Evangelical Christians

[Anastasis 23398]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Rich Romans and their emperor made Christianity fashionable.

 No more martyrs.

 

Actually, women, whose status was largely marginalized in the competing pagan societies and relatively elevated in the Christian circles, were perhaps most responsible for driving the growth of Christianity. Please stop talking out of your ass.  Some people here have actually studied this stuff.   

Edited May 21, 2018 by Anastasis

[deadshank 24651]

3 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You need to go look at the post (which I quoted) in my reply.

It was asserted that Baptist churches, that he has attended, don't talk about that bullshit. Part of that bullshit being gays.

I found some documentation that Ed Young, pastor of the second largest baptist church in Houston, does discuss that bullshit.

OK. The posts are a little disjointed.  

Sure, Ed has, on occasion, spoken about homosexuality.  It's never been an ongoing or frequent topic.  He's even said as far as sins go that it didn't even make the top 10.

Pretty much all of his sermons have to do with the sins and shortcomings  we have in our own lives, owning up to it and dealing with it.  I know this site is very anti-Christian and I can deal with it.  I'm not offended by it or take it the wrong way.  You guys and girls are going to believe what you believe; as will I.  

I have a really good friend who is a hard-core atheist and loathes Christians, doesn't believe Christ existed and despises all things church related.  We get along just fine because I respect his world view and him.  He actually cried when he found out I prayed for his dad and him when his dad was dying of cancer .  He didn't believe a thing I prayed about or to whom I prayed; but he knew I was sincere and loved him just as much as anyone from the same cloth as me (my cloth is ragged and tattered).  

When you get your pride out of the way, it's not hard to love those you don't agree with.  Pride is the worst of all sins.  We could all swallow our pride a little more than we do.  The world would be a better place.

 

[David Dennison 18662]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Actually, women, whose status was largely marginalized in the competing pagan societies and relatively elevated in the Christian circles, were perhaps most responsible for driving the growth of Christianity. Please stop talking out of your ass.  Some people here have actually studied this stuff.   

Some people like me. 

[gsoda3 3237]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Some people like me. 

i don't know where you studied or what you studied, but if you think rich roman patrons and constantine were the base of christianity and completely write off the previous 200 years' worth of the church's history before that i can tell you your time was wasted.

[David Dennison 18662]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

i don't know where you studied or what you studied, but if you think rich roman patrons and constantine were the base of christianity and completely write off the previous 200 years' worth of the church's history before that i can tell you your time was wasted.

I said they made it fashionable.

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Actually, women, whose status was largely marginalized in the competing pagan societies and relatively elevated in the Christian circles, were perhaps most responsible for driving the growth of Christianity. Please stop talking out of your ass.  Some people here have actually studied this stuff.   

undefeated.

[Anastasis 23398]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

undefeated.

yep, between marriage and child raising its the most significant factor in the growth of early christianity.  The list of hagiographies that include the component of a wife or a mother are long 

[gsoda3 3237]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I said they made it fashionable.

 

typical weaselly/non-committal response that can mean anything you want.  btw this was what you were responding to in case you forgot.

18 hours ago, Rich Horns said:

Lol you dumb shits actually believe this nonsense. It was all created by brilliant rich people like me to keep you rubes in line so we could pillage your wallets and women and have you afraid to do anything about it or else the invisible man in the clouds is going to punish you. What a bunch of morons. 

 

4 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I hear this nonsense a lot, and it’s totally illogical. Yeah, rich people started Christianity (laughable) to keep people in line. Just an asinine thought process. And you call us morons?  Lulz. 

 

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You should read up on Constantine and the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman empire.

 

"fashionable".  indeed.

[David Dennison 18662]

Indeed.

[BrickHorn 18197]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:05 AM, Aphelion said:

Everyone who has walked planet earth from the dawn of time does this to some degree.  In every discipline and at every level of reasoning skill.  Do you think you latched on to the "insufficient proof that Jesus existed" argument from a place of pure & unadulterated objective search for truth?  Did you run through both attacking and defending both sides of this argument?  

I think it’s worth responding to this, because it exemplifies the kind of false equivalence so fashionable in today’s public discourse.  

You and I have gotten crosswise on two topics: historicity of Jesus and free will.  Those happen to be hot button topics for me, and have been for years.  And the reason for that is not because I assumed the answer and then set out to defend it.  The truth is quite the opposite: my convictions are so firm, because I believe the evidence and logic so strongly point to a truth that contradicted my prior beliefs (Jesus myth) or that I find somewhat depressing (lack of free will).  

I was raised in a religious home and attended church and Sunday school every week until college.  I had no doubt in the historical Jesus until I first read about the Christ Myth theory some 15+ years ago.  The evidence and argument was compelling, and I started reading about it and debating it on line.  What became clear very quickly is that the historicist case is weak.  Very weak.  

I continue to read up on the topic today, and the historicist view simply doesn’t impress me.  It tends to ignore the actual record and focuses instead on red herrings like scholarly opinion and flawed logic based on flawed assumptions (e.g. “If Jesus didn’t live, why were Christians willing to die as martyrs hundreds of years later?”).  

I find the mythicist view satisfying, for sure.     It actually gives me more respect for original Christianity as a system of belief. But make no mistake: I was convinced by evidence and reason that something I previously believed to be true was actually false.  I didn’t decide to believe it because I just wanted to.

The same is true of free will, except I don’t really enjoy the idea that we lack free will.  It’s a little depressing, honestly.  I simply find that conclusion logically unavoidable.  So I accept it as true, despite the fact that I would prefer it not be.  And I find the arguments for free will to be flawed, unfortunately.

So no, we do not approach these the same way.  Unless you started from an atheist bent and were convinced by pure force of reason that Jesus walked then Earth and his Dad broke logic apart to allow you to cause uncaused causes.

[XYZ 2154]

BrickHorn:

Please start a new thread and explain why you think there is no free will.

[Anastasis 23398]

The myth argument is the result of some new age navel gazing nonsense by people who prefer a gnostic perspective on Jesus' teachings because it aligns with their personal theology or their personal inclinations of theology.   

[Anastasis 23398]

And further, the harsh rebuke of that nonsense thousands of years ago also integrates into the discussion of martyrdom. The gnostics were a bunch of bitches. While the orthodox camp were willing to give their life in witness to their faith, the gnostics rolled out like some right out cowards. 

[BrickHorn 18197]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The myth argument is the result of some new age navel gazing nonsense by people who prefer a gnostic perspective on Jesus' teachings because it aligns with their personal theology or their personal inclinations of theology.   

There’s a lot of that, no doubt.  I disregard the mysticism and bullshit from that side, the same way I do from the historicist side.  

[David Dennison 18662]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And further, the harsh rebuke of that nonsense thousands of years ago also integrates into the discussion of martyrdom. The gnostics were a bunch of bitches. While the orthodox camp were willing to give their life in witness to their faith, the gnostics rolled out like some right out cowards. 

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God?

[Gil Bang 25901]

1 hour ago, deadshank said:

OK. The posts are a little disjointed.  

Sure, Ed has, on occasion, spoken about homosexuality.  It's never been an ongoing or frequent topic.  He's even said as far as sins go that it didn't even make the top 10.

Pretty much all of his sermons have to do with the sins and shortcomings  we have in our own lives, owning up to it and dealing with it.  I know this site is very anti-Christian and I can deal with it.  I'm not offended by it or take it the wrong way.  You guys and girls are going to believe what you believe; as will I.  

I have a really good friend who is a hard-core atheist and loathes Christians, doesn't believe Christ existed and despises all things church related.  We get along just fine because I respect his world view and him.  He actually cried when he found out I prayed for his dad and him when his dad was dying of cancer .  He didn't believe a thing I prayed about or to whom I prayed; but he knew I was sincere and loved him just as much as anyone from the same cloth as me (my cloth is ragged and tattered).  

When you get your pride out of the way, it's not hard to love those you don't agree with.  Pride is the worst of all sins.  We could all swallow our pride a little more than we do.  The world would be a better place.

 

Holy shit.  

This site is "anti-Christian"?  What a crock of shit. 

You Jesus people are bigger pussies and are more easily offended than Texas HS football coaches. 

I'd bet my next commission that over half of the posters here self-identify as "Christian". 

[deadshank 24651]

36 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Holy shit.  

This site is "anti-Christian"?  What a crock of shit. 

You Jesus people are bigger pussies and are more easily offended than Texas HS football coaches. 

I'd bet my next commission that over half of the posters here self-identify as "Christian". 

Then perhaps I should have said posters in the CR.   Sorry that riled you. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God?

 

 

[Guest]

On 5/20/2018 at 4:04 PM, Brisketexan said:

Very good thoughts, and well-stated.  However....you're missing the underlying point that BC and I are trying to get at.

Yes, the "younger generation" is becoming more atheist/agnostic/anti-"faith." Where BC and I come from is....why is that the case?  Is Christianity -- as many of us understand the Gospel-based faith -- so incompatible with their worldview?  OR....is there a problem arising from the fact that the loudest, most visible segment of Christianity is the fundagelicals (the politicized, anti-science, discriminatory, etc. folks)?

Think of it this way.  Texas A&M is just a university.  In many endeavors, it has decent, even good, academics.  And, most of us DO know some "good aggies" -- that is, they are educated, smart professionals, and they don't buy into the aggy cult stuff.  Yet, most of us Longhorns remain utterly disgusted and appalled by aggies in general.  Why is that?  Because we see so many loudmouth ags exhibiting a near-psychotic, all-consuming hatred of another university; we saw the report on the bonfire collapse pointing to aggy groupthink and a culture against questioning authority as causes, and the ags received that report...and ignored it; we see their pathetic socially-retarded move to the SEC and pretending they were ALWAYS members of some big-boy club as just sad wannabe behavior.....and the list goes on.

As a result, we have a bad taste in our mouth for aggies in general.  We don't think a lot of the university or the graduates it produces.  It takes a lot to overcome our biases.

Young people are that way about "christianity."  The see the most visible self-professed christians in our society, and those folks are visible for all the wrong reasons.  If THAT is christianity (and to an outside observer, that's what it appears to be), why WOULDN'T they be utterly turned off by the whole thing?

I agree that  the conversation between folks like BC and me and younger folks may be a lost cause.  But we already KNOW that conversation with the fundagelicals is a lost cause.  So talking with the rational folks in the room -- even if they are going to be very hard to persuade -- seems like the best course of action.  Of course, it may all be a lost cause.  Christianity in the US may be dead (soon), and "christians" will have killed it.  So be it.  The Gospels will survive, the faith will survive, somewhere, somehow.  Maybe, if this current incarnation is what Christianity is destined to be here, better for it to die.

I do think the un-Christlike behavior and beliefs of outspoken & visible fundamentalists is a contributing factor in the move away from Christianity (particularly in its organized form) in the younger generations.  But based on my own experiences and from numerous conversations with people in my peer group both in person and in online forums, I do not believe that this is the most significant stumbling block for young folks today.  The reason most young nonbelievers do not believe and/or have little interest in being a Christian is because they do not believe its fundamental claims are true and they do not believe they are true because they believe they are inherently irrational.  It wouldn't matter if every fundamentalists on the planet suddenly transformed into the most loving and honest and generous person; it wouldn't change the fact that many younger folks simply believe that it is irrational to be a Christian.

I believe the above is true because I saw this in the prevailing worldview I grew up in and also because I have this conversation on a fairly regular basis and I listen to what folks have to say.  This is what they tell me and I take them at their word.  Ask all the nonbelievers on this forum and they will say the same. 

 

34 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I think it’s worth responding to this, because it exemplifies the kind of false equivalence so fashionable in today’s public discourse.  

You and I have gotten crosswise on two topics: historicity of Jesus and free will.  Those happen to be hot button topics for me, and have been for years.  And the reason for that is not because I assumed the answer and then set out to defend it.  The truth is quite the opposite: my convictions are so firm, because I believe the evidence and logic so strongly point to a truth that contradicted my prior beliefs (Jesus myth) or that I find somewhat depressing (lack of free will).  

I was raised in a religious home and attended church and Sunday school every week until college.  I had no doubt in the historical Jesus until I first read about the Christ Myth theory some 15+ years ago.  The evidence and argument was compelling, and I started reading about it and debating it on line.  What became clear very quickly is that the historicist case is weak.  Very weak.  

I continue to read up on the topic today, and the historicist view simply doesn’t impress me.  It tends to ignore the actual record and focuses instead on red herrings like scholarly opinion and flawed logic based on flawed assumptions (e.g. “If Jesus didn’t live, why were Christians willing to die as martyrs hundreds of years later?”).  

I find the mythicist view satisfying, for sure.     It actually gives me more respect for original Christianity as a system of belief. But make no mistake: I was convinced by evidence and reason that something I previously believed to be true was actually false.  I didn’t decide to believe it because I just wanted to.

The same is true of free will, except I don’t really enjoy the idea that we lack free will.  It’s a little depressing, honestly.  I simply find that conclusion logically unavoidable.  So I accept it as true, despite the fact that I would prefer it not be.  And I find the arguments for free will to be flawed, unfortunately.

So no, we do not approach these the same way.  Unless you started from an atheist bent and were convinced by pure force of reason that Jesus walked then Earth and his Dad broke logic apart to allow you to cause uncaused causes.

To elaborate on what I meant, all persons have aesthetic preferences which influence their beliefs and the arguments they use.  This is true in even the most dry and abstract forms of reasoning.  Why do most accept the axiom of choice without reservation while some do not?  Why do finitists reject the axiom of infinity?  Why did Einstein add the cosmological constant and why did he have issues with quantum mechanics?  When evaluating an argument, the aesthetic preferences and philosophical predispositions of the one giving the argument is not what's important; the argument is valid or not based on its own merits.  I often see accusation of the argument is invalid because this person is biased.  If that is the case, then every argument would be invalid.  I'm not saying that you are making this claim; I'm highlighting what happens if we take it to its extreme.

But taking the intent of what you are saying, we do approach the topic in the same way with the following carve outs: atheism is not the default neutral/unbiased view and should not be considered as such and no classical theist would claim that God broke or circumvented logic.  Logic and the physical laws of the natural world are not the same thing.  Logic is the game of games, while physicals laws are the rules of a particular game.  One is not bound by the rules of a particular game if they aren't playing within it. 

I'm very surprised that you find the Jesus myth argument so compelling.  There are some arguments that I ultimately think are incorrect but I admit are compelling and tough to argue against.  For example, I think the arguments against free will are challenging and worth serious consideration even though I believe in free will.  I also think there are arguments against Christianity that are worth serious discussion and consideration (the problem of evil, for example).  So it is not the case that I reject the Jesus myth argument due to unfair bias.  I reject it because it is conspiracy theory lunacy on par with faking the lunar landing. 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30133]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

And further, the harsh rebuke of that nonsense thousands of years ago also integrates into the discussion of martyrdom. The gnostics were a bunch of bitches. While the orthodox camp were willing to give their life in witness to their faith, the gnostics rolled out like some right out cowards. 

You have to admit, that Demiurge theory for why Old Testament God was such a vengeful little bitch does makes sense.    The option is bi-polar God -

[Brian Fantana 6668]

3 hours ago, deadshank said:

Then perhaps I should have said posters in the CR.   Sorry that riled you. 

You're still full of shit. There are only a handful of non religious folk here.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Name five

[deadshank 24651]

7 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're still full of shit. There are only a handful of non religious folk here.

Opinions make horse races   

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're still full of shit. There are only a handful of non religious folk here.

Lulz. Lot more than that dude. There are enough to where dozens feel emboldened enough to openly deride the Christians here. 

[Anastasis 23398]

10 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

You have to admit, that Demiurge theory for why Old Testament God was such a vengeful little bitch does makes sense.    The option is bi-polar God -

marcion kinda had a point. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lulz. Lot more than that dude. There are enough to where dozens feel emboldened enough to openly deride the Christians here. 

Dozens? I definitely saw a few being openly derisive, but not dozens. Let's not have a white Christian victim pity party.

[Guest]

No pity party, just party.

[Guest]

You think you have long hair, you own the world? That the idea, huh?

[Fozzz 152]

oatmeal raisin cookies are nasty

[Brian Fantana 6668]

You take that back mother fucker

[deadshank 24651]

13 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Dozens? I definitely saw a few being openly derisive, but not dozens. Let's not have a white Christian victim pity party.

I know you are replying to RK; however, if you read my post again, I said I'm not offended by those that don't believe what I do and respect their belief system.  I'm no victim looking for a pity party.  I don't knock atheists and their world view.  To each his own.  

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

oatmeal raisin cookies are nasty

You wanna go?

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Dozens? I definitely saw a few being openly derisive, but not dozens. Let's not have a white Christian victim pity party.

Yeah, no pity party. I could not care less. But yeah, dozens. Maybe you don’t pay attention to it because you’re not Christian?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

16 hours ago, XYZ said:

BrickHorn:

Please start a new thread and explain why you think there is no free will.

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

23 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yeah, no pity party. I could not care less. But yeah, dozens. Maybe you don’t pay attention to it because you’re not Christian?

Maybe you exaggerate because you're a Christian?

[Guest]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Maybe you exaggerate because you're a Christian?

Nope. I know this is difficult but just look through this thread for a mere sample. 

[wildcat09 29269]

27 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yeah, no pity party. I could not care less. But yeah, dozens. Maybe you don’t pay attention to it because you’re not Christian?

Name them.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Name them.

I’ll read through the thread you goddamned lazy motherfuckers. Will be later though. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Guest

[F250 28703]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

oatmeal raisin cookies are nasty

Freshly baked oatmeal raisin cookies are heaven sent.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Just don't go on a shooting spree after you've made a list of all the people who've wronged you mmkay?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

I believe in a hybrid model; forked journey with guardrails kinda thing.

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 943]

14 minutes ago, F250 said:

Freshly baked oatmeal raisin cookies are heaven sent.

This kind of bullshit is the real reason the next generation is rejecting the church. 

 

[JBJ 3649]

10 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

This always becomes a natural extension of the free will discussion, along with quantum reality.  I'm not sure I believe it the way you want, but I can argue a number of viewpoints. 

I've always thought theology and philosophy deserve their own board.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This always becomes a natural extension of the free will discussion, along with quantum reality.  I'm not sure I believe it the way you want, but I can argue a number of viewpoints. 

I've always thought theology and philosophy deserve their own board.

Of course, free will is the opposite of predestination, you can't talk about one without the other. And I certainly agree that a deeper dive into the topic probably does not belong on a politics board. I would fully support a philosophy forum being created. 

Although, if God has not predestined the eventually existence of the forum, we might be shit out of luck. 

[F250 28703]

3 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

Are you referring to theological determinism "Calvinism" or something like libertarian free will vs philosophical determinism?

 

[F250 28703]

3 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

Surly acting up. Double post.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by F250
Double post

[TwiceHorn 31309]

3 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

All the fucking presbyterians!!!111!!  👹👹

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

Are you referring to theological determinism "Calvinism" or something like libertarian free will vs philosophical determinism?

 

No clue. I'm not well read on the various isms, so can't speak to any one groups thinking. I'm more referring to it in the abstract, that the events that happen in between a human's birth and death were out of their control, that a higher power controlled their actions, and at their birth the higher power knew how their story would end. 

 

What ism would that fall under? 

[David Dennison 18662]

3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

No clue. I'm not well read on the various isms, so can't speak to any one groups thinking. I'm more referring to it in the abstract, that the events that happen in between a human's birth and death were out of their control, that a higher power controlled their actions, and at their birth the higher power knew how their story would end. 

 

What ism would that fall under? 

Theism.

[TwiceHorn 31309]

18 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

No clue. I'm not well read on the various isms, so can't speak to any one groups thinking. I'm more referring to it in the abstract, that the events that happen in between a human's birth and death were out of their control, that a higher power controlled their actions, and at their birth the higher power knew how their story would end. 

 

What ism would that fall under? 

That's Calvinism more or less.  To be contrasted with Arminianism.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TwiceHorn