Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

[tip of hat] Good job on the defence of your faith though [/tip of hat]

Definitely. See, all those anti spearkers corner bashers don't know what they're missing. I have a lot of respect for anyone that participates in these discussions and vehemently defends their point of view with logical reasoning.

Likewise, in reference to you, but you make me want to squeeze your eyeballs sometimes.

[jakee 1,497]

***That doesn’t discredit the Bible. The bad things that people do in the name of God doesn’t make what they do “of God.”

Quote

And the books people write in the name of god doesn't make those books "of God"?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And the books people write in the name of god doesn't make those books "of God"?

You're right. Just because someone writes a book about God doesn't necessarily make that book accurate about God. The entire collection of books, which is The Christian Bible however, was written over the period of about 1,500 years, by people in different places, of different education levels, from different cultures, and on 3 different continents. Some of the New Testament books were written well within 50 years of when the actual events occurred. Some, quite possibly, were written within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to the events. In comparison to most historical documents we have today, this time period is considered negligible by some historians. The books were written by more than 40 different people who came from different backgrounds. Hundreds of topics are discussed. It is claimed in the Bible that it, as a whole, was written by man with divine inspiration from God. In short, it claims to be the written word of God. This claim is supported by its organization and content. Even if you say that the books were "hand picked" to form the canon, all it really takes is to read just one of the gospels. The entire Bible fits together perfectly and flows from beginning to end. There is much fulfilled prophesy from the beginning to the end. It supports itself well to the scrutiny that it is not necessarily “of God” and just something conjured up by man.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

3ringheathen misleads by using the words, “A Sample.”

Quote

I wasn't the least bit misleading.
I suggested that anyone that isn't familiar with McDowells works check out the book reviews on Amazon.com.
I further suggested that one read samples of *both* positive and negative reviews of his books, and compare them.

Then, still referring to book reviews I offered a sample book review that I feel accurately describes McDowells books.

Pretty straight forward, really.

Quote

I counted them all and found 31 to be positive reviews and only 17 to be negative. He picked the last negative comment on the first page to present to you.

Actually, I picked the 2nd negative review listed, as it nicely sums up my sentiments.

I readily admit that there are more positive reviews than negative ones, but as anyone over the age of thirteen knows, quantity does not equal quality.


-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

So, what books have you read of Josh McDowell's to base your negative opinion? Tell me what you liked or disliked about them. Do you have any ideas of your own that you'd like to discuss pertaining to this topic?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Yikes.
Citing Josh McDowell is a bit like citing Pinochio, except his deceptions aren't as easily identified.
For those that aren't familiar with this author, simply check out reviews of his books on Amazon.com.
If you're still curious, go to the library, but whatever you do, don't subsidize this crackpot by purchasing one of his books!

I recommend reading a sampling of the positive and negative reviews. The average lucidity of each ought to give you an idea of how hopeless it is to reason with his followers.

A sample:
This book is a complete and utter waste of time if you are looking for objective scholarship, honest historical research from a learned scholar. This author is nothing more than a promoter who operates under the guise of scholarship. His arguments - evidence is specious and he commits virtually every logical fallacy one can commit.

The quote, listed above, by 3ringheathen was actually a book review by Stephen M. St. Clair of Orlando, FL. 3ringheathen misleads by using the words, “A Sample.”

It is YOU who are attempting to mislead, by falsely claiming that 3ringheathen did anything but clearly state that he was giving a SAMPLING OF THE [B]REVIEWS[/B]. Damn, man, it's right there in the text you provided as a quote!!! If this is the kind of game you play to get people believing you while you discredit others, why would anyone play it with you? Do it in good faith if you're going to do it at all.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, yes, another inconsistency problem!
God gave us the Old Testament, let us live as human civilization for a while (how long was it, anyway?) until he FINALLY got around to giving us this son of his whose death would redeem us all. It seems a little irresponsible of god to leave us hanging after the first volume, because I have to presume that those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven, since the key to that came later in the form of Jesus.

HOW IS THIS STUFF EXPLAINED AWAY?!

Nothing needs to be explained away. How is it inconsistent? You just don’t like the rules of the game so you criticize. You’re presumption that “those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven” isn’t true either. Before Jesus, people were justified by the grace of God through their righteousness. I’m not saying everybody. I’m saying those who God deemed righteous. I’m not an Old Testament scholar so someone correct me if I’m wrong. When Jesus came and did what he did, a new covenant was ushered in with God’s people. People are now justified only through the blood of Jesus Christ. One must accept Jesus as savior and repent of sin. Bottom line. There is no other way for anyone.

Oh, okay, so god changes the most basic rules of how to get into heaven down through the ages. Greaaaaat.

Now, why on earth an infallible god could not set out rules at the beginning that he would feel like sticking with thousands of years later I'll never know.

But I think it's real shitty that in one era of humanity, the rules of getting into heaven could be vastly different from the rules of another era of humanity. This "new covenant" stuff is bullshit, a real raw deal. How do we know that in a thousand years god won't change the rules and maybe at that point it'll be okay to be homosexual? Another new covenant that changes the most basic ways in which humans are coerced by god to behave in order to earn a heavenly reward.

Dude, I don't mean a personal slam, but I really don't see how anybody could hold this chaotic, unreasonable, inconsistent, and patently unfair system to be worth believing and dedicating their life to. The human believer has to make SUCH EXCUSES for the flaws in what is obviously a man-made, flawed construct, which has changed over time with the abuses and indulgences perpetrated by leaders of the religion.

This is NOTHING upon which I would ever base my view of life and the universe. It's scary to me that people are willing to.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Do you have any ideas of your own that you'd like to discuss pertaining to this topic?

That's an ironic question to pose considering that the bulk of your arguments involve citing the works of others, but I digress.

I made a separate post in which I addressed some of my personal concerns about the topic. You've so far ignored it, even though it appears directly above the post of mine that you did respond to.

No, I haven't read McDowells books.

Which brings me back to the point of my earlier post:

If one reads the book reviews at amazon.com, you'll find readers repeating all of his blatantly flawed arguments in the reviews themselves. It's quite plain that McDowell eschues logic in favor of arguments from authority and other flawed techniques.

Over the years, I've invested *enormous* amounts of time investigating various claims surrounding religions, mostly Christianity. After all, it's prevalent in my society. Sound logic, valid evidence, and legitimate research supporting your position are as elusive as Bigfoot or the Lochness monster.

Without exception I've been disapointed in my quest for a sensible argument in favor of Christianity, particularly your brand of it.

I've tried very hard to maintain an open mind, but fundamentalist apologists keep trying to dump garbage in it.
I've wondered how come I haven't seen the light.
Over and over again it turns out that their isn't even a light bulb in the biblical socket.

McDowells approach is severely flawed, and nearly identical to that of countless others before him. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, at some point you get tired of double checking and make the reasonable assumption that it's probably a freaking duck!

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

It is YOU who are attempting to mislead, by falsely claiming that 3ringheathen did anything but clearly state that he was giving a SAMPLING OF THE REVIEWS. Damn, man, it's right there in the text you provided as a quote!!! If this is the kind of game you play to get people believing you while you discredit others, why would anyone play it with you? Do it in good faith if you're going to do it at all.

You're right. I stand corrected. I read it too fast before I responded and missed that one. Not trying to play a game and I will try to make my answers in good faith. Most of your responses are inflamatory, however, and I would ask that you do the same.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Oh, okay, so god changes the most basic rules of how to get into heaven down through the ages. Greaaaaat.

Now, why on earth an infallible god could not set out rules at the beginning that he would feel like sticking with thousands of years later I'll never know.

You’re right. Not in this lifetime, at least.

Quote

But I think it's real shitty that in one era of humanity, the rules of getting into heaven could be vastly different from the rules of another era of humanity. This "new covenant" stuff is bullshit, a real raw deal. How do we know that in a thousand years god won't change the rules and maybe at that point it'll be okay to be homosexual? Another new covenant that changes the most basic ways in which humans are coerced by god to behave in order to earn a heavenly reward.

How do we know the details of what God’s future plan is? ….We don’t know. Also, the New Covenant can either be looked at as a HUGE hindrance to you or it can be looked at as a GREAT hope for humanity and your personal salvation.

Quote

Dude, I don't mean a personal slam, but I really don't see how anybody could hold this chaotic, unreasonable, inconsistent, and patently unfair system to be worth believing and dedicating their life to. The human believer has to make SUCH EXCUSES for the flaws in what is obviously a man-made, flawed construct, which has changed over time with the abuses and indulgences perpetrated by leaders of the religion.

This is NOTHING upon which I would ever base my view of life and the universe. It's scary to me that people are willing to.

Those chaotic, unreasonable, inconsistent, and patently unfair qualities that you mention are descriptive of how “you” see it. I don’t and I’m trying to get others to see that. I understand that you are turned against and hostile toward the idea of Christianity or religion in general but others may not be. AGAIN, not trying to shove anything down “your” throat.

In reference to the abuses done by religious leaders, in general and not just Catholic, we are all human and, therefore, fallible. There should be no excuses made for religious leaders who abuse the system. Their abuses should not be hidden or “covered up” from within. Bad things that people do “DO NOT” take away from the message of Christianity. It does demonstrate the sinful nature of everyone, however deep it may be hidden.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That's an ironic question to pose considering that the bulk of your arguments involve citing the works of others, but I digress.

I’ve made my personal thoughts known clearly and in much detail throughout. I do also cite research that has been done by others as well. I don’t consider myself an expert. Just trying to make the case.

Quote

I made a separate post in which I addressed some of my personal concerns about the topic. You've so far ignored it, even though it appears directly above the post of mine that you did respond to.

I got ganged up on pretty good throughout this thread and didn’t get much help from anyone on my side of the argument. Sometimes having to respond to 7-8 posts in sequence opposing my view. If I didn’t respond to a question of yours, I will review and try to find it. My bad. I was in high-gear at some points. I didn’t mean to “ignore” it and I’m certainly not afraid to answer.

Quote

No, I haven't read McDowells books.

Then how can you reject his studies outright and publish your negative sentiments concerning his works or his character to the world?

***Which brings me back to the point of my earlier post:

If one reads the book reviews at amazon.com, you'll find readers repeating all of his blatantly flawed arguments in the reviews themselves. It's quite plain that McDowell eschues logic in favor of arguments from authority and other flawed techniques.

Over the years, I've invested *enormous* amounts of time investigating various claims surrounding religions, mostly Christianity. After all, it's prevalent in my society. Sound logic, valid evidence, and legitimate research supporting your position are as elusive as Bigfoot or the Lochness monster.

Without exception I've been disapointed in my quest for a sensible argument in favor of Christianity, particularly your brand of it.

I've tried very hard to maintain an open mind, but fundamentalist apologists keep trying to dump garbage in it.
I've wondered how come I haven't seen the light.
Over and over again it turns out that their isn't even a light bulb in the biblical socket.

McDowells approach is severely flawed, and nearly identical to that of countless others before him. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, at some point you get tired of double checking and make the reasonable assumption that it's probably a freaking duck!***

It just doesn’t fit your brand of logic, apparently. In addition, that “light bulb” you’re referring to can only come from God. If you read the review that I posted in its entirety, it explained quite well that there will always be people who reject the message even when presented with evidence. It doesn’t matter how good the evidence is. Only God can turn the light bulb on in your head and bring about wisdom instead of just knowledge.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

We’re not meant to know and understand everything.
God didn’t want us not to think or to have “blind faith.”

Quote

The above quotes are contradictory.
A simple acknowledgement that we can't know everything would be more appropriate, but it's also a radically different idea. Saying "we're not meant to know and understand everything" goes hand in hand with blindly accepting things as true without thinking about and investigating them.

There is “plenty” of evidence to support the case for Christianity. Just because we don’t have all the answers and are not meant to does not mean that making the decision to follow Christ has to be made blindly. I’m the type of person that doesn’t like to accept what one person tells me is true. If multiple people also tell me that it’s true, however, then it strengthens the case and I have much more confidence in it. Blind faith would be like you jumping off a bridge just because I (and no one else) told you that it was about to fall and you saw no evidence of structural failure.

Quote

Such thinking has played a vital role in perpetuating all sorts of unsavory things in society. Things that are completely incompatible with an all knowing, loving and compassionate creator. The irrational bias against homosexuality is just the latest social injustice to be questioned. It's long overdue for a supposedly modern civilization.

Who are you to speak for God?

Quote

Following this logic:
Suppose that Vallerina is an extraordinarily good, kind person. She sins far less than you do. She sacrifices more to help others than you do. In her heart she regrets every mistake she's ever made, and strives to avoid repeating them. She does all this because she simply believes it is the right thing to do. She doesn't believe in god, heaven, hell, and so forth.

In your God's eyes, she is not righteous. You will be rewarded in the afterlife, and she will not. Simply because you have faith, never mind that, for the sake of argument at the very least, she led a better life than you.

Frankly, I find this concept appalling.
Such a hypothetical deity would not be worthy of worship, but rather contempt.

The Parable of the Lost Son

Jesus continued: There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father. I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men. So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, “Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’” Luke 15:11-32

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

I got ganged up on pretty good throughout this thread and didn’t get much help from anyone on my side of the argument.

Quote

I admire your tenacity, but did it occur to you that the reason you've been "ganged up on" is because your position is indefensible?

Quote

***No, I haven't read McDowells books.

Then how can you reject his studies outright and publish your negative sentiments concerning his works or his character to the world?

Quote

I plainly answered that in the next paragraph, but I'll ellaborate a bit more:

McDowell is the latest in a string of authors, lecturers, and academics to claim some sort of proof of the divinity of Christ, the existence of God, intelligent design and the like. I went to great lengths to investigate the first such books, authors, and arguments I came accross. I even attended a lecture by William Dembski.
As I stated before, I was disapointed in all of them.
The quality of the arguments is consistently poor, and ranges from simply flawed reasoning to outright calculated deception and intellectual dishonesty. Dembski is a great example of the latter.

At anyrate, I've got a finite amount of time on this planet, and AFAIK, once I'm dead, it's over. I don't want to squander all of my time on nonsense.

When new authors purporting to make the case for Christianity come up in discussion, I've found something curious happens:
They all reference each other, and none of the ideas are new. They are just repackaged versions of the same old tired arguments that I've already thoroughly investigated.

***Which brings me back to the point of my earlier post:

If one reads the book reviews at amazon.com, you'll find readers repeating all of his blatantly flawed arguments in the reviews themselves. It's quite plain that McDowell eschues logic in favor of arguments from authority and other flawed techniques.

Over the years, I've invested *enormous* amounts of time investigating various claims surrounding religions, mostly Christianity. After all, it's prevalent in my society. Sound logic, valid evidence, and legitimate research supporting your position are as elusive as Bigfoot or the Lochness monster.

Without exception I've been disapointed in my quest for a sensible argument in favor of Christianity, particularly your brand of it.

I've tried very hard to maintain an open mind, but fundamentalist apologists keep trying to dump garbage in it.
I've wondered how come I haven't seen the light.
Over and over again it turns out that their isn't even a light bulb in the biblical socket.

McDowells approach is severely flawed, and nearly identical to that of countless others before him. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, at some point you get tired of double checking and make the reasonable assumption that it's probably a freaking duck!***

It just doesn’t fit your brand of logic, apparently. Only God can turn the light bulb on in your head and bring about wisdom instead of just knowledge.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

There is “plenty” of evidence to support the case for Christianity.

There is also plenty of evidence that Christianity is simply an amalgam of religions and mythos that came before it.
A borgreligion or frankenrelgion if you will.

Quote

I’m the type of person that doesn’t like to accept what one person tells me is true. If multiple people also tell me that it’s true, however, then it strengthens the case and I have much more confidence in it.

Multiple people telling you something is true doesn't necessarily strengthen the case at all. It might be reason to explore the belief further, but it's certainly no reason to believe it.

Quote

Blind faith would be like you jumping off a bridge just because I (and no one else) told you that it was about to fall and you saw no evidence of structural failure.

If the bridge was high enough I probably would jump off of it.

I can easily imagine a crowd of people on a bridge panicking as it bucks and sways in high wind.
They could all be screaming to jump or run. I'd probably be far more afraid of the crowd trampling me in their panic, than I would be concerned that the bridge would actually collapse.

I wrote: "Such thinking has played a vital role in perpetuating all sorts of unsavory things in society. Things that are completely incompatible with an all knowing, loving and compassionate creator. The irrational bias against homosexuality is just the latest social injustice to be questioned. It's long overdue for a supposedly modern civilization."

Quote

Who are you to speak for God?

I don't speak for God. I don't believe in God.
Perhaps you should ask yourself that question, since it is you that claim to know what God wants of us.
You point to the bible as the basis for your beliefs, yet others do the exactly the same thing and yet believe contradictory things.

Finally, your parable reasonably explains why a father might reward the lost son for returning, but it does nothing to explain why a better son that didn't believe in God might be punished!
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I admire your tenacity, but did it occur to you that the reason you've been "ganged up on" is because your position is indefensible?

I worked in the IT field for 8 years. The kinds of people I used to work with, for the most part, were very smart, arrogant, proud, self-reliant, humanistic, “I control every bit of my own destiny”, kinds of people (goes hand-in-hand with many skydivers as well). Many were either agnostic, atheist, or intentionally did not ascribe to any religion due to the personality traits mentioned. I’m guessing that is typical of many people who work/play with computers or work in some sort of tech arena. Therefore, a significant number of people who participate in this forum aren’t just skydivers but are also people who also fit that description. Not all, but a significant number (Just guessing based on my personal experience, mind you). The people participating in this forum IMO aren’t a good representation of the entire population. In such case, there would be more people, in this forum, who would pick the opposite side of the argument from the one I’ve taken. If this discussion took place in another setting, the statistics might be different. I don’t think it’s because my “position is indefensible.” I think I’ve done a descent job at that so far. When it comes right down to it, though, you can’t prove that what I’m saying isn’t true. I mean, like many have said before in these threads, you can’t prove/disprove things happened the way they are said to in a document the same way you might prove a scientific experiment.

I’m not going to quote and respond to some of the rest of this because you’ve pointed to nothing specific, have only accused illogic/faulty reasoning, and you sound like you’re just spewing the same old venom that critics always do.

Quote

Logic doesn't come in different brands. Logic is a formal system of reasoning.
Starting with different basic assumptions, you and I can each employ logic properly to reach different conclusions.

I agree. It’s much easier to begin when we agree on some basic assumptions (i.e. there is a God of some sort). That’s why most of this isn’t really called “evangelism” as some of you call it. It’s really pre-evangelism. There has to be a starting point in order for any of this to be productive. The walls have to be broken down so that progress can be made.

Quote

Our arguments would be said to be internally consistent, which is the most one can really hope for. The trouble is that none of the authors I mentioned achieve internal consistency because they don't actually employ sound logic to reach their conclusions.

Examples?

Quote

There is also plenty of evidence that Christianity is simply an amalgam of religions and mythos that came before it.
A borgreligion or frankenrelgion if you will.

Yes?

Quote

Multiple people telling you something is true doesn't necessarily strengthen the case at all. It might be reason to explore the belief further, but it's certainly no reason to believe it.

I’m not a Military Intelligence person nor have I worked for the CIA but doing what I did in the Army, I’ve worked with both very closely and have done some low level intelligence gathering myself. In order to give credibility to information from a particular source and, therefore, make it actionable against a target, it needs to be confirmed by at least a couple of other sources. Is that logical thinking? It’s what we use anyway. That’s what the Gospels do as well. I don’t understand how your statement is logical.

Quote

I can easily imagine a crowd of people on a bridge panicking as it bucks and sways in high wind.
They could all be screaming to jump or run. I'd probably be far more afraid of the crowd trampling me in their panic, than I would be concerned that the bridge would actually collapse.

You’ve missed my point about what “blind faith” is. There is an element of faith in Christianity. There is no way of getting around that. But mine is based on evidence (whether you like it or not or don’t agree with it or think it irrational/illogical, etc.) It is definitely not “blind faith.”

Quote

I don't speak for God. I don't believe in God.
Perhaps you should ask yourself that question, since it is you that claim to know what God wants of us.
You point to the bible as the basis for your beliefs, yet others do the exactly the same thing and yet believe contradictory things.

As you said, I would point to the Bible to discern what God wants of us. You’ve made it clear that doesn’t work for you, however.

Quote

Finally, your parable reasonably explains why a father might reward the lost son for returning, but it does nothing to explain why a better son that didn't believe in God might be punished!

Those who think they are good and follow the law to the letter (as in the example of the “better” son) are like the Pharisees. They made it their lives to know and live by the law. They believed that was what made them right with God and won their righteousness (i.e. the son that stayed home and did what he was supposed to do). Jesus made it very clear, however, that their (and our) self-appointed righteousness amounts to nothing.

Luke 11:37-54 (Six Woes)

37When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.
39Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41But give what is inside the dish[10] to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. 42"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. 43"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it." 45One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also." 46Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
47"Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all. 52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." 53When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54waiting to catch him in something he might say.

[jakee 1,497]

I'm sorry but it does look to me like you're deliberately misinterpreting the question that was put to you.

Quote

Those who think they are good and follow the law to the letter (as in the example of the “better” son) are like the Pharisees. They made it their lives to know and live by the law....Jesus made it very clear, however, that their (and our) self-appointed righteousness amounts to nothing.

Quote

"Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

That example you've given deals with the sort of person who puts on the appearance of respectability and charity, never steps out of line but works inside the law to make himself rich.
The question you were posed deals with a truely selfless person, someone who does good deeds for others just because they want to help, yet happens not to believe in god.
There's a huge difference there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm sorry but it does look to me like you're deliberately misinterpreting the question that was put to you.

Quote

Those who think they are good and follow the law to the letter (as in the example of the “better” son) are like the Pharisees. They made it their lives to know and live by the law....Jesus made it very clear, however, that their (and our) self-appointed righteousness amounts to nothing.

Quote

"Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

That example you've given deals with the sort of person who puts on the appearance of respectability and charity, never steps out of line but works inside the law to make himself rich.
The question you were posed deals with a truely selfless person, someone who does good deeds for others just because they want to help, yet happens not to believe in god.
There's a huge difference there.

I don’t believe I am. The parable of the Lost Son (us) describes a person who fell from the grace of his father (God), sinned against himself and his father (Like we all have and will again), but was welcomed back when he repented of his sin and returned (Accepted forgiveness by grace through faith in Jesus who made atonement for the sins of all men at the cross.). The older son (Like the Pharisee) stayed home and followed the letter of the law (Good works; self-righteousness). He’s still flawed, however, is not capable of following the letter of the law (Wages of sin is death (spiritual death; total separation from God; hell), has sinned against God at some point in time in his heart even if never openly, and is, therefore, separated from God through his sinful nature. The quote that you made from the parable of the Six Woes describes a person such as the one you accurately described. The person described in the question by 3ringheathen does not exist. The only person to fit that bill that ever walked the earth and is, therefore, qualified to make atonement for the sins of man is Jesus Christ. His question is completely fictitious as there can be no person like that. I challenge you or anyone else to honestly tell me that they’ve “never” broken one of the 10 Commandments. All it takes is one. I know I can’t say that.

[jakee 1,497]

Ok I can see the way that you're looking at this situation now.

Quote

The older son (Like the Pharisee) stayed home and followed the letter of the law (Good works; self-righteousness).

The difference as I see it is that the pharisee and the son are both working for approval, instead of just because they want to help (if you don't believe in god how can you seek his approval?)

As you say the perfect person described in the question does not exist, so we're talking shades of grey here but surely some shades are so close to white as makes no difference?
If the commandments do relate even to where your thoughts wander in unguarded moments then I don't really see how whether or not you've broken any can be seen as an indication of how 'good' your life has been.
Catch 10, the ultimate catch.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

the thing you haven't addressed:

why should those who don't follow your God follow His rules?

According to the first amendment, you can't pass laws favoring one religion (or one religion's dogma/doctrine) over another's.

There are religions that allow same sex relationships/marriages. Why should your religion be the one to set the standard that ALL must abide by? Doesn't God offer free will to His people? Who are we to take that free will away by legislation?

[Deuce 1]

Dude, how many words do you type a minute?

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The kinds of people I used to work with, for the most part, were very smart, arrogant, proud, self-reliant, humanistic
Many were either agnostic, atheist, or intentionally did not ascribe to any religion due to the personality traits mentioned.

I agree that the above traits, particularly intelligence, are correlated with low religiosity. This community probably isn't a representative sample of the general population.
There are loads of intelligent religious people, and from what I've read, I would include you in that category.
I suspect that your basic religious beliefs were formed before you were old enough to really think about them.
This is true for the vast majority of us, including myself. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school.

Quote

I agree. It’s much easier to begin when we agree on some basic assumptions (i.e. there is a God of some sort).

This deserves a thread of it's own. I've never heard any compelling arguments to justify the assumption that there is a God of some sort.
For the sake of argument, I have made that assumption in the past, and still found the widely held Christian beliefs to be logically inconsistent.

Quote

Examples?(of flawed logic by previously mentioned authors)

Quote

There is also plenty of evidence that Christianity is simply an amalgam of religions and mythos that came before it.
A borgreligion or frankenrelgion if you will.

Yes?

You can find a fair amount of clearly explained examples of flawed logic in the book reviews I suggested people read.
However, I'm certain that you want to hear my take on it.

Many (all?) of the authors you and I mentioned argue that the convergence/similarities between the accounts in different books of the bible is evidence for the veracity of the bible. In fact, that's what you've been arguing.

First, I don't think anyone disputes the existence of a man named Jesus. It's whether or not he was God that is disputed.
At least some of the authors set up a strawman argument by suggesting that non believers reject the very existence of Christ.
Others assume that if he existed at all, he was divine. Both are fallacious arguments.

If the similarities between different accounts of the life of Jesus are meaningful, then the following similarities between the story of Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus, and the Hindu god Krishna ought to be of great interest to you:

Thousands of years before Jesus,
Krishna was referred to as the son of god, and was part of a trinity. He was sent from heaven to earth in human form. At birth he was visited by wisemen that followed a star.

Even more intriguing are the parallels between Horus and Jesus:
Horus was born in human form during the winter solstice (late December), his virgin mother's name?
Meri.

Herut attempted to kill Horus. Herod attempted to kill Jesus.

Horus and Jesus were both baptised at 30 years of age. The baptiser in each story was later beheaded.
Thousands of years before Christ, Horus was said to have walked on water, cured the blind, healed lepers, and had 12 disciples.
To top it all off, Horus was crucified with two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurected 3 days later.

There's actually quite a bit more, but if the above doesn't get your attention, nothing will.
Details

Quote

In order to give credibility to information from a particular source and, therefore, make it actionable against a target, it needs to be confirmed by at least a couple of other sources. Is that logical thinking?

It's logical, but with conditions and limitations.
For relatively ordinary claims such as there's a cache of weapons hidden in the mud hut on the left side of that road, or Jesus was a carpenter, it's reasonable to take the claim seriously based upon the word of several people.

However, things such as that Jesus walked on water, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven are extraordinary claims.
They also happen to be claims identical to claims made about Horus before the time of Jesus.

Quote

As you said, I would point to the Bible to discern what God wants of us. You’ve made it clear that doesn’t work for you, however.

It doesn't seem to work for you either. Otherwise, I'd expect a bit more of a consensus amongst Christians.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

The question you were posed deals with a truely selfless person, someone who does good deeds for others just because they want to help, yet happens not to believe in god.
There's a huge difference there.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The difference as I see it is that the pharisee and the son are both working for approval, instead of just because they want to help (if you don't believe in god how can you seek his approval?)

Of course, you wouldn’t seek approval if you didn’t believe in God. The reason for all of this talk, however, is to hopefully show those nonbelievers that there is a God and that he does have a purpose for our lives. The reason is simply to bring the message. Only God can open someone’s heart to the truth.

Quote

As you say the perfect person described in the question does not exist, so we're talking shades of grey here but surely some shades are so close to white as makes no difference?

As it is written “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:10-12

Quote

If the commandments do relate even to where your thoughts wander in unguarded moments then I don't really see how whether or not you've broken any can be seen as an indication of how 'good' your life has been.
Catch 10, the ultimate catch.

You’ve either broken the law or you haven’t. You’re either righteous on your own merit or your not and you need saving grace and reconciliation. I fit the latter category as well as everybody else, whether they admit it to themselves or not. It doesn’t matter how many “good” things you do in your life. You could be the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen building houses for poor people all over the world and feeding kids in all the orphanages. It amounts to nothing in the eyes of God unless it’s done through the Jesus who is in the heart of true Christians. The best person you know in the world is still a sinner.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Ephesians 2:8-10”

[DrunkMonkey 0]

This might be slightly off topic, but what would the theologians here think of someone who likes the whole christian salvation idea, but cannot stand church services, or church people's hypocracy? I have always found church services a use of time better spent sleeping or skydiving.

I like the idea of salvation, but there are too many fire-n-brimstone types who mourn their faith, casting God as someone who insists we live a spartan existance, becuase certain acts/thoughts are arbitrarily "bad"...Not coincidentially, all these "Bad" things are also fun things...so we're supposed to live an unpleasant life of self-denial for an afterlife that may or may not be??

Dunno...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

the thing you haven't addressed:

why should those who don't follow your God follow His rules?

They wouldn’t necessarily follow my God’s rules if they didn’t believe in him. Many Christian rules/values, however, coincide with the personal ethics of others (not religious based) so they might anyway. It doesn’t matter that they follow my religions rules, per say. It does matter that they follow the rules established in our laws.

Quote

According to the first amendment, you can't pass laws favoring one religion (or one religion's dogma/doctrine) over another's.

I agree with and fully support the 1st Amendment.

Quote

There are religions that allow same sex relationships/marriages. Why should your religion be the one to set the standard that ALL must abide by?

I didn’t say that. I was just giving examples originally why the Christian protestors were against it and why they would protest. Christianity, however, is the most prevalent and widely accepted religion in the US and always has been. It is obvious, even though our Constitution does not allow for the establishment of one religion over another, that our system would have that influence. It is at our fundamental base. As I’ve stated before, I don’t care if you’re homosexual or not. It doesn’t affect me until it begins to affect our laws. I guess it all depends on if you think that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and violates our Constitution or not. I don’t.

Quote

Doesn't God offer free will to His people? Who are we to take that free will away by legislation?

That very thing is being taken away on a much more regular basis these days by Judges legislating from the bench instead of honoring the vote/will of the people.