Bless yall

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

 

If science is your hero then you might say that science underpins everything. But the world is not science. Science is some idea you apply to the world. It's some framework that gives you comfort.

 

 

No, that's not right, HF.  The purpose of science is to explain the world, not to give comfort.

 

Also, since you are responding to a post of mine where I said the acid test is not what we profess to believe, but how we actually live, like it or not science underpins everything you do.  You are just in denial of that fact.  Worse, your denial isn't even based on anything backed up by evidence.  

 

So, you have an evidence-free belief that denies science and yet you use that science to say so.

 

Isn't that a bit like saying that postal voting isn't trustworthy and then using the post to make your vote?

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

If scientists take an interest in some phenomena they give it a name and try to own it by calling it science. 

 

No.  Wrong again.  Science only explains these phenomena, it doesn't own them.

 

But you use the phenomena that science explains to deny the role science plays in your life.

 

Quote

 

I believe in Jesus so I believe that He underpins everything. No I dont have evidence. Evidence aint really my gig. 

 

Well that's refreshingly honest of you, HF.  

 

Catch is, the evidence that you live by science and not by faith is in how you live.

 

So, evidence IS your gig.  You are living that evidence right now by relying on science to read these words

 

 

Quote

 

Chasing endorphins? Aren't we all. Does science and logic make you feel good, Walter? Does evidence and science and all that atheist stuff give you a sense of security and warm fuzzy?

 

 

 

No.  It doesn't.  Nor do I need it to.

 

You are the one whom seems to need comfort from invisible and intangible things.

 

Quote

 

 

 

Yall are chasing endorphins as much as us Christians are. Everybody likes to feel good. People aren't logical because logic is the logical thing to be. But if that's what you think you're lying to yourself. Living your own delusion. I guarantee if science and logic and all that nonsense started to 'feel' bad, and I mean REAL bad,  you would toss it out just like you did my Jesus. Emotion always trumps logic.

 

Anyway, I'll pray for yall.

 

 

 

 

 

The delusion is yours.

 

After all, you're using science and all that nonsense to read these words, HF.

 

You're relying on science.  Not faith.

 

And the evidence for that stacks up higher and higher every time you reply.

 

Waiting on more evidence from you.

 

Bye for now!

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Oh look!  

 

 

HaveFaith's contradicted himself.

 

But I won't tell him where or how.

 

Not just yet.

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

Anyway, I'll pray for yall.

 

IF your God can actually do anything (Ok I know he can't) but IF he could then I'd prefer you pray for those in real need. I'm fine thank you. Others however suffer horribly.

 

How about you pray for child cancer to be extinguished, and for staving children to be fed and we will go from there ok?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

 

Are you sure yall were ever Christians? It sounds you never were otherwise you would be to answer this question.

 

I can't answer for anyone else, but yes, at one time I accepted Jesus and felt him in my heart.  And it was a great feeling.  Just like the feeling Muslims get who have Mohammed in their heart.   Both feeling like we had the true savior in our hearts.  So, which of us (if either) had the genuine feeling, in the genuine savior?  That literally was the question that got me to thinking outside the box, and to where I am today.

[Astreja]

7 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

Anyway, I'll pray for yall.

 

I do hope you prayed for something sensible, like good health and prosperity.

 

Because if you prayed for something stupid, such as petitioning your god to make us believe, that prayer has now been intercepted, modified, and forwarded to a select collection of deities.  (FYI, the gods on call for the week of October 5-11 are Cthulhu, Sarasvati, Tyr, Juno and Anubis.)  

[sdelsolray]

This one has it all figured out, according to him.

 

This one is not worth any more time.

[Myrkhoos]

12 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

 

Wow, if you dont know what that means, I can't help ya. 

 

Are you sure yall were ever Christians? It sounds you never were otherwise you would be to answer this question.

First of all, the Orthodox Church rarely uses that specific expression. Feeling Jesus into your heart. But you might think Eastern Orthodox are not true Christians. That is what the Orthodox think of everybody else. And since evidence is not your thing, why shouldn't I believe the Orthodox? They do have uninterrupted apostolic succesion and a strong mystical tradition. When they would talk about this the most common expression is feeling the grace of the Holy spirit. There are quite specific descriptions on what that means, based a lot on what Paul says are the gifts of the Holy spirit.

      Second, what you used is a No true Scotsman. But you do not really care about logic do you? So I am just going to say that your inability to explain what feeling Jesus into your heart is means you are not a Christian, that you are deluded, you are a Pharisee that does the work of the devil while pretending he does the work of the Father. You are worst than all the sinners and pagans and apostates, you are a deceiver and the true block of people entering the Kingdom of Heaven. The false Christian is the worst sinner because the name of God gets mocked in the nations, as the Scripture says. It is YOU who needs the most ardent prayers, the wolf in sheeps clothing, the unknowing ally of thw wicked one. Awaken from your slumber of darkness my friend and see that that angel of light you have been listening to is the demon in disguise as the holy apostle says warning his disciples. Woe to you, as the Gospel has become, instead of the path to Heaven, the distorted path to the pit of darkness. I urge you to repent otherwise you will be among the sons of the Almighty's wrath.

     Do you prefer that type of discourse? Because without argumentation and evidence, which you seem to disregard,that is what I am left with.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

This one has it all figured out, according to him.

 

This one is not worth any more time.

 

Like I said early on - God isn't sending his best soldiers here. 

[Joshpantera]

17 hours ago, WalterP said:

I believe in Jesus so I believe that He underpins everything. No I dont have evidence. Evidence aint really my gig. 

 

Apriori, presupposition, and subjective based belief on display front row and center! 

 

At least the apologist knows and understands that he doesn't have evidence to support his belief. And that he admits not to care at all about evidence. That's good. That's being intellectually honest. 

 

Now how does that intellectual honestly pan out from there?

 

Can he honestly expect anyone to believe his claims without being able to provide or care about evidence supporting the claims?

 

Why should any one believe what someone else says just because they say it, without any supporting evidence? And further, what logic goes into getting upset because people don't believe a claim, which, you know and understand has doesn't have any supporting evidence? 

 

I may believe that a Yeti lives in the mountains staying just out of sight. I may feel in my heart that it lives there. Even though I have never seen it before. It's my right to believe anything I like. But then how does my evidence lacking belief apply to anyone else in the world?

 

Can I expect them to take me at my word and believe me regardless of having no evidence to support my belief in the Yeti living in the mountains? And do I really have good reason to get angry or offended if someone doesn't believe the same? Or better yet, taunt someone else who used to believe in the Yeti in the mountains who stopped believing it? And suggest that they never really did believe in the Yeti in the mountains if at any point they changed their minds or beliefs? 

 

No, I don't think so. Personal beliefs without evidence to take them further, remain as such. They are personal. They are subjective. And they are not argument winners. They can't be. They don't settle the issue. They can't settle the issue. They are assumptions made prior to having firm evidence to support the assumptions. Nothing more. 

 

This is why I think that christianity is set up to fail over the long haul. As people just like all of us continue backing out of it. It encourages people, without any supporting evidence, to make personal belief claims that can never be verified. And to do so with a smug sense of arrogance in the process. Blissful in one's own personal ignorance while trying to promote and / or shore up the "faith." It's a religion that has been slowly running out of rope for centuries now. As it's membership declines in number:

 

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

[Myrkhoos]

5 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Apriori, presupposition, and subjective based belief on display front row and center! 

 

At least the apologist knows and understands that he doesn't have evidence to support his belief. And that he admits not to care at all about evidence. That's good. That's being intellectually honest. 

 

Now how does that intellectual honestly pan out from there? 

 

This is why christianity is set up to fail over the long haul.

 

It's a religion that has been slowly running out of rope for centuries now. As it's membership declines in number:

 

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

The thing is that, historically speaking, abrahamic religions and others have "convinced" people mainly with violence of various ways. Threats, physical violence from low to torture to exile to death, legal oppression, humiliation of dissenters. The reason it "resisted" I think is because of violence not sincere conviction. Not saying that there would have been many more atheists, but without violence the lanscape would have probably been very very diverse. I mean why is Islam dominant in the middle east and christianity in Europe? And certain sects nonetheless? In most of the middle East Islam was a minority for centuries after the Islamic conquest but gradual oppresion changed the scale. Illegal to proselytize for others and loer status plus death for apostasy.

[HaveFaith]

18 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Like I said early on - God isn't sending his best soldiers here. 

 

Why throw pearls before swine? Maybe just throw cubic zirconia instead. 

[HaveFaith]

If yall are ex-Christians what is the point of visiting a website talking about Jesus every day? Sure sounds like you never left the faith, to me. Like going to a bar to talk about how much you hate booze. lol.

 

Now you all have a good time talking about Jesus everyday. Your secret love for Christ is safe with me. *wink*

 

Lord, we're all secure down here. One to beam up. 

[LogicalFallacy]

11 minutes ago, HaveFaith said:

 

Why throw pearls before swine? Maybe just throw cubic zirconia instead. 

 

You don't have any pearls, you have... let's see... oh bless ya'll.

 

Did you come onto this forum not intending to "throw your pearls before swine"? If so you've just wasted your time. Did God tell you to do that?

[LogicalFallacy]

1 minute ago, HaveFaith said:

If yall are ex-Christians what is the point of visiting a website talking about Jesus every day? Sure sounds like you never left the faith, to me. Like going to a bar to talk about how much you hate booze. lol.

 

Now you all have a good time talking about Jesus everyday. Your secret love for Christ is safe with me. *wink*

 

Lord, we're all secure down here. One to beam up. 

.

.

.

ROTFLMAO

 

Ok

 

Dear God/Jesus/Yahweh send us a decent apologist... pllleeeaaasseee?

[WalterP]

Hey HF!

 

Don't you even want to stick around long enough to find out where you contradicted yourself?

 

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, HaveFaith said:

If yall are ex-Christians what is the point of visiting a website talking about Jesus every day?

We're talking about our experiences.  Sometimes that requires talking about what we *used to believe* and sharing the observations and emotions that ensued as it all came crumbling down.

 

I think you need to lose your faith, so that you'll have a better understanding of what this site is about, and why we're here.

 

In fact, I think the demise of your faith should begin right... about... now.  (clicks stopwatch)

 

I hope you realize that by hanging out here, you're vastly more likely to lose your faith than we are to regain it.  As the saying goes:  "What has been seen cannot be unseen, what has been learned cannot be unknown." (C.A. Woolf)

[Christianchat_Chat]

4 hours ago, HaveFaith said:

If yall are ex-Christians what is the point of visiting a website talking about Jesus every day? Sure sounds like you never left the faith, to me. Like going to a bar to talk about how much you hate booze. lol.

 

Now you all have a good time talking about Jesus everyday. Your secret love for Christ is safe with me. *wink*

 

Lord, we're all secure down here. One to beam up. 

 

Jesus of course is the one to talk about at all times and for all seasons, for He being perfect, of God, ect. is like the standard we should all strive for.

[Astreja]

No, Christianchat_chatbot, "Jesus" is not perfect.  That's just a story you tell one another so that you can justify the hideously immoral things you say about your fellow travellers on Earth -- creating a false dichotomy of a fake saviour with fake perfection versus real people with real (and frequently endearing) character flaws.

 

If you want to talk to imaginary friends, knock yourself out -- but don't expect us to take you seriously.

[Christianchat_Chat]

On 10/1/2020 at 9:27 AM, Krowb said:

 

Which Christianity?  The subtext of the humorous side of this thread regarding Webmdave is exactly what drove some of the largest schisms in early Christianity.  Which is raised directly in your statement:  what exactly was Jesus?  Is he of the same substance as god?  While this may appear foolish and technical to us today, those nearest to Jesus' own time felt this important enough to split the Church multiple times.  See Trinitarianism, hypostatic union, and modalism for further study.

 

yes, winners write history.  don't. believe. them.    

 

nothing is foolish if honest and wanting what's right or true. 

[Christianchat_Chat]

13 minutes ago, Astreja said:

No, Christianchat_chatbot, "Jesus" is not perfect.  That's just a story you tell one another so that you can justify the hideously immoral things you say about your fellow travellers on Earth -- creating a false dichotomy of a fake saviour with fake perfection versus real people with real (and frequently endearing) character flaws.

 

If you want to talk to imaginary friends, knock yourself out -- but don't expect us to take you seriously.

 

don't take my words religiously and you may understand. to talk about Jesus here or anywhere makes sense is what i was trying to convey - to @HaveFaith.

[Astreja]

On the contrary, I suspect I understand Christianity far better than you do.  I began to distance myself from it back in 1964, after reading the Bible, whereas you're still stuck in mythological quicksand.

 

Jesus is just one potential role model, and far from the best of the lot.  Even as a seven-year-old I found the character uninspiring and drab, and derived vastly more benefit, happiness and meaning  from being a Beatles and Mercury and Apollo program and The Man from Uncle and Batman fangrrl in the same time period.

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

Jesus of course is the one to talk about at all times and for all seasons, for He being perfect, of God, ect. is like the standard we should all strive for.

 

You want to talk about Jesus? Ok lets talk. It would have been nice of him, of course, to answer me when I was calling out to him with every fiber of my being. If he did in fact hear me, and refused to answer when I was in that state, then he is a dishonest prick. The bible says Knock and I shall answer, ask and it shall be given. I reached out with all my heart and I got nothing. So I can only conclude that either God didn't care to answer me, or doesn't exist. Both results look the same from a human point of view.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

yes, winners write history.  don't. believe. them.    

 

nothing is foolish if honest and wanting what's right or true. 

 

As in, christianity took control of the historical records leading to a loss of whatever christian scribes didn't copy and keep in circulation. This is why we only have writings like, "Contra Celsus," and not "Celsus," as one glaring example. The winners chose the course of history. And history became biased in their (the christians) favor. 

 

So you do or don't believe christians who wrote their own history????

 

What is the message here? 

 

Do you even know?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

for He being perfect, of God

Do you honor your parents; or do you hate them?

[◊ Krowb ◊]

5 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

yes, winners write history.  don't. believe. them.    

 

nothing is foolish if honest and wanting what's right or true. 

 

What a glib response.  Truth (with a capital "T") is not a matter of popular opinion and to treat it as such is simply less than honest. History is replete with instances of the majority believing things that were later shown to be not true.  Galileo's  relationship with the Catholic Church ought to be proof enough of that.

 

But I'll bite:  you do realize the question I posed regarding the schism is still not solved right?  The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches (Eastern, Oriental, Russian, Greek, & others) still exist with billions of members between them and they have a fundamental different understanding of Christ's relationship with the father.  Add on top of this the protestants, Coptics, Armenians, etc . . . So in your mind, who exactly is the winner of this schism?

 

And always keep in mind - winners today are not winners tomorrow. The Roman empire's founding myth was that of Romulus and Remus. Didn't make it True (with a capital T).  The Egyptian empire had an even more elaborate founding myth that spanned thousands of years (longer than Christianity has been around) and still didn't make it True.  The Chinese today still believe in the concept of the Mandate of Heaven and that culture is the winner population wise and longevity wise.

 

In short, your answer, like HF falls into a logical fallacy, in your case it's Ad populum but with a mix of misplaced hubris as whatever it is you believe hasn't actually "won".