Abigail: Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship. I might believe that "with great power comes great responsibility", but that doesn't mean I'm ambiguous over whether Spider-Man exists or not. I might like the trains to run on time, but that doesn't mean I'm a Mussolini fascist, either. Buddha might have said some things I'd agree with, but my rejection of him doesn't have anything bearing on the validity of what he said.
You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?
The point is that it's not like you never believed in Christ. (Unless, of course, your entire time in TWI you were lying to everyone about it. I have no way of knowing if you were sincere back then.) The arguments you and Oak keep putting forth are only relevant to agnostics who never were Christians. It's not like you're waiting to be convinced, you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". That's not even a very subtle distinction.
As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory.
"Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship"
So, if I understand you correctly according to your definition of Christianity, one must believe Jesus is Lord (and then we could argue as to the various definitions of the term Lord, but I'm assuming based on the rest of your post you understand it to mean at least something very similar to what we were taught in TWI) in order to be considered a Christian? And if one does not believe Jesus is lord one has rejected him?
Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
"You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). "
Well, I was holding out hope that at least SOME who consider themselves Christian, understand Christianity as being something very different from what we were taught in TWI. (I still am, despite your own apparent opinions to the contrary).
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?"
Correct me if Iam wrong, but even within the scope of Christianity, there are a number of different interpretations of what the NT means and how it is to be applied in ones life. And I am NOT returning to a former relgion. I come from a Jewish family but was never raised to be a religious Jew. I am simply exploring, growing, learning, continuing in the quest I have been on since I was a child.
Additionally, I don't read the Bible literally or entirely as THE WORD OF GOD, nor do I limit myself simply to what the Bible says or what other men claim it all means. THAT was one of my HUGE mistakes in TWI, a lesson I have learned and do not wish to repeat.
"you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". "
At the point in my life when I was "convinced" I had a very different understanding of it all, via a TWI which ceased to exist some five years before I actually left them. I stayed the additional five years for reasons which are far to lengthy and off topic to go into here.
"As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory. "
Then the same goes to my anamchara :)-->. Regardless of who said it first, I still find the term offensive.
Additionally, lawyers are not supposed to "bend the letter of the law" (though I know there are those who do). Lawyers are suppose to present their case according to the letter and spirit to the best of their ability so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible with the ultimate goal of fairness and justice prevailing. I am thankful I have not had to work for any attorneys thus far which have left me feeling over all jaded towards the legal system.
"Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship"
So, if I understand you correctly according to your definition of Christianity, one must believe Jesus is Lord (and then we could argue as to the various definitions of the term Lord, but I'm assuming based on the rest of your post you understand it to mean at least something very similar to what we were taught in TWI) in order to be considered a Christian? And if one does not believe Jesus is lord one has rejected him?
Almost there, but not quite. If the person has heard enough to believe and chooses not to, or once believed and now does not, those are rejections.
Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
Now was that so hard?
"You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). "
Well, I was holding out hope that at least SOME who consider themselves Christian, understand Christianity as being something very different from what we were taught in TWI. (I still am, despite your own apparent opinions to the contrary).
I suppose it depends on how much qualifies as "very different". Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?"
Correct me if _I_am wrong, but even within the scope of Christianity, there are a number of different interpretations of what the NT means and how it is to be applied in ones life. And I am NOT returning to a former relgion. I come from a Jewish family but was never raised to be a religious Jew. I am simply exploring, growing, learning, continuing in the quest I have been on since I was a child.
If you didn't believe, then did believe, then didn't again, that's a kind of return to a former religion, isn't it?
Look, I'm not saying you're an evil person or that you did anything wrong by choosing to reject Christ. "Let every man be fully persuaded," the Bible says. I'm just saying that it's disngenuous to stay on the fence. Claiming to be only a little bit Christian is like being only a little bit pregnant.
Additionally, I don't read the Bible literally or entirely as THE WORD OF GOD, nor do I limit myself simply to what the Bible says or what other men claim it all means. THAT was one of my HUGE mistakes in TWI, a lesson I have learned and do not wish to repeat.
A choice you're perfectly entitled to make.
"you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". "
At the point in my life when I was "convinced" I had a very different understanding of it all, via a TWI which ceased to exist some five years before I actually left them. I stayed the additional five years for reasons which are far to lengthy and off topic to go into here.
All right, you don't have to divulge that, but are you sure it isn't a case of what Def59 was talking about? Throwing away Christianity because of bad experiences with poor examples(TWI)?
What's an 'anamchara'? Dictionary.com doesn't list it.
Regardless of who said it first, I still find the term offensive.
I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't see the harm in it.
Additionally, lawyers are not supposed to "bend the letter of the law" (though I know there are those who do). Lawyers are suppose to present their case according to the letter and _spirit_ to the best of their ability so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible with the ultimate goal of fairness and justice prevailing. I am thankful I have not had to work for any attorneys thus far which have left me feeling over all jaded towards the legal system.
I think you're being a bit too idealistic in your assessment of the legal profession, but you're entitled to your opinion.
"Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
Now was that so hard? "
No, what was difficult was getting to a definition of the terms and conditions. People have different understandings/definitions of what it means to be Christian and what it means to "reject" Christ. Before I could "perform your test" I needed to understand your terms and conditions.
"Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect."
Which is probably why I don't consider myself Christian according to the general understanding of the term and why I have never found a Christian church where I was comfortable.
"If you didn't believe, then did believe, then didn't again, that's a kind of return to a former religion, isn't it? "
As a child, I didn't know what to believe, I had no religion, only a general belief that there was a God. I "didn't believe" because I knew I was Jewish and "Jewish people don't believe. . .". It wasn't really based on any of my own thoughts or opinions, simply on the word of others. Additionally, as a Jewish child growing up in a very small Christian town, I didn't feel as if I was rejecting, I felt as if I was rejected. I didn't understand what I could have done at 7 or 8 years of age, that was so horrible that God didn't want me. I didn't understand why I wasn't allowed to go to church like the other kids did. Likewise I didn't understand what was "dirty" about being Jewish, just knew people saw me that way.
So, it is very different than "returning to a former religion". I am no longer a child and while there is still much for me to learn, I certainly know a lot more than I did then.
"All right, you don't have to divulge that, but are you sure it isn't a case of what Def59 was talking about? Throwing away Christianity because of bad experiences with poor examples(TWI)? "
It really isn't an issue of being unwilling to divulge. I have divulged in a number of posts and threads including one in the "my story" forum. The short version was I was married to someone who was in, I had children, I knew what would happen if I left. I was right.
I just didn't want to get too far off topic.
Anyway, no it isn't simply based on a bad experience with TWI. In fact, after leaving TWI I still considered myself Christian for quite some time and attended a couple of different Christian churches for a time. It is based on "doctrinal" differences, for lack of a better word.
Just for clarity, I am quoting Zixar, who is quoting me in several places. If there are regular and bold type in quotes, the regular is mine and the bold is Zixar's
quote:Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar?
NO ONE. That's a sheer fabrication on your part, and that's why it's impossible to discuss this with you rationally. You aren't arguing what I said, you're arguing with what you wish I had said, and you sure do squawk whenever I deviate from your imaginary script.
Here's my "imaginary" script:
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
It's a simple, straightforward question, yet it always draws a bunch of armchair lawyering, for some reason. Always with the qualifications and rationalizations...but at least Bramble was honest about it. Thanks.
(bold type in Zixar's quote added by me)
The implication of that statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were not honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's not what you're saying?
Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it.
Don't tell me what my position is. You've demonstrated time and time again that you have no clue what my position is, so if you just have to make up one of your own anyway, don't ascribe it to me.
Are you trying to say that your position isn't that there only two choices?
quote:There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer, no matter how one might pontificate and procrastinate, because in the end the person will still have chosen one way or the other, period.
Gosh,I'm so astonished--I actually agree with Zixar on something. I had to post.
Zixar quote:
'I suppose it depends on how much qualifies as "very different". Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect.'
That's pretty much the conclusion I came to--it just motivated me in a different way.
Also the exclusive thing, the jealous god--not a selling point for me.
If I had to guess, I'd say that this whole rigmarole stems from some fear of yours that if you did renounce Christ publicly, I'd do or say something unpleasant to you.
Wow! What a guess! What unpleasant thing could you do or say that would influence me one way or the other? Quite an inflated view of your power over me, isn't it? While I do recognize that you are somewhat skillful with the written word, and have a command of logic that makes arguing with you challenging, when it comes down to it, there isn't anything about you that I fear. Puh-leeze -->
quote: Or perhaps another guess would be an uncomfortable recollection of Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.", as in, you don't want to be a Christian any more, but you don't want to burn that bridge, either. Now, if that guess is correct, can't you see why that's dishonest?
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, thank you for playing! Fear? Is that what should be motivating me?
quote:That's fine, but don't take your indecisions out on me. If you have uncertainty issues, they're entirely inside your own head, and certainly none of my fault.
Of course they're in my head Sigmund Zixar. Where else would they be? -->
_Just for clarity, I am quoting Zixar, who is quoting me in several places. If there are regular _and_ bold type in quotes, the regular is mine and the bold is Zixar's_
quote:Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar?
_NO ONE. That's a sheer fabrication on your part, and that's why it's impossible to discuss this with you rationally. You aren't arguing what I said, you're arguing with what you wish I had said, and you sure do squawk whenever I deviate from your imaginary script.
_Here's my "imaginary" script:
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
It's a simple, straightforward question, yet it always draws a bunch of armchair lawyering, for some reason. Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..._but at least Bramble was honest about it._ Thanks.
(bold type in Zixar's quote added by me)
The implication of _that_ statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were _not_ honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's _not_ what you're saying?
Yes. That is NOT what I'm saying, that's what you are mistakenly inferring and ascribing to me in your ignorance.
See that bit right before the bit you bolded? Here, I'll make it easy for you:
"Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..."
See, that's not what normal people call a "lie". I never called you or anyone else a liar, and I never even implied such, despite the inference you immediately leapt to. I'm sure you feel quite justified and sincere when you spout your evasive drivel. But that's just it--evading the question when you've already demonstrated it had a very simple and straightforward answer isn't necessarily lying, but it is being dishonest. That's what I said, that's what I implied.
You just got it wrong. Deal with it. I'm tired of putting up with your mischaracterizations and straw men.
quote: There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer
I think that is the point.
quote: I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. Just as the seemingly-impossible teleporting electron is a convenient guess that makes the math work, the seemingly-invisible Supreme Being is just as convenient an explanation for the Universe. It's the convenience in the simplifying assumptions in both cases that lies entirely in the realm of FAITH. Faith is not confined to religious matters, that's all I'm saying.
I can't deny that faith is not confined to religion. In fact, you might have noticed on Abigail's thread "Why Faith" that I admitted to having faith in people and in life. I know I could come up with many more things as well.
For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. For example, Def, told me that faith in humans is pointless, knowing how disapointing they can be. But my faith which is really coupled with hope takes that into account and hopes for the best. I know experiencially and thru history of the great things we can do. I don't know what someone's actions will be (not knowing the future, they are invisible) but I have faith in their ability and hope for the best.
So in light of the teleporting electron, I don't think it is so "seemingly impossible" because we know a little about the duality of subatomic particles. We know that a photon has been "digitally" teleported. So knowing a little about the nature of the object in which faith is being placed, it seems more plausible...more like an educated guess.
Not knowing the nature of God, for me, makes it less of an educated guess and more of just an unqualifiable and unfounded guess. At least for now. No more credible than to say something as outrageous as "Smurfs exist and Papa Smurf created the universe". You can't disprove that smurfs exist or that Papa created us, so it is a possibility, probably not a credible possibility for most but still a possibility. You may think they are three apples high, but have you seen one? And how do we not know that "apples" is not just "fruit", a metaphor for life. 3 apples = completeness. I could really get involved.
I dunno about the new age thing tho DAn. My observations have been its a pretty dark telescope they look thru and one that doesnt even have a lense. Of course i am ignorant about it mostly, my only experience was watching some "new agers" chanting i dont know what off a dock on a lake.
Pretty wacko stuff.
But in retrospect, now we can well imagine what went through the minds of some visitors who observed us speaking in tongues, even within the context of its orderly prescription. I bet they felt we were "pretty whacko" too (lol).
But many movements share the practice of chantings and glossalalia. It's certainly more common than I knew years ago, in movements both ancient and modern.
quote: I think we all look for a day when there is a centrist beleif in truth. With so many fluctations in demoninations what is the problem? I dont think it is with God or the Gospel but rather with our sin nature and our flesh, that we have not walked "in paths of righteousness"
The best telecope for truth I think is to look in the mirror everyday and double check our own motives and ask God to show us the "error that is from within."
One need not wait another day to see "centrist beliefs" running through many religions, let alone among Christianities.
Consider for example, a comparison of the parallel tales and sayings of Buddha and Christ:
I suppose truth might be regarded as either a telescope or a microscope - but one may experience better success toward tracing "centrist truths" when simply approaching various scriptures and writings of
varying beliefs with one's own eyes and heart.
In any event, the second link - "Buddha and Christ- Two Gods on the Path of Humanity" - is quite remarkable. I found fascinating the mention of a legend that the cross of Christ was constructed from wood from Eden's "Tree of Knowledge". Which recalled another legend I read about, namely, that the place of the skull where Christ was crucified was also over Adam's burial place. Pretty "whacko" but cool stuff.
lindy: You said "For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. " The problem with that is when we are dealing with things beyond our perception we don't ever really "know" what we're dealing with. In physics, the realm of the subatomic particles does not behave like the larger, more tangible realms. All we can really do is observe the initiators and products of various invisible particle interactions--it's a "black box" problem. If we dump apples, sugar, flour, and butter into a black box and a hot apple pie comes out the other side we're really just guessing at what's going on inside the box. There are several theories, each with their pros and cons, like there's a baker and an oven in the box and he's making the pie like anyone else would. Or, there's a very tiny bazaar in the box, in which certain food items are taken as trade goods for the apple pie vendor. Or, there's some elves in a hollow tree with magic wands who produce the apple pie out of nothing and then sell the input ingredients in Elf-Land to make money. All sorts of ideas come to mind, both exotic and mundane, but the truth is that if you can never see inside the black box, you never really know how the process works. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sets limits on the amount of information we can gain in the subatomic world. If Heisenberg is correct, then there are things we simply cannot know. It doesn't stop us from working with what we've got, speculating on what's inside the box. Suppose the experimenter substituted cherries for apples to see what he'd get. In some of those cases above, he'd get a cherry pie, in others, he'd still get an apple pie. Whatever comes out of the box, someone's pet theory is going to get shot down.
Things on the other end of the spectrum are just as inscrutable, if not moreso, than the subatomic. Is there anything outside the Universe? What is it expanding into, if anything? We can come up with some very elaborate reasons for why things happen on those grand scales, but since we can't just reach out and touch the end of the Universe, we're still just guessing again. And again, that doesn't stop us from speculating, theorizing, trying to come up with a seamless, unbroken explanation for the Universe.
With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be. It would normally be of no more consequence that your Smurf speculation, save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years. The evidence is all anecdotal, but it's enough to start working with. Despite all the mud slung at Christianity, it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. In that sense, religion is a lot like particle physics--a bunch of theories of wildly-varying validity being slowly pared away over the years until we have something that works--mostly. Quantum mechanics still has some huge gaps to overcome (gravity, for one) but it has had enough success to keep going down that path. We know the obstacles, the trick is in modifying the theory to account for them as best as possible. Same way with apparent Bible contradictions.
If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have. But there's something there, hard to define though it may be, apparently working for a lot of people, even if we don't fully understand it.
"With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be"
Why? Why does religion feel such a strong need to design repeatable experiments? So we can promise a guaranteed effect from a specific cause? Why the need to be able to "KNOW" the outcome?
"save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years"
What has worked and how?
"it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. "
How is it internally consistent? Seems there are many inconsistencies and disagreements within Christianity.
how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
What mythologies has it outlived? There are many "religions" which are alive and well today that pre-date Christianity.
"If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have"
Have Apollo and Zeus faded? Or have they simply changed names and rituals?
"With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be"
Why? Why does religion feel such a strong need to design repeatable experiments? So we can promise a guaranteed effect from a specific cause? Why the need to be able to "KNOW" the outcome?
You're kidding, right? Religion is fundamentally an attempt to explain and interact with the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's usually skewed in its presentation to benefit its priests more than its flock.
"save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years"
What has worked and how?
God answers prayer.
"it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. "
How is it internally consistent? Seems there are many inconsistencies and disagreements within Christianity.
That the Bible could be written over such a long period of time by so many authors and have so few internal disagreements makes it stand out. The Quran was supposedly written by just one man, and he contradicts himself frequently in it.
how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
Are you being purposefully dense? It's modelling the behavior of a supernatural entity with the natural universe.
What mythologies has it outlived? There are many "religions" which are alive and well today that pre-date Christianity.
Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, take your pick. While there might be pockets of lingering belief in them, none are even close to their numbers at the height of their ascendency. Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint.
"If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have"
Have Apollo and Zeus faded? Or have they simply changed names and rituals?
If they've 'changed names and rituals' they're hardly still around. But if you truly believe that, I'll sell you George Washington's hatchet. It's had six new handles and three new heads, but it's still "George Washington's Hatchet!" -->
"You're kidding, right? Religion is fundamentally an attempt to explain and interact with the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's usually skewed in its presentation to benefit its priests more than its flock."
Religion is many things to many people, Zix. It is a way to offer comfort to the grieving, a way to set up an ethical structure for a society, etc.
"What has worked and how?
God answers prayer."
Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?
"That the Bible could be written over such a long period of time by so many authors and have so few internal disagreements makes it stand out. The Quran was supposedly written by just one man, and he contradicts himself frequently in it."
There are those who would say the Bible has a lot of internal disagreements. Again even within Christianity there is much debate over what particular verses mean and how they fit with other verses
"how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
Are you being purposefully dense? It's modelling the behavior of a supernatural entity with the natural universe."
Testy testy, it was an honest question. How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?
"Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?
"If they've 'changed names and rituals' they're hardly still around. But if you truly believe that, I'll sell you George Washington's hatchet. It's had six new handles and three new heads, but it's still "George Washington's Hatchet!"
Concrete, black and white. And you are getting quite nasty.
Rituals are very different from ethics and principles. In fact the rituals often matter very little except for how they influence the mind of the one performing it. You can change the name of the theory of relativity without changing the theory, it means little.
My main quibble with “rejecting” and “renouncing” is that, to me, they imply that the person, thing, concept, or relationship rejected or renounced actually exists. A secondary quibble is the all or nothing, black or white connotations of the words, as used by Zixar, Def, and others.
I reject the Bible as the “God-breathed” truth. I don’t reject it as good literature, interesting but not completely accurate history, a pretty good model (especially the NT, including the gospels) for personal ethics, etc.
I “sort of” reject the notion of a supreme being such as the one described in the Bible. By that, I mean that I don’t accept the proposition that such a being exists in reality. I think that all “gods” I’ve ever heard of are fictional personifications of perceived ideals or unknown “forces.” Such personifications can be useful and I don’t reject them, except as actual beings.
I reject Christianity as the literal lordship of a literal Son of a literal God. I don’t reject the “spirit” of Christianity, by which I mean loving the ideals personified by the (in my mind) figurative God and Christ of Christianity and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
If I were to become a citizen of China, I would renounce my current citizenship and subjection to the laws of the USA. I could do that, because the USA is an entity that actually exists and I am actually subject to its laws. If I discovered or came to believe that the USA had never existed, I would not renounce my citizenship or subjection to the laws of the USA, because I would not consider that citizenship and subjection to have ever existed.
I once professed belief in the Biblical God and subjection to the Jesus Christ of the Bible as my lord. I don’t know that I ever actually believed what I professed. I can’t recall any time when I didn’t have doubts, but I kept trying to believe because that’s what was expected of me. I have absolutely no problem “renouncing” my profession of belief. I do not believe in the Biblical God, in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, or in the lordship of either. My only problem with “renouncing” Jesus Christ as Messiah and lord is that doing so seems to imply that he (and therefore the Biblical God) exists, which I do not believe. If I did, then I would be a Christian.
That last sentence of my previous post is the "disconnect," as I see it.
If we non-Christians believed that the God and the Jesus Christ of the Bible actually existed, in the here and now, but were not Christians, then we would be fools, who would sacrifice possible eternal life and all sorts of blessings, because we were mad at God, Christ, or God's purported representatives, or were rebellious children unwilling to subject ourselves to Christ's and God's authority.
I swear, I think that many Christians can't understand or accept honest disbelief that their God and Christ exist, which leads them to the latter conclusions, even if they avoid saying them.
Gee Zix, thanks for condesending to answer my pendantic questions. (Ever notice how when some are faced with a question they either cannot answer or cannot answer without changing an opinion, they must stoop to nastiness?)
Ok, let me see then, if I am able to understand your answers (we know how dense I am, so patience will certainly be required on the part of the reader). . .
Questions 1 - 4
"Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?"
Answers 1 - 4
"1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No."
In other words, prayer does work consistently for all within the religion and there is a proper forumula one must use when they pray. However, those outside of Christianity or those who do not use the proper formula will not consistenly have their prayers answered.
Anyone care to bite on this? I am curious 1) what is the proper formula? 2) Have any Christians ever used the proper formula and NOT had their prayer answered? 3) Has anyone of a religion outside of Christianity ever consistently had their prayers answered?
Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
Next Group:
"How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?"
Answers:
"5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound."
Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects?
If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples? I know, it will be another of many dense questions I am asking you, but we all have different perspectives so I am asking for your unique perspective.
Next group:
""Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?"
Answers:
"8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will. "
I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
And again I disagree with number 9. Free will? Did the Jews who were thrown out of Spain leave of free will? Did the children of those who converted have a free will opportunity to chose Judaism as their religion? How could they have if they were never taught about it? It was choose Christianity or die. I'm sure those parents who stayed, even the majority of those who converted in order to stay but never really believed did not teach their children very much about Judaism.
What about the Native American children who were removed from their families and forced to learn Christianity instead of being taught about the gods by their parents? Did they have free will? How can one believe in something one has never heard of?
That last sentence of my previous post is the "disconnect," as I see it.
If we non-Christians believed that the God and the Jesus Christ of the Bible actually existed, in the here and now, but were not Christians, then we would be fools, who would sacrifice possible eternal life and all sorts of blessings, because we were mad at God, Christ, or God's purported representatives, or were rebellious children unwilling to subject ourselves to Christ's and God's authority.
I swear, I think that many Christians can't understand or accept honest disbelief that their God and Christ exist, which leads them to the latter conclusions, even if they avoid saying them.
Long Gone: Thank you! It's about time somebody finally got what I was saying. If you actually still believe in Christ, you're a fool for rejecting him. If you truly don't any more, then the question is moot--might as well renounce The Smurfs and Santa Claus in the same sentence, a la George.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
27
27
26
Popular Days
Aug 24
22
Aug 31
19
Sep 1
16
Aug 25
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 18 posts
Abigail 27 posts
Oakspear 27 posts
Zixar 26 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2004
22 posts
Aug 31 2004
19 posts
Sep 1 2004
16 posts
Aug 25 2004
16 posts
Zixar
George: You and I track on 13 out of 15 (4&9, obviously) so 86% isn't too bad, is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Abigail: Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship. I might believe that "with great power comes great responsibility", but that doesn't mean I'm ambiguous over whether Spider-Man exists or not. I might like the trains to run on time, but that doesn't mean I'm a Mussolini fascist, either. Buddha might have said some things I'd agree with, but my rejection of him doesn't have anything bearing on the validity of what he said.
You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?
The point is that it's not like you never believed in Christ. (Unless, of course, your entire time in TWI you were lying to everyone about it. I have no way of knowing if you were sincere back then.) The arguments you and Oak keep putting forth are only relevant to agnostics who never were Christians. It's not like you're waiting to be convinced, you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". That's not even a very subtle distinction.
As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Zix,
"Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship"
So, if I understand you correctly according to your definition of Christianity, one must believe Jesus is Lord (and then we could argue as to the various definitions of the term Lord, but I'm assuming based on the rest of your post you understand it to mean at least something very similar to what we were taught in TWI) in order to be considered a Christian? And if one does not believe Jesus is lord one has rejected him?
Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
"You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). "
Well, I was holding out hope that at least SOME who consider themselves Christian, understand Christianity as being something very different from what we were taught in TWI. (I still am, despite your own apparent opinions to the contrary).
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?"
Correct me if Iam wrong, but even within the scope of Christianity, there are a number of different interpretations of what the NT means and how it is to be applied in ones life. And I am NOT returning to a former relgion. I come from a Jewish family but was never raised to be a religious Jew. I am simply exploring, growing, learning, continuing in the quest I have been on since I was a child.
Additionally, I don't read the Bible literally or entirely as THE WORD OF GOD, nor do I limit myself simply to what the Bible says or what other men claim it all means. THAT was one of my HUGE mistakes in TWI, a lesson I have learned and do not wish to repeat.
"you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". "
At the point in my life when I was "convinced" I had a very different understanding of it all, via a TWI which ceased to exist some five years before I actually left them. I stayed the additional five years for reasons which are far to lengthy and off topic to go into here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory. "
Then the same goes to my anamchara
:)-->. Regardless of who said it first, I still find the term offensive.
Additionally, lawyers are not supposed to "bend the letter of the law" (though I know there are those who do). Lawyers are suppose to present their case according to the letter and spirit to the best of their ability so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible with the ultimate goal of fairness and justice prevailing. I am thankful I have not had to work for any attorneys thus far which have left me feeling over all jaded towards the legal system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction.
Now was that so hard? "
No, what was difficult was getting to a definition of the terms and conditions. People have different understandings/definitions of what it means to be Christian and what it means to "reject" Christ. Before I could "perform your test" I needed to understand your terms and conditions.
"Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect."
Which is probably why I don't consider myself Christian according to the general understanding of the term and why I have never found a Christian church where I was comfortable.
"If you didn't believe, then did believe, then didn't again, that's a kind of return to a former religion, isn't it? "
As a child, I didn't know what to believe, I had no religion, only a general belief that there was a God. I "didn't believe" because I knew I was Jewish and "Jewish people don't believe. . .". It wasn't really based on any of my own thoughts or opinions, simply on the word of others. Additionally, as a Jewish child growing up in a very small Christian town, I didn't feel as if I was rejecting, I felt as if I was rejected. I didn't understand what I could have done at 7 or 8 years of age, that was so horrible that God didn't want me. I didn't understand why I wasn't allowed to go to church like the other kids did. Likewise I didn't understand what was "dirty" about being Jewish, just knew people saw me that way.
So, it is very different than "returning to a former religion". I am no longer a child and while there is still much for me to learn, I certainly know a lot more than I did then.
"All right, you don't have to divulge that, but are you sure it isn't a case of what Def59 was talking about? Throwing away Christianity because of bad experiences with poor examples(TWI)? "
It really isn't an issue of being unwilling to divulge. I have divulged in a number of posts and threads including one in the "my story" forum. The short version was I was married to someone who was in, I had children, I knew what would happen if I left. I was right.
I just didn't want to get too far off topic.
Anyway, no it isn't simply based on a bad experience with TWI. In fact, after leaving TWI I still considered myself Christian for quite some time and attended a couple of different Christian churches for a time. It is based on "doctrinal" differences, for lack of a better word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Hi again Zix,
"What's an 'anamchara'? Dictionary.com doesn't list it."
Anamchara is a friend who listens without passing judgement on the other person.
"I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't see the harm in it."
Its okay. I'm not going to make a big issue out of it, it really isn't a big issue, just thought I'd mention it.
"I think you're being a bit too idealistic in your assessment of the legal profession, but you're entitled to your opinion."
Perhaps that is a rare and precious thing, which I hope to hang onto. Working in the legal profession and remaining idealistic about it, that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Just for clarity, I am quoting Zixar, who is quoting me in several places. If there are regular and bold type in quotes, the regular is mine and the bold is Zixar's
Here's my "imaginary" script:(bold type in Zixar's quote added by me)The implication of that statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were not honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's not what you're saying?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Gosh,I'm so astonished--I actually agree with Zixar on something. I had to post.
Zixar quote:
'I suppose it depends on how much qualifies as "very different". Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect.'
That's pretty much the conclusion I came to--it just motivated me in a different way.
Also the exclusive thing, the jealous god--not a selling point for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
See that bit right before the bit you bolded? Here, I'll make it easy for you:
"Always with the qualifications and rationalizations..."
See, that's not what normal people call a "lie". I never called you or anyone else a liar, and I never even implied such, despite the inference you immediately leapt to. I'm sure you feel quite justified and sincere when you spout your evasive drivel. But that's just it--evading the question when you've already demonstrated it had a very simple and straightforward answer isn't necessarily lying, but it is being dishonest. That's what I said, that's what I implied.
You just got it wrong. Deal with it. I'm tired of putting up with your mischaracterizations and straw men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
zix,
I think that is the point.
I can't deny that faith is not confined to religion. In fact, you might have noticed on Abigail's thread "Why Faith" that I admitted to having faith in people and in life. I know I could come up with many more things as well.
For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. For example, Def, told me that faith in humans is pointless, knowing how disapointing they can be. But my faith which is really coupled with hope takes that into account and hopes for the best. I know experiencially and thru history of the great things we can do. I don't know what someone's actions will be (not knowing the future, they are invisible) but I have faith in their ability and hope for the best.
So in light of the teleporting electron, I don't think it is so "seemingly impossible" because we know a little about the duality of subatomic particles. We know that a photon has been "digitally" teleported. So knowing a little about the nature of the object in which faith is being placed, it seems more plausible...more like an educated guess.
Not knowing the nature of God, for me, makes it less of an educated guess and more of just an unqualifiable and unfounded guess. At least for now. No more credible than to say something as outrageous as "Smurfs exist and Papa Smurf created the universe". You can't disprove that smurfs exist or that Papa created us, so it is a possibility, probably not a credible possibility for most but still a possibility. You may think they are three apples high, but have you seen one? And how do we not know that "apples" is not just "fruit", a metaphor for life. 3 apples = completeness. I could really get involved.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
But in retrospect, now we can well imagine what went through the minds of some visitors who observed us speaking in tongues, even within the context of its orderly prescription. I bet they felt we were "pretty whacko" too (lol).
But many movements share the practice of chantings and glossalalia. It's certainly more common than I knew years ago, in movements both ancient and modern.
One need not wait another day to see "centrist beliefs" running through many religions, let alone among Christianities.
Consider for example, a comparison of the parallel tales and sayings of Buddha and Christ:
http://www.heartlandsangha.org/parallel-sayings.html
and
http://www.exoticindia.com/article/buddhaandchrist
I suppose truth might be regarded as either a telescope or a microscope - but one may experience better success toward tracing "centrist truths" when simply approaching various scriptures and writings of
varying beliefs with one's own eyes and heart.
In any event, the second link - "Buddha and Christ- Two Gods on the Path of Humanity" - is quite remarkable. I found fascinating the mention of a legend that the cross of Christ was constructed from wood from Eden's "Tree of Knowledge". Which recalled another legend I read about, namely, that the place of the skull where Christ was crucified was also over Adam's burial place. Pretty "whacko" but cool stuff.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
lindy: You said "For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. " The problem with that is when we are dealing with things beyond our perception we don't ever really "know" what we're dealing with. In physics, the realm of the subatomic particles does not behave like the larger, more tangible realms. All we can really do is observe the initiators and products of various invisible particle interactions--it's a "black box" problem. If we dump apples, sugar, flour, and butter into a black box and a hot apple pie comes out the other side we're really just guessing at what's going on inside the box. There are several theories, each with their pros and cons, like there's a baker and an oven in the box and he's making the pie like anyone else would. Or, there's a very tiny bazaar in the box, in which certain food items are taken as trade goods for the apple pie vendor. Or, there's some elves in a hollow tree with magic wands who produce the apple pie out of nothing and then sell the input ingredients in Elf-Land to make money. All sorts of ideas come to mind, both exotic and mundane, but the truth is that if you can never see inside the black box, you never really know how the process works. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sets limits on the amount of information we can gain in the subatomic world. If Heisenberg is correct, then there are things we simply cannot know. It doesn't stop us from working with what we've got, speculating on what's inside the box. Suppose the experimenter substituted cherries for apples to see what he'd get. In some of those cases above, he'd get a cherry pie, in others, he'd still get an apple pie. Whatever comes out of the box, someone's pet theory is going to get shot down.
Things on the other end of the spectrum are just as inscrutable, if not moreso, than the subatomic. Is there anything outside the Universe? What is it expanding into, if anything? We can come up with some very elaborate reasons for why things happen on those grand scales, but since we can't just reach out and touch the end of the Universe, we're still just guessing again. And again, that doesn't stop us from speculating, theorizing, trying to come up with a seamless, unbroken explanation for the Universe.
With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be. It would normally be of no more consequence that your Smurf speculation, save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years. The evidence is all anecdotal, but it's enough to start working with. Despite all the mud slung at Christianity, it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. In that sense, religion is a lot like particle physics--a bunch of theories of wildly-varying validity being slowly pared away over the years until we have something that works--mostly. Quantum mechanics still has some huge gaps to overcome (gravity, for one) but it has had enough success to keep going down that path. We know the obstacles, the trick is in modifying the theory to account for them as best as possible. Same way with apparent Bible contradictions.
If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have. But there's something there, hard to define though it may be, apparently working for a lot of people, even if we don't fully understand it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be"
Why? Why does religion feel such a strong need to design repeatable experiments? So we can promise a guaranteed effect from a specific cause? Why the need to be able to "KNOW" the outcome?
"save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years"
What has worked and how?
"it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. "
How is it internally consistent? Seems there are many inconsistencies and disagreements within Christianity.
how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
What mythologies has it outlived? There are many "religions" which are alive and well today that pre-date Christianity.
"If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have"
Have Apollo and Zeus faded? Or have they simply changed names and rituals?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"You're kidding, right? Religion is fundamentally an attempt to explain and interact with the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's usually skewed in its presentation to benefit its priests more than its flock."
Religion is many things to many people, Zix. It is a way to offer comfort to the grieving, a way to set up an ethical structure for a society, etc.
"What has worked and how?
God answers prayer."
Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?
"That the Bible could be written over such a long period of time by so many authors and have so few internal disagreements makes it stand out. The Quran was supposedly written by just one man, and he contradicts himself frequently in it."
There are those who would say the Bible has a lot of internal disagreements. Again even within Christianity there is much debate over what particular verses mean and how they fit with other verses
"how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling?
Are you being purposefully dense? It's modelling the behavior of a supernatural entity with the natural universe."
Testy testy, it was an honest question. How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?
"Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?
"If they've 'changed names and rituals' they're hardly still around. But if you truly believe that, I'll sell you George Washington's hatchet. It's had six new handles and three new heads, but it's still "George Washington's Hatchet!"
Concrete, black and white. And you are getting quite nasty.
Rituals are very different from ethics and principles. In fact the rituals often matter very little except for how they influence the mind of the one performing it. You can change the name of the theory of relativity without changing the theory, it means little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I don't see why you feel you must resort to such pedantic questions, but the answers are:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No.
5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound.
8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
My main quibble with “rejecting” and “renouncing” is that, to me, they imply that the person, thing, concept, or relationship rejected or renounced actually exists. A secondary quibble is the all or nothing, black or white connotations of the words, as used by Zixar, Def, and others.
I reject the Bible as the “God-breathed” truth. I don’t reject it as good literature, interesting but not completely accurate history, a pretty good model (especially the NT, including the gospels) for personal ethics, etc.
I “sort of” reject the notion of a supreme being such as the one described in the Bible. By that, I mean that I don’t accept the proposition that such a being exists in reality. I think that all “gods” I’ve ever heard of are fictional personifications of perceived ideals or unknown “forces.” Such personifications can be useful and I don’t reject them, except as actual beings.
I reject Christianity as the literal lordship of a literal Son of a literal God. I don’t reject the “spirit” of Christianity, by which I mean loving the ideals personified by the (in my mind) figurative God and Christ of Christianity and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
If I were to become a citizen of China, I would renounce my current citizenship and subjection to the laws of the USA. I could do that, because the USA is an entity that actually exists and I am actually subject to its laws. If I discovered or came to believe that the USA had never existed, I would not renounce my citizenship or subjection to the laws of the USA, because I would not consider that citizenship and subjection to have ever existed.
I once professed belief in the Biblical God and subjection to the Jesus Christ of the Bible as my lord. I don’t know that I ever actually believed what I professed. I can’t recall any time when I didn’t have doubts, but I kept trying to believe because that’s what was expected of me. I have absolutely no problem “renouncing” my profession of belief. I do not believe in the Biblical God, in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, or in the lordship of either. My only problem with “renouncing” Jesus Christ as Messiah and lord is that doing so seems to imply that he (and therefore the Biblical God) exists, which I do not believe. If I did, then I would be a Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
That last sentence of my previous post is the "disconnect," as I see it.
If we non-Christians believed that the God and the Jesus Christ of the Bible actually existed, in the here and now, but were not Christians, then we would be fools, who would sacrifice possible eternal life and all sorts of blessings, because we were mad at God, Christ, or God's purported representatives, or were rebellious children unwilling to subject ourselves to Christ's and God's authority.
I swear, I think that many Christians can't understand or accept honest disbelief that their God and Christ exist, which leads them to the latter conclusions, even if they avoid saying them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Gee Zix, thanks for condesending to answer my pendantic questions. (Ever notice how when some are faced with a question they either cannot answer or cannot answer without changing an opinion, they must stoop to nastiness?)
Ok, let me see then, if I am able to understand your answers (we know how dense I am, so patience will certainly be required on the part of the reader). . .
Questions 1 - 4
"Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?"
Answers 1 - 4
"1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No."
In other words, prayer does work consistently for all within the religion and there is a proper forumula one must use when they pray. However, those outside of Christianity or those who do not use the proper formula will not consistenly have their prayers answered.
Anyone care to bite on this? I am curious 1) what is the proper formula? 2) Have any Christians ever used the proper formula and NOT had their prayer answered? 3) Has anyone of a religion outside of Christianity ever consistently had their prayers answered?
Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
Next Group:
"How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?"
Answers:
"5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound."
Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects?
If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples? I know, it will be another of many dense questions I am asking you, but we all have different perspectives so I am asking for your unique perspective.
Next group:
""Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?"
Answers:
"8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will. "
I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
And again I disagree with number 9. Free will? Did the Jews who were thrown out of Spain leave of free will? Did the children of those who converted have a free will opportunity to chose Judaism as their religion? How could they have if they were never taught about it? It was choose Christianity or die. I'm sure those parents who stayed, even the majority of those who converted in order to stay but never really believed did not teach their children very much about Judaism.
What about the Native American children who were removed from their families and forced to learn Christianity instead of being taught about the gods by their parents? Did they have free will? How can one believe in something one has never heard of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.