Any Christians out there?

[ricketyclik]

Originally posted by Asher
I find it amazing so many people in the world have so many different faiths and every single one of them honestly believes they're picking the right one.

We all grasp as best we can with our finite minds toward the infinite. "God" communicates with each of us with what our minds will allow us to hear.

[ricketyclik]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I don't think Ming would like the appropriate comment to that. So I will just allude to it.



Only one Jimmy in those lines. The original song wasn't Jimmy. It was a women's name which acounts for some odd conflicts in the song. "Oh Jimmy your so pretty" for instance always struck me as an odd thing for a women to say about a guy. Especially a women past thirty. I think she should have made a few more changes.

I liked it anyway.

I think its

Hey Jimmy your so fine you blow my mind

HEY Jimmy.

Oh Mickey you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind
Hey Mickey
Hey Mickey

Oh Micky you're so fine,; don't you understand?
You take me by the heart when you take me by the hand
Oh Mickey you're so fine something something something
It's guys like you Mickey...
etc

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its Protestant. You simply don't know all of the varieties. You haven't read the thread either. It was Troll that was saying that eveyone that isn't christian goes to Hell. He then backed off a bit for three year olds. There are plenty of Protestants that wouldn't. I guess you haven't run accross the type.

Name one branch. And I read the thread. It was you who brought up the 3-year old IIRC.

Now that is pure Protestant. False too. I am not suffering from having a Catholic upbringing. I simply noticed that not only were the Protestants wrong the Catholics were too.

You seem to bring up catholic issues concerning when arguing against christianity. You also mentioned a catholic school when arguing against ckweb on "godly issues". So it seems your upbringing in catholicism is your starting point for critizing religion/christianity.

I can't hate something I don't think exists. I know a lot of people have a hard time accepting this but it really should to be obvious. You have to believe in a god to hate it. I suspect some Atheists may fit your preconception. I am Agnostic. If given REAL evidence for a god I think I could manage to accept it. I have found however most Christians have rather loose ideas about what constitutes evidence. Some don't. Those are the ones that know that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven.

Being a agnostic you could say: If there is a god i would hate...

[Thrawn05]

I don't call myself a Iesus freak. I keep to myself. This is the first and last time I will list where I stand:

Traditional Latin-Rite SSPV
Roman Catholic.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Seeker
'excessive' skepticism?
How can there be such a thing?
What is a proper level of skepticism?
Who defines it?
Everything is uncertain.

Bear in mind that I'm pretty skeptical myself, but I've gotta disagree with you here. It's possible for skepticism to be so severe that it interferes with one's life. F'rinstance, I don't know with absolute certainty that I even exist, but that is irrelevant--nihilism is a destructive belief system, so for practical reasons I make the assumption that I exist. I don't know with absolute certainty that you or anybody else exists either, but that is again irrelevant--if I assume that nobody else exists (and am wrong) then I have the potential of causing a great deal of harm through my assumptions, but if I assume that everybody else exists (and am wrong) then I'm no worse off. Pascal's Wager is worthless as a theological justification for believing in something (or making certain assumptions), but is excellent as a practical justification for believing in something (or making certain assumptions).

Sometimes skepticism is the best option, though. F'rinstance, if I were to believe that God exists, then through this belief I'm generally saddled with certain ethical presuppositions that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to release myself from. If I were to believe that God does not exist, then I'm again saddled with certain ethical presuppositions. By believing neither position, I'm freed from restrictive ethical presuppostions that would otherwise prevent me from living my life as it ought to be led. It's not necessarily impossible to be freed from such presuppositions while holding a negative or positive belief in the existence of God, but at the least it's extremely difficult.

Also, while everything may be uncertain, that doesn't mean that everything is equally probable. I might die of a heart attack tomorrow, but it's not very likely to happen so I live my life under the assumption that I'm not going to die of a heart attack tomorrow. It's extremely likely that I'll die within the next eighty years, though, and so I'll plan accordingly.

[Robert]

Jack the Bodiless: "Orthodox" and "unliberal" means they follow the Bible and don't allow loose, "liberal", allegorical interpretations.

Orthodox does not refer to the bible, but to a certain interpretation of the bible. This interpretation is a very strict law-system with ceremonies and all that.

Unliberal refers to a system in which the opinion of the persons does not count, and everybody has to obey to what the leader says.

If you want to group people like CivNation and me together, you're really going very short.
I very disagree with the biblical interpretation that we have to live a very strict live to laws and rules, and all that.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
what's more bizarre:

a) putting out milk for the little people

or

b) going to church every sunday

I think its a matter of

A) the Little People lived in Ireland and my Great Grand Aunt was living in the Mid-West.


B) That is common enough to seem normal.


C) I suspect she did both. We are talking about an Irish-Catholic.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I looked it up in the dutch dictionairy, I'm sure it won't be different than the english one. it says:

Fundamentalist:
follower of an orthodox unliberal religion.

conclusion: you're wrong.
Besides that: you don't get half of what I said. Reread it.

How does that become an insult?

I got what you said. You still don't understand evolution one tiny little bit.

I will continue to call Fundamentalists exactly that. If you want to pretend its an insult that will remain your problem as it simply is no such thing. It's like calling it an insult to a person is a Catholic or a Jew.

[Traianvs]

quote:

going to church of course, if you believe in trolls, all you've got to do is put out some milk, christians have to waste an entire morning in church before they can get drunk in the pub (though nowadays they don't do that anymore, cos it's mainly old ppl going to church, and they can't handle booze )

[Switch]

I'm a Christian, born (again) and raised. I believe in God, Christ, and all such related things mentioned in the bible. I also know what you mean by the blood of Christ, but no, I am not a Catholic either.

I suggest everyone check out Answers in Genesis Ministries. It is a great site with a lot of resources regarding creationism, evolution, and anything else which is based off of Genesis. It can be a great help for apologetics.

God bless!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lars-E


Name one branch. And I read the thread. It was you who brought up the 3-year old IIRC.

I used a three year old as an example of an innocent. Prior to that Troll had NO limiter at all on non-christians going to Hell. If you really read the thread you would have seen it.

As for the Branch. You don't live in the US. A lot of people here don't actualy belong to any particular branch especially the sort that think that way. I have had many people tell me that all is needed to go to Heaven is to accept Jesus as your own personal savior, that works don't matter, that everyone every one else goes to Hell. You not having run across this does not make this false.

If I hadn't called Troll on his post his stand on this thread would still have EVERYONE not a christian going to hell. He still has everyone over a certain(unspecified) age going there if you will bother to notice.

You seem to bring up catholic issues concerning when arguing against christianity. You also mentioned a catholic school when arguing against ckweb on "godly issues". So it seems your upbringing in catholicism is your starting point for critizing religion/christianity.

Maybe that is something you are sensitive on. I bring up the Genesis and other parts of the Bible which aren't even close to being purely Catholic issue. I have noticed that some Protestants have a hot button about Catholicism. I guess you are one of them.

Being a agnostic you could say: If there is a god i would hate...

YOU could I suppose. Especially if you feel the need to distort someone's position to avoid what they really said.

As for me. I am not into hate especialy hating things I suspect are merely superstition. That is just your imagination at work. Similar to Cybershy trying to invent an insult where there is none when the term Fundamentalist is used. Notice how he directed it at me instead of Ckweb who is pretty disdainful of Fundamentalists and used the word as well.

Any time you want to address what I have said instead of avoid it by attacking me as a person go right ahead Lars. I like debate and will even debate with people that have called me a "God-hater" without bothering to think first.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Orthodox does not refer to the bible, but to a certain interpretation of the bible. This interpretation is a very strict law-system with ceremonies and all that.

What ceremonies? You are mistaking the Eastern Orthodox rites for the generaly term orthodox. On top of which its not a good definition. Fundamentalists aren't all that orthodox.

[QUOTE]

Unliberal refers to a system in which the opinion of the persons does not count, and everybody has to obey to what the leader says.

Fundamentalists don't have a leader in most cases. They tend to go with their own personal interpretations of the Bible.

If you want to group people like CivNation and me together, you're really going very short.
I very disagree with the biblical interpretation that we have to live a very strict live to laws and rules, and all that.

So do the Fundamentalists. Try and find one that doesn't eat pork. Ham is really popular in the Southern US which heart of Fudamentalism in the US.

How about I use an American dictionary as I speak American and not Dutch.


fundamentalism

SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Even they get it wrong in part though. Its often not organized in that respect. Especially in the US where many people are Fundamenatlists and never go to any church. They do it on their own. I think it comes from the time when people were spreading into new land and were often far from any organized churches.

I still haven't seen you offer an alternative term.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO


I suggest everyone check out Answers in Genesis Ministries. It is a great site with a lot of resources regarding creationism, evolution, and anything else which is based off of Genesis. It can be a great help for apologetics.

God bless!

Its a really bad source for stuff on Evolution. It is a bit more sophisticated in its distortions than other Creationist sites though. They like to start their articles quoting real science (always out of context) and then warp over their version of things in an effort to imply some sort of science in what they say.

For real information on evolution try this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Lars-E]

As for me. I am not into hate especialy hating things I suspect are merely superstition. That is just your imagination at work.

Any time you want to address what I have said instead of avoid it by attacking me as a person go right ahead Lars. I like debate and will even debate with people that have called me a "God-hater" without bothering to think first.

Not my imagination...I was thinking of Rom 1:21-32, especially the bold parts:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It seems like your attitude towards christianity is colored by your childhood experiences? That's alll I am trying to indicate. Nothing more.

Anyways my definition of a fundamentalist is a person who believes in certain fundaments. A christian believes in certain fundaments or dogmas if you will. Most ppl have an outlook of life which includes certain fundaments. If you're a jellyfish, then I guess not.

[ckweb]

Ethelred. I read your response to my last post. I think you simply respond to my posts and forget what my posts were responding to. And, then you lay all sorts of slight ad hominen attacks on me . . .

Another tactic you use is if I ask a question several times in my response, you'll answer it the first time and then when you get to the question again, you'll accuse me of being dense for not getting your answer. For pete's sake, you only answered the question in that post!

I also find you evade and deflect the issue alot. I find it amazingly difficult to continue the conversation we start because you seem to slightly modify its direction.

Anyways, I am still going to try a give you a response to your post:

Your last question shows the other questions are based on a lack of understanding. Directed, dictated, inspired whatever you want to call it.

My last question did no such thing. You simply chose to think it does so you didn't have to answer the first two questions.

There is still nothing special (are going to misunderstand yet again? You have managed it at least three times so far.) in the writings of mere men.

I am not misunderstanding anything. I have challenged this argument. Why is there nothing special in the writings of mere men? Why can't men write imperfectly about a perfect god? Please answer.

You showed choices of style that you contend are a sign that its just a story.

This is what I mean . . . You simply refuse to believe that it is so.

I have clearly demonstrated that the Flood is a composite text and that its stylistic choices indicate that it was a mythic story. And, as I mentioned way back then, it is irrelevant whether some later biblical writers thought it was real or not. Undoubtedly, Babylonians thought the Gilgamesh Epic was real but that does not imply that the author thought it was real.

I said that if the impossible parts of the Bible were shown real I would be a christian and in reply you contradicted that statement.

I did no such thing. I only asked why the historicity of the Flood made such a difference to you.

You didn't question. You stated my postition. It didn't look like a chalenge to me.

Did you miss the question marks????

You keep making the bogus claim that the mundane justifies the impossible. It does not. It only justifies the mundane. . . . You are trying to apply ordinary evidence that only supports ordinary event that I haven't questioned to extraordinary claims.

No I am not. I am using ordinary evidence to support ordinary events. Once doing so, all I have suggested is that, if the Bible is reliable to recounting ordinary events, why not give it the benefit of the doubt on its extraordinary claims? No where did I write that ordinary evidence supports the extraordinary claims; or the mundane justifies the impossible.

No. Not in the least. This is simply pleading that a few unsurprising completley possible events somehow justifies the impossible EVEN though EVERY impossible event that can be checked fails the check.

My point, which seems to elude you, is that there is no impossible event that fails your check. There are only Fundamentalist claims that fail your check.

Originally posted by ckweb
Some of the evidence certainly allows the possibility of a divine intervention.

Originally posted by EthelredOr the complete lack of interventioin. Its possible that the unatural events in Exodus occured. We have no evidence that they did not. Neither do we have any that they did. You pulled this fallacy before. You are acting as if a possibility somehow magicaly becomes a reality if no one can disprove it.

I am not pulling a fallacy and I am not acting as if the possibility proves the reality. All I have suggested is that available evidence does not disprove it; in other words, the sequence of events the Bible presents is not excluded by extra-biblical sources. I have in no way suggested that it means anything more than that. You are simply accusing me of such so you can avoid argue on the core issue, just like you will probably respond to this last sentence rather than the explanation I have given.

However when the heck did I claim anyone was trying to mislead?

By implication.

Only on historical matters. Not on religious ones or devine interaction.

But, if the course of history is the religious matter . . .

Because otherwise it remains what I think it is. A book written by fallible men with no special value.

Your opinion. Prove that it is so. Why can't fallible men write a book of special valuel about their real relationship with a real god?

I am reading them as they are written.

No. You are reading them as they appear in English, as Fundamentalist argue that they should be read, and completely divorced from their historical context.

You have a lot of misconception about logic as your claims that real historical events imply that impossible events happened.

I never did so. But, by saying I did, it makes a nice throw in on a particularly weak point on your part . . .

You are using modern ideas to claim that the ancients thought as you do.

No. I am reading literature contemporary to the writing of Genesis. I am also learning and appreciating how ancient people thought about their world. I am also learning the literary techniques used in ancient writing. And, I am learning the language used in that story. Could you show me where you have taken into consideration such relevant issues to the meaning of the text?

You are being amazingly dense on this.

Ad hominen attacks do not make your point. It is also disingenuous to suggest I am not getting your point when you only gave your answer to this question earlier in this post.

BTW, you have not proved that all the biblical authors believed the Flood was real. You have failed to show that the author of the Flood Story himself thought it was real and you have not shown that all the others require a real event. Simply because they mention it, does not mean they thought it was real.