A Challenge To My Christian Brothers And Sisters

[duderonomy]

 

 

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

 

I agree. I'm curious as to why he says he's "Christian-ish" though. I'm not sure what this means. I'd like to know what he actually believes and why.

 

wellnamed? Care to elaborate? (Not trying to attack, just curious).

 

 

I was baptized in the eastern orthodox church and I would describe myself as being "theistic" in my worldview at least in comparison to something like the mainstream metaphysical naturalism of most western atheists. That said, my "theism" is heavily apophatic, influenced by Buddhism (mainly pratityasamutpada), Hinduism (the Brahman of the Upanishads, Vedanta), and certain philosophical ideas (mainly Raimon Panikkar's cosmotheandricism) and my point of view doesn't really have much in common with modern western Christianity. I still describe it as "Christian-ish" because the mystical theology of ancient Christian theologians is meaningful to me, as is a lot of Christian symbology. But it's fair to say I'm rather idiosyncratic, allergic to dogmatism, and I'm also a universalist. So, if you will, I am an atheist with regard to the common western Christian concept of God, especially the fundamentalist version, but not quite an atheist if you're comparing me to Sam Harris.

 

That's a rather condensed description and probably inadequate but I'm happy to elaborate

 

 

 

Hi Wellnamed.  Were you dunked or sprinkled in your baptism?  That's important, you know.

 

Welcome to Ex-C and welcome to the Lion's Den.  

[Justus]

Regarding truth and facts, courts of law don't necessarily discover the truth. They just make a decision regarding an allegation.

Yes, but the Court, or Jury if applicable is the trier of fact in criminal proceedings, which is to say that they hear the evidence presented by both sides and determine which facts presented by the parties are credible to determine what they find to be the truth in regards to the allegation.

 

You would like us to believe that "truth and facts" are sorta fuzzy and variable.

My comment was, However, views, beliefs and opinions do not constitute truth, the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.

 

If the ‘truth and facts’ are so clear cut then there would be no need for their examination.

 

It seems like one of the tricks of Christians is to falsely compare and bend the meaning of words (maybe this is the equivocation fallacy?) to 'allow' something that has little or no evidence seem to be true.

So only Christians falsely compare and bend the meaning of what is written or said?

 

Like your truth and facts.

I guess you didn’t understand the principle that an internal combustion engine heats up during operation, therefore if a vehicle had just been driven into the truck stop then the motor should be hot.

 

Thus, upon examination of the engine compartment the engine was found to be neither hot nor warm, which proved that the facts which appeared to support the truth of the allegation were without merit.

 

Now if a Christian is dead sure that his Jesus (who is never present) is absolutely real, why couldn't he just be just as dead sure that that the cop who is putting handcuffs on him is absolutely false.

Maybe as written in 2 Cor 13:5, the reprobate never knows.

[Guest immoralchristian]

We are imperfect and our view of things now is imperfect and unclear.

 

We know in part, but we do not see the big picture.

 

When this imperfection is gone and we are face to face with God,

 

we will see things are they really are and with much more understanding.

I tell you something you may not know, all missionary work can be done lying down on a bed.

[Guest immoralchristian]

Faith, florduh.   

 

Faith. 

.

.

.

Ironhorse doesn't need perfect understanding and knowledge... because he has faith.

 

He doesn't need imperfect human understanding and knowledge... because he has faith.

 

He doesn't need any understanding and knowledge... because he has faith.

.

.

.

Therefore, his faith is... perfect!

 

Without faith one would die from a mass contradiction.

[Guest immoralchristian]

My former Christian self would have answered like this.

 

"God let us see this way on purpose. He has a reason we are seeing Darkly and when the time is right he will bring light to give us the answers." Only God knows the whole truth and he will give us the knowledge when he thinks we are ready.

 

That is how I use to see things.

 

Now, I know the Bible is nothing more than another book of fiction.

The truth is to have purpose.

[Guest immoralchristian]

Men and Brethren!  We can't throw stones at Ironhorse anymore, lest we prove ourselves to be Pharisees.

 

Instead of stoning him, invite him to talk and explain. I've tried that in another thread, and by God, Ironhorse started talking.

 

Sometimes diplomacy wins over bombardment.

Proof is found by looking at the evidence on the inside rather than the outside.

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

 

Without faith, hope and belief in the untenable bible-god(s) would die, but that won't kill you.

[Guest immoralchristian]

God used people to write his message to the world.

 

People are imperfect. We are all sinners. We miss the mark of perfection. The Bible is filled with stories of imperfect people.

David is a good example. Paul called himself the chief of sinners.

 

This being true does not mean they were wrong about what they wrote about the revelation they received from God.

 

The message God wanted told is true.

God has not stopped talking ironhorse.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

 

 

 The Bible is filled with stories of imperfect people.

 

 

 

 

Imperfect people like Yahweh and Jesus.

 

Do you know what and who Jesus was supposed to be to the world?

 

Mass goodness,

 

WIthout mass goodness life couldnt turn you all evil.

[Guest immoralchristian]

I did not say they got everything right, I said the message from God was right.

 

I believe it because the universe and this earth and life conveys to me that there is a God.

 

I believe the Bible and its message because, to me, it makes more sense than any other belief system.

 

I'm a happy believer.

Truth is not a belief system,, it's how you change a positive and negative to a zero.

[Guest immoralchristian]

I did not say they got everything right, I said the message from God was right.

----

 

Um the message they imperfectly wrote down ................ .......................................................................Sure. Makes perfect sense. Sorry imperfect dark glass sense. Sorry I'm making this up as I go along. Derp.

The bible is the perfect word of the anomaly of want.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

God used people to write his message to the world.

 

People are imperfect. We are all sinners. We miss the mark of perfection. The Bible is filled with stories of imperfect people.

David is a good example. Paul called himself the chief of sinners.

 

This being true does not mean they were wrong about what they wrote about the revelation they received from God.

 

The message God wanted told is true.

Let's deconstruct this.

 

P1  "God used people to write his message to the world."

 

P2 "People are imperfect. We are all sinners. We miss the mark of perfection. The Bible is filled with stories of imperfect people.

David is a good example. Paul called himself the chief of sinners."

 

C1 "[P2] being true does not mean they were wrong about what they wrote…" (from P2)

 

P3 "[They] received revelation from God."

 

P4 "The message God wanted told is true."

 

Four premises and one near-tautology conclusion dealing with only one of the premises.  Anyone could draw the following alternate conclusions from P2, which I submit has the same weight as Ironhorse's C1:

 

C1 (alternative #1):  [P2] being true does not mean they were correct about what they wrote…" (from P2),

 

or

 

C1 (alternative #2:  [P2] being true does has nothing to do with whether the authors of the Bible were wrong or correct in what they wrote..." (from P2),

 

Put another was C1 is basically a meaningless conclusion, a-non-sequitur. 

 

So, we have four unsupported mere assertions and one meaningless and irrelevant conclusion.

 

At least Ironhorse is writing his own words and making his own argument.  That's a good thing and I'm glad to see it.

 

Everything about you smacks a reality freak.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

A little honest & open minded study & research of the bible from a historical critical perspective will reveal it is a collection of myths, legends & folklore. If a person only reads & explores one source of information for any topic or subject then their views, beliefs, & opinions are skewed.

 

You exactly right about limited input, or inquiry of information skewing the opinion of people.  

 

In the passage of 1 Corinthians 13:1, in which the OP cited, in verse 6 it is written,  'Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;'   However, views, beliefs and opinions do not constitute truth, the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.  

 

Take the passage regarding the stars in Genesis, verse 16-17

"....he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

 

Now in Isaiah 13:10 it is written, "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: 

 

So here is a pic from the NASA moon landing, 

 

 

and here is one from the NASA website for the New Horizons image of Pluto : https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/global-mosaic-of-pluto-in-true-color

 

 

So where are the celestial lights?

 

In all fairness even science can be wrong, the only diffrence between science and religion is that science has got the guts to admit it.

[Guest immoralchristian]

So the direct light from the sun being refracted by the earth's atmosphere isn't the reason that the celestial lights can't be seen during the daytime, being that time when the we are facing the direct sunlight?  

 

However, in the images, the direction of the images photographed are in the opposition direction of the sun, just as when one views the expanse during the nighttime hours on earth.   

 

 

 

So the direct light from the sun being refracted by the earth's atmosphere isn't the reason that the celestial lights can't be seen during the daytime, being that time when the we are facing the direct sunlight?  

 

However, in the images, the direction of the images photographed are in the opposition direction of the sun, just as when one views the expanse during the nighttime hours on earth.   

The Professor speaks.

 

 

 

 

The Professor speaks.

Sorry my question offends you, I was merely trying to either substantiate or disprove what I was told.

 

 

 

You guys sex me up.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

Whoever wrote that vs was possibly influenced by the Greek philosophers. 'Through a glass darkly' predates the bible era I think. I'll google it later

The word darkly is, in the Greek, αἴνιγματι (ainigmati), that is: "in enigmas". I don't know that the entire phrase in Greek is borrowed, but from what I've read, enigma is at least something of a technical term in Greek rhetoric, referring to the idea of anagogical/allegorical or otherwise obscure meanings in a philosophical or hermeneutical context. It has always seemed to me that a lot of the possible nuance of "enigma" is lost in the translation to "darkly", even if it's supposed to suggest something like "obscure".

 

I'm afraid I can't find an easy source to cite for this on the internet; I was introduced to this idea in commentaries on Gregory of Nyssa's work, for example: here

 

Gregory uses the term and references this passage in his justification for reading various scriptural texts in an allegorical way without too much concern for its "literal" or "historical" meaning, or the aims of the original author. So for instance he gives such readings to the life of Moses in Exodus as well as the Song of Solomon.

 

In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, and given Paul's other nods to Greek philosophy, it seems reasonable to think the allusion to Greek rhetoric is intentional. Alongside Johannine assertions about the invisibility of God and Paul's usage of the word "mystery", as well as the way the chapter relates love and knowledge, it seems clear that it is intended to state that human epistemic knowledge of the divine is limited, and that love as a practical virtue is more fundamentally important than "correct" knowledge, and given that it follows and expands on a chapter encouraging church unity, the point would seem to be that making "correct" knowledge a more important criteria than love is a mistake in Paul's opinion. And the reason it is a mistake is because our knowledge is obscured. It would seem to me to be a pretty clear warning against a lack of humility regarding knowledge.

 

Hehehe, I don't know what your talking about.

[Guest immoralchristian]

"So where are the celestial lights?"

 

I cannot answer that one directly, Justus.

However, it's important to realize that the sunlight falling on Pluto is 1,500 times fainter than that falling on the Earth.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/03/15/bafact_math_how_bright_is_the_sun_from_pluto.html

 

Therefore, the cameras on board the New Horizons probe will have been calibrated to take this faintness into account.  

These very low light levels would probably be insufficient to properly activate the rods and cones in the human eye, meaning that if we were in the vicinity of Pluto, we'd most likely be unable to distinguish any color at all.   So I'd say that this NASA image of Pluto has been re-calibrated and re-balanced, to display it in 'true color' under normal Earth lighting conditions.

 

In a not dissimilar way, the colors of these images are not what the human eye would see if a person could look upon these objects from close up.  

 

 

The Orion nebula (M 42).

 

(If you perform a Google image search for this, you will get a variety of color palettes.  In reality, these gases and dust clouds would be too faint to register any color to the human eye.)

 

 

Comet 67P/Churyumov/Gerasimenko. 

 

(This object is almost as black as coal, so the contrast has been s-t-r-e-t-c-h-ed in this image to show fine detail.)

.

.

.

The key point to assimilate here is that when we are told that something is a true color image, this usually means that the deficiencies of the human eye have been compensated for by NASA, ESA or whoever.

 

It doesn't always mean that what we see on our screens is what we would see if we were there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

 

How can facts detract from the truth? Facts, by definition, are true. Facts and evidence don't take sides. 

Let's see if your quote holds true.

 

Three separate calls to 911, from three different callers reporting a semi-truck driving erratically and had nearly run them off the road, one 911 caller, another truck driver reporting that the erratic driver had bumped to his semi striking his trailer. They each describe the same vehicle, give the same license plate number and he same location where at the semi pulled into a particular truck stop.

 

Deputies from the Sheriff department are dispatched to the location given by the 911 callers where the semi was said to have pulled into.   At the truck stop they locate the truck matching the description given by the 911 callers and the license plate matches the plate number given.  The driver is exiting the the semi-truck when the Deputies pull up.

 

When questioning the driver, the Officers can smell alcohol, the driver admits to have consuming alcohol that he had purchased from store located in the truck stop but denies that it was him or his vehicle reported by the 911 callers.  Upon inspection of the reported vehicle, the Deputies find fresh scratches on the side of the flatbed trailer which appear to confirm the 911 caller which claimed his vehicle had been struck.

 

So do the facts support the allegation that the driver was driving intoxicated and had struck the vehicle of one of the 911 callers?

 

It is when facts conflict with a belief that we hear the silly accusation that the facts or evidence are "one sided" as if there is a viable alternative to factual information.

The Sheriff's deputy responds to the driver's denial to the allegation with the question, "Three different 911 callers reported that you nearly ran them off the road, they each describe this vehicle, and give this license plate number and that they followed you here and I am suppose to believe you when you say that it wasn't you."

 

So the facts can't be one-sided' then you would conclude the driver was guilty of the accusations or not?  What about the facts that 3 different 911 callers doesn't necessary mean that they true ?  Are eyewitnesses ever mistaken in their account of events?  

 

Is there any  thing the driver could say which could prove his innocence of  the accusations, if there was then would the facts be one sided which appear to represent that he had committed the acts he was accused of?

 

 

 

 

 

A little honest & open minded study & research of the bible from a historical critical perspective will reveal it is a collection of myths, legends & folklore. If a person only reads & explores one source of information for any topic or subject then their views, beliefs, & opinions are skewed.

 

You exactly right about limited input, or inquiry of information skewing the opinion of people.  

 

In the passage of 1 Corinthians 13:1, in which the OP cited, in verse 6 it is written,  'Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;'   However, views, beliefs and opinions do not constitute truth, the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.  

 

Take the passage regarding the stars in Genesis, verse 16-17

"....he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

 

Now in Isaiah 13:10 it is written, "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: 

 

So here is a pic from the NASA moon landing, 

 

 

and here is one from the NASA website for the New Horizons image of Pluto : https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/global-mosaic-of-pluto-in-true-color

 

 

So where are the celestial lights?

 

 

 

The camera is limited.  It can expose for the foreground or it can expose for the dim stars.  It can't do both.  Our eyes are a bit better at it in that we can see stars at night if there isn't much light polution.

 

Do you think the bible is a book for understanding the soul not the universe.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

We are imperfect and our view of things now is imperfect and unclear.

 

We know in part, but we do not see the big picture.

 

When this imperfection is gone and we are face to face with God,

 

we will see things are they really are and with much more understanding.

According to Christianity...God is perfect. But his creation isn't? lol

 

I’ve always likened that to I create a piece of pottery, perhaps a vase. The vase ends up leaking water when I fill it up, but instead of blaming myself, I blame the vase. Likewise, believers tend to blame people for their erroneous ways (free will), rather than the creator who created them.

 

It’s easier to believe that a god doesn’t exist, than to buy into the Christian ‘’version’’ of a god, that sets a person off into a labyrinth of contradictions.

 

God is perfect in good and evil and when he acts in human affairs we suffer from a lack of understanding of what goodness and evil really is.

[Guest immoralchristian]

 

 

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

 

I agree. I'm curious as to why he says he's "Christian-ish" though. I'm not sure what this means. I'd like to know what he actually believes and why.

 

wellnamed? Care to elaborate? (Not trying to attack, just curious).

 

 

I was baptized in the eastern orthodox church and I would describe myself as being "theistic" in my worldview at least in comparison to something like the mainstream metaphysical naturalism of most western atheists. That said, my "theism" is heavily apophatic, influenced by Buddhism (mainly pratityasamutpada), Hinduism (the Brahman of the Upanishads, Vedanta), and certain philosophical ideas (mainly Raimon Panikkar's cosmotheandricism) and my point of view doesn't really have much in common with modern western Christianity. I still describe it as "Christian-ish" because the mystical theology of ancient Christian theologians is meaningful to me, as is a lot of Christian symbology. But it's fair to say I'm rather idiosyncratic, allergic to dogmatism, and I'm also a universalist. So, if you will, I am an atheist with regard to the common western Christian concept of God, especially the fundamentalist version, but not quite an atheist if you're comparing me to Sam Harris.

 

That's a rather condensed description and probably inadequate but I'm happy to elaborate

 

It's easy to accept God once you accept theres life.

[midniterider]

 

Regarding truth and facts, courts of law don't necessarily discover the truth. They just make a decision regarding an allegation.

Yes, but the Court, or Jury if applicable is the trier of fact in criminal proceedings, which is to say that they hear the evidence presented by both sides and determine which facts presented by the parties are credible to determine what they find to be the truth in regards to the allegation.

 

Absolutely. But the truth as found by a jury may not be what actually happened. It's just their decision. Now and then someone appeals a court case and wins with new evidence being brought forth and heard. Still, the 'truth' of an occurrence may never really be known. Courts decide guilt or innocence, not truth (necessarily). Justice is blind to the truth. 

 

 

 

You would like us to believe that "truth and facts" are sorta fuzzy and variable.

My comment was, However, views, beliefs and opinions do not constitute truth, the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.

 

If the ‘truth and facts’ are so clear cut then there would be no need for their examination.

 

I agree. The truth is the truth. Facts can point towards or away from the truth. So are you saying the truth may be different for two people? Jesus may exist for you, but not for me? Cows may exist for you, but not for me? If so, why call it truth? Does the truth have some quality of independence from my personal opinion? Or is truth completely up to whatever I decide it is. As a chaos mage I might say that Jesus exists Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The other days of the week Cthulu takes his place. What is truth, anyway?

 

I don't think our knowledge of the truth is necessarily clear cut, like in how the universe functions. There's a lot of stuff we dont know. I guess that means Jesus might exist after all. And Zeus, and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

 

It seems like one of the tricks of Christians is to falsely compare and bend the meaning of words (maybe this is the equivocation fallacy?) to 'allow' something that has little or no evidence seem to be true.

So only Christians falsely compare and bend the meaning of what is written or said?

 

No, we all do. 

 

Like your truth and facts.

I guess you didn’t understand the principle that an internal combustion engine heats up during operation, therefore if a vehicle had just been driven into the truck stop then the motor should be hot.

 

Thus, upon examination of the engine compartment the engine was found to be neither hot nor warm, which proved that the facts which appeared to support the truth of the allegation were without merit.

 

Yes, I did understand that part. The original facts weren't facts at all. Being in that career field a long time I'd say the chances of one 9-1-1 caller getting a license plate correct is a million to one, and three reporting the exact same plate? Astronomical. And since it wasn't you at all, the cop apparently fed you bullshit to try to get you to confess. Cops like to press hard, it helps them to get the truth. This is just conjecture, but since they did not see your plate on the highway since you had been parked for quite a while at the truck stop, the 9-1-1 caller probably got a partial license plate, maybe a couple letters or numbers... then another 9-1-1 caller reports the  same general description of the truck in their call. The 9-1-1 caller probably just updates the first call saying, "Another caller reporting the same thing at location X", and maybe the same with the third, even though the 2nd and 3rd callers didnt have any plate info at all. 9-1-1 operators tend to be chastised about putting in duplicate calls, and it's easier to update one you already have going, anyway. So the cop pulls into the truck stop looking for a truck that looks like yours with only a couple letters (or numbers) to go on and your plate has a couple digits sort of similar so he lies about 3 callers seeing YOUR plate going down the road. I hope you asked him how 3 callers could report your exact plate going down the highway, when your engine was cold. These types of calls are a dime a dozen and so less accuracy effort is put into them by dispatchers.  

 

Now if a Christian is dead sure that his Jesus (who is never present) is absolutely real, why couldn't he just be just as dead sure that that the cop who is putting handcuffs on him is absolutely false.

Maybe as written in 2 Cor 13:5, the reprobate never knows.

 

[florduh]

It's easy to accept God once you accept theres life.

 

It's easy to accept bicycle once you accept cookies.

[midniterider]

God is perfect in good and evil and when he acts in human affairs we suffer from a lack of understanding of what goodness and evil really is.

 

 

 

Perfectly evil. Is this a valuable quality? 

 

Where is this god and when has he acted in human affairs?

[midniterider]

 

It's easy to accept God once you accept theres life.

 

It's easy to accept bicycle once you accept cookies.

 

 

Quite profound, sir. 

[Justus]

The truth is the truth. Facts can point towards or away from the truth. So are you saying the truth may be different for two people?

Take for example the statement in the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  

 

So if the truths they held are said to be self-evident regarding 'all men being created equal'  then what was that truth?  As you noted in your comment regarding falsely comparing and bending of words to 'allow' something that has little or no evidence seem to be true, yet none the less what a person holds as the truth will be reflected by what they think "all men being created equal" means. 

 

So to answer you question, yes, the truth can be different for two people that lack principles.

[florduh]

Truth exists. Facts exist. Claims of both truth and fact exist. Don't get them mixed up, m'kay?

[mymistake]

 

It's easy to accept God once you accept theres life.

 

 

 

God is just another name for magic.  I don't believe in magic.