Anyone Else Frustrated By Secular Skeptics Who Don't Understand Theology But Criticize It Anyway?

[pratt]

i am not a master of theology, though i attended some REAL basic local preachers' lessons donkey years ago.....

 

No, i don't get to argue with expert "apologists" per se, regarding matters like gay, masturbation, ladies speaking in churches or biblical matters, BUT somehow i meet and discuss and sometimes argue with ignorant christian people just like me who knows probably just know nothing. or close to nothing about theology, hebrew, latin, aramic, church history and translation as such,,,,mm

 

no, i am not going waste anymore time to learn more about the bible, church history blah blah blah so i can argue with expert people, but i don't think i would like some bible thumpers thrashing people with the little knowledge they or me have,,,,,

 

yes, i am still going to have fun with the whatever little bible knowledge residual and try to "ambush" ignorant christians alike,,,,

 

cheers

[ShackledNoMore]

As for ex-christians, most specifically ex-evangelicals vs. never been Christian non-believers, the latter seem to have trouble grasping Christendom's borg-like agenda and aspirations. I must say, the basis of Christian theology seems to become more patently absurd the more years that pass since deconversion.

[Vigile]

i am not a master of theology, though i attended some REAL basic local preachers' lessons donkey years ago.....

No, i don't get to argue with expert "apologists" per se, regarding matters like gay, masturbation, ladies speaking in churches or biblical matters, BUT somehow i meet and discuss and sometimes argue with ignorant christian people just like me who knows probably just know nothing. or close to nothing about theology, hebrew, latin, aramic, church history and translation as such,,,,mm

no, i am not going waste anymore time to learn more about the bible, church history blah blah blah so i can argue with expert people, but i don't think i would like some bible thumpers thrashing people with the little knowledge they or me have,,,,,

yes, i am still going to have fun with the whatever little bible knowledge residual and try to "ambush" ignorant christians alike,,,,

cheers

are there a lot of xians around you in Vietnam pratt? I've read it is the most atheistic country on the globe. In 10 years here in russia, I only met one xian family, and he was from Congo.

[Scottsman]

The common excuse for the old testament is it was a cultural thing. If thats true, god is not the source of morality. He merely adapts to the culture of tne time. We are the source of morality. Religion is just along for the ride trying maintain control.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Yeah, I had an atheist be an asshole to me in a YouTube text conversation once, even though I was on her side in the final conclusion. I was explaining the creationist mindset, but instead of trying to understand where they're coming from and the way some are strongly conditioned to believe it by their upbringing, she simply ridiculed me and called me an idiot for having once been a creationist. It mattered not to her that I've seen through the sham, the fact that I was brainwashed AS A CHILD made me a dumbass in her high and mighty opinion.

[★ Citsonga ★]

As for ex-christians, most specifically ex-evangelicals vs. never been Christian non-believers, the latter seem to have trouble grasping Christendom's borg-like agenda and aspirations. I must say, the basis of Christian theology seems to become more patently absurd the more years that pass since deconversion.

Yes, theology is ultimately nonsense. It's nothing more than an attempt to rationalize the irrational. While I'm turned off by skeptical arguments that are based on misunderstandings of the Bible and Christianity, I certainly don't think skeptics should revere lame attempts to use "theology" to obfuscate real problems with the religion and its source text.

[Vigile]

Yeah, I had an atheist be an asshole to me in a YouTube text conversation once, even though I was on her side in the final conclusion. I was explaining the creationist mindset, but instead of trying to understand where they're coming from and the way some are strongly conditioned to believe it by their upbringing, she simply ridiculed me and called me an idiot for having once been a creationist. It mattered not to her that I've seen through the sham, the fact that I was brainwashed AS A CHILD made me a dumbass in her high and mighty opinion.

there was an idiot in that particular conversation and it wasn't you.

[midniterider]

I am frustrated by those people who don't really know or care much about their Batman lore debating those people who are especially knowledgeable and passionate over all things Batman. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I am frustrated by those people who don't really know or care much about their Batman lore debating those people who are especially knowledgeable and passionate over all things Batman. 

Heretic!  There is no god but Thor and Spiderman is his prophet!

[moanareina]

I understand what you mean and I agree with you. I too am tired of that kind of arguments because it is just not helping anyone. When I was still a believer I thought of people arguing that way they really did not get the point...never would I have thought: Oh yes, he is right!

 

And I also hate when people make claims about the bible that are not true. Last year I had an argument with my birthmom where she insisted that in the books of moses it said, white people where better than black people and this is what white people used to justify apartheid and slavery...I told her, I have read the bible more than once and I was pretty sure that this was not written there. And I told her, that I would be open to her proofing me otherwise if she could tell me where that would be written.

 

When I was still a believer and people told me what supposedly would be written in the bible that I knew was not...or that I thought they got wrong, I was not considering they'd be right. I thought they got it wrong. Period.

 

I am all for genuine and intelligent discussion but I don't really enjoy watching stuff like the video you posted. Then again I can't stand most stand up comedy either so this might also just be a personal thing. 

 

The guys who speak that way about gay people like the dude with the gray hair are not to be taken serious anyways and I think every non christian can see that. So why should let yourself down to his level of intelligence and all?

[★ Citsonga ★]

^^^ She probably heard someone talking about Ham's curse, which some have interpreted as darkened skin. All it is is an interpretation, though; the text doesn't actually say that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

(Edit: Oops! Double post, thanks to this stupid "smart" phone screwing up!)

[Blood]

 

Christians don't believe the old testament regulations apply to them anymore.  

 

 

LOL. When it's convenient to their argument, yes. But they whip out the OT faster than a rattlesnake when they need it to justify some church tenet. 

[Blood]

I find that I've really started to enjoy listening to arguments against Christianity by skeptical voices.  Yet one of the things that really bothers me is when well-meaning secular humanists will go after Christians without really knowing what they are talking about.

 

 

You mean like how Christians go after secular humanists despite having never read or understood any of their arguments? 

[R. S. Martin]

Maybe I missed it. I don't see anyone mention the Christian claim that the Bible is literally true, followed by their tendency to move the goalposts the minute one points out the inconsistencies of that claim. That's the main point of quoting Leviticus stuff like shrimp and mixed fibre clothing. 

 

It's not going to deconvert an individual believer but the cumulative effect of the argument can over time cause the theologians, as well as lay members, to take a closer look at things. It may take generations for a real change to occur but I think a seed may be planted. Here's how it works.

 

A conscientious and intelligent person becomes aware of hearing the argument and decides to look it up. Sometime down the road--maybe weeks, months, or years later--this person participates in a discussion where it seems appropriate to raise the issue. Others have probably heard the argument, too, on YouTube if nowhere else. The more intelligent ones among them are forced to admit to themselves, albeit reluctantly, that the atheists have a point: there is a logical inconsistency. The human brain does not let go of such a problem. I don't know how they will solve it but the way I see it, the concept of God-directed evolution and/or Intelligent Design is one outcome of evangelical attempt to reconcile belief with science. 

 

Don't take me wrong. I disagree with Intelligent Design. I only use it as an example of how Christian beliefs change over time. If I'm not mistaken, fifty to a hundred years ago the idea of God-directed evolution was self-contradictory and ludicrous, totally unheard of. Another example is the idea of the flat earth being the centre of the universe. It took centuries to change this idea.

[Leo]

Tyler has a point, though. For those of us rationalists anyway. Let the theists, the JudeoChristlamists be the irrational ones.

After all, many of us have described deconversion as awakening, or growing up.

 

-- They say herding atheists is like herding cats.

But I say herding orthodox theists is like chaperoning teenagers and forcing them to get along.

[Roz]

Tyler, I'm going to call you out on this one.  If you say that Rom. 1 is the primary reason why christians disapprove of gays, then you, along with the rest of christianity, take the passage out of context.

 

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

² (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

³ Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

⁵ By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

⁶ Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

⁷ To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

⁸ First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

⁹ For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

¹⁰ Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

¹¹ For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

¹² That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

¹³ Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

¹⁴ I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

¹⁵ So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

---blah blah blah fuckity fuck fuck fuckness... Paul takes his time getting into it.

 

¹⁷ For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

---the just shall live by what faith?  oh right, faith in Yeshitwa.

 

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

¹⁹ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

²⁰ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

²¹ Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

---Take these verses.  Here we see the bible stating that god showed men 'the truth' about himself.  But evidently some folks, even though everyone knows the bible god, did not glorify him.  So their hearts were darkened.

²² Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

²³ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

---22 and 23 clearly states that the foolish folks changed the glory of god into an image -biblical idolatry 101

 

²⁴ Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

²⁵ Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

---because of their idolatry in 22 and 23, bible god gave them up to lust, to dishonor their bodies between themselves.

What?  Yes, that's correct.  Because of their idol worship, god gave them up to orgies.

 

²⁶ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

²⁷ And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

---Please note that 26 and 27 has the same reason and justification as 24 and 25.  Because of idolatry, god gave those idol worshipers to become lesbians and gays.

 

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

²⁹ Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

³⁰ Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

³¹ Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

³² Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

---The same reason is still used to justify 28-32.  Because some folks turned to idols, they were given up to be murderers, liers, unmerciful, and without natural affection. 

 

Idolatry was the reason that god gave people up to homosexuality, and those homosexuals were apparently also murderers and without mercy.

 

Now... Think about this.  Does this really make any damn sense?

[Roz]

BO, he was saying "Thats a huge misunderstanding of theology." in the original post.

 

It's not a question of tone, but what exactly the christians believe.  The exact context of Romans 1, when read from top to bottom, says that 'because' some people were worshiping idols and not worshiping the christian god, the christian god gave them up to become gay.

 

Not just homosexual, but murderers, filled with all wickedness, etc.

 

Perhaps I should ask Tyler what exactly did he mean when he says 'the christian world condemns being gay' out of Rom. 1.

Does he really mean that christians believe that being gay was the result of idolatry?  And being gay also meant being murderers?

[DoubtingNate]

I see there are plenty of skeptics out there who make sweeping statements about theology or the Bible, who clearly don't have a grasp of some of the nuances.  I agree that can be tiresome, but really it's ok.   If you want skeptical theology, there are plenty of smart people you can look up; Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Erhman, and John Loftus to name a few.

 

This is a nice little piece called 'the Courtier's reply' here that I think addresses the topic well .. 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

 

The gist of it is that someone doesn't need to know all the ins and outs of theology in order to refute it.  That is because theology is 100% speculative, theoretical and non-falsifiable.  Does the holy spirit proceed from the Father or from the Son?  Is the trinity three beings in one essence or one essence with three parts?  How exactly does Christ execute his role as prophet, priest and King?

 

Whether or not God exists, THESE ARE NOT QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE CAN ANSWER.  

 

There's no discovery that any human can make that will solve any theological debate.  No fossil or ancient text is going to clear up the mystery of the Trinity. 

 

Obviously you can get into prooftexting and Bible ping-pong.. but the Bible only has as much authority in these discussions as both parties agree to.  FOr Scripture to matter, apologists have to make a case for why anyone should give two shits about what is says.  So it doesn't matter which testament the argument against homosexuality comes from, if they can't establish the inherent value/authority of Scripture in the first place.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Perhaps I should ask Tyler what exactly did he mean when he says 'the christian world condemns being gay' out of Rom. 1.

Does he really mean that christians believe that being gay was the result of idolatry?  And being gay also meant being murderers?

 

I'm not Tyler, but I can say that if you assume that all Christians think through the entire chapter, then you're fooling yourself. Besides, many Christians see all "sin" as a result of selfishness, which they would call a form of idolatry. Beyond that, the text does refer to homosexuality as "vile affections," so technically it doesn't even matter what the root cause is, because the text makes it out to be something that's bad in and of itself.

 

Many Christians do cite Romans in opposition to homosexuality, and that's a fact. (Of course, many also cite Leviticus.)

[Roz]

 

Perhaps I should ask Tyler what exactly did he mean when he says 'the christian world condemns being gay' out of Rom. 1.

Does he really mean that christians believe that being gay was the result of idolatry?  And being gay also meant being murderers?

 

I'm not Tyler, but I can say that if you assume that all Christians think through the entire chapter, then you're fooling yourself. Besides, many Christians see all "sin" as a result of selfishness, which they would call a form of idolatry. Beyond that, the text does refer to homosexuality as "vile affections," so technically it doesn't even matter what the root cause is, because the text makes it out to be something that's bad in and of itself.

 

Many Christians do cite Romans in opposition to homosexuality, and that's a fact. (Of course, many also cite Leviticus.)

 

 

Bingo.  The christians who cite Rom. 1 are doing so because they just take verses 26 and 27 and not give a damn about the rest of the chapter.  Their reasoning is based in taking their own book out of context.

 

So when I see secular lecturers take something wrong, I find it easy to excuse it because in the end that's what the christians do.

[Roz]

Good read Nate, I see your point.  In the end we're all arguing about nonexistent articles of clothing.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Perhaps I should ask Tyler what exactly did he mean when he says 'the christian world condemns being gay' out of Rom. 1.

Does he really mean that christians believe that being gay was the result of idolatry?  And being gay also meant being murderers?

 

 

I'm not Tyler, but I can say that if you assume that all Christians think through the entire chapter, then you're fooling yourself. Besides, many Christians see all "sin" as a result of selfishness, which they would call a form of idolatry. Beyond that, the text does refer to homosexuality as "vile affections," so technically it doesn't even matter what the root cause is, because the text makes it out to be something that's bad in and of itself.

 

Many Christians do cite Romans in opposition to homosexuality, and that's a fact. (Of course, many also cite Leviticus.)

 

Bingo.  The christians who cite Rom. 1 are doing so because they just take verses 26 and 27 and not give a damn about the rest of the chapter.  Their reasoning is based in taking their own book out of context.

 

So when I see secular lecturers take something wrong, I find it easy to excuse it because in the end that's what the christians do.

I think you missed one of my points. Those verses clearly paint homosexuality as vile, regardless of whatever the cause is. Therefore, it's really not taking it out of context to use Romans to trash homosexuality. Though Christians do often take things out of context and misuse them, that's not the case here, because it's homosexuality itself that's said to be vile.

 

So, while you do have a point about the context, it's actually quite irrelevant with this matter.

[Vigile]

I still think xians can't cleanly disavow themselves of the ot. How do they reconcile paul's law passages with Jesus who said not one jot nor tittle shall pass away and 2 Timothy where it says ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED?

 

http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

[Roz]

We can agree to disagree on the importance of homosexuality's root cause in Rom. 1, but I think Nate's point, that this is all an argument pulled from christianity's ass, is the most valid point of all.