Trying to have a logical convo with a fundamentalist.

[Thalassa]

i DO think that logic applies EVERYwhere. ..
And if you think that I feel superior, then you are right. About that one thing, at least. And there are those who are superior to me, in certain things.
Many things, in fact.

I see. Well, then you're never going to have a successful conversation with a large number of people, so get used to it.

 

[therationaledge]

Oh wait. I also want to explain to you what your friend wasn't successful at getting across to you.

When Jesus came LOVE became the law, and all of the old laws were pretty much rendered useless (the stuff about burning animals and homosexuals and all of that nonsense) by the Law of Love (forgiveness, charity, faith, peace, etc.)

All people are sinners. No one is perfect. No person can follow the perfect letter of any law, which is why love and forgiveness are necessary. God is love. Jesus came to bring that message of salvation.

It's weird because I understood what he was trying to explain to you, but he wasn't capable of doing it. That's why I felt like you were picking on him.

I understand what he is saying.
The problem is actually that i dont see how if the bible is gods word and it was 100% correct WHY HE HAD TO CHANGE IT.

Something being perfect renders it above change.

And as for the first argument, its just a logical process.

God made Satan
Satan Sinned
God created a perfect earth
God put satan on earth
Satan convinced man to sin
Man now =Sinner
But man brought sin into the world? I THINK NOT WATSON!
Satan=Sinner
God put Sin on earth

Thats a logical answer

EDIT: I also encourage peopel to read my WHOLE posts, hence why i try to quote the entire thing.
No quote mining please.

 

[simulatedworld]

I don't even need to read the post; the title is enough.

Waste of time.

 

[therationaledge]

I don't even need to read the post; the title is enough.

Waste of time.

How amazingly enlightened of you. Why bother posting at all?

"I have come to the conclusion what you have said is wrong, though I may not know what it is you have said..."

 

[Thalassa]

I understand what he is saying.
The problem is actually that i dont see how if the bible is gods word and it was 100% correct WHY HE HAD TO CHANGE IT.

Something being perfect renders it above change.

And as for the first argument, its just a logical process.

God made Satan
Satan Sinned
God created a perfect earth
God put satan on earth
Satan convinced man to sin
Man now =Sinner
But man brought sin into the world? I THINK NOT WATSON!
Satan=Sinner
God put Sin on earth

Thats a logical answer

God is perfect because God is Love.

Re: Your logical conclusion ~ Only if you're a literalist. Which I am not. I do not read the Bible literally.

I do feel that people have a rotten, fallen nature that must be reconciled with aspiration to something higher. I accept that the Bible is a metaphorical attempt to explain this, just like some other religious texts.

Buddhism is filled with paradoxes, too. So is the Tao.

It's pointless to argue logic against feelings or faith. I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight a losing battle.

However, I do relate to you in that I have wasted energy in the past trying to make others see major issues my way. I have only found by experience how useless such a pursuit is.

 

[simulatedworld]

How amazingly enlightened of you. Why bother posting at all?

"I have come to the conclusion what you have said is wrong, though I may not know what it is you have said..."

Uh huh. The funny part is that I'm still right, despite not even reading your post.

Let me know when the fundie comes around and starts reading Darwin with you, champ. :yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[therationaledge]

God is perfect because God is Love.

Re: Your logical conclusion ~ Only if you're a literalist. Which I am not. I do not read the Bible literally.

I do feel that people have a rotten, fallen nature that must be reconciled with aspiration to something higher. I accept that the Bible is a metaphorical attempt to explain this, just like some other religious texts.

Buddhism is filled with paradoxes, too. So is the Tao.

It's pointless to argue logic against feelings or faith. I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight a losing battle.

However, I do relate to you in that I have wasted energy in the past trying to make others see major issues my way. I have only found by experience how useless such a pursuit is.

Im not doing it to change minds. I did it simply because I wanted to. Im constantly looking to expand my beliefs, but have yet to get a good arguement for most religions. I am basically mining for gold. Lots of useless rock, sometimes a nugget of wisdom.

I also think that rationaly the bible being metaphorical would make sense, but also has infinant capability to be iinterpreted incorrectly if it is metaphorical.
Also, Your definition of God is flawed, but looks pretty intimidating.

For example, I have read the bible front to back and the best way to describe it would be.
God loves you, if you love god. If you dont, you deserve to die and burn in hell, be you man, woman, or child.

So God is Selective Love

Unless of course you make the arguement he loves us even though we are in hell, then the debate would be on what you define love as.

Then the argument would be pointless because if two people have two opinions on what love is, then how could they argue the point of "God is love"?

 

[therationaledge]

Uh huh. The funny part is that I'm still right, despite not even reading your post.

Let me know when the fundie comes around and starts reading Darwin with you, champ. :yim_rolling_on_the_

Again, ignorance.
How many times have i said i am not trying to enforce, convert of force him or even change his opinion?

Attack my arguements, not me. Otherwise you are doing nothing constructive.

EDIT: For example, can someone show me where my logic was incorrect? If you argue that it all comes down to faith then we are effectivly done i suppose, have two irreconciable beliefs, unless you can somehow show me a reason faith leads to truth.

 

[Totenkindly]

Brownster (5:32:31 PM): well it doesnt say he banished him to earhth just that he kicked him out of heaven i think i havent read it

Not to mention, it doesn't matter what subject it is that you talk to people who can't form a logical argument, they won't form one. I hate when people use lame friends who can't discuss on their "logical" level to pretend that that's how "logical" people would discuss Christianity if they actually talked to a LOGICAL person about it.

Many people do not operate on a logical basis for any area of their lives. As you say, this is just more of the same.

It is rather like shooting fish in a barrel... What's the point exactly? SOmetimes it seems really useless.

However, I think people can benefit from being thoughtfully challenged about their beliefs and being made to think, rather than just being ridiculed. It would be nice if Brownster here actually went and read some of the stuff he claims to believe, just so he gets a better idea of what he's laying claim to.

I believe that your hostility is coming more from you trying to pigeonhole this into the past experiences with "people using lame friends" than anythign I have done. This conversation sums up every one I have had with a christian who believes the bible is completelly correct.

Well, you're still definitely drawing from the lower half of the IQ pool here... to get a better idea, you should probably talk to an older evangelical (30-50's) who actually attends Bible study and tries to have an informed faith, even if they hold the same positions. Then you'd get better clarity on why they might think as they do.

A lot of what your friend here was saying is actually what the standard belief is, but he can't articulate himself well nor has he really invested a lot in understanding what he was taught what he was taught, so it comes off as really hokey.

Some people just don't want to engage in the philosophical debate. Just accept it and move on to someone else.

In general I agree.... but specifically this is the same sort of shoddy uninformed thinking and beliefs not tied to reality that leads to certain social assumptions that end up being expressed by laws like Proposition 8 in CA.

So no, it's not harmless, this sort of unchallenged thinking actually contributes negatively to the social discussion. I'm a lot happier with people who might hold the same beliefs but can actually articulate why, than I am with people who hold opinions and can't explain why they hold them. There has to be SOME degree of challenge in order to help weed out believing in things that don't make sense just because that's what you were taught.

Also, if someon said "i am not comfertable/ something else, in discussing this, i wouldnt"

I think that's entirely respectable.

 

[Alwar]

I don't bother arguing with fundamentalists of any kind, Christian or otherwise.

 

[EcK]

Well, everybody is either arguing about the validity of logical reasoning or the politness of the whole thing.

I'd rather ask the question of religions, that after all argue that they possess the truth about the universe, and actively judge other people's belief as being wrong.
Most religions teach kids that other people will go to some sort of hell or just, not go to heaven because they did the terrible thing of not believing in that one religion and convey a feeling of superiority / moral righteousness rarely based on any action that these people do or did.
I'd like to remind you that ujustified feelings of untitlement are what lead people to crime, murder, rape and other abuses by giving them a feeling of moral superiority justifying their any action

I think that sort of statement religions make about the universe and the importance of the believer compared to other people needs to BE congruent with everyday realities and the state of human knowledge.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh wait. I also want to explain to you what your friend wasn't successful at getting across to you.

When Jesus came LOVE became the law, and all of the old laws were pretty much rendered useless (the stuff about burning animals and homosexuals and all of that nonsense) by the Law of Love (forgiveness, charity, faith, peace, etc.)

All people are sinners. No one is perfect. No person can follow the perfect letter of any law, which is why love and forgiveness are necessary. God is love. Jesus came to bring that message of salvation.

It's weird because I understood what he was trying to explain to you, but he wasn't capable of doing it. That's why I felt like you were picking on him.

I understood it too. I don't know how I feel about "picking on someone" though; I feel that if you are going to hold particular religious beliefs that label other people as morally inferior to you if they don't agree w/ your beliefs (i.e., they're going to hell now and you're not because you believe the "right thing" and they don't), then you'd better be able to articulate your beliefs clearly. If you can't, that seems pretty rude and unfair to me, and even pathetic.

The other thing is that people who hold these beliefs do not discard the OT. The homosexuality and crossdressing admonitions (among other things) in the OT get brought up a lot by evangelicals nowadays, and if you actually attend church and get into Bible study pretty rigorously, even if the Law is "perfected" in Christ, it's not considered to have changed.

We don't put gay people to death nowadays, for example, in the USA... but it's still considered an "abomination" by conservatives. (In recent news, the Lutheran Church is currently undergoing another schism because homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships have been permitted to be clergy; in the past, they were required to be celibate. Why's it a big issue? Because of the OT law, plus a few comments made by Paul.) It seems to be that the OT law and NT are still totally connected and referenced, but we just are a "kindler gentler nation" because we don't actually punish people for their specific "sins" in the prescribed OT way. That seems to be the difference, but the laws remain, in practice.

It's sort of disingenous to say that Christianity's all about the NT, because in practice it is not, and if you attend any sort of conservative church, you'll see that the OT is referred quite a lot in order to connect it to the NT and the old laws are merely being fulfilled in Christ rather than tossed.

 

[Alwar]

Most religions teach kids that other people will go to some sort of hell or just, not go to heaven because they did the terrible thing of not believing in that one religion.

I think that is just the Abrahamic religions that do that? Most religions I believe are ethnic and not imperialistic.

 

[simulatedworld]

Again, ignorance.
How many times have i said i am not trying to enforce, convert of force him or even change his opinion?

Attack my arguements, not me. Otherwise you are doing nothing constructive.

EDIT: For example, can someone show me where my logic was incorrect? If you argue that it all comes down to faith then we are effectivly done i suppose, have two irreconciable beliefs, unless you can somehow show me a reason faith leads to truth.

The problem isn't your logic; the problem is that these people don't give a shit about logic and will never, ever use it to govern any area of their lives.

And testing your logical debate abilities vs. religious fundamentalists? That's like beating up old ladies to practice boxing.

Come on man, really?

 

[EcK]

I think that is just the Abrahamic religions that do that? Most religions I believe are ethnic and not imperialistic.

Remind me what happened in human history any time one culture had a chance at taking over another?

I just, can't seem to find any hunter gatherers around here for some reason.
It's strange, since agriculture brought famines, illnesses and population pressure but also forced people to work orders of magnitude more..

And I don't think you've ever heard about or studied in group / out group dynamics in general. The main difference between what you describe as ethnic and imperialistic is size.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think that is just the Abrahamic religions that do that? Most religions I believe are ethnic and not imperialistic.

My only experience was with Abrahamic religions for years, so yes, I was pleasantly surprised to find a lot of world faiths that DON'T view it as a matter of "believing the right doctrine."

Then again, those religions are frowned on by the Abrahamic traditions because they're false and watered down and have no standards, to them.

(Actually, I've found Judaism to be more flexible in practice than fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. It's really funny to me how Christians read a Jewish book and make it rigid, while the Jews are much more flexible with it. It's "their book" so to speak, you think we would follow their lead with it.)

 

[Alwar]

Remind me what happened in human history any time one culture had a chance at taking over another?

I just, can't seem to find any hunter gatherers around here for some reason.
It's strange, since agriculture brought famines, illnesses and population pressure but also forced people to work orders of magnitude more..

And I don't think you've ever heard about or studied in group / out group dynamics in general. The main difference between what you describe as ethnic and imperialistic is size.

I haven't heard of any other religions that made a deliberate point to convert foreigners to their native religion, which is often based on their ancestry. So their "Gods" are their ancestors, but they don't really worship them in the Christian sense most of us today are familiar with. I put it in question form because I wasn't sure if there were other religions outside the Abrahamicsphere that are explicit in converting and assimilating foreigners, they do seem pretty unique in this regard.

I thought the hunter-gatherer scenario was to kill the men and children and poach the women? Know of any good anthropology where I can learn more? Isn't Trivers famous for in/out group dynamics?

Come to think of it, do Jews even actively try to convert and assimilate people into Judaism and regard anyone who doesn't as going to a hell or suffering etc.? Maybe it's just Christianity/Islam.

 

[Alwar]

My only experience was with Abrahamic religions for years, so yes, I was pleasantly surprised to find a lot of world faiths that DON'T view it as a matter of "believing the right doctrine."

Then again, those religions are frowned on by the Abrahamic traditions because they're false and watered down and have no standards, to them.

(Actually, I've found Judaism to be more flexible in practice than fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. It's really funny to me how Christians read a Jewish book and make it rigid, while the Jews are much more flexible with it. It's "their book" so to speak, you think we would follow their lead with it.)

Yeah we need a Jew to explain what's up with Judaism. It does seem more of a cultural practice for the purpose of reinforcing their own identity as a group rather than convert outsiders. Anyone know anything about Buddhism or Hinduism as well? Those are huge too.

 

[Thalassa]

I understood it too. I don't know how I feel about "picking on someone" though; I feel that if you are going to hold particular religious beliefs that label other people as morally inferior to you if they don't agree w/ your beliefs (i.e., they're going to hell now and you're not because you believe the "right thing" and they don't), then you'd better be able to articulate your beliefs clearly. If you can't, that seems pretty rude and unfair to me, and even pathetic.

But the OP feels that people are inferior to him if people don't agree with his beliefs, and he never said if his religious friend is the one imposing on him. As far as I can tell, the original imposition came from the OP. Not all Christians walk around telling other people that they're morally inferior.

The other thing is that people who hold these beliefs do not discard the OT. The homosexuality and crossdressing admonitions (among other things) in the OT get brought up a lot by evangelicals nowadays, and if you actually attend church and get into Bible study pretty rigorously, even if the Law is "perfected" in Christ, it's not considered to have changed.

We don't put gay people to death nowadays, for example, in the USA... but it's still considered an "abomination" by conservatives. (In recent news, the Lutheran Church is currently undergoing another schism because homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships have been permitted to be clergy; in the past, they were required to be celibate. Why's it a big issue? Because of the OT law, plus a few comments made by Paul.) It seems to be that the OT law and NT are still totally connected and referenced, but we just are a "kindler gentler nation" because we don't actually punish people for their specific "sins" in the prescribed OT way. That seems to be the difference, but the laws remain, in practice.

It's sort of disingenous to say that Christianity's all about the NT, because in practice it is not, and if you attend any sort of conservative church, you'll see that the OT is referred quite a lot in order to connect it to the NT and the old laws are merely being fulfilled in Christ rather than tossed.

No it isn't disingenous, it's how I and many other people interpret it. How other groups choose to interpret it have nothing to do with my beliefs or what I perceive to be the real message of Christianity.

 

[EcK]

I haven't heard of any other religions that made a deliberate point to convert foreigners to their native religion, which is often based on their ancestry. So their "Gods" are their ancestors, but they don't really worship them in the Christian sense most of us today are familiar with. I put it in question form because I wasn't sure if there were other religions outside the Abrahamicsphere that are explicit in converting and assimilating foreigners, they do seem pretty unique in this regard.

I thought the hunter-gatherer scenario was to kill the men and children and poach the women? Know of any good anthropology where I can learn more? Isn't Trivers famous for in/out group dynamics?

Come to think of it, do Jews even actively try to convert and assimilate people into Judaism and regard anyone who doesn't as going to a hell or suffering etc.? Maybe it's just Christianity/Islam.

I said, take charge, to have power over. Not convert.
Your point is mute.moot