Poly, tom~, Zev, Lib, Brick...beagledave gullible?

The BBQ Pit
101

Gee, and you guys almost had gobear cornered into saying “no true gay man would ever have unprotected sex in a bathhouse!” :wink: [Following which, the boards would crash because the hamsters would be ROFLing instead of running their wheels! ;)]

In all seriousness, I am willing to explore the hypothesis that what I have perceived as the presence of God in my life is something other than that. I have a very difficult time explaining why I discount that hypothesis – it’s clear to me, but (from past experience) something quite difficult to put into words that convey my meaning to others accurately.

It would be this – in acting to follow Him, I encountered situations that changed me, my inner values and what gratified and fulfilled me as an individual, profoundly – and many of these events came as an unexpected consequence of steps that I took to do His will as I understood it, and which I would not have undertaken had I known the consequences prior to that transformation of self, because they would not have been desirable consequences to the me-that-was. This conforms strictly to the phenomena discussed in Romans, particularly chapters 7, 8 and 12.

In illustration, when a teenage neighbor boy was thrown out of his house on truly vile accusations, my first response was, “He’s going to need friends – tell him to come see us.” In consequence he, and shortly thereafter his cousin, moved in with us, first as tenants and then functionally as sons. And it was a direct result of the cousin’s moving in that the young man whose love released the repressed emotional side of me came to meet us and move in as well; the latter was his best friend. (FWIW, the cousin was also the young man whose providential visit saved me from dying of my heart attack.) Prior to knowing God, I would never have done what I did that led to this sequence of events, and it was a sense of His will being expressed that led me to say what I said in the first place.

I am far happier being who I am than I ever was prior to that sequence of events – and I know Whom to attribute it to.

An inner self-delusion, trickster, or other phenomenon would presumably not have seen the long-term beneficial consequences resulting from a person whom I had not even met as yet coming into my life and, thanks to his unique gifts, causing the transforming of my psyche while I counseled and helped to heal his emotional wounds – something I would not have been able to do without what he drew out of me.

I am forced to the conclusion that the Phenomenon that caused my conversion experience was precognizant and motivated for my long-term psychological benefit – and He gave me to understand that He was the Triune God of Christianity. To assume that to be a falsehood leads us into paths of tortured that I find quite a bit more improbable than the idea that somebody once changed water to wine – after all, a grapevine does that on a daily basis, more or less!

But, getting back to the overall picture – let me say that many Christians seem to buy into the legalistic paradigm that seems to be a human wont – though even the O.T. warns against it, as Zev or Chaim would be quick to attest – and in consequence ignore Jesus’s call to act on the basis of grace and not of law. The consequences are pretty clearly spelled out in thread after thread here.

102

It seems to me the basis of this purported atheist position lies upon the truth of the following arguments:

The non existence of God is an undeniable truth, obvious, and observable by any rational person.

There are no reasons that are not obviously and observably foolish for believing in the doctrine of Christianity.

Being correct is an unquestionably preferable state of affairs to being faithful to the doctrine of Christianity.

Proof of this exists, and must be denied before accepting faith.

Therefore: Christians are all fools.

I am a Christian. Although I find it absolutely devoid of intellctual rigor, I have no argument at all with the conclusion to this argument. Nor do I consider it an insult. Christians are fools. Truth pops up in the strangest places.

Love is greater than Truth.

God bless you Gobear.

Tris

103

Against this there is no argument. Thank you, Tris.

God bless you Gobear.

104

Tris, truly you are a blessed son of God. I know this, for my Lord said it. (Matthew 5:9, to be specific)

And gobear, while I’d welcome the debate, may I commend you for your irenic answer to Tris and ask that if you bother to examine what I said in the post just before his, you do it simply with an eye to showing me in what ways my logic is in error in your view. I feel like withdrawing it and simply saying Amen to Tris’s post instead. :slight_smile:

105

Poly, I’d be quite happy to leave things as they are. The chain of events you describe could have been inspired by God, or they could have happened simply as a result of the workings of circumstance; either way, there’s no way to test your hypothesis. If you choose to view the life-changing events in your as being worked through the Will of God, there’s no way for me to deny it.

106

Yosemitebabe said:

Are you talking to me? I didn’t say anything about percentages.

Again, are you talking to me? At no time did I make the pronouncement that you are lacking in critical thinking skills. Where did I lump you in with the large segment of Christians which are gullible?

Now I will tell you that your responses to my post and some of the others here do make me think that you are not reading and processing what I have said in this thread correctly. And that is a critical thinking skill. That often happens when people are angry.

IF you are not raging and angry, you might want to ask yourself why you come across to so many people as being angry. If you are raging and angry and aware of it, then why have you allowed yourself to become that way or at least, to continue that way? Why is someone else’s opinion so important to you? If you are not gullible, what does it matter that someone might think you are? Would you find it less insulting if someone described you as “trusting”?

cjhoworth said:

I made a point of mentioning that I am a Christian because my belief structure is a little unusual and too often people assume that I am not a Christian and read what I have to say from a defensive point of view.
Meanwhile, I will continue to believe that you are usually a person of good-will – based on other things that you have said. Of course, I haven’t read everything!

Triskadecamus, you are such a beautiful human being…wise and savy and loving.

107

CJ, one of my previous employers was a wholesale dealer in hurt and remaindered books, a truly fascinating man. Nearing eighty and crippled by arthritis, he was an atheist of Jewish heritage, a sincere and non-doctrinaire idealistic socialist who nonetheless was a canny businessman, who never used tactics with the slightest whiff of unethicalness in a business noted for them.

And his comment was instructive: “Whenever I have a verbal deal with a jobber or a publisher’s rep., I can depend on it, except for one group – if the man is a Bible or religious books salesman, I don’t agree to anything except in writing with the terms spelled out in detail, because it’s been my experience that nearly all of them will cheat you at every opportunity.”

There’s something really sad about that statement.

108

Zoe, when I wrote what I did, I wasn’t thinking of anyone on this Board at all. I was thinking of people like the con artist I encountered twice in one month in Waikiki who asked me to lend her $30 or $40 bucks, saying I knew I could trust her because she was a Christian, or the guy whose desk was covered in Christian paraphernalia who complained bitterly to my company, the one who was replacing his computer and every other one in the plant, because his boss wouldn’t let him get a bigger monitor. It was also directed at the comment that Christians are more likely to trust other Christians. You, on the other hand, are one of my favorite people around here.

Polycarp, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I doubt that will surprise anyone here.

Just one question for the teeming millions in general: where do Scientologists fall on the gullibility scale?

CJ

109

And, as always, every time some atheist spouts his anecdotal evidence that Christians are ignorant and dishonest, we can count on some posters to chime in on cue and say, “Sure enough! We are!”

So, once I discover that a person is a member of some group, I had better be careful. Because you know how they are - dishonest, or gullible, or shiftless, or uppity, or child molestors, or HIV+, or greedy, or emotionally unstable.

Not all of them! Of course not all - why, some of my best friends are
well, you know.

Regards,
Shodan

110

I don’t know if I was talking to you. Was I?

While it is true, no one gave an actual percentage amount, I think the term “large portion” was used.

SO many people? As far as I know, the only one who has claimed I was “raging” and wanted to “hate” him was gobear. This is part of his M.O., I might add. In the past, when this sort of discussion gets heated he starts to say, “Oh, go ahead, hate me, I know you really do” or some such. The words “hate” and “rage” come from him and him alone. Last I checked I certainly didn’t hate him, (actually think he’s pretty cool most of the time). I don’t hate him any more than I hate anyone else on this board with whom, I may (from time to time) disagree. I get annoyed and irritated on the thread in question, but I’m certainly not crashing and burning with a rage that is white-hot with the intensity of a thousand suns. “Hating” and “raging” are not the same as “being irritated”.

The “hate” and “rage” question has been answered above. But I am curious about this: why do we debate and argue on these threads at all? Why does anyone attempt to put forth their own point of view, and challenges another’s point of view which they think is faulty? If each side gets somewhat irritated in the process, are they automatically “hateful” and “raging”? I don’t think so.

Once again, Poly and Tris have displayed a great deal of class on this thread. Many thanks to them.

Exactly.

111

<hijack> Hijacking my own thread here but it is kind of on point.

Could someone please show me, quote, site, whatever? Where in the NEW TESTAMENT is there any reference to homosexuals and the teachings of Christ in regard to them.

NOT the Bible (Old Testament)…Thanks

112

The passages usually cited are Romans 1: 25 -27 and I Corinthians 6: 8 - 10.

113

I thought these were Pauls letters in reference TO the O/T and what it said?
Are you saying these are Christ’s words? Does Paul say they are?

114

Jesus makes no reference to sexual orientation, (and has darned little to say about sexual morality), at all.

The references are to Paul’s word on the subject, speaking his view of early Christian morality (and actually going beyond the OT proscriptions). I’m not sure what difference it makes in terms of Christian tradition. We have far more theology from the pen of Paul than we do from Matthew, Luke, or Mark, or even John.

115

That’s what I thought too…love your neighbor stands in the way of bigotry. Thanks Tom~ :slight_smile:

116

Jesus does not address the issue of homosexuality at all, and Paul is the one writer in the NT who mentions it, aside from Jude 7, which condemns “the unnatural fornication of Sodom” rather than specifically its practice of homosexuality. And Paul’s words are his own – he seems to regard any homosexual practice as the gratification of lust.

117

Thanks to you as well Poly, another ignorant promoting thread I was involved in implied Jesus taught bigotry, specifically against gays… :smack:

I just wanted to be sure when I claimed Christianity as Jesus lived by example did NOT support gay-bashing or any other form of bigotry. IIRC/AFAIK

Surely a person can find passages from the N/T and make their claim. But, is it an accurate depiction or in “red leters”, I don’t think so.

118

—Jesus makes no reference to sexual orientation, (and has darned little to say about sexual morality), at all.—

I seem to remember fundamentalists always quoting something Jesus said about “the effeminite” but I haven’t really followed up on it.

But everything else Jesus is said to have done seems to have him breaking or overthrowing mere taboos like the unofficial “caste” of uncleanliness. Ain’t what goes in: it’s what comes out.

Poly, I always appreciate your full candor about your experiences with God. I admit that I don’t see the compelling logic behind the “I am forced to the conclusion…” bits, and if what you describe happened to me, I see no reason to suggest that I’d take the same interpretation (and I’ve lived my own story, of course, with plenty of dynamic ups and downs), but the thing is: who knows? You never seem to be trying to sell your worldview (a la the insights of The Big Kahuna), and that’s a rare thing.

119

I’ve never seen any place (or translation) where the word effeminate is attributed to Jesus.

In 1 Cor 6:9 (in my second link, above), the KJV used “effiminate” where the NIV that I pointed to uses “male prostitutes.” The word in that sentence, [symbol]malakoi[/symbol] (malakoi), is from a root meaning “soft.” (In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 it is used as an adjective indicating the soft or fine clothes that John the Baptist did not wear.) The word [symbol]malakian[/symbol] (malakian) also appears in Mt 4:23, referring to physical weakness or ailments that Jesus healed.

There are indications that the word (as it appears in 1 Corinthians) was a metaphor for “object of unnatural lust,” but I have not found any place where that word is used in that context when spoken by Jesus.

120

I have a thread in the Pit that goes more into theological discussions based on the scripture of this concept. In terms of atheism vs. theism, I’ve held both views in my life, and found the arguments to be largely non-falsifiable either way. In my mind the ignorant are those that ignore a theory based on concrete observations that proves out to the best of it’s predictions. In that sense, I would probably defy anyone who thought that my belief in God was ignorant.

Also, I’m less likely to be taken in by a con man for the same reason. A person who bases their beliefs on their observations, and the recorded observations of others is hardly ignorant.

The way I looked at it is that if both athiesm and theism were scientific concepts(theories), then they are both subject to falsification. So, if any action recorded or unrecorded in the whole of human history and beyond was a genuine work of God, even one of them, then God must exist. I don’t really seek a great deal of proof, but in my studies I have found some evidence of the possibility that some ‘miracle’ may have occured. Hence my belief.