6 ms·

> Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother harassing the

> Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother harassing the divorced brother from this linked article and the "god hates fags" people are not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from the same body of understanding as a group of theologians. However Christians who call themselves sheep and who would deny reason to uphold their own "unreasonable" nonmatching interpretation are still true Christians because they didn't do any of the things the group considers wrong even though embracing non-reason is one of the things that group detests. I guess I just think that the differences between the denominations are a lot larger then you do. Where the former is excluded for believing crazy unreasonable things, it seems like the latter should also be excluded on that same criteria. Anyway, if one of the things that the true Christian crowd believe is that everyone is deserving of death then I'm not sure it matters. How can that be justified? Original sin? >"falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. I guess I should have said that their explanation of their experience is not falsifiable. I can't tell if that sound you heard was a ghost or white noise/pareidolia and you can't either. >Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced Why should we need to rely on past data? What role does God take in the world today and how can we test for it? God giving GPS directions? Oh yes, I remember. He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know right? "That would take away free will." It has to be a way that can also be explained by causes outside of God. >Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors Like how many snakes to wield around at the next meetup or how to best cannibalise the blood and flesh of Jesus? I would think that the person who authored the mathematical laws of the universe would be the one most qualified to write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right? It made it in over stuff like germ theory. Now if you want rank and file, the Islam religion seems to have things going. I don't know anything about them though..

lotharbot 15y ago
> "your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from [theologians]" That is not an accurate characterization. The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a new and transformed life (which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the slightest hint of that new and transformed life. Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from being Christian. Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. > "write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right?" The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence, resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those principles. Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is very clear and completely understandable. There is no complex ritual surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to, simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. > "He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know [because of] free will" Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will". I think it's simpler: God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as "proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action. This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about "proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing His love. God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable. Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.
- sixcorners 15y ago
  > God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers. > Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable That's what it was: an example of a falsifiable theory. You told me that I couldn't say that someone's experience isn't falsifiable, I came back saying that their nutty explanation isn't falsifiable. > God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people. Isn't it an even bigger ego trip to make people believe based on his word alone than to provide some sort of proof? > That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. So tell me then, who is authorized to practice it? Do you believe that Pastor Popoff, or anyone else on this planet are able to perform this feat? If you do they could get an easy million dollars from those suckers over at JREF. I say that they are unclear because there is such a great amount of disagreement over the things I listed. > Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. I would argue that the lives of the members of the WBC have indeed been perverted by Christ although not with the attributes you have listed. While that tale of human sacrifice always makes me scratch my head, I understand that you believe this process results in the followers living better lives. I have also heard it put that the act of killing Jesus resulted in us being forgiven for our sins rather than unshackled from our innately sinful nature. Anyway following the core of Christianity, even if all Christians did believe in the same core beliefs, doesn't mean that you agree on what parts of scripture trumps other parts of scripture.
  - Dove 15y ago
    (Note--To avoid confusion about sock puppetry, I am Lotharbot's wife; we've been discussing your ongoing conversation a bit, and I wanted to say some things, too.) > > God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved > That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers. Actually, it kind of would. I mean, if I judged what was the word of God by what was reliable and true, you'd be right -- that would be circular and immune to any sort of experiment. It would be saying "things that come true come true." And when I was first learning to pray, I did exactly that; I wrote things down, I tested them, I compared them with what I knew and checked them out. But look, after years of this, I know what the voice of God sounds like. It's pretty common for experienced Christians to say the same. So if someone I knew to be experienced in such matters (or I myself) heard something that turned out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess that wasn't God." I would have to rewrite major chunks of my worldview. You have to understand, this experience is so real and constant for me (and for many Christians), that books have been written about what its absence is like. But I want to be perfectly clear that this is a bit off the beaten path. I think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life, personally observed something that I think is empirically, clearly a miracle: being told specific information they couldn't know, gaining the temporary (or permanent) ability to speak or understand a language they don't know, experiencing very specific shared visions. But let me be clear: This isn't one of the "important things." Faith doesn't revolve around miracles, and isn't built on private revelation. In fact, such things are so far from the center of our faith there is a debate in theology as to whether they occur at all(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuatio...)! Life as a Christian is about faithfulness to Jesus, not divine intervention. I mean, such experiences generally aren't even used in apologetics -- they're too unverifiable, and too sacred anyway; you want to keep them private. I do mention them when people ask if my faith has any current, rational foundation. But when one seriously wants to talk about the intellectual foundations of Christianity, we go to big, well-documented miracles, like Jesus' resurrection. >> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. > He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people. A rather tame display for someone who can cause supernovas without breaking a sweat, don't you think? And anyway, I doubt he actually commissioned all of those. They seem to me pretty inconsistent with God's commands to devote our wealth to taking care of the poor. But perhaps it would be better said that God impresses, but he isn't upset by people who aren't impressed. Let me give you an example. When Jesus was alive, he did a lot of miracles. (I know you don't agree with that, but roll with it for a second -- I'm trying to show you, based on the story, how he feels about proving himself to people.) Anyway, Jesus did a lot of miracles. He raised people from the dead. He healed incurable disease. He restored birth defects. He walked on water in a storm. At one point, he fed 4,000 people on a few loaves of bread. Right after he finished that, some folks came up to him and said, "When will you give us a sign that you are really from God?" And he said, "Look, if you don't think what I've done so far counts, then you aren't going to get one." (Mt. 15:29 - 16:4) It's like . . . if you've ever argued with a troll, you know there's no such thing as absolute proof. People can explain away anything. There were people who watched Jesus do miracles and didn't follow him. So what do you do? Well . . . you do pretty much what I'm doing right now with you. You put the information out there. And if they want to explain it away rather than thinking about it, that's on them. I think God takes that approach, too. There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history. The content and history of the Bible, the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection, the experience of the modern church, and the origin of the universe -- those are the big ones. But if you're determined not to believe in him, there's no such thing as proof. People say, with Ebeneezer Scrooge, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato (or a space alien!)". They prefer to believe they are hallucinating over believing that God is speaking to them. And that's their prerogative. At the end of the day, I think such resistence isn't based on reason. It's based on emotion. If someone desperately doesn't want God to exist, nothing will prove it to them. And even if God went so far out of his way as to make belief really unavoidable, what would that accomplish? It's not like they'd hate him any less knowing for sure he was real.

lotharbot 15y ago

> "your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from [theologians]" That is not an accurate characterization. The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a new and transformed life (which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the slightest hint of that new and transformed life. Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from being Christian. Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. > "write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right?" The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence, resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those principles. Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is very clear and completely understandable. There is no complex ritual surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to, simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. > "He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know [because of] free will" Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will". I think it's simpler: God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as "proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action. This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about "proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing His love. God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable. Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.

sixcorners 15y ago
> God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers. > Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable That's what it was: an example of a falsifiable theory. You told me that I couldn't say that someone's experience isn't falsifiable, I came back saying that their nutty explanation isn't falsifiable. > God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people. Isn't it an even bigger ego trip to make people believe based on his word alone than to provide some sort of proof? > That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. So tell me then, who is authorized to practice it? Do you believe that Pastor Popoff, or anyone else on this planet are able to perform this feat? If you do they could get an easy million dollars from those suckers over at JREF. I say that they are unclear because there is such a great amount of disagreement over the things I listed. > Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. I would argue that the lives of the members of the WBC have indeed been perverted by Christ although not with the attributes you have listed. While that tale of human sacrifice always makes me scratch my head, I understand that you believe this process results in the followers living better lives. I have also heard it put that the act of killing Jesus resulted in us being forgiven for our sins rather than unshackled from our innately sinful nature. Anyway following the core of Christianity, even if all Christians did believe in the same core beliefs, doesn't mean that you agree on what parts of scripture trumps other parts of scripture.
- Dove 15y ago
  (Note--To avoid confusion about sock puppetry, I am Lotharbot's wife; we've been discussing your ongoing conversation a bit, and I wanted to say some things, too.) > > God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved > That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers. Actually, it kind of would. I mean, if I judged what was the word of God by what was reliable and true, you'd be right -- that would be circular and immune to any sort of experiment. It would be saying "things that come true come true." And when I was first learning to pray, I did exactly that; I wrote things down, I tested them, I compared them with what I knew and checked them out. But look, after years of this, I know what the voice of God sounds like. It's pretty common for experienced Christians to say the same. So if someone I knew to be experienced in such matters (or I myself) heard something that turned out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess that wasn't God." I would have to rewrite major chunks of my worldview. You have to understand, this experience is so real and constant for me (and for many Christians), that books have been written about what its absence is like. But I want to be perfectly clear that this is a bit off the beaten path. I think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life, personally observed something that I think is empirically, clearly a miracle: being told specific information they couldn't know, gaining the temporary (or permanent) ability to speak or understand a language they don't know, experiencing very specific shared visions. But let me be clear: This isn't one of the "important things." Faith doesn't revolve around miracles, and isn't built on private revelation. In fact, such things are so far from the center of our faith there is a debate in theology as to whether they occur at all(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuatio...)! Life as a Christian is about faithfulness to Jesus, not divine intervention. I mean, such experiences generally aren't even used in apologetics -- they're too unverifiable, and too sacred anyway; you want to keep them private. I do mention them when people ask if my faith has any current, rational foundation. But when one seriously wants to talk about the intellectual foundations of Christianity, we go to big, well-documented miracles, like Jesus' resurrection. >> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. > He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people. A rather tame display for someone who can cause supernovas without breaking a sweat, don't you think? And anyway, I doubt he actually commissioned all of those. They seem to me pretty inconsistent with God's commands to devote our wealth to taking care of the poor. But perhaps it would be better said that God impresses, but he isn't upset by people who aren't impressed. Let me give you an example. When Jesus was alive, he did a lot of miracles. (I know you don't agree with that, but roll with it for a second -- I'm trying to show you, based on the story, how he feels about proving himself to people.) Anyway, Jesus did a lot of miracles. He raised people from the dead. He healed incurable disease. He restored birth defects. He walked on water in a storm. At one point, he fed 4,000 people on a few loaves of bread. Right after he finished that, some folks came up to him and said, "When will you give us a sign that you are really from God?" And he said, "Look, if you don't think what I've done so far counts, then you aren't going to get one." (Mt. 15:29 - 16:4) It's like . . . if you've ever argued with a troll, you know there's no such thing as absolute proof. People can explain away anything. There were people who watched Jesus do miracles and didn't follow him. So what do you do? Well . . . you do pretty much what I'm doing right now with you. You put the information out there. And if they want to explain it away rather than thinking about it, that's on them. I think God takes that approach, too. There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history. The content and history of the Bible, the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection, the experience of the modern church, and the origin of the universe -- those are the big ones. But if you're determined not to believe in him, there's no such thing as proof. People say, with Ebeneezer Scrooge, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato (or a space alien!)". They prefer to believe they are hallucinating over believing that God is speaking to them. And that's their prerogative. At the end of the day, I think such resistence isn't based on reason. It's based on emotion. If someone desperately doesn't want God to exist, nothing will prove it to them. And even if God went so far out of his way as to make belief really unavoidable, what would that accomplish? It's not like they'd hate him any less knowing for sure he was real.