Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TEG

There is no universal human religion

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

A person to claim they ever understood the Bible and were a Christian and not understand the intentional double symbolism in prophecy speaks very loudly about the truth of their history with Christianity.

 

The 1st century Christians clearly understood this. They are the ones who taught me.

Here we go with No True Scotsman.  Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

You don't understand what a double blind protocol is and why they are used do you?

Obviously, neither do you, if you think it somehow applies to his statement.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

I once asked a guy who claimed to be logical and empirical to prove to me that a dog walked through their backyard. Ha, they never could answer, honestly, I'm not joking.

That's a touching story.  Ever thought about adapting it for the silver screen?  It'd get you laid, I'd wager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Quite clearly that guy didn't make you eat the dog poo in his backyard. Or clean up the fur. Or fill in the holes from digging. You know, all very well known lines of evidence to support the proposition that A dog walked through their back yard. 

 

Can you provide anything close to that for dog spelt backwards?

Really? Are you honestly that trapped in your faith in atheism that you can't see the gapping holes in your reasoning. Obviously, my response is that just enough time has passed since the walk through that all physical evidence has dissipated. You failed the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OrdinaryClay said:

Really? Are you honestly that trapped in your faith in atheism that you can't see the gapping holes in your reasoning. Obviously, my response is that just enough time has passed since the walk through that all physical evidence has dissipated. You failed the test.

No.  He just understands how data and evidence works.  Don't confuse understanding science with faith.  That's a category error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Astreja said:

The problem with that "...the evidence of things not seen" bit is that people have varying standards for evidence.  What a believer calls "evidence" usually evokes a "nope" from me -- it always feels like 1% conjecture and 99% wishful thinking from my standpoint, and it just isn't compelling to me.

It is true the evidence "meter" varies with people and furthermore each person sets their meter per subject. People sometimes  want to believe that which agrees with their life choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said:

It is true the evidence "meter" varies with people and furthermore each person sets their meter per subject. People sometimes  want to believe that which agrees with their life choices.

Rich in irony; poor in comprehension.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said:

Really? Are you honestly that trapped in your faith in atheism that you can't see the gapping holes in your reasoning. Obviously, my response is that just enough time has passed since the walk through that all physical evidence has dissipated. You failed the test.

 

My guess is that your neighbor said he saw the dog.  You in turn, said something like, "prove it."  Perhaps, after all, his eyesight was bad and it might have been a coyote?  The thing is, should he choose to pursue it, there are scientific instruments that could prove a dog did in fact pass through his yard.  I'm assuming if it said in the bible - using "intentional double symbolism in prophecy," of course -  that a dog would one day pass through his yard - then you would believe that as "proof."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Astreja said:

The problem with that "...the evidence of things not seen" bit is that people have varying standards for evidence.  What a believer calls "evidence" usually evokes a "nope" from me -- it always feels like 1% conjecture and 99% wishful thinking from my standpoint, and it just isn't compelling to me.

 

Parsing the passage "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" indicates that faith itself is two things.  First, it is "the substance of things hoped for", i.e., wishful thinking.  Second, that wishful thinking is the "evidence of things not seen".

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

How is it that the first century Christians taught you?  Have you ever looked into how the bible actually came to be written? 

There are open source courses available online via Yale University:

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

 

If you choose to live by a particular faith, and make life decisions based upon that faith, then don't you think it deserves serious scrutiny? 

 

It seems to me you are having trouble processing that any ex-Christian could have been a "real Christian."  For you, it does not compute as possible.   You are searching for answers (other than what you are told by ex-Christians) as to how this could happen and trying to convince us that it was ignorance that led us here - instead of a critical examination of our faith and/or the bible.  You are assuming that thousands of people - many of them Bible scholars, ordained ministers, theologians, and missionaries - misunderstood the Bible. Think about how arrogant that sounds.  It was an open mind and open heart that led us to reject Christianity in the same way you reject Greek mythology.  An ex-Christian is not necessarily anti-Christian by the way.  A lot of my family members and friends are believers.  I don't try to convince them of my beliefs.  Hell, they don't even know I'm atheist!   Why?  Because, in my experience, it is Christians who I have seen hassle atheists about their beliefs (or non-beliefs) - not the other way around.   

Yes, I've looked into the Bible. 

Keep your yale links. I prefer not to be spoon fed information like some naive freshman.

When I was about 17 I concluded that I needed to be able to ask any question regarding Christianity to see if it stood up to a 
reasonable explanation. That was many decades ago. I found it did. I'm not a vulnerable believer with a fragile faith. I'm 
convinced through Natural Revelation, Special revelation, History, Psychology and Sociology that God is real and He is who He 
says He is. I'm not alone in this. Ironically, there are many occultists who believe He is who he says He is, Aleister Crowley 
for example, they willfully have chosen to follow a different path. I've chosen to worship and adore with all my heart The 
Creator of the universe. He is worthy!

My latest line of evidence for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the occult explosion we are seeing. This is nocoincidence.

I fully believe apostates exist. I fully believe they were lead there by their minds and through free will choices. It would be 
foolish on my part to think all non-Christians are somehow ignorant. It would also be complete foolishness to believe people 
reject Christ because of rational decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here we go with No True Scotsman.  Again.

There exists real Scotsman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

a93aa71fcd76e7d25e5ab1e7a128e783.jpg

Twain knows better now. Time is the unavoidable  teacher.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

You are making a category error. A unicorn claim is a physical claim not a metaphysical claim. No I don't believe a biological creature such as bigfoot is roaming the woods because this is a scientific claim and there is no empirical evidence for its existence. The claim that Jesus is God is a metaphysical claim.

 

Reread my post. Unicorn was a placeholder. You are dodging the question. I'll be more specific.

 

Is there any metaphysical position I couldn't take on faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

The thing is, should he choose to pursue it, there are scientific instruments that could prove a dog did in fact pass through his yard. 

Like what? Time machines don't exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said:

Twain knows better now. Time is the unavoidable  teacher.

 

 

Interesting claim. Care to explain what he knows better and how you know that he knows better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Reread my post. Unicorn was a placeholder. You are dodging the question. I'll be more specific.

 

Is there any metaphysical position I couldn't take on faith?

No. This is why this sight is so filled with pagans and mystics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said:

Twain knows better now. Time is the unavoidable  teacher.

 

Provide evidence that Twain knows better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, OrdinaryClay said:

There exists real Scotsman.

Yes.  Many of them live in Scotland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding that lovely dog story, dogs are known to exist. They frequently walk through yards. It is not an extraordinary claim to have seen a dog in the yard. The proposed penalty for not believing that he saw the dog is not an eternity in Hell. There is no comparison here. Try harder.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OrdinaryClay said:

Keep your yale links. I prefer not to be spoon fed information like some naive freshman.

 

This isnt about spoon-feeding. Nor is the course intended for naive freshman. This is about learning the origins of the bible which you are clearly not willing to learn. If you want to keep your head in the sand,  that is your prerogative. But don't try to argue that "history, psychology, and sociology" prove that God is real.  You have no evidence for that. All of those disciplines demonstrate that many humans believe in God. Their belief in God is real, but it doesnt prove God is real.

If you are not willing to learn from anyone here, then what are you doing here? What is your purpose?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

No. This is why this sight is so filled with pagans and mystics.

 

So how is faith a reliable pathway to truth?

 

Hmm maybe that is presupposing the question.

 

Perhaps another way of phrasing it - Given that you admit that there isn't any metaphysical position that I couldn't take on faith, do you think faith is a reliable pathway to truth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

No. This is why this sight is so filled with pagans and mystics.

 

Yay for mystics!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OrdinaryClay said:

No. This is why this sight is so filled with pagans and mystics.

What did you expect to find on an ex-christian website?  Methodists?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

This isnt about spoon-feeding. Nor is the course intended for naive freshman. This is about learning the origins of the bible which you are clearly not willing to learn. If you want to keep your head in the sand,  that is your prerogative. But don't try to argue that "history, psychology, and sociology" prove that God is real.  You have no evidence for that. All of those disciplines demonstrate that many humans believe in God. Their belief in God is real, but it doesnt prove God is real.

I already know the origins of the Bible. Do you know the difference between inference and deduction? Do you know what it means to "prove" something? To prove something is not necessarily to repeat it before your eyes, you know that, correct? If you are a materialist then you are in the minority here. Natural revelation is the best source for direct evidence for the existence of God. For example, the Teleological argument is very strong in this area. The people studies are far more interesting for understanding the adversary. satan is an arrogant over achiever who can't resist showing his hand.

 

 

Quote

If you are not willing to learn from anyone here, then what are you doing here? What is your purpose?

Responsibility.

 

Mat 12:36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

 

Were you a Christian? BTW - You need to understand that I'm a devoted unwaivering believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.