Did something happen to change your opinion?
Huh? Like I said, if you don’t want to answer just say so.
[yawn] I don’t think your methodology is bad, it’s just you’re using pretty lame, well worn examples of paradox. If you ever have time, you should plumb the depths of the matter … you’ll be well pleased at what you find.
So, the correct answer is “no answer is an answer in of itself”. I can rest with that, I’m sorry you can’t. I wish you peace and I hope you find what you’re seeking someday. Just make sure you pay your child support … it’s not your kid’s fault.
Been there done that, that’s why I’m an atheist.
If I had a dime for every time a Christian said when things weren’t going there way.
WTF? I don’t have kids.
So, a part of your version of atheism is to be bigoted towards religious people? Swell. That’s exactly what we need in this world. More bigotry. And, just like some Christians, you find justification for your bigotry in how you feel like interpreting scripture. You aren’t as atheist as you would like to pat yourself on the back for.
Look watchwolf49, now that is what is called an ad hominem.
So, someone looking into Christianity, and instead of buying into it deciding to become an atheist makes them a bigot now? How very convenient.
nm
I disagree.
No. I honestly don’t care where his beliefs lie. If his posts in this thread were for discussion or debate, I’d be all for it - coming from atheist, Jew, or Islamic belief system. I like more discussion about things and more understanding.
However, his posting hasn’t been for discussion, it’s been for derision. He tries to make points with Bible verses he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand. When he fails with that, he simply moves on to another point, either without comment or with a derisive sentiment along the lines of “So, that makes it awfully convenient for you.”
The thing is, arguing for and against Christian doctrine isn’t some new 20th/21st century fad. It’s been going on for two thousand years. There is a lot of history and research and nuance to something that’s been, for better and horribly worse, a central piece of western civilization for that time.
is it possible to understand Christianity and still think it is wrong?
If Matthew was correct, the world would have ended in that generation, and Jesus would have come in his father’s glory with his angels as he was quoted as saying.
Were you adressing any actual arguments?
Yes, like Queen of Clubs and Watchwolf49 weren’t all over the place.
This is a messageboard, it’s hard to stay right on topic with 10 people weighing in.
You would have to admit that a lot of this nuance stems from having to pussy-foot around Christian sensibilities, through fear of real world percussions, no?
Yes.
There were certainly periods that would get you burned at the stake (or worse), but there were also a lot of periods that it was tolerated by the Catholic church. And that’s only in the Catholic sphere. A lot of Jews did a lot of discussion about the Christian beliefs back before it became the primary belief system of Rome. There has been, for instance, a lot of comparing and contrasting between Jesus and his contemporary Hillel.
Even the views of Islam are an interesting comparison to both biblical and Judaic books preceding Christian scripture.
“Agree, or we’ll torture you until you do, or just kill you” isn’t really “debate”. Genuine debate over Christianity is pretty modern, given that until fairly recently trying would get you imprisoned or worse.
What there is, is a lot of hot air designed to conform to pre-determined conclusions. Not real debate or reasoning.
One thing in favor of the OP is that he is trying to live a good life himself and not trying to force his (or her) beliefs on others. Many do, but do not seem to have read or at least thought about the Bible’s teachings they have read. And it is a fact that the Bible and all religious beliefs were and are of human thoughts and writings. One believes in the human they like best.
OK, children. Let’s not make this personal against other posters. Comments about the behavior or motivations of others shouldn’t be occurring in Great Debates.
What are you talking about? In real life I’m friends with lots of Christians. Generally however, if I like them enough, I try to help clue them in.
Exactly what scripture are you saying I’m interpreting incorrectly? I can honestly say I don’t try to interpret much, I just read the Bible in English. Now if the “interpreters” authors and later interpreters fucked it up, that’s not my fault. As you can see however I’m happy to look at numerous versions of the Bible, but generally they all say about the same thing.
Yes and no. Public debate (especially by people accused of something like heresy) was pretty much out. But a lot of debate went on inside both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches over scripture, what it meant, and how to implement it.
This depended heavily on the era. Certainly, after the Renaissance really started picking up steam, this was the default mode of action. Outsiders (of the Church) reading and interpreting the bible was considered a bad thing, after all.
But Luther had discussions and debates (and outright blow-outs, by some accounts) with other clergy for several years before he nailed his grievances to the doors of that cathedral, giving rise to the Reformation.
A lot of monasteries spent a long time debating and discussing the scripture, too. That’s where we get some of the sects we have, today, such as the Jesuits, Josephites, and so forth.
CITE!