Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a .

[vy65]

So make the term Christianity as imbiguous as possible and use that as a defense? Like that hasn't been beaten to death with the 'God works in mysterious ways' and the mysticism tripe. Lets define christianity.

I don't know what I was making ambiguous. Nor how that was being used as a defense. I was questioning your taking a very broad and hasty cut at what Christianity/Christian Dogma means - and - making that generalization necessarily inconsistent with scientific rationality.

The root of christianity is christ so we can certainly distill it to just that. The combustion comment was to point out that copper furnaces burn at a temperature higher than what it takes to oxidize human flesh but you can discount the stories of the Old Testament if you like. Shadrach did not in fact get thrown into a lit furnace and survive.

Lets focus on 'christ.' He supposedly was born by Mary by some other means than every other recorded birth in history because meiosis leaves female eggs with only half of the chromosomal material. Mary got ed by her soon to be husband or someone else out of wedlock and gave birth to Jesus. She just happened to live in a time where bas s or mazmer as they were termed in aramaic were social outcasts.

He replicated fish but by the laws of thermodynamics we know that energy can neither be created or destroyed and we know by relativity that energy and matter are analogous. There goes that line of bull .

He then died after receiving multiple open wounds and the complications that ultimately would have killed him after hanging suspended from a cross like that. We know about bacterial composition and human physiology which tend to contravene the account of his resurrection.

Then there is Paul and John's account of how the above tales mean that despite us all being horrible deficient sinners he did it all for us as long as we buy the above bull we get to participate in the grace of God. John's gospel is chock full of whoppers that people take with a grain of salt already. Paul was after the fact and was just the first missionary. Being ingrained in Roman society and with our extensive knowledge of their ruling classes its no coincidence all the agreements he grants in his letter to them.

This is kind of the point. Why is the root of Christianity Christ? Why isn't it the notion of God's love, life-after-death, the church, fellowship with others, etc... etc... And if that's what you mean by Christ, why does it necessarily follow that a good Christian must believe, literally, that the events you've described actually took place exactly as the bible describes them?

And is that literal belief in the events, as-described, actually taking place the same as Christian Dogma? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

You are a lawyer. What is the Texas legal standard for witnesses that repeatedly have been proven to be inaccurate?

I literally have no clue what you're talking about. There's no standard for evaluating a witness's credibility. That determination is left up to the jury to asses for themselves, without the aid of a "legal" test. And I don't think you're talking about the Keller case- so - what are you talking about?

If you want to debase Christianity to just some nice stories without authority then fine. The individuals who see themselves as invested with authority with the stories about Jesus who actually show up as powers in a pluralist society work to prevent such debasement.

You can waffle on the semantics of the word christian to your hearts content. These principles of christianity are not true and as such trying to force things to conform to it makes seeking the truth harder.

Let me get one thing straight too. I am not an atheist. Not even remotely.

I'm not waffling on anything. You threw out terms (Christianity, Dogma, Science) - and I asked for clarification on what you meant.

If your claim is that being a christian means believing everything in the bible literally took place as written, my question is: why?

If your claim is something else, you've done a poor job explaining that.

As it stands, you still haven't given us a workable definition of Christianity (other than it having something to do with Christ), Christian Dogma, or science (for purposes of this conversation). I really don't see the point in discussing this further until you answer these questions.

[vy65]

yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws

Me and DOK, standing shoulder-to-shoulder . . .

[vy65]

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a .

lol tyler durden

[Blake]

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)?

What's Christ going to do about it?

[vy65]

Is it possible that Christian faith can be something other than the stories kids are told in Sunday school and which TEA party members, for the most part, believe actually occurred?

[Blake]

Is it possible that Christian faith can be something other than the stories kids are told in Sunday school and which TEA party members, for the most part, believe actually occurred?

Too bad sunday school teachers leave out the story of the kids getting mauled because they made fun of a bald guy.

One of my favorites, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know what I was making ambiguous. Nor how that was being used as a defense. I was questioning your taking a very broad and hasty cut at what Christianity/Christian Dogma means - and - making that generalization necessarily inconsistent with scientific rationality.



This is kind of the point. Why is the root of Christianity Christ? Why isn't it the notion of God's love, life-after-death, the church, fellowship with others, etc... etc... And if that's what you mean by Christ, why does it necessarily follow that a good Christian must believe, literally, that the events you've described actually took place exactly as the bible describes them?

And is that literal belief in the events, as-described, actually taking place the same as Christian Dogma? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.



I literally have no clue what you're talking about. There's no standard for evaluating a witness's credibility. That determination is left up to the jury to asses for themselves, without the aid of a "legal" test. And I don't think you're talking about the Keller case- so - what are you talking about?



I'm not waffling on anything. You threw out terms (Christianity, Dogma, Science) - and I asked for clarification on what you meant.

If your claim is that being a christian means believing everything in the bible literally took place as written, my question is: why?

If your claim is something else, you've done a poor job explaining that.

As it stands, you still haven't given us a workable definition of Christianity (other than it having something to do with Christ), Christian Dogma, or science (for purposes of this conversation). I really don't see the point in discussing this further until you answer these questions.

If you want to call yourself christian b picking and choosing which parts are bull , figurative and mean what they actually say then go right ahead.

the central assertions of Paul and John which are central to Christianity, specifically the virgin birth and salvation from resurrection, are specious at best.

[vy65]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

[Blake]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

usually the defense doesn't make claims.

....and who is the defendant here?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

Christians share the same trend of following Christ. You can move those goal posts on literal or grace or whatever else all you want.

All you are doing here is refusing to allow any definition come into play. then you simply discount everything with a blanket dismissal as if that is any way meaningful.

I understand that you do not take it literally. Personally i find that position much more self-serving and much less self-honest but whatevs. At the end of the day those stories are not true. You go ahead and run your life on a figurative interpretation of bull .

[vy65]

I've been very sloppy in articulating my point. For that I apologize.

usually the defense doesn't make claims.

....and who is the defendant here?

True to an extent. What I was questioning was the following:

This is the wrong thread but my point is that Christianity by virtue of its dogma being absolutely at odds with what logic demands from an intellectual approach is going to trend towards anti-intellectualism.

For example, when you begin to understand processes like meiosis, combustion, flight,and respiration many of the main tenants within the Christian faith do not jive. Many simply try to mentally ignore the incongruency but it is there always nonetheless.

The reason why Aquinas position was flawed was because when push came to shove the two are incompatible.

As such people coming to the realization that the dogma is not true leads to a decline in membership and that is undesirable to any organization.

Now I agree that the Catholic Church, Episcopalians and countless individuals are Christian and not part of the religious right but as a whole they all have a long and storied tradition of Luddism.

Its just that mega-churches which comprise the Christian right for the most part have been politically active since the 1980s and have there own storied past when it comes to stunting the search for the truth.

. . . which is filed with rank overgeneralizations. For example, the notion that Christianity (defined as "following Christ" --whatever that means) is "going to trend towards anti-intellectualism" completely ignores a very long tradition of Christian intellectuals - from Aquainas to Kant to Kierkegaard to C.S. Lewis. The notion that "Christianity" is anti-intellectual overgeneralizes to the point of excluding scores of Christian intellectuals.

I simply wanted to know what Christianity meant - which isn't asking for too much given Fuzzy's initial assertion. He's refused to give a clearer definition of what Christianity is - but that doesn't stop him from claiming all Christian's are irrational because they have to believe the teachings of Paul and John. He hasn't provided any proof why that's the case. It's just rank overgeneralization on top of overgeneralization.

When I asked for his definition, he 1) said they follow Christ and 2) tried to make this about my personal beliefs. 1) really is a poor answer and in no way supports his over-generalization of Christians and 2) is irrelevant.

All I want to know is the answer to these simple questions: 1) what is Christian dogma (as opposed to Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox, etc... Dogma) and does it necessarily require a literal interpretation of the bible; 2) if so, where's that requirement come from; and 3) why does that interpretation necessarily make all Christian's irrational and Christianity anti-intellectual?

[Blake]

All I want to know is the answer to these simple questions: 1) what is Christian dogma (as opposed to Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox, etc... Dogma) and does it necessarily require a literal interpretation of the bible; 2) if so, where's that requirement come from; and 3) why does that interpretation necessarily make all Christian's irrational and Christianity anti-intellectual?

1) I think Wikipedia should have decent entries on each religion's dogma.

1a) I think in general, Christianity does require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. You're either all-in or it's all crap, imo.

2) it comes from common sense. Who are you to pick and choose what parts are real?

3) there have been some smart Christians to be sure, but the rationality of Christianity always comes back to flying spaghetti monsters.

[Phenomanul]

Like I said, these words are piercing...

Jesus is very sensitive.

Throwing Boutons a bone... how nice of you. I guess I should have also called that you would be one of the first among many to do so...

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a .

Those in your camp can only hope. Scriptures run counter to your argument that Jesus doesn't care, but go ahead and get all your kicks in while you still can... and then when you face Him on judgement day, be sure to claim ignorance, 'that you simply didn't know any better'.... oh wait... I might have messed that up for you... meh... Frankly, you are all accountable for your own actions. If you choose to reject Jesus' offer of grace, that's entirely on YOU.

What's Christ going to do about it?

He's giving humanity ample time to turn away from their sinfulness, to repent and turn to Him... We must all take accountability for our own actions. If you want to take Jesus head on, however, be my guest...

yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws.

So why should I be 'forced' to live under a government defined strictly by your perspective, your world-view? Oh that's right, you're advocating the need for a fascist state defined solely by your atheistic view... because in your mind godless secularism, and moral relativism is the only correct view by which the government should operate...

In other words, the voice of millions of American believers whose opinion doesn't jive with your own dogma should be left unrepresented for the greater 'good' of having a government that imposes only your beliefs... Got it.

smh... Some people simply fail to grasp the most basic of concepts concerning the Democratic process... Did you not take U.S. Government in High School?

I don't have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan belief system, but they're en led to believe whatever they want, and to lobby for whatever they want... Ultimately, popular vote wins out... as long as it doesn't interfere with our Cons utionally protected rights...

[redzero]

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)? [Much like how Saul of Tarsus was reprimanded by Jesus for persecuting Him - even though all Saul did was persecute the early Church.]

Anyways, your hatred for all things Christ, is a constant reminder that GOD's Word is true... because 1) otherwise, you wouldn't constantly apply the "Christian" label so broadly in negative light [meaning that if you had a legitimate gripe against someone because they were greedy, powerhungry, lustful, deceitful, hypocritical or malevolent you should call them out for that - instead of harping on the fact that they chose to label themselves as / or that you believe they are "Christians" when most likely that isn't even the case]. 2) you've singled out Christianity as the "curse of the nation / world / humanity / history," and by proxy as the root of our country's problems (with that sentiment, the spirit of the anti-christ is manifest in almost every other post of yours - something which the Bible foretold would be a prevalent belief by those persecuting the Church [paraphrasing]).

So boutons, because the Bible specifically speaks about people like you - and since you gain nothing whatsoever by hating Christians it stands to reason that your hatred is simply fueled by the spirit of this world, specifically that of your father, Satan [-paraphrasing Jesus] and because you embody that hatred, your existence [and the existence of other belligerent Christ-haters like yourself] only adds credence to the veracity of Scripture and is another in a long line of profetical accuracies contained by the 'book' you so disdain. Of course, these words will probably "cut at your heart," because it's not a truth that you willfully want to acknowledge...

Having said that, I'm expecting nothing short of the obligatory three-letter acronym you've come to be known for... (AND not surprisingly enough -mocking rebuttals from those who would rarely throw you a bone - that's right, other Christ-haters will come to your defense... all for the sake of mocking Jesus Christ...)

/ end rant

Is this guy serious?

[Phenomanul]

1) I think Wikipedia should have decent entries on each religion's dogma.

1a) I think in general, Christianity does require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. You're either all-in or it's all crap, imo.

2) it comes from common sense. Who are you to pick and choose what parts are real?

3) there have been some smart Christians to be sure, but the rationality of Christianity always comes back to flying spaghetti monsters.

The fathers of the modern Scientific movement were predominantly and without question, believers of Jesus Christ. That you all constantly try to downplay the significance of that observation, and even claim otherwise is pretty disingenuous, downright reprehensible, and intellectually dishonest.

To me the rationality of naturalistic atheists always comes back to the faith-based belief that "life sprung on its own," by chance, even though that premise is continually negated, and the opposite constantly affirmed (that life can only come from life...) What's certain is that you all will continue to deny that you have deposited your belief system on chance (RG will even give you his version of the probabilities involved...) eh... Potato / Potahtoh

Of course we could do this all day... and neither one of us is going to budge even a smidgeon...

I would say, "whatever, to each his own"... but we both know, that you and others here just utterly hate the fact that anyone out there would follow Christ... which is why you constantly hurl insults in our direction. DO AS YOU PLEASE.

[redzero]

Where did God's life come from?

[Phenomanul]

Where did God's life come from?

I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you... You got it aaaaaaaall figured out.

Peace be with you... in the name of JESUS CHRIST.

[redzero]

You are starting to post like a crazy person. Just a heads up.

[Phenomanul]

You are starting to post like a crazy person. Just a heads up.

Why, because I'm quoting scripture? I've always done so.


"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me [Jesus] before it hated you."
John 15:18

"All men will hate you because of me [Jesus], but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Matthew 24:9

"Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you."
1 John 3:13

"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: "Your brothers who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy!' Yet they will be put to shame."
Isaiah 66:5

[RandomGuy]

I simply wanted to know what Christianity meant - which isn't asking for too much given Fuzzy's initial assertion. He's refused to give a clearer definition of what Christianity is - but that doesn't stop him from claiming all Christian's are irrational because they have to believe the teachings of Paul and John.

Believing something without evidence of it, seems to me to meet the definition of irrationality.

Marked by a lack of accord with reason

If I told you I read that long ago the world was populated by 500-foot tall sentient carrots who gave birth to humanity through sneezing, and I got that from a badly translated 2,000 year old book, written by someone with every motivation to make things up, and with parts of the account heavily edited by long-dead monks, would you find that irrational?

I have no evidence of 500 foot tall carrots, outside of this one account.

[RandomGuy]

The fathers of the modern Scientific movement were predominantly and without question, believers of Jesus Christ. That you all constantly try to downplay the significance of that

Yes they were.

If they weren't, up until about 1900 or so, they faced severe social ostracism and marginalisation.

I would point out that in the modern era, the most recent execution for heresy was 1826, and it was commonplace to execute people for going against church teachings up until about that time.

Kind of hard to buck the system when the price was death. I would swear up and down how much I believed, if the alternative is being burned at the stake.

I don't have to downplay anything. It is what it is.

If you are brought up believing something, and fairly intelligent, you can rationalize all sorts of irrational things.

Especially when you have no evidence to the contrary.

The problem for your trumpeting of this fact is that, as more evidence about the universe is discovered by mankind, the less likely brilliant people are to deeply believe in various religions.

[RandomGuy]

Is this guy serious?

He is indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

One of a long, storied line. Props.

[RandomGuy]

.

To me the rationality of naturalistic atheists always comes back to the faith-based belief that "life sprung on its own," by chance, even though that premise is continually negated, and the opposite constantly affirmed (that life can only come from life...) What's certain is that you all will continue to deny that you have deposited your belief system on chance (RG will even give you his version of the probabilities involved...) eh... Potato / Potahtoh

The God of the gaps schtick again.

Don't you ever get tired of that failed thrust?