Happy Romans 1 Month!

[bird.LA]

We'll get into that. Stand by to stand by. It does no good to discuss Christianity with someone who does not first believe in God.


You asked if I personally didn't like atheists or agnostics. I have nothing against them as men. However, from the Christian point-of-view, there in the same situation relative to God as all other unbelievers. I haven't started defending Christianity yet, though the moral argument for God starts to make the case for what Paul is saying in Romans 1.

Ok, so someone who does not believe in the Christian version of god but does acknowledge that there exists some power bigger than our universe and beyond our understanding is incapable of discussing Christianity with you then I take it?

I will bow out of this discussion, but as this is in the politics section of this site I will say, keep your absurd beliefs out of government. To do otherwise is un-American

 

[kidfury]

A jerk is a jerk regardless of his religious/non-religious profession. Everyone has morals because God wrote them on their conscience, so there is a common basis for all of us to interact regardless of religious beliefs. I've never gone, "That guy's an atheist, eff that guy!" or "He's an atheist, I'm not going to talk to him/her." Conversely, there are Christians I dislike, but they're more like family that you have to get along with. That said, I don't have any best friends who are atheists because we don't see things the same way.


See my take on atheists.


Man definitely has limitations on what he can understand because he is finite and lacks the attributes of God. However, the knowledge man requires for God to condemn him for his sins is plain from what has been made (Romans 1:19-21). The knowledge necessary to escape God's wrath is plain from the Bible. This is the next chapter of Romans - chapter 3.

Shifting gears, here are a few more arguments for the existence of God:
1,2: the moral argument and the Kalam cosmological argument:

What Are the Most Powerful Arguments for the Existence of God?

Greg explains his two favorite arguments for the existence of God.

www.str.org

3: the transcendental argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

Nobody's going to listen to the 2 hour Bahnsen/Stein debate, but here it is:

Let me guess... all the arguments say God exists. What do I win?

 

[Mr Doof]

But this is just the words of men written on pages. Sure, you say it's the word of god, but if you accept that, how do you decide when to make the cutoff as to when god's word stopped being delivered through human writing? Is the book of mormon equally valid? If not, why?

Hey, go take it up with the folks behind the:

1 Council of Nicaea
2 Council of Hippo
3 Council of Carthage
4 Greeks who collected various works and called it the Septuagrint (spelling)
5 etc.



But thankfully Jesus more or less told us all what to do and not worry so much about the rest of it:




On the face it, hard for me to say being excellent to each other is a bad thing....provided you are not some sado-masochist who wants to treat me how you enjoy being loved

 

[kidfury]

The concept of God is anthropocentric. Homo sapiens likely outta here before too much longer.

 

[goingoutside]

" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. " 2 Timothy 3 : 16-17 KJV


" For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there ant creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. "

Hebrews 4 : 12-13 KJV



....I am goingoutside now...the Scriptures, the Word of God,....is very clear, about these matters...

 

[PRCD]

Ok, so someone who does not believe in the Christian version of god but does acknowledge that there exists some power bigger than our universe and beyond our understanding is incapable of discussing Christianity with you then I take it?

At this juncture, there's no way to move into a discussion of Christianity with someone who says they don't believe in God, since one of the premises of Christianity is the existence of God.

I will bow out of this discussion, but as this is in the politics section of this site I will say, keep your absurd beliefs out of government.

You don't know what my beliefs are so there's no way you can say this honestly.

To do otherwise is un-American

You and Aruka both have an ahistorical, un-American view of the relationship of the American government to religion. What you're saying is that people can't vote their consciences according to their religious beliefs and can't serve in government if they are religious. This was never the view of the Founding Fathers. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite of what they believed:

Mark Noll’s “America’s Book: The Rise and Decline of a Bible Civilization, 1794-1911” explains how the Bible achieved this status. The new nation’s rejection of European forms of Christendom such as sacral monarchy and state churches left the Bible to bear the burden of America’s attempt to create a Christian civilization. A completely secular republic was never a possibility except for the most free-thinking of free thinkers. The Founders virtually to a man insisted that a republic depended on a virtuous citizenry, and that the best source of morality was religion. Despite the variety of Protestant denominations, church leaders and public officials agreed that the Bible was the best and most reliable guide for determining moral consensus.

‘America’s Book’ Review: The Word Out of Season

For much of its history, American society was awash in the biblical ideas, themes, names and gimcrackery—for good and ill.

www.wsj.com

I think what you're driving at is the idea of separation of church in state. The historical, American view of separation of church and state was that there will be no federally-established or nationally-established state church like they had in Europe and still have to this day. The Anglican church is one example where the monarch is both the head of the government and "defender of the faith." Most of the European countries have similar state churches. I'm really glad that we don't have a government-run church.

 

[bird.LA]

What you're saying is that people can't vote their consciences according to their religious beliefs and can't serve in government if they are religious.

Not saying that at all.

But your christians vs everyone thing is weird.

Also, looking at the Bible as a guide for determining moral consensus does not require accepting the entire mythology.

 

[PRCD]

Not saying that at all.

But your christians vs everyone thing is weird.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (See Doof's quote) = "Christians vs everyone?" How do we love our neighbors as ourselves and be against him at the same time?

Also, looking at the Bible as a guide for determining moral consensus does not require accepting the entire mythology.

Agreed. And I'm skeptical that most people who went to church way back when actually believed in the Bible. Most probably did it because it was the thing to do. Anyways, we can debate political theology on another thread.

View attachment 134092


On the face it, hard for me to say being excellent to each other is a bad thing....provided you are not some sado-masochist who wants to treat me how you enjoy being loved

Sure. Loving God and your neighbor is the summary of the Law and Prophets. How well are we doing at that? Even if you're being excellent to your neighbor, how well are you loving God? Are your efforts good enough to meet the righteousness of God?

Stay tuned for chapter 3!

 

[Mr Doof]

At this juncture, there's no way to move into a discussion of Christianity with someone who says they don't believe in God, since one of the premises of Christianity is the existence of God.

What about having such a discussion of religion in general with someone who says they don't believe in god?

PS
Follow up (click me) should anyone care.

 

[PRCD]

What about having such a discussion of religion in general with someone who says they don't believe in god?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

PS
Follow up (click me) should anyone care.

I'm pretty sure that young man is arguing with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, former Grand Mufti of Egypt and former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque. Islam does not separate religion and government nor are you allowed to be an atheist in an Islamic society under Islamic law. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was a political leader as well as a religious one. You'll have to argue this with a Muslim.

 

[Mr Doof]

Was just wondering if a discussion about religion in general (not Christianity in particular given your previous response to Bird L.A.) would be possible or would there be some reason why it couldn't happen. Was using this televised back and forth to demonstrate a possible problem: invite a discussion then shoot down the invitee.

As for discussing religion with a Muslim, all the ones I personally know and could have a discussion with seem to be about religious as the average monotheist, which is to say, not very. Which makes for a boring (but safe!) discussion where we all probably agree it is the zealots of all stripes that are the bigger issue.

 

[Autoprax]

I notice your going out sides go on autopilot when it comes to religion.

The programing takes over.

It's pretty simple; are the myths metaphors or similes?

I'm a simile boi!

Oh, language is a social contruct.

 

[One-Off]

Love your neighbor as thyself.

I like Matthew 25 too.

I remember a theologian saying that the people who are saved might not necessarily be Christians. When told that the were saved because they did certain things (feed the hungry, cloth the poor, comfort the sick, visit the prisoners ) they ask , “When did we do that for you?” They are unaware of their “religiosity.” Jesus replies “Whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me.” There’s a divinity bestowed on our fellow humans, and in particular, the poor.

IMHO it is safer the treat your fellow humans well, with compassion and service, and neglect the outward displays of religiosity, than it is to devote yourself to the outward displays, the rituals and institutions (praying on street corners and standing in synagogues) and neglect, or worse yet, treat with contempt or disrespect your fellow humans, especially the least, the marginalized.

Happy Wednesday. Hope you all got some surf, because it seems to be fading (So Cal).

 

[PRCD]

Was just wondering if a discussion about religion in general (not Christianity in particular given your previous response to Bird L.A.) would be possible or would there be some reason why it couldn't happen. Was using this televised back and forth to demonstrate a possible problem: invite a discussion then shoot down the invitee.

Those types of shows always invite a heel then light him up. I'd never go on one.

As for discussing religion with a Muslim, all the ones I personally know and could have a discussion with seem to be about religious as the average monotheist, which is to say, not very.

Muslims living in Western countries tend to scale-back their religious discussions with Westerners. Actually, I think most non-Westerners find us WEIRD in a bad way.

Which makes for a boring (but safe!) discussion where we all probably agree it is the zealots of all stripes that are the bigger issue.

I get what you're saying but let's see what Jesus said and did:
John 2

13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And within the temple grounds He found those who were selling oxen, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 And He made a whip of cords, and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; 16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away from here; stop making My Father’s house a place of business!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written: “Zeal for Your house will consume me.”

 

[PRCD]

Love your neighbor as thyself.

I like Matthew 25 too.

But this is only half of our moral duties, and the lesser half. The first clause is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

I remember a theologian saying that the people who are saved might not necessarily be Christians. When told that the were saved because they did certain things (feed the hungry, cloth the poor, comfort the sick, visit the prisoners ) they ask , “When did we do that for you?” They are unaware of their “religiosity.” Jesus replies “Whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me.” There’s a divinity bestowed on our fellow humans, and in particular, the poor.

This is a very Roman Catholic take. The problem is that this theologian doesn't understand that - like the Father - the Son's standard of righteousness is perfection as explained in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5):

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors, do they not do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Even the Gentiles, do they not do the same? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Who can be perfect? No one. What then? Jesus explained in the previous chapter (Matthew 4):

17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Happy Wednesday. Hope you all got some surf, because it seems to be fading (So Cal).

You too. I think we might get some swell from TS Estelle on Friday:

 

[enframed]

At this juncture, there's no way to move into a discussion of Christianity with someone who says they don't believe in God, since one of the premises of Christianity is the existence of God.

I disagree. I don't believe in lots of things but I can still discuss them and aspects of them. I feel like this is quite an elitist stance you have. What makes Christianity any different?

 

[hammies]

Also, looking at the Bible as a guide for determining moral consensus does not require accepting the entire mythology.

Looking at the bible as a guide for determining moral consensus is a great idea but it's pretty incomplete which leaves a lot to interpretation. Nevertheless, at the end of the day God is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

 

[enframed]

The problem with Leibniz's argument (and Anselm's) is it presupposes the existence of "God." One could just as easily say substitute "Unicorn King" for "God." How is that any different? Serious question.

 

[sirfun]

 

[goingoutside]

I notice your going out sides go on autopilot when it comes to religion.

The programing takes over.

It's pretty simple; are the myths metaphors or similes?

I'm a simile boi!

Oh, language is a social contruct.

" Which things also we speak, not in the words man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

1 Corinthians 2 : 13-14 KJV


....I am goingoutside now...