Has it struck anyone else as odd that she only wants to debate a “Christian”?
Are we to believe that a) Christianity is the only world view with enough validity to make a debate worthwhile, b) that other religions are more valid, and therefore harder to knock, or (I’m going with this one) c) that she note quite up to speed on those “alternate faiths” like, say, Islam, Hinduism, or even Jainism…?
I think this is most likely a product of her environment; it would seem that she feels assaulted by Christian extremists.
Well, my friends, it looks as if it is over.
well, kudos & applause to Mangetout! I could actually understand Judith’s frustration that you weren’t hard-core enough for her L but you did seem to bring out the better side of her! Congrats!
I can understand her frustration too. First time I’ve been given the old No True Scotsman routine from an atheist though.
The debate was doomed from the very beginning; either I act out the very rigidly defined (and IMHO unreasonable) role and get torn to shreds for it, or else I try to honestly be myself and get disqualified from the debate on the grounds that I don’t act out the rigidly defined role.
Funny really.
Huh?
That`s because mangetout wears underwear under his kilt. Whereas a true Scotsman does not.
The question should be “How did she find out?”
(First time posting on this thread.)
I’m not a Chrisitian for the following simple reason.
I believe Jesus lived and was probably the greatest human being that ever did so. Just by following his code of conduct and living by his principles will result in one living a life to its fullest. My problem is this:
Just because I don’t believe he was literally/physically resurrected from a putrifying/crucified body and then transcended bodily into the skies, I am damned to an afterlife of hellfire.
It seems just so absurd and the result of political/religious machinations for the accomplishment of hidden agendas.
Your debator did have a valid point. You weren’t debating because you can’t. At least not on factual/logical grounds. Because you can’t use the source (the Bible) as a reference. No one can (successfully debate for the Bible/Christianity) which is why all religion is based on faith, not facts.
Maybe you should just go to a different church.
(8) If God did not know there would be evil in his universe, he could not be omniscient (all-knowing). If God knew there would be evil but could do nothing to prevent it, he could not be omnipotent (all-powerful). If God knew there would be evil but chose to do nothing to prevent it, he could not be omnibenevolent (all-good). Can you reconcile these observations?
Please pardon my late entry into this thread, but I wanted to take a crack at #8:
Its the last sentence that seems flawed to me, allowing evil to exist does not necessarily mean God is not good. How can anyone know the nature of the universe and automatically assume you can have good without evil? Or that there may be a deeper, completely incomprehensible reason for the existance of evil? By making the assertation that God allows evil and therefore can’t be good the author assumes she knows either the nature of the universe or the mind of God intimately.
<<Maybe you should just go to a different church.>>
I catch the implication and if I have the time I’ll look up the scriptures for you which make believing in the crucifixion/resurrection a prerequisite for proclaiming onself a Chrisitian which, in turn, is a prerequisite for entry into so-called heaven. Which, by default, winds you up in purgatory or hell by believing otherwise. I attend a Presbyterian church and every week they hammer home that point. Or, you could provide the scriptures yourself then go on and on explaining how they don’t really mean what they say.
But you don’t bolster your argument a by unwittingly pointing out how obfuscated the scriptures can be and open to different interpretation. Mangetout tried to make the point that although there are so many different denominations it doesn’t matter because they all believe the salient core issues. Not so and you have just pointed that out.
<<Maybe you should just go to a different church.>>
I catch the implication and if I have the time I’ll look up the scriptures for you which make believing in the crucifixion/resurrection a prerequisite for proclaiming onself a Chrisitian which, in turn, is a prerequisite for entry into so-called heaven. Which, by default, winds you up in purgatory or hell by believing otherwise. I attend a Presbyterian church and every week they hammer home that point. Or, you could provide the scriptures yourself then go on and on explaining how they don’t really mean what they say.
But you don’t bolster your argument a by unwittingly pointing out how obfuscated the scriptures can be and open to different interpretation. Mangetout tried to make the point that although there are so many different denominations it doesn’t matter because they all believe the salient core issues. Not so and you have just pointed that out.
What, pray tell, is my argument. The Catholic Church, as laid out in Lumen Gentium, believes that non-Christians may enter heaven.
While all Christian denominations believe that Jesus is the sole savior, etc., they do not all believe that non-Christians are doomed to hell.
I really enjoyed reading this Mang, thanks.
Could you explain this statement please:
“To deny the possibility of being wrong is to decide that being wrong doesn’t matter.”
If she is really a former Lutheran, as she claims, she ought to know better than this.
I think we all heard the bagpipes starting up as soon as it was clear that you were a reasonable person.
Is the debate with the other guy posted anywhere?
Anyway, well done, Mangetout. Colossians 4:5-6.
Regards,
Shodan
Artemius wrote:
<Just because I don’t believe he was literally/physically resurrected from a putrifying/crucified body and then transcended bodily into the skies, I am damned to an afterlife of hellfire.>
Neurotik replied:
<<Maybe you should just go to a different church.>>
So you are saying that there are some denominations that say I have to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and some that don’t? That’s not what my church says. Who’s right? You? Them? Care to prove your position? Oh. I see. You can’t. No one can. What happened to Mangetout’s position that you were all on the same sheet of music regarding core issues?
Neurotick wrote:
<<While all Christian denominations believe that Jesus is the sole savior, etc., they do not all believe that non-Christians are doomed to hell.>>
Wait. Are you retracting the insinuation you made above that not all denominations don’t believe in the crucifixion/resurrection or that I don’t personally have to believe it to gain salvation even though I’ve been exposed to the gospels and therefore “have no excuse”?
What, pray tell, is your argument, you ask? The question seems to be what defines a Christian. You suggested I find another church where maybe I don’t have to believe Jesus was crucified/resurrected, (in order to gain salvation), which inherently implies there are denominations that don’t believe this, which debunks the “core issues” debate. In the best selling book, “The Case for Christ” (forgot the author), for some reason this belief is the bedrock that Christianity rests on. That is, Christ was crucified/resurrected. Otherwise, as the author goes on to say, it becomes just another “feel good” religion. So exactly what is your position regarding crucifixion/resurrection, being a Christian, and avoiding hell (once one is exposed to the gospels)? I’m confused and am highly educated. Imagine some high school dropout trying to figure this all out. Sheesh!
Also, I probably wouldn’t be quoting Catholic dogma to bolster your argument. Credibility then becomes an issue. (just joking) But, regarding the part “…through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or the Church…seek God with a sincere heart…may achieve eternal salvation.”
Well, where does that leave me.? I’m in the unfortunate situation of having been exposed to the gospels and choose not to believe the crucifixion/resurrection. Why, I think I’ll just relocate my worship services down the road where I don’t have to meet such stringent requirements to qualify for heaven.
What I meant by it is that I don’t believe it is possible to ever know that you are right about something (although there are degrees of this - it is possible to be more sure about some things than others and it is possible to be really very sure about some things), therefore to wave away that possibility of being wrong, however tiny that possibility may be, is to render the matter closed to further thought - to decide that it doesn’t matter.
Of course though, I could be wrong about all that…
Yes, she had a point, but it was all sewn up from the get-go; there is no possibility of any opponent prevailing; it would be like me saying:
“Mathematicians - why do you all insist that 2+2 is 5?”
–Anybody who responds saying “Ummm, I don’t insist such a thing” is clearly not a true mathematician (because all mathematicians insist that 2+2=5).
–Anybody who responds saying “Yes, Yes; 2+2 is 5 and I can prove it!” will get their arse handed to them in a bag.
The basic premise “Mathematicians insist that 2+2=5” is never questioned, nor is it allowed to be
Yes, I am certainly saying that there are some denominations that say you have to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and some that don’t. Read Luminem Gentium, it explains it all right there.
I am retracting no such insinuation, since I made no such insinuation. Perhaps part of your problem is an inability to read. All denominations of Christianity believe in the crucifixion/resurrection. Not all of them believe that you personally have to believe it to gain salvation.
The quote about those who do not know the Gospel or Church through no fault of their own is not saying that just having it read at you is enough. Perhaps you did not have a convincing presentation. It is not your fault if no one was able to reach you.
**
You are correct that Christians believe in the resurrection of Christ. However, not all Christians believe that you must believe explicitly in order to be saved. In fact, many don’t. Such as the Roman Catholic Church.
**
Christians do believe that Christ was crucified and resurrected. Not all Christians believe that a person who does not believe that is going to hell. See, this is a very simple concept. Even a high school drop out can grasp it. The Catholic Church merely maintains that it is the best and easiest way to find salvation, but not the only way as just about every religion has an element of divine truth to it due to the Holy Spirit and God’s grace.
**
Right. Quoting the oldest (along with the Orthodox) branch of Christianity, the people who put the Bible together (along with the Orthodox), the branch that spends possibly more time on theological issues than any other (except possibly Orthodox) is a bad source and has no credibility. :rolleyes:
**
That was my original point. If you have difficulty with the concept that you are going to hell if you don’t believe in the resurrection, perhaps you should find a congregation that doesn’t believe that and believes that all people are eligible for salvation, regardless of religion.