Importance of relationship with Christ

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 05:16PM

IFX wrote:

There are a number of reasons why this one should be ruled out.
Firstly Brian, you do accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encouters with Scientology or Islam, either do we. So it is simple being consistent to do the same with Christianity..

I have stated many times that I firmly accept the encounters of Scientologists, Muslims, etc. The question is who are they encountering and what is the fruit of those encounters?

IFX wrote:

Secondly, this violates the rules of logic, it is anecdotal evidence.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html

You point to this site quite often. I can not find your point. Instead of pointing us there explain in your own words what is illogical and how?

IFX wrote:

Thirdly, it also begs the question whether if you experience / imagine something in your head existing does is it actually exists. If I imagine the big bad wolf and he scares me, does the big bad wolf exist?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Usually for the proof of existence, more than an experience in the one's mind is required. If we assume God exists than we have to assume the Big Bad wolf also does.

It is relatively easy to distinguish that which is real and that which is not. When I dream about being at Old Trafford and I wake up and I'm in my own bed, it was a dream. When the Holy Spirit descends upon you and gives you a vision, that my friend is real.

When you are stopped from getting off a bus in the early evening, that is real.

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 05:35PM

robindch wrote:

> Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about
> the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your
> conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I'm not saying that mine are any more weighty -- in fact, exactly the opposite and I've posted it twice in the last two days -- are any of you guys reading this? To say it for a third time: my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too) which as far as I can make out are infallible and different from each other.

My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different, and yes our conclusions on the existence of a triune God as communicated to us through His word, the Holy Bible, are infallible. Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

I can go out and touch it, taste it and feel it's coldness and wetness.

I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions are tentative?

robindch wrote:

It's Brian who's insisting that his are weightier than mind and I'd like to know why. Specifically, what I would like to understand is how somebody can assert that it is impossible for them to make a mistake. A response like "I am a sheep" doesn't suggest that much independently-minded thinking has been done about the topic

Mine are weightier because I have experienced God through my senses. I have spoken to Him He has spoken to me. I know He exists.

The idea of a Big Bang is nothing but an unprovable theory. God has proven Himself to me. So do I hinge my eternal salvation on a God that has shown me His existence or on an unprovable scientific theory that offers absolutely nothing?

If you are going to quote me do it properly 'I am His sheep' not A sheep. There is a huge difference. I follow my shepherd Jesus Christ, fully trusting in Him to guide me on a life in service to Him.

I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God. He is real.

Are you capable of erring on His existence?

Excelsior · 01-11-2006 07:38PM

robindch wrote:

my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too)

Firstly, I dispute the idea that in any meaningful way, your views are tentative and BC's are not. Both views constitute your worldviews and a change in them would be a major upheaval for both of you and crucially, both of you are unwilling to consider such revolution without a mountainous cause. Interestingly, both of you wish to proselytise your views.

Secondly, the shape of your worldviews are different in a way that must be brought into account. You invest belief in an intellectual mechanism that you might call skepticism. BC invests his belief in a person that he might call Christ. The way one expresses belief in a structure is neccesarily different to the way one expresses belief in a relationship. Both beliefs are equally foundational as your worldview and I think as such, talk of tentativity is shallow.

robindch · 01-11-2006 08:10PM

> My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different [...]

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

> Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

Er, snow is infallible? Don't you remember my point from yesterday that you must feel it, then interpret the feeling. And that senses and interpretations are quite easy to manipulate? Snow is no more infallible that the purple dinosaurs or whatever that people think exist when they're drugged up.

> I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of
> God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions
> are tentative?

Yes, what's strange about having a tentative point of view on some topic backed up by plenty of evidence and being able to expound the point of view?

And yet again, I don't say that god doesn't exist. I do say that god as described by the people here almost certainly doesn't for the reasons which I've posted earlier and which, by and large, have been ignored in follow-up posts. Try this one again:

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist.

> I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God.

The people who know they can never be fooled are always the easiest to fool

IFX · 01-11-2006 08:22PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have stated many times that I firmly accept the encounters of Scientologists, Muslims, etc. The question is who are they encountering and what is the fruit of those encounters?

Fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood you there. That's interesting view you have. We might take that in a separate thread sometime.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You point to this site quite often. I can not find your point. Instead of pointing us there explain in your own words what is illogical and how?

Anecdotal evidence is a classic logic fallacy. For example, someone could say that Canadians like ice skating, I would say how do you know that? They could say, my cousins are from Canada and they like ice skating. However, this prooves nothing. As you know, many Canadians may not like ice skating.
Anecdotal evidence prooves nothing.
A more logical approach - if it is impossible to ask every Canadian - is to create a sample set. The sample set should include a variety of Canadian people and then use this for a basis. A margin of error should also be included to factor in the probability of error between the sample set and the entire population of Canada. It's hard to deduce anything from a sample set unless you have a good appreciation of the use and misuse of statistics.

Now, you keep on talking about the positive impact Christ makes on people's lifes. But what is your sample set? What is your margin of error?

Furthermore, you are avoidng the question of the negative impact Christianity makes on people's lifes.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is relatively easy to distinguish that which is real and that which is not. When I dream about being at Old Trafford and I wake up and I'm in my own bed, it was a dream. When the Holy Spirit descends upon you and gives you a vision, that my friend is real.

When you are stopped from getting off a bus in the early evening, that is real.

I don't agree with this. My friend thinks he's amazing at Soccer and no matter how many times people tell him or show, he still thinks he's amazing. There are many examples I'm sure you have yourself and people not being able to accept reality.
We see the world / life for what we want, not for what it is.
We are biased and subjective - it's human nature. I cannot distinguish if God is real or not, not human can, you can ascertain an opinion that's all.

Furthermore, let's suppose I am wrong, and you are right.
God exists, and Jesus Christ is son. It doesn't change the crux of my point:
the feelings you or any Christian experience do not proove that God exists. Let me elaborate.
Suppose everybody thinks like me and experiences no feelings from God or Christ. Can God still exist? Of course. On the other hand,
suppose everybody thinks like you and regularly experiences these feelings you describe, is it possible for God not to exist. Of course.
These feelings or lack of feelings proove absolutely nothing accept that some of us think / feel something and some of us don't.

Thank for your reading down this far. Enjoy your evening.

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 08:23PM

robindch wrote:

> My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different [...]

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

We both agree that God created all things. We only disagree on the how, which is unimportant because it is not provable.

robindch wrote:

> Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

Er, snow is infallible? Don't you remember my point from yesterday that you must feel it, then interpret the feeling. And that senses and interpretations are quite easy to manipulate? Snow is no more infallible that the purple dinosaurs or whatever that people think exist when they're drugged up.

The idea that the snow on the ground is fact. Everyone who is currently in this region sees it and is affected by it. Everyone who experiences the living Christ is affected by His existence as well. I disagree with you on 'interpretaing the feeling'. The snow is cold, when it melts it becomes water and is wet, as it warms up it gets heavy, etc, etc.

When one experiences God, there lives change. They are affected in different ways, yet the transformation happens. Nothing to interpret.

robindch wrote:

> I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of
> God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions
> are tentative?

Yes, what's strange about having a tentative point of view on some topic backed up by plenty of evidence and being able to expound the point of view?

And yet again, I don't say that god doesn't exist. I do say that god as described by the people here almost certainly doesn't for the reasons which I've posted earlier and which, by and large, have been ignored in follow-up posts. Try this one again:> I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God.

The people who know they can never be fooled are always the easiest to fool

You may be able to back it up with plenty of evidence interpreted from a view that there is no God. But the conclusion can never be proven.

The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that have been touched by Him.

You choose to ignore such evidence.

You asked before on my views on the participants on the creation thread.

My conclusion is as follows: God is a creative force behind all existence. The scientist who does not take into account this fact is going to come to a wrong conclusion. The scientist who does take into account God, will arrive at the correct conclusions. The scientists who do not take into account God's influence always make a statemnt that God does not come into science because we can not prove nor disprove His existence, (therefore we will ignore Him).

Whereas how can you ignore millions of testimonies to His existence? And then compare to a drug induced vision of a purple dinosaur?

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 08:40PM

IFX wrote:

Fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood you there. That's interesting view you have. We might take that in a separate thread sometime..

It would spark some debate:)

IFX wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is a classic logic fallacy. For example, someone could say that Canadians like ice skating, I would say how do you know that? They could say, my cousins are from Canada and they like ice skating. However, this prooves nothing. As you know, many Canadians may not like ice skating.
Anecdotal evidence prooves nothing.
A more logical approach - if it is impossible to ask every Canadian - is to create a sample set. The sample set should include a variety of Canadian people and then use this for a basis. A margin of error should also be included to factor in the probability of error between the sample set and the entire population of Canada. It's hard to deduce anything from a sample set unless you have a good appreciation of the use and misuse of statistics. .

A cursory drive around the city on an afternoon in the winter would validate the question as to whether or not we like skating, a scientifically conducted poll is not really necessary.

IFX wrote:

Now, you keep on talking about the positive impact Christ makes on people's lifes. But what is your sample set? What is your margin of error?.

My sample set would be every Christian I have ever spoken with. Why do we need to conduct a measurable poll, with proper question to ask that can be manipulated. Whenever I gat called by a pollster there is always one or two questions that I refuse to answer, because it manipulates me into a response that is not necessarily true.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, you are avoidng the question of the negative impact Christianity makes on people's lifes..

Is it Christianity or a particular congregation that has th enegative effect? My own brother was turned oiff Christianity by the actions of a few people in a congregation, not on what God did. There is a difference.

IFX wrote:

I don't agree with this. My friend thinks he's amazing at Soccer and no matter how many times people tell him or show, he still thinks he's amazing. There are many examples I'm sure you have yourself and people not being able to accept reality.
We see the world / life for what we want, not for what it is.
We are biased and subjective - it's human nature. I cannot distinguish if God is real or not, not human can, you can ascertain an opinion that's all..

In the case of your buddy, there are many people who can see his quality as a footballer, there are other witnesses that would render a similar view and pass judgement on the topic. We do it twice a year on our club evaluations.

The example of God's interventions in peoples lives are consistent with the character of God as portrayed in the Bible and consistent with each other as they convey a positive impact.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, let's suppose I am wrong, and you are right.
God exists, and Jesus Christ is son. It doesn't change the crux of my point:
the feelings you or any Christian experience do not proove that God exists. Let me elaborate.
Suppose everybody thinks like me and experiences no feelings from God or Christ. Can God still exist? Of course. On the other hand,
suppose everybody thinks like you and regularly experiences these feelings you describe, is it possible for God not to exist. Of course.
These feelings or lack of feelings proove absolutely nothing accept that some of us think / feel something and some of us don't.
Thank for your reading down this far. Enjoy your evening.

I disagree, the experiences that people have raise the question of what did you experience it and what effect did it have? Enough people have the experience of a changed life through Christ that brings credence to their claims. The claims and experiences and results lead to the conclusion that there is a God and He does exist.

robindch · 01-11-2006 08:40PM

> The idea that the snow on the ground is fact.

I'm going to give up on trying to explain the difference between reality and perception. You think they are the same and you seem unable to accept that they are not, and that you may therefore be able to make a mistake. Oh, well.

> The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that
> have been touched by Him.

So, you're saying that something exists simply because people say it does? And that lots of people who give "testimony" about astrology means that astrology is true also?

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 08:48PM

robindch wrote:

> The idea that the snow on the ground is fact.

I'm going to give up on trying to explain the difference between reality and perception. You think they are the same and you seem unable to accept that they are not, and that you may therefore be able to make a mistake. Oh, well.?

My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real, as real as the snow. I don't understand why you refuse to accept that fact. There is no differnce between the snow and God, both are real.

robindch wrote:

>> The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that
> have been touched by Him.

So, you're saying that something exists simply because people say it does? And that lots of people who give "testimony" about astrology means that astrology is true also?

I'll say it agin. People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

robindch · 01-11-2006 09:06PM

> My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real

In that case, you do not understand much about how your brain works and as I said above, I've given up trying to explain it, since you're simply denying that there's anything there to understand.

> People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did
> they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

The perceived things with their senses and interrpreted them with their conscious and sub-conscious minds. Just like you did. And then they acted upon their decisions. Just like you did. The only notable thing is that they came to a different conclusion from you. And you do not accept that you could have made a mistake in this and your mind seems clamped closed, even to the suggestion.

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 09:10PM

robindch wrote:

> My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real

In that case, you do not understand much about how your brain works and as I said above, I've given up trying to explain it, since you're simply denying that there's anything there to understand.

> People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did
> they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

The perceived things with their senses and interrpreted them with their conscious and sub-conscious minds. Just like you did. And then they acted upon their decisions. Just like you did. The only notable thing is that they came to a different conclusion from you. And you do not accept that you could have made a mistake in this and your mind seems clamped closed, even to the suggestion.

And how open is your mind to the idea that all of us Christians could be dead right in the existence of our God and our experiences of Him?

I can no sooner accept that my experiences with God are a figment of my imagination as I can deny the fact that I was out shovelling the stuff on Saturday night.

IFX · 01-11-2006 09:58PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

A cursory drive around the city on an afternoon in the winter would validate the question as to whether or not we like skating, a scientifically conducted poll is not really necessary.

Incorrect, it would verify that the people who were out that day like skating.
I agree scientific evidence is not necessary as it is a trivial question, but if it a serious question such as the after effects of Chernobyl , scientific and statistical analysis are most definetly necessary.
Are you seriously trying to say anecdotal evidence is logical?

BrianCalgary wrote:

My sample set would be every Christian I have ever spoken with. Why do we need to conduct a measurable poll, with proper question to ask that can be manipulated. Whenever I gat called by a pollster there is always one or two questions that I refuse to answer, because it manipulates me into a response that is not necessarily true.

That's quite a narrow sample set. We need to conduct a measurable poll if we are interested in the truth. We need to also have an appreciation of statisics maths, logic otherwise it can be easily manipulated.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Is it Christianity or a particular congregation that has th enegative effect?

Both.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the case of your buddy, there are many people who can see his quality as a footballer

Only his Mum and granny, everyone else thinks he is rubbish and that he lives in dreamland!

BrianCalgary wrote:

The example of God's interventions in peoples lives are consistent with the character of God as portrayed in the Bible and consistent with each other as they convey a positive impact.

Is that before or after they consult with the bible? What is the before or after percentage? What sort of "control" is there? For example, suppose we gave them another Bible, which we made up and it was completely different and we called this Bible 2. The purpose of this was to act as a "control". Suppose we split the sample set up between the standard Bible and Bible 2, would their claims be any different?
This would be some sort of objective analysis. None of your analysis seems to be objective, you seem to be constantly looking for evidence you are right and not that you are wrong.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I disagree, the experiences that people have raise the question of what did you experience it and what effect did it have? Enough people have the experience of a changed life through Christ that brings credence to their claims. The claims and experiences and results lead to the conclusion that there is a God and He does exist.

Incorrect, the exact same could be the case if he was a delusion. You're logic is flawed. People may experience better lives by believing in God, but it doesn't mean their belief is correct.
God may just be another placebo effect.

BrianCalgary · 01-11-2006 10:53PM

IFX wrote:

Incorrect, it would verify that the people who were out that day like skating.
I agree scientific evidence is not necessary as it is a trivial question, but if it a serious question such as the after effects of Chernobyl , scientific and statistical analysis are most definetly necessary.
Are you seriously trying to say anecdotal evidence is logical?
.

Absolutely. The example of skating will show that there are people out skating on that day, no one can be sure if they like it or not.

But if you can go out on any weekend afternoon and people are skating it is quite logical to conclude that people must like it, if it is an activity of choice and they are choosing to do so. We can also conclude that peopel like to ride their bikes on sunny afternoons in the summer, by the plethora of bike paths and the number of bikes. No technical poll needed.

IFX wrote:

That's quite a narrow sample set. We need to conduct a measurable poll if we are interested in the truth. We need to also have an appreciation of statisics maths, logic otherwise it can be easily manipulated..

How many would you need to satisfy your poll? 50? 100? How many do you think I am talking about?

Lets just say that so far there has been a God experience in 100% of all Christians that I talk to. I conclude therefore that the present trend is the trend most likely to continue.

IFX wrote:

Both...

I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

IFX wrote:

Only his Mum and granny, everyone else thinks he is rubbish and that he lives in dreamland!

Meant quality as being bad quality as well:) Poor fellow. I see it quite often in our club. My heart goes out to the dreamers

IFX wrote:

Is that before or after they consult with the bible? What is the before or after percentage? What sort of "control" is there? For example, suppose we gave them another Bible, which we made up and it was completely different and we called this Bible 2. The purpose of this was to act as a "control". Suppose we split the sample set up between the standard Bible and Bible 2, would their claims be any different?
This would be some sort of objective analysis. None of your analysis seems to be objective, you seem to be constantly looking for evidence you are right and not that you are wrong.

Describe what you mean by control? Do you mean on our sample set or on our subjects?

When you are as old as I am and have had the pleasure to have met Christian and Non-Christian alike from all corners of the Earth and have heard their testimonies, the only conslusion that can be drawn is that there is a caring and loving God who wishes to help you improve your life. If I never not once saw transformed lives I would really question my faith. But there isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of somone else being saved by Christ.

Come up with a set of questions and I would be happy to conduct a survey here in Calgary of you would like.

Incorrect, the exact same could be the case if he was a delusion. You're logic is flawed. People may experience better lives by believing in God, but it doesn't mean their belief is correct.
God may just be another placebo effect.[/QUOTE]

IFX · 02-11-2006 12:48AM

BrianCalgary wrote:

Absolutely. The example of skating will show that there are people out skating on that day, no one can be sure if they like it or not.

But if you can go out on any weekend afternoon and people are skating it is quite logical to conclude that people must like it, if it is an activity of choice and they are choosing to do so. We can also conclude that peopel like to ride their bikes on sunny afternoons in the summer, by the plethora of bike paths and the number of bikes. No technical poll needed.

Anecdotal evidence is not logical and neither are analogies. If you think they are, you do not understand logic.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

BrianCalgary wrote:

How many would you need to satisfy your poll? 50? 100? How many do you think I am talking about?

Lets just say that so far there has been a God experience in 100% of all Christians that I talk to. I conclude therefore that the present trend is the trend most likely to continue.

You choose who you talk to, your sample set is skewed, go to another part of the world or your city and you will easily find 50 or 100 people who think the opposite.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

Take it in a separate thread. It's going off the point. It irriates many people,check out the atheism forum for example.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Meant quality as being bad quality as well:) Poor fellow. I see it quite often in our club. My heart goes out to the dreamers

So you agree it is possible for someone not to be able to tell the difference between reality and delusion. You should revise your God hypothesis

BrianCalgary wrote:

Describe what you mean by control? Do you mean on our sample set or on our subjects?

It's scientific terminology for increasing the accuracy in experimentation. In what you described, you don't know how much the Bible is influencing the person's experience of the God so that it is consistent with God. Therefore unless you have some way of measuring it, saying things like their experience is consistent with that described in the Bible is meaningless.

BrianCalgary wrote:

When you are as old as I am and have had the pleasure to have met Christian and Non-Christian alike from all corners of the Earth and have heard their testimonies, the only conslusion that can be drawn is that there is a caring and loving God who wishes to help you improve your life. If I never not once saw transformed lives I would really question my faith. But there isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of somone else being saved by Christ.

That's great, but there isn't a year that doesn't go by that I don't hear of someone benefitting from the placebo effect. They are both excellant delusions.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Come up with a set of questions and I would be happy to conduct a survey here in Calgary of you would like.

That would take a lot of time, I'm afraid.

There's plenty of arguments for Christianity, but not of them are logical. They all contain logical fallacies.

robindch · 02-11-2006 01:49AM

> I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

I knew one person (vaguely) who committed suicide in the late 80's because he fell in with a sect which proclaimed itself as the one true version of christianity -- where have we heard that before?

Anyhow, he left a suicide note to the effect that he was killing himself because he was unable to face a future which he knew was true. One other member of the sect commented to me that "he wasn't strong enough" when told of his suicide. An unpleasant story, but they're the facts.

Less dramatically, one could discuss the vast number of people who've suffered or died because politicians and christian leaders tell lies about public health. Here's an quote from an article in the current edition of The Lancet (free registration) which hits the nail pretty much on the head:

The increasing influence of conservative political, religious, and cultural forces around the world threatens to undermine progress made since 1994, and arguably provides the best example of the detrimental intrusion of politics into public health.

I could continue giving you many more examples -- local, national and global -- but you get the idea.

robindch · 02-11-2006 02:07AM

> And how open is your mind to the idea that all of us Christians could be dead
> right in the existence of our God and our experiences of Him?

It's completely open -- no slagging, Excelsior, please. All you'd have to do is to show the slightest bit of evidence outside (a) stories in an old book and (b) completely normal human hopes, expectations and anthropomorphizations. After all, he's supposed to have created the universe, so he should be able to do something more impressive and convincing than making guest appearances on toast, condensation in windows, stains in concrete etc, etc. Makes him look powerless, vain and, dare I say, rather silly from where I'm sitting.

> I can no sooner accept that my experiences with God are a figment of my
> imagination as I can deny the fact that I was out shovelling the stuff on
> Saturday night.

As you wish. Though I will sign off on this topic by saying that you have refused to consider that I may be right, while I will happily change my opinion if it ever looks like you might be right. Who's being closed-minded?

And thanks for the data point as well. Up to this evening, I wasn't aware that anybody would deny, at least in some areas, the existence of sensation and interpretation as processes in the human brain.

Excelsior · 02-11-2006 10:51AM

robindch wrote:

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

Hold up a second. I am a creationist. I believe the universe and all that is in it was created by Yahweh.

I am not however, a Creation Scientist. (I am more of a scientist than most of them though

)

JustHalf · 02-11-2006 01:12PM

Excelsior wrote:

I am not however, a Creation Scientist. (I am more of a scientist than most of them though )

And only a Computer Scientist at that!

JustHalf · 02-11-2006 01:34PM

IFX wrote:

I think it is fundamental to most theists or atheists it is generally good to keep somone alive, and it is pointless to this thread debating that.

But this is not a proof, sir!

The problem here is, you talk about how bad it is that Christians spread unproven dogma, but have no problem with acts of charity which start with are built on similarly unproven assumptions! Your points are inconsistent with each other.

If a Christian provides bread and, along with it, provides the Gospel, they (hopefully) do so in good faith based on their understanding of reality. You, based on your own understanding of reality, demand that they stop until a question they believe already answered, is answered.

It is important to note that reality is independent of both of your understandings. If the Christian's view is the best approximation of the Universe, then any effort to stop the spread of the Gospel is standing in the way of God, and this is probably the dumbest and most evil thing you could possibly do.

Here are two great secrets of the universe... firstly, nothing has been proven with axioms and secondly, as a human being you carry around immense cultural baggage that dramatically shapes what your own assumptions are. I don't think you really understand either.

To demand that Christians stop spreading the gospel and restrict their charity behaviour to a manner which sits well with secularism is to be intolerant and unwise. For on what basis would you then permit spreading the gospel in ANY case?

If the spread of all unproven ideas are banned, we will never speak (and if taken literally, the ban contradicts itself).

IFX wrote:

This thread.

Be more specific, sir.

IFX wrote:

Straw man.

Fragment. Please revise.

By the way, when you use abrupt sentence fragments it does nothing but make you appear obnoxious.

IFX wrote:

I never said they were explicitly weak people, please read the thread. They are in a weak position, low education literacy rates, starving. Again there is agreement that they are in a weak position as why is Brian or whoever going to help them in the first place?
And I repeat, if I was in their position, I would fall for the Christian spin too. So I am no weaker or stronger than them.

It's not a straw man. Just because I'm hungry doesn't mean I'm going to start believing whatever the hell people tell me.

Are you honestly telling me that you are not strong enough in your convictions that you will BELIEVE anything you are told when hungry? Seriously?

Obviously if a person must claim to be a Christian to gain the bread in this hypothetical example, then that is a despicable act on behalf of the person holding the basket. But you have denied that this is what you are discussing.

Instead you seem to be having a fit over the things that people believe in their heads, and your crisis is removed entirely from the reality of their actions. If a Christian gives a man bread, but without doing so, still believes that telling them the Good News of Jesus is as or more important, as far as I can tell from your writing you would have a problem with this. Why should this in any way affect you?

If I am wrong in my theory, then please stop using the phrase "a Christian believes" to refer to your problem, and refer to a particular action they commit in the external physical world.

IFX wrote:

Straw man 2. They are not forced conversations, there is no condition of conversion for food. I never said there was. They are simple extremely biased versions of the facts or extremly biased education they are receiving.

Who? Where? What? You have yet to provide an actual example, or even a clear hypothetical one.

IFX wrote:

You don't appear to know what I am saying.

As you don't seem to either, at least I'm not alone!

IFX wrote:

Ok, firstly we cannot generalise for atheists in the same way we cannot generalise for Christians. Some Christians would believe it is just as important to give food as it is to give the bible, some would think it always more important to give food. Note - my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

However, as there is variance amongst Christians to my food / bible question there would be variance amongst atheists to your question.

Don't feign offence on behalf of all atheists when discussing a single, hypothetical atheist in an example where he has already given bread and we have established other things about him.

I'm leaving the rest of your post for later, but I give no guarantees on whether or not I'll get back to it. I'm getting a bit tired of being lectured on logic by someone who incorrectly characterises my arguments as being logical fallacies (and refers me to URLs so that I may learn!), particularly when their own arguments are so loose, ill-defined and just plain shoddy, and whose tone is so damn blunt and rude.

Excelsior · 02-11-2006 02:45PM

IFX wrote:

my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

I am a Christian who has a job description primarily defined in terms of seeking social justice. If give a starving person food I am promoting my belief system.

To remix your favourite sentiment, IFX, to argue that one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical. It is the Gospel that prompts me in my work and the work is shaped by the Gospel.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 02-11-2006 02:47PM

do you stone disobedient children? do you wash your hands after touching anything a woman who's having her period has touched? do you kill gay people?

Excelsior · 02-11-2006 02:50PM

I'm sorry. I might have forgotten to write, "I'm a Christian".

See, I am a Christian. So the answer is no on all counts.

(Presuming of course, your post is directed at me)

IFX · 02-11-2006 03:20PM

Excelsior wrote:

I am a Christian who has a job description primarily defined in terms of seeking social justice. If give a starving person food I am promoting my belief system.

To remix your favourite sentiment, IFX, to argue that one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical. It is the Gospel that prompts me in my work and the work is shaped by the Gospel.

Straw man. One should not consider spreading their spiruatual dogma as important as giving a starving person food.
As for your point: "one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical" is incorrect. Even though it's going off the OP, it's not illogical.

Dades · 02-11-2006 03:20PM

Mordeth wrote:

do you stone disobedient children? do you wash your hands after touching anything a woman who's having her period has touched? do you kill gay people?

Of course he doesn't.

Excelsior like every other sane Christian has used his inherent moral compass to exclude bible teachings that are clearly immoral. Of course this raises the question as to how the word of God can be a sole source of morality for humans, given that they apply their own moralities to it to avoid stoning children and such like.

BrianCalgary · 02-11-2006 04:46PM

robindch wrote:

> I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

I knew one person (vaguely) who committed suicide in the late 80's because he fell in with a sect which proclaimed itself as the one true version of christianity -- where have we heard that before? Anyhow, he left a suicide note to the effect that he was killing himself because he was unable to face a future which he knew was true. One other member of the sect commented to me that "he wasn't strong enough" when told of his suicide. An unpleasant story, but they're the facts.

.

Robin, I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is. You have failed to mention the denomination, and you even call it a cult?

This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

robindch · 02-11-2006 05:10PM

> I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is.

A christian is somebody who calls themselves a christian. It's a self-selecting group with no universally agreed pre-conditions. Saying that only "people who accept christ" (or anything else) are christians is only your definition and the definition may not be shared by others who may not accept that piece of dogma. You may not be comfortable with that definition, but it's the only one that fits *all* christians, not just your denomination.

And yes, this group fitted my definition of a "cult" -- a small group lead by a one guy in a moderately military fashion. This guy said that he'd received many messages from god and had written a few books which some people found very convincing. And who's to say that he wasn't speaking with the real god? Certainly, his disciples said that he was unable to make a mistake in this. They referred to it as the infallible "Gift of Discernment" if my memory serves me correctly.

> This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

His beliefs lead directly to his death as above. His beliefs were developed and fully supported within a framework which he believed was truly christian. Therefore christianity was a direct contributory factor in causing his death. You may say that this is not christianity, but he believed as sincerely as you do, that he was infallible in knowing god's will and was prepared to act upon what to him was sure knowledge. Again, apologies if you find this uncomfortable, but you did ask!

robindch · 02-11-2006 05:20PM

As a postscript to the above, out of interest, just after I posted the above, I did a google search for the guy who lead the cult. Turns out that there are a few small web pages where he's remembered, one of which quotes from a book which he wrote towards the end of his life and ten or fifteen years after the events I noted above. The quote runs as follows:

Anyone writing about spiritual life runs the risk of seeming to claim an inner knowledge or a degree of understanding that the reader does not possess.

Please believe me when I say that I am making no such claim. Twenty five years ago I might have thought so, although even then I hope I wouldn’t have been so stupid as to say it. But a quarter of a century and a third of my "thinking life" on, I could not dream of it.

If I know and understand anything now, it is that I know next to nothing and understand still less.

I sincerely wish that he had written that last sentence in his earlier books. Not claiming infallibility might have made all the difference.

.

BrianCalgary · 02-11-2006 05:45PM

robindch wrote:

> I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is.

A christian is somebody who calls themselves a christian. It's a self-selecting group with no universally agreed pre-conditions. Saying that only "people who accept christ" (or anything else) are christians is only your definition and the definition may not be shared by others who may not accept that piece of dogma. You may not be comfortable with that definition, but it's the only one that fits *all* christians, not just your denomination.!

Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

If those getting involved in the cult would have read and studied scripture they would hae recognized the fasle teachings of the cult. (you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW:) )

robindch wrote:

[

robindch wrote:

[> This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

His beliefs lead directly to his death as above. His beliefs were developed and fully supported within a framework which he believed was truly christian. Therefore christianity was a direct contributory factor in causing his death. You may say that this is not christianity, but he believed as sincerely as you do, that he was infallible in knowing god's will and was prepared to act upon what to him was sure knowledge. Again, apologies if you find this uncomfortable, but you did ask!

His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

robindch · 02-11-2006 06:11PM

> Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted
> Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

No, you have produced a definition of a christian which suits you. It is not the definition that other people use. And I'm sure that this guy had "accepted christ as his saviour" anyway, so even using your restricted definition, he was a christian.

> His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

Well, we're getting nowhere quickly here! All I'm saying is that he believed that he was a christian and he believed that he possessed -- just like you -- the ability never to make a mistake. Unfortunately -- just like you -- he is unable to consider for one second the possibility that he might be wrong. No offence, by the way. Just stating a fact!

> you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW

There's enough info in what I posted that it's not too difficult to work out who the cult leader was.

Out of interest -- not dealing with specific details of belief here, but just as a general question -- do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that some people say that it's impossible for them to make a mistake?

BrianCalgary · 02-11-2006 07:18PM

robindch wrote:

> Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted
> Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

No, you have produced a definition of a christian which suits you. It is not the definition that other people use. And I'm sure that this guy had "accepted christ as his saviour" anyway, so even using your restricted definition, he was a christian.?

That is not MY definition it is a biblical definition.

Christ says that in order to be saved you must be born again, the only way to the Father is through Him. He is the mediator between man and the Father.

He is the once and for all sacrifice for sin.

robindch wrote:

[> His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

Well, we're getting nowhere quickly here! All I'm saying is that he believed that he was a christian and he believed that he possessed -- just like you -- the ability never to make a mistake. Unfortunately -- just like you -- he is unable to consider for one second the possibility that he might be wrong. No offence, by the way. Just stating a fact!.?

And JC is a scientist because he calls himself one? (no offense JC)

robindch wrote:

[> you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW

There's enough info in what I posted that it's not too difficult to work out who the cult leader was.

Out of interest -- not dealing with specific details of belief here, but just as a general question -- do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that some people say that it's impossible for them to make a mistake?

I still have no idea who you are talking about. Why the hesitance to reveal the identity?

TO say that you cant make a mistake is a delusion. However to say 2+2=4 is something that is fact and to say it is not mistaken. To say that there is snow on the ground outside is not mistaken. To say that there is god who reveals Himself through the word of the Bible is also not mistaken.

So lest you miss it again, who is this cult leader and which cult?

The world of boards.ie awaits eagerly your response
Brian

Importance of relationship with Christ

Comments