Understanding Christianity

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go therefore and make disciples...etc

This is the job of Christians as stated by Jesus, so, if you wonder why many Christians are "pushing" their agenda, this is one reason why

The other reason is the 2nd greatest commandment, to love others. Realize, to a Christian, the best way to show love to their fellow man is to tell them the "Good News", as they believe the life that really matters is the afterlife.. not this one on Earth

They are free to push their agenda. However, they cannot claim oppression or prejudice when, after bringing their dogma into the public discourse, their ideas are scrutinized and criticized. Once Christians stop demanding this special privilege, I think you'll see the entire religion contract at a frantic pace.

Funny how Muslims can refuse to bake a cake.

I have no idea what point you tried to make, there.

Hypocrisy always flies over the heads of hypocrites.

Sorry, still no clue what you are yammering about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't rational philosophy null religion as a philosophy?

There is a difference between people asserting there is no proof of God (proof requires physical material to measure) and faith based on reason. That is why when discussing God, it is best to take "proof" off the table because there can be no proof. Once that is dealt with, faith based on reason is a viable discussion.

"faith based on reason "

You can just call it "faith". No need to put a tuxedo on a turd.

Yes, your faith is a turd. A turd filled with hate.
No coincidence Islam and atheist faiths are so filled with hatemongers.
They both know they are wrong so lash out.

Lash out? I poke fun at faith....and you go after me like a little attack poodle. Who is lashing out? You.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"faith based on reason "

You can just call it "faith". No need to put a tuxedo on a turd.

In other words you are ignorant of this philosophy? It's been around for ages.

That's poor reasoning on your part. It does not follow from my comments that i would be ignorant of that idea.

And it has always been silly. The main reason being, one can "reason" anything, and if one starts from bad premises or bad evidence, one can reason amything false or unsupported to be true.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Christianity is actually analogue to provide proof of what you yourself did just yesterday. You can't make your 24 hours evidenced. We on the other hand can get to know what you did if you or a third person as a witness wrote down what you did for us to believe with faith. If the witness is willing to martyr himself to back up what he wrote, we have no reason to reject the writing as it doesn't make any sense for him to kill himself in order to tell us a lie.

If 10 out of 12 such witnesses all martyred themselves in order to back up what they wrote about what you did yesterday, and provided that this is the only way to such a truth (of what you did), then there's no reason for a sane person to reject what has been written down.

Does this also work with al qaeda and isil?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Why are homosexual fetishists ashamed of calling themselves homosexual fetishists if they really think they're not mentally ill degenerates; same question for their fellow mentally ill fashion victims who keep using the laughably false term 'gay'?

Probably for the same reason you refuse to call yourself a moron

 

[Picaro]

Why are homosexual fetishists ashamed of calling themselves homosexual fetishists if they really think they're not mentally ill degenerates; same question for their fellow mentally ill fashion victims who keep using the laughably false term 'gay'?

Probably for the same reason you refuse to call yourself a moron

Ah, so this non-response means I nailed it, then; you are all indeed ashamed of being mentally ill fetishists and pedophiles and other assorted deviants and whiney sociopaths. thanks for jumping in and helping others understand that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why are homosexual fetishists ashamed of calling themselves homosexual fetishists if they really think they're not mentally ill degenerates; same question for their fellow mentally ill fashion victims who keep using the laughably false term 'gay'?

Probably for the same reason you refuse to call yourself a moron

Ah, so this non-response means I nailed it, then; you are all indeed ashamed of being mentally ill fetishists and pedophiles and other assorted deviants and whiney sociopaths. thanks for jumping in and helping others understand that.

You seem like the kind of guy that would find a way to affirm himself no matter what anyone says. If that other poster had said, "Water is wet", you would be right on his heels, dancing and prancing, claiming affirmation.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Why are homosexual fetishists ashamed of calling themselves homosexual fetishists if they really think they're not mentally ill degenerates; same question for their fellow mentally ill fashion victims who keep using the laughably false term 'gay'?

Probably for the same reason you refuse to call yourself a moron

Ah, so this non-response means I nailed it, then; you are all indeed ashamed of being mentally ill fetishists and pedophiles and other assorted deviants and whiney sociopaths. thanks for jumping in and helping others understand that.

homosexual fetishists

made me do it

It was a good response = funny

I didn't even know which side that put you on.

I just put the phrase into google & it came up with on wiki!

LOL

Homosexual fetishism - Wikipedia

 

[Meriweather]

'Rationalism' is merely a cult itself, and 'rationalists' mostly fail at being rational, as we see in threads like these, just for starters.

Faith based on reason. Not trying to "rationalize." It's been my experience it is people with no belief who tend towards rationalizing why they don't believe. It's not needed. They don't believe. End of story.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Go therefore and make disciples...etc

This is the job of Christians as stated by Jesus, so, if you wonder why many Christians ar "pushing" their agenda, this is one reason why

The other reason is the 2nd greatest commandment, too love others. Realize, to a Christian, the best way to show love to their fellow man is to tell the the "Good News", as the believe the life that really matters is the afterlife.. not this one on Earth

If Christians really believed in what Jesus did, they'd really have to hate you to not share the message.

Very true. Since Jesus is one and only way to heaven and the alternative is hell.

.
being on the wrong side of history is the physical proof of 4th century christianities fallacy and distortion of Truths whether granted or found they purposefully prevent from resolution for themselves and others preventing the very Admission to the Everlasting they profess to be their goal.

What's "the wrong side of history"?

The good news?
That your shepherd scattered the sheep and lead them to slaughter by herding them into Roman hands?
See Jim Jones, David Koresh and Applegate for resemblances.

The prince of peace who leads everyone to thousands of wars and over 50 million murdered in his name?

When do they wake up to realize they aren't helping the world, they are part of the problem in blindly following the pied piper off the cliff.

As opposed to the Torah, where they killed every one in the camp including the animals... and how about that flood??
Your hands are just as dirty as Christ's.

 

[Meriweather]

That's poor reasoning on your part. It does not follow from my comments that i would be ignorant of that idea.

And it has always been silly. The main reason being, one can "reason" anything, and if one starts from bad premises or bad evidence, one can reason amything false or unsupported to be true.

No, it's not poor reasoning. The remark came across as ignorant and vulgar--and the vulgarity only served to emphasize the ignorance.

As we cannot read minds, I always recommend people present their own beliefs and leave it to others to present theirs. Reasoning can--and often does--start with facts and good premises as well. Can it be misused? Sure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's poor reasoning on your part. It does not follow from my comments that i would be ignorant of that idea.

And it has always been silly. The main reason being, one can "reason" anything, and if one starts from bad premises or bad evidence, one can reason amything false or unsupported to be true.

No, it's not poor reasoning. The remark came across as ignorant and vulgar--and the vulgarity only served to emphasize the ignorance.

As we cannot read minds, I always recommend people present their own beliefs and leave it to others to present theirs. Reasoning can--and often does--start with facts and good premises as well. Can it be misused? Sure.

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

 

[Meriweather]

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

I've said this often: Religion is not science. Science cannot prove religion. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion belongs in the realm of philosophy, even though there is a lot to be said about exploring the spiritual realm--or that which lies beyond the physical.

If you are one who wishes to remain firmly fixed in physical knowledge and understanding, go for it. There is a lot to learn, and it of great interest. What I don't get are those who proclaim their interest in science and then scorn those who have also have interests outside of science.

Another mystery: Why aren't those who proclaim this great interest in science not spending their time on a science forum? Why do they spend so much time in a forum where they profess no belief and no interest in truly learning about the faith of others?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

I've said this often: Religion is not science. Science cannot prove religion. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion belongs in the realm of philosophy, even though there is a lot to be said about exploring the spiritual realm--or that which lies beyond the physical.

If you are one who wishes to remain firmly fixed in physical knowledge and understanding, go for it. There is a lot to learn, and it of great interest. What I don't get are those who proclaim their interest in science and then scorn those who have also have interests outside of science.

Another mystery: Why aren't those who proclaim this great interest in science not spending their time on a science forum? Why do they spend so much time in a forum where they profess no belief and no interest in truly learning about the faith of others?

While I do consider myself a materialist, I have no problem with anyone exploring any philosophical idea. You are free to think your houseplants talk to you, as far as I am concerned. It's only when you try to codify your houseplants' messages (while arguing to the authority of your houseplants) into scientific knowledge, law, or policy that we will butt heads.

Second, you could not possibly know that people discussing science here are also not discussing science elsewhere. That's a false dichotomy you just fashioned. Now, if you would modify your comments to simply wonder why they are posting here, I can offer a couple of possible explanations. For one, people with a firm grasp of evidence-based thought are generally perturbed at a perceived, sudden rise in, well, utter bullshit and magical thinking that we have seen in this country. They come here to confront it and let off steam. Second, people like to prepare themselves for when they meet magical thinkers in real life and for when watching them from afar. People like to know what sort of charlatanry and poor arguments and misrepresentation of evidence to expect from the magical thinkers, who are not just mythical creatures hiding in the shadows, but are firmly entrenched in our government, creating laws and policy which affect us all.

 

[MarkDuffy]

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

I've said this often: Religion is not science. Science cannot prove religion. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion belongs in the realm of philosophy, even though there is a lot to be said about exploring the spiritual realm--or that which lies beyond the physical.

If you are one who wishes to remain firmly fixed in physical knowledge and understanding, go for it. There is a lot to learn, and it of great interest. What I don't get are those who proclaim their interest in science and then scorn those who have also have interests outside of science.

Another mystery: Why aren't those who proclaim this great interest in science not spending their time on a science forum? Why do they spend so much time in a forum where they profess no belief and no interest in truly learning about the faith of others?

Science does not care about your belief in magic.

What we do care about is when you spread your gospel that science is false, cuz there are little children who's fertile minds are at stake.

 

[BreezeWood]

This is not a debate of the validity of the Christian religion, but, an explanation of why they are "in your face"...

They aren't 'in your face'; it just appears that way to neurotics and assorted sexual deviants, criminals, and sociopaths; Christians make them all nervous.

.

They aren't 'in your face'; it just appears that way to neurotics and assorted sexual deviants, criminals, and sociopaths; Christians make them all nervous.

typical christian sociopathic response ...

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

Please, elaborate. Provide some examples.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

Please, elaborate. Provide some examples.

There are people who say altruism is caused by evolution.

They also say selfishness is caused by evolution.

What, did evolution get confused?