The Gospel

[Freakshow]

I think my BS buffer is at overflow status. If I read any more irrational religious nonsense I'm likely to suffer some sort of malfunction, I'm sure of it.

I think I'll leave it to you guys for a while. I'm off for four days, (Australia day holiday tomorrow to start), so good luck with it.

You have a buffer overflow vulnerability? Cool, I'm gonna get started on an exploit right now. Whenever someone says "Jesus", you will stop where you are, and crap your pants. This should be fun.

 

[Roadtoad]

For a non-Christian to ignore this principle, and to call the Christian to task for being unchristian or a "bad Christian" on the basis of an external view of Christianity, Camus argued, was a form of "lay pharisaism" to be avoided in good conscience.

Sometimes I find myself in the role of such a lay pharisee. Yet, as often as presence of mind permits, I tend to side with Camus.

Except, CEO, some of us came here from the Church. We know Kathy, or those like her, and have seen the damage they do.

 

[Ducky]

The discussion of what is or is not unchristian, or whether a given Christian is or is not behaving as a good one, puts me in mind of one of Albert Camus' prefatory remarks in a statement he made to an audience of believers:



For a non-Christian to ignore this principle, and to call the Christian to task for being unchristian or a "bad Christian" on the basis of an external view of Christianity, Camus argued, was a form of "lay pharisaism" to be avoided in good conscience.

Sometimes I find myself in the role of such a lay pharisee. Yet, as often as presence of mind permits, I tend to side with Camus.

Except Camus was an idiot. Try getting through any production of "Waiting for Godot" and you'll see what I mean.

By the way, that quote is a fallacy. No true Christian or whatnot?

 

[ceo_esq]

Except, CEO, some of us came here from the Church. We know Kathy, or those like her, and have seen the damage they do.

I understand what you're saying, but not the distinction you appear to want to draw, since the same things could be said of Albert.

Except Camus was an idiot. Try getting through any production of "Waiting for Godot" and you'll see what I mean.

Since Samuel Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot, I'm not sure I would see what you mean after all.

 

[Ducky]

I understand what you're saying, but not the distinction you appear to want to draw, since the same things could be said of Albert.




Since Samuel Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot, I'm not sure I would see what you mean after all.

Oh excuse me, I misapplied authorship. My mistake.

No comment on the logical fallacy in that quote?

I thought not.

 

[ceo_esq]

No comment on the logical fallacy in that quote?

I thought not.

Sorry. I think I have a notion of what in the quotation you're mistaking for a fallacy, but I don't concur that there is one. If you care to elaborate your point of view, feel free.

 

[Ducky]

Sorry. I think I have a notion of what in the quotation you're mistaking for a fallacy, but I don't concur that there is one. If you care to elaborate your point of view, feel free.

I'm afraid I'll have to spell it out for you, as you seem to be rather obtuse.

ok here's the quote again:

I believe indeed that the Christian has many obligations but that it is not up to the man who rejects them himself to recall their existence to anyone who has already accepted them. If there is anyone who can ask anything of the Christian, it is the Christian himself.

- Albert Camus, "The Unbeliever and Christians" (trans. J. O'Brien)

Now, let's examine this quote. Firstly, to say that only Christians an criticise Christians is an appeal to authority in that it assumes that no one but a Christian can understand this whole Christianity thing. Of course, this gets into the problem of who is a proper Christian, which is a fallacy known as no true scotsman. Now, to say only Christians know enough to properly criticize Christianity begs the question a bit, because, well hey, only Christians can criticise Christianity because Christianity can only be properly criticized by Christians.

Tell you what, nitwit, I say that we can't criticize the acts of Mulsim suicide bombers because we aren't Muslim. That's the meat of your argument, as far as I see, and it's idiotic.





edited to correct grammar.

 

[ceo_esq]

Now, let's examine this quote. Firstly, to say that only Christians an criticise Christians is an appeal to authority in that it assumes that no one but a Christian can understand this whole Christianity thing.

This is not the case here at all. Camus, as a lapsed Roman Catholic, presumably understood "this whole Christianity thing", though he did not accept its truth. Certainly he felt he understood it enough to form a belief about the obligations of Christians, which he acknowledged in the quotation, and I am not aware of any other writing in which he averred an insufficient understanding of Christianity. Camus simply went on to say that he believed it was not the place of the non-Christian to recall the existence of such obligations to one who professes to accept them. He obviously believed it was possible for the non-Christian to do so, which necessarily supposes that he believed it is possible for a non-Christian to form such an understanding, which in turn has obvious negative repercussions for your reasoning here. For another matter, I would point out that, as the SkepticWiki entry (which you helpfully linked but seemingly did not read) notes, the fallacy occurs "where an [sic] participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is an authority" - which does not appear to describe the case at hand.

As a side point, I assume, perhaps optimistically, that you are aware that a properly constructed argument from authority (i.e. of the form There is good reason to believe that P is true because A, a legitimate authority, says it is true) - where certain other conditions also apply - is not fallacious. But that's another matter altogether, since Camus is not relying here on any authority.

Of course, this gets into the problem of who is a proper Christian, which is a fallacy known as no true scotsman.

It is not obvious why Camus' statement need divert us into the question of who is a proper Christian, although I have the impression that by your logic any use of the term Christian is insuperably problematic. I daresay you are mistaken, moreover, that if you think anything that potentially prompts one to approach the matter of who is a proper Christian must run afoul of the so-called No True Scotsman fallacy. At any rate, the quotation doesn't.

For a discussion of the application, or more often mis-application, of the No True Scotsman concept to the context of the "true Christian", and the attendant pitfalls, you might consult this post or this one. If that raises any further queries in your mind regarding the fallacy, I'll try to answer them, time permitting.

Before we end the lesson on fallacies, however, I'll point out that dismissing the Camus quotation on the basis that you found Waiting for Godot idiotic is a good example of one, and this would be the case even if Camus had written the play in question. Perhaps I'll use that in a class sometime.

As for the rest of your post, kindness dictates that the less said about it, the better.

 

[Ducky]

This is not the case here at all. Camus, as a lapsed Roman Catholic, presumably understood "this whole Christianity thing", though he did not accept its truth. Certainly he felt he understood it enough to form a belief about the obligations of Christians, which he acknowledged in the quotation, and I am not aware of any other writing in which he averred an insufficient understanding of Christianity. Camus simply went on to say that he believed it was not the place of the non-Christian to recall the existence of such obligations to one who professes to accept them. He obviously believed it was possible for the non-Christian to do so, which necessarily supposes that he believed it is possible for a non-Christian to form such an understanding, which in turn has obvious negative repercussions for your reasoning here. For another matter, I would point out that, as the SkepticWiki entry (which you helpfully linked but seemingly did not read) notes, the fallacy occurs "where an [sic] participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is an authority" - which does not appear to describe the case at hand.

As a side point, I assume, perhaps optimistically, that you are aware that a properly constructed argument from authority (i.e. of the form There is good reason to believe that P is true because A, a legitimate authority, says it is true) - where certain other conditions also apply - is not fallacious. But that's another matter altogether, since Camus is not relying here on any authority.



It is not obvious why Camus' statement need divert us into the question of who is a proper Christian, although I have the impression that by your logic any use of the term Christian is insuperably problematic. I daresay you are mistaken, moreover, that if you think anything that potentially prompts one to approach the matter of who is a proper Christian must run afoul of the so-called No True Scotsman fallacy. At any rate, the quotation doesn't.

For a discussion of the application, or more often mis-application, of the No True Scotsman concept to the context of the "true Christian", and the attendant pitfalls, you might consult this post or this one. If that raises any further queries in your mind regarding the fallacy, I'll try to answer them, time permitting.

Before we end the lesson on fallacies, however, I'll point out that dismissing the Camus quotation on the basis that you found Waiting for Godot idiotic is a good example of one, and this would be the case even if Camus had written the play in question. Perhaps I'll use that in a class sometime.

As for the rest of your post, kindness dictates that the less said about it, the better.

Riight. Ok condescention and inflated ego noted. You are the first person I have seen on this board cite yourself as an authority to support your argument.

Appeal to authority, right? Did I get that one right?

Ok let's get into it:


All your rhetoric aside, you're still saying I can't criticise a Christian because I am not one. Correct?

That's still an idiotic stance to take.







edited for spelling and to add:

My mocking of Waiting for Godot was sarcasm. Or do you prefer your humor to be logically correct also? I would posit that that's not humorus anymore. I could also posit that you have no sense of humor, but I'm sure that's not entirely accurate, is it?

 

[ceo_esq]

Riight. Ok condescention and inflated ego noted.

I noted those things when I read your earlier post as well, but until you mentioned the subject just now it was just a mental note. I submit that my immediately preceding post was, at worst, somewhat more civil and polite (to borrow a phrase from the membership agreement) than your repeated and direct insults. Still, I apologize for that tone and will endeavor to avoid using it in the future. Thank you for rightly pointing it out.

You are the first person I have seen on this board cite yourself as an authority to support your argument.

I don't see it that way, frankly. I merely cross-referenced explanations of mine elsewhere for the sake of economy here, but even the referenced arguments don't rely on any personal authority of mine.

All your rhetoric aside, you're still saying I can't criticise a Christian because I am not one. Correct?

No. I have not said that you can or cannot do this or any other thing, and neither did Camus. I interpret him to have indicated that he felt it was not his place to criticize Christians as Christians - i.e. by the touchstone of principles or obligations they accepted but he did not. This is different from my criticizing Muslim suicide bombers by reference to principles or obligations which I have accepted, and which, at any rate, I hold to apply to all men and women. I expressed, by the way, no opinion (and, in fact, have none) as to whether you have done what Camus felt compelled to refrain from doing, so don't take it personally.

That's still an idiotic stance to take.

Many, perhaps most, strawmen are. But it may have been my fault for not clarifying sooner what I took Camus to have meant when I first perceived that you were developing an interpretation along these lines. In retrospect, I really should have done so in the previous post, and spared you (and I say this without sarcasm) my needless condescension or egotism, as the case may be.

 

[LostAngeles]

I was talking on another forum about a topic called what's up with avoiding the occult. Somehow one of the gals made a remark about an atheist point of view, and I did mention I had met many over here. I asked if anyone would care to talk to you guys,unfortunately most of them said it was not worth their effort as someone who has chosen to take this atheistic point of view would never be willing to hear anything a Christian had to say.

On the contrary other christians told me I should stop talking to you guys about anything related to Christ, as to you would never be willing to be open to it!

Actually, I'm willing to discuss Jesus.

Jesus was pretty cool. He showed up and started talking about being good to each other and to not be dicks. I've seen it been implied that he was an early feminist. Unfortunately, after his execution, the message started to get off track. It became corrupted and used to further the power of the powerful. It's become a tool of persecution and of hate rather than acceptance and love.

It's kind of a bummer.

Oh and fyi, kath?

I'm an apathetic agnostic. I neither know if there's a God, nor do I care. There's people on the earth I need to be taking care of and people that need a hand. I'm a bit busy to contemplate an omniscent, omnipotent, omnitemportal being.

 

[Jas]

Well two examples that come to my mind are C.S.Lewis, and Lee Strobel.

These guys are very critical thinkers that did the research and wrote many books about it. Seems many here have chose to shoot those things down to.

My question is have you read some of their works for yourself, or are you just siding with other skeptics opinions?

Lee Strobels book...."Case For Christ" is excellent.

Um, bringing up Strobel isn't going to get you any points. The entire 'I was an atheist angle', is a load of crap, as none of the 'atheist arguments' he uses, are.

And if he was an atheist, then it's no wonder that he's no longer one, if that was what he believed.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My question is have you read some of their works for yourself, or are you just siding with other skeptics opinions?

Oh, splendid, another CS Lewis fan.

I've read The Problem of Pain, The Abolition of Man, Miracles, Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, Letters to Malcom, Pilgrim's Regress, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength?.

Which of his books have you read?

I might also ask if you've ever bothered to open a science textbook.

 

[Ladewig]

Actually, I admire Kathy's courage to post as she does. We may not all agree with her Christian Apologetics, but I agree with her courage.

Courage? You and I have very different definitions of the word. I consider someone who risks life or limb for a noble purpose to have courage; for instance, a fireman who runs into a burning building to save people or a police officer who approaches an armed gunman.

To make unpopular posts on an internet board under an alias is not courage. The worst that can happen is that people call her names.

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, splendid, another CS Lewis fan.

I've read The Problem of Pain, The Abolition of Man, Miracles, Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, Letters to Malcom, Pilgrim's Regress, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength?.

Same here, except I missed Letters to Malcolm and Surprised by Joy.

Kathy, you will find that the people here who choose not to believe in God are not doing so because they have never heard the Word.

 

[Belz...]

I was talking on another forum about a topic called what's up with avoiding the occult. Somehow one of the gals made a remark about an atheist point of view, and I did mention I had met many over here. I asked if anyone would care to talk to you guys,unfortunately most of them said it was not worth their effort as someone who has chosen to take this atheistic point of view would never be willing to hear anything a Christian had to say.

On the contrary other christians told me I should stop talking to you guys about anything related to Christ, as to you would never be willing to be open to it!

That's what they want you to think. One has to understand, however, that most atheists became this way because of lack of evidence for God, or any religion. It's not a rejection, it's just accepting the facts we have.

Your'e right that was casting judgement and I totally quenched the spirit. So I edited it and I will say I'm sorry to anyone I offended in that statement. I don't want to be judgemental. It's just hard for me to understand how so many can't see it.

Well, I can't understand how you can't see Allah or the other gods. Ask a muslim or jew or buddhist, they can feel things, too. Of course, you'd write it off as imagination, delusion or misinterpretation, but they're just as convinced as you are. Maybe... just maybe... YOU're deluded, too.

 

[slickcat]

Hey, Fowlsound? She won't ever read Sagan: "Demon-Haunted World?" Nah, I'm willing to bet real money the only book she will ever allow herself to read that has the word "demon" in it is the Babble.

Hey slingblade,

Funny that you mention this. About a year ago, I was reading "Demon-Haunted World" during a workbreak when one of my co-workers (born again) said "I didn't know you were in to that"

"Into what?", I asked.

"Satanism, that's a book about the devil.", he stated. (Stated, not inquired).

I just sighed and shook my head

 

[Complexity]

ceo esq seems to know a lot about things that are neither relevant nor interesting.

ceo esq also seems intent on dragging us back into the dark ages where, for some reason, he feels comfortable.

Hell no, we won't go!

He's a damned fool christian apologist.

 

[pgwenthold]

I was talking on another forum about a topic called what's up with avoiding the occult. Somehow one of the gals made a remark about an atheist point of view, and I did mention I had met many over here. I asked if anyone would care to talk to you guys,unfortunately most of them said it was not worth their effort as someone who has chosen to take this atheistic point of view would never be willing to hear anything a Christian had to say.

On the contrary other christians told me I should stop talking to you guys about anything related to Christ, as to you would never be willing to be open to it!

The thing that is confusing me is, that you already know this to be true. In fact, based on your reports, you were the same way.

Remember, your reason for converting from a heathen pagan to christian had nothing to do with godlings preaching to you, and all happened because GOD changed your life. So if preaching christians was not good enough for you, why do you think it would be good enough for other atheists?

As I told you on multiple occasions, what you should be doing is spending your life praying to God for him to touch our lives like he touched you. You should know as well as anyone that preaching to non-believers is a waste of time.

Until God touches our lives, which he clearly has not done, it is crazy for you to expect us to believe any of this, particularly considering that you have admitted that you didn't under the same circumstances.

God touched your life and now you believe. Good for you. Why shouldn't we expect the same? Why makes you special that you get a direct feed, whereas we have to hear about from an annoying second hand?

That's why folks like me aren't going to pay any attention to you, Kathy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

kathy probably does her share of praying that God will speak to us directly. The benefit of preaching on top of that is that she would get to bask in the "You were right all along" glow if someone does convert. She could then brag to all her Xian friends about how she brought the word of the Lord to a godless atheist. It's an ego boost.