"Not a true Christian"

[Yossarian]

I continue to be puzzled by the great number of threads here that are thinly disguised attacks on Christians or on non-believers. For you non-believers, you aren't going to ridicule someone out of their faith. And the Christians consider going up against atheists and their ilk to be doing God's work - that is, witnessing for him. Still, we have people pulling Tertullian out and trying to beat people over the head with facts and historical perspective.

Maybe, but there's no reason it shouldn't be up for discussion. I may not convince Po Belini or Landlord that their god is an absolute fallacy. But maybe a bystander who is on the fence about the whole thing is reading.

 

Let me put it this way. Let's say someone makes the assertion that there's an magical walrus living at the bottom of the ocean that controls the entire universe, and he's undetectable by any humanly means that has ever or will ever be invented.. Even more, let's say the majority of society believes in this delusion. Nothing wrong with that right? Right. We all live happily ever after.

 

But lets say based on this belief the majority of society claims thruth about what we can wear, what we can eat, who we can love, who we can f*#k, how we can f*#k, when we can f*#k, what scientific and medical fields can be explored, which legitimate scientific theories can be taught in public schools, and so on and so forth.

 

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to simply let such delusional beliefs, which affect all of us, go unchallanged?

 

They don't affect me in the least. Nada. Zilch.

 

Sounds to me like you're on a mission from God...or the giant walrus.

 

So, are you challenging the Muslims? Calling them out?

[The Dude]

I continue to be puzzled by the great number of threads here that are thinly disguised attacks on Christians or on non-believers. For you non-believers, you aren't going to ridicule someone out of their faith. And the Christians consider going up against atheists and their ilk to be doing God's work - that is, witnessing for him. Still, we have people pulling Tertullian out and trying to beat people over the head with facts and historical perspective.

Maybe, but there's no reason it shouldn't be up for discussion. I may not convince Po Belini or Landlord that their god is an absolute fallacy. But maybe a bystander who is on the fence about the whole thing is reading.

 

Let me put it this way. Let's say someone makes the assertion that there's an magical walrus living at the bottom of the ocean that controls the entire universe, and he's undetectable by any humanly means that has ever or will ever be invented.. Even more, let's say the majority of society believes in this delusion. Nothing wrong with that right? Right. We all live happily ever after.

 

But lets say based on this belief the majority of society claims thruth about what we can wear, what we can eat, who we can love, who we can f*#k, how we can f*#k, when we can f*#k, what scientific and medical fields can be explored, which legitimate scientific theories can be taught in public schools, and so on and so forth.

 

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to simply let such delusional beliefs, which affect all of us, go unchallanged?

 

They don't affect me in the least. Nada. Zilch.

 

Sounds to me like you're on a mission from God...or the giant walrus.

 

So, are you challenging the Muslims? Calling them out?

You don't live within society?

 

The walrus isn't a giant, he's average-sized, just invisible.

 

Sure, I'm all for challenging any misinformation. But I'm against the idea that I shouldn't do that. I'm also not calling anyone out.

[Husker_x]

I continue to be puzzled by the great number of threads here that are thinly disguised attacks on Christians or on non-believers. For you non-believers, you aren't going to ridicule someone out of their faith. And the Christians consider going up against atheists and their ilk to be doing God's work - that is, witnessing for him. Still, we have people pulling Tertullian out and trying to beat people over the head with facts and historical perspective.

Maybe, but there's no reason it shouldn't be up for discussion. I may not convince Po Belini or Landlord that their god is an absolute fallacy. But maybe a bystander who is on the fence about the whole thing is reading.

 

Let me put it this way. Let's say someone makes the assertion that there's an magical walrus living at the bottom of the ocean that controls the entire universe, and he's undetectable by any humanly means that has ever or will ever be invented.. Even more, let's say the majority of society believes in this delusion. Nothing wrong with that right? Right. We all live happily ever after.

 

But lets say based on this belief the majority of society claims thruth about what we can wear, what we can eat, who we can love, who we can f*#k, how we can f*#k, when we can f*#k, what scientific and medical fields can be explored, which legitimate scientific theories can be taught in public schools, and so on and so forth.

 

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to simply let such delusional beliefs, which affect all of us, go unchallanged?

 

They don't affect me in the least. Nada. Zilch.

 

Sounds to me like you're on a mission from God...or the giant walrus.

 

So, are you challenging the Muslims? Calling them out?

You don't live within society?

 

The walrus isn't a giant, he's average-sized, just invisible.

 

Sure, I'm all for challenging any misinformation. But I'm against the idea that I shouldn't do that. I'm also not calling anyone out.

 

[PuegotDaddy]

So tell me of this invisible Walrus ; do we meet on Saturdays or Sundays ? Will the magical Walrus care if we cuss ? Things that make you go hmmmmm ....

[PuegotDaddy]

Pretty much documented fact though that Christ did exist , whether he was/is God ect you can debate , but Jesus is documented to have existed on earth. Too much history as far as documentation from many sources including the Muslims that prove he existed at the very least as a human being. You cannot deny that , (oh you can debate about whether or not he was heaven sent) , but Jesus Christ did exist at one time , and continues in my beliefs and heart. Now your invisible Walrus ....tell me more about your magical invisible Walrus ...

[Husker_x]

Pretty much documented fact though that Christ did exist , whether he was/is God ect you can debate , but Jesus is documented to have existed on earth. Too much history as far as documentation from many sources including the Muslims that prove he existed at the very least as a human being. You cannot deny that , (oh you can debate about whether or not he was heaven sent) , but Jesus Christ did exist at one time , and continues in my beliefs and heart. Now your invisible Walrus ....tell me more about your magical invisible Walrus ...

 

Islam didn't appear until the seventh century, so whatever document you're referring to that 'proves' a historical Jesus is out of date. There is actually no record from the time he supposedly lived that proves he existed. Even the magic-filled gospel accounts come well after. I would agree it's probable there was a historical Jesus. Confirming it is the issue.

 

The point of the magical walrus/flying spaghetti monster/magic sandwich/russel's teapot argument is simple: if you don't require evidence to believe in something, they're just as good as Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or Zeus. By faith alone any belief equally tenable.

[knapplc]

Maybe, but there's no reason it shouldn't be up for discussion. I may not convince Po Belini or Landlord that their god is an absolute fallacy. But maybe a bystander who is on the fence about the whole thing is reading.

 

...

 

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to simply let such delusional beliefs, which affect all of us, go unchallanged?

 

Do you really think telling someone they are delusional is part of a constructive discussion?

 

To me it just sounds like you're venting at someone, not trying to discuss something with them. Especially when the thing you're trying to "discuss" is a deeply held belief that you know they hold dearly.

 

And for that guy on the fence. Do you really think telling them that the things they believe are bullsh#t, that they are crazy for believing in nonsense and that their God is a magical sky fairy, that their belief is misinformation, that believing what they believe is ignorant, or is an absurdity, is the best way to convince them that they hold errant beliefs? Or do you think maybe you'll just offend, and through offense turn them off to the logic and reasoning that may actually make inroads?

 

To me, too often these "conversations" turn into little more than bashing someone who doesn't believe what you believe.

 

You talk about being responsible. If you truly wanted to be responsible, and to disabuse someone of an errant notion, I believe you are witty enough and adroit enough to use different methods of discussion with them. The absence of this leads me to believe that you are not as interested in having Christians "see the light" as you are in taking a few jabs at them.

 

 

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[knapplc]

The point of the magical walrus/flying spaghetti monster/magic sandwich/russel's teapot argument is simple: if you don't require evidence to believe in something, they're just as good as Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or Zeus. By faith alone any belief equally tenable.

 

The logic behind these examples is impossible to refute. Even when I counted myself a Christian, I had no answer to these problems. Without proof, there is no way to show that one or the other of these religions is the right one. But, then, proof obviates faith, and since that's the keystone of the whole religion, that's a bit of a problem.

[Ratt Mhule]

But lets say based on this belief the majority of society claims thruth about what we can wear, what we can eat, who we can love, who we can f*#k, how we can f*#k, when we can f*#k, what scientific and medical fields can be explored, which legitimate scientific theories can be taught in public schools, and so on and so forth.

 

For me, studying and going into the medical field, not once has religion been talked about in any of my classes. I don't know how religion is holding back the medical field. And going to a public high school, I can assure you, they teach evolution and big bang and all that stuff. Even some Catholic schools are starting to teach some of these things about science. Many Christians are starting to come around to science and evolution as a matter of fact. And just for the record, I wear and eat whatever I want. Sometimes I even walk around naked

[Excel]

Can we all just agree that we're all going to hell?

[bennychico11]

Do you really think telling someone they are delusional is part of a constructive discussion?

 

To me it just sounds like you're venting at someone, not trying to discuss something with them. Especially when the thing you're trying to "discuss" is a deeply held belief that you know they hold dearly.

 

(....)

 

To me, too often these "conversations" turn into little more than bashing someone who doesn't believe what you believe.

 

You talk about being responsible. If you truly wanted to be responsible, and to disabuse someone of an errant notion, I believe you are witty enough and adroit enough to use different methods of discussion with them. The absence of this leads me to believe that you are not as interested in having Christians "see the light" as you are in taking a few jabs at them.

 

 

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

personally I use the "delusional" word have no qualms about it. For I use the main definition of the word: "having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. A mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc"

 

I like to try and equate the religious discussion to a political one. Yes there is going to be some bashing on each other's ideas...but as long as it brings about discussion. People just need to learn not to get so offended. Talking about these things doesn't hurt anyone.

[bennychico11]

For me, studying and going into the medical field, not once has religion been talked about in any of my classes. I don't know how religion is holding back the medical field. And going to a public high school, I can assure you, they teach evolution and big bang and all that stuff. Even some Catholic schools are starting to teach some of these things about science. Many Christians are starting to come around to science and evolution as a matter of fact. And just for the record, I wear and eat whatever I want. Sometimes I even walk around naked

 

per religion being in the classes...I assume he was talking about evolution/big bang. And even though it may not have been an issue in your school, I know there are numerous schools in other much more religious states that it IS an issue.

With regards to the medical field directly, I would say stem cell research is one area where the churches try to make an effect on.

[The Dude]

So tell me of this invisible Walrus ; do we meet on Saturdays or Sundays ? Will the magical Walrus care if we cuss ? Things that make you go hmmmmm ....

It's all in my newsletter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe, but there's no reason it shouldn't be up for discussion. I may not convince Po Belini or Landlord that their god is an absolute fallacy. But maybe a bystander who is on the fence about the whole thing is reading.

 

...

 

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to simply let such delusional beliefs, which affect all of us, go unchallanged?

 

Do you really think telling someone they are delusional is part of a constructive discussion?

 

To me it just sounds like you're venting at someone, not trying to discuss something with them. Especially when the thing you're trying to "discuss" is a deeply held belief that you know they hold dearly.

 

And for that guy on the fence. Do you really think telling them that the things they believe are bullsh#t, that they are crazy for believing in nonsense and that their God is a magical sky fairy, that their belief is misinformation, that believing what they believe is ignorant, or is an absurdity, is the best way to convince them that they hold errant beliefs? Or do you think maybe you'll just offend, and through offense turn them off to the logic and reasoning that may actually make inroads?

 

To me, too often these "conversations" turn into little more than bashing someone who doesn't believe what you believe.

 

You talk about being responsible. If you truly wanted to be responsible, and to disabuse someone of an errant notion, I believe you are witty enough and adroit enough to use different methods of discussion with them. The absence of this leads me to believe that you are not as interested in having Christians "see the light" as you are in taking a few jabs at them.

 

 

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

I shoot from the hip, playboy. But you're right, I'm not for everyone.

 

Consider it apple cider vinegar.

[zoogs]

Great song.

[knapplc]

I shoot from the hip, playboy. But you're right, I'm not for everyone.

 

Consider it apple cider vinegar.

 

Your 'from the hip' shootin' style is usually pretty entertaining. Not to get all mushy, but I'm a big fan. As has been well-documented in past threads, I just have a different approach to the issue.

 

 

My take on Christianity is pretty simple, and it's Bible-based. It comes from Matthew 7: 9-11:

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?

Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

 

 

 

God is omnipotent, meaning there is nothing at all he cannot do. So, if God Is Love, and he loves me like a father, then what am I doing here? Why aren't I in heaven already? Why was I born in this environment of sin, and not directly into heaven?

 

Heaven is the bread, or the fish. Earth is the stone, or the snake. A God who loves me more than I love my wife or daughter would never put me in this environment. I cannot fathom doing this to my child.

 

The story falls apart for me there. There's more, some deeply personal stuff and some logical stuff, but the bottom line is, I don't buy it.