Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

A Most Foolish Action Selected By Christians.

Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Rather than tacking this as a reply onto an existing OP which declares the wholesale existence of God with all of the associated prattle, it will be a more serviceable format to have a seperate thread.

Whether or not you hold to the existence of "God"/"The Creator"/a Sentient Designer/a Paranormal Source Force for the Cosmos is not the issue here. The issue here is to identify and characterize the foolish practice of those, often called "Christians," who having supposedly ascertained the existence of God then make the odd presumption they then are knowledgeable, even are expert, about Him. They presume to say because they are certain of His existense they then automatically are able to fathom Him and His record of self disclosure. This is most foolish for them to do, especially as they are apparently unaware they are making such an assumption.

Their assumption to have exceptional comprehension of God is carried out by claiming to "Know God," or to "Know Christ" who would be the incarnation of God for the purpose of God revealing Himself. But, their knowledge of God and Christ has by it's own definition a severe limitation. Such God believers freely admit The Canonized Bible is the authorative record of God's revealed Word for Mankind on Earth. Therefore, they can know nothing more about God and Son Christ than what is found in Sctipture. They only can know about God and Christ, and can in no manner actually know Them. They can know nothing more about Them than what is disclosed by God in The Bible.

Yet, multitudes of Christians claim to "Know God," and to "Know Christ." This as well is supposedly accomplished by having "Jesus Live In Their Hearts." But, they cannot give any evidence He does. No place in The Bible has Christ stating anyone is to "Invite Him Into Their Heart." No place in Scripture has anyone possessing a transforming Belief in Jesus validated apart from duplicating the Works of Jesus. See John 14:12.

So, what we have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 11:47:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
Rather than tacking this as a reply onto an existing OP which declares the wholesale existence of God with all of the associated prattle, it will be a more serviceable format to have a seperate thread.

Whether or not you hold to the existence of "God"/"The Creator"/a Sentient Designer/a Paranormal Source Force for the Cosmos is not the issue here. The issue here is to identify and characterize the foolish practice of those, often called "Christians," who having supposedly ascertained the existence of God then make the odd presumption they then are knowledgeable, even are expert, about Him. They presume to say because they are certain of His existense they then automatically are able to fathom Him and His record of self disclosure. This is most foolish for them to do, especially as they are apparently unaware they are making such an assumption.

Their assumption to have exceptional comprehension of God is carried out by claiming to "Know God," or to "Know Christ" who would be the incarnation of God for the purpose of God revealing Himself. But, their knowledge of God and Christ has by it's own definition a severe limitation. Such God believers freely admit The Canonized Bible is the authorative record of God's revealed Word for Mankind on Earth. Therefore, they can know nothing more about God and Son Christ than what is found in Sctipture. They only can know about God and Christ, and can in no manner actually know Them. They can know nothing more about Them than what is disclosed by God in The Bible.

Yet, multitudes of Christians claim to "Know God," and to "Know Christ." This as well is supposedly accomplished by having "Jesus Live In Their Hearts." But, they cannot give any evidence He does. No place in The Bible has Christ stating anyone is to "Invite Him Into Their Heart." No place in Scripture has anyone possessing a transforming Belief in Jesus validated apart from duplicating the Works of Jesus. See John 14:12.

So, what we have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.

I am presuming that you, the 26 year old young fellow is a non-believer, whether you are agnostic or atheist, I am yet to discover. Let me just pick you up on a few points: You have stated that, God believers freely admit The Canonized Bible is the authorative record of God's revealed Word for Mankind on Earth.

The bible of the universal church of Emperor Constantine, which was founded in the fourth century BC, was a collection of the Jewish cannon, and a limited selection of already existing letters of the disciples and others, such as Mark the son of Peter, and Luke, who compiled his gospel from the writings of others who had either known Jesus, or were familiar with the stories of his life.

Both the Jewish religion and the universal church of Constantine have rejected the writings of righteous Enoch, from whose words, Jesus and his disciples quoted, and from which books, Jude, the half brother to Jesus quotes verbatim.

Those books were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century, when, after being banned and burned by such dogmatic authorities of the church of Constantine, as Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought to be lost for millennia.

Both the Jewish church and the church of Constantine, have rejected the writings of Enoch the righteous, who is the only man recorded in scripture to have been carried to the throne of the MOST HIGH and anointed as his successor, where he was translated from a corruptible body of matter into a glorious body of brilliant and blinding light..

In the Jewish Torah it is written Genesis 5: 23; Enoch was 365 and had spent his life in fellowship with God when he disappeared because God had Taken him.

In the limited canon of the church of Constantine it is written: Hebrews 11: 5; "By faith Enoch was Translated (To change from one form to another) so that he should not experience death; and he was not found, because God had Translated him.

Enoch, who, in the Holy Scriptures that have been rejected by both the Jews and the so called Christians, is said to have been the chosen cornerstone to which all the spirits of the righteous were gathered in his ascension to the ends of time where he was seen as the Great and glorious simulacrum, who is the sacrificial offering that God has prepared for us.

Now the stone that the builders of the Jewish church and the church of Constantine have rejected has turns out to be the most important stone of all.

"The Book of the Secrets of Enoch" 22: 8; "And I fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with his lips said to me: "Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before my face into eternity."

And the archistratiege Michael lifted me up, and led me before the Lord"s face.

And the Most High, (who held the ransom blood of righteous Abel that could save but one man) said to the glorious creatures that surrounded him, tempting them: "Let Enoch stand before my face into eternity," and the glorious creatures bowed down to the Lord, and said: "Let Enoch go [Or be released] according to Thy word." Enoch, was the first to be released.

The Great and glorious simulacrum which is the sacrifice that God has prepared for us, and of which Enoch was the chosen cornerstone, dies in the process of involution, to be the saviour of we in evolution, This he does by releasing all the righteous spirits that are He, from the least to the greatest, and Enoch was the first, but as the Lord said through his servant Jesus, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first."

And the Lord said to Michael: "Go take Enoch from out his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of my glory." [Enoch, the one who was anointed as the successor to the Godhead: CHRIST=The anointed one]

And Michael did thus as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and his ointment is like sweet dew, and its smell mild, shining like the sun"s rays, and I looked at myself, and was like one of his glorious ones.

365, is the number of days in a calendar year. The Lamb of God who takes on the sins of the world is to be a one year old unblemished Lamb. Enoch is the unblemished Lamb of God.

Sandalphon is an archangel in Jewish and Christian writings. Sandalphon figures prominently in the mystical literary traditions of Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, notably in the Midrash, Talmud, and Kabbalah.

Some of the earliest sources on Sandalphon refer to him as the prophet Elijah transfigured and elevated to angelic status. Other sources (mainly from the midrashic period) describe him as the "twin brother" or duplication of Metatron, whose human origin as Enoch was similar to the human origin of Sandalphon.

Sandalphron and Metatron are post human angels, Metatron is the name that was given to Enoch after he had been translated from a body of corruptible matter into a glorious body of incorruptible light, and Sandalphron, who is erroneously thought by some to be Metatron's twin, is in fact Elijahs angelic name after he was carried up to stand before Enoch and was also transfigured.

Metatron is also mentioned in the Pseudepigrapha, most prominently in the Hebrew Book of Enoch (also called Third Enoch), in which his grand title, "the lesser YHVH" resurfaces. It is also believed that this was the JHWH, the chosen heir of the greater JHWH who led the Israelites through the wilderness.

Just thought you should know the truth.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred. It was a context in which most of the world was inhabited by polytheists, for whom the universe was directed by amoral gods warring and vying with one another. Because their gods were at war, competing cultures naturally plundered, enslaved and exterminated one another, and vice-versa.

Come monotheism (perhaps introduced by Zoroastrians, and subsequently taken up by the Israelites), and there is envisioned a morally-ordered universe in which there is now conceived a universal frame for good, better and best behaviour, and some notion that this frame might one day be enforced over everyone, eschatalogically.

By itself, that didn't provide recognition for decency toward all men. The Israelites and later the Jews were xenophobic, insular, and frequently cruel, and the Zoroastrians were little better. However, the rise of Hellenicised Judaism (slightly before Christianity) began to recognise the universality of good will and decency among civilised peoples. By the time Christianity emerged, that notion had been extended -- with Judaic tribal offence become personal sin, and tribal forgiveness become personal salvation, but all men being ultimately equal in a universally-applicable moral frame.

All that was done without much of a clue about empiricism. It was done hypocritically, ignorantly, and often cruelly. But over time it paved the way for the Enlightenment, and a form of moral thought that can be embraced by anyone of compassion, reason and good will, regardless of faith.

Although the idea of inspiration by revelation still remains current, the notion of knowledge through revelation is no longer defensible, and you correctly identify that in your exposition, Stegley. Christian dogma has been superseded philosophically, intellectually and scientifically, and some Christians are having a hard time accepting that. However, the best (i.e. least dogmatic, neurotic and controlling) elements of Christian moral thought still offer inspiration to many, although Christianity is not the only faith successfully inspiring people to act rationally and compassionately at times. So however legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.

This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.

I hope that may be interesting and useful.
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 1:09:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Gentorev,
You need not begin to plague us with your defense of what has not here been attacked. Do with Enoch what you will by means of your imagination.

The enduring topic of this thread will continue to be that God and Christ cannot be known, and are only known about by means of whatever is verified to be the recorded Word of God. Worship Enoch all you want. Knock yourself out. Start your own Enoch Thread.

BTW, You do not personally know Enoch, you only know a few scant things about him.
whooplaah
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 1:25:29 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
The issue here is to identify and characterize the foolish practice of those, often called "Christians," who having supposedly ascertained the existence of God then make the odd presumption they then are knowledgeable, even are expert, about Him. They presume to say because they are certain of His existense they then automatically are able to fathom Him and His record of self disclosure. This is most foolish for them to do, especially as they are apparently unaware they are making such an assumption.

I don't think that anything about the "often called Christians" inherently mark them as foolish. I can agree that the behaviors exhibited in many circumstances, and the speech, and the claims, they are all annoying. I was raised Christian and would consider myself more of a pantheist at the moment, so I am not saying this to bash the faith or any believers. What I disagree with you (Stegley) on is that your quote implies that something about religion (specifically Christianity) is what causes these silly and annoying behaviors.

I would contend that it is more a result of culture than it is religious teachings. If you think of the various situations you've been in where you see this behavior I'm sure you will see a demographic pattern. White, 15-30 year old American/Canadian/Europeans. One mark of the Millennial Generation (those of that age group) is the presumption that a little bit of information makes them an expert. Pride and self-righteousness and self-entitlement are part of what defines their culture. I'm part of this generation and I know that I do it more often than I should, typically about politics, Star Wars, morality, and society.

As a college professor, I see this in my students when we have discussions about finances, culture, college, medicine, and life in general. Nothing irritates me more than a freshman student attempting to prove he knows more about social movements in American history than I just because they earned an "A" in some high-school class. I also dealt with this when I was a substitute teacher at high school - the game of out-smart-the-substitute was really tiresome. Go to most any internet forum and you will see anonymous internet users "trolling" because they assume their expertise and superiority prior to participation in the conversation.

Christians often speak about being saved, having Christ in the Hearts, and having an intimate relationship with Christ while at the same time being judgmental, self-righteous, and presumptuous. Christianity (and religion) is not what teaches this behavior. I would say that western culture (and particularly American culture) does this and Christian institutions do not do enough to correct it. I would say the behaviors you noted are more common among those Christians (or religious followers) who haven't fully reconciled Christian (religious) teachings against the Western culture from which they hail.

As a further observation, note what a small (but vocal) percentage of religious practitioners exhibit these behaviors. It could be argued that your opening statement (as quoted above) about "often called Christian" behavior is a comparably "odd presumption" that you "are knowledgeable, even are expert" about Christians.

Please don't read this as rude. I'm honestly not trying to be, but I don't like using emoticons.
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 1:39:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred. It was a context in which most of the world was inhabited by polytheists, for whom the universe was directed by amoral gods warring and vying with one another. Because their gods were at war, competing cultures naturally plundered, enslaved and exterminated one another, and vice-versa.

Come monotheism (perhaps introduced by Zoroastrians, and subsequently taken up by the Israelites), and there is envisioned a morally-ordered universe in which there is now conceived a universal frame for good, better and best behaviour, and some notion that this frame might one day be enforced over everyone, eschatalogically.

By itself, that didn't provide recognition for decency toward all men. The Israelites and later the Jews were xenophobic, insular, and frequently cruel, and the Zoroastrians were little better. However, the rise of Hellenicised Judaism (slightly before Christianity) began to recognise the universality of good will and decency among civilised peoples. By the time Christianity emerged, that notion had been extended -- with Judaic tribal offence become personal sin, and tribal forgiveness become personal salvation, but all men being ultimately equal in a universally-applicable moral frame.

All that was done without much of a clue about empiricism. It was done hypocritically, ignorantly, and often cruelly. But over time it paved the way for the Enlightenment, and a form of moral thought that can be embraced by anyone of compassion, reason and good will, regardless of faith.

Although the idea of inspiration by revelation still remains current, the notion of knowledge through revelation is no longer defensible, and you correctly identify that in your exposition, Stegley. Christian dogma has been superseded philosophically, intellectually and scientifically, and some Christians are having a hard time accepting that. However, the best (i.e. least dogmatic, neurotic and controlling) elements of Christian moral thought still offer inspiration to many, although Christianity is not the only faith successfully inspiring people to act rationally and compassionately at times. So however legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.

This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.

I hope that may be interesting and useful.

Not much. Merely attempting to show that Historic Monotheism supposedly leading to Christianity has proferred Human betterance contributes nothing here. Having your programmed response come forth does not mean you actually read the OP. Lol.

BTW, no place in Scripture promotes human "inspiration" as a means of attaining Righteousness before God. The single appearance of #2315 "theopneustos" in Saul's letter to Timothy has nothing to do with Christ's Gospel.

Tell me if I have activated another of your ... necessary ... and favored ... explanations.
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 1:52:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:25:29 AM, whooplaah wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
The issue here is to identify and characterize the foolish practice of those, often called "Christians," who having supposedly ascertained the existence of God then make the odd presumption they then are knowledgeable, even are expert, about Him. They presume to say because they are certain of His existense they then automatically are able to fathom Him and His record of self disclosure. This is most foolish for them to do, especially as they are apparently unaware they are making such an assumption.

I don't think that anything about the "often called Christians" inherently mark them as foolish. I can agree that the behaviors exhibited in many circumstances, and the speech, and the claims, they are all annoying. I was raised Christian and would consider myself more of a pantheist at the moment, so I am not saying this to bash the faith or any believers. What I disagree with you (Stegley) on is that your quote implies that something about religion (specifically Christianity) is what causes these silly and annoying behaviors.

I would contend that it is more a result of culture than it is religious teachings. If you think of the various situations you've been in where you see this behavior I'm sure you will see a demographic pattern. White, 15-30 year old American/Canadian/Europeans. One mark of the Millennial Generation (those of that age group) is the presumption that a little bit of information makes them an expert. Pride and self-righteousness and self-entitlement are part of what defines their culture. I'm part of this generation and I know that I do it more often than I should, typically about politics, Star Wars, morality, and society.

As a college professor, I see this in my students when we have discussions about finances, culture, college, medicine, and life in general. Nothing irritates me more than a freshman student attempting to prove he knows more about social movements in American history than I just because they earned an "A" in some high-school class. I also dealt with this when I was a substitute teacher at high school - the game of out-smart-the-substitute was really tiresome. Go to most any internet forum and you will see anonymous internet users "trolling" because they assume their expertise and superiority prior to participation in the conversation.

Christians often speak about being saved, having Christ in the Hearts, and having an intimate relationship with Christ while at the same time being judgmental, self-righteous, and presumptuous. Christianity (and religion) is not what teaches this behavior. I would say that western culture (and particularly American culture) does this and Christian institutions do not do enough to correct it. I would say the behaviors you noted are more common among those Christians (or religious followers) who haven't fully reconciled Christian (religious) teachings against the Western culture from which they hail.

As a further observation, note what a small (but vocal) percentage of religious practitioners exhibit these behaviors. It could be argued that your opening statement (as quoted above) about "often called Christian" behavior is a comparably "odd presumption" that you "are knowledgeable, even are expert" about Christians.

Please don't read this as rude. I'm honestly not trying to be, but I don't like using emoticons.

Apparently, Professing a selected field of knowledge to enrolled and privileged youngsters has shielded you from seeing how, as well, White Trash and Low IQ Dindus also spout their small amounts of knowledge. Near Eastern Natives, Soviet Bloc Immigrants, and Wetbacks are little different. I daily service the Public.

Today's Christians are indeed foolish, and so for many reasons which I can easily review for you. The purpose of this Thread is to bring to point the simplistic error of their common claim to be able to "Know God Because They Can Verify His Existence." I do what I can without becoming impotently academic. Good idea? Yes? No? I think so.
whooplaah
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:49:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:52:07 AM, Stegley wrote:

Apparently, Professing a selected field of knowledge to enrolled and privileged youngsters has shielded you from seeing how, as well, White Trash and Low IQ Dindus also spout their small amounts of knowledge. Near Eastern Natives, Soviet Bloc Immigrants, and Wetbacks are little different. I daily service the Public.

Today's Christians are indeed foolish, and so for many reasons which I can easily review for you. The purpose of this Thread is to bring to point the simplistic error of their common claim to be able to "Know God Because They Can Verify His Existence." I do what I can without becoming impotently academic. Good idea? Yes? No? I think so.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'privileged' to describe my university. It's not a private institution, so we get plenty of students who are on financial assistance. I couldn't quote any numbers, though.

If you are talking about Christians specifically, please review for me the reasons behind their behavior. As I said in my previous post which was slightly off topic (I misunderstood your initial post), it is common among millennials in the Western world to claim expertise based upon an over-inflated ego, easy access to information, and changes in parenting and public schooling. What have you noticed that is specific to Christianity?

Also, when you say verify do you mean empirically?
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:05:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:49:27 AM, whooplaah wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:52:07 AM, Stegley wrote:

Apparently, Professing a selected field of knowledge to enrolled and privileged youngsters has shielded you from seeing how, as well, White Trash and Low IQ Dindus also spout their small amounts of knowledge. Near Eastern Natives, Soviet Bloc Immigrants, and Wetbacks are little different. I daily service the Public.

Today's Christians are indeed foolish, and so for many reasons which I can easily review for you. The purpose of this Thread is to bring to point the simplistic error of their common claim to be able to "Know God Because They Can Verify His Existence." I do what I can without becoming impotently academic. Good idea? Yes? No? I think so.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'privileged' to describe my university. It's not a private institution, so we get plenty of students who are on financial assistance. I couldn't quote any numbers, though.

If you are talking about Christians specifically, please review for me the reasons behind their behavior. As I said in my previous post which was slightly off topic (I misunderstood your initial post), it is common among millennials in the Western world to claim expertise based upon an over-inflated ego, easy access to information, and changes in parenting and public schooling. What have you noticed that is specific to Christianity?

Also, when you say verify do you mean empirically?

What I have not merely noticed but have consistently observed within settled groups of modern Christians is:

1.) Their pleasure in using the "faith" word to justify personal laziness and complacency. Rather, Jesus clearly showed that His True Followers were to come to Him in desperation, rather than from convenience and mere favor.

2.) Their simplistic and indiscriminate acceptance of words mouthed by Professional Church Jockeys.

3.) Their arrogance to think Christ cates about their personal feelings and minor trivia.

4.) Their foolishness to believe that all men are created equal, with the Appointed Members of God's Kingdom being more equal than those destined to damnation.

5.) Their strange appeal to "The Whole of Scripture" to justify particular beliefs, when they are literally never able to voice a true grasp of any of Scripture.

All of these features above are exhibited within a supposedly personal "Knowledge of God."

Do this simple test. Next Sunday morning, go to a nearby Church, and ask the Preacher if He "Knows God." If he says he does, then ask him if he knows anything about God beyond what is disclosed in Scripture. Inform him that Sctipture does not reveal very much about God.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:36:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:39:21 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred.
However legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.
This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.
Merely attempting to show that Historic Monotheism supposedly leading to Christianity has proferred Human betterance contributes nothing here.
It helps explain why many Christians feel that their faith has contributed human moral development, and helps explain why they feel it ought to be able to still contribute -- whether or not it can. Which in turn might help explain why Christian thought remains attractive to Christians, despite a lot of Christian dogma being out of step with empirical insights.

It also helps explain why pronouncing Christianity intellectually bankrupt today, though largely true, does not accurately represent the impact of Christian history on human thought.

Having your programmed response come forth does not mean you actually read the OP.
I read the original post, and understood your intention. You have expressed the view that in the modern world, Christians are upholding faith without any hope of empirical validation. You haven't said so, but you've implied that this is out of step with best practice modern thought, and I have agreed more than once now that it is.

Now, what evidence have you that my response was programmed and not considered? How would you know if it weren't?

BTW, no place in Scripture promotes human "inspiration" as a means of attaining Righteousness before God.
Despite which, Christian theology throughout history has used scripture inspirationally at times, and not just literally. You can trace such use back to Augustine of Hippo, for example, in his defence of a just war. So the precedents for reading between the lines are ancient. (It could be construed that the Sermon on the Mount was reading between the lines on ancient Israelite law too.)

Tell me if I have activated another of your ... necessary ... and favored ... explanations.
I seem to be activating your prejudices Stegley, since you're conjecturing motives and beliefs you haven't validated.

That's not very empirical either, is it?
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:49:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:39:21 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred.
However legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.
This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.
Merely attempting to show that Historic Monotheism supposedly leading to Christianity has proferred Human betterance contributes nothing here.
It helps explain why many Christians feel that their faith has contributed human moral development, and helps explain why they feel it ought to be able to still contribute -- whether or not it can. Which in turn might help explain why Christian thought remains attractive to Christians, despite a lot of Christian dogma being out of step with empirical insights.

It also helps explain why pronouncing Christianity intellectually bankrupt today, though largely true, does not accurately represent the impact of Christian history on human thought.

Having your programmed response come forth does not mean you actually read the OP.
I read the original post, and understood your intention. You have expressed the view that in the modern world, Christians are upholding faith without any hope of empirical validation. You haven't said so, but you've implied that this is out of step with best practice modern thought, and I have agreed more than once now that it is.

Now, what evidence have you that my response was programmed and not considered? How would you know if it weren't?

BTW, no place in Scripture promotes human "inspiration" as a means of attaining Righteousness before God.
Despite which, Christian theology throughout history has used scripture inspirationally at times, and not just literally. You can trace such use back to Augustine of Hippo, for example, in his defence of a just war. So the precedents for reading between the lines are ancient. (It could be construed that the Sermon on the Mount was reading between the lines on ancient Israelite law too.)

Tell me if I have activated another of your ... necessary ... and favored ... explanations.
I seem to be activating your prejudices Stegley, since you're conjecturing motives and beliefs you haven't validated.

That's not very empirical either, is it?

The evidence for my having touched your programmed button is that my original OP neither stated nor implied anything about the issue of Christians claiming their faith has bettered humanity. Quote me to show otherwise.

Do not be too proud to both review the OP, and to upgrade your reading comprehension.

This continues to be laughable. Religious Forefathers, regardless of their name and reputation, who claim "inspiration via Scripture" is in fact not any sort of evidence the Writers of Scripture and God Himself intended Scripture to "inspire" anyone. Your little arguement here about such "inspiration" will excell only as it reaches it's endpoint of quibbling over semantics. Lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 4:21:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 3:49:03 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:39:21 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred.
However legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.
This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.
Merely attempting to show that Historic Monotheism supposedly leading to Christianity has proferred Human betterance contributes nothing here.
It helps explain why many Christians feel that their faith has contributed human moral development, and helps explain why they feel it ought to be able to still contribute -- whether or not it can. Which in turn might help explain why Christian thought remains attractive to Christians, despite a lot of Christian dogma being out of step with empirical insights.

It also helps explain why pronouncing Christianity intellectually bankrupt today, though largely true, does not accurately represent the impact of Christian history on human thought.

Having your programmed response come forth does not mean you actually read the OP.
I read the original post, and understood your intention. You have expressed the view that in the modern world, Christians are upholding faith without any hope of empirical validation. You haven't said so, but you've implied that this is out of step with best practice modern thought, and I have agreed more than once now that it is.

Now, what evidence have you that my response was programmed and not considered? How would you know if it weren't?

The evidence for my having touched your programmed button is that my original OP neither stated nor implied anything about the issue of Christians claiming their faith has bettered humanity.
That's correct. You ignored moral and social motivations to focus on metaphysical justifications, but didn't supply evidence to support any contention that what holds Christians to Christianity is principally a conviction in its metaphysical validity.

Is it possible that some or perhaps many Christians like being Christian because they like the psychosocial framework? Perhaps some at least, aren't too concerned about the metaphysics, provided that they feel their faith is making better people of them, and building better communities than they could imagine building otherwise.

It's because you ignored this dimension that I mentioned it.

Do not be too proud to both review the OP, and to upgrade your reading comprehension.
Thank you for the suggestion, Steggley. I hope it doesn't embarrass you in future.

This continues to be laughable. Religious Forefathers, regardless of their name and reputation, who claim "inspiration via Scripture" is in fact not any sort of evidence the Writers of Scripture and God Himself intended Scripture to "inspire" anyone.
That's correct. Viewing scripture as inspiration rather than literal dogma does nothing for scriptural validity, and substantial harm to claims of rigour and authenticity. On the other hand, it has proven very successful in letting adherents to adapt to a changing world -- that is, one not portrayed by scripture, and impossible for its authors to have conceived.

But we now live in a more empirical world, and one whose morality arguably owes more to Enlightenment and post-Colonial thought than ancient Abrahamic thought. Some members have perviously expressed the view that Christianity, which adapted to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, is not adapting to the current age -- that it's past its 'use by' date. This contention may be supported by declining adherence and religiosity in Western Europe, for example, and a self-acknowledged struggle among Christian clerics to maintain relevance.

And I think that's at the heart of your criticism, isn't it? Our age requires more empirical accountability and a more refined sense of kindness and justice than previous ages, and people have more access to empiricism, historical rigour and scientific rigour, plus higher moral and ethical standards than can be found itemised in Christian scripture.

So my implied counter-question is: if what holds Christians to Christianity is psychosocial -- the sense of being better people, building better communities, how much will the lack of empirical rigour matter by itself?

Your little argument here about such "inspiration" will excel only as it reaches its endpoint of quibbling over semantics. Lol.
I don't think that's a good direction for it to go, Steggley, and it isn't my intention to take it there.

I think you're missing a dimension to the discussion, and either you'll realise that and explore it, or dig into a narrow side of what may be a more complex issue and keep grinding it, even though when you do that, I'm tempted to ask: so what?
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 6:04:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 4:21:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:49:03 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 3:36:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:39:21 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred.
However legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.
This is not an argument that Christianity is over-all a force for good. It's acknowledgement that its history represented progress toward better than we once had.
Merely attempting to show that Historic Monotheism supposedly leading to Christianity has proferred Human betterance contributes nothing here.
It helps explain why many Christians feel that their faith has contributed human moral development, and helps explain why they feel it ought to be able to still contribute -- whether or not it can. Which in turn might help explain why Christian thought remains attractive to Christians, despite a lot of Christian dogma being out of step with empirical insights.

It also helps explain why pronouncing Christianity intellectually bankrupt today, though largely true, does not accurately represent the impact of Christian history on human thought.

Having your programmed response come forth does not mean you actually read the OP.
I read the original post, and understood your intention. You have expressed the view that in the modern world, Christians are upholding faith without any hope of empirical validation. You haven't said so, but you've implied that this is out of step with best practice modern thought, and I have agreed more than once now that it is.

Now, what evidence have you that my response was programmed and not considered? How would you know if it weren't?

The evidence for my having touched your programmed button is that my original OP neither stated nor implied anything about the issue of Christians claiming their faith has bettered humanity.
That's correct. You ignored moral and social motivations to focus on metaphysical justifications, but didn't supply evidence to support any contention that what holds Christians to Christianity is principally a conviction in its metaphysical validity.

Is it possible that some or perhaps many Christians like being Christian because they like the psychosocial framework? Perhaps some at least, aren't too concerned about the metaphysics, provided that they feel their faith is making better people of them, and building better communities than they could imagine building otherwise.

It's because you ignored this dimension that I mentioned it.

Do not be too proud to both review the OP, and to upgrade your reading comprehension.
Thank you for the suggestion, Steggley. I hope it doesn't embarrass you in future.

This continues to be laughable. Religious Forefathers, regardless of their name and reputation, who claim "inspiration via Scripture" is in fact not any sort of evidence the Writers of Scripture and God Himself intended Scripture to "inspire" anyone.
That's correct. Viewing scripture as inspiration rather than literal dogma does nothing for scriptural validity, and substantial harm to claims of rigour and authenticity. On the other hand, it has proven very successful in letting adherents to adapt to a changing world -- that is, one not portrayed by scripture, and impossible for its authors to have conceived.

But we now live in a more empirical world, and one whose morality arguably owes more to Enlightenment and post-Colonial thought than ancient Abrahamic thought. Some members have perviously expressed the view that Christianity, which adapted to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, is not adapting to the current age -- that it's past its 'use by' date. This contention may be supported by declining adherence and religiosity in Western Europe, for example, and a self-acknowledged struggle among Christian clerics to maintain relevance.

And I think that's at the heart of your criticism, isn't it? Our age requires more empirical accountability and a more refined sense of kindness and justice than previous ages, and people have more access to empiricism, historical rigour and scientific rigour, plus higher moral and ethical standards than can be found itemised in Christian scripture.

So my implied counter-question is: if what holds Christians to Christianity is psychosocial -- the sense of being better people, building better communities, how much will the lack of empirical rigour matter by itself?

Your little argument here about such "inspiration" will excel only as it reaches its endpoint of quibbling over semantics. Lol.
I don't think that's a good direction for it to go, Steggley, and it isn't my intention to take it there.

I think you're missing a dimension to the discussion, and either you'll realise that and explore it, or dig into a narrow side of what may be a more complex issue and keep grinding it, even though when you do that, I'm tempted to ask: so what?

No, Precious. You did not mention things I omitted from the original OP because you saw I omitted them, but because you erroneously read them into the OP. Once again, I caught you.

To validate your question about misconstrued attraction to "Christianity," I will help you feel like you cleverly did spot something to share. Yes, Many "Christians" behave as such because of what they socially benefit from within the experience. Now, is that really part of the original OP? No it is not, so sorry to disappoint you.

I do see you are wise enough to display no direct knowledge of God, and are able to only make general references to issues quite removed from the OP as it was given. My brief work with you is finished. Have nice chat times in the future.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 6:20:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 6:04:15 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 4:21:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I think you're missing a dimension to the discussion, and either you'll realise that and explore it, or dig into a narrow side of what may be a more complex issue and keep grinding it, even though when you do that, I'm tempted to ask: so what?
You did not mention things I omitted from the original OP because you saw I omitted them, but because you erroneously read them into the OP.
Given that I was able to restate your thesis, had accepted it in the first place, and you did not contradict my restatement, what's the evidence that I misconstrued the OP, rather than broadly accepting the thesis, but considering it narrow?

Here's my first response again, in case your reading comprehension might benefit from a second look:
At 2/22/2016 12:38:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:39:50 PM, Stegley wrote:
We have today before us are many big talking Christians who use both their personal and collective imaginations to enlarge a supposedly valid understanding of an unknowable God and Son Christ. And, they are unable to demonstrate their supposed knowledge of God and Son Christ with any observable works. Only speculative talk. From their busy and sincere hearts.
Okay, but we need to acknowledge the context in which this first occurred.
Please explain the 'okay, but' part, in the context of my conclusion:

So however legitimate may be one's philosophical or intellectual criticisms about Christianity in a modern world, one should also acknowledge its historical context and the value of its legacy, and its inspirational value to people raised in that tradition.

I do see you are wise enough to display no direct knowledge of God
Wiser than a member who'd take a strong atheist for a Christian just because he found an argument narrow?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 7:53:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:09:26 AM, Stegley wrote:
Gentorev,
You need not begin to plague us with your defense of what has not here been attacked. Do with Enoch what you will by means of your imagination.

The enduring topic of this thread will continue to be that God and Christ cannot be known, and are only known about by means of whatever is verified to be the recorded Word of God. Worship Enoch all you want. Knock yourself out. Start your own Enoch Thread.

BTW, You do not personally know Enoch, you only know a few scant things about him.

it is only the opinion of a 26 year old kid, that God and Christ cannot be known, and it appears that you are not prepared to tolerate any opposition to your false opinion. Am I correct.

You say that I only know a few scant things about Enoch, well this I know, I know that Moses was a prince in Egypt who was afforded the best education in the Land, and it was Moses who gave to Aaron the regulation, that he should choose a scape goat, and placing his hands on the goat, he symbolically transferred the sins of Israel onto the scape goat which was then sent out to Azazel in the wilderness.

From where did Moses receive this teaching and who is Azazel?
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 8:26:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 7:53:54 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:09:26 AM, Stegley wrote:
Gentorev,
You need not begin to plague us with your defense of what has not here been attacked. Do with Enoch what you will by means of your imagination.

The enduring topic of this thread will continue to be that God and Christ cannot be known, and are only known about by means of whatever is verified to be the recorded Word of God. Worship Enoch all you want. Knock yourself out. Start your own Enoch Thread.

BTW, You do not personally know Enoch, you only know a few scant things about him.

it is only the opinion of a 26 year old kid, that God and Christ cannot be known, and it appears that you are not prepared to tolerate any opposition to your false opinion. Am I correct.

You say that I only know a few scant things about Enoch, well this I know, I know that Moses was a prince in Egypt who was afforded the best education in the Land, and it was Moses who gave to Aaron the regulation, that he should choose a scape goat, and placing his hands on the goat, he symbolically transferred the sins of Israel onto the scape goat which was then sent out to Azazel in the wilderness.

From where did Moses receive this teaching and who is Azazel?

Lol. This is fun!

What exactly does Moses have to do with you today? Anything at all? Speak up like a Knowledgeable and Strong Man of God!