Challenge The Christian

[R. S. Martin]

Who or what is this N.T. Wrong? Here is the only statement I could find in the profile:

 

Just converted recently. You might say, "unborn". I try to be logical and rational. How else would I be converted to atheism Any Gods?: Possibly

 

What the hell does that mean?

Converted.

 

Unborn.

 

Converted to atheism.

 

Possibly there are gods.

I don't think this person's head is on straight. There's a few screws loose. He/she/it wouldn't know which side was up if life depended on it.

 

While the other terms are ambiguous, the atheist does not say, "Possibly there are gods." The "softest" statement re gods I know atheists to make is "I see no evidence for gods" or "I do not believe in gods." It's a negative statement, not positive.

[R. S. Martin]

There are many reasons for Ex-Christians to abandon their faith. All seem legitimate in their eyes and I will not be so bold as to argue that which I did not experience myself. However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves, there seems to be good arguments out there.

 

So I am looking for ONE person, who has studied and reflected, to open a conversation with me. So far, I have seen little more than convincing opinions as to why certain things cannot be trusted.

 

So, here are my rules (and whoever is chosen can add on if they feel the need):

 

1. Only one person will be chosen to respond. Otherwise I don't have enough time to complete my replies and I will end up closing the discussion.

 

2. Documentation and fact, not personal opinions (unless said opinion is mutually agreed upon as acceptable)

 

3. No personal attacks (though I doubt I will have to worry about this one if Mythra ends up being the Ex-Christian representative). All inappropriate comments will be ignored and, if neccessary, so will the poster.

 

4. You must at least believe that Jesus is a historical figure. Otherwise it a waste of time.

 

5. I need someone patient. With my schedule, sometimes I can't respond for quite a few days.

 

In order to decide what direction this discussion will take, I open with this question:

 

What biblical or extra-biblical documentation, supporting the Christian faith, do you draw into question?

 

Nominations are open.... NOW!

 

 

I nominate Mythra. Any other nominations?

 

Kat,

 

In your last post with Antlerman (before the Happy New Year post) you mentioned wanting to debate about Christ. I am not sure exactly what you have in mind. Here is something I am willing to do on a one on one, providing we stick to the rules of being respectful like you propose here in this post and like you have been with AM.

 

I propose that you tell me why I should believe that we are saved through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection, and that I refute what you tell me. We can use the Bible and Christian theology for the basis of our argument. We can also use science and other information from present-day learning for our argument. Issues to explore would be sin, human nature, the Fall, and human happiness.

 

I agree with most of your rules, esp. the one about documentation. It is absolutely imperative that we document our sources. That way we can look up what the other person said for more context or background. I think Jesus probably did not exist as a historical person but for the purposes of this debate I will assume he was a historical figure. I want to refute the Plan of Salvation. To effectively do this, we have to presuppose the orthodox Christian beliefs, i.e. virgin birth, miracles, death and resurrection, ascension, etc.

 

What do you think?

[Internet Jesus]

It's the same standards, I live by, if you misunderstand my standards. You are right, everyone is a liar (not a habitual liar) because everyone has lied at least once. However, that does not mean they lie so much that they are untrustworthy. Someone, who make it a practice to be honest but slips every once and a while, is trustworthy. However, because they have lied once, they are a liar. Again, however, not a HABITUAL liar.

 

Besides, I wasn't lying. Was it the Albert quote which some say isn't from Albert? That quote is still up for debate as to who the author was but I did not realize it had been attributed to someone else. It was an honest mistake and I was labeled, and tossed away, as untrustworthy because of an honest mistake.

Good. You passed my test.

 

My point was to see if you could understand that things aren't as black-and-white as you seemed to argue several times. Now take this lesson and apply this to other areas of discussion regarding your religion and see if you maybe are just a tad too hard-core-categorical in your application of your faith, and missing the critical points of the same reason. As I said, I've seen you do it, and now is your time to start re-thinking how you approach questions in life. Maybe the Bible shouldn't be interpreted according to Theologians in group A, but maybe it should be interpreted according to the Theologians in group B, or maybe the truth is in between? For instance, the existence of Jesus. Maybe you should consider drop the "he didn't exist at all" vs "he did exist, was God's son, did miracles etc etc", and consider other possibilites. You have to ask yourself: are you able to critically analyze your own viewpoints regarding your religion, or are you just a slave to other religious peoples influence and input? Are you independent enough to look at your faith honestly and fresh, or do you still depend on what someone else wrote or said how you should see it?

 

excellent excellent.

[Jincks013]

There are many reasons for Ex-Christians to abandon their faith. All seem legitimate in their eyes and I will not be so bold as to argue that which I did not experience myself. However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves, there seems to be good arguments out there.

 

So I am looking for ONE person, who has studied and reflected, to open a conversation with me. So far, I have seen little more than convincing opinions as to why certain things cannot be trusted.

 

And I see no evidence or empricial data to support religion can be trusted. Perhaps you are unique and actually have those elements of critical analyzing? Or are you just blowing hot air as so many of your ilk do?

 

So, here are my rules (and whoever is chosen can add on if they feel the need):

 

Oh goods.. a xtian wants to place their rules on my debate response.. why am I NOT suprised.

 

1. Only one person will be chosen to respond. Otherwise I don't have enough time to complete my replies and I will end up closing the discussion.

 

LMAO.. coward.

 

2. Documentation and fact, not personal opinions (unless said opinion is mutually agreed upon as acceptable)

 

That would be an entirely new experience to see one of you fundies actually provide emprical documentation to back up your claims. Do proceed.

 

3. No personal attacks (though I doubt I will have to worry about this one if Mythra ends up being the Ex-Christian representative). All inappropriate comments will be ignored and, if neccessary, so will the poster.

 

You are a personal attack little girl. You come in here asserting that we are liars about our experiences and you don't expect that to be taken as a personal attack? Go burn in your ever after..

 

4. You must at least believe that Jesus is a historical figure. Otherwise it a waste of time.

 

back to that documented proof.. you have some for this assumption right? Otherwise you are simply engaging in begging the question which is a fallacy not a debate tactic.

 

5. I need someone patient. With my schedule, sometimes I can't respond for quite a few days.

 

So not me! If you are so poorly organized as to challenge us to a debate and not have your materials ready and time to conduct the debate then you are not serious at all and are wasting our time with your drivel.

 

In order to decide what direction this discussion will take, I open with this question:

 

What biblical or extra-biblical documentation, supporting the Christian faith, do you draw into question?

 

Lets start with the beginning shall we.. the creation story in genesis.. both of them.. which is factual and can you provide evidence and data to support your chosen story?

 

Nominations are open.... NOW!

 

 

I nominate Mythra. Any other nominations?

 

I nominate you for the garbage disposal..

[Grandpa Harley]

And the Indiana Jones Award for Thread Excavation goes to....

[The-Captain]

Been awhile since we had an arena debate.

[Antlerman]

So, here are my rules (and whoever is chosen can add on if they feel the need):

Oh goods.. a xtian wants to place their rules on my debate response.. why am I NOT suprised.

In case you're interested, I took on this challenge last November and you can read the one on one debate in the Arena here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=20121

 

After 50 posts and almost a month's time she graciously conceded the debate and earned my respect for recognizing a possible bigger picture than what her doctrines had been previously defining for her. That's a big step to have made, IMO. I hope that good things came as a result of the exercise.

 

Been awhile since we had an arena debate.

Yeah.... I keep promising to debate Kratos there. One of these fine days soon I might again. It does take a bit of energy, you know.

[The-Captain]

Been awhile since we had an arena debate.

Yeah.... I keep promising to debate Kratos there. One of these fine days soon I might again. It does take a bit of energy, you know.

 

LoL well you don't have to be the only one to debate in the arena, though you do a smashing job of it.

 

Btw did Kratos ever show any interest in an arena talk? Whenever the question was raised in forums he seemed to ignore it, at least as I saw.

[Antlerman]

Been awhile since we had an arena debate.

Yeah.... I keep promising to debate Kratos there. One of these fine days soon I might again. It does take a bit of energy, you know.

 

LoL well you don't have to be the only one to debate in the arena, though you do a smashing job of it.

 

Btw did Kratos ever show any interest in an arena talk? Whenever the question was raised in forums he seemed to ignore it, at least as I saw.

Yes, he said he'd be willing. It's just me... "not tonight dear, I have a headache," sort of excuse. The topic I was choosing was "The Evolution of Morality and Doctrine". I still plan to go for that, but my friend Asprin99's video (pinned in the Colosseum) is already touching on that a bit. But specifically what I want to get at, which I was actually planing to take Kat22 down that road of when the debate ended, is how the approach to biblical understanding has changed dramatically over the years.

 

I want to lay it out on time lines, and apply it to the general understanding of how what we perceive as "truth" about these things is anything but the only way to understand it, and as a result changing the degree to which we can 'exclude' other points of view. The debate with Kat approached this from the "fruits" of human hearts as a challenge to limiting truth to doctrinal interpretations. Anyway, I tend to overwhelm myself when I look at the amount of data to tackle, and make myself not want to commit to it. It's usually some bolt of inspiration that makes me take that leap.

[Guest end3]

I know I am a long way from knowledgeable, but want to throw my hat in for consideration....