Then what makes your soul go to Hell in Christianity?
Nothing.
In Christianity, souls often go to hell. So please explain to me what else is making souls go to hell other than the all-powerful being who is judging your soul. Or how answering nothing makes sense at all.
Why do I have to demonstrate that murder is a bad thing?
Murder is the word for immoral killing. Demonstrate that God is behaving immorally.
Death is necessary. That doesn't make it good. That also doesn't make killing good. Are you seriously trying to argue in favor of the morality of murder?
See above.
The killing of people without their consent, is always immoral.
It doesn't count as a person until it can function outside of the womb.
Why not?
Because until then it is merely a dependent parasite that has not fully developed.
Have soil be fertile enough to support life without decomposition being necessary and creating an infinite amount of easily accessible uninhabited worlds to compensate for exponential population growth are the main 2 things.
The vast majority of people do not want to die. God could have created the universe in a way that would have made death unnecessary and not included death. But he didn't.
Yes, you're correct, he didn't. But you have to demonstrate that God is uncaring about humanity. I don't see it.
Humans don't want to die. God makes us die. God doesn't care that humans don't want to die.
Instead he makes us continue with an exercise of futility that we never get to see the end of and that we suffer and toil through but are almost never able to achieve our ultimate goals.
Wait what?
That would be life ending in death. We struggle through life and will never get to see the completion of our work and instead it will all crumble to dust in the end.
It has benefits for the world as a whole. It does not have benefits for individuals or human society.
How does the existence of death not benefit the individual?
Death of people close to the individual causes the individual to experience pain and sadness. Death makes all of the labors of the individual futile. Death is not something that the individual wants. Explain to me how death benefits the individual. You haven't actually articulated your position. You are just questioning mine.
It is an inherently wasteful process that kills off key portions of humanity and wastes much of the talent and creativity of our species. It causes us pain and anguish when those close to us die. God could have prevented this by making the world differently. But he chose not to.
Ok, and?
Which is why death does not benefit humanity.
Does not care for human life-He takes it from all, often at inopportune times, and even from those who have not fully experienced life
Still not seeing how one flows from the other.
People do not want to die. God kills them. God does not care that people do not want to die. God does not care that humans die. Otherwise he would have created the world differently so that that didn't happen.
Kills for no reason-I just demonstrated why death is unnecessary for the physical world. And if it is a matter of bringing souls back to God so that they can be judged, why create the world at all?
[quote from="Highroller »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/565437-a-debate-with-christians-what-makes-you-think-god?comment=50"]
Allow me to rephrase that. It has no more benefits than if God had just designed the world differently to compensate for lack of death and has a lot more downsides.
[quote]Second, I don't see how you can say death does not have benefits for individuals. You would prefer someone be prevented from dying forever?
Death by choice can certainly have benefits for individuals. But the vast majority of people who die either do not want to die or want to die because of pain, another thing that could have been prevented by God.
And can you please actually say what your position is instead of just questioning mine? I am fine with you questioning my position, but you can't tell me that I am wrong without actually having a position of your own.
No, I don't think you're pretending to be sanctimonious and condescending, I think you're actually being sanctimonious and condescending.
No, not trolling.
No different than you writing
Are you being serious right now?
You cannot imagine why anyone would find it difficult to walk a path of faith? Really? Have you been doing it long?
Without you even bothering to explain your thought process imo.
I really could care less what people say about me and my thoughts. I do expect them to explain why they say those though, so that I can attempt to comprehend them and learn something.
So, if you find what I wrote condescending and sanctimonious, please explain where and why.
Try reading it out loud. Do you hear how condescending you sound?
Your second paragraph starts with you telling people that their opinions don't matter.
And it doesn't get any better from there. You post this long essay about how anyone who struggles with their faith, how anyone who comes in with any doubt or uncertainty or fear is fake and illegitimate and how much you look down on them because you perceive them all as being full of crap.
I'm not a Christian.
Well, have you ever had any faith in anything? Have you ever felt disappointment? You surely must have some sympathy for people who go through a struggle of faith by recognizing that people are human beings.
Your post made me sad, magick. You made a giant lecture about people are awful because they have a hard time being perfect adherents to a belief system you don't even believe in yourself — not because they're killing or stealing or anything, but because they worry and have human concerns. Doesn't that give you pause?
I can understand people worrying about things. You are human, and you will worry. But, if you are an actual Christian, then why is it so hard for you to remind yourself what the Gospels say and try to not worry?
So many Christians are worry-warts or petty in such inconsequential manners. And these are the folks who go to church every Sunday and call themselves Christians.
Have you tried it? Have you tried going through your life not worrying? How easy is it? It's hard, right? Do you really have no compassion for someone who's going through the exact same thing?
I mean, reread this sentence again:
Within that context, all of your opinions are void anyhow.
You opened up by telling Valanarch and Aldath and others that their opinions don't matter. That's almost saying they don't matter. And neither statement is true, is it?
In fact, that's the entire point of Christianity. You missed that. People matter. Their opinions matter. Their beliefs matter. Life matters. You posted this:
Those who do not accept Christ will be very much concerned with what happens now.
Which is not true. You're supposed to be concerned about what happens now.
One of the things I really respect about Buddhism is its understanding that the reason behind the suffering that's inherent to the human condition is that we feel attachment to that which is temporary, which is everything in this world. Everything in this world is fleeting, and it is our attachment to these things that brings us pain and suffering. I think that's extremely poignant.
It also highlights a fundamental difference between Christianity and many schools of Buddhism. Christianity is not about removing attachment. It's about being attached to this world. It's about living in this world. It's not about living a detached life, it's about being involved in life. Buddhism states we are constantly being reincarnated. In Christianity, we get one shot at this world, and we have to live eternally with what we chose to do in that life we were given. We're supposed to be involved in that life. We're supposed to form attachments. We're not supposed to renounce the world. We're supposed to live in it. And in turn, we're supposed to suffer in it.
And the flipside of that is that we're also expected to recognize how fleeting and temporary everything in this world is, in order to recognize what is eternal and what truly matters. And if you find that confusing, yeah. It's not an easy balance. You ask why it's so hard for people to remember what's truly important — well we wouldn't have a Christianity if life were easy. We have it because it's hard. We have it because we suffer. You posted this:
If we accept the premise that our physical existence is but an iota compared to the eternity that is supposed to be our spiritual existence, and that the purpose of our physical life is to find and accept God, then the pain and suffering we experience now are all but irrelevant.
That's not entirely true. Pain and suffering are relevant. But the point is to find the things that truly matter, and that these things will allow us to willingly bear life's suffering.
Just because we don't benefit from God's love right now on physical Earth
No, we benefit from it always. Jesus says that God will always provide. That is the reason we should not worry.
And I'm sorry for my condescending posts earlier. I can't fault you too much, because we've seen how wonderful I am when I make a post when I'm tired. But, that's just one example of what I've been saying. Life doesn't always put us at our best. It's why I tried a soft approach when dealing with Aldath, because I remember what it's like to lose someone you've felt connected to and feel like the world is a desolate and cold and unforgiving place, and to feel like you're wandering.
Your second paragraph starts with you telling people that their opinions don't matter.
Actually, I wrote that their opinions lose meaning when you place it within the context of what I believe to be conventional Christian thought. I personally think that is different from just plain-out saying that they're wrong and/or whatever they wrote is meaningless.
I don't know what you can gain when you take a religious belief with its own internal logic and core beliefs, and then ignore those internal logic and apply your own. You can outright reject those internal logic, sure. But replacing them and then looking at the religion in that manner seems silly.
I realize that this could be a flawed way of thinking though.
That being said... Could what I wrote be construed as condescension? Sure. I certainly didn't mean it that way though.
And it doesn't get any better from there. You post this long essay about how anyone who struggles with their faith, how anyone who comes in with any doubt or uncertainty or fear is fake and illegitimate and how much you look down on them because you perceive them all as being full of crap.
No, I meant that I believe anyone who is incapable of even attempting to remove their fears and worries through their belief in their faith is an actual Christian.
The way I see it, these people who agonize over what occurs in the world and their surrounds don't seem to appreciate the supposed fact that God is the master of all.
If he is the master of all, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the current situation in the world is fully within his expectation? That he wanted everything that has occurred and will occur to occur?
If that is true, then why would you feel the need to agonize over anything?
That is, if you actually truly do believe in what you claim to believe.
Well, have you ever had any faith in anything? Have you ever felt disappointment? You surely must have some sympathy for people who go through a struggle of faith by recognizing that people are human beings.
Your post made me sad, magick. You made a giant lecture about people are awful because they have a hard time being perfect adherents to a belief system you don't even believe in yourself — not because they're killing or stealing or anything, but because they worry and have human concerns. Doesn't that give you pause?
On the contrary, I DESPERATELY want to believe in Christianity. I really do. I WANT to believe from the bottom of my heart that there is a God who loves me and wants nothing more than for me to return to the flock.
To truly believe that I am saved and given eternal salvation. How incredible that sounds. I can't even begin to imagine how tremendous that is.
But I cannot bring myself to believe this. I can mouth the words, but I know it won't be from the bottom of my heart. And so long as I cannot do this, I will not be a Christian.
Afaik, the act of baptism is meant to symbolize the moment when you surrender everything to God and accept him into your heart, and in doing so you become a Christian.
I don't take this lightly. Not at all. And that is exactly I have a low opinion of many Christians, and why I say the things above.
No. I truly cannot even begin to comprehend how people can worry when they are Christians. How can you worry when you know that God has dominion over all and that you are promised eternity? I don't get it.
Maybe it's because I've seen my parents become Christians when they faced the darkest moments of their lives and myself have seen what happens when one attempts to just let go of their worries? Maybe.
If this makes you sad, then so be it. I personally place Christians on a higher pedestal. You believe yourselves saved people. You believe your life to have an explicit and obvious purpose, and most importantly, you believe yourself loved by the greatest being in the universe.
And YET you are petty? You rage over seemingly inconsequential things? You rage at others as if their very existence offends you?
If we accept the premise that our physical existence is but an iota compared to the eternity that is supposed to be our spiritual existence, and that the purpose of our physical life is to find and accept God, then the pain and suffering we experience now are all but irrelevant.
That's not entirely true. Pain and suffering are relevant. But the point is to find the things that truly matter, and that these things will allow us to willingly bear life's suffering.
You misunderstood what I meant by pain and suffering there. I wrote that in response to Valanarch who wrote something to the effect that a God who inflicts pain and suffering upon us is no kind God.
I meant that, if the pain and suffering has a purpose to it, then experiencing it is all but irrelevant provided that the purpose is met.
I agree, and that's why this very attitude of mine is probably not all too great either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, and yet most of my beliefs as expressed here is based on just that.
Actually, I wrote that their opinions lose meaning when you place it within the context of what I believe to be conventional Christian thought. I personally think that is different from just plain-out saying that they're wrong and/or whatever they wrote is meaningless.
If there's a difference, I don't see it. You've told someone their opinion is meaningless. That's essentially saying what they think doesn't matter. Nothing about that can be constituted as anything other than a dismissal.
That being said... Could what I wrote be construed as condescension? Sure. I certainly didn't mean it that way though.
Again, not grasping how, "What you think does not matter," is anything other than a condescension.
No, I meant that I believe anyone who is incapable of even attempting to remove their fears and worries through their belief in their faith is an actual Christian.
"Incapable of even attempting" is a bit presumptuous, isn't it?
On the contrary, I DESPERATELY want to believe in Christianity. I really do. I WANT to believe from the bottom of my heart that there is a God who loves me and wants nothing more than for me to return to the flock.
To truly believe that I am saved and given eternal salvation. How incredible that sounds. I can't even begin to imagine how tremendous that is.
But I cannot bring myself to believe this. I can mouth the words, but I know it won't be from the bottom of my heart. And so long as I cannot do this, I will not be a Christian.
Afaik, the act of baptism is meant to symbolize the moment when you surrender everything to God and accept him into your heart, and in doing so you become a Christian.
I don't take this lightly. Not at all. And that is exactly I have a low opinion of many Christians, and why I say the things above.
No. I truly cannot even begin to comprehend how people can worry when they are Christians.
Notice how, at the start of this quoted section, you explain how you've tried to be Christian but can't, and at the end of this quoted section, you mock other people for their struggles with Christian faith, and exclaim how you cannot possibly imagine how these people can have difficulties in their faith in Christianity.
How can you worry when you know that God has dominion over all and that you are promised eternity? I don't get it.
"How can people who commit themselves to lofty ideals still be flawed?"
You might start by recognizing that they're people.
You misunderstood what I meant by pain and suffering there. I wrote that in response to Valanarch who wrote something to the effect that a God who inflicts pain and suffering upon us is no kind God.
I meant that, if the pain and suffering has a purpose to it, then experiencing it is all but irrelevant provided that the purpose is met.
Only if we have absolutely no regard or concern towards people experiencing pain or suffering.
An odd mindset, really, for someone who's trying to argue that God has regard and concern for us.
I agree, and that's why this very attitude of mine is probably not all too great either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, and yet most of my beliefs as expressed here is based on just that.
Yes. This thread is a wonderful lesson that when you judge another that you are just as susceptible to be judged by another.
Given the contents of the Bible and it's obvious pointing towards an ancient, patriarchal desert society people and their ideas of moral and ritual injunctions. I personally would not call the Abrahamic god moral by any stretch of the imagination.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
Rewarding sinners makes sense to you?
And, as I wrote earlier, I don't know why physical death would mean anything beyond the beginning of spiritual life and judgment for most conventional Christians.
Yes, but there are good people who are not Christians who, according to Christianity, would still be sent to hell. Eternal damnation of the good nonbelievers is not a good act.
According to standard Christian doctrine, there is no such thing as a "good person." Humans are inherently bad as a consequence of original sin. So from a Christian worldview God is not sending "good" or "innocent" people to hell.
Which is basically why magickware99 is criticizing your position. You're starting from Valanarch's assumptions about the nature of existence (death is bad, most people are good, etc) and then trying to see if Christianity makes sense in that context. But obviously Christinaity doesn't make any sense unless you first accept Christianity's assumptions and judgments about the nature of existence (death and suffering aren't necessarily bad, no human is good, etc) and work from there.
If there's a difference, I don't see it. You've told someone their opinion is meaningless. That's essentially saying what they think doesn't matter. Nothing about that can be constituted as anything other than a dismissal.
Look at what Bitterroot wrote regarding my argument to Valanarch above. That about covers it nicely.
If you consider that condescension and saying that what they wrote doesn't matter, then so be it. I don't have an obligation to make you see things my way and I can't think of any way to do that right now.
I just reiterate that I can see how it can be construed as condescension, but I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Notice how, at the start of this quoted section, you explain how you've tried to be Christian but can't, and at the end of this quoted section, you mock other people for their struggles with Christian faith, and exclaim how you cannot possibly imagine how these people can have difficulties in their faith in Christianity.
Do you get why I said I can't find it in myself to be a Christian?
I am not mocking anyone, though I can certainly see how you think I am.
No. I'm not talking about their difficulties in faith in Christianity. I am talking about their actions IN SPITE of their faith in Christianity, and so concluding that they must not really believe in what they profess to believe in the first place.
And I understand the fallacies behind this thought.
You might start by recognizing that they're people.
People who believe themselves saved.
Like I said... I place Christians on a higher pedestal. I do so because, based on my understanding of conventional Christianity, they believe themselves loved by the perfect being who holds dominion over everything that has existed and will exist. They believe that their faith in this being guarantees them eternity.
Perhaps I'm looking at it too academically and completely ignoring the human aspect of it like you said.
Only if we have absolutely no regard or concern towards people experiencing pain or suffering.
An odd mindset, really, for someone who's trying to argue that God has regard and concern for us.
Bleh. I meant irrelevant to the individual experiencing the pain.
I apologize. I wrote that too generally and now I'm not even sure what I meant by it. So here's an analogy of sorts.
I've written previously on this board that my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer a couple of years ago. It, along with a couple other things, was the main impetus that led my mom to become a Christian.
And, later, she had a sudden recurrence of the same strain, except in her gut. This is an incredibly dangerous situation, and just about everyone took it as a death sentence.
But when the doctors opened her up, they found nothing. Blood tests suddenly showed nothing, when repeated testing showed cancer markers and all those other things previously. It has been over an year and a half since then, and there is still nothing. Doctors cannot explain what happened. At this point her doctors have returned to meeting her only once every half a year, indicating that they think that all is well again.
If you believe in Christianity, then you can reasonably conclude that all those pains and sufferings she experienced had a purpose. It led her to accept Christ in her life. And the recurrence also had a purpose as well- it reminded her that she holds no power at all in this world and that she needs to learn how to let go of it.
Or, at least, that is how my parents and their pastor takes it, beyond the whole "it's a miracle!" bit. Suffice it to say my mom is a very different person when compared to herself 5 years ago.
This has more or less formed my interpretation of Christianity as well. I take Christianity and the notion of accepting Christ in of itself, very seriously.
Take this as you will. I don't think I'm going to back down on how seriously I take Christianity and how I judge those who I consider "Christians in name only". I believe to do so would be disrespectful of the experiences my parents went through, and the transformative powers of Christianity.
I can certainly understand the fallacy I commit here, and how stupid it is to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, but so be it.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
Rewarding sinners makes sense to you?
And, as I wrote earlier, I don't know why physical death would mean anything beyond the beginning of spiritual life and judgment for most conventional Christians.
Yes, but there are good people who are not Christians who, according to Christianity, would still be sent to hell. Eternal damnation of the good nonbelievers is not a good act.
According to standard Christian doctrine, there is no such thing as a "good person." Humans are inherently bad as a consequence of original sin. So from a Christian worldview God is not sending "good" or "innocent" people to hell.
Which is basically why magickware99 is criticizing your position. You're starting from Valanarch's assumptions about the nature of existence (death is bad, most people are good, etc) and then trying to see if Christianity makes sense in that context. But obviously Christinaity doesn't make any sense unless you first accept Christianity's assumptions and judgments about the nature of existence (death and suffering aren't necessarily bad, no human is good, etc) and work from there.
I know that. The problem with that is that God could have prevented the original sin. So if that was not God's will, God does not care about the souls of humans because he didn't stop it from happening. And if that was God's will, then God deliberately let humankind be damned, which makes him evil.
According to standard Christian doctrine, there is no such thing as a "good person." Humans are inherently bad as a consequence of original sin. So from a Christian worldview God is not sending "good" or "innocent" people to hell.
Which is basically why magickware99 is criticizing your position. You're starting from Valanarch's assumptions about the nature of existence (death is bad, most people are good, etc) and then trying to see if Christianity makes sense in that context. But obviously Christinaity doesn't make any sense unless you first accept Christianity's assumptions and judgments about the nature of existence (death and suffering aren't necessarily bad, no human is good, etc) and work from there.
Except for the part where original sin isn't universally accepted amongst all Christians, and the notion of which did not exist until Augustine. If you mentioned original sin to Paul, he wouldn't have known what you were talking about.
Further, I would argue original sin doesn't make sense period. Which is the point. If Valanarch is saying that something that Christianity claims is factually false or illogical, then that claim is factually false or illogical. Saying, "Well Christianity says it, so how dare you apply logic to it," is not only anti-intellectual, not only endorsing fanaticism, but as contrary to Augustine as could possibly be. Original sin was itself an attempt to rationalize elements of Christianity. To claim that we are wrong to approach Christianity rationally and logically is therefore absurd.
Look at what Bitterroot wrote regarding my argument to Valanarch above. That about covers it nicely.
Except what Bitterroot is saying is ridiculous. He's saying you cannot apply logic to Christianity's reasoning. Of course that's false. This is a rational debate. Nothing is above rational scrutiny, and you certainly can't just say Christianity gets a pass just cuz.
If you consider that condescension and saying that what they wrote doesn't matter, then so be it.
I am, because that's exactly what you wrote. It was a dismissal, a "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter." Except of course his opinion matters. Even if every single thing he said were wrong, he still has a right to an opinion.
And guess what? Everything he's saying isn't wrong, because he's making at least one point that I entirely agree with, which is that God cannot be good if he damns people.
I just reiterate that I can see how it can be construed as condescension, but I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Which doesn't change whether or not it's condescending. It is. You don't just get to say, "Shut up Valanarch, you don't matter."
Do you get why I said I can't find it in myself to be a Christian?
No, I don't. I don't know you.
But you know you. You know the reasons why you can't find it in yourself to be Christian, even though you tried really hard to be. Maybe you should examine that, and maybe that might give you some kind of a hint as to why people might find it hard to live totally perfect, ideal lives every second of every day. Maybe you should look at your flaws, and that might teach you recognize your own humanity, which will help you to understand what others are going through.
Of course, that would mean confronting your own fallibility. Which will probably prove very difficult for you.
I am not mocking anyone
You're talking down at them from an assumed position of superiority.
No. I'm not talking about their difficulties in faith in Christianity. I am talking about their actions IN SPITE of their faith in Christianity, and so concluding that they must not really believe in what they profess to believe in the first place.
See, if you were talking about people who were pedophiles or murderers or thieves, that'd be one thing.
But you're talking about people whose great moral crimes are... worrying about the future.
Are you freaking serious, dude? What do you think the point of Christianity is?
And I understand the fallacies behind this thought.
DO you? You're continuing to defend it.
People who believe themselves saved.
Like I said... I place Christians on a higher pedestal.
The issue here is you are placing YOU on a higher pedestal.
I do so because, based on my understanding of conventional Christianity, they believe themselves loved by the perfect being who holds dominion over everything that has existed and will exist. They believe that their faith in this being guarantees them eternity.
Yes. None of this actually involve them being perfect people. Indeed, that's the whole point.
Perhaps I'm looking at it too academically and completely ignoring the human aspect of it like you said.
Well it's hard to see things on the ground level when you're on your high horse.
Which is the core of the problem. You're assuming the position of a judge looking down his nose at people and not actually trying to relate to the people you're talking about like an actual human being. And it's understandable why you're doing this: because recognizing their humanity would force you to confront your own, which would mean admitting you're fallible. And there's nothing that one's ego wants less than to admit fallibility.
Bleh. I meant irrelevant to the individual experiencing the pain.
I think it's safe to say that pain is pretty relevant to the person experiencing it.
I've written previously on this board that my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer a couple of years ago. It, along with a couple other things, was the main impetus that led my mom to become a Christian.
And, later, she had a sudden recurrence of the same strain, except in her gut. This is an incredibly dangerous situation, and just about everyone took it as a death sentence.
But when the doctors opened her up, they found nothing. Blood tests suddenly showed nothing, when repeated testing showed cancer markers and all those other things previously. It has been over an year and a half since then, and there is still nothing. Doctors cannot explain what happened. At this point her doctors have returned to meeting her only once every half a year, indicating that they think that all is well again.
That is a wonderful story.
This has more or less formed my interpretation of Christianity as well.
I feel you've missed the entire point.
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
I take Christianity and the notion of accepting Christ in of itself, very seriously.
Really? What about all those parts about not judging others?
What if those others were to respond to your judging them for not being angels by judging you for not being Christian at all and yet presuming yourself in a position to judge others? Hooo... That'd be embarrassing, wouldn't it?
I can certainly understand the fallacy I commit here, and how stupid it is to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, but so be it.
Look at what Bitterroot wrote regarding my argument to Valanarch above. That about covers it nicely.
Except what Bitterroot is saying is ridiculous. He's saying you cannot apply logic to Christianity's reasoning. Of course that's false. This is a rational debate. Nothing is about rational scrutiny, and you certainly can't just say Christianity gets a pass just cuz.
Let me be clear, that was not my argument at all.
I did not say that you cannot apply logic to Christianity. I said you cannot impose your own factual premises on Christianity.
Let me give an example: Doctors used to teat people with leaches and bloodletting, because they believed that disease was caused by bad blood. Was medicine illogical at that time? No, because doctors were correctly applying reasoning to the premise "bad blood causes disease" to arrive at the logical conclusion that bloodletting would cure the patient. The problem was with the doctors' factual premises. They believed incorrect facts about what causes disease.
I'm saying that if you want to apply logic to Christianity, you have to start with Christianity's factual assumptions about the way the world works. You can't start from your own assumptions. If you want to ask the question, "is the Christian God good?" you can't use a secular humanist definition of "good" and expect to get a coherent result. You have to use a Christian definition of "good" if you want to examine whether Christians are being rational in their beliefs.
You could then take a step back and ask "which definition of good is right?" Frankly I'm not really sure whether that's a definitively answerable question. If it is answerable, it certainly doesn't change the fact that the internal logic of a set of beliefs only makes sense if you start from the same premises as adherents to the belief system.
I did not say that you cannot apply logic to Christianity. I said you cannot impose your own factual premises on Christianity.
Galileo would take issue with that statement.
I'm saying that if you want to apply logic to Christianity, you have to start with Christianity's factual assumptions about the way the world works. You can't start from your own assumptions. If you want to ask the question, "is the Christian God good?" you can't use a secular humanist definition of "good" and expect to get a coherent result. You have to use a Christian definition of "good" if you want to examine whether Christians are being rational in their beliefs.
No, you're actually doing the opposite of creating coherency.
Imagine if I said, "God is aeoighoeigh." That statement is meaningless. It's meaningless because "aeoighoeigh" doesn't mean anything. It is not a word, it's just random keys I typed. It has has no definition. It does not correspond to an agreed upon meaning. What does "good" mean? What does saying, "God is good" mean? The statement is meaningless unless we have an agreed upon definition of what "good" means. If we don't have that, then saying "God is good" is meaningless, because you're not saying anything meaningful about God.
And that's the thing: the disagreement in this thread is not because we have different definitions of what "good" means. It's because we disagree on whether or not God fulfills this definition of "good."
For instance, when Valanarch says God is not good because he does X, he's not disagreeing on the definition of "good." He's disagreeing that God fulfills that definition of good.
it certainly doesn't change the fact that the internal logic of a set of beliefs only makes sense if you start from the same premises as adherents to the belief system.
Wait, what? Weren't you just talking about the doctors in medieval times, and how they used bloodletting, and how they were wrong in using bloodletting?
Well this is the doctor's argument:
- Bloodletting cures disease
- This patient has disease
- Therefore, bloodletting will cure the patient
Yes, the conclusion does flow from those two premises, but the conclusion is wrong because the first premise is wrong.
So clearly we CAN call into question premises of an argument, and SHOULD do so in rational discourse.
So, I don't see how you can criticize Valanarch for calling into question the premises of an argument.
Look at what Bitterroot wrote regarding my argument to Valanarch above. That about covers it nicely.
Except what Bitterroot is saying is ridiculous. He's saying you cannot apply logic to Christianity's reasoning. Of course that's false. This is a rational debate. Nothing is about rational scrutiny, and you certainly can't just say Christianity gets a pass just cuz.
Let me be clear, that was not my argument at all.
I did not say that you cannot apply logic to Christianity. I said you cannot impose your own factual premises on Christianity.
Let me give an example: Doctors used to teat people with leaches and bloodletting, because they believed that disease was caused by bad blood. Was medicine illogical at that time? No, because doctors were correctly applying reasoning to the premise "bad blood causes disease" to arrive at the logical conclusion that bloodletting would cure the patient. The problem was with the doctors' factual premises. They believed incorrect facts about what causes disease.
I'm saying that if you want to apply logic to Christianity, you have to start with Christianity's factual assumptions about the way the world works. You can't start from your own assumptions. If you want to ask the question, "is the Christian God good?" you can't use a secular humanist definition of "good" and expect to get a coherent result. You have to use a Christian definition of "good" if you want to examine whether Christians are being rational in their beliefs.
You could then take a step back and ask "which definition of good is right?" Frankly I'm not really sure whether that's a definitively answerable question. If it is answerable, it certainly doesn't change the fact that the internal logic of a set of beliefs only makes sense if you start from the same premises as adherents to the belief system.
Fine. Let's assume that all humans are evil because of the Original Sin. Explain to me how the omnipotent and omniscient God can be good if he chose not to prevent it from happening and instead chose to damn the vast majority of humanity to eternal torment in Hell.
Except what Bitterroot is saying is ridiculous. He's saying you cannot apply logic to Christianity's reasoning. Of course that's false. This is a rational debate. Nothing is above rational scrutiny, and you certainly can't just say Christianity gets a pass just cuz.
Eh.
In the post I referred you to, he is saying that you cannot rip out Christianity's core premises and assumptions and replace them with your own, and then criticize it for not making any sense.
This is why I wrote that Valanarch and Raver's arguments were void. I don't understand how it makes any real sense to attack something when you essentially ignore many of its core premises. Either attack the premises or the logical failures of the implications of the premises. But don't ignore them outright.
You can attack something based on its own logical pitfalls, like Valanarch is doing now in his latest posts (Why did God create a system wherein people cannot help but sin? If God is good, then why did he make humans sinners in the first place? He created everything after all). You cannot attack something by ripping out its core premises and assumptions.
I am, because that's exactly what you wrote. It was a dismissal, a "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter." Except of course his opinion matters. Even if every single thing he said were wrong, he still has a right to an opinion.
Oy, Valanarch! Did you find my post that Highroller keeps referring to as me saying "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter"?
If so, I apologize and assure you I didn't mean it that way. As I keep telling Highroller, I meant it in the manner I wrote above, and in the manner I described to you a couple of days ago.
But you know you. You know the reasons why you can't find it in yourself to be Christian, even though you tried really hard to be. Maybe you should examine that, and maybe that might give you some kind of a hint as to why people might find it hard to live totally perfect, ideal lives every second of every day. Maybe you should look at your flaws, and that might teach you recognize your own humanity, which will help you to understand what others are going through.
I did. That's why I don't attempt to even fault anyone who ISN'T a Christian.
Anyone who CALLS THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, on the other hand...
But you're talking about people whose great moral crimes are... worrying about the future.
Are you freaking serious, dude? What do you think the point of Christianity is?
To humble yourself and accept that God is your lord and savior. To realize that you ultimately hold no power over yourself or this world, and that everything that happens is God's will.
And to spread the word of God as far and wide as you can, as Jesus commands in some part in the Gospels.
And probably a couple other things, but the above is the main point.
Everything I write about my beliefs about how Christians should act in this thread come from this understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I am not wrong, then I will attempt to explain to you my thought process.
Which is the core of the problem. You're assuming the position of a judge looking down his nose at people and not actually trying to relate to the people you're talking about like an actual human being. And it's understandable why you're doing this: because recognizing their humanity would force you to confront your own, which would mean admitting you're fallible. And there's nothing that one's ego wants less than to admit fallibility.
And here you go saying things that require you knowing me, in spite of the fact that you wrote that you don't know me earlier.
As for the rest- they're not worth answering because they all essentially come back to my understanding of Christianity and my beliefs that derive from said understanding.
So, tell me that said understanding is wrong, and how it's wrong.
People, unlike plants, tend to grow at their most beautifully in the harshest of conditions.
Very few of the world's great artists, writers, or musicians have done their work in abject destitution. They start in the middle class (Shakespeare, Twain) and ascend to the heights of aristocracy (Cicero, Tolstoy). Beauty comes from having the leisure time and comfort to ponder and practice one's craft. Which is part of the reason why it's so important for us to ensure that as many people as possible have access to such conditions, and such a moral failure on the part of any interventionist God that he has not deigned to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
People, unlike plants, tend to grow at their most beautifully in the harshest of conditions.
Very few of the world's great artists, writers, or musicians have done their work in abject destitution. They start in the middle class (Shakespeare, Twain) and ascend to the heights of aristocracy (Cicero, Tolstoy). Beauty comes from having the leisure time and comfort to ponder and practice one's craft. Which is part of the reason why it's so important for us to ensure that as many people as possible have access to such conditions, and such a moral failure on the part of any interventionist God that he has not deigned to do so.
A lot of the worlds artists, writers, and musicians are horrible people.
I am, because that's exactly what you wrote. It was a dismissal, a "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter." Except of course his opinion matters. Even if every single thing he said were wrong, he still has a right to an opinion.
Oy, Valanarch! Did you find my post that Highroller keeps referring to as me saying "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter"?
If so, I apologize and assure you I didn't mean it that way. As I keep telling Highroller, I meant it in the manner I wrote above, and in the manner I described to you a couple of days ago.
I understand that and do not feel like you were telling me to shut up.
People, unlike plants, tend to grow at their most beautifully in the harshest of conditions.
Very few of the world's great artists, writers, or musicians have done their work in abject destitution. They start in the middle class (Shakespeare, Twain) and ascend to the heights of aristocracy (Cicero, Tolstoy). Beauty comes from having the leisure time and comfort to ponder and practice one's craft. Which is part of the reason why it's so important for us to ensure that as many people as possible have access to such conditions, and such a moral failure on the part of any interventionist God that he has not deigned to do so.
I think he meant more in the way of some common adage that people find purpose and strength in adversity.
That being said... I don't particularly think any of these growths mean that you become a better human being. Just that you have the potential to become a stronger (whatever that means) person when you face adversity.
In the post I referred you to, he is saying that you cannot rip out Christianity's core premises and assumptions and replace them with your own, and then criticize it for not making any sense.
I have already replied to bitterroot.
This is why I wrote that Valanarch and Raver's arguments were void. I don't understand how it makes any real sense to attack something when you essentially ignore many of its core premises. Either attack the premises or the logical failures of the implications of the premises. But don't ignore them outright.
I admit, I've been away from this thread for a while. Can you demonstrate where they were ignoring the core premises as opposed to attacking the core premises?
And yet you "know" that I'm egotistical, stuck-up, and have an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Well, yes. All of that is readily apparent. On the other hand, intimate details about your posts are not readily apparent. I cannot figure out intimate details about your faith history just from reading your posts.
But what I think is relevant is the fact that you would make a post saying you have absolutely no idea why anyone would have difficulty being an absolutely perfect and ideal model of faith when you yourself then go on to say that you tried as hard as you can to be Christian and couldn't.
Reread that again. You made a post saying it was totally beyond you to comprehend why people might struggle with faith, and then you post that you are not Christian, and that you tried very hard to be, but couldn't.
So you couldn't imagine why people would struggle with faith when you struggled with faith? How can you make a post like that? Did it really never occur to you that you might have the answer to your own question? Did it never occur to you to examine your own difficulties with Christianity, and then through that introspection say, "Oh, maybe these people might have similar difficulties? Maybe they might go through the same hardships and struggles in life I go through?"
Apparently not. But why not? Why do you think that possibility never occurred to you?
Could it be because that would involve sympathizing and relating to the people you seek to deride? Could it be because that would mean admitting you're just as flawed, if not more so, than the people you're trying to position yourself above?
But you know you. You know the reasons why you can't find it in yourself to be Christian, even though you tried really hard to be. Maybe you should examine that, and maybe that might give you some kind of a hint as to why people might find it hard to live totally perfect, ideal lives every second of every day. Maybe you should look at your flaws, and that might teach you recognize your own humanity, which will help you to understand what others are going through.
I did. That's why I don't attempt to even fault anyone who ISN'T a Christian.
Anyone who CALLS THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, on the other hand...
So why is it when you struggle with faith, you allow yourself miles of leeway, but when others struggle, you refuse to give them an inch? Why do you get to be flawed, and they don't?
But you're talking about people whose great moral crimes are... worrying about the future.
Are you freaking serious, dude? What do you think the point of Christianity is?
To humble yourself
Yeah, you know what? That sounds like a great place to start. Let's go with that. "To humble yourself."
Because that's really the heart of what's going on here, isn't it? When you posted this, you're essentially saying, "I cannot imagine why other people find it so hard to be humble." Right?
Reread that. Keep rereading it until the irony sinks in.
and accept that God is your lord and savior. To realize that you ultimately hold no power over yourself or this world, and that everything that happens is God's will.
And to spread the word of God as far and wide as you can, as Jesus commands in some part in the Gospels.
And probably a couple other things, but the above is the main point.
You missed the entire point of Christianity: that human beings are flawed. We get lost. We get lost in our flaws, in our fears, in our concerns. That is why we need Christianity.
The issue here is you are placing YOU on a higher pedestal.
Seriously?
What pedestal might that be?
The pedestal you placed yourself upon when you presumed yourself so superior to Christians who worry about their lives that you are in a position to judge them condescendingly.
As for the rest- they're not worth answering
And I suppose you're now going to claim that this statement isn't being condescending and dismissive?
because they all essentially come back to my understanding of Christianity and my beliefs that derive from said understanding.
So, tell me that said understanding is wrong, and how it's wrong.
You already have the answers you're looking for. All you need is the self-awareness to see them.
So to borrow a quote from you:
Quote from magickware99 »
Just answer the question.
Specifically, this one:
Quote from Highroller »
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
I admit, I've been away from this thread for a while. Can you demonstrate where they were ignoring the core premises as opposed to attacking the core premises?
I'm sure you're more than capable of digging through weeks old posts on your own without having to ask me to do the work for you.
But what I think is relevant is the fact that you would make a post saying you have absolutely no idea why anyone would have difficulty being an absolutely perfect and ideal model of faith when you yourself then go on to say that you tried as hard as you can to be Christian and couldn't.
I wrote-
Quote from »
I find it incredibly silly that most "Christians" I've met can't bring themselves to just accept the Word. Why bother calling yourself a Christian if you're not going to do what your holy text tells you?
I can understand people worrying about things. You are human, and you will worry. But, if you are an actual Christian, then why is it so hard for you to remind yourself what the Gospels say and try to not worry?
So many Christians are worry-warts or petty in such inconsequential manners. And these are the folks who go to church every Sunday and call themselves Christians.
I do not call myself a Christian because, in my mind, a Christian is someone who accepts God and His word as truth.
I do not accept God, therefore I am not a Christian. It has nothing to do with trying to be a Christian and failing. I wrote that I would LOVE to be a Christian, and that I would LOVE to actually believe in God. Because I would LOVE to believe that my life has meaning and follows a plan set out by an omni-benevolent God.
But I don't. I do not accept that there is an omni-benevolent God. I do not accept that everything that happens has purpose and is within the plans of an all-knowing God.
I don't even know why I don't. I just don't.
Now, in my understanding, the implication of accepting his word as truth means that you accept that God literally knows everything about your life, and literally everything you experience right now is within his plans.
And God is omni-benevolent. As such, everything you experience right now is within the plan of an omni-benevolent being. He has nothing but your best wishes in mind.
Why do you worry then? Because you're human? Sure, as I wrote in the quote, I can accept that. You can certainly worry about things. So long as you constantly remind yourself that you don't need to worry afterwards because God is in charge of everything, I don't really have a problem.
But I don't get the worry-warts, or specifically the people who stress so much about the events in the world.
Why do you stress so much about things when everything is within God's plan?
So you couldn't imagine why people would struggle with faith when you struggled with faith? How can you make a post like that? Did it really never occur to you that you might have the answer to your own question? Did it never occur to you to examine your own difficulties with Christianity, and then through that introspection say, "Oh, maybe these people might have similar difficulties? Maybe they might go through the same hardships and struggles in life I go through?"
Apparently not. But why not? Why do you think that possibility never occurred to you?
Man. What I wrote must have made you really sad.
But why are you getting so sad over what just one random internet person wrote?
Could it be because that would involve sympathizing and relating to the people you seek to deride? Could it be because that would mean admitting you're just as flawed, if not more so, than the people you're trying to position yourself above?
No, you're quite wrong.
I know you won't accept this, and you'll think of this as me just being egotistical and whatnot again, but I don't care.
I have absolutely no obligation to tell you anything beyond what I wish to tell you about my personal history. If you want to continue thinking that I'm egotistical, then that's perfectly fine. Have at it. I really do not care one bit what a random internet person online says about the qualities of another random internet person. I only care about what you say about my arguments and my thought processes, because that is what I come to test.
But, as you wrote, I know myself. I won't be so arrogant to say that I know myself well, but I do know myself.
So why is it when you struggle with faith, you allow yourself miles of leeway, but when others struggle, you refuse to give them an inch? Why do you get to be flawed, and they don't?
You're right. I am being very hard on Christians, and I've admitted as such earlier.
I just think that a Christian should have enough faith in his/her beliefs to weather the storms. That they shouldn't fall into doubt whenever something bad happens.
You missed the entire point of Christianity: that human beings are flawed. We get lost. We get lost in our flaws, in our fears, in our concerns. That is why we need Christianity.
That is why we need Christianity to remind us that our fears and our flaws ultimately mean nothing.
The pedestal you placed yourself upon when you presumed yourself so superior to Christians who worry about their lives that you are in a position to judge them condescendingly.
And I suppose you're now going to claim that this statement isn't being condescending and dismissive?
I mean, if you just take it at that alone, then it sounds condescending.
because they all essentially come back to my understanding of Christianity and my beliefs that derive from said understanding.
But when you apply the rest of it, you can (hopefully) see what I meant by it.
There's no point in me answering anything when my basic understanding of it all is flawed. If it is, then it is far more suitable to just get at the heart of the matter and find out where I'm wrong.
But, honestly, I think you're just being really touchy right now. I mean what with feeling indignation on the behalf of another who wrote PAGES before that he agrees with what I wrote regarding my supposed "dismissal" of them, but why he thinks that I missed the point and wrote a good response back.
Quote from Highroller »
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
And, as I've written earlier, all of my thoughts regarding Christianity comes from this.
Specifically, that one doesn't need to worry about the future because God is omni-benevolent and has your best in mind. And that God knows everything that will happen and allows them to happen that way. All you really have to do is live life to the fullest and embrace everything that happens for the good that it must be.
I wonder what I've been doing when I admitted I was wrong in a couple of recent posts to you.
Perhaps it's some sort of scheme on my part?
Yes, you would find a way to be smug about instances in which you were humbled, wouldn't you?
I do not call myself a Christian because, in my mind, a Christian is someone who accepts God and His word as truth.
I do not accept God, therefore I am not a Christian. It has nothing to do with trying to be a Christian and failing.
You said you tried to be Christian and failed. So clearly it does have something to do with trying to be Christian and failing. What is hypocritical is how you can berate others for trying to be Christian but not measuring up to your standards when you apparently had even more difficulty.
So why is it you can struggle with this whole faith thing and they can't?
I wrote that I would LOVE to be a Christian, and that I would LOVE to actually believe in God. Because I would LOVE to believe that my life has meaning and follows a plan set out by an omni-benevolent God.
But I don't. I do not accept that there is an omni-benevolent God. I do not accept that everything that happens has purpose and is within the plans of an all-knowing God.
And again, why do you get to struggle with this idea, but no one else does?
Now, in my understanding, the implication of accepting his word as truth means that you accept that God literally knows everything about your life, and literally everything you experience right now is within his plans.
And God is omni-benevolent. As such, everything you experience right now is within the plan of an omni-benevolent being. He has nothing but your best wishes in mind.
Yes.
Why do you worry then? Because you're human? Sure, as I wrote in the quote, I can accept that. You can certainly worry about things. So long as you constantly remind yourself that you don't need to worry afterwards because God is in charge of everything, I don't really have a problem.
But I don't get the worry-warts, or specifically the people who stress so much about the events in the world.
Why do you worry? Why do you stress out so much about the events of the world?
You have the answers to your own questions, magickware99. The real question is are you actually trying to understand other people when you ask these questions, or are your efforts toward being condescending toward them?
Why do you stress so much about things when everything is within God's plan?
Well it seems you've never known what it is like to get lost out of anxiety, or fear, or pain, or sadness. You apparently don't know what it's like to hurt so deeply that it cuts into the core of your being. You apparently don't know what it's like to care about the result of something, or to have something matter to you. To have anything matter to you so desperately you don't know how you'll go on living without it. You apparently don't know what it's like to feel weighed down by life's burdens, to the point where you start to forget who you are.
Good for you. The rest of us are human beings who don't have the luxury of being without flaw.
Man. What I wrote must have made you really sad.
But why are you getting so sad over what just one random internet person wrote?
Because I don't like it when people make incorrect posts with condescending tones about topics they know nothing about. And unfortunately, that descriptor applies to not one, but every post you've made in this thread thus far.
You're right. I am being very hard on Christians, and I've admitted as such earlier.
Which is nothing but empty words. You say, "Yes, you're right, I acknowledge flaws in my argument earlier," but then post the same argument, and defend the same argument. You'll say, "You're right, maybe there was a fault in my behavior" and then do the exact same thing.
I just think that a Christian should have enough faith in his/her beliefs to weather the storms. That they shouldn't fall into doubt whenever something bad happens.
Would you go into an Alcoholics Anonymous meaning, and say, "You know, I have no idea why you guys have such a hard time staying sober, and keep falling back into alcoholism. I mean, you made a commitment to be sober, right? Then why are you having such a hard time with it? I have no understanding at all as to why you're having such a hard time with this"?
Or do you recognize on some level what it's like to be a fallible human being? At all? Is being a human being something you've ever had any experience with before?
The pedestal you placed yourself upon when you presumed yourself so superior to Christians who worry about their lives that you are in a position to judge them condescendingly.
Once again,
No.
Really? So you're not condescendingly judging people? You just admitted you were in this very post! So which is it, are you not presumptuously judging people from a presumed lofty height, or was your previous admission that you're unfairly judging people facetious?
There's no point in me answering anything when my basic understanding of it all is flawed. If it is, then it is far more suitable to just get at the heart of the matter and find out where I'm wrong.
And this is the person who claims he knows himself? You say you acknowledge that your basic understanding is flawed, that there's no point in you answering anything, and that you're interested in me helping you to understand where you are wrong — yet you have done nothing but argue with me constantly in this thread! And I suppose you will claim that this has nothing to do with ego or your importance on getting the last word in?
Again, why are you really here? Are you here to understand these people? Or are you here to be condescending toward them? And keep in mind, you admitted to the latter.
But, honestly, I think you're just being really touchy right now. I mean what with feeling indignation on the behalf of another who wrote PAGES before that he agrees with what I wrote regarding my supposed "dismissal" of them, but why he thinks that I missed the point and wrote a good response back.
You have missed the entire point of Christianity and just basic realities about the human condition. There's hitting the broad side of a barn, and then there's not even being in the same area code as the barn.
Quote from Highroller »
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
And, as I've written earlier, all of my thoughts regarding Christianity comes from this.
That's the second time you've deliberately avoided that question.
Pity, because that question holds the answer to your question.
]You said you tried to be Christian and failed. So clearly it does have something to do with trying to be Christian and failing. What is hypocritical is how you can berate others for trying to be Christian but not measuring up to your standards when you apparently had even more difficulty.
So why is it you can struggle with this whole faith thing and they can't?
I don't ever recall writing this in this thread. Heck, I don't ever recall writing this ever in any forum.
I wrote-
", I DESPERATELY want to believe in Christianity. I really do. I WANT to believe from the bottom of my heart that there is a God who loves me and wants nothing more than for me to return to the flock."
You seem to be interpreting that as me saying I tried to be a Christian and failed.
I reiterate. I never once believed myself to be a Christian, and so I never once attempted to live whatever the Christian lifestyle may be.
If you can find me actually writing the things you claimed I wrote, then maybe I might actually start listening to you on what you claim I am...
Seriously, this entire beef you have with me is based on (what appears to me anyways) serious misconceptions you have of me, or possibly you fixating on certain views of me and denying what I write because it doesn't fit.
So...
1) I NEVER once even attempted to be a Christian. I find a great deal of appeal behind the ideology and the thought processes of an actual Christian, but I can't buy into it.
2) Virtually all of my reasoning here that you seemingly hate so much comes from what I felt from my mother's ordeal with cancer. You keep writing stuff like
Quote from Highroller »
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
Quote from magickware »
And, as I've written earlier, all of my thoughts regarding Christianity comes from this.
Quote from Highroller »
That's the second time you've deliberately avoided that question.
Pity, because that question holds the answer to your question.
I'm not avoiding anything. I seriously mean what I wrote.
My mom straight-out told me that she became a Christian because she felt that she no longer, and possibly never did, have any control over her life. She felt so much more comfort and ease in deciding that everything, good and bad, comes from the will of Christ. This gives purpose and reason to everything she has experienced throughout her life, and so makes everything actually manageable.
Plus, the fact that all of these are ultimately temporary things gives great comfort to her.
This is what I mean when I say that I've seen the power Christianity has. And why I feel the things I've expressed here.
If they make you sad, then so be it. You haven't really given me reason to believe otherwise. I mean, all you've done thus far is continually repeat-
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
And again, why do you get to struggle with this idea, but no one else does?
What?
Because I find it weird when people state that they believe in God, but don't act like they believe in God.
If you are a Christian, then you do not struggle with the concept of God existing in the first place. At least, this is what I believe.
I do not believe in God. Therefore my struggle, whatever that may be, is infinitely different from whatever struggles Christians face in keeping their faith.
You have the answers to your own questions, magickware99. The real question is are you actually trying to understand other people when you ask these questions, or are your efforts toward being condescending toward them?
Dude. I just straight out wrote in the post you're replying to right now my reasoning, to which you replied
Quote from Highroller »
Yes.
And I am writing that, based upon that reasoning, I don't understand how Christians can seriously worry about things.
Either disagree with this reasoning and point out where I am failing (hereby canning the condescending action yourself), or just admit that you're really doing nothing more than repeating-
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
Well it seems you've never known what it is like to get lost out of anxiety, or fear, or pain, or sadness. You apparently don't know what it's like to hurt so deeply that it cuts into the core of your being. You apparently don't know what it's like to care about the result of something, or to have something matter to you. To have anything matter to you so desperately you don't know how you'll go on living without it. You apparently don't know what it's like to feel weighed down by life's burdens, to the point where you start to forget who you are.
O.k. Let's play the one-up game.
My brother tried to kill me once. At another (earlier) time my brother threatened to commit suicide in front of me. I stopped him only by threatening to commit suicide in response. I am thankful every ******* day of my life that my brother wasn't as far gone in depression as others are/were; because I don't even want to imagine what would have happened if he was.
Now, one-up me. Please. I dare you. I remember enough from your other posts to piece together that you haven't had the greatest life either. So I'm sure you have something better than that.
Regarding the quote itself above...
Like I said, I don't believe in God. I do not believe that my suffering has a purpose. Christians ostensibly believe that their suffering as a purpose. ...
Dude, I don't even want to repeat myself anymore. I can't do anything but just point you back to my reasoning that you responded "yes" to.
Because I don't like it when people make incorrect posts with condescending tones about topics they know nothing about. And unfortunately, that descriptor applies to not one, but every post you've made in this thread thus far.
Then please tell me why they're wrong outside repeating
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
over and over! Please! As I wrote to you earlier, I truly do care about seeing failures in my argument. But so long as you just keep writing that I am a judgmental ********, I can't do much but just do random word sparring with you.
Which is nothing but empty words. You say, "Yes, you're right, I acknowledge flaws in my argument earlier," but then post the same argument, and defend the same argument. You'll say, "You're right, maybe there was a fault in my behavior" and then do the exact same thing.
As I wrote in an earlier post,
"I can certainly understand the fallacy I commit here, and how stupid it is to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, but so be it."
Yes. I fully realize how empty it is to say I see flaws in my argument, but I don't care.
But... I really don't care. My opinions are mine unless someone actually proves me wrong.
Would you go into an Alcoholics Anonymous meaning, and say, "You know, I have no idea why you guys have such a hard time staying sober, and keep falling back into alcoholism. I mean, you made a commitment to be sober, right? Then why are you having such a hard time with it? I have no understanding at all as to why you're having such a hard time with this"?
Or do you recognize on some level what it's like to be a fallible human being? At all? Is being a human being something you've ever had any experience with before?
Your level of condescension and arrogance are coming dangerously close to mine own.
Really? So you're not condescendingly judging people? You just admitted you were in this very post! So which is it, are you not presumptuously judging people from a presumed lofty height, or was your previous admission that you're unfairly judging people facetious?
"No" as in, "No, I do not consider myself superior to Christians".
Just because I criticize them doesn't mean that I consider myself superior to them in whatever fashion.
Again, you're attempting to place me in a nice little box. Stop it.
There's no point in me answering anything when my basic understanding of it all is flawed. If it is, then it is far more suitable to just get at the heart of the matter and find out where I'm wrong.
that you're interested in me helping you to understand where you are wrong — yet you have done nothing but argue with me constantly in this thread! And I suppose you will claim that this has nothing to do with ego or your importance on getting the last word in?
As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but repeat
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!" over and over.
And you intentionally misunderstand me. I can't imagine any other possible way you missed the "if" in the passage you responded to here. I consider you an intelligent and well-read (significantly more than me in both aspects) person. That you missed the point I wanted to make in that passage frankly boggles my mind, and further my belief that you're not actually paying attention to what I wrote, but rather just reading whatever the hell you want to read.
Again, why are you really here? Are you here to understand these people? Or are you here to be condescending toward them? And keep in mind, you admitted to the latter.
I admitted that the way I wrote my opinions of so-called "Christians in name only" are likely based on flawed reasoning.
I also wrote that I don't very much care, because I believe to think otherwise would be disrespectful to how my parents came to Christianity themselves.
As for why I'm talking with you? Honestly I don't even know. Maybe it's because I respect your intelligence and hope that you'll actually come up with a constructive argument outside of
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
(For full disclosure, the above passage is definitely meant to be condescending)
You have missed the entire point of Christianity and just basic realities about the human condition. There's hitting the broad side of a barn, and then there's not even being in the same area code as the barn.
Maybe we can get a constructive argument going on here.
From what I can tell, you mean to say that the frailties of humanity is the basic, entire, point of Christianity.
But from what I understand, Christianity is saying "Humanity is flawed to begin with. THEREFORE, we need God, and ergo Christianity".
In that sense, the fact that humans are flawed aren't so much as the main point but rather simply a fact.
No, what I consider to be the entire point of Christianity is that God is the power that saves and raises us from the failures that we inherently are and create. And we can do nothing but submit ourselves to that power.
Quote from Highroller »
Pity, because that question holds the answer to your question.
Some more condescension.
Maybe it'll be better if we both just straight-out spell when we are being condescending to one another? Might help get rid of some confusions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In Christianity, souls often go to hell. So please explain to me what else is making souls go to hell other than the all-powerful being who is judging your soul. Or how answering nothing makes sense at all.
The killing of people without their consent, is always immoral.
Because until then it is merely a dependent parasite that has not fully developed.
Humans don't want to die. God makes us die. God doesn't care that humans don't want to die.
That would be life ending in death. We struggle through life and will never get to see the completion of our work and instead it will all crumble to dust in the end.
Death of people close to the individual causes the individual to experience pain and sadness. Death makes all of the labors of the individual futile. Death is not something that the individual wants. Explain to me how death benefits the individual. You haven't actually articulated your position. You are just questioning mine.
Which is why death does not benefit humanity.
People do not want to die. God kills them. God does not care that people do not want to die. God does not care that humans die. Otherwise he would have created the world differently so that that didn't happen.
And, no response for this quote?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Death by choice can certainly have benefits for individuals. But the vast majority of people who die either do not want to die or want to die because of pain, another thing that could have been prevented by God.
And can you please actually say what your position is instead of just questioning mine? I am fine with you questioning my position, but you can't tell me that I am wrong without actually having a position of your own.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
No, not trolling.
No different than you writing
Without you even bothering to explain your thought process imo.
I really could care less what people say about me and my thoughts. I do expect them to explain why they say those though, so that I can attempt to comprehend them and learn something.
So, if you find what I wrote condescending and sanctimonious, please explain where and why.
Try reading it out loud. Do you hear how condescending you sound?
Your second paragraph starts with you telling people that their opinions don't matter.
And it doesn't get any better from there. You post this long essay about how anyone who struggles with their faith, how anyone who comes in with any doubt or uncertainty or fear is fake and illegitimate and how much you look down on them because you perceive them all as being full of crap.
Well, have you ever had any faith in anything? Have you ever felt disappointment? You surely must have some sympathy for people who go through a struggle of faith by recognizing that people are human beings.
Your post made me sad, magick. You made a giant lecture about people are awful because they have a hard time being perfect adherents to a belief system you don't even believe in yourself — not because they're killing or stealing or anything, but because they worry and have human concerns. Doesn't that give you pause?
Have you tried it? Have you tried going through your life not worrying? How easy is it? It's hard, right? Do you really have no compassion for someone who's going through the exact same thing?
I mean, reread this sentence again:
You opened up by telling Valanarch and Aldath and others that their opinions don't matter. That's almost saying they don't matter. And neither statement is true, is it?
In fact, that's the entire point of Christianity. You missed that. People matter. Their opinions matter. Their beliefs matter. Life matters. You posted this:
Which is not true. You're supposed to be concerned about what happens now.
One of the things I really respect about Buddhism is its understanding that the reason behind the suffering that's inherent to the human condition is that we feel attachment to that which is temporary, which is everything in this world. Everything in this world is fleeting, and it is our attachment to these things that brings us pain and suffering. I think that's extremely poignant.
It also highlights a fundamental difference between Christianity and many schools of Buddhism. Christianity is not about removing attachment. It's about being attached to this world. It's about living in this world. It's not about living a detached life, it's about being involved in life. Buddhism states we are constantly being reincarnated. In Christianity, we get one shot at this world, and we have to live eternally with what we chose to do in that life we were given. We're supposed to be involved in that life. We're supposed to form attachments. We're not supposed to renounce the world. We're supposed to live in it. And in turn, we're supposed to suffer in it.
And the flipside of that is that we're also expected to recognize how fleeting and temporary everything in this world is, in order to recognize what is eternal and what truly matters. And if you find that confusing, yeah. It's not an easy balance. You ask why it's so hard for people to remember what's truly important — well we wouldn't have a Christianity if life were easy. We have it because it's hard. We have it because we suffer. You posted this:
That's not entirely true. Pain and suffering are relevant. But the point is to find the things that truly matter, and that these things will allow us to willingly bear life's suffering.
No, we benefit from it always. Jesus says that God will always provide. That is the reason we should not worry.
And I'm sorry for my condescending posts earlier. I can't fault you too much, because we've seen how wonderful I am when I make a post when I'm tired. But, that's just one example of what I've been saying. Life doesn't always put us at our best. It's why I tried a soft approach when dealing with Aldath, because I remember what it's like to lose someone you've felt connected to and feel like the world is a desolate and cold and unforgiving place, and to feel like you're wandering.
Actually, I wrote that their opinions lose meaning when you place it within the context of what I believe to be conventional Christian thought. I personally think that is different from just plain-out saying that they're wrong and/or whatever they wrote is meaningless.
I don't know what you can gain when you take a religious belief with its own internal logic and core beliefs, and then ignore those internal logic and apply your own. You can outright reject those internal logic, sure. But replacing them and then looking at the religion in that manner seems silly.
I realize that this could be a flawed way of thinking though.
That being said... Could what I wrote be construed as condescension? Sure. I certainly didn't mean it that way though.
No, I meant that I believe anyone who is incapable of even attempting to remove their fears and worries through their belief in their faith is an actual Christian.
The way I see it, these people who agonize over what occurs in the world and their surrounds don't seem to appreciate the supposed fact that God is the master of all.
If he is the master of all, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the current situation in the world is fully within his expectation? That he wanted everything that has occurred and will occur to occur?
If that is true, then why would you feel the need to agonize over anything?
That is, if you actually truly do believe in what you claim to believe.
On the contrary, I DESPERATELY want to believe in Christianity. I really do. I WANT to believe from the bottom of my heart that there is a God who loves me and wants nothing more than for me to return to the flock.
To truly believe that I am saved and given eternal salvation. How incredible that sounds. I can't even begin to imagine how tremendous that is.
But I cannot bring myself to believe this. I can mouth the words, but I know it won't be from the bottom of my heart. And so long as I cannot do this, I will not be a Christian.
Afaik, the act of baptism is meant to symbolize the moment when you surrender everything to God and accept him into your heart, and in doing so you become a Christian.
I don't take this lightly. Not at all. And that is exactly I have a low opinion of many Christians, and why I say the things above.
No. I truly cannot even begin to comprehend how people can worry when they are Christians. How can you worry when you know that God has dominion over all and that you are promised eternity? I don't get it.
Maybe it's because I've seen my parents become Christians when they faced the darkest moments of their lives and myself have seen what happens when one attempts to just let go of their worries? Maybe.
If this makes you sad, then so be it. I personally place Christians on a higher pedestal. You believe yourselves saved people. You believe your life to have an explicit and obvious purpose, and most importantly, you believe yourself loved by the greatest being in the universe.
And YET you are petty? You rage over seemingly inconsequential things? You rage at others as if their very existence offends you?
I don't get it.
You misunderstood what I meant by pain and suffering there. I wrote that in response to Valanarch who wrote something to the effect that a God who inflicts pain and suffering upon us is no kind God.
I meant that, if the pain and suffering has a purpose to it, then experiencing it is all but irrelevant provided that the purpose is met.
I agree, and that's why this very attitude of mine is probably not all too great either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, and yet most of my beliefs as expressed here is based on just that.
But that's why I wrote "try not to worry".
Again, not grasping how, "What you think does not matter," is anything other than a condescension.
"Incapable of even attempting" is a bit presumptuous, isn't it?
Notice how, at the start of this quoted section, you explain how you've tried to be Christian but can't, and at the end of this quoted section, you mock other people for their struggles with Christian faith, and exclaim how you cannot possibly imagine how these people can have difficulties in their faith in Christianity.
"How can people who commit themselves to lofty ideals still be flawed?"
You might start by recognizing that they're people.
Only if we have absolutely no regard or concern towards people experiencing pain or suffering.
An odd mindset, really, for someone who's trying to argue that God has regard and concern for us.
Yes. This thread is a wonderful lesson that when you judge another that you are just as susceptible to be judged by another.
According to standard Christian doctrine, there is no such thing as a "good person." Humans are inherently bad as a consequence of original sin. So from a Christian worldview God is not sending "good" or "innocent" people to hell.
Which is basically why magickware99 is criticizing your position. You're starting from Valanarch's assumptions about the nature of existence (death is bad, most people are good, etc) and then trying to see if Christianity makes sense in that context. But obviously Christinaity doesn't make any sense unless you first accept Christianity's assumptions and judgments about the nature of existence (death and suffering aren't necessarily bad, no human is good, etc) and work from there.
Look at what Bitterroot wrote regarding my argument to Valanarch above. That about covers it nicely.
If you consider that condescension and saying that what they wrote doesn't matter, then so be it. I don't have an obligation to make you see things my way and I can't think of any way to do that right now.
I just reiterate that I can see how it can be construed as condescension, but I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Do you get why I said I can't find it in myself to be a Christian?
I am not mocking anyone, though I can certainly see how you think I am.
No. I'm not talking about their difficulties in faith in Christianity. I am talking about their actions IN SPITE of their faith in Christianity, and so concluding that they must not really believe in what they profess to believe in the first place.
And I understand the fallacies behind this thought.
People who believe themselves saved.
Like I said... I place Christians on a higher pedestal. I do so because, based on my understanding of conventional Christianity, they believe themselves loved by the perfect being who holds dominion over everything that has existed and will exist. They believe that their faith in this being guarantees them eternity.
Perhaps I'm looking at it too academically and completely ignoring the human aspect of it like you said.
...
Bleh. I meant irrelevant to the individual experiencing the pain.
I apologize. I wrote that too generally and now I'm not even sure what I meant by it. So here's an analogy of sorts.
I've written previously on this board that my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer a couple of years ago. It, along with a couple other things, was the main impetus that led my mom to become a Christian.
And, later, she had a sudden recurrence of the same strain, except in her gut. This is an incredibly dangerous situation, and just about everyone took it as a death sentence.
But when the doctors opened her up, they found nothing. Blood tests suddenly showed nothing, when repeated testing showed cancer markers and all those other things previously. It has been over an year and a half since then, and there is still nothing. Doctors cannot explain what happened. At this point her doctors have returned to meeting her only once every half a year, indicating that they think that all is well again.
If you believe in Christianity, then you can reasonably conclude that all those pains and sufferings she experienced had a purpose. It led her to accept Christ in her life. And the recurrence also had a purpose as well- it reminded her that she holds no power at all in this world and that she needs to learn how to let go of it.
Or, at least, that is how my parents and their pastor takes it, beyond the whole "it's a miracle!" bit. Suffice it to say my mom is a very different person when compared to herself 5 years ago.
This has more or less formed my interpretation of Christianity as well. I take Christianity and the notion of accepting Christ in of itself, very seriously.
Take this as you will. I don't think I'm going to back down on how seriously I take Christianity and how I judge those who I consider "Christians in name only". I believe to do so would be disrespectful of the experiences my parents went through, and the transformative powers of Christianity.
I can certainly understand the fallacy I commit here, and how stupid it is to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, but so be it.
I know that. The problem with that is that God could have prevented the original sin. So if that was not God's will, God does not care about the souls of humans because he didn't stop it from happening. And if that was God's will, then God deliberately let humankind be damned, which makes him evil.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Further, I would argue original sin doesn't make sense period. Which is the point. If Valanarch is saying that something that Christianity claims is factually false or illogical, then that claim is factually false or illogical. Saying, "Well Christianity says it, so how dare you apply logic to it," is not only anti-intellectual, not only endorsing fanaticism, but as contrary to Augustine as could possibly be. Original sin was itself an attempt to rationalize elements of Christianity. To claim that we are wrong to approach Christianity rationally and logically is therefore absurd.
Except what Bitterroot is saying is ridiculous. He's saying you cannot apply logic to Christianity's reasoning. Of course that's false. This is a rational debate. Nothing is above rational scrutiny, and you certainly can't just say Christianity gets a pass just cuz.
I am, because that's exactly what you wrote. It was a dismissal, a "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter." Except of course his opinion matters. Even if every single thing he said were wrong, he still has a right to an opinion.
And guess what? Everything he's saying isn't wrong, because he's making at least one point that I entirely agree with, which is that God cannot be good if he damns people.
Which doesn't change whether or not it's condescending. It is. You don't just get to say, "Shut up Valanarch, you don't matter."
No, I don't. I don't know you.
But you know you. You know the reasons why you can't find it in yourself to be Christian, even though you tried really hard to be. Maybe you should examine that, and maybe that might give you some kind of a hint as to why people might find it hard to live totally perfect, ideal lives every second of every day. Maybe you should look at your flaws, and that might teach you recognize your own humanity, which will help you to understand what others are going through.
Of course, that would mean confronting your own fallibility. Which will probably prove very difficult for you.
You're talking down at them from an assumed position of superiority.
See, if you were talking about people who were pedophiles or murderers or thieves, that'd be one thing.
But you're talking about people whose great moral crimes are... worrying about the future.
Are you freaking serious, dude? What do you think the point of Christianity is?
DO you? You're continuing to defend it.
The issue here is you are placing YOU on a higher pedestal.
Yes. None of this actually involve them being perfect people. Indeed, that's the whole point.
Well it's hard to see things on the ground level when you're on your high horse.
Which is the core of the problem. You're assuming the position of a judge looking down his nose at people and not actually trying to relate to the people you're talking about like an actual human being. And it's understandable why you're doing this: because recognizing their humanity would force you to confront your own, which would mean admitting you're fallible. And there's nothing that one's ego wants less than to admit fallibility.
I think it's safe to say that pain is pretty relevant to the person experiencing it.
That is a wonderful story.
I feel you've missed the entire point.
Think about it: Why was your mother's cancer the main impetus for her becoming Christian? Why did the cancer elicit a change?
Really? What about all those parts about not judging others?
What if those others were to respond to your judging them for not being angels by judging you for not being Christian at all and yet presuming yourself in a position to judge others? Hooo... That'd be embarrassing, wouldn't it?
Yeah, it's fun to be holier-than-thou, isn't it?
It is, however, disingenuous.
Let me be clear, that was not my argument at all.
I did not say that you cannot apply logic to Christianity. I said you cannot impose your own factual premises on Christianity.
Let me give an example: Doctors used to teat people with leaches and bloodletting, because they believed that disease was caused by bad blood. Was medicine illogical at that time? No, because doctors were correctly applying reasoning to the premise "bad blood causes disease" to arrive at the logical conclusion that bloodletting would cure the patient. The problem was with the doctors' factual premises. They believed incorrect facts about what causes disease.
I'm saying that if you want to apply logic to Christianity, you have to start with Christianity's factual assumptions about the way the world works. You can't start from your own assumptions. If you want to ask the question, "is the Christian God good?" you can't use a secular humanist definition of "good" and expect to get a coherent result. You have to use a Christian definition of "good" if you want to examine whether Christians are being rational in their beliefs.
You could then take a step back and ask "which definition of good is right?" Frankly I'm not really sure whether that's a definitively answerable question. If it is answerable, it certainly doesn't change the fact that the internal logic of a set of beliefs only makes sense if you start from the same premises as adherents to the belief system.
No, you're actually doing the opposite of creating coherency.
Imagine if I said, "God is aeoighoeigh." That statement is meaningless. It's meaningless because "aeoighoeigh" doesn't mean anything. It is not a word, it's just random keys I typed. It has has no definition. It does not correspond to an agreed upon meaning. What does "good" mean? What does saying, "God is good" mean? The statement is meaningless unless we have an agreed upon definition of what "good" means. If we don't have that, then saying "God is good" is meaningless, because you're not saying anything meaningful about God.
And that's the thing: the disagreement in this thread is not because we have different definitions of what "good" means. It's because we disagree on whether or not God fulfills this definition of "good."
For instance, when Valanarch says God is not good because he does X, he's not disagreeing on the definition of "good." He's disagreeing that God fulfills that definition of good.
Wait, what? Weren't you just talking about the doctors in medieval times, and how they used bloodletting, and how they were wrong in using bloodletting?
Well this is the doctor's argument:
- Bloodletting cures disease
- This patient has disease
- Therefore, bloodletting will cure the patient
Yes, the conclusion does flow from those two premises, but the conclusion is wrong because the first premise is wrong.
So clearly we CAN call into question premises of an argument, and SHOULD do so in rational discourse.
So, I don't see how you can criticize Valanarch for calling into question the premises of an argument.
Fine. Let's assume that all humans are evil because of the Original Sin. Explain to me how the omnipotent and omniscient God can be good if he chose not to prevent it from happening and instead chose to damn the vast majority of humanity to eternal torment in Hell.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Eh.
In the post I referred you to, he is saying that you cannot rip out Christianity's core premises and assumptions and replace them with your own, and then criticize it for not making any sense.
This is why I wrote that Valanarch and Raver's arguments were void. I don't understand how it makes any real sense to attack something when you essentially ignore many of its core premises. Either attack the premises or the logical failures of the implications of the premises. But don't ignore them outright.
You can attack something based on its own logical pitfalls, like Valanarch is doing now in his latest posts (Why did God create a system wherein people cannot help but sin? If God is good, then why did he make humans sinners in the first place? He created everything after all). You cannot attack something by ripping out its core premises and assumptions.
Oy, Valanarch! Did you find my post that Highroller keeps referring to as me saying "shut up Valanarch, your opinion doesn't matter"?
If so, I apologize and assure you I didn't mean it that way. As I keep telling Highroller, I meant it in the manner I wrote above, and in the manner I described to you a couple of days ago.
And yet you "know" that I'm egotistical, stuck-up, and have an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Oh, and you write this-
Sure sounds like you think you know me.
I did. That's why I don't attempt to even fault anyone who ISN'T a Christian.
Anyone who CALLS THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, on the other hand...
To humble yourself and accept that God is your lord and savior. To realize that you ultimately hold no power over yourself or this world, and that everything that happens is God's will.
And to spread the word of God as far and wide as you can, as Jesus commands in some part in the Gospels.
And probably a couple other things, but the above is the main point.
Everything I write about my beliefs about how Christians should act in this thread come from this understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I am not wrong, then I will attempt to explain to you my thought process.
Seriously?
What pedestal might that be?
And here you go saying things that require you knowing me, in spite of the fact that you wrote that you don't know me earlier.
As for the rest- they're not worth answering because they all essentially come back to my understanding of Christianity and my beliefs that derive from said understanding.
So, tell me that said understanding is wrong, and how it's wrong.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A lot of the worlds artists, writers, and musicians are horrible people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I understand that and do not feel like you were telling me to shut up.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I think he meant more in the way of some common adage that people find purpose and strength in adversity.
That being said... I don't particularly think any of these growths mean that you become a better human being. Just that you have the potential to become a stronger (whatever that means) person when you face adversity.
I admit, I've been away from this thread for a while. Can you demonstrate where they were ignoring the core premises as opposed to attacking the core premises?
Well, yes. All of that is readily apparent. On the other hand, intimate details about your posts are not readily apparent. I cannot figure out intimate details about your faith history just from reading your posts.
But what I think is relevant is the fact that you would make a post saying you have absolutely no idea why anyone would have difficulty being an absolutely perfect and ideal model of faith when you yourself then go on to say that you tried as hard as you can to be Christian and couldn't.
Reread that again. You made a post saying it was totally beyond you to comprehend why people might struggle with faith, and then you post that you are not Christian, and that you tried very hard to be, but couldn't.
So you couldn't imagine why people would struggle with faith when you struggled with faith? How can you make a post like that? Did it really never occur to you that you might have the answer to your own question? Did it never occur to you to examine your own difficulties with Christianity, and then through that introspection say, "Oh, maybe these people might have similar difficulties? Maybe they might go through the same hardships and struggles in life I go through?"
Apparently not. But why not? Why do you think that possibility never occurred to you?
Could it be because that would involve sympathizing and relating to the people you seek to deride? Could it be because that would mean admitting you're just as flawed, if not more so, than the people you're trying to position yourself above?
So why is it when you struggle with faith, you allow yourself miles of leeway, but when others struggle, you refuse to give them an inch? Why do you get to be flawed, and they don't?
Yeah, you know what? That sounds like a great place to start. Let's go with that. "To humble yourself."
Because that's really the heart of what's going on here, isn't it? When you posted this, you're essentially saying, "I cannot imagine why other people find it so hard to be humble." Right?
Reread that. Keep rereading it until the irony sinks in.
You missed the entire point of Christianity: that human beings are flawed. We get lost. We get lost in our flaws, in our fears, in our concerns. That is why we need Christianity.
The pedestal you placed yourself upon when you presumed yourself so superior to Christians who worry about their lives that you are in a position to judge them condescendingly.
And I suppose you're now going to claim that this statement isn't being condescending and dismissive?
You already have the answers you're looking for. All you need is the self-awareness to see them.
So to borrow a quote from you:
Specifically, this one:
I'm sure you're more than capable of digging through weeks old posts on your own without having to ask me to do the work for you.
=)
I wonder what I've been doing when I admitted I was wrong in a couple of recent posts to you.
Perhaps it's some sort of scheme on my part?
I wrote-
I do not call myself a Christian because, in my mind, a Christian is someone who accepts God and His word as truth.
I do not accept God, therefore I am not a Christian. It has nothing to do with trying to be a Christian and failing. I wrote that I would LOVE to be a Christian, and that I would LOVE to actually believe in God. Because I would LOVE to believe that my life has meaning and follows a plan set out by an omni-benevolent God.
But I don't. I do not accept that there is an omni-benevolent God. I do not accept that everything that happens has purpose and is within the plans of an all-knowing God.
I don't even know why I don't. I just don't.
Now, in my understanding, the implication of accepting his word as truth means that you accept that God literally knows everything about your life, and literally everything you experience right now is within his plans.
And God is omni-benevolent. As such, everything you experience right now is within the plan of an omni-benevolent being. He has nothing but your best wishes in mind.
Why do you worry then? Because you're human? Sure, as I wrote in the quote, I can accept that. You can certainly worry about things. So long as you constantly remind yourself that you don't need to worry afterwards because God is in charge of everything, I don't really have a problem.
But I don't get the worry-warts, or specifically the people who stress so much about the events in the world.
Why do you stress so much about things when everything is within God's plan?
Man. What I wrote must have made you really sad.
But why are you getting so sad over what just one random internet person wrote?
No, you're quite wrong.
I know you won't accept this, and you'll think of this as me just being egotistical and whatnot again, but I don't care.
I have absolutely no obligation to tell you anything beyond what I wish to tell you about my personal history. If you want to continue thinking that I'm egotistical, then that's perfectly fine. Have at it. I really do not care one bit what a random internet person online says about the qualities of another random internet person. I only care about what you say about my arguments and my thought processes, because that is what I come to test.
But, as you wrote, I know myself. I won't be so arrogant to say that I know myself well, but I do know myself.
You're right. I am being very hard on Christians, and I've admitted as such earlier.
I just think that a Christian should have enough faith in his/her beliefs to weather the storms. That they shouldn't fall into doubt whenever something bad happens.
No.
That is why we need Christianity to remind us that our fears and our flaws ultimately mean nothing.
Or am I wrong in thinking this?
Once again,
No.
I mean, if you just take it at that alone, then it sounds condescending.
But when you apply the rest of it, you can (hopefully) see what I meant by it.
There's no point in me answering anything when my basic understanding of it all is flawed. If it is, then it is far more suitable to just get at the heart of the matter and find out where I'm wrong.
But, honestly, I think you're just being really touchy right now. I mean what with feeling indignation on the behalf of another who wrote PAGES before that he agrees with what I wrote regarding my supposed "dismissal" of them, but why he thinks that I missed the point and wrote a good response back.
And, as I've written earlier, all of my thoughts regarding Christianity comes from this.
Specifically, that one doesn't need to worry about the future because God is omni-benevolent and has your best in mind. And that God knows everything that will happen and allows them to happen that way. All you really have to do is live life to the fullest and embrace everything that happens for the good that it must be.
You said you tried to be Christian and failed. So clearly it does have something to do with trying to be Christian and failing. What is hypocritical is how you can berate others for trying to be Christian but not measuring up to your standards when you apparently had even more difficulty.
So why is it you can struggle with this whole faith thing and they can't?
And again, why do you get to struggle with this idea, but no one else does?
Yes.
Why do you worry? Why do you stress out so much about the events of the world?
You have the answers to your own questions, magickware99. The real question is are you actually trying to understand other people when you ask these questions, or are your efforts toward being condescending toward them?
Well it seems you've never known what it is like to get lost out of anxiety, or fear, or pain, or sadness. You apparently don't know what it's like to hurt so deeply that it cuts into the core of your being. You apparently don't know what it's like to care about the result of something, or to have something matter to you. To have anything matter to you so desperately you don't know how you'll go on living without it. You apparently don't know what it's like to feel weighed down by life's burdens, to the point where you start to forget who you are.
Good for you. The rest of us are human beings who don't have the luxury of being without flaw.
Because I don't like it when people make incorrect posts with condescending tones about topics they know nothing about. And unfortunately, that descriptor applies to not one, but every post you've made in this thread thus far.
Which is nothing but empty words. You say, "Yes, you're right, I acknowledge flaws in my argument earlier," but then post the same argument, and defend the same argument. You'll say, "You're right, maybe there was a fault in my behavior" and then do the exact same thing.
Would you go into an Alcoholics Anonymous meaning, and say, "You know, I have no idea why you guys have such a hard time staying sober, and keep falling back into alcoholism. I mean, you made a commitment to be sober, right? Then why are you having such a hard time with it? I have no understanding at all as to why you're having such a hard time with this"?
Or do you recognize on some level what it's like to be a fallible human being? At all? Is being a human being something you've ever had any experience with before?
Really? Because that seems to be exactly what you're saying.
Really? So you're not condescendingly judging people? You just admitted you were in this very post! So which is it, are you not presumptuously judging people from a presumed lofty height, or was your previous admission that you're unfairly judging people facetious?
And this is the person who claims he knows himself? You say you acknowledge that your basic understanding is flawed, that there's no point in you answering anything, and that you're interested in me helping you to understand where you are wrong — yet you have done nothing but argue with me constantly in this thread! And I suppose you will claim that this has nothing to do with ego or your importance on getting the last word in?
Again, why are you really here? Are you here to understand these people? Or are you here to be condescending toward them? And keep in mind, you admitted to the latter.
You have missed the entire point of Christianity and just basic realities about the human condition. There's hitting the broad side of a barn, and then there's not even being in the same area code as the barn.
That's the second time you've deliberately avoided that question.
Pity, because that question holds the answer to your question.
Anyways.
If you find that me being smug, then I really can't say anything to change your mind huh?
I don't ever recall writing this in this thread. Heck, I don't ever recall writing this ever in any forum.
I wrote-
", I DESPERATELY want to believe in Christianity. I really do. I WANT to believe from the bottom of my heart that there is a God who loves me and wants nothing more than for me to return to the flock."
You seem to be interpreting that as me saying I tried to be a Christian and failed.
I reiterate. I never once believed myself to be a Christian, and so I never once attempted to live whatever the Christian lifestyle may be.
If you can find me actually writing the things you claimed I wrote, then maybe I might actually start listening to you on what you claim I am...
Seriously, this entire beef you have with me is based on (what appears to me anyways) serious misconceptions you have of me, or possibly you fixating on certain views of me and denying what I write because it doesn't fit.
So...
1) I NEVER once even attempted to be a Christian. I find a great deal of appeal behind the ideology and the thought processes of an actual Christian, but I can't buy into it.
2) Virtually all of my reasoning here that you seemingly hate so much comes from what I felt from my mother's ordeal with cancer. You keep writing stuff like
I'm not avoiding anything. I seriously mean what I wrote.
My mom straight-out told me that she became a Christian because she felt that she no longer, and possibly never did, have any control over her life. She felt so much more comfort and ease in deciding that everything, good and bad, comes from the will of Christ. This gives purpose and reason to everything she has experienced throughout her life, and so makes everything actually manageable.
Plus, the fact that all of these are ultimately temporary things gives great comfort to her.
This is what I mean when I say that I've seen the power Christianity has. And why I feel the things I've expressed here.
If they make you sad, then so be it. You haven't really given me reason to believe otherwise. I mean, all you've done thus far is continually repeat-
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
What?
Because I find it weird when people state that they believe in God, but don't act like they believe in God.
If you are a Christian, then you do not struggle with the concept of God existing in the first place. At least, this is what I believe.
I do not believe in God. Therefore my struggle, whatever that may be, is infinitely different from whatever struggles Christians face in keeping their faith.
Because I don't believe in Heaven and God and His promises of everything happening for a good reason.
Seriously, are you even reading what I wrote? Or are you just trying to fit me into a tidy box right now?
Dude. I just straight out wrote in the post you're replying to right now my reasoning, to which you replied
And I am writing that, based upon that reasoning, I don't understand how Christians can seriously worry about things.
Either disagree with this reasoning and point out where I am failing (hereby canning the condescending action yourself), or just admit that you're really doing nothing more than repeating-
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
over and over without any substance at all.
O.k. Let's play the one-up game.
My brother tried to kill me once. At another (earlier) time my brother threatened to commit suicide in front of me. I stopped him only by threatening to commit suicide in response. I am thankful every ******* day of my life that my brother wasn't as far gone in depression as others are/were; because I don't even want to imagine what would have happened if he was.
Now, one-up me. Please. I dare you. I remember enough from your other posts to piece together that you haven't had the greatest life either. So I'm sure you have something better than that.
Regarding the quote itself above...
Like I said, I don't believe in God. I do not believe that my suffering has a purpose. Christians ostensibly believe that their suffering as a purpose. ...
Dude, I don't even want to repeat myself anymore. I can't do anything but just point you back to my reasoning that you responded "yes" to.
Then please tell me why they're wrong outside repeating
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
over and over! Please! As I wrote to you earlier, I truly do care about seeing failures in my argument. But so long as you just keep writing that I am a judgmental ********, I can't do much but just do random word sparring with you.
As I wrote in an earlier post,
"I can certainly understand the fallacy I commit here, and how stupid it is to judge people based on mere glimpses of their lives, but so be it."
Yes. I fully realize how empty it is to say I see flaws in my argument, but I don't care.
But... I really don't care. My opinions are mine unless someone actually proves me wrong.
Yes. I would.
Your level of condescension and arrogance are coming dangerously close to mine own.
Because you know what I wrote better than the person who wrote it, right?
"No" as in, "No, I do not consider myself superior to Christians".
Just because I criticize them doesn't mean that I consider myself superior to them in whatever fashion.
Again, you're attempting to place me in a nice little box. Stop it.
...
I acknowledged no such thing. In fact, you yourself wrote that my reasoning is correct in the very ******* post that I am quoting right now.
Now, it may behoove you to actually read what I wrote. Specifically,
Here I will be intentionally condescending- Now that I pointed out the "if", I'm sure you can figure out what I meant by that passage.
As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but repeat
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!" over and over.
And you intentionally misunderstand me. I can't imagine any other possible way you missed the "if" in the passage you responded to here. I consider you an intelligent and well-read (significantly more than me in both aspects) person. That you missed the point I wanted to make in that passage frankly boggles my mind, and further my belief that you're not actually paying attention to what I wrote, but rather just reading whatever the hell you want to read.
I admitted that the way I wrote my opinions of so-called "Christians in name only" are likely based on flawed reasoning.
I also wrote that I don't very much care, because I believe to think otherwise would be disrespectful to how my parents came to Christianity themselves.
As for why I'm talking with you? Honestly I don't even know. Maybe it's because I respect your intelligence and hope that you'll actually come up with a constructive argument outside of
"You really cannot find it in yourself to emphasize with others? Shame on you! You are a judgmental ********, and possibly a hypocrite at that!"
(For full disclosure, the above passage is definitely meant to be condescending)
Maybe we can get a constructive argument going on here.
From what I can tell, you mean to say that the frailties of humanity is the basic, entire, point of Christianity.
But from what I understand, Christianity is saying "Humanity is flawed to begin with. THEREFORE, we need God, and ergo Christianity".
In that sense, the fact that humans are flawed aren't so much as the main point but rather simply a fact.
No, what I consider to be the entire point of Christianity is that God is the power that saves and raises us from the failures that we inherently are and create. And we can do nothing but submit ourselves to that power.
Some more condescension.
Maybe it'll be better if we both just straight-out spell when we are being condescending to one another? Might help get rid of some confusions.