Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[savagewind]

The majority, but not of sailors, who knew better based on the naturalistic evidence of their own eyes.

How do you two know the majority of people believed the Earth was flat? I believe the majority of people never wrote a thing about the shape of Earth.

 

[Sapiens]

As far as I know that Idea goes all the way back to Washington Irving writing about Columbus. I suppose that we could look into the medieval discussion of the antipodes and applying the same level of scholarship that permits one to come up with an historical Jesus on lesser evidence we should conclude this was the standard opinion, post Greek, who also clearly knew better. No ... I really do not know, but what I was clumsily pointing out was that anyone who ever went to sea would know better, so (I would expect) would everyone else.

 

[Madtown]

No, they were not. What a very strange thing to say about religious extremists who intentionally killed nearly 3,000 innocent individuals.

LOL. I'm shocked.....their beliefs aren't correct, but yours are. But of course. You said it yourself, it's somehow evidence of the truthfulness of christianity, that its adherents are willing to die for the cause. But when adherents of other faiths are willing to die for their cause........well, they're just wrong. LOL, yes how strange indeed.

 

[Serenity7855]

LOL. I'm shocked.....their beliefs aren't correct, but yours are. But of course. You said it yourself, it's somehow evidence of the truthfulness of christianity, that its adherents are willing to die for the cause. But when adherents of other faiths are willing to die for their cause........well, they're just wrong. LOL, yes how strange

Yes, my beliefs are correct and theirs are not. Absolutely 100% correct. It is called "objective morality."

Objective Morality

1. Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2."

You make this far to easy.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The typical pink spaghetti monster, leprechauns or the tooth fairy has become a lame points made by atheists who cannot put up a descent argument, so resort to silly similitude that just do not work anymore.

I have asked questions about his logical conclusion, that turns out to be far from logical, in order to compare his lame psuedo purple dragon to the entire rational and logical Plan of Redemption.

You have yet to prove there is a "rational and logical Plan of Redemption", you just keep repeating it as though you'd actually demonstrated something.

Oh course we resort to silly similitude when confronted with such arguments. There is still nothing to argue other than personal conviction towards your particular belief system. As stated, you've given evidence of popular consensus and some Historical reference. Even your claim that your belief system has the "validity" of a 6,000 year History is quite misinformed, is it not? Can you find me a non-messianic Jew that believes that the Christian "evidences" of Jesus in the Old Testament are worth a damn? That's your Great Divide with the parent religion, isn't it? This Jesus character. You believe as soundly in your deity of choice, and the revelations to man-kind made by Him, as do the Muslims believe in theirs. They have History to back up their claims - they have thousands upon thousands of evidences of people who give their life for their faith. They have historical social references and cultures molded specifically to their God's desires. Do those things make their person convictions and beliefs anymore illogical than yours? By your own standards, doesn't that make their claim to follow the one true God and his prophet Mohammed just as legitimate?

But how do you feel about the faith of Muslims? If you give them credence, then surely you're going against the words of your own Messiah, who claimed that only through him could the faithful reach the Father...

No one can argue your convictions with you - they are, by nature, personal. No one can stump you because you're bound by your own inner logic, which is going to vary greatly from accepted external logic. You're asking us to give you reason to believe that your faith in an invented plan of redemption is illogical, based on criteria that you have made up.... Do you not see why the responses that you receive are asinine?

 

[Madtown]

Yes, my beliefs are correct and theirs are not. Absolutely 100% correct. It is called "objective morality."

Yep, the exact same thing said by adherents to other religions. You're hilarious.

 

[Serenity7855]

You have yet to prove there is a "rational and logical Plan of Redemption", you just keep repeating it as though you'd actually demonstrated something.

The entire Plan of Redemption can be found, by anyone, interwoven withing the text of the Bible. The proof is there for anyone to see.

How many people believe a thing is entirely irrelevant to it's fact value. If one person believes a fact, it remains a fact. If a billion people believe a lie, it remains a lie.

Absolutely correct, however, God is not a provable fact and equally it cannot be falsified either.

The Secret was a book about positive thinking, if you wish hard enough for something, you'll get it. That kind of thing. Millions of people bought into it. It never worked worth a darn. You are simply asserting that you are eating healthy fruit for the soul, just like someone could be asserting that smoking is healthy. Because neither of you have produced a shred of evidence that your assertions are factually true, there's no reason to take either of you seriously.

Not true, there is a mountain of evidence to prove that smoking can damage your health. It is therefore subjected to the ad argumentum populum. There is not such absolute conclusive evidence that states that God lives or is a figment of our imagination.

In fact, I would argue that Christianity is indeed bad for your health, there are plenty of cases where parents refuse medical treatment for their children which leads to their deaths.

You are talking about fringe denominations who have misinterpreted the scriptures. That is not indicative of christianity as a whole.

It is also bad for one's mental health and emotional health because it leads people to view reality in a skewed manner.

What a very spurious assertion. Perhaps you can substantiate it with evidence as in my experience the opposite is very much true.

Frankly, I don't think you can make a case for Christians being morally accountable or assets to communities when you can find lots of Christians who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Likewise with atheists, Hinduism, Muslim and scientology. It is a problem found throughout humanity and not unique to any particular religion. Most people I know to be openly homophobic are in fact atheists.

I wouldn't find a lot of hard core Christians to be moral in any way, shape or form, in fact, because of their beliefs, they don't even comprehend how morality works.

Absolute unsubstantiated rubbish.

Of course they can all be wrong. The only way for them to be demonstrably right is to produce evidence for the factual existence of their God. Until they can do that, they're just as liable to be wrong as anyone else.

Yes, that is true, but what are you trying to say.

The majority of people once believed the Earth was flat. They were all wrong too. Try again.

Most sailors of those times knew that the earth was not flat. But more importantly, it was not a substantiated fact.

 

[Serenity7855]

Hmm... Old Testament is full of them.

That is true, however, you need to ask why these stories can be found in scripture. Maybe as a warning to future generations as to the consequences of such action.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yep, the exact same thing said by adherents to other religions. You're hilarious.

It is called "objective morality". It is wrong regardless of religion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The entire Plan of Redemption can be found, by anyone, interwoven withing the text of the Bible. The proof is there for anyone to see.

Can it? Or is it interpreted as such when taken out of context and read under the bias of the divinity of Christ, which, as you very well know, was not even an agreed upon until the Councils...

 

[Sapiens]

The entire Plan of Redemption can be found, by anyone, interwoven withing the text of the Bible. The proof is there for anyone to see.

I qualify as "anyone" and I fail to see it. "Emperor's New Clothes" anyone?

 

[jonathan180iq]

That is true, however, you need to ask why these stories can be found in scripture. Maybe as a warning to future generations as to the consequences of such action.

The argument can be readily made that the New Testament is little more than misinterpreted allusion to the Old Testament... Use source material from one place, teach it incorrectly for long periods of time and BAM, suddenly you have ancient references to modern thought. What do you think Islam is?

"What are you talking about, you vile atheist?"

Where is your theology without the writings of "Paul"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

It is called "objective morality". It is wrong regardless of religion.

You seem to like this idea very much. Objective Morality is not evidence for any deity of any kind, nor is it completely accepted as even a viable explanation of things. There are plenty of faults within the concept, that can be explained away with a monist naturalist world view.

 

[Sapiens]

I find your "objective morality" neither objective nor moral. But that's just a subjective observation.

 

[Serenity7855]

Can it? Or is it interpreted as such when taken out of context and read under the bias of the divinity of Christ, which, as you very well know, was not even an agreed upon until the Councils...

No, the entire Plan is there without the need of interpretation.

 

[Serenity7855]

The argument can be readily made that the New Testament is little more than misinterpreted allusion to the Old Testament...

The argument can be made, but it is awkward and disjointed making it nothing more then the need that atheists are possessed with to burst the Christians bubble.

Use source material from one place, teach it incorrectly for long periods of time and BAM, suddenly you have ancient references to modern thought. What do you think Islam is?

I am not going to be critical of Islam.

"What are you talking about, you vile atheist?"

I am neither an Atheist or vile.

Where is your theology without the writings of "Paul"?

What is the relevance of this off the wall statement.[/QUOTE]

 

[Serenity7855]

You seem to like this idea very much. Objective Morality is not evidence for any deity of any kind, nor is it completely accepted as even a viable explanation of things. There are plenty of faults within the concept, that can be explained away with a monist naturalist world view.

My preference of the idea is irrelevant. Objective Morality has nothing to do with religion. It is like a naturalistic law. It is morally incorrect regardless of any religious principle or precept. Please be my guest and explain away.

 

[Sapiens]

My preference of the idea is irrelevant. Objective Morality has nothing to do with religion. It is like a naturalistic law. It is morally incorrect regardless of any religious principle or precept. Please be my guest and explain away.

Serenity7855 has been asked many, many time to explain but the cat's got his tongue, I guess.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, the entire Plan is there without the need of interpretation.

Your interpretation of scripture and your teachings lead you see a Plan. That understanding that you have is not something that is universally shared, even among people of your own faith. If it is not a universally shared idea, then how accurate is it to say that the evidence of your logic for your own faith is to be found in it?

Jews and Muslims read (or have read) the same old books that you do. They do not see a plan of redemption through Christ, which you claim is outlined in the Bible. That alone blows up your argument thus far, and we haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet...

The plan of redemption that you speak of is an idea that is only held in certain Christian circles. (Granted, it is held in the majority of protestant circles, but that's not all there is to Christianity, is it?) It is an interpretation that was created within the Christian framework and nowhere else.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The argument can be made, but it is awkward and disjointed making it nothing more then the need that atheists are possessed with to burst the Christians bubble.

It is neither awkward nor disjointed. You can brush it aside if you wish, even after admitting that it was a valid argument. There is supporting evidence for this both within the scriptures themselves and from other outside historical references. It is well supported within Biblical academia. To blow it off because it's inconvenient to the flow of conversation would be a mistake.

I am not going to be critical of Islam.

I'm not asking you to be critical of Islam. I am asking you to consider your own requirements for logical conclusions in the face of an opposing religion.

I am neither an Atheist or vile

I was not saying that YOU were an atheist, nor vile. It was an aside, spoken from the 3rd person perspective, referring to myself.

What is the relevance of this off the wall statement

If you refer to the post that it came from, you were essentially making the argument that the whole of the Bible is this great story outlining God's overall plan for redemption, as you've said many times. Your concept of such a plan, without the writings of Paul and their overall effect on the theology of Christianity, would not exist. That is the relevance of the off the wall statement.

The reading of the Old Testament by those who did not actively try and find secondary or tertiary sources, and then explain them as references to the chosen messiah figure of Jesus, does not lead to the conclusion that any of your claims (and those of the New Testament writers) are true. In turn, what does that mean for your asserted plan of salvation?

It means that it, also, is created. It is fabricated. It was developed as a way to reconcile the differences the concepts of the New Testament and those of the Jewish tradition... This is true, even all the way down to the genealogies of Jesus as a descendant of David.

How do you make any of the arguments that you make without the book of Hebrews?
Think about it before you get offended.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, again, essentially what you are asking for is an argument against your own personal reasoning that your convictions are true. That's unnecessary. Your personal convictions are yours alone and you are free to follow whichever faith you choose. You may not, however, claim that your faith is aligned with absolute universal truth, spoken to humanity by an omniscient being, who picked some little backwater dust bowl in a very specific social market of the Middle East to deliver his message....