Why aren't Christians able to debate their own religion?

[republicantiger]

I'm not stupid. I'm a Christian because its completely rational. Everything in the Bible makes sense. Most events in the Bible are reaffirmed by archeological and scientific findings. Therefore, logic would conclude that the rest is true also. I know Jesus is real because of everything he's done for me. It's very disappointing to see atheists who are ignorant and narrow minded enough to reject something just because they can't see it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: republicantiger Everything in the Bible makes sense. Most events in the Bible are reaffirmed by archeological and scientific findings.

Really? Then kindly explain to me how God created Day and Night (Gen 1:5) on day 1, and then, three days later, created the Sun (Gen 1:16-18). Every school child knows that the position of the sun in relation to ones position on earth is what determines day and night. Can God not only defy the laws of physics but the laws of language as well?


.

.

[The Bacon Guy]

Most events in the Bible are reaffirmed by archeological and scientific findings. Therefore, logic would conclude that the rest is true also.

That's certainly an interesting type of logic you have.

[republicantiger]

God is God. He defies the laws of physics.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric Syllogism or not, it's correct. If you actually, you know... debated me... then you wouldn't have to stamp your feet and demand that I re-phrase arguments.

#1
:-))) Your reply make me laugh.
Having a sense of humor is not enough to support your position.

You have no means to support your data. Therefore the sentence "Why aren't Christians able to debate their own religion?" is an absurdal assertion.

#2
Volcanvo forum is open to public.
Any registered Volcanvo member can post and/or reply to a submitted material. This thread is not the exception.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: republicantiger God is God. He defies the laws of physics.

That's defying a helluva lot more than the laws of physics. It defies language. How do you have day and night without the sun? I'll tell you... you have religious writers so ignorant of basic science that they didn't understand that the earth is a sphere that rotates with half lit by the sun and half facing away from it. You do believe that the earth is a sphere that rotates on it's axis, don't you? And that night is the period of time in which you particular point on the earth has rotated away from the suns light?


.

[Mia]

Quote by: Zhavric Why? Because 245 post count Zhav is beating you?

Hardly. In fact, you haven't even stated what your position is, but over and over you say it is verifiable. You have not clarified mine, but over and over say that it is a fairy tale.

I can see that you are merely bashing anyone who professes a faith or religion. I tired of such trolling long ago.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Mia You have not clarified mine, but over and over say that it is a fairy tale.

Last time I checked, that wasn't exactly his responsibility.

Quote by: Sonart That's defying a helluva lot more than the laws of physics. It defies language. How do you have day and night without the sun?

You have come upon a very important Biblical truth: it's written to be understood by the people reading it. The Bible isn't a science textbook. It isn't here to explain the physics of the Universe, or the specifics of biomechanical processes. It is meant to reveal God.

Quote by: Sonart I'll tell you... you have religious writers so ignorant of basic science that they didn't understand that the earth is a sphere that rotates with half lit by the sun and half facing away from it.

Even presuming that your presumption is correct (which I do not believe--the ubiquity of "flat-earth" theory has been largely overstated, imo), so what? What does the supposed ignorance regarding astronomy have to do with the truth of the Bible? Please don't make a "but the sun doesn't actually rise" argument...

Quote by: Sonart You do believe that the earth is a sphere that rotates on it's axis, don't you? And that night is the period of time in which you particular point on the earth has rotated away from the suns light?

Well, the meaning of "day" can depend on the context, can't it? After all, when someone says "Back in my day", you don't think that they're referring to an actual 24-hour (or single-solar-rotation-of-the-Earth) period, do you?

P.S.: Sorry to answer your questions with more questions. I know that it bugs the hell out of me...

[Jack]

It's very disappointing to see atheists who are ignorant and narrow minded enough to reject something just because they can't see it.

We're not the ones who claim favored-son status among the gods, making us think we're superior to other humans who haven't bought into our particular brand of religion.
I can't fathom why christians feel it necessary to call those who disagree with their belief in their imaginary friend ignorant and narrow minded. Narrow minded people never consider other realities but that which they already believe. Narrow minded people believe that they alone posses the absolute truth. And many of us are hardly ignorant of your faith. I've been a christian, was an ordained minister, and now no longer believe in religion. Many of us here have read your bible. Just because we don't accept it as anything more than a historical text does not make us ignorant.

When I say I don't believe in your god or any gods, I'm speaking from experience and education, not ignorance or with any feeling of superiority.

[Jack]

it's written to be understood by the people reading it.

Only if they are also willing to accept it as the inspired word of god. Otherwise it can be read and make little or no sense to the person reading it.

[Mia]

I realize it is not his responsibility to clarify my position, but what is he claiming is false? I haven't laid out a position, is my point. I did not do so purposefully, to see if there would be an attack on the mere word 'faith'.

I never stated what my faith was in. I did not specify a religion until later, after the religion I never professed was argued against...

A lot of assumptions were made and arguments against those assumptions appeared by three people - exactly what I expected.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Isherwood Only if they are also willing to accept it as the inspired word of god.

...well, naturally.

Quote by: Isherwood Otherwise it can be read and make little or no sense to the person reading it.

Of course. People who disbelieve the Bible--or more accurately, mistrust it--will not have Christian faith. That's just logic, Isherwood. People who don't believe the Bible, don't believe the Bible. People who don't trust God, don't trust God. That decision, however, is not one that is mandated by reason (as not trusting God is not logically necessary, being unproven) nor precluded by it (as not trusting in God is not logically invalid, as its antithesis has not been proven).

Consider this:

Choose between [x] and [non-x]. If [x] is proven, [non-x] is clearly false (though it may remain logical), and vice versa. Until and unless Christianity is proven false--or any one of its logical antitheses proven true--you have no grounds to impeach the Christian faith as irrational or incoherent.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Mia I realize it is not his responsibility to clarify my position, but what is he claiming is false?

I think that you've completely misunderstood the thrust of Zhavric's argument. He isn't claiming that Christianity is false; he's claiming that a number of Christians are ill-equipped for intellectual or philosophical debate and are out of their element in such discussions.

Quote by: Mia I haven't laid out a position, is my point. I did not do so purposefully, to see if there would be an attack on the mere word 'faith'.

An attack on a word? I don't think Zhavric's quite that post-modern.

Quote by: Mia I never stated what my faith was in. I did not specify a religion until later, after the religion I never professed was argued against...

Is Zhavric really arguing against a religion? Or is he decrying the lack of good Christian debaters?

Quote by: Mia A lot of assumptions were made and arguments against those assumptions appeared by three people - exactly what I expected.

I'm new here, but it seems to me that you've made a fair amount of groundless assumptions yourself.

[Jack]

Until and unless Christianity is proven false--or any one of its logical antitheses proven true--you have no grounds to impeach the Christian faith as irrational or incoherent.

Not true. Christianity is a state of belief. If you believe something, even something as nonsensical as an invisible super-being who can, but then again can't always, do anything he wants and loves us dearly yet is ready to subject his own creation to everlasting torment if they simply refuse to praise him sufficiently, it will be impossible for me to debase you of that belief without your cooperation. Christianity is real as a belief system, a philosophy. The tenants of the belief are laid out in the bible. Having read the bible many times, I can attest to the fact that I find it irrational and frequently incoherent. I can then say that the philosophy that this book gave birth to is likewise irrational and incoherent to anyone who is not already a believer. The believers, by extension would also conform to that description in my opinion.

You and I are walking down the street and you suddenly point to a spot on the ground at my feet and excitedly exclaim, "Look! A hundred dollar bill!" I look down a see a piece of newspaper. Other people walk by, look at the paper you're pointing at and keep walking, none of them acting as though they see a hundred dollar bill. But you insist, picking it up and putting it your wallet. Later, when you try to spend it, not one shopkeeper accepts it as money. You are totally befuddled, because you seriously think it's a hundred dollar bill, and nothing I say can convince you otherwise.

Your god is your hundred dollar bill. I'll never convince you of that until you are willing to reconsider your faith in that bill.

That doesn't mean I'm going to start agreeing with you that you're now a hundred dollars richer. You will still be my friend, but I'll always be aware of your incoherent and irrational belief. No big thing to me. A lot of my friends hold unique beliefs. I certainly don't share them all. But then, none of them feel that it's a mandate from above to convince me that their view of reality has to be mine as well.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: CliveStaples You have come upon a very important Biblical truth: it's written to be understood by the people reading it. The Bible isn't a science textbook. It isn't here to explain the physics of the Universe, or the specifics of biomechanical processes. It is meant to reveal God.

If one claims that every word of the Bible is true, and the Bible makes statements about the nature of the world, then it needs to have some foundation in fact. If the Bible is meant as poetry and not literal fact, then just say so. Otherwise I'm unclear how the true nature of an omniscient, omnipotent God is revealed by people who didn't understand the basic physics of day and night.

Quote by: CliveStaples Even presuming that your presumption is correct (which I do not believe--the ubiquity of "flat-earth" theory has been largely overstated, imo), so what? What does the supposed ignorance regarding astronomy have to do with the truth of the Bible? Please don't make a "but the sun doesn't actually rise" argument...

It reveals that the chronicles that make up the Bible anthology were interpretations of "God's Truth" based on the sensibilities of the bronze age cultures into which the authors were born, and the convened clergy at the Council of Nicea that cherry-picked selected scriptures for the New Testament in 323 AD.

For instance, do you find the institution of slavery to be moral? Because the Bible is very clear... slavery is perfectly acceptable, because at the time it was written, slavery was a vital, necessary and completely acceptable part of every civilized economy of the day.

Quote by: CliveStaples Well, the meaning of "day" can depend on the context, can't it? After all, when someone says "Back in my day", you don't think that they're referring to an actual 24-hour (or single-solar-rotation-of-the-Earth) period, do you?

Genesis is very clear.

"5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day."

"18 and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

Now if you're suggesting that this is a parable for something, I'd love to hear it.

Quote by: CliveStaples Until and unless Christianity is proven false--or any one of its logical antitheses proven true--you have no grounds to impeach the Christian faith as irrational or incoherent.

It is when Christian faith irrationally instructs us to ignore the reality of nature as determined by modern science in preference for a reality of nature as determined by writers who didn't understand the physics of day and night. Beyond that, I have no problem whatsoever with Christianity, right up to the point that Isherwood alluded to...

"Many of us here have read your bible. Just because we don't accept it as anything more than a historical text does not make us ignorant."

And it certainly doesn't make us 'wicked'. If Christianity is intent on contantly informing my fellow citizens that I am evil and immoral by definition - which is false - for no other reason than I don't believe what they do, and that I should be treated as a second class citizen of my own country, then I have a very real and personal reason to impeach the Christian faith as irrational.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you,". (Matthew 7:12)

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Isherwood I can then say that the philosophy that this book gave birth to is likewise irrational and incoherent to anyone who is not already a believer.

This fact struck me one day when I listened to a phrase that's always guaranteed to send any Christian into complete rapture...

"For God so loved us that he gave his only begotten son so that we might live forever."

...and wham, it just hit me. That has got to be the dumbest, most bizarre foundation for a faith that I could possibly imagine. It's like, in the prime of his career, oops, Jesus is arrested and executed. Dang, why would God let that happen? Yeah, that's it, God must have done it for our benefit. Same with the immaculate conception. Jesus is born out of wedlock... ooops, can't have that. Yeah, that's it, God did it and therefore Mary was still a virgin and all is still right and good in Christ's little world.

It's like I'm staring at an obviously naked king, at a total loss as to how everyone around me sees him as so richly adorned.

.

[another day]

Quote by: republicantiger It's very disappointing to see atheists who are ignorant and narrow minded enough to reject something just because they can't see it.

It's very ignorant and narrow minded of YOU to reject Islam, Judaism, Sihkism, Wiccan, and every other religion on earth. What, you can't see it? Isn't it narrow minded to pick one religion among the hundreds of choices? Isn't it more open minded to reject all of them and adopt a TOTALLY GENERAL philosophical viewpoint only open to REAL PROOF rather then conjecture and stories? Hm?

But of course you can't understand this...your too isolated in your 100 foot deep hole of indoctrination, and you think Christianity is the only logical choice because thats how you were brought up. Plain and simple. It's a matter of circumstance...one roll of the dice and you couldv'e been born in the middle east, and be a fundamenlist Islamic...It's hilarious how arbitrary it all is. But no no I won't question your faith of course you're right its totally logical. Let me know when the dragon swoops down from the sky with the four horsemen and Jesus Christ does battle like a super hero with the antichrist. :) Oh but of course I'll probably be burning in the pits of hell by them. *sigh*

[phoenix_fire]

There are lots of choices on a standardized test too, but only one will get you points.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Sonart If one claims that every word of the Bible is true, and the Bible makes statements about the nature of the world, then it needs to have some foundation in fact. If the Bible is meant as poetry and not literal fact, then just say so. Otherwise I'm unclear how the true nature of an omniscient, omnipotent God is revealed by people who didn't understand the basic physics of day and night.

That's not the dichotomy, Sonart. It isn't "The Bible is entirely literally true" or "The Bible is entirely poetic". Different parts of the Bible are written by different persons in different styles. The "basic" physics of day and night weren't understood by anyone, theist or atheist, for thousands of years. The mechanism of light and diurnal solar cycles aren't exactly the focus of the first few chapters of Genesis.

Quote by: sonart It reveals that the chronicles that make up the Bible anthology were interpretations of "God's Truth" based on the sensibilities of the bronze age cultures into which the authors were born, and the convened clergy at the Council of Nicea that cherry-picked selected scriptures for the New Testament in 323 AD.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove. Did humans attempt to discern which documents were the Word of God and which were not? Yes. Do people interpret the Bible according to their own sensibilities? Of course. That doesn't mean that they are blinded by their own circumstances; merely because I am a 21st century person doesn't mean that I cannot attempt to learn what the language would have meant to people in earlier times.

Quote by: Sonart For instance, do you find the institution of slavery to be moral? Because the Bible is very clear... slavery is perfectly acceptable, because at the time it was written, slavery was a vital, necessary and completely acceptable part of every civilized economy of the day.

Are you making the claim that the slavery referred to in the Bible is analogous to the slavery in 18th and 19th century America? If so, please support your claim. Then we will have something to talk about.

Quote by: Sonart Genesis is very clear.

First of all, nothing is very clear in the story-telling genre employed in this chapter. Discerning what is fact and what is metaphor is hardly a clear-cut, simple delineation.

Quote by: Sonart "5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day."

By this translation, we are told that evening and morning occured in the first day. Which, by the way, is not to say that one evening and one morning constitute that first day.

Quote by: Sonart "18 and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

Are you suggesting that the same word in different contexts must have the same meaning? That the word "day" in verse 5 must mean the same thing that "day" in verse 18 does? Note that in this verse, day is placed in apposition to night--as was "evening" and "morning" in verse 5.

Quote by: Sonart Now if you're suggesting that this is a parable for something, I'd love to hear it.

A parable? Well, certain conclusions can be drawn.

The creation of the universe is according to a Divine plan, not chaos as in other ancient religions. The universe was once good, and was so by Divine design. This is different than other religions that deny that the world can be improved.

Quote by: Sonart It is when Christian faith irrationally instructs us to ignore the reality of nature as determined by modern science in preference for a reality of nature as determined by writers who didn't understand the physics of day and night. Beyond that, I have no problem whatsoever with Christianity, right up to the point that Isherwood alluded to...

What is the reality of nature that the Bible instructs you to ignore? If you're going to mount attacks on the Christian religion, please provide actual arguments (which include claims, reasons, and evidence) instead of vague references to what you presume to be settled fact.

Quote by: Sonart "Many of us here have read your bible. Just because we don't accept it as anything more than a historical text does not make us ignorant."

Historical texts can be true. What I object to is dismissing as false a historical account because of personal bias while claiming to be a neutral decider of fact.

Quote by: Sonart And it certainly doesn't make us 'wicked'. If Christianity is intent on contantly informing my fellow citizens that I am evil and immoral by definition - which is false - for no other reason than I don't believe what they do, and that I should be treated as a second class citizen of my own country, then I have a very real and personal reason to impeach the Christian faith as irrational.

What religion are you referring to? Islam? Christianity certainly doesn't suggest that non-Christians be treated as "second class citizens". Who did Jesus walk among and heal? Christians alone?

People aren't evil and immoral because they don't believe what I believe. People are evil and immoral because they choose to commit evil and immoral acts. Lots of people believe what I believe, and are still sinners.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Isherwood Not true. Christianity is a state of belief. If you believe something, even something as nonsensical as an invisible super-being who can, but then again can't always, do anything he wants and loves us dearly yet is ready to subject his own creation to everlasting torment if they simply refuse to praise him sufficiently, it will be impossible for me to debase you of that belief without your cooperation.

I'll ignore your not-so-implied arguments about various aspects of Christianity and focus on your conclusion.

My "cooperation" is secured because I recognize that whatever is logically impossible cannot exist. If it is demonstrated that Christianity is logically impossible, I will gladly renounce my mistaken beliefs.

Quote by: Isherwood Christianity is real as a belief system, a philosophy. The tenants of the belief are laid out in the bible. Having read the bible many times, I can attest to the fact that I find it irrational and frequently incoherent.

Your attestations are not persuasive. I am interested in arguments, not testimonials.

Quote by: Isherwood I can then say that the philosophy that this book gave birth to is likewise irrational and incoherent to anyone who is not already a believer. The believers, by extension would also conform to that description in my opinion.

Very well. Where is your support for your premise?

Quote by: Isherwood You and I are walking down the street and you suddenly point to a spot on the ground at my feet and excitedly exclaim, "Look! A hundred dollar bill!" I look down a see a piece of newspaper. Other people walk by, look at the paper you're pointing at and keep walking, none of them acting as though they see a hundred dollar bill. But you insist, picking it up and putting it your wallet. Later, when you try to spend it, not one shopkeeper accepts it as money. You are totally befuddled, because you seriously think it's a hundred dollar bill, and nothing I say can convince you otherwise.

Do I actually see a hundred dollar bill, or do I see a bit of newspaper that I mitake for a one hundred dollar bill? That is, do I see a bit of newspaper that SEEMS to be a one hundred dollar bill, or do I, upon closer inspection, actually see Bejanmin Franklin's face and a few "100"s?

Quote by: Isherwood Your god is your hundred dollar bill. I'll never convince you of that until you are willing to reconsider your faith in that bill.

Analogies are arguments in and of themselves, and I find them to be singularly unhelpful in religious discussions.

Here's why your analogy is flawed:

Unlike your example, we percieve the same material facts. You and I agree about what we see--the words of the Bible. I happen to believe that the words are true, and you happen to believe that they are false.

I constantly reconsider my faith, Isherwood. And so far, I haven't been persuaded that my faith is ill-placed.

Quote by: Isherwood That doesn't mean I'm going to start agreeing with you that you're now a hundred dollars richer. You will still be my friend, but I'll always be aware of your incoherent and irrational belief. No big thing to me. A lot of my friends hold unique beliefs. I certainly don't share them all. But then, none of them feel that it's a mandate from above to convince me that their view of reality has to be mine as well.

This isn't a matter of "unique beliefs". It's a matter of whether certain claims are true or false. As far as I know, Christianity is unproven--proven neither true nor false. If you agree with that, then you should also agree that undemonstrated claims can be true, and can correctly be believed true regardless of the fact that the claim itself has not been demonstrated.