Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity is different! I swear.

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 1:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would argue on the grounds that Christianity is the ONLY religion to not put man's actions at the center of their doctrine.

As far as I know, every other religion requires actions on the believers part in order to be saved. Christianity is the only one that puts a non-tangible/physical command at the center of one's salvation (faith).

I feel like since every other religion would agree that man's actions determine whether they reach heaven or not (what the actions are is not important) this is something that really sets Christianity apart.

kinda said the same thing three times . . .
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 1:40:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 1:34:31 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I would argue on the grounds that Christianity is the ONLY religion to not put man's actions at the center of their doctrine.

That's why it is a less-than-peaceful ideology. In the bible, man is not held accountable for his actions so long as he repent and believe in the resurrection.

As far as I know, every other religion requires actions on the believers part in order to be saved. Christianity is the only one that puts a non-tangible/physical command at the center of one's salvation (faith).

I feel like since every other religion would agree that man's actions determine whether they reach heaven or not (what the actions are is not important) this is something that really sets Christianity apart.

kinda said the same thing three times . . .
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 2:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Men are always held responsible for their actions, one way or another you will ultimately pay. For example the Bible teaches that during judgement you will be held accountable for all your actions and what you do in life will be read out for all to hear and see. Also, sinning will have repercussions in our own lifetime regardless of whether others know or not.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 2:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 2:25:36 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
Men are always held responsible for their actions, one way or another you will ultimately pay. For example the Bible teaches that during judgement you will be held accountable for all your actions and what you do in life will be read out for all to hear and see. Also, sinning will have repercussions in our own lifetime regardless of whether others know or not.

Perhaps True, but unfortunately and especially here in Florida, the fundy christians are taking over the populous and highlighting their faith upon the two aspects i've mentioned. Look up Calvary Chapel, i've been to a couple of their services (no i'm not christian) and i realized that fundamentalists are monopolizing the faith as a whole. Wait until it goes national.

Look at the service in Fort Lauderdale's branch - http://www.google.com... And just try not to laugh and cry simultaneously.
http://calvarychapel.com...
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

What if it's something 'significant' with Christianity though? Consider,

Christianity is rooted in real events, which is both scandalous and unique. Scandalous since Christian truth is bound up with historical truth; for if such truth is disproven, then Christianity would be false.

But it's unique since the historical method and evidence are means to verify Christianity, unlike other religions. Thus Christianity is not a code for living or philosophy of religion

"The uniqueness & scandal of Christian religion rest in the mediation
of revelation through historical events."
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

This is what i was getting at - the fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine and are using it as a manipulative tool.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:04:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

This is what i was getting at - the fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine and are using it as a manipulative tool.

Adopted using the historical method as a 'manipulative tool'?
Sounds a like a conspiracy theory... what makes you think so?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So it only requires that you erase any doubt from your mind that it could be wrong?
Sounds like a true leader in religion, you're right.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 1:34:31 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I would argue on the grounds that Christianity is the ONLY religion to not put man's actions at the center of their doctrine.

As far as I know, every other religion requires actions on the believers part in order to be saved. Christianity is the only one that puts a non-tangible/physical command at the center of one's salvation (faith).

That statement means that Christianity is the only one that puts either a non-tangible or tangible command at the centre of one's faith, so...

I feel like since every other religion would agree that man's actions determine whether they reach heaven or not (what the actions are is not important) this is something that really sets Christianity apart.

kinda said the same thing three times . . .

Buddhism's central command is stop your own desire, which is non-tangible. On the other hand, Hinduism states to promote harmony and love.

I'm not sure what you've stated.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 3:39:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

Except that many events of the Bible exist solely in the Bible, and not outside of it, for example:

The Jews exodus from Egypt
The Jews being slaves in Egypt (which was, as we know historically, incredibly racist, especially regarding its slaves)
Jesus existing in general

etc. etc. etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:29:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
So it only requires that you erase any doubt from your mind that it could be wrong?
Sounds like a true leader in religion, you're right.

How disingenuous... If, say, Christ's bones were found, and were proved authentic, then I would have good reason for denouncing my faith...

How is this erasing doubt?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:39:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

Except that many events of the Bible exist solely in the Bible, and not outside of it, for example:

The Jews exodus from Egypt
The Jews being slaves in Egypt (which was, as we know historically, incredibly racist, especially regarding its slaves)
Jesus existing in general

Realize there was no thing called, "the New Testament" in antiquity. They were a collection of scattered letters and documents, far from the canonized Bible we have today.

Plus we DO have external sources,

the pre-marken Q source
Dead sea scrolls
Roman Reports whenever Christ was "In Country," of which mesh well with what the Apostles wrote.

The tone of your comment seems you haven't stayed current with 3rd Quest Historical Scholarship.

Also, the Old Testament described many morally inferior events, but the OT didn't 'pre-scribe' them, especially for modern times.

Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:27:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 5:18:54 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

Are you saying that the morally offensive stuff from the Old Testament is rooted in God not being able introduce a better system at that time?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 5:27:32 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/22/2012 5:18:54 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

Are you saying that the morally offensive stuff from the Old Testament is rooted in God not being able introduce a better system at that time?

Notice your wording, it wouldn't be 'better' but, being that God's commands stem from his nature, then it would seem God's commandments were both necessary and sufficient for ancient near east tribes to not only apprehend, but lend way for the greater fulfillment of what Christ taught and lived.

It seems God introduced the best set of morals to free creatures living in a brutal land. But look at how much Israel disobeyed anyway. What if God gave them a richer set of morals? Would they have even paid attention? ... With Christ it's like humanity gets a second installment of phonics for an illiterate race... at least as far as morals are concerned.

My point is I very much doubt that we're in a good place to judge morals ~3500 years back. That's like saying the Greeks were retards because they took forever to learn the earth wasn't the center of the universe.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 5:18:54 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Also, the Old Testament described many morally inferior events, but the OT didn't 'pre-scribe' them, especially for modern times.

Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

There's a big difference between not being able to teach Kantian ethics to a "morally inferior" toddler (sidenote: how are they "morally inferior" if they aren't really moral agents in the first place?) and telling your toddler to go kill other toddlers. Even if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous either...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:42:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How we gradually discover what's morally right and wrong is tough enough. Were we to get it all at once it'd quite possibly be like teaching a pre-schooler calculus.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:47:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

There's a big difference between not being able to teach Kantian ethics to a "morally inferior" toddler (sidenote: how are they "morally inferior" if they aren't really moral agents in the first place?) and telling your toddler to go kill other toddlers. Even if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous either...

if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous

Notice what I said, if God's commands were issued from his nature, then these commands wouldn't be heinous. God, who gave life, is under no obligation whatever to sustain it. Furthermore it seems God just WAS acting in accordance with his nature: God didn't command the Hebrews to drive out the Canaanites until 400 years until (important) "their sin was ripe." That means there was not one morally decent human.

There's alot more on that topic, too much to clarify with a post, but I recommend picking up the philosopher's book "Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan.

He beautifully deals with this question.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 5:57:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 5:47:13 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

There's a big difference between not being able to teach Kantian ethics to a "morally inferior" toddler (sidenote: how are they "morally inferior" if they aren't really moral agents in the first place?) and telling your toddler to go kill other toddlers. Even if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous either...

if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous

Notice what I said, if God's commands were issued from his nature, then these commands wouldn't be heinous.

This claim basically strips the phrase "God is good" of any content. On this view God could command us to rape babies for no reason and one could legitimately say the command isn't morally henious because God commanded it.

God, who gave life, is under no obligation whatever to sustain it. Furthermore it seems God just WAS acting in accordance with his nature: God didn't command the Hebrews to drive out the Canaanites until 400 years until (important) "their sin was ripe." That means there was not one morally decent human.


So, instead of sending a prophet to warn them of their impending doom and give them a chance to repent (see: Jonah) He instead waited for their sin to ripen and sent a bunch of people to kill them all/drive them out of the land they lived? What about the children?

There's alot more on that topic, too much to clarify with a post, but I recommend picking up the philosopher's book "Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan.


I've read the book 3 cover to cover three times; I got it when it first came out. Thom Stark's "Is God A Moral Compromiser?" destroys most of Copan's claims. And I do mean destroy.

http://thomstark.net...

He beautifully deals with this question.

Not particularly. No offense.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 5:57:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/22/2012 5:47:13 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

There's a big difference between not being able to teach Kantian ethics to a "morally inferior" toddler (sidenote: how are they "morally inferior" if they aren't really moral agents in the first place?) and telling your toddler to go kill other toddlers. Even if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous either...

if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous

Notice what I said, if God's commands were issued from his nature, then these commands wouldn't be heinous.

This claim basically strips the phrase "God is good" of any content. On this view God could command us to rape babies for no reason and one could legitimately say the command isn't morally henious because God commanded it.

How so? I believe God just IS what Plato called 'the Good.' God's the very paradigm of good. His commands aren't issued capriciously, he has morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands.

God wouldn't command us to rape babies since it wouldn't reflect his nature, which is a non-baby-raping nature... where are you learning this stuff?

God, who gave life, is under no obligation whatever to sustain it. Furthermore it seems God just WAS acting in accordance with his nature: God didn't command the Hebrews to drive out the Canaanites until 400 years until (important) "their sin was ripe." That means there was not one morally decent human.


So, instead of sending a prophet to warn them of their impending doom and give them a chance to repent (see: Jonah) He instead waited for their sin to ripen and sent a bunch of people to kill them all/drive them out of the land they lived? What about the children?

The scriptures say the Israelites "drove them out," if they chose not to fight, all was good. Plus the speech in the Bible was illustrative of the speech that was common in that day whenever one tribe drives another tribe out, "all were slayed, etc" .. but no evidence shows that really actually happened. Plus these were all military establishments (archeology tells us that).

The children were sacrificed by the canaanites! Plus if you believe in child salvation like I do, then this isn't a problem. And surely in the ANE this was a salvation in it's own right! For you had no vindicating death on the cross, those kids would have grown up in a canaanite society-I woulnd't wish that upon anyone. Have you actually read Copan?

There's alot more on that topic, too much to clarify with a post, but I recommend picking up the philosopher's book "Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan.


I've read the book 3 cover to cover three times; I got it when it first came out. Thom Stark's "Is God A Moral Compromiser?" destroys most of Copan's claims. And I do mean destroy.

Thanks for the link, Copan's arguments are sound if the book gets an unbiased hearing.. I mean no disrespect but what you write lends evidence of either extreme bias or to the idea you didn't read it. So I'm suspect, this is the internet haha; but again no disrespect.

But I'll read that pdf, thanks again actually!
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:14:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 3:09:42 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:04:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

This is what i was getting at - the fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine and are using it as a manipulative tool.

Adopted using the historical method as a 'manipulative tool'?
Sounds a like a conspiracy theory... what makes you think so?

Yeah. I'll admit, it is somewhat of a conspiracy. But the thing is - They have highlighted a select few elements of Christianity to make it broad enough that nearly anyone that goes there can relate. The Pastor is VERY insistent that the church and the services have absolutely nothing to do with religion or Christianity! He says it is only about Jesus! If you believe in Jesus, you are saved. Every service is exactly the same, it's a very, very brainwashy method that doesn't even apply much of what the bible teaches. I've also witnessed gay bashing and buddhism bashing. One time the pastor very explicitly described meditation as a selfish act unless one was to meditate on the sole fact that Jesus is the savior. (i've been to a good number of services). I just feel that the pastor is monopolizing on people in the South, and he is making serious money. He drives a mercedes and makes frequent trips out of the country for 'missions'. He's also just put up the new "Children's Ministry" behind the church in my town, so that we can "Get them on the path of Jesus right away." I just feel that altogether it is a very disingenuous capital scandal.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:17:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:14:46 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:09:42 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:04:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

This is what i was getting at - the fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine and are using it as a manipulative tool.

Adopted using the historical method as a 'manipulative tool'?
Sounds a like a conspiracy theory... what makes you think so?

Yeah. I'll admit, it is somewhat of a conspiracy. But the thing is - They have highlighted a select few elements of Christianity to make it broad enough that nearly anyone that goes there can relate. The Pastor is VERY insistent that the church and the services have absolutely nothing to do with religion or Christianity! He says it is only about Jesus! If you believe in Jesus, you are saved. Every service is exactly the same, it's a very, very brainwashy method that doesn't even apply much of what the bible teaches. I've also witnessed gay bashing and buddhism bashing. One time the pastor very explicitly described meditation as a selfish act unless one was to meditate on the sole fact that Jesus is the savior. (i've been to a good number of services). I just feel that the pastor is monopolizing on people in the South, and he is making serious money. He drives a mercedes and makes frequent trips out of the country for 'missions'. He's also just put up the new "Children's Ministry" behind the church in my town, so that we can "Get them on the path of Jesus right away." I just feel that altogether it is a very disingenuous capital scandal.

Oh wow, yeah if that's right I'll have to agree with you there friend. There's nothing worse than turning Christianity into a profit... So sad it's always like that. Personally I'm highly skeptical of any new churches I go to for that reason.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:17:28 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 6:14:46 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:09:42 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:04:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 3:02:07 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 2:47:52 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if that's the case, so what? Every religion has somethng that distinguishes it from ither religions; that's how we tell them apart.

In this way, Christianity can be falsified. No other religion parallels historical science than Christianity.

This is what i was getting at - the fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine and are using it as a manipulative tool.

Adopted using the historical method as a 'manipulative tool'?
Sounds a like a conspiracy theory... what makes you think so?

Yeah. I'll admit, it is somewhat of a conspiracy. But the thing is - They have highlighted a select few elements of Christianity to make it broad enough that nearly anyone that goes there can relate. The Pastor is VERY insistent that the church and the services have absolutely nothing to do with religion or Christianity! He says it is only about Jesus! If you believe in Jesus, you are saved. Every service is exactly the same, it's a very, very brainwashy method that doesn't even apply much of what the bible teaches. I've also witnessed gay bashing and buddhism bashing. One time the pastor very explicitly described meditation as a selfish act unless one was to meditate on the sole fact that Jesus is the savior. (i've been to a good number of services). I just feel that the pastor is monopolizing on people in the South, and he is making serious money. He drives a mercedes and makes frequent trips out of the country for 'missions'. He's also just put up the new "Children's Ministry" behind the church in my town, so that we can "Get them on the path of Jesus right away." I just feel that altogether it is a very disingenuous capital scandal.

Oh wow, yeah if that's right I'll have to agree with you there friend. There's nothing worse than turning Christianity into a profit... So sad it's always like that. Personally I'm highly skeptical of any new churches I go to for that reason.

Another key point is that within the sanctuary there is not cross, there is no altar. Rather just a huge stage that the christian rock band opens the service with (for 30 mins!!!!) and a podium that the pastor conducts the service with. Usually the backdrop is blue and just says Jesus in very large font. There are huge monitors on each side of the stage, just like at a rock concert, where the pastor is in the spotlight for the entire service.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Another key point is that within the sanctuary there is not cross, there is no altar. Rather just a huge stage that the christian rock band opens the service with (for 30 mins!!!!) and a podium that the pastor conducts the service with. Usually the backdrop is blue and just says Jesus in very large font. There are huge monitors on each side of the stage, just like at a rock concert, where the pastor is in the spotlight for the entire service.

Yeah, see that's just sensationalizing the message I guess. Now Jesus is a WWE rock star.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:46:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 1:34:31 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
As far as I know, every other religion requires actions on the believers part in order to be saved. Christianity is the only one that puts a non-tangible/physical command at the center of one's salvation (faith).

I feel like since every other religion would agree that man's actions determine whether they reach heaven or not (what the actions are is not important) this is something that really sets Christianity apart.

Men are always held responsible for their actions, one way or another you will ultimately pay. For example the Bible teaches that during judgement you will be held accountable for all your actions and what you do in life will be read out for all to hear and see. Also, sinning will have repercussions in our own lifetime regardless of whether others know or not.

So, which is it, you are saved by faith and that not of works or you will ultimately pay for your sins?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:51:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:13:44 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 5:57:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/22/2012 5:47:13 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Note: You can't teach Kantian ethics to a morally inferior toddler. So likewise the God of the Bible had to have begun somewhere... who are we in a modern democracy to judge human past?

There's a big difference between not being able to teach Kantian ethics to a "morally inferior" toddler (sidenote: how are they "morally inferior" if they aren't really moral agents in the first place?) and telling your toddler to go kill other toddlers. Even if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous either...

if you can't get them to fully grasp the whole system of ethics you don't go tell them to do something morally heinous

Notice what I said, if God's commands were issued from his nature, then these commands wouldn't be heinous.

This claim basically strips the phrase "God is good" of any content. On this view God could command us to rape babies for no reason and one could legitimately say the command isn't morally henious because God commanded it.

How so? I believe God just IS what Plato called 'the Good.' God's the very paradigm of good. His commands aren't issued capriciously, he has morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands.

(1)God wouldn't command us to rape babies since it wouldn't reflect his nature, which is a non-baby-raping nature... where are you learning this stuff?

Sorry to barge into this conversation, but something just came up to me. If you take the Isaac and Abraham story literally, would you mind addressing this and letting me know if I messed up on one of the points?

P1. God wouldn't command us to rape babies because it's not a reflection of his nature.

C1. God wouldn't command people to perform moral actions which don't reflect God's nature.

-

P1. God's nature doesn't reflect evil.

P2. The Canaanites were performing evil when they practiced human sacrifice.

C2. Therefore, God's nature doesn't reflect human sacrifice.

-

P1. God commanded Abraham to perform human sacrifice.

C3. God commanded someone to perform a moral action that doesn't reflect God's nature.

-

I apologize that I don't actually know how to format the above, but hopefully it'll be readable. Anyhow, C1 and C3 at least seem to be in direct contradiction.

The only way I can see to get around this would be to say that it wasn't the fact that it was human sacrifice per se, but that it was child sacrifice... or to say that it wasn't the fact that it was human sacrifice, but that it was to the wrong god. I find this kind of lacking though, since defenders of the Canaanite genocide often seem to use the Canaanite sacrifice thing almost as an ethical-sensitivity "redemption" card- displaying disgust at something so terrible in a sort of life-valuing mood at that. If it's true that it's not really the fact that it's involuntary human sacrifice, but that it's to the wrong god or whatever, then I think this needs to be established early on, as it seriously undercuts the force of the redemption card.


God, who gave life, is under no obligation whatever to sustain it. Furthermore it seems God just WAS acting in accordance with his nature: God didn't command the Hebrews to drive out the Canaanites until 400 years until (important) "their sin was ripe." That means there was not one morally decent human.


So, instead of sending a prophet to warn them of their impending doom and give them a chance to repent (see: Jonah) He instead waited for their sin to ripen and sent a bunch of people to kill them all/drive them out of the land they lived? What about the children?

The scriptures say the Israelites "drove them out," if they chose not to fight, all was good. Plus the speech in the Bible was illustrative of the speech that was common in that day whenever one tribe drives another tribe out, "all were slayed, etc" .. but no evidence shows that really actually happened. Plus these were all military establishments (archeology tells us that).

(2) The children were sacrificed by the canaanites! Plus if you believe in child salvation like I do, then this isn't a problem. And surely in the ANE this was a salvation in it's own right! For you had no vindicating death on the cross, those kids would have grown up in a canaanite society-I woulnd't wish that upon anyone. Have you actually read Copan?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:13:44 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:


How so? I believe God just IS what Plato called 'the Good.' God's the very paradigm of good. His commands aren't issued capriciously, he has morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands.

God wouldn't command us to rape babies since it wouldn't reflect his nature, which is a non-baby-raping nature... where are you learning this stuff?

What determines God's nature? I am not convinced that one can effectively marry Plato's conception with a personal entity.


So, instead of sending a prophet to warn them of their impending doom and give them a chance to repent (see: Jonah) He instead waited for their sin to ripen and sent a bunch of people to kill them all/drive them out of the land they lived? What about the children?

The scriptures say the Israelites "drove them out," if they chose not to fight, all was good. Plus the speech in the Bible was illustrative of the speech that was common in that day whenever one tribe drives another tribe out, "all were slayed, etc" .. but no evidence shows that really actually happened. Plus these were all military establishments (archeology tells us that).

It's been a while since I read the relevant passages, but I could swear that at one point the Bible states that God himself was hurling rocks at the people retreating.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 8:00:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:13:44 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

How so? I believe God just IS what Plato called 'the Good.' God's the very paradigm of good. His commands aren't issued capriciously, he has morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands.

God wouldn't command us to rape babies since it wouldn't reflect his nature, which is a non-baby-raping nature... where are you learning this stuff?


So, why shouldn't I take a further step and say that God wouldn't command the ancient Israelites to commit genocide (which is what the bible depicts God as doing) because of his non-genocide-ordering nature? Genocide is a morally henious, evil act. Therefore, a perfectly good God would not order anyone to commit genocide. What's wrong with that argument? The problem with your position is that you are saying that God is "The Good" but yet, at the same time, you also want to say that ordering genocide (a great moral evil) is compatible with his nature. IF that's the case, why not baby-rape?


The scriptures say the Israelites "drove them out," if they chose not to fight, all was good.

You speak as if being forcibly removed from the land you live on is just a mild inconvenience. Would you choose not to fight if a bunch of people showed up on your border with the express intent of "leaving alive nothing that breathes"?

Plus the speech in the Bible was illustrative of the speech that was common in that day whenever one tribe drives another tribe out, "all were slayed, etc" .. but no evidence shows that really actually happened.

Stark deals very ably with this argument.

Plus these were all military establishments (archeology tells us that).


Stark deals very ably with this argument.

The children were sacrificed by the canaanites!

The Israelites also accepted the practice of child sacrifice. Read any number of biblical scholars on this subject like Susan Niditch. This is a consensus position. Anyways, how does this logic make any sense? "We're going to show you how wrong your practice of child sacrifice is by killing your children ourselves".

Plus if you believe in child salvation like I do, then this isn't a problem.

Interesting. So I guess you thought it was okay for Andrea Yates to drown her children, right? After all, she was doing it to save her children from the fires of hell....

And surely in the ANE this was a salvation in it's own right! For you had no vindicating death on the cross, those kids would have grown up in a canaanite society-I woulnd't wish that upon anyone. Have you actually read Copan?


Yes, I have. I've been into this subject seriously for 2 years. I've read a lot of literature on this subject by theologians, philosophers, and biblical scholars. I was reading about that whole controversy in philosophia christi (about biblical genocide) when it was happening in 2009 (with william lane craig, paul copan, randal rauser and wes morriston). I've even read all of his articles on the subject.

Why couldn't the Israelites just take in the Canaanite children and raise them to be good, upstanding Yahweh worshippers? Instead of killing them, that is.

Personally, I wouldn't wish genocide upon anyone or a group of anyones.

I've read the book 3 cover to cover three times; I got it when it first came out. Thom Stark's "Is God A Moral Compromiser?" destroys most of Copan's claims. And I do mean destroy.

Thanks for the link, Copan's arguments are sound if the book gets an unbiased hearing..

For one, when I first read the book I was somewhat convinced by his arguments (which, btw, his arguments wrt to Canaanite are just an extension of Nicholas Wolterstorff's; Matthew Flannagan builds off of Wolterstorff) until I decided to do a bit more digging. So the thought that I didn't give it an "unbiased" hearing is ridiculous (besides the fact that there is no such thing as an "unbiased reading", that is). In fact, I was biased in FAVOR of his explanations as I really wanted to find a way to render this issue morally defensible. It isn't.

They are nothing close to sound, btw. What criticism did you read of his arguments before you determined that they are sound?

I mean no disrespect but what you write lends evidence of either extreme bias or to :the idea you didn't read it. So I'm suspect, this is the internet haha; but again no :disrespect.


You could say I have an extreme bias against weak moral justifications for genocide, sure.

But I'll read that pdf, thanks again actually!

I really recommend that you do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!