Christianity and Love

Great Debates
241

Guadere your post slipped in while I was typing mine earlier, that’s why I didn’t respond until now.

You said: "FoG, you seem to be confused about logic when you state that there is “God’s logic” and “our logic”. They are one and the same; logic is logic. "
I agree that logic is logic, HOWEVER … (on to the next point)

“Not even God can be logically considered “just” if he punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.”
AND
"Now, let’s look at your claims:
God is perfectly just (accepted definition of “just”: one who judges fairly and morally correctly, punishing those who deserve it)
God is perfectly merciful (accepted definition of merciful (your definition, in fact): one who does not punish those who deserve it)

These conflict. One or both assertions are therefore somehow false"
… again, I agree that logic is logic, regardless. There are three possibilities here:

  1. I’m not explaining it well. I’m taking a logical concept and explaning it in a way that makes it appear illogical. That’s definately possible. Some of what you said later about the ‘definition of justice’ might be worth delving into. (Although I don’t think ‘glurft’ would work :)).
  2. It’s logical but we don’t see the logic in it (keep reading if you don’t believe me, I have more to say on this one)
  3. In your world, a third option is that God is illogical. Obviously, I don’t believe this option exists. In fact, I think believing in this option is, itself, illogical.
    The apple illustration (which was very good by the way, and made me hungry) proves my point. I submit to you, Guaudere, that you are the one who thinks all apples are green. What you are lacking is the red apple that proves your assumption wrong. In my experience, God uses people to prove this assumption wrong in bits and pieces, over time. But only those open to God respond to it.
    As to your other statement: "I don’t consider anyone a gentleman who will let me suffer horribly for eternity because I didn’t think he existed. "
    I just went through this one with David, either on this thread or the other one, cant recall which. God does not let you suffer horribly for eternity because you didn’t think he existed. He lets you (and I, and anyone) suffer horribly for eternity because we are guilty of daily, consistant, persistant crimes against God, every day of our lives. We are horridly guilty and deserve punishment. Only through Jesus can we be saved, yada yada yada, you know the rest.

David I’ll respond to your most recent post next.

242

No, dear. You believe in two contradictory things in this instance, not I. Tell me, what contradictory things do you say I believe? I do not necessarily believe everything you say is true, but neither do I say everything you say must be false. I point out two beliefs that cannot co-exist; God cannot both absolutely punish fairly and not punish fairly (be both perfectly just and merciful, given the definitions given).

243

Hi pepperlandgirl :). I didn’t forget you, just forgot to mention that I’d respond to you in this post also. I’ll get to David next. Thank you for the graciousness with which you expressed your point.

You said: "JC does not equal heaven. The absense of sins equals heaven. "
Actually I kind of like what you said. It’s actually very, very true! If I lived a perfect life, or had “absence of sin”, as you called it, I would go straight to heaven and would have no need for Jesus’ sacrifice. Of course, because we DON’T have ‘absence of sin’, we DO have to have Jesus to get into heaven. Still, like I said, I like the way you made your point.

Are you ready for this? I agree with this statement too: "But everybody should have ample oppurtunity to pay for those sins themselves. ".
I agree, they should. And they do! We all can pay for our sins ourselves. The problem is, I confess openly, I don’t want to. The only way to pay for our sins, according to the Bible, is the suffer eternally for our sins.

Your illustration is good, but I think it’s missing something. One part said: "That way, you still owe 10,000, but you owe it to the bank, and you can have more time to pay it back. That’s becoming a Christian. "
To fit your illustration, becoming a Christian would actually require someone coming along and paying off the 10,000! You don’t owe it anymore, it’s been paid. That’s becoming a Christian. Jesus paid the price for our sins.

Your other option was: “OR you can pay it back with no outside assistance. Because it takes longer, I charge higher interest, but I don’t force you to go through my bank.”
The problem is the enormity of our guilt. We can never even begin to repay God for what we’ve done. To put it in illustritive terms, you’d have to say we owe an infinate amount of dollars, thus it literally can never be paid back by us.

Interesting thoughts, I’m glad you posted. :slight_smile: (especially since I think this is YOUR TOPIC!)

244

Hi again David. Here are my comments on your post:

Your quote about my suggestion to see for yourself about Christians in a healthy church: "Baloney. You don’t even understand what proper testing is, do you? “Attitudes” don’t prove your god exists. Gravity is testable. God is not. Why can’t you get this through your head? "

All I can say, David, is I’ve seen brilliant people visit healthy churches for months, and become convinced of the truths of God just by observing the changed lives and the joy and love that the people had. After you see it for awhile, you realize, “This HAS to be God. People don’t naturally love like this. People don’t naturally give of themselves like this. People don’t naturally have healthy marriages like this.”
Next, you quoted me as saying: “If YOUR theory of God is correct, healthy born again Christians should be the most miserable people in the world, trying to bear up under this awful dictator. So check it out! See if that’s what you find.” You said: “You whined that I was “misquoting” you (even though I wasn’t) and you have the nerve to attribute this BS to me? I never said anything about Christians being miserable, etc.”

I didn’t intend this to be perceived as a “quote”, just a natural conclusion based on what you said. You say God is an awful dictator. So tell me in your own words, then, what the lives of people under an awful dictator would be like, since I apparently got it wrong.
You said: "So what question would you like me to address? "
Here is the FULL quote that led to this, from way earlier in the post: ""We’ve tried the phasers of logic and the photon torpedoes of rationality, but your God shield is stronger. "
No. You’ve tried the phasers of what YOU BELIEVE is logical and the torpedoes of what YOU BELIEVE to be rational. I’ll ask you the same question I’m asking Guadere. I am placing my trust in the God of the universe and His Word, the Bible. What are you placing your trust in? I’ve told you why I’m so certain that what I believe is the truth. Why are YOU so certain? How can YOU be sure you are correct? "

You said: “It’s sad that you don’t even understand the concept of objective reality and rationality. Nobody defines reality. We can observe it and study it, though – that is, if we aren’t blinded by a belief in a supposed supernatural entity.”

David I do understand objective reality (“absolute truth”) … I just don’t think you’re operating in it. I realize you see it just the opposite - you think I’m not operating in reality. You and I have very different perceptions of reality. I say mine is right based on the Bible. How can you be sure your perception of reality is correct? You accuse me of being blinded by a belief. My belief is based on something. You seem to be the one with blind belief, because what objective standard do you go by to prove to yourself that you are correct?
You said: “So there is no way for me to rationally say, “There is definitely no god.” But if there is no evidence that he exists, why should I bother with him?”

That doesn’t make sense. Suppose you’re in the jungle and there’s no evidence that there are poisinous snakes, so you say, ‘Why should I bother with them?’ Not bothering with them COULD have serious consequences if, in fact, they DO exist!
Later you said: “No, because that’s not my image of God. That’s your image of God. I’m just holding up a mirror to show you what He looks like.”
Okay, let me ask you honestly then … what is YOUR image of God, independent of anything I’ve said? I’m genuinely curious how you see God.
Later you said: “logic is not an area where there are different beliefs and perceptions. Logic works by certain rules. Your “logic” just doesn’t work, because it isn’t actually logic. It’s belief pretending to be logic, and not doing a very good job of it.”
First, I’ve said it before and I will again - my belief is that God is logical, and if I don’t understand something, it’s because I don’t see the logic yet. No, it’s not belief pretending to be logic. It’s belief in a logical God.
Second, I agree, logic works by certain rules. But to say there aren’t different beliefs & perceptions is incorrect. You can sometimes use logic to defend two totally opposite points in a debate. You can be a lawyer defending a guilty man one day and prosecuting him the next, and use good logic both times. Logic CAN be twisted to make something false appear true.

I say belief in God is logical. You say it’s not. How can you be sure your logical argument actually leads to the truth? Again, logic can be twisted.

Later you said: “Man, you just don’t get it, do you? Sure, there could be a whole mess of spirits and ghosts and goblins running around, completely untestable and not interacting at all with mankind. But again, that has nothing to do with the reality we are dealing with. If it is untestable and doesn’t interact, then it might as well not exist. If it does exist, then it doesn’t affect reality.”

You make a huge assumption here - ‘if it’s untestable AND doesn’t intereact’. Even if I accept that it’s untestable, how can you be certain it won’t interact? Why are you so sure that if it does exist, it won’t affect reality?
Earlier, you said the following summarized my beliefs: “Why do the good go to hell? Because God says so. And God is logical.” I said that was inaccurate and you responded:
"No, it’s perfectly accurate – you just choose to redefine terms. Just because you don’t think people can ever be good doesn’t make your view correct. "

What I meant was … you inaccurately summarized MY VIEWS on the subject. Your view is that people can be good. Mine is that they can’t be. I thought the whole point was that you were summarizing MY views, not yours.

Later you said: “So you equate failing to bow down to your god in exactly the right way with mass murder? I’m seriously beginning to question your sanity…”
And …
"They have not committed a crime. They have not done anybody any harm. They are punished merely for failing to become mindless sheep. "

If you believe this, then you’ve totally misunderstood the point. We have indeed committed multiple, repeat offenses on a daily basis our entire lives. Only ONE of those offenses is failing to submit to God.

You later said “My statement stands. He is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, yet he tortures people for the hell of it.”
So you’ve just “decided” that God has this attitude, huh?
David, did something happen to you once that made you have this approach to God? Something tells me that you don’t think this way by accident. I’m guessing something that made you feel that God was somehow unjust. If that’s too personal than just ignore this paragraph.
David, I’ve got one last thing to say, and it’s an appeal to you. Even though this is an intense debate, I’ve tried to be civil. For the most part, you and most everyone else has been civil too. I think you crossed the line of civility in your last post. Now, it’s a free country and you can obviously say whatever you want, but that’s why I’m appealing to you. It’s all I can do.

I don’t know if you are married or not, but if you’re not, suppose you were. Would you appreciate it if I used your wife’s name as a curse word with the ‘f’ word stuck in between? I’m just trying to give you a picture of how I feel when you slander the Best Friend I’ve ever had. Again, it’s a free country, and if you want to insult Him that’s your buisness, but I’m appealing to you and asking you to please not.

Thank you.

245

If your premises are true, and you use logic correctly, you will get a true result. When people have different beliefs, they are generally not using logic “differently”, they are usually using logic correctly and in the same manner; they are just working from different premises. Say your premise is that only a guilty man would run from the police. Person X ran from the police, therefore you can logically argue that the person is guilty. Attorney B’s premise is that an innocent man might run from the police. Therefore, since the premises are different, not the logical processes, attorney B can argue that person X might be innocent. Now, here we have two conflicting premises, and they cannot both be right; either only a guilty person would run, or a non-guilty person might run (the fact that the premises conflict only needs resolving from the person who attempts to believe them both at the same time, i.e., the jury. Individual people, of course, may have premises that conflict with another person. However, a single person should not believe in premises that conflict at the same time). So one of the premises needs to be false or flawed in some manner. (In this instance, I would suggest that attorney B point out an example of an innocent man who did run form the police, thereby disproving your premise that only a guilty person would run, and therefore disproving that person X must be guilty.)

Law rarely works with pure logic, otherwise we could prove people were absolutely guilty or absolutely innocent, and we can’t. You might say that person X running from the police is evidence that he is guilty, since most people who run from the police are guilty. But you cannot say that he must be logically 100% certain guilty, since you are not using a pure logic argument.

However, the same person can no more argue that a person is both innocent and guilty at the same time than you can argue that your God is absolutely just and absolutely merciful, by the definitions given. Hint: consider altering your defintions, or listening to other interpretations of the Bible besides yours and your preacher’s. Polycarp can probably give you a few pointers. :wink:

And you have not yet shown how a finite amount of sin deserves eternal torture. Nor have you shown why an all-loving God requires belief in Him before allowing people into heaven that He really really wants people to get in. Nor have you shown how a just God will punish the innocent and not the guilty.

246

I eat my chocolate cake right before I go to bed, and it doesn’t cause me ANY problems at all!

247

FriendofTyrannicalOverlord said:

I already told you. I’m sorry you missed it. See my remarks about using God as a crutch. But to answer the rest of your question – in this case, the awful dictator punishes people in the afterlife, not in life, like most dictators. So his evil wouldn’t be detectable in life, just after (if such an afterlife actually exists). Thus, as I have explained to you several times over, it is not testable.

You don’t want me to tell you where I think you’re operating…

I can’t. That’s just it – I don’t make absolute claims like you do. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a new scientific theory will come along to explain things differently. But my life is based on the best available explanation we have right now. Your life is based on a mistranslated centuries-old book of fairy tales that you believe to be 100% true and unchanging.

Once again, we see the completely backwards world of FoG. You admit that your belief is based on the Bible; we know you won’t accept anything that opposes that belief. That is why you are blinded by your belief. Since I don’t have such beliefs and since I use the objective standard of science and rationality, how, exactly, can I be blinded by a belief? I’d love to hear an explanation for this one, but I suspect it will be 180 degrees from reality, as your explanations usually are.

If there’s no evidence they exist, then I wouldn’t worry about them. If there is evidence, such as scientists and others having found poisonous snakes in jungles, then I would worry. There are many specimens of poisonous snakes that we have solid objective evidence for. We have none for your god. What will it take to get this simple fact through your head?

My image of God? Nonexistent. I thought you’d have figured that out by now.

Indeed. That’s exactly what you’ve been trying to do for these past few days. :frowning:

Because if it interacted with reality, it would be testable.

I don’t “believe” it. It’s true.

And the others are offenses only to God. Some of the examples you used were thought crimes – things you might have thought but never acted upon. In other words, what I said is exactly correct – they have not done anybody any harm. If I think that the person who cut me off in traffic is an asshole who deserves to be beaten up by a mob, that doesn’t harm him. If I actually do it, however, then it does. And I notice you didn’t explain how any sane person can equate mass murder to thought crimes and failing to bow down. Perhaps you realized what an insane statement that was. I can only hope.

No, as before, I am merely holding up a mirror to your beliefs. You are the one who decided this, not me.

I was waiting for this. You really are like so many of the other preacherboys we’ve had around here before. “You don’t like God? That must mean something happened to make you feel that way.” Well, I got news for ya: As usual, you’re wrong. You did get one part right: I don’t think this way by accident. I think this way because I use rational thought.

Yes, I did cross the line of civility. And I did it on purpose. Nothing else I was saying was getting through to you, so I thought maybe throwing in a few well-placed profanities might jar you a bit. Obviously, it didn’t work.

248

David B wrote:

Gee, and I thought the old “don’t be a jerk” rule applied to moderators, too. Guess I was wrong.

249

FriendofGod wrote:

You have this real talent for evading the issues put to you. I’m glad you feel sorry for making the comment, but it’s irrelevant. My question is, do you really believe that no gay person can be a Christian? I think you’re sorry for making the comment only because it offended me, not because it’s an outright misrepresentation of Christianity. Your apology was insincere and offensive to me. I am very, very grateful you are not representative of what your religion really is.

You also might want to check out this thread in the Pit - it’s dedicated to you! :rolleyes: (Poly, you might have something to say there as well, so take a peek if you haven’t already.)

Esprix

250

Just because people have experienced Christianity and has had it change their lives is not proof of truth. Kirstie Alley (the actress) claims that Scientology saved her life, Roseanne Barr (the comedian, although that is debateable) says her life was completely changed after reading the Kabalah. Patrick Duffy is a Buddhist and attributes his peace in life to this. ANY conversion to another or different religion will lead to this kind of statements. Now FoG, you can’t take that away from these people either can you, because they have experienced it and know the change it’s made in their lives as well. I’m pretty sure I can guess your answer here, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As for the Jiffy Pop link, that is very typical of the Brownsville movement. If you want to look at the extreme, cult-like movements of Christianity, do a search on the Brownsville revival or the Toronto Blessing. The Jiffy Pop story is just the tip of the iceberg. They aren’t too far away from handling snakes and drinking poisons.

251

Thank you, Gaudere, for the gentle rebuke, but I would appreciate your reconsidering it.

Nevermind Libertaria, since, although you raise it, it is not pertinent to this thread. Suffice it to say that the record of my collective posts will show that I have meticulously defined terms that I use in the context of discussions on political philosophy, not only to avoid even the appearance of audiatur et altera pars, but actually to facilitate understanding. How can you possibly have a meaningful debate on, say, freedom, if one party thinks of freedom as an unbounded anarchy, while the other thinks of freedom as the absence of coercion? Every philosophical treatment begins by defining its terms.

This entire page is filled with lambastic appeals to logic, the first order of which is to define your terms and state your axioms. It is a confusing discussion indeed when people are using the same words to talk about different things, and when they hold different underlying assumptions about different premises. True, I protest the classification of Christianity as a religion, but why do you pretent not to understand why? More than once, I have defined a Christian as per Jesus’ own definition: those who love one another. I have even defined love.

Not to be tu quoque, but you, too, have defined your terms in our discussions (it is not tu quoque because defining terms is not a bad thing). You showed me that there are different kinds of atheists, for example. How might you have reacted had I said, “Well, if I have to relearn a bunch of definitions, that means you’re just living in your own head.”? You, more than anyone, understand why I say you’re a Christian: it is because your heart is filled with love, the very stuff that God is made of. You were there to hear my first report of God’s word to me. How like a dagger to hear you complain as though you are mystified.

I do not wrap up poetry and present it as logic; therefore, why do you waste time and space explaining the reasons you let me get away with something I don’t do? Am I that much of a door mat?

I don’t expect you to agree with me on things like the teological implications of gestalt, but I expect you to respect me as an honorable arguer, unless you have evidence that I have argued otherwise.

252

Esprix, you probably only had to post it once :wink:

FoG, I don’t agree with you. I believe you still have to pay off the debt, whether or not you accept JC. You have to pay off the debt by your works. I really REALLY doubt that you just have “Accept Jesus” and then live your life however you want it because JC is in it.
Every day you have to pay the debt back and prove to God you were worthy of JC’s sacrifice. That’a the 10,000 you steal owe to the bank. YOU may think it’s ok to just accept him. But nobody eats for free. I think people have to prove their worth.

253

(Doing a Susie Derkins: standing up, waving hand, annoyingly self-righteous expression)

Moderator!! Esprix ruined a perfectly good and on-target GD post by a Pitty suggestion that FoG should read a Pit thread making fun of him! Tell him to stop!!

(sitting down, resuming normal voice)

I admit your Shatner jokes were hilarious, Esprix, but I think openly inviting somebody to a Pit thread that you started about them—asking them, in effect, to get their feelings hurt and/or fight a flame war—is the equivalent of asking a guy in a bar to step outside. (No no, I don’t mean that way, you shameless rake! ;)) Not only is it not in the spirit of Great Debates, but it’s rather un-, er, un-Unitarian of you. Show da man some love. (Mind you, I totally support your pressing your original question.)

Kimstu

254

Lib:

I was not aware that Christ ever actually defined the term “Christian.” I thought the term was coined after his death, but Hey, what do I know?

Actually, the history of your posting demonstrates a problem with definitions and axioms where you don’t seem to go along with the generally accepted ones, but prefer your own special ones, and expect them to be intuited by your debating partners.

I recall the infamous incident where you claimed to be an “Austrian.”

255

Razzin-frazzin’ CGI… {grumble grumble grumble} :mad:

Kimstu wrote:

Hey, wouldn’t you want to know if there was a Pit thread about you? Besides, my OP in that thread wasn’t a flame, it was just an observation; the rest of the thread is questionable, though, as you say…

Esprix

256

Scythe

With all due respect, if in the context of a discussion on economics, someone says he is an Austrian, a Chicagoan, or a Keynesian, how could there be any misunderstanding?

257

The context was debatable Lib. I’m conversant in economics, and I thought you were implying that you wore a hat with a feather in it, liked to yodel, ate bratwurst, and celebrated Oktoberfest.

Several others were confused too, I recall.

Scanning my Bible here, and I still can’t seem to find that reference where Jesus defined “Christian.” Maybe you could help me out?

258

I am aware of your defintion. However, to function in this world, if I am addressing more than you alone, I must define Christian as it is more commonly defined. And I find it amusing that you must be confusing the sh*t out of people who are not familiar with your specialized defintions, which includes everyone who hasn’t been around in the past six months and happened to have read the particular threads where you went over this.

Yes, but my defintion of the different sorts of atheists is one shared by the vast majority of atheists out there. If I decided to define “Jewish” so that I was a Jew, you might justifiably tell me that my defintion is not under any circumstances the common one, and I shouldn’t expect most people to know that when I say “Jew” I include atheists of non-Jewish heritage. If the an appreciable number of Christians defined “Christian” as you did, I would not have quibbled.

Dear, there is a difference between understanding and embracing as your own. I am not mystified, but I am pointing out that you are using the term differently than it is generally accepted, even by the broadest definition of Christian. By your defintion I am a Christian. However, by every other freakin’ person in the world’s defintion I am an atheist, or possibly agnostic. Let’s try an experiment: I define a person who fights to have no coerced taxes at all as an anarchist. Now, you may argue, not many people agree with this defintion. Yes, but it’s my defintion, I reply. Therefore, you, Lib, are an anarchist. Now, by my defintion this does indeed describe you, but isn’t it vaguely unsettling to be called something that you do not consider yourself to be? I mean, you recognize that I have a different defintion, and I am describing you accurately with it, but you don’t really like being called “anarchist” because you’re a libertarian. And if I popped into one of your libertarianism threads and called you an anarchist, wouldn’t you expect people to get confused if I didn’t mention that I am using a different defintion than most do?

Lib, your martyr complex is showing. :wink: Polycarp mentioned it first; I simply stated that some of your habits confuse people, and that I only occasionally mention it–I did not address whether you make poetic staments as if they are logical conclusions. However, you do tend to make sweeping poetic statements: “Spirit is not predicative, but nominative. It is not genitive, but ablative”, and you have yet to explain this to xenophon41; perhaps you should do so. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=27168&pagenumber=3 It might prevent people from saying you express poetry as unassaliable fact.

In closing: it is expected that you clarify fuzzy defintions if it is necessary for a meaningful debate. However, if you define terms in a manner widely at variance with the accepted definition you will confuse others, and they might be justified in refusing to accept your definition if it is too far outside the pale. I also personally object to defining a word differently than those who have the most authority on the subject define it, although I recognize that we can shift the meaning of words. Vocabulary is our common currency; creating defintions vastly different than the accepted ones makes me feel as if I have asked a person for change for a five dollar bill, and got 5 francs back. “Oh, well, I call francs dollars,” the person may say, and I would say, “But that’s not how we use it; we have to agree that a dollar is a dollar, not a franc, if we ever want to get anything done!”

If I am debating you, and only you, I will attempt to keep your definitions straight, but it can be difficult when familiar words gain unfamiliar meanings. Do you see why people can find debating you confusing? I do believe you are an honorable debater; certainly I would never think that you create new definitions to confude others and make it more difficult for them to debate. However, I do not think a little gentle ribbing about how divergant your definitions can be is out of line. I find it rather amusing to be called a Christian, and I understand why you say I am; however, I will never, personally, call myself a Christian as long as I lack belief in any God. I understand what you are saying, but I think I’ll stick with the common definition. :slight_smile:

259

Scythe

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” — Jesus [John 13:34-35]

260

Still didn’t see that word “Christian” any where in that quote. I don’t even think Christian and Disciple are particularly good synonyms.

I.E. I know lots of “Christians” who would not fit Jesus’ description of his disciples.

I also know several who follow that description, but who would consider being called a Cristian a gross misstatement.