Christianity

[Dontaskme]

DontAskMe is an odd case as well. How to characterize her?

[attofishpi]

..nah fuk em' U aint worth_Y.

[Dontaskme]

“No belief is true for everyone.”

“Everything is relative.”

“Everyone's beliefs are true or false only relative to himself.”




The only thing you can actually have is a false belief. Since there is a clear separation between us and reality(truth exists independently of us and our belief of it) any belief can never perfectly fit reality. As soon as you believed something, you believed a lie. You can't change reality with your mind.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/sho ... -aim-truth

[Dontaskme]

You can't change reality with your mind.

[iambiguous]

Why We Shouldn't Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

Beware of Hollow and Deceptive Philosophy

In their recent philosophy textbook, Moreland and Craig make the following statement:

"For many years we have each been involved, not just in scholarly work, but in speaking evangelistically on university campuses with groups like . . . Campus Crusade for Christ . . . Again and again, we have seen the practical value of philosophical studies in reaching students for Christ. . . The fact is that there is tremendous interest among unbelieving students in hearing a rational presentation and defense of the gospel, and some will be ready to respond with trust in Christ. To speak frankly, we do not know how one could minister effectively in a public way on our university campuses without training in philosophy."

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components. But of far more importance is the extent to which such a presentation and defense can be connected to actual demonstrable proof that, given what is at stake for mere mortals on both sides of the grave, the gospel is the real deal.

And I still recall back when I was a student at Essex Community College, my own encounters with Campus Crusade for Christ folks. Back when I was a rabid Marxist. I'd leave them sputtering. So, I can only imagine their reaction to the components of my philosophy today.

And, of course, when the author here speaks of those philosophers who "will be ready to respond with trust in Christ" what sort of philosophy will they actually have?

This is a strong endorsement of the value of philosophy in doing university evangelism on today’s campuses. But some might be thinking, “What a minute! Doesn’t the Bible warn us about the dangers of philosophy? And aren’t we urged to avoid such dangers?”

But that's the point. If you do encounter men and women who are able to reconcile philosophy with Christianity, you are already assuming certain assumptions about them that are far removed from how others construe philosophy. And if they are not able to reconcile the two that becomes all the proof one needs that the philosophy is "hollow and deceptive". My own certainly is, isn't it?

Still, if there are those here who have in fact managed to reconcile the two, please, by all means, provide details.

And a few contexts.



Note to IC:

Or a few videos.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components.

Note to IC:

Or a few videos.

You have 'em. Watch 'em, and call me when you're done.

[iambiguous]

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components.

Note to IC:

Or a few videos.

You have 'em. Watch 'em, and call me when you're done.

Sigh...

Again, are you or are you not interested in saving souls by bringing those like henry quirk over to Jesus Christ?

Do you or do you not believe those videos will accomplish this for them?

And, if you do believe this, what possible reason could you have for not linking us here to what you deem to be the most powerful video of them all?

Other than the fact that you yourself know that it doesn't really provide us with evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven. That, after watching it and all the rest of them, a more or less blind leap of faith would still be required.


Note to others:

Given what is at stake here on both sides of the grave -- objective morality/immortality and salvation -- please ask IC to link you to the most potent video of them all.

Or, at the very least, ask him to explain why on Earth he wouldn't do this...given that one by one Judgment Day awaits us.



Note to henry quirk:

Have you seen the videos? Has IC linked them to you? After all, you two are best buds here. His first priority must be to save your soul.

Right?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components.

Note to IC:

Or a few videos.

You have 'em. Watch 'em, and call me when you're done.

Sigh...

Sigh all you want. It moves me not at all.

While you're remaining willfully ignorant, even with the evidence right in front of you, I can feel no particular concern to provide you more. You're not even interested, apparently.

But you can call me when you can react to the content. Other than that, carry on as you are. That decision is 100% yours.

[Immanuel Can]

The only thing you can actually have is a false belief.

Then that statement is a false belief. You've said so yourself: it's "the only thing you can have."

[ThinkOfOne]

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components. But of far more importance is the extent to which such a presentation and defense can be connected to actual demonstrable proof that, given what is at stake for mere mortals on both sides of the grave, the gospel is the real deal.

And, of course, when the author here speaks of those philosophers who "will be ready to respond with trust in Christ" what sort of philosophy will they actually have?

There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs. For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.

[iambiguous]

You have 'em. Watch 'em, and call me when you're done.

Sigh...

Sigh all you want. It moves me not at all.

While you're remaining willfully ignorant, even with the evidence right in front of you, I can feel no particular concern to provide you more. You're not even interested, apparently.

But you can call me when you can react to the content. Other than that, carry on as you are. That decision is 100% yours.

Note to others:

Come on, you will either call his bluff or you'll stay up in the spiritual/intellectual clouds with him and treat the salvation of your very soul as though it really was just a philosophical question.

This guy claims that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. And that means Judgment Day. And that means if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you get Left Behind. And that means eternal damnation for your very soul.

He claims that beyond merely quoting from the Bible that the Christian God resides in Heaven because the Bible says that He does, there is demonstrable evidence to substantiate it. On par with evidence substantiating that the Catholic Pope resides in the Vatican.

But, apparently, even in regard to those he likes here, he won't even link them to the most powerful video of them all!!!

Or has he? Anyone here seen the video? If so and you are interested in saving souls, please link it to this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone here seen the video?

Apparently not you. Even the thought of a few cartoons terrifies you, it seems.

You don't seem to have any real confidence in yourself or your beliefs, I would say. You don't think they can survive even basic arguments.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm certainly interested in hearing "a rational presentation and defense of the gospel". With or without philosophical components. But of far more importance is the extent to which such a presentation and defense can be connected to actual demonstrable proof that, given what is at stake for mere mortals on both sides of the grave, the gospel is the real deal.

And, of course, when the author here speaks of those philosophers who "will be ready to respond with trust in Christ" what sort of philosophy will they actually have?

There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs. For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.

This sort of over-general condemnatory statement results from lack of historical knowledge and, as well, a functional disregard for the *actual truth*. To say that a given religious converts to the religion to *get something* is certainly not false. One could get (be given or attain) a sense of inner stability that one had correctly (metaphysically) situated oneself; one could gain relief from the belief that one is, as a incarnate being, subject to *death* but as a Christian one is relieved of this imprisonment and granted expanded 'life' both in the present world and a world to come -- that is true and it is a form of getting I guess. And one could feel, understand and believe that one had stepped onto a path that provided one with clear(er) ethical admonishments. Really, there is a wide range of things that one could *get* to use your term.

There is no human domain where similar getting does not operate.

As to *intellectual honestly* your skewed understanding of how profoundly Christianity has affected our culture, and indeed we as individuals (our core formation and indeed the creation of the individual as an ethical actor), your statement is one of ignorance, but a grasping sort. If you can make that (ignorant) statement there is really no end to the ignorant and therefore wrong statements that you could make. And that nexus is intellectual dishonesty defined.

I will concede that I do not think Christian belief is *rational* in the way that is normally taken. Faith-decisions may be influenced by argument on some level or other, but in the ultimate sense it is a different sort of decision than a rational one. However, there is another dimension and that is found in theological reasoning, and those arguments follow from faith-decisions in which the basic believed tenets have been established and then arguments are assembled to support specific decisions (in the moral and ethical realm as an example). These are highly rational, in my understanding and experience.

There is certainly a wide range of problems associated with badly established religious belief. But conversely there are definite benefits and strengths from a well-founded and articulate faith-position. Some excellent minds have been, and are, firmly convinced Christians. It is convenient to your argument that you negate these. So you sort of reveal your hand: you say whatever you want to say because of an internal animus.

[ThinkOfOne]

There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs. For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.

This sort of over-general condemnatory statement results from lack of historical knowledge and, as well, a functional disregard for the *actual truth*. To say that a given religious converts to the religion to *get something* is certainly not false. One could get (be given or attain) a sense of inner stability that one had correctly (metaphysically) situated oneself; one could gain relief from the belief that one is, as a incarnate being, subject to *death* but as a Christian one is relieved of this imprisonment and granted expanded 'life' both in the present world and a world to come -- that is true and it is a form of getting I guess. And one could feel, understand and believe that one had stepped onto a path that provided one with clear(er) ethical admonishments. Really, there is a wide range of things that one could *get* to use your term.

There is no human domain where similar getting does not operate.

As to *intellectual honestly* your skewed understanding of how profoundly Christianity has affected our culture, and indeed we as individuals (our core formation and indeed the creation of the individual as an ethical actor), your statement is one of ignorance, but a grasping sort. If you can make that (ignorant) statement there is really no end to the ignorant and therefore wrong statements that you could make. And that nexus is intellectual dishonesty defined.

I will concede that I do not think Christian belief is *rational* in the way that is normally taken. Faith-decisions may be influenced by argument on some level or other, but in the ultimate sense it is a different sort of decision than a rational one. However, there is another dimension and that is found in theological reasoning, and those arguments follow from faith-decisions in which the basic believed tenets have been established and then arguments are assembled to support specific decisions (in the moral and ethical realm as an example). These are highly rational, in my understanding and experience.

There is certainly a wide range of problems associated with badly established religious belief. But conversely there are definite benefits and strengths from a well-founded and articulate faith-position. Some excellent minds have been, and are, firmly convinced Christians. It is convenient to your argument that you negate these. So you sort of reveal your hand: you say whatever you want to say because of an internal animus.

How does this pertain to what I wrote? It's as if you went on a rant about a completely different topic. Do you have difficulty with reading in context?

[Alexis Jacobi]

In direct response to this part:

For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.

Seems pretty connected (pertinent) to me. Why do you think not?

And why the term ‘rant’?

From a Slate article:

Some of the first rants of the modern era—at least some of the first to be referred to as such—were associated with a short-lived, 17th-century English sect known (to their enemies) as the “Ranters.” Its members’ penchant for tobacco, alcohol, women, and swearing sprung from a belief in the divinity of all things and a rejection of the idea of sin altogether. They were frequently accused of blasphemy and of profaning religious rituals. A Ranter preacher, Abiezer Coppe, recounted for an entire hour while standing at the pulpit. Richard Baxter, a Puritan divine, recounted with horror the power that such “hideous words of Blasphemy” could have: “[A] Matron of great Note for Godliness and Sobriety, being perverted by them, turned so shameless a Whore, that she was Carted in the streets of London.”

Many atheist types seem to operate more as ranters to be quite factual!