Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Religion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Clete View Post

    Further still, if Christianity is in fact rational, one would expect an apologetics ministry to fully understand, endorse and promote the laws of reason. Have you ever discovered another major world religion that does so?


    Clete
    Of course. There are many. A little search could reveal many more. First, you have the Greeks themselves, they had many religions to choose from and the definitely promoted the laws of reason. Then you have the Ottoman Empire as another example.

    Lastly, there are the Catholics. Now, I consider Catholics to be Christians, but yet, I know of many Christians who don't consider Catholics to be Christian and you may be one of them - I don't know. And I don't really care because the point itself is not very impressive to begin with.

    Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not? Personally, I'm a fan of logic and reason, but my brand may not be the same as yours. The purpose for logic and reason according to my religion is the pursuit of truth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Clete View Post

      I make no claim to having every aspect of my doctrine correct but yes, Christianity is the only rationally consistent worldview.


      Clete
      Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
        I define truth by saying that such and such is true about truth, and that this or that is false about it, 'cause that's what definin' is: sayin' that such and such is true about the thing being defined, and that this or that is false about the thing being defined.
        Saying things about truth isn't defining it. At the very least you could have used the dictionary and offered a definition.

        How is it logical to make statements about something that you can't define?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
          Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
          We disagree... again. We CAN know the truth. Agnosticism is essentially a unrealistic and dogmatic religious worldview claiming you can't know, no matter how much evidence exists. Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

          Comment


          • Guyver gives Clete a challenge:
            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
            ... all you have to do is prove Jesus is alive (resurrected)...
            doser asks:
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            What proof would you accept?
            Guyver responds, vaguely:
            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
            Real proof would be fine thank you.
            doser offers a form of proof that often is considered "real", at least in courtrooms and historical investigations:
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            How about eyewitness accounts?
            Guyver, still avoiding the original question (what proof would you accept?) responds with three questions:
            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
            How about it?

            Do you believe that alien abductions are real since there are eyewitness accounts? Do you believe that sasquatch, bigfoot or yeti exists because there are eyewitness accounts?
            doser responds to the first of Guyver's three questions and restates the original question that has still gone unanswered:
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

            Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

            If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?
            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
            Based on your track record, it's quid pro quo with you.
            ok, but you haven't yet responded to my original question with anything substantial

            I'll ask again: What "real proof" would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

            I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I asked you if eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the existence of alien abduction and bigfoot. Well?
            i'll be glad to follow your bunny trail after you answer my first question:

            What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
            Last edited by ok doser; August 19th, 2019, 10:19 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
              Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
              agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children

              or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"

              Comment


              • Wow. That’s something.

                BTW....looks like you went through a whole lot of work to say nothing and attempt to somehow save face there okdoser.

                You’re dismissed. Since you can’t answer the question, I’ll help you out. The answer is no.

                Comment


                • You're dismissed, OK.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Doser asks, repeatedly:
                    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                    What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
                    Guyver throws a little hissy fit, squirms and finally answers:
                    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                    The answer is no.
                    Right, just as I suspected - there is no proof you will accept of Jesus' resurrection

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      You're dismissed, OK.
                      Dismissed by a troll

                      I don't think guyver quite understands how things work here

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
                        Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                        agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children

                        or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
                        So which apply/applies to you?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          So which apply/applies to you?


                          Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                          I know about fighting because I was a fighter. One of the dudes on this site knows it because he held the pads a time or two.

                          OK, so you're brain damaged to some degree from taking one too many uppercuts to the chin

                          That explains a lot

                          And here I was thinking you were a Canadian

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                            Clete... Do you think Jesus was religious? Are atheists religious? Is evolutionism a religion? (Yeah... Depends how you define the word). You might have seen this video before... Jesus hated religion. https://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY

                            It is interesting that the Bible defines true religion as helping out those in need. (Ie. Widows and orphans)
                            Well, you said it. It depends on how you define the word "religious".

                            I am using the term in the sense of one's worldview. Does one believe that God exists and if so what sort of God does one believe in. In that sense, everyone is "religious" in one way or another.
                            sigpic
                            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                              Claiming that someone is guilty because of the sins of another person for starters.
                              This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.

                              God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.

                              Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...

                              Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.


                              I should point out that when I ask questions like "What is it that you think is irrational about Christianity?" I'm referring to biblical Christianity, not Catholicism or Calvinism or whatever other "ism" you're likely to think of. Christianity is caricatured on television past the point of recognition and what passes for Christianity on most Christian television channels is so wildly irrational and idiotic that I can hardly believe that anyone buys it at all.
                              The Christianity I'm talking about is that which is strictly rational and entirely biblical. As I said in my previous post, I do not claim to have every detail of my doctrine correct but I wasn't kidding when I said that Christianity is the only rational worldview. All things that are true are rational, by definition. Thus, the more rational the worldview the more similar it will look to the biblical worldview. Ayn Rand is an excellent example of this. She was the most Christian atheist that probably ever lived. Don't misunderstand me, she hated God, hated Christianity and hated Christians but every objection she had against Christianity was something that Christians often teach but that is not biblical and most everything she stood in support of is entirely biblical. In fact, the doctrine of original sin was one of the doctrines she most hated and rightly so. Ayn Rand went to hell because of poor Christian doctrine that was born out of mindless traditions and blind belief rather than a sober minded (i.e. rational ) analysis of what the bible actually teaches.

                              Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                              You know what's weird Clete? You go on about logical axioms and philosophy and you don't even know Aristotle. What kind of philosopher doesn't know the Greeks? Aristotle said it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.
                              You just pulled this stupidity out of your backside.

                              The three laws of reason that you didn't even know existed before I told them to you were first written down (so far as we know) by none other the Aristotle! So don't lecture me about Aristotle until you've read at least one book on the basics of philosophy.

                              If one believes that God is immutable, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.
                              If one believes the everything is predestined, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.

                              Aristotle was a brilliant mind who was wrong more than he was right in my view but no matter how wrong he was on so many other things, the contribution he made to epistemology with his laws of reason out weigh his errors by a million to one. His laws of reason are the single most important contribution to mankind that any philosopher could ever accomplish. They are responsible for nearly every thing in your life, from the hospital you were born in to the computer screen you're looking at right now and every piece of technology in-between has, at its root, the laws of reason to thank for it's existence.

                              It should be pointed out, however, that Aristotle did not invent the laws of reason, he simply figured them out and wrote them down. There is some evidence that these concepts were understood by people before the Classical period but Aristotle gets the credit because his work is the oldest that exists and because his writings are what has educated the west world about these ideas ever since.

                              I said I neither affirm or reject your logic axioms at this time. Do you know what that means Clete? It doesn't mean I reject your claims. It also means I don't accept them - AT THIS TIME!!!!!
                              I understand fully what it means. It is you who does not. Even your fence sitting on the issue uses the very laws of reason that you're on the fence about. Every word you speak, every keystroke your type is an affirmation of the laws of reason.

                              When I have time, interest or inclination to give your logical axioms a complete workover, I will do so thoroughly and respond to it. You may be right, and I may be a fan. At this point I'm not and I'm not too impressed to be honest.
                              As if I care about what impresses a man who rejects the world's religions on the basis of a rational thought process but who is completely unfamiliar with the most important feat of epistemological thinking in the history of philosophy.

                              And furthermore, do you remember how you said - in so many words - you were judging my worthiness of your time? Well, you're in that same boat in my book. The fact that you would actually read into my comments that I rejected your logical axioms demonstrates an automatic reaction (to something that didn't even occur) called cognitive bias. You actually EXPECTED me to reject your claims whether you knew it or not, and your mind automatically reset to that default.
                              I did not read rejection per se, but rather a failure to accept them. My point is that you can't do either accept or reject them without making use of them. It is you who misunderstand me, not the other way around.

                              And if you think I'm wasting your time then stop responding to me.

                              Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                              Of course. There are many. A little search could reveal many more. First, you have the Greeks themselves, they had many religions to choose from and the definitely promoted the laws of reason. Then you have the Ottoman Empire as another example.


                              Not even worth a response.

                              Lastly, there are the Catholics. Now, I consider Catholics to be Christians, but yet, I know of many Christians who don't consider Catholics to be Christian and you may be one of them - I don't know. And I don't really care because the point itself is not very impressive to begin with.
                              Catholics do NOT promote the laws of reason except perhaps on some superficial level. They openly and proudly promote the concept of antinomy in their religious beliefs. That is, they are fully comfortable with accepting a doctrine that is irrational BECAUSE it is irrational. It is the willingness to accept doctrines that do not make rational sense that they call "faith". It is piety, in their minds, to accept the contradictory as true.

                              This is true of very nearly every religious system in existence and is even true of most Christian sects! The idea that you could come on here and pretend that the Greek pantheon of gods was in anyway based on, or even promotive, of the laws of reason is perhaps the most laughable thing I've read on this website in years, (not counting the insanity on the flat earth thread of course).

                              Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not?
                              Anyone who is in pursuit of a rational worldview, that's who.

                              Personally, I'm a fan of logic and reason, but my brand may not be the same as yours. The purpose for logic and reason according to my religion is the pursuit of truth.
                              There are not multiple brands of logic and reason, at least not sound logic and reason. And the pursuit of truth is the entire point of this entire discussion. As I said when you first stated that you had rejected the world's religions by means of a rational thought process, reason is a significant step in the direction of biblical Christianity. What has come after has been me simply trying to establish whether your claim of having used a rational thought process was actually true.

                              Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                              Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
                              I have yet to meet one. I've met plenty of people who call themselves that but I have yet to discover anyone who actually is a real agnostic. They have all been functional atheists.

                              Those that do exist, do not exist for long....

                              Proverbs 8:17
                              I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me.

                              Jeremiah 29:13
                              And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.


                              Clete
                              Last edited by Clete; August 20th, 2019, 11:00 AM.
                              sigpic
                              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                                We disagree... again. We CAN know the truth. Agnosticism is essentially a unrealistic and dogmatic religious worldview claiming you can't know, no matter how much evidence exists. Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
                                Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X