Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SovDream's and YYW's Religious Chat Thread

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:59:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 3:56:29 PM, YYW wrote:
So... we don't have to post on profiles.

Lol ok. So I guess I'm just curious how you you reconcile your Christian faith with views that are patently non-Christian, e.g. support for abortion, same-sex "marriage," and so forth. It it an individual thing or is it more the product of a liberal Christianity in which you were raised?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, besides the fact that you list that you are a Christian in your profile, I would have never guessed that you were one based on our interactions. It seems to me as if you are perhaps privately committed to theism yet functionally atheistic, if that means anything. Also, what arguments, then, if any, do you find convincing for showing theism to be true? Don't tell me that you're not only a Presbyterian but also a fideist.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:23:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 3:59:31 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/19/2014 3:56:29 PM, YYW wrote:
So... we don't have to post on profiles.

Lol ok. So I guess I'm just curious how you you reconcile your Christian faith with views that are patently non-Christian, e.g. support for abortion, same-sex "marriage," and so forth. It it an individual thing or is it more the product of a liberal Christianity in which you were raised?

Oh, wow. Lots of things to break down there...

"patently non-Christian" is a pretty bold way of stating that, when what you mean is that my views are doctrinally inconsistent with yours.

On abortion: I've actually never said I support abortion. I'm pro-choice, that doesn't mean that I'm pro-abortion.

On gay marriage: how we conceive marriage, today, is as much the product of our milieu, cultural norms and the like. It's changed over time, and so in ways that the bible expressly forbids. Remarriage, marriage outside of one's race, marriage of someone not a virgin, etc. all are literally precluded throughout scripture -and yet that goes on.

So, the idea that only heterosexual marriages are biblically sanctioned doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that what the bible actually requires for a marriage is vastly more than only being between one man and one woman -and we've moved beyond most of them, and that's ok. The role that marriage plays in society now is vastly different than it once did, and ignoring that change is to turn one's back on that progression. But, my point is that from a theological perspective, there is nothing more wrong with two men or two women marrying than a white man and an asian woman or one man and one woman where one of them were not virgins. Let's not forget that old and new testament prohibition on divorce... and yet that happens 'all' the time.

But, consider it from this perspective... marriage is a sacrament (at least in Catholicism), and the value of it cannot be overstated. I'm not going to re-tell you stuff I sort of expect you to already know, but consider the possibility for a gay man and a straight woman or a lesbian and a straight man getting hitched. How could they ever be truly devoted and committed to one another in the way that the bible proscribes? They couldn't. The kind of commitment that is Biblically required goes beyond just producing and raising kids: it's devotion, love, care, honoring and above all commitment. If one partner is not romantically attracted to the other, the strength of that commitment will be meaningless.

I was born into the Presbyterian church, to very conservative parents and in a very conservative environment. Theologically, (while I don't personally like the idea of interpreting scripture through ideology), I'm really more 'middle of the road' than 'liberal' or 'conservative'. While I've got pretty progressive views (both political and doctrinal) on marriage equality, I'm also pretty conservative when it comes to other things. But, let's talk about politics and religion for a bit...

The reason that church membership is falling off en masse, that more and more young adults (18-35 year olds) are not only skeptical of organized religion but are more frequently outrightly hostile to religion is because of ideologically dogmatic zealots having their day in America's pulpits. I'm not saying that the church has to be apolitical, but I am saying that if the Church and its members were more visibly committed to charitable work, to community involvement and to service of the poor and less focused on pronouncing judgement on gays, lesbians, those who defend women's rights, and the like, the church's legitimacy would be less in perilous jeopardy than it is now. On an individual level, when you tell me that my views are not in keeping with what you think Christian dogma actually dictates, you're not only not helping yourself, you're creating/reinforcing a perception of Christians that drives people away from the church.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:34:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:09:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Also, besides the fact that you list that you are a Christian in your profile, I would have never guessed that you were one based on our interactions.

That doesn't surprise me, because you only believe that those who agree with your precariously-close-to-fundamentalist beliefs could be Christians. It's ok that you think the way that you do. It's not ok that you think that you are so sure you're right that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

It seems to me as if you are perhaps privately committed to theism yet functionally atheistic, if that means anything.

I am not an atheist, but dogmatic apologist and I don't get along well.

Also, what arguments, then, if any, do you find convincing for showing theism to be true? Don't tell me that you're not only a Presbyterian but also a fideist.

Theism doesn't have to be true. It also doesn't have to be false. To say that "I believe in God" is to state that I believe only on the basis of faith in a power higher than myself and supreme to all others in the absence of scientific evidence to confirm that God exists. To believe in God, even if we interpret events in our lives as 'proof' of God's existence is to do so on a prior act of faith because there is nothing in this world that necessarily proves God exists -and that's ok. God does not require proof; only faith, where "faith" means only belief in that for which there is no proof.

There is nothing more disheartening than when I see figures like William Lane Craig write books and give seminars where what he preaches is literally nothing less than normative conclusions drawn from invariably non sequitur logic. What WLC, and all other apologists like him, does is sell false hope: he attempts to rationalize belief in God, which cannot be done -and he reinforces the notions that (1) faith must be reasonable, (2) God's existence is provable and by implication, (3) only that which is rational deserves to be considered in our time and age. These are all institutionally deleterious to faith as a concept because, faith cannot be reasonable where to be reasonable requires belief only in that which can be grounded, God's existence cannot be scientifically proven -or disproven- and that's ok, and religion both can not and does not need to conform to human standards of intelligibility.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 8:50:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 8:34:43 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
This is pretty interesting.

(that isn't sarcasm; stupid internet makes everything sound sarcastic)

I'm glad you like it!
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?
Tsar of DDO
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:02:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
being that there are 30,000 interpretations of the word christian, christians fail to see that what they are representing is a theology of convenience, which i personally find lame...so much for absolute truths or morality...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:02:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
being that there are 30,000 interpretations of the word christian, christians fail to see that what they are representing is a theology of convenience, which i personally find lame...so much for absolute truths or morality...

There may very well be absolute moral truth, but knowing it is an impossible thing to do.
Tsar of DDO
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:16:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:09:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:02:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
being that there are 30,000 interpretations of the word christian, christians fail to see that what they are representing is a theology of convenience, which i personally find lame...so much for absolute truths or morality...

There may very well be absolute moral truth, but knowing it is an impossible thing to do.
unlike the absolute truth of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of motion....
seems rather trivial to me.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?

I've known a lot of Irish Catholics, and I would have never pictured you coming from that kind of an environment, but that's fine... I doubt most people would imagine me coming from the environment that I did.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:24:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?

I've known a lot of Irish Catholics, and I would have never pictured you coming from that kind of an environment, but that's fine... I doubt most people would imagine me coming from the environment that I did.

Circus folk? I always imagine circus folk.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 9:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:36:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:24:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?

I've known a lot of Irish Catholics, and I would have never pictured you coming from that kind of an environment, but that's fine... I doubt most people would imagine me coming from the environment that I did.

Circus folk? I always imagine circus folk.

I just imagine blue collar guys shooting pool and drinking on a friday or saturday night... and the Kennedy's.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 9:40:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:36:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:24:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?

I've known a lot of Irish Catholics, and I would have never pictured you coming from that kind of an environment, but that's fine... I doubt most people would imagine me coming from the environment that I did.

Circus folk? I always imagine circus folk.

I just imagine blue collar guys shooting pool and drinking on a friday or saturday night... and the Kennedy's.

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:52:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 10:43:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:40:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:36:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:24:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:19:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:08:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 9:03:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:51:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 8:45:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I can be critical of many arguments, particularly of a theological nature, but I can respect YYW's.

I still don't "get" it, in the sense that I do not (which is surely an error on my part) understand the subjective value of the faith that he espouses, yet I cannot fault his statements regarding it--they are of a normative/preferential nature, and as such beyond straight argumentation.

That's I guess as good as I could hope for. To satisfy my curiosity, though, were your parents religious?

Eh. Irish Catholic. More guilt, less filling.

In our old town, the local priest was of the "I can't believe you let that harlot wife of yours work outside the house" sort, so we didn't go to church much, though I did spend a brief time as an altar server.

When we moved, while I was still under their roof, we started going...religiously... to the local Cat'lick church (whose priest is a man I rather respect, actually). I was a lectern for awhile--got good reviews, ifidosaysomyself.

After some indiscretions on my mother's part they've become all super into church AFAIK, though I've been out of the house long enough it's largely irrelevant. Never anything heavy duty.

Interesting. That actually kind of surprises me, but hey... we come from what we come from.

In what way?

I've known a lot of Irish Catholics, and I would have never pictured you coming from that kind of an environment, but that's fine... I doubt most people would imagine me coming from the environment that I did.

Circus folk? I always imagine circus folk.

I just imagine blue collar guys shooting pool and drinking on a friday or saturday night... and the Kennedy's.

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...

haha do I come off as that crazy?
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:59:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 10:52:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...

haha do I come off as that crazy?

Naw, entertaining and cagey!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 11:02:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 10:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:52:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...

haha do I come off as that crazy?

Naw, entertaining and cagey!

http://www.troll.me...
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 11:37:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 11:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:52:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...

haha do I come off as that crazy?

Naw, entertaining and cagey!

http://www.troll.me...

Hey, it's not like I called you a carny...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 11:42:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 11:37:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 11:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:52:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Lol, well, that's pretty much exactly right for my family. But the circus folk thing was about you...

haha do I come off as that crazy?

Naw, entertaining and cagey!

http://www.troll.me...

Hey, it's not like I called you a carny...

lol
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 11:42:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:23:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/19/2014 3:59:31 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/19/2014 3:56:29 PM, YYW wrote:
So... we don't have to post on profiles.

Lol ok. So I guess I'm just curious how you you reconcile your Christian faith with views that are patently non-Christian, e.g. support for abortion, same-sex "marriage," and so forth. It it an individual thing or is it more the product of a liberal Christianity in which you were raised?

Oh, wow. Lots of things to break down there...

"patently non-Christian" is a pretty bold way of stating that, when what you mean is that my views are doctrinally inconsistent with yours.

On abortion: I've actually never said I support abortion. I'm pro-choice, that doesn't mean that I'm pro-abortion.

On gay marriage: how we conceive marriage, today, is as much the product of our milieu, cultural norms and the like. It's changed over time, and so in ways that the bible expressly forbids. Remarriage, marriage outside of one's race, marriage of someone not a virgin, etc. all are literally precluded throughout scripture -and yet that goes on.

So, the idea that only heterosexual marriages are biblically sanctioned doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that what the bible actually requires for a marriage is vastly more than only being between one man and one woman -and we've moved beyond most of them, and that's ok. The role that marriage plays in society now is vastly different than it once did, and ignoring that change is to turn one's back on that progression. But, my point is that from a theological perspective, there is nothing more wrong with two men or two women marrying than a white man and an asian woman or one man and one woman where one of them were not virgins. Let's not forget that old and new testament prohibition on divorce... and yet that happens 'all' the time.

But, consider it from this perspective... marriage is a sacrament (at least in Catholicism), and the value of it cannot be overstated. I'm not going to re-tell you stuff I sort of expect you to already know, but consider the possibility for a gay man and a straight woman or a lesbian and a straight man getting hitched. How could they ever be truly devoted and committed to one another in the way that the bible proscribes? They couldn't. The kind of commitment that is Biblically required goes beyond just producing and raising kids: it's devotion, love, care, honoring and above all commitment. If one partner is not romantically attracted to the other, the strength of that commitment will be meaningless.

I was born into the Presbyterian church, to very conservative parents and in a very conservative environment. Theologically, (while I don't personally like the idea of interpreting scripture through ideology), I'm really more 'middle of the road' than 'liberal' or 'conservative'. While I've got pretty progressive views (both political and doctrinal) on marriage equality, I'm also pretty conservative when it comes to other things. But, let's talk about politics and religion for a bit...

The reason that church membership is falling off en masse, that more and more young adults (18-35 year olds) are not only skeptical of organized religion but are more frequently outrightly hostile to religion is because of ideologically dogmatic zealots having their day in America's pulpits. I'm not saying that the church has to be apolitical, but I am saying that if the Church and its members were more visibly committed to charitable work, to community involvement and to service of the poor and less focused on pronouncing judgement on gays, lesbians, those who defend women's rights, and the like, the church's legitimacy would be less in perilous jeopardy than it is now. On an individual level, when you tell me that my views are not in keeping with what you think Christian dogma actually dictates, you're not only not helping yourself, you're creating/reinforcing a perception of Christians that drives people away from the church.

I found this the most interesting part. Especially the "patently non-Christian" bit.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:51:38 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Just to do a small FYI here, I do mean to respond. I just find myself a little busy atm. Here's a video of an Audi S8 for you to peruse in the meantime:

https://www.youtube.com...

Audi's are nice, but I'll be waiting on that response....
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 8:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:23:46 PM, YYW wrote:
Oh, wow. Lots of things to break down there...

"patently non-Christian" is a pretty bold way of stating that, when what you mean is that my views are doctrinally inconsistent with yours.

Well, it's certainly not orthodox.


On abortion: I've actually never said I support abortion. I'm pro-choice, that doesn't mean that I'm pro-abortion.

Right. I didn't mean to imply that you throw a party every time an abortion occurs. I simply meant that you support its continued legality. I can't help but wonder why, though, considering that the Christian tradition has, for thousands of years, affirmed realism of some sort about abstract objects and natures or essences, and that a fetus, by virtue of its being a human being, has natural rights (e.g. the right to life) that are grounded in its being a human being. Are you a nominalist as well? Even without mentioning any sort of talk about realism and high-falutin' philosophical theories, abortion is roundly denied by almost all Christian denominations.

On gay marriage: how we conceive marriage, today, is as much the product of our milieu, cultural norms and the like. It's changed over time, and so in ways that the bible expressly forbids. Remarriage, marriage outside of one's race, marriage of someone not a virgin, etc. all are literally precluded throughout scripture -and yet that goes on.

Marriage between members of different races is not prohibited by scripture. At any rate, that marriage is inherently heterosexual is affirmed countless times throughout the Bible, especially in analogies with God the father, the Church as "wife" and so forth. Not just in the OT, mind you. You'd have to do some serious and probably heretical jumping-through-hoops to be able to say that the Bible somehow "accepts" sexual relationships of the same-sex, much less their subsidizing via government recognition. Also, regarding remarriage, divorce, infidelity, promiscuity and so forth, isn't it obvious that Orthodox Christianity has been right all along in affirming that these things are not only immoral and contrary to the good of the agent that participates in them, but also socially destructive? Ever since the sexual revolution (and probably prior), divorce rates and rates of pregnancy outside of marriage have skyrocketed, resulting in the countless pathologies in children who have endured such difficulties today. That divorce, remarriage, infidelity and promiscuity are socially harmful, especially to children, is not only obviously evident, but also indicated by the thousands of studies performed on the topic of divorce. Is it really such a terrible universe one in which a man marries a woman and has sexual relations only with her, ensuring that they take the best course of action to secure the well-being of their children, in whom they both have a shared interest?

So, the idea that only heterosexual marriages are biblically sanctioned doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that what the bible actually requires for a marriage is vastly more than only being between one man and one woman -and we've moved beyond most of them, and that's ok.

As I said above, I hardly think that this is "ok." Just take a pedestrian look at the rate of pregnancies outside of marriage, divorce, and the stories of children who have had to endure divorce to see otherwise.

The role that marriage plays in society now is vastly different than it once did, and ignoring that change is to turn one's back on that progression. But, my point is that from a theological perspective, there is nothing more wrong with two men or two women marrying than a white man and an asian woman or one man and one woman where one of them were not virgins.

But of course there is. One might be an imprudent marriage whereas the other is not a "marriage" at all (i.e. two men or two women "marrying").

Let's not forget that old and new testament prohibition on divorce... and yet that happens 'all' the time.

Right, and it shouldn't happen, especially not frequently.

But, consider it from this perspective... marriage is a sacrament (at least in Catholicism), and the value of it cannot be overstated. I'm not going to re-tell you stuff I sort of expect you to already know, but consider the possibility for a gay man and a straight woman or a lesbian and a straight man getting hitched. How could they ever be truly devoted and committed to one another in the way that the bible proscribes?

Perhaps some homosexuals could find a way to marry a member of the opposite sex as a matter of justice to any children they may beget, knowing that whatever sexual inconveniences they might endure would be worthless next to the good of participating in the procreative coital act, perhaps others could not. The not-so-harsh truth is that homosexuals might best be suited to live a chaste life in the same way that a pedophile would be morally obligated to live a chaste life (or at least to not act on his desires).

They couldn't. The kind of commitment that is Biblically required goes beyond just producing and raising kids: it's devotion, love, care, honoring and above all commitment. If one partner is not romantically attracted to the other, the strength of that commitment will be meaningless.

Do you mean sexually attracted to one another? I think it is possible for a homosexual to be romantically attracted to someone of the opposite sex yet not be sexually attracted to them. At any rate, what would be the solution? They can't be sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex, ergo they should be able to "marry" someone of the opposite sex and live a life of sexual indulgence and sin?

I was born into the Presbyterian church, to very conservative parents and in a very conservative environment. Theologically, (while I don't personally like the idea of interpreting scripture through ideology), I'm really more 'middle of the road' than 'liberal' or 'conservative'. While I've got pretty progressive views (both political and doctrinal) on marriage equality, I'm also pretty conservative when it comes to other things. But, let's talk about politics and religion for a bit...

The reason that church membership is falling off en masse, that more and more young adults (18-35 year olds) are not only skeptical of organized religion but are more frequently outrightly hostile to religion is because of ideologically dogmatic zealots having their day in America's pulpits. I'm not saying that the church has to be apolitical, but I am saying that if the Church and its members were more visibly committed to charitable work, to community involvement and to service of the poor and less focused on pronouncing judgement on gays, lesbians, those who defend women's rights, and the like, the church's legitimacy would be less in perilous jeopardy than it is now. On an individual level, when you tell me that my views are not in keeping with what you think Christian dogma actually dictates, you're not only not helping yourself, you're creating/reinforcing a perception of Christians that drives people away from the church.

I assure you that the Church doesn't delight in talking about such "delightful" topics as homosexuality and abortion. It is the left that keeps harping on about such matters and the Church merely declares what common reason reveals: that there is no such thing as a same-sex "marriage," that women and men are different, and that to kill an unborn child is morally despicable. If young libertines looking for any reason to justify their debauchery and promiscuity don't like the idea of there being moral obligations that obtain on their sexual behavior, then so much worse for them. The Church isn't going to betray common sense and the Good just to please a bunch of asinine libertines and their heinous and socially destructive immoralities.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 9:08:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:34:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:09:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Also, besides the fact that you list that you are a Christian in your profile, I would have never guessed that you were one based on our interactions.

That doesn't surprise me, because you only believe that those who agree with your precariously-close-to-fundamentalist beliefs could be Christians. It's ok that you think the way that you do. It's not ok that you think that you are so sure you're right that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

Or maybe I just think I'm right and I have good reasons to think that I am.

It seems to me as if you are perhaps privately committed to theism yet functionally atheistic, if that means anything.

I am not an atheist, but dogmatic apologist and I don't get along well.

Not sure what you mean by dogmatic apologist.

Also, what arguments, then, if any, do you find convincing for showing theism to be true? Don't tell me that you're not only a Presbyterian but also a fideist.

Theism doesn't have to be true. It also doesn't have to be false.

Not sure what you mean.

To say that "I believe in God" is to state that I believe only on the basis of faith in a power higher than myself and supreme to all others in the absence of scientific evidence to confirm that God exists.

This is problematic. You're beginning to sound like a new atheist espousing scientism. There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" that confirms God exists because empirical evidence of any sort is going to be material and thus observable. God, however, isn't material and so it is simply a category error to think that His existence is susceptible to an empirical endeavor. God, contrary to the asinine strawman that Dawkins, Hitchens and their loyal but boneheaded followers constantly throw around, is not some "bearded man in the sky." It is not possible to give a spatio-temporal location of God. If you get into a spaceship and traverse every inch of space, you won't "run into" God. This is like asking: what is the length of the smell of cider? Or: How much does the color red weigh? If you were to further insist that, if a question is not susceptible to empirical endeavor, it is then meaningless, you'd simply be embracing scientism wholesale and thus committing yourself to an self-defeating epistemology.

To believe in God, even if we interpret events in our lives as 'proof' of God's existence is to do so on a prior act of faith because there is nothing in this world that necessarily proves God exists -and that's ok. God does not require proof; only faith, where "faith" means only belief in that for which there is no proof

Except that faith does not mean that at all. Faith simply means trust on the basis of already existing evidence. This is again another strawman that all internet new atheists seem to constantly throw around. Faith does not mean "like, believing in something without any, like, evidence for it." That might be more closely described by the term "blind faith" but neither the Bible nor any Christian theologian or philosopher I know of argues that we ought to have "blind faith" in God or indeed anything. Save, of course, for fideists, which I find myself happily distanced from.

There is nothing more disheartening than when I see figures like William Lane Craig write books and give seminars where what he preaches is literally nothing less than normative conclusions drawn from invariably non sequitur logic.

Are you saying that WLC's arguments are deductively invalid? I've taken a couple of courses on formal logic. Take my word for it: they are all (excluding those which are inductive, of course) deductively valid.

What WLC, and all other apologists like him, does is sell false hope: he attempts to rationalize belief in God, which cannot be done

Why can't one give good reasons to think that God exists? I think that claim is patently false. This sounds terribly fideistic.

-and he reinforces the notions that (1) faith must be reasonable, (2) God's existence is provable and by implication, (3) only that which is rational deserves to be considered in our time and age. These are all institutionally deleterious to faith as a concept because, faith cannot be reasonable where to be reasonable requires belief only in that which can be grounded, God's existence cannot be scientifically proven -or disproven- and that's ok, and religion both can not and does not need to conform to human standards of intelligibility.

Again, the only deleterious idea here is this scientism that you seem to be espousing. Of course the whole enterprise of religion and theism would be jeopardized if scientism were true. But scientism is not just false; it is self-defeating! And, again, it is a gross category error to ask for "scientific evidence" for God. That would be like asking for "scientific evidence" that 3+5 is 8, or that the law of non-contradiction is true.

And lest you think that that one cannot provide good philosophical arguments for the existence of God, consider not just Craig, Plantinga, Van Inwagen and so forth, but, more importantly, in my book, Aquinas, Edward Feser, Avicenna, and those of the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition generally.