Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[CookieJon]

Hey cookie,

I'm going to bed soon, I'll answer your other post tomorrow.

I didn't mean it as an insult, according to Christian theology ALL humans are wicked and desperately need Christ's blood to wash away their sins.

I know you don't think it's an insult - that's the problem with Christians. They don't realize that the whole world isn't in their club!

Do you pray 5 times a day toward Mecca? Because you know YOU'RE wicked if you dont!

[Feck]

Hey cookie,

I'm going to bed soon, I'll answer your other post tomorrow.

I didn't mean it as an insult, according to Christian theology ALL humans are wicked and desperately need Christ's blood to wash away their sins. So even though I do think nonbelievers reject the Spirit and the Truth because they are wicked, I also think believers are wicked and need to persist in their faith to achieve Christlike perfection.

So I presume you have read that book ..... do you not think that your fucking god is an utter and total twat ? or do you cherry-pick even more than when the original cherry-picking was done ... specifically to represent the Roman Churches view ? or do we sign to the idea that god chose the books and told the right people which ones actually are scripture and which ones where just more jewish apocalyptic writing that could safely ignored ?

And will you please answer some questions ?

[Thinking Aloud]

This "dialogue" is never going to go anywhere.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists. Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Now perhaps the Muslim could make a similar claim about Allah. But why not indeed! Just because there are people who are mistaken doesn't invalidate one bit what I believe! That there are creationists doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution!

Some people might say that I might be the one who is mistaken. But in the absence of a defeater, I see no reason why I should reject my belief in God, the same way that I don't see any reason to reject the belief that the world is real, even if some people believe the world is an illusion.

I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I don't give two turds rubbed together what you believe, so long as you don't try to jam it down my piehole.

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

I dunno about any "sensus divinitatis", but I know my sensus bullshitatus is sounding one helluva loud klaxon at this line.

If you must pull stuff out of your backside, kindly flush it with the rest of the crap.

eta: Dressing it up in Latin doesn't make it more correct, only more laughable.

[Loki_999]

I didn't mean it as an insult, according to Christian theology ALL humans are wicked and desperately need Christ's blood to wash away their sins.

And this is perhaps one of the most despicable parts of the religion. Christianity is just one bit guilt trip. As i said before, if you really need to worship a god then at least pick a decent one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, blood's a cleanser?

All that money I spent on soap....

[MattHunX]

sensus divinitatis

I really like these expressions, BUT:

For me it means, that humans have a tendency, and had it since ancient Egypt or probably even further back in history, to search for the supernatural and try and have tried to give anything they don't or didn't fully or even partially understand some supernatural and transcendent characteristics for an explanation for it's nature. Something divine. They've looked for it in lightnings, earthquakes, floods even tides.

Slowly, as the big thinkers came, some of these questions, for the cause and reason of such natural phenomenon were explained and as they were the religious started, as they say "moving the goal post" for the things that still couldn't be explained by natural sciences. And when those questions were answered too, the goal posts were moved again, showing how stubbornly the religious are trying to hold on to their infantile beliefs without even trying to understand the answers given to them. They choose to defy and deny them and the goal posts keep moving until they'll run out of ground. Problem is, they won't.

The most annoying thing about the religious and their leaders is that they can always find a way to make everything a part of their dogma, change the meanings, interpretations, rules, system of belief, what to believe as they see fit. I would say it's uncanny, but it's really just relying on the gullibility of people, and for me at least, it has become unimpressive how they can so easily manipulate their flock through simple words. And I emphasize the word simple, because they are simple people who don't know better. Some are simpletons, easily swayed by the words of pastors who know nothing more than they do, but who have experience on their side. Experience of how to say, what to say and when, to capture their minds.

They're adept at shielding their followers from the harsh reality, the harsh but true answers, keeping some docile, like good sheep. Others, they rile up to make their voices heard, to contact and gain the support of similar groups. Strength isn't always in numbers, but when you're outnumbered 1 to 6, and the rest 5/6 of the world is made up of irrational, illogical, infantile and quite often impudent and impetuous hordes of enemies, reason and rational minds don't always win. Mind over matter doesn't always apply.

[MrFungus420]

First I hope I'm welcomed here. I was banned from RD forum, and was informed that legal action would be taken against me if I would try to register again. All I did was challenging the positivist Calilasseia and her (or his?)

His...

vacuous slogans (e.g. If an entity X is postulated to exist, and there exists in turn no substantive evidence supporting the existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity x as non-existent until said substantive evidence materialises. ).

Vacuous? If someone makes a claim, and there is no evidence supporting that claim, then there is no reason to accept that claim.

What is vacuous about that?

I would like to have a respectful dialogue with non-Christians, and challenge their worldview.

Do you realize that there is no such thing as a single "non-Christian" worldview?

Here's a starter:

- Humans have a sensus divinitatis,

Define your term and then provide evidence that it exists.

which allow them to know

By what mechanism? In other words, how does it "allow" people to "know"?

that the proposition "God exists" is true,

Which god?

without any empirical evidence needed.

Oh...so the definition of sensus divinitas is "gullibility".

Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Those who accept that the proposition "God exists" is true purposefully embrace their gullibility.

[MrFungus420]

Evidence? (for the sense, not the sockpuppetry, sciwoman's word is good enough for me)

What evidence is there that the world exists and is not just an illusion?

I don't have any evidence that the world is not an illusion, I just trust my senses that the world is real. Why should it be different for God?

So what?

Why don't you answer the question instead of avoiding it.

What is the evidence for this sense of the divine?

[Elessarina]

Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Discuss.

I reject the notion that there is a thing such as "wickedness" tbh..it's all subjective

[IIzO]

"sensus divinitatis"?
Assuming that there is such a thing ,how does it works biologically?
What are this "sense" modalities , is it either "on" and "off" , does it come in a spectrum ?
How do you describe it.Common senses are faillible , is this sens faillible too?
How does this sense can relate to a something that conceptually is supposed to be Omni-everything , and be accurate , while humans are finite and are information processing limits ?
Basically , how are we supposed to make a difference between you talking bollocks , and you actually saying something understandable by a tiers person if you do not present any evidence/way to understand empirically the point , or even a theoretically valid explanation relying in shared (verifiable) common experiences ?

[Thinking Aloud]

What is the evidence for this sense of the divine?

Probably that it feels good when he thinks about it. Endorphins or something.

He trusts his senses that the world is real, therefore trusts a happy feeling in his brain that god is real. Ergo god is real...

Of course, by the same token, anyone who hallucinates can trust that those hallucinations are entirely real too, even when nobody else sees them.

And no-one has ever tricked the brain into misinterpreting anything, have they?

[Tigger]

May I just add: ?
Carry on ...

[MrFungus420]

So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists.

And as previously mentioned, where is the evidence for this unsupported claim?

Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

So what? What if it would have been created almost 2000 years ago by someone named (oh...just to pick a name at random) Taul of Parsus, and people today believed in it? Would that make the objection valid?

Besides, you are making a critical error.

What the sensus divinitatis allows humans to know that the proposition, "the God and Goddess (of Wicca) exist" is true.

You are just misinterpreting the sensus divinitatus.

[MrFungus420]

It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken,

That doesn't say much about the competence of the Christian God as a creator, does it?

Besides, this is about the entire human race being punished for what Adam and Eve did. So, we can already see that it is unjust.

Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing that it was evil to disobey God before they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So, we are being held culpable for the actions of Adam and Eve when they were incapable of telling good from evil, right from wrong. So we see that it is unjust for another reason.

Which brings to mind another point about that whole story. According to the Bible, in the Garden of Eden, God lied to Adam and the serpent told Eve the truth. God told Adam that he would die "in the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit, the serpent told Eve that they would not die if they ate it. Adam lived another 900+ years, again, according to the Bible.

And another point about the Genesis story. I don't see how any woman can accept a religion in which they were nothing more than an afterthought.

God has made the Earth and the Heavens, the stars, Sun and Moon, the plants, the animals and Adam...everything except for Eve.

Now, in Gen 2, God has all of the animals go by Adam and Adam names all of them (kind of lazy behavior for an "omniscient" god, is he all-knowing but just not very creative?) Well...let's pick up the story...

Genesis:
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

So, at this point, Adam has named all of the animals, and none of them were suitable to be Adam's "help meet". Now, what does God do?

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

So, God made woman to be Adam's "help meet" since none of the animals were acceptable to Adam as a help meet.

Maybe this explains why Leviticus says that a man lying with a man is an "abomination", but having sex with an animal is a "confusion".

which is why Christ died on the cross,

Can God die? Is Jesus God?

Because, according to the Bible, it looks to me like this was nothing more than God putting on a show for the rubes.

to atone our sins.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "atone".

Assuming that the whole crucifixion was not just a farce, if Jesus atoned for our sins, that would mean that we would no longer be responsible for them. We would not be responsible for our sins because Jesus already atoned for them, he already "paid the price".

And this also reinforces how unjust the Christian God is. Assuming that the crucifixion was not a farce, and assuming that Jesus atoned for our sins, we are now to the point that not only is every human that has ever lived, or will ever live, being held responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve, but now Jesus is also being held responsible for those same actions plus every other sin ever committed.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever all-knowing, all-powerful God that can't figure out how to have that relationship.