The most abusive Christian phrase ...

[karl]

You are avoiding the answer. I didn't ask if you were an atheist. I asked if you were an atheist when it came to Zeus. You are being extremely dishonest. This is why I have no respect for most Christian apologetics.

We're done. Tell it to somebody else. You can't be a part-time atheist. Stop playing games.

[SivartM]

Do you believe in Zeus or not?

[karl]

See above. But you won't like it.

[karl]

I agree with Unbeguiled on this exchange with Bravus (so does Bravus - see below.)

Quote:

UnBeguiled Says:

July 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Suppose I told you that I believed in The Blurkle. Suppose I then told you that The Blurkle is something essentially beyond our comprehension. In addition, I tell you that I am agnostic about any causal role The Blurkle has or had in our universe.

So, how would my life be different if I did not believe in The Blurkle?

What if I am wrong about my belief and there is no Blurkle. Would the universe be different?

It seems to me, you believe in a God that is irrelevant to anything. And worse, your belief is irrelevant to your own life.

Bravus Says:

July 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Agreed in all points.

The question now is, "What is the point in discussing the fact that there is no point to the discussion?"

[karl]

Do you believe in Zeus or not?

Believe what? That the Greeks wrote about him? Yes.

Do I believe Zeus is my Savior? Only if you can prove that Zeus is another name for Jesus Christ. Otherwise, I will still address God by some name other than Zeus.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

You are avoiding the answer. I didn't ask if you were an atheist. I asked if you were an atheist when it came to Zeus. You are being extremely dishonest. This is why I have no respect for most Christian apologetics.

We're done. Tell it to somebody else. You can't be a part-time atheist. Stop playing games.

I'm playing games?

All you have to do is answer a simple question.

Do you believe in Zeus or not?

If you don't then you are an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned. The early Christians were considered atheists by the Greeks because of this.

If you aren't sure then you are agnostic to Zeus.

On the long shot that you actually believe that Zeus exists then you are a theist in regards to Zeus whether you follow him or not.

The reason you have been avoiding the answer to this is because it would negate your claim that I'm not really an agnostic.

This is not only game playing, it's really dishonest.

[karl]

The reason you have been avoiding the answer to this is because it would negate your claim that I'm not really an agnostic.

This is not only game playing, it's really dishonest.

This started with your effrontery and it is ending with it. We are through. I don't believe a person can be an atheist part time. An atheist is one who believes there is NO GOD. Look it up. You can't be an atheist AND a theist.

But we are through, Rich. You just pop out of your murky "I don't know" soup from time to time and take pot shots at people. Very Dawkins-esque. I'm done with it.

Read "Devil's Delusion."

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The reason you have been avoiding the answer to this is because it would negate your claim that I'm not really an agnostic.

This is not only game playing, it's really dishonest.

This started with your effrontery and it is ending with it. We are through. I don't believe a person can be an atheist part time. An atheist is one who believes there is NO GOD. Look it up. You can't be an atheist AND a theist.

[SivartM]

I'm just thinking out loud, and not directing this at anyone in this conversation, but I think God prefers people who honestly don't believe in Him and live ethical lives than people who dishonestly believe in Him.

[karl]

Should we attempt to discover the truth behind the phenomenon of multiple gods throughout the various cultures and eras of man? Perhaps we should consider the alternatives and determine the logic of each of the possible reasons for this diversity.

Hypothesis: There are, or have been, many real gods.

All, or some, of the gods are/were real. Since they all showed up about the same time, they seem to get along, which is a good thing since they mostly say they will return about the same time. That time being when man is about to destroy his own race and the world he inhabits. There is the problem that only one could be the creator god, only one could be responsible for the flood, only one could have been the savior. And, a major problem is that they all claim to be the supreme god, which is, of course, impossible.

Hypothesis: There are no real gods.

There is no god and all this controversy has been over nothing. We are then left with absolutely no explanation why so many similar religious beliefs formed in societies completely isolated from each other.

Hypothesis: There is one real God and many false gods

Only one of the gods is real and the others are merely thought of as real by their followers. Perhaps the false gods are distorted pictures of the real deity which developed over time in the various cultures.

Hypothesis: There is one real God being described in different ways, by many different peoples

All or most of the world’s gods are not different gods but different descriptions of the same Supreme God - a loving, fair, and all-powerful God that created the whole world.

No doubt there are other hypotheses, as well, but these could serve until the others are presented.

[karl]

As long as this is the method that it takes to be a Christian, I have no interest at all in embracing it.

Please don't lay your own accusations off on me. It was you who hammered me with my "fear" and my "foolish" beliefs to start with. It was you who accused me of dishonesty and then EXTREME dishonesty. Based on what? Because I wouldn't let you push me into being simultaneously a theist and an atheist.

If you had asked an honest question: "Do you believe Zeus is God" you would have gotten a straight answer. But you didn't. You came up with a left-handed around-the-atheist-bush question.

I'm not accusing you of being an atheist. I'm accusing you of using Dawkins-esque tactics.

Read the book. Berlinski is a great author. You'll like the book. Here is a link to preview it on Googlebooks.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wlr6xOa64t4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+devil's+delusion&source=bl&ots=mmgRPLG-aE&sig=j_rTkMxNLjjSVmMBDX6W5gayEo0&hl=en&ei=S7jMS7niNIm69QTI9ITCBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Bravus]

John317: On the dating of Daniel, I haven't looked into it closely enough to have a firm opinion either way. And I do take the point about assuming that it must have been written after the events portrayed, on the part of someone who doesn't believe in prophecy.

But the point there is really not so much what I believe about the date of Daniel. To some extent, even the truth about the date of Daniel is irrelevant. What we are talking about is slam-dunk proofs for the Bible that will convince those who are not already convinced. And given the whole of the relevant Wikipedia article on Daniel, someone who is not already convinced about prophecy is going to find it very easy to discount that point that Ravi makes.

The point is not what convinces me, but what would convince someone who had never heard of the Bible.

[Bravus]

karl, my post #353253 on page 15 contains my response to your post #353306 on page 16. In short, agreeing with Unbeguiled was a shortcut (that I regret).

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

As long as this is the method that it takes to be a Christian, I have no interest at all in embracing it.

Please don't lay your own accusations off on me. It was you who hammered me with my "fear" and my "foolish" beliefs to start with.

[karl]

Ok, do you believe that Zeus is god?

And for clarification, "Do you even believe that Zeus is a real being or god at all?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm just thinking out loud, and not directing this at anyone in this conversation, but I think God prefers people who honestly don't believe in Him and live ethical lives than people who dishonestly believe in Him.

Pagans will love you for that one!

[LifeHiscost]

There is no question that we live in a wonderfully mysterious complex universe and it is precisely because of this that I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. And, yes, I am humbled by the contemplation of such a wonder filled universe. I would never claim to have the intelligence to understand all that is out there.

Because it is so wonderfully complex I doubt it was the god of the bible that created it.

To tell you the truth, cardw, I was glad to hear you say that. It is not the one who doubts, that is beyond Jesus' ability to save in a kingdom without faults. It is the one who believes themselves capable of being better able to take care of their own successful future than He that created them.

BTW, that Creator is Jesus.

"[but] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order]."Hebrews 1:2 AMP

OTOH, the one who thought himself to have a better plan than He Who he was created by, is the one responsible for this world of chaos, for whom you appear to blame the One willing to give His own life that you might live for eternity.

" How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

‘ I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,

To the lowest depths of the Pit.

“ Those who see you will gaze at you,

And consider you, saying:

‘ Is this the man who made the earth tremble,

Who shook kingdoms,

Who made the world as a wilderness

And destroyed its cities,

Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’"

Isaiah 14:12-17 NKJV

Regards!!

[karl]

[

BTW, that Creator is Jesus.

[color:#FF0000]" How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

‘ I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

Amen, LHC

I'm glad to see you emphasizing Scriptural concepts.

"Thus saith the Lord." "It is written."

[karl]

I went back through the thread. I realize now that Rich was putting out bait that I swallowed whole (see bait below.) I apologize to everyone on CA for being such a chump, but I'm in the School of Experience and it turns out the school colors are black and blue.

What I'm wondering is whether there is any way to interact with Rich without encouraging his brand of calumny aimed at the God of the Bible and His followers.

Agreeing with him just encourages it, although there will always be disaffected Christians who can relate to some of what he says.

Disagreeing with him helps him put out the bait.

Walking away helps him put out the bait.

Leaving out Scripture because he doesn't believe in it is throwing down your Sword before the contest starts.

What do you do?

BAIT

The fact is god has nothing to do with the text you chose and it's application. It's simply a con.

And since there is no apparent reliable reward here, the reward is placed into the afterlife where no one can check if it's true or not. There's nothing sound about it at all. It's a con.

I do know that when I believed in that god, my life was miserable. And I see the same fear based reasoning in what you have to say. It's not an imaginary god that I am angry with, it's the fools that keep spreading the fear.

When you have nothing of substance you resort to some irrelevant sarcasm.

What would be relevant is to demonstrate why teaching fear is helpful.

If you are using fear based reasoning that is foolish to me. If it's true it's not an attack. You keep using fear based tactics such as sarcasm, which is avoidance. A teaching that God won't bless you unless you jump through particular hoops is punitive and fear based.

So you are treating god like a paycheck.

Even if you do it for a reward there is still the fear of what if I don't get the reward. These ideas that you call "sound theology" are the low bar of meaning and ethics.

Instead of honestly addressing the issue of the "reward/punishment" model being the low bar of meaning and ethics, you rely on some sound byte.

I guess I'm not really talking to you since you seemed to be satisfied with your own world view, but I am grateful for you helping to illustrate my points.

This is the low bar for ethical behavior. I don't really consider it ethics at all, but I'm trying to be kind.

All of these are fear based and have nothing to do with love. They are manipulations at best.

And all of this talk of Christ being the reward is irrelevant because no one seems to be able to determine if we have received the reward and what exactly does it mean to have Christ. These are simply sound bytes with little or no meaning.

This is the very reason that I rejected Christianity. It is horrific and people go around teaching this stuff to generation after generation, creating fear filled adults so afraid of this imaginary god that they deny their ability to reason and jump through all these hoops so they can be saved.

Again, Christianity has to create this imaginary fearful emergency to make sense of all the threatening language of the Bible. Christianity exaggerates evil and it's dangers and ignores the obvious solutions to create this convoluted "solution" that even they can't agree on.

What I have a problem with is a god who needs someone to die to prevent him from killing everyone or a god that orders iron age people to practice slavery, rape their enemies wives, commit genocide, makes laws that treat women as property, and has jealous and unpredictable fits of anger.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the idea of a higher power and the god of the Bible.

A fear based Christian belief robs a person of the joy of life.

You are avoiding the answer. I didn't ask if you were an atheist. I asked if you were an atheist when it came to Zeus. You are being extremely dishonest. This is why I have no respect for most Christian apologetics.

Look if you can't understand the English language there really isn't any point dialoging with you. To prove your point you are simply floating definitions. That too, is a very dishonest way of dialog.

Now you are simply trying to be difficult. I have a lot of opinions about what you claim about god and what the Bible claims about god. I can have opinions about a lot of things that don't actually exist. I can't believe that I have to keep explaining this to you.

The reason you have been avoiding the answer to this is because it would negate your claim that I'm not really an agnostic.

This is not only game playing, it's really dishonest.

You are rather predictable and that is disappointing. When you run out of rationale approaches you revert to the same old accusations of devil delusions and blasphemy.

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I'm just thinking out loud, and not directing this at anyone in this conversation, but I think God prefers people who honestly don't believe in Him and live ethical lives than people who dishonestly believe in Him.

Pagans will love you for that one!

[karl]

I also recommend a healthy dose of empathy.

Give me an example of how to empathize with, but not encourage, Rich's brand of calumny directed at the God of the Bible and His followers.

[LifeHiscost]

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I also recommend a healthy dose of empathy.

Give me an example of how to empathize with, but not encourage, Rich's brand of calumny directed at the God of the Bible and His followers.

Try to understand his own feelings and respect his beliefs while honestly disagreeing with them...?

[Bravus]

Perhaps taking his statements as being about his position and his experience, rather than as a personal affront, too. He's actually *not* intentionally calling you personally foolish, he's commenting on trends he's seen. So perhaps look at trends you've seen, and find areas of commonality (there must be trends that are foolish that you know about). Then it's easier to discuss the areas of difference on a passionate but dispassionate way...

PS 'Calumny' is not what it is, and pejorative language like that is unhelpful.

[karl]

Main Entry: cal·um·ny

1 : a misrepresentation intended to harm another's reputation

What I have a problem with is a god who needs someone to die to prevent him from killing everyone or a god that orders iron age people to practice slavery, rape their enemies wives, commit genocide, makes laws that treat women as property, and has jealous and unpredictable fits of anger.