How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

[YorkVol]

I was a decent one, not great.

I'm honest, and I love this country, so much so that I'm willing to let people who believe in unicorns kindly abstain from our public policy-making if they so choose.

What does one have to believe in before they qualify for public policy-making?

 

[volbeast33]

With all of the religion threads we have had there have bound to have been a conversion or two. Anyone converted one way or another please raise your hand.

I don't know they seem like most politics thread....no conversions well except Volprof who became a republican to save us. Lol

 

[YorkVol]

The thing I always am amazed by in this threads is the ire that some hold for those who simply strive to live by a decent set of values that include love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Sure, no one is perfect and few follow these as closely as they would want. And, yes, there are many who have taken things out of context and used scripture to support terrible acts or situations. But at the very basic level it would seem Christians should make pretty good neighbors.

 

[volbeast33]

The thing I always am amazed by in this threads is the ire that some hold for those who simply strive to live by a decent set of values that include love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Sure, no one is perfect and few follow these as closely as they would want. And, yes, there are many who have taken things out of context and used scripture to support terrible acts or situations. But at the very basic level it would seem Christians should make pretty good neighbors.

Yeah I have never understand the hatred it seems that some have towards Christian nor the way Volprof feels about Christian influence towards policy when we have the politicians that we have in office today.

 

[LouderVol]

More rational viewpoints are welcomed. And non-rational ones are also allowed to participate. Doesn't mean the non-rational perspectives make a healthier product. So far, we've succeeded, despite them and mostly for this reason.

yet why reject an idea/thought before hearing it just because the argument starts "well the bible says"? or assume the speaker is less intelligent. often times I find those with intellect lack wisdom, the common sense side of intelligence.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

The thing I always am amazed by in this threads is the ire that some hold for those who simply strive to live by a decent set of values that include love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Sure, no one is perfect and few follow these as closely as they would want. And, yes, there are many who have taken things out of context and used scripture to support terrible acts or situations. But at the very basic level it would seem Christians should make pretty good neighbors.

I agree with this. While not a religious man myself, by and far most Christians are good people and really do try to live their lives well. Unfortunately, like most groups, the vocal minority leaves a sour taste.

 

[volbeast33]

I agree with this. While not a religious man myself, by and far most Christians are good people and really do try to live their lives well. Unfortunately, like most groups, the vocal minority leaves a sour taste.

Yep very true

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Really. You can speak for EVERYBODY? Wow, im amazed.
You obviously don't follow this then. Peter Boghozian, among a myriad of other secular humanist and anti-theist. absolutely speak of Christianity as a disease that needs to be prohibited and eradicated. Do i need to provide some links.

I don't know of any Christian movement that seeks to force people to be Christian. The fact is that many Christian ethical positions can be defended without forcing anyone to believe Christianity. The fact that many Christians fail in articulating this doesn't negate this.

Okay Roust, there are people that would like to see America turned into a monarchy... does it legitimize any argument to bring those opinions up as if they carry weight or, and I'm just spitballing here, are you bringing up those that want to outlaw Christianity just to carry on the poor persecuted Christian shtick?

You and I have gone round and round on this issue and discussed laws that cannot be defended without reliance upon religion such as blue laws. And yes some can be defended with no reliance upon religion such as crimes against people and property and still others require mental gymnastics that stretch their credibility beyond any rational basis such as prohibition on gay marriage. I've no desire to rehash old junk, but I know you to be a fairly logical guy and I expect that you would admit, at least to yourself, that your initial point was strawmanish in nature.

 

[hog88]

I don't know they seem like most politics thread....no conversions well except Volprof who became a republican to save us. Lol

Been thinking about converting to hare krishna myself, nobody seems to have a problem with those guys.

 

[volprof]

lol, there hasn't been an original idea since before the greeks, maybe even the Egyptians, so I wouldn't use the date of the start of a belief system as an argument.

What?

 

[LouderVol]

OK so which of these actually happened

1) Earth was created in 6 days
2) Woman was made from a rib
3) People lived to be 700 years old
4) An ark held two of every living thing
5) Angels could fly at the speed of light to Earth
6)An ocean just opens up and people walk through

OK now imagine that we just now found the Bible without 100s of years of indoctrination...would you then say..Yes! this answers all my questions about my existence...no it's believed because its been pushed on us by governments and majority thinking.

Do I worship God for any of your points? Does anyone?

and for the record I don't believe any of those happened, except maybe the angels. they are never defined as creatures of this realm so they wouldn't have to follow its rules. no i don't think jonah sat in a whale, no I don't think a literal burning bush spoke to moses, etc etc

again its not supposed to be a history book, if that is what you are looking for you are looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

stop trying to make it something it isn't. as to the matters of faith I have had no issue there.

 

[volprof]

yet why reject an idea/thought before hearing it just because the argument starts "well the bible says"? or assume the speaker is less intelligent. often times I find those with intellect lack wisdom, the common sense side of intelligence.

Do you believe in eternal life?

 

[Roustabout]

I've also studied enough myths to know that many predate the Bible...look there is no way that the Earth is as young as Christians claim...there were other civilizations in other parts of the world during the time of the flood, so there was no global flood. Keep believing if you want but there are fewer and fewer of you guys each year.

Who cares if myths predate? How is something's age relevant to its truth? You claimed that the Jesus story stole from earlier myths. Defend your claim. I've read nearly every reference to Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, you name it. The overwhelming info out there is internet bunk, taken for truth simply because it is propagated on the internet. In other words, it's a lie, fabricated to undermine Christianity. The actual scholarship on this supports my position, not yours.

Do you realize the flood could have been localized and there are sound arguments (FROM SCRIPTURE) for such?

My faith doesn't hinge on the flood being global. Stop attacking strawmen.

 

[volprof]

The thing I always am amazed by in this threads is the ire that some hold for those who simply strive to live by a decent set of values that include love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Sure, no one is perfect and few follow these as closely as they would want. And, yes, there are many who have taken things out of context and used scripture to support terrible acts or situations. But at the very basic level it would seem Christians should make pretty good neighbors.

If that's all Christians were about, I'd have no problem with them. That's not all they're about, however.

But, I much prefer you all as neighbors over Muslims, so that should gain me at least a point or two with the anti-Muslim crowd on here. At least Christianity leaves some room for secular society in its book, unlike Islam.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Who cares if myths predate? How is something's age relevant to its truth? You claimed that the Jesus story stole from earlier myths. Defend your claim. I've read nearly every reference to Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, you name it. The overwhelming info out there is internet bunk, taken for truth simply because it is propagated on the internet. In other words, it's a lie, fabricated to undermine Christianity. The actual scholarship on this supports my position, not yours.

Do you realize the flood could have been localized and there are sound arguments (FROM SCRIPTURE) for such?

My faith doesn't hinge on the flood being global. Stop attacking strawmen.

How about Jonah?

 

[Roustabout]

Okay Roust, there are people that would like to see America turned into a monarchy... does it legitimize any argument to bring those opinions up as if they carry weight or, and I'm just spitballing here, are you bringing up those that want to outlaw Christianity just to carry on the poor persecuted Christian shtick?

You and I have gone round and round on this issue and discussed laws that cannot be defended without reliance upon religion such as blue laws. And yes some can be defended with no reliance upon religion such as crimes against people and property and still others require mental gymnastics that stretch their credibility beyond any rational basis such as prohibition on gay marriage. I've no desire to rehash old junk, but I know you to be a fairly logical guy and I expect that you would admit, at least to yourself, that your initial point was strawmanish in nature.

There all kinds of people, religious and non-religious alike who would like to undermine the republic. So what? You have made it clear that a person's faith should have NO place in government, which is discriminating against one and only one ideology. Now, if you could example how a particular faith is incompatible with our republic, then you'd be on to something. A person cannot separate themselves from their beliefs. This is why i've said muslims have no place in the American experiment. Islam, when practiced according to its tenets, is irreconcilable to our form of government. Many of our founding fathers said that although our government is not Christian is most certainly best designed to govern Christians.

The issue is when we venture into moral issues. Despite what is said, morality is absolutely legislated. So, the question then becomes whose morality. I agree that many Christians do a poor job of arguing their views on abortion and marriage, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong. Abortion isn't justified because some have say, "God doesn't like abortion." Their non-sequitur is a really just a failure to articulate why certain positions that conform to the Christian worldview are also justifiable to impose as the law of the land.

A private in basic training might answer "because i'm told to," when it comes to explaining why they followed their drill instructors orders. It has nothing to do with whether those orders were actually correct and justified.

I don't support blue laws, per se. I don't have any problem (in a republic) with the will of the majority applying as long as it does not cause an undo burden on the minority.

There are secular arguments against gay marriage. No need to rehash this. Too many tangents on this thread.

No shtick. I know there are people who want to, by any means, eliminate religion and its influence. I can point you to the perpetrators. Your own claims betray it, because you view your own worldview as neutral, when it isn't. It's a slippery slope.

Lastly, I don't think Christians in the West are persecuted. Anything but. I think it is insulting to actual martyrs when a Western Christian claims persecution when they have to bake a cake for a qay person. It's absurd.

 

[Roustabout]

How about Jonah?

What about him?

Here, let me save you some time.

It's obvious that i could provide a satisfying answer to this, just as i can to a global vs. local flood. The problem is you don't care. Not really. Your an antagonist. You'll simply move on to another difficulty. Talking Donkey?
Water to wine?

FWIW, my position is this, If the first miracle in the bible is true, then all other recorded miracles in the bible are at least plausible, including being swallowed by a fish. The first miracle is found in Genesis 1:1 btw.

 

[VolnJC]

I see they we have a lot of what we call "buffet" Christians.

 

[LouderVol]

What?

you listed our beliefs as not as relevant because of how old they are. yet any type of empirical based thinking (anything sans-faith) has a back ground older than the first century. unless you were saying there is something specifically wrong with the first century.

sounds like you are trying to rationalize your argument based on our faith's age; to which I am pointing out is not a consistent argument seeing as how any world view philosophy is older than that.

 

[volprof]

you listed our beliefs as not as relevant because of how old they are. yet any type of empirical based thinking (anything sans-faith) has a back ground older than the first century. unless you were saying there is something specifically wrong with the first century.

sounds like you are trying to rationalize your argument based on our faith's age; to which I am pointing out is not a consistent argument seeing as how any world view philosophy is older than that.

No, "any world view philosophy" is not older than that, and you are evidently a believer in eternal life, which explains your posts in response to me.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

What about him?

Here, let me save you some time.

It's obvious that i could provide a satisfying answer to this, just as i can to a global vs. local flood. The problem is you don't care. Not really. Your an antagonist. You'll simply move on to another difficulty. Talking Donkey?
Water to wine?

FWIW, my position is this, If the first miracle in the bible is true, then all other recorded miracles in the bible are at least plausible, including being swallowed by a fish. The first miracle is found in Genesis 1:1 btw.

Antagonist? Hardly. You gave a logical and reasonable explanation for Noah and the great flood. I simply wondered if you had the same for Jonah and the big fish.

There all kinds of people, religious and non-religious alike who would like to undermine the republic. So what? You have made it clear that a person's faith should have NO place in government, which is discriminating against one and only one ideology. Now, if you could example how a particular faith is incompatible with our republic, then you'd be on to something. A person cannot separate themselves from their beliefs. This is why i've said muslims have no place in the American experiment. Islam, when practiced according to its tenets, is irreconcilable to our form of government. Many of our founding fathers said that although our government is not Christian is most certainly best designed to govern Christians.

The issue is when we venture into moral issues. Despite what is said, morality is absolutely legislated. So, the question then becomes whose morality. I agree that many Christians do a poor job of arguing their views on abortion and marriage, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong. Abortion isn't justified because some have say, "God doesn't like abortion." Their non-sequitur is a really just a failure to articulate why certain positions that conform to the Christian worldview are also justifiable to impose as the law of the land.

A private in basic training might answer "because i'm told to," when it comes to explaining why they followed their drill instructors orders. It has nothing to do with whether those orders were actually correct and justified.

I don't support blue laws, per se. I don't have any problem (in a republic) with the will of the majority applying as long as it does not cause an undo burden on the minority.

There are secular arguments against gay marriage. No need to rehash this. Too many tangents on this thread.

No shtick. I know there are people who want to, by any means, eliminate religion and its influence. I can point you to the perpetrators. Your own claims betray it, because you view your own worldview as neutral, when it isn't. It's a slippery slope.

Lastly, I don't think Christians in the West are persecuted. Anything but. I think it is insulting to actual martyrs when a Western Christian claims persecution when they have to bake a cake for a qay person. It's absurd.

I have never said that a person's faith has no place in government, I've said that a persons faith should not dictate laws and policies in government. The difference may seem slight, but I view it as absolutely essential. Some laws seek to force the religious beliefs of some on to all. Again blue laws... Gay marriage I also view in this light. If one cannot separate how one, based upon ones religious affiliation, feels about the issue then that person has no place making laws. Many people of faith want to ban gay marriage for religious reasons and, if you are honest, you will likely admit that your primary objection is religious in nature. I know many people that believe that gays are going to hell, but don't oppose gay marriage.

I have respect for people that do not hold jobs because they conflict with their religious views. If you think that drinking liquor is inherently evil then I wouldn't expect to find you working in a bar. Now contrast that with the clerk in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because it conflicted with her religious views. I would have respected her more, if after fighting the battle and losing she had honored her convictions and resigned. She did not and decided to force her religious views upon all.

 

[volprof]

Antagonist? Hardly. You gave a logical and reasonable explanation for Noah and the great flood. I simply wondered if you had the same for Jonah and the big fish.



I have never said that a person's faith has no place in government, I've said that a persons faith should not dictate laws and policies in government. The difference may seem slight, but I view it as absolutely essential. Some laws seek to force the religious beliefs of some on to all. Again blue laws... Gay marriage I also view in this light. If one cannot separate how one, based upon ones religious affiliation, feels about the issue then that person has no place making laws. Many people of faith want to ban gay marriage for religious reasons and, if you are honest, you will likely admit that your primary objection is religious in nature. I know many people that believe that gays are going to hell, but don't oppose gay marriage.

I have respect for people that do not hold jobs because they conflict with their religious views. If you think that drinking liquor is inherently evil then I wouldn't expect to find you working in a bar. Now contrast that with the clerk in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because it conflicted with her religious views. I would have respected her more, if after fighting the battle and losing she had honored her convictions and resigned. She did not and decided to force her religious views upon all.

This is what I've essentially been saying, although I did not articulate it as well as you.

See, I can be humble, people. When humility is actually due.

 

[LouderVol]

Do you believe in eternal life?

life as we know it here on this earth? no.

eternal life with God, yes. and no I don't know what that means, and no it doesn't matter to me.

I look at my faith similar to how butch looks at the football season. Its about the process, not the end goal. don't lose the process and you won't lose the goal. focus on the end goal and you have lost the process and won't make the goal.

 

[volprof]

life as we know it here on this earth? no.

eternal life with God, yes. and no I don't know what that means, and no it doesn't matter to me.

I look at my faith similar to how butch looks at the football season. Its about the process, not the end goal. don't lose the process and you won't lose the goal. focus on the end goal and you have lost the process and won't make the goal.

Thank you for your candidness. This is what I figured, and it explains your posts here. Like most other Christians, you want so desperately to live forever that you're willing to suspend all reason and will then attack another poster for his "unreasonableness" upon those same unreasonable grounds.

 

[LouderVol]

No, "any world view philosophy" is not older than that, and you are evidently a believer in eternal life, which explains your posts in response to me.

really? what modern line of thinking doesn't have a foundation from the greeks? who took it from the Egyptians who took it from the ......