This debate was flawed from the get-go because christians can’t debate by providing factual information. All they have to go on is faith. You basically told her that “Well, I have no proof for what I think. I feel that this is true.”
If you’re equating faith with guesswork, then I disagree.
The condition of “not knowing the Gospel of Christ or the Church through no fault of one’s own” is called “inculpable ignorance” in Catholic jargon, and according to at least some Church authorities - and maybe even all, I’m not sure - someone who has heard the message of the Gospels but for some reason is sincerely unconvinced of their truth may still be in a state of inculpable ignorance.
You guys really crack me up. I’ve not had such a good chuckle in quite some time. The Church fathers were very clever. Knowing their faith couldn’t be proved factually, they devised every catch-all known to man to cover every argumental eventuality. Well, that is, if you don’t want facts (or lack thereof) getting in the way. “Inculpable ignorance” is one prime example. That sounds like something Johnny Cochran would come up with. Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing.
Yes the Roman Catholic Church is really something to look back on and beam with pride. Don’t have the figures but I bet they and their representatives are responsible for more death and destruction than perhaps any other human source in recorded history. Of course your defense is that, “hey! It’s not the Bible’s fault! Man is the weak link!” Keep clinging, O.J.!
And Paco hit the nail on the head. Mangetout was not debating that’s for sure. The onus is on Christians to prove their case, not the other way around. After all, they are the one’s claiming this individual defied all known physical laws of the universe. The Jews don’t believe it and they were there.
And the more you guys keep on saying, “Oh some Christians say you don’t have to believe in the resurrection/crucifixion but others do (and quite vehemently so) in order to be saved” or “it’s OK if you don’t believe in the crucifixion/resurrection, but it doesn’t really matter”, is just proving the case against you without having to present one shread of evidence against on our part. These are core issues for which there is vociferous disagreement amongst “Christians”. It’s all faith, folks. There are no facts for your side and you know it. I attend church and believe Jesus was a special person and preached a better way to live. I enjoy our Sunday School classes covering the gospels. Unfortunately, IMHO, the diciples just didn’t get it; nor do you. You’re living in either heaven or hell, right now. Forget about later. The choice is yours.
Oh yes,
My apologies for jumping in on you, Paco, but this is flat-out not true. There is quite a wide assortment of fact available regarding Christianity. The fact that it does not sum up to a conclusive proof of the existence of God and His nature that defines that you ought prudentially to join the Catholic Church or the Assembly of God is what you’re asserting.
For example, there are manuscripts of the Bible dating back to the third century. Ergo, the contents can be tied to less than 200 years after the last of them were written. Significant parts of the Tanakh can be taken back to the first century B.C. by the same means. Does this prove that any or all of the contents are accurate reportage? No. But does it suggest that an adequate preservation mechanism exists to jump the remaining gaps? IMHO, yes.
I and a number of other posters can describe expriences of “encountering God.” I for one, and I believe some others, are quite willing to examine these critically, and do realize that they provide subjective, first-person-only evidence even if true. What bearing they hold for a third party is that they are reportage of an event which is claimed to have occurred, and therefore the background of the event is subject to critical analysis. When such a report is made by a reliable source (as I have attempted to be), and subjected to critical analysis, what survives is objective evidence – not necessarily of the existence and nature of God, but of what my honest perceptions of the experience were. You may then draw from that what conclusions you like.
To parallel that, if someone who types in all small characters without punctuation says as his first post here that “i once saw a ufo and it was awsum!!!” we have grounds for skepticism. If David B the moderator, known for his skepticism and accuracy in investigating claims of the outré, says that he observed a UFO hovering low in the west while driving ten miles west of Springfield on a given time and date, that it did not appear to move during the 12 minutes he observed it, that he checked with the FAA and USAF and no known flights were in the area at the time and place he observed it, we have on our hands a fairly valid UFO sighting. (Note that this does not imply “extraterrestrial” or “flying saucer,” just an unidentified object that was flying, or in this case hovering.)
A healthy skepticism regarding the validity of Biblical accounts is a very good thing. Rejecting them outright without exploring the reasons for and against putting any credence in them, is not. Likewise, rejecting a superstitious account of a supposed miracle may be wise; rejecting a documented account of a supposed theophanic experience without careful analysis of what happened is not.
If you want facts, I’m prepared to offer them. They’ll be sparse. Also critical analyses of why other evidence may or may not be reliable from a factual standpoint. As someone once pointed out, we have no factual evidence of the existence of Alexander the Great – but a great deal of critically verifiable narrative about his life. I trust you see the parallel.
Nitpick:
Purgatory is where you go if you are a believer. (In those churches that claim that puragtory exists, that is.)
Artemius, I appreciate your long-winded response. I am going to be completely honest. I have read the first fifteen or twenty lines of the bible. I have no “evidence” of where the bible is historically wrong. I was not brought up in a home where religion is not openly discussed. It was sort of a taboo subject in my home. (I am 19 BTW) I honestly don’t know what religion my parents are.
I never went to church until I was about 7 or 8 years old and that was only a couple of times. I later went when I was about 13 or 14 with my aunt. I began to hear stories about a giant (arc, arch? I regress, a boat) supposedly built by Noah which held all the present day animals (since there is no evolution for christians?), and somebody being swallowed by a gigantic fish and living and I honestly laughed. No offense or anything, but I thought it was absurd so I stopped going.
Fast forward to my freshmen year of college. Some of my friends found out that I didn’t believe in god and suddenly I became everyone’s “project” to convert me to a christian. (You non-believers know what I am talking about) I asked them how somebody could build such an amazingly large boat and they told me it was quite common for people to live to be several hundred years old in those days. They told me that human genes were more concentrated and therefore better.
They then bashed me (there were about 5 or 6 of them around a table and I felt as if I was being persecuted for not being a christian, but I kept my cool) about how they couldn’t understand why I study so much and tried to get good grades. If I don’t believe in god then I must have no morals. I still remember their exact words “If you aren’t a christian then what stops you from killing everybody? You have nobody to answer to.” and “If you aren’t a christian then you have no morals so why are here right now? Why don’t you go to the Bahamas and have sex with every girl there?” I remember feeling so hurt because they implied that since they were so weak that they had to have a god to answer to in order for them to be accountable for their actions that I needed one as well. What makes them think that morals are necessarily dependent upon religion? For example, you either have christianity and morals, or no christianity and no morals.
Anyway, I have kinda went of on a tangent, but I was writing all of this to show you that I kinda have an (unwarranted?) beef with christians. The reason I posted that about christians not having facts to back themselves up was because of a subconscious anger. I really don’t understand the bible or christianity so I was off-base by my comment. I was really only commenting on what apparently very little I know about the bible.
Sorry if I came off wrong.
(This portion isn’t necessarily to anyone in particular. Just an observation I have made over time) I just feel like it’s a double standard when christians are quick to point out how inaccurate science is yet they are willing to accept it when they need heart surgery or a cancerous tumor removed. Why don’t they just pray for it to go away and if it doesn’t then assume “god has a greater plan for you?” I don’t believe it’s fair to use christianity when it’s convenient to you and trust science when you need it, but when science proves christianity wrong then you rely on faith.
Sorry if this seems kinda like a hodgepodge of information. I kinda had a lot of incoherent ideas running through my head all at once. This is the first time I have really put a lot of thought into them.
Uh-huh, so without “inculpable ignorance” you can’t accept Christianity because it’s unjust sending those unbelievers to hell, but with it, it’s still unjust and just a trick. I’m thinking you have no desire to actually learn anything.
**
Most likely they have. And Man is the weak link. The actions of the Church in bringing war and slavery to various parts of the world are completely at odds with Jesus’ teachings. Fortunately, the Church itself says that it is not perfect and that it is constantly trying to be better. Hence the various updates to the catechism.
**
I am unaware of any Jews alive that were there. And wouldn’t the early Christians have been there, too?
**
Yawn. Generic militant atheist screed. Do a search on religion threads and you’ll find answers.
PS - I’m an atheist. That doesn’t mean I’m going to let you propogate your ignorance about Christianity and what they believe.
<<I and a number of other posters can describe expriences of “encountering God.” >>
The point that I and many others take issue with here is your use of the word “god”. Just what exactly you experienced is the question. No argument that you experienced something. Just as you make the point that the moderator encountered a UFO doesn’t mean it was a space alien. So goes it for all the varying and different “god” encounters of the old testament. I’m not convinced those were some ethereal force. For one, they displayed way too many human characteristics, too many of which were downright fanatical and bloodthirsty.
In regards to facts, what you really mean is circumstantial evidence. For example, since we are dealing with gospels written many years after the fact and we have no way of certifying they weren’t tampered with, than short of video and pathology reports before and after, DNA evidence would be nice too, then what facts could you present that would prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt? None unless you are inclined to believe it anyway. Even some official Roman records attesting to his resurrection would be super. But even the Jews won’t back you up.
Michael Baigent makes a good case in the 2nd half of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” for a different scenario of events regarding the crucifixion (forget the part of the book about the dynasty, etc). This was followed by the Messianic Legacy. Dead Sea Scrolls deception is rather good. They make an argument for which I see no sound rebuttal. i’m not advocating their books one way or the other. That’s up to you.
Hey Neurotik:
Speaking of Catholics. That was a real class act the way the Catholics sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls, for what, 54 yrs before releasing them for 3rd party verification and study. Were they afraid of something? I believe that was a first in modern archaeology.
Oh…and…aren’t Catholics still way ahead of their time with their enlightened birth control policy? Oh, and got’ta love their position on celibacy and priesthood. Boy, that wisdom has certainly stood the test of time. Yep, got’ta hand it to those Catholics. Real geniuses.
Oh, kinda late now, but I was talking to polycarp in the post where I had responded to Artemius.
<<I am unaware of any Jews alive that were there. And wouldn’t the early Christians have been there, too? >>
Are you so desparate now that you have to resort to word play? Jews and Christians were both there. Why is there a conflicting story if they all saw the same thing so spectacular?
<<Uh-huh, so without “inculpable ignorance” you can’t accept Christianity because it’s unjust sending those unbelievers to hell, but with it, it’s still unjust and just a trick. I’m thinking you have no desire to actually learn anything.>>
Since you can’t seem to read like you accused me, I said heaven or hell is here and now, not some mythical afterlife, IMHO. I don’t except Christianity in its current form because I think Jesus’s teachings were subverted.
I think you are the classic example of the maxim, “None so blind as those who cannot see”
I don’t accept Chrisitianity if it relies on the crucifixion/resurrection as it’s foundation, as it does. Without it, why not be a Buddhist or a Muslim?
<<Yawn. Generic militant atheist screed. Do a search on religion threads and you’ll find answers.>>
Why don’t you?. You’re the one claiming it. Duh?
<<PS - I’m an atheist. That doesn’t mean I’m going to let you propogate your ignorance about Christianity and what they believe.>>
Yawn…unless you can come up with something better, your boring repitition is, well, boring. Why don’t you propogate some of your atheist ignorance?
Paco – I am truly sorry that you ran into a bunch of assholes who claimed to be Christian. That’s not my style, and I think it’s reprehensible. Particularly the “no morals” bit. I hope you’ll be kind enough not to judge us all by their behavior.
Artemius: Your points are well made. Yes, I am speaking by and large of circumstantial evidence. I find much of it convincing, some of it polemic and tendentious, and all of it written with a particular slant. I also fully recognize that my experience is subject to a great deal of skeptical analysis; that’s why I offered it – to open it up for such.
And I’m all too well aware of the very human tendency to cast the blame for behavior that is quite frankly evil on God, and I do see a lot of it in the O.T. accounts (and in Paul too, by the way). My belief/value system, if you’re interested, centers on Jesus’s teachings about the two primary responsibilities – love God and love your fellow man, on non-judgmental, compassionate behavior, and on the evil inherent in arrogating to oneself the right to judge and regulate the behavior of others – all borne out by Jesus’s recorded teachings and most by particular passages in Paul and the O.T. as well.
Artemius, I have no problem with your skepticism; I do have a problem with your errors of fact (this being the Straight Dope® and all).
Michael Baigent is a bonafide kook (or a hustler) whose books are simply silly. (If you are so skeptical of religion and Christianity, does it not make you just a bit curious that Baigent’s patron–the guy who has wound up financing all of Baigent’s “research”–just happens to be the final descendant of Jesus when Baigent gets done researching his project?) Charlatan or loon, Baigent is not taken seriously by anyone in the community of historians, much less religious scholars.
Reading much propaganda, lately? All the complete Qumran scrolls were released for study before 1965. The fragments that are being pieced together, one quarter inch at a time, were held private for many years (irresponsibly, in my opinion) in a typical act of petty, scholarly, self-serving possessiveness by the multi-denominational committee that held them, that was, indeed, headed by a Catholic. Since they were published by Huntington Library in 1991, no serious change to any volume of Scripture has been suggested by any of the fragments analyzed.
Certainly, the RCC is not in step with the rest of the world–rightly or wrongly–regarding contraception. Regarding celibacy, what is you point? You would not (I hope) be one of those uninformed people who equate celibacy with pedophilia, given that the number of celibate Catholic priests accused of that crime appear to match the percentage of married clergy in other denominations of whom it is estimated that they also are guilty?
There is nothing wrong with bashing Catholicism for its frequent failings. Bashing it using errors of fact, however, tends to make one look silly.
This isn’t quite right; the ‘debate’ wasn’t about me proving a case, but rather answering the questions about why my views are so unreasonable - I think Judith was wanting me to justify why I think My views are superior to everyone else’s and that they should be imposed upon everyone, but I can’t justify any such thing, as the assumption that I should think my views are superior and think that they should be imposed is a false one.
Unfortunately though, the climate of the discussion precluded any discussion on less than absolute terms; since I’m not about to claim that I have access to absolute anything, I’m a non-starter.
Yes, but see, those are the Christians. What is frustrating is that you (and Mange and others on this board) call yourselves Christians too. But you lot are in no way representative of mainstream Christianity, as Judith pointed out. In debating you we are not debating mainstream Christianity. You know a hell of a lot more about the Bible and its resulting philosofies than your avarage Christian. As a consequence you have develloped highly personalised versions of the belief.
Part of the problem is that, even in mainstream Christianity, there are so many variants of the faith.
(someone mentioned 25, it must be many more times that number). Every time some Christian ‘attacks’ you with “You must believe X” and next time you approach another christian with a follow-up on that, you get the answer “Well, *I/we[i/] don’t believe that, the man you spoke to must have been an idiot.”
I wish you Christians could get your act together on what it is you actually believe.
Who’s desperate? I’ve pointed out several instances of your ignorance. You have yet to make a valid point.
**
**
Fair enough. Of course, you’re now claiming heaven or hell is here and now. Please provide proof. Since you are the one making the claim.
**
I dunno, why not? I have no problem with that.
**
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So far you’ve made claims about what Christianity believes. I then pointed out your error. You then made the claim even more emphatically. I then continued to point out your error. See the need for repitition? Had you simply accepted that not all Christians believe that you need to believe in the resurrection in order to go to heaven, we could have been done with this yesterday.
Some of this may be cultural too; I live in England and it would seem that the approach to faith may be slightly different, or at least the statistical distribution of how many people believe what and how it affects them (although I should be careful as I have never been to America) - certainly my impression (from my immediate context) is that we have a few very dogmatic, very vociferous individuals, a large chunk of moderate folk and a small number of people who just tag along for the social elements.
Anyway, I’d be most interested to know how the perceptions of ‘mainstream Christianity’ came about - was it a survey in which everyone was asked to participate, or did the sample select itself by speaking out boldly?
This made me laugh - whose views are we going to take as authoritative?
I think the group that speaks with the loudest voice or with the highest profile is the one that is percieved to speak for Christianity, and hence to be mainstream - at the moment, in the USA at least, it is the Fundamentalist Protestant branch of the Church, in the UK, the C of E has held sway for generations, but the Evangelical churches are the only ones in the country that are growing and therefore are becoming the dominant voice.
Grim
I thought that what was meant by ‘mainstream Christianity’ would be the more established Churches/Doctrines. Like Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, C of E. You, know the biggies. Not the more obscure ones like Mormons, 7th day advent or what have you.
Not necessarily the loudest either. I never quite can put my finger on what exactly Jehova’s or Evangelicals are actually about, exept spreading ‘the message’.
Good Lord. Some of you atheists in the thread need to read Matthew 7:5*. For all your accusations that Christians are all beholden to ignorant dogma, you’re awful beholden to it yourself.
I’m an atheist. I’ve not found any supernatural or theological explanations of the cosmos that move me, not currently (although I spent the latter half of high school exploring various neopagan rituals and literature, it no longer does anything for me). Fundamentalists of all sects are frequently the targets of my scorn, especially when they get in my way.
That said, I’m not so foolish as to believe that Christianity is a sports team, or a secret-handshake club, or a rigid political party. “Christian” is a label people like to use for themselves when they place a unique value on the teachings of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament and other sources.
Some people use the label for themselves to demonstrate their belief in the inerrancy of the King James Bible. Some people use it to demonstrate their belief that Jesus returned to earth and set up a compound in Waco, Texas. Some people call themselves Christians because they believe that Jesus was a mortal man who had some good ideas.
How people use the label for themselves varies as much as how they use it for other people. Some people will only consider you Christian if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Some people don’t consider you Christian unless you believe that God Hates Fags. Some people will consider you Christian if you believe that an Angel led Joseph Smith to some Golden Tablets in the desert. Some people are happy to call you Christian as long as you apply the label to yourself.
Who, I ask, gets to choose which definition is correct? We’re not talking about the New York Mets here, where it’s pretty unambiguous who’s a member of the team and who isn’t. Nobody can vote you off the island. There’s no Central Governing Body that has the authority to include or exclude people from the religion (or if there is, He’s not talking).
The best you can do is, when people use the word “Christian,” ask them what they mean by it. I think Judith’s problem was that when she asked for a debate with a Christian, she was using a definition for Christian that excluded Mangetout. But since Mangetout uses a different definition, he didn’t realize he was excluded from the debate. Judith seems to be unaware either that there are multiple definitions of the word, or that there’s not Central Authority who gets to choose which definition is correct.
For what it’s worth, Christianity a la Mangetout is a great thing, in the eyes of this atheist. Christianity as defined by Judith is pretty sucky.
Daniel
*“You hypocrite! First cast out the beam from your own eye; and then you shall see clear enough to take out the straw from your brother’s eye.”