/what? Some mythical sky daddy?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I believe in Hell (specifically gehenna). I believe souls burn up in it, as opposed to just burning in it. I believe that this is what the Bible describes.

A rather unorthodox view, but probably closer to the original idea. Not bad.

I'm not getting your argument. Could you put it forward as a logical syllogism? Then we can argue concretely over your definitions.

I'll give it a try. First some assumptions:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God has created everything there is
3) God has planned everything that has happened or will happen
4) There exist a thing called "objective morality", or "justice", which dictates (among other things) that all who engage in homosexual behaviour go to hell
5) God is benevolent


Now, if we take 2) and 4), then it logically follows that God has created "justice". Add in 3), and it logically follows He knew creating "justice" would lead to many of the men he also created to be sentenced to damnation. From 1) we know he could have created a different system, yet chose not to. From this it follows that God must have wanted a large part of his creation to go to hell. And I consider this to be in conflict with assumption 5). If God truly was benevolent, he would not condemn sinners into damnation, but show them the way and help them see the truth. (And no, the Bible isn't enough. If he truly was all-powerful, he could just tell us he exist through reliable methods. And if he was benevolent, he would want to.)

Then it's silly for you to call God unjust. If one accepts the ideal of "justice", then one can also accept that what happens to people in the hands of God embodies it.

You misunderstand. I'm not calling God unjust. I'm calling Him malevolent. He desires damnation on a portion of the mankind. Whether that's just or not is irrelevant; it's evil, and that's all that counts.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So you accept the text where you feel you can criticize it, but reject it otherwise? Of course you do.

Now that is an extremely funny response. Thank you!

 

[AvalonXQ]

For starters, 'sinful' is so vague as to be meaningless in a critical thinking discussion
Likewise 'expected to refrain'... expected by whom/what? Some mythical sky daddy?

I'm sorry, what discussion are you having? We were having a discussion about Christianity.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The Skeptics Annotated Bible contains every single contradiction to be found in the good book. Also featuring the Quran and Book of Mormon.

The Bible is brimming over with contradictions in terms, to say otherwise is complete denial. Where I take issue is how believers will defend it by selectively choosing which context to interpret the writings to best suit their current argument. Everything is to be intepreted literally until you present an established fact with substantial evidence that contradicts the Bible, and you will be told that particular passage is meant to be interpreted metaphorically. Point out a metaphor that contradicts the fundamentals, and you will be told that is just a historical detail with no significance.

Honestly, I think the SAB is a pretty bad tool for a skeptic. A lot of the "contradictions" listed really can be pretty easily explained, without serious mental gymnastics. It has some entertainment value, but is unlikely to convince a believer any more than Chick tracts will convince us.

That's not to say there are no contradictions in the Bible; some of the points SAB raises are quite valid. But the site tries too hard, and ends up burying the good points among rubbish.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No, it's not. It's just a convenient justification in excuse.
Apparent contradictions are opportunities for deeper understandings.
Multiple eyewitnesses never give perfectly identical versions of events, and if they did you would simply say they obviously just copied each other.
You are not open-minded or hearted. You are closed. You are set against.

No Sir. I interpret the Bible and you misinterpret the Holy Words of the Lord.

 

[AvalonXQ]

A rather unorthodox view, but probably closer to the original idea. Not bad.



I'll give it a try. First some assumptions:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God has created everything there is
3) God has planned everything that has happened or will happen
4) There exist a thing called "objective morality", or "justice", which dictates (among other things) that all who engage in homosexual behaviour go to hell
5) God is benevolent


Now, if we take 2) and 4), then it logically follows that God has created "justice". Add in 3), and it logically follows He knew creating "justice" would lead to many of the men he also created to be sentenced to damnation. From 1) we know he could have created a different system, yet chose not to. From this it follows that God must have wanted a large part of his creation to go to hell. And I consider this to be in conflict with assumption 5). If God truly was benevolent, he would not condemn sinners into damnation, but show them the way and help them see the truth. (And no, the Bible isn't enough. If he truly was all-powerful, he could just tell us he exist through reliable methods. And if he was benevolent, he would want to.)

Can you please spell this out as a logical syllogism? There are so many hidden assumptions in here that will be abundantly clear to you if you force yourself to spell out your premises explicitly. It's those hidden assumptions that we need to debate.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Can you please spell this out as a logical syllogism? There are so many hidden assumptions in here that will be abundantly clear to you if you force yourself to spell out your premises explicitly. It's those hidden assumptions that we need to debate.

I'm afraid writing logical syllogisms is a skill I've never bothered to learn. I could do it now, of course, but honestly I'm not sure if you're worth it. Do you really not see the point I'm trying to make? What hidden assumptions do you mean?

ETA: Correction: logical syllogism was a term I'd never bothered to learn. Turns out I actually did know how to make them. That being said, I think my response did consist of logical syllogisms. Which of the statements I made wasn't one?

 

[Tatyana]

You do realize that many "scholars" are merely men seeking to justify their unbelief, like most everyone here, and that their "results" are not "gospel," but challenged opinion, and that you apparently lap up their "findings" without question or challenge or skepticism?
Please do so.

"You" do "realise", that "most everyone here" is dreadful "English", and it is "really" like "almost" everyone "here".

I would "assert" that "you" are also also "justifying" your "belief".

 

[Darth Rotor]

"You" do "realise", that "most everyone here" is dreadful "English", and it is "really" like "almost" everyone "here".

I would "assert" that "you" are also also "justifying" your "belief".

I am not English, dreadful or otherwise. I'll even take a reach and suggest "most everyone here" is not English, and that "most everyone here" is either atheist or agnostic, of varying flavors. With a few exceptions.

But I really like almost everyone here.

DR

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm afraid writing logical syllogisms is a skill I've never bothered to learn. I could do it now, of course, but honestly I'm not sure if you're worth it. Do you really not see the point I'm trying to make? What hidden assumptions do you mean?

Assumptions about what "all-powerful" means (I consider the term to be completely useless, personally), about what "benevolent" implies, about the nature of choice and cause. Basically your whole argument relies on a lot of hand-waving and equivocation. If you make yourself spell it out, you'll almost certainly see where I'll disagree.

Correction: logical syllogism was a term I'd never bothered to learn. Turns out I actually did know how to make them. That being said, I thought my response did consist of logical syllogisms. Which of the statements I made wasn't one?

Sorry. I should have just said "formal proof", but too many people think they can write persuasive prose and it qualifies.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yea, Mirror, that's what happens when you use English words in an argument. The apologists think you're assuming the reader can understand English.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yea, Mirror, that's what happens when you use English words in an argument. The apologists think you're assuming the reader can understand English.

... and then you try to apply those English words to your classical Greek "I can define away reality with two premises that assume infinity works the way I want it to" nonsense, and expect those definitions to still hold unflinchingly.
It's sloppy philosophy, and even sloppier theology. Make people define their terms and spell out their assumptions, and a lot of arguments fall away.*
Again, though, Ken, you're lazy. You don't want to go past your own assumed meaning of any turn; you don't want to use any nuance; you don't want to actually understand anything. You just don't want any pesky reason to get in the way of your gut feelings about this stuff.

*Arguments on both sides fall away, in fact. For example, spell out explicitly in mathematical terms Anselm's ontological argument and its shortcomings are plain as day. Even the "fine-tuning argument" is pretty easily refuted with a little Bayesian probability.