|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 9:29:48 GMT
I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Semantics aside, the answer to the question posed MUST always be a circular argument because there is no factual, logical proof that Christianity is any different from any other man made religion. There is no proof that Jesus was the 'son of God', there is no proof that God even exists. As it is all based on hearsay, post dated accounts which have been translated and interpreted for over two thousand years, the only reason for belief remains the circular argument of 'I believe in Jesus/God because I believe I the myth because the Bible says so I believe it and I just believe it etc etc etc' In particular "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." is unproven and in physical terms an impossibility UNLESS you believe in divinity which in and of itself is a circular argument. The idea hat Jesus died for the sins of the world is purely an act of emotional blackmail of the faithful and an example of the power the church seek to have over its community, as is the corroborating arguments of original sin and 'free will'. You appear to have missed the point I was making, or at least ignore it. The answer rendered is not circular unless you conflate another question with the original question, what I earlier called making assumptions. The second question is basically "Are the claims that differentiate Christianity from others true and valid?" You are assuming that the answer given was actually being given to this second question, which wasn't even asked. Perhaps it was intended to be asked in the original question, but if so it certainly was not clearly set forth.
If when I read "Gone With the Wind" somebody had asked me to differentiate between Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler I could have set forth several differences. Does it matter if they are fictional characters to do this? No they can be set apart. It is the same with religions. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection" is a concept that materially sets Christianity apart from other religions. It doesn't matter if any of this proven, or totally made up, it still differentiates Christianity due to the concept of redemption for sin. That is why the answer rendered on its own is not circular. There was no "I believe Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says so." You have added that as a straw man that you then strike down.
Clusium was said to be so indoctrinated that she could not see why her answer was circular.. It appears to me that the problem really is with atheists who are so steeped in a need to argue that theism is wrong that they seem to be unable to render their own discussion without resorting to an argument about the validity of God, or other religious beliefs. That is what you and others have been doing here. It is if you are what many atheists claim religious people suffer from, blinded by an obsessive belief. You seem to have to turn everything around to an argument against the validity of theistic beliefs. I have just rendered my arguments objectively, not making a case for or against the actual divinity of Jesus. Your last comment is basically just an appeal to emotion, and totally off the subject. So from the question posed, you and others simply see this as a launch board to level any argument that comes to mind as a rant against Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 8:39:28 GMT
The Holy Spirit has always been difficult to explain in my opinion. It is no wonder that the concept of the Holy Spirit is different as held by individual Christians or different sects. I think one commonly held attribute is that the Holy Spirit can be just about anywhere, touching the hearts of people. But this is a topic that is really worthy of its own thread. This thread is just fine to answer the question, because it is still relevant to RFS and the topic.
If that is a commonly held attribute, it still doesn't answer the question about what the holy spirit really is and where it comes from and what it connects too? That would involve God right and that is not tangible right?
Once again, if this is the subject you wish to discuss start another thread, or try to discuss it with others here. I have said all I am interested in saying on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 8:37:09 GMT
No, the original question was asking what makes Christianity different. The ressurection of Christ as a concept was the answer given, and it in fact does differentiate Christianity from other religions. So you too are setting up a straw man with elements that are not in the original question asked and the original answer given. But I have a question of my own. In this thread three people, who are non-Christian and possibly arheists all have gone off on tangents and morphed the original question into something else, about proving the truth of Christian claims. Why has this happened? You bring up a different subject than the original question. I made no such case to prove Jesus as the Son of God from fictional accounts or otherwise. I asked a question about Harry Potter as an analogy about differentiation. It was by design that I chose a fictional example. I am surprised that you missed the point in my doing so. My point is that if you can differentiate groups in a fictional account such as in Harry Potter books that you can do the same thing with religions even if you believe their claims are similarly fictional. That question is NOT my question, nor has it been for some other posters. What makes Jesus the son of God? It is a simply asked question yet is being digressed. I'm not interested in the theological history of what makes Christianity different from other religions. I really don't care what your question is. You made a response arguing with what I posted as if I was wrong in my argument. I was correct and like others you have gone off on a tangent. It is something in common with politicians don't answer the question at hand but deflect to a different question or answer. The only reason I joined this thread was to state that clusium's answer about what differentiates Christianity from other religions was not circular. My suggestion is to start another thread if this is what you wish to discuss. If you are not interested in what differentiates Christianity from other religions you shouldn't have joined a discussion that was about that, and really only that subject.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 11:52:40 GMT
Guidelines??? How's this for "guidelines". A fellow walks up to you and puts a gun to your head. His guidelines are, " Give me all your money or I'll blow your head off." Are you exercising "free will" when you hand over your wallet?". To a slightly lesser extent, it's the same thing with some cults that call themselves a religion: You (the lowlife), tow the party line or we (the church) will make your life and/or the lives of your loved ones a living hell. We will forbid them from talking to you, or attending your wedding. In other words, whether they (the family) like it or not, the "guidelines" require the family to intimidate you into obedience. To put it in layman's terms: Once you've been brainwashed, we baptize you. Once you're baptized, you're f***ed. There's no turning back. lol at the notion the analogy is even remotely similar. But this part: "To a slightly lesser extent, it's the same thing with some cults that call themselves a religion: You (the lowlife), tow the party line or we (the church) will make your life and/or the lives of your loved ones a living hell. We will forbid them from talking to you, or attending your wedding. In other words, whether they (the family) like it or not, the "guidelines" require the family to intimidate you into obedience." ..is pretty much the case.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 11:48:59 GMT
When I was 36 years old I had ceased going to Mormon services and was worshipping with a Presbyterian congregation. In some ways they were like the Mormons, to officially join them one had to go through a series of Sunday School lessons to learn what they believed. I did so and one week we were interviewed by an elder to determine if we had the essential required beliefs. I passed but selected not to become a member. I had told my mother about the opportunity and she started crying. She said she could explain an inactive son to her friends but not an excommunicated one. Back then it a Mormon was excommunicated for joining another church. She said her friends would all assume that I was involved in grave sins. She was correct, so I just let it pass and attended as a non-member. Sam Young cried when he read his letter of excommunication. It was still a wrenching experience. You are ignoring the immense amount of mind control involved. According to the church their action against him will result in his being separated from his family in eternity. So even if a member leaves it affects their families. I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying it isn't there. What you and others experience is simply grief at losing something familiar to you even if you can't abide it. It's similar to divorce. That has nothing to do with mind control and more to do with realizing that you've lost in some way or another a relationship that would never be the same anyway based on your decisions which you were perfectly free to make. You had no special mental mightiness, you just had a stronger dislike for the teachings than your family did. YOU, not the teaching, is what separates the family. Both you and your family find your integrity to your own views/beliefs to be more important than the family tie which is exactly what Scripture said would happen. Yes, there are aspects of a greiving process involved, but there is also rather pervasive mind control as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Look up the Stockholm Syndrome. Actually my mother had more of a problem with the teachings than I did. At that time it was the culture that caused me to leave, being judged for what I was. On the other hand she was a "Cultural Mormon" who stayed in for the culture. No, the family tie was more important to me so I didn't formally separate from the church. I guess you would have to experience this thing to know what it is about. I have and apparently you have not.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 10:12:01 GMT
I was the first to mention it on page 1. Yes, you were, which I duly noted April 8, 2017 when I became only the second person to mention it.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 7:06:25 GMT
I still think "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" should make more lists here. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 5:44:48 GMT
I agree with you here. I prefer to say that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit rather than "by" but this is a minor point of semantics. What is the holy spirit? Where is the holy spirit and what does this even mean? The Holy Spirit has always been difficult to explain in my opinion. It is no wonder that the concept of the Holy Spirit is different as held by individual Christians or different sects. I think one commonly held attribute is that the Holy Spirit can be just about anywhere, touching the hearts of people. But this is a topic that is really worthy of its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 5:17:34 GMT
No, are using a different definition of the question posed or what is being asked or you are using the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts. Did you read all of my post? Here you are doing once again what I said had been done already, to make assumptions about what was claimed about Jesus and the Bible. Yes, some discussion went that way as a tangent, but there was no circular reasoning in the first answer to the original question. Actually I think you are formulating a straw man argument. The question at hand does not rely upon whether Jesus was the true Son of God or that God exists. Whether true or not, the claim that Jesus was the Son of God and was ressurected to save mankind differentiates Christianity from other religions.
Are the houses of Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin all the same, or can they be differentiated by some characteristics?So you are making your own strawmans here, by using what we know as fictional accounts and yet comparing them to the bible which also contains mostly fictional elements in it which the deluded buy into.
What does Jesus being ressurected to save mankind even mean and where was he resurrected too? This is an illogical fallacy in Christianity. It doesn't matter if it separates it from other religions, that is not the point or question being poised as what makes Christ the son of God? You would have to define God first though to give a reasonable and lucid answer.
No, the original question was asking what makes Christianity different. The ressurection of Christ as a concept was the answer given, and it in fact does differentiate Christianity from other religions. So you too are setting up a straw man with elements that are not in the original question asked and the original answer given. But I have a question of my own. In this thread three people, who are non-Christian and possibly arheists all have gone off on tangents and morphed the original question into something else, about proving the truth of Christian claims. Why has this happened? You bring up a different subject than the original question. I made no such case to prove Jesus as the Son of God from fictional accounts or otherwise. I asked a question about Harry Potter as an analogy about differentiation. It was by design that I chose a fictional example. I am surprised that you missed the point in my doing so. My point is that if you can differentiate groups in a fictional account such as in Harry Potter books that you can do the same thing with religions even if you believe their claims are similarly fictional.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 20:47:49 GMT
I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Semantics aside, the answer to the question posed MUST always be a circular argument because there is no factual, logical proof that Christianity is any different from any other man made religion. There is no proof that Jesus was the 'son of God', there is no proof that God even exists. As it is all based on hearsay, post dated accounts which have been translated and interpreted for over two thousand years, the only reason for belief remains the circular argument of 'I believe in Jesus/God because I believe I the myth because the Bible says so I believe it and I just believe it etc etc etc' No, are using a different definition of the question posed or what is being asked or you are using the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts. Did you read all of my post? Here you are doing once again what I said had been done already, to make assumptions about what was claimed about Jesus and the Bible. Yes, some discussion went that way as a tangent, but there was no circular reasoning in the first answer to the original question. Actually I think you are formulating a straw man argument. The question at hand does not rely upon whether Jesus was the true Son of God or that God exists. Whether true or not, the claim that Jesus was the Son of God and was ressurected to save mankind differentiates Christianity from other religions. Are the houses of Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin all the same, or can they be differentiated by some characteristics?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 20:03:28 GMT
It was still a wrenching experience. You are ignoring the immense amount of mind control involved. According to the church their action against him will result in his being separated from his family in eternity. So even if a member leaves it affects their families. The term "mind control" conjures up images of hypnotism and "Manchurian Candidate" type situations, and that makes it easy to casually deny the kind of effects you're talking about. Instead of "mind control", I think saying "psychological pressure" would be closer to the mark, and much less easily dismissed.
Those are extreme forms of mind control, but I think the term generally conjures up various forms of "brainwashing" whether subtle or dramatic. I think the term "psychological pressure" is too vague and not really defined or used to describe organizations exhibiting cult-like behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 19:45:50 GMT
It has somewhat to do with religion, so I'm not gonna make it OT. I'm somewhat intrigued by the concept (suicidal 18 year old goes with an eccentric 80 year old) I don't remember it having much to do with religion. It is more about a philosophical view of how to live.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 19:24:03 GMT
Rational Faiths"And yet… it still makes me uncomfortable that the modern LDS method of dealing with internal dissent has such strong parallels with global authoritarian regimes. At the very least, I would think that this should give us pause and prompt some deep self-reflection. Do we really want the Chinese Communist Party and the North Korean regime to be our neighbors in organizational behavior when it comes to dealing with internal rabble-rousers and critics? When it happens in China and North Korea, we in liberal democracies say it’s because its leaders fear losing control and so they respond by cracking down on dissent among its citizens. How likely is it that LDS policies on dealing with public dissidents is not similarly motivated to some extent by fear and anxiety of losing control, given that imperfect humans are at the helm and basic human social psychology is at work in all humans and human organizations? Do we ordinarily consider fear and anxiety to be praiseworthy motivations for decision-making? Does that represent our best selves? This is all the more troubling when one considers the doctrinal implications of excommunication in the LDS Church. For orthodox Latter-day Saints, excommunication literally means eternal banishment from the presence of God, one’s eternal companion, and forever family, if one does not repent and submit to the institutional hierarchy. Is that really the type of God we believe in? One who would forever banish from Their presence someone who is sincerely, yet imperfectly, advocating for justice and progress in communities that they deeply care about? Is that really the type of God that we want to believe in?"
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 15:14:11 GMT
Because it the fact of evolution as it is understood by science doesn't require God or the lack of one to happen. We already know evolution occurs naturally. So by definition it would not be a miracle. Do you think anytime bacteria gains resistance to a new antibiotic, it's God that is directly making that adaptation? Did you watch the video? Craig made it quite clear he was referring to human evolution. Why differentiate human evolution from that of other life forms?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 14:13:52 GMT
I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Yes. While other religions' founders have been executed or murdered also, they did not rise from the dead. Moreover, the adherents of said religions do not teach that their religions' founders deaths were for the sins of the world, nor do they teach that the founders were the sons of God; just a prophet or something along those lines. I agree that the death and resurrection of Christ distinguishes Christianity from other religions, with the most important part by far that this was to take upon Himself the sins of the world to atone for them with His sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 14:02:35 GMT
Yes, I know all your responses thus far have been cheesy.
What don't you believe isn't true? Are you saying that Christ isn't the son of God? Isn't that what you are arguing for due to your belief in Christianity? It doesn't matter what you have studied regarding Christianity, the question being poised to you is, how does Christian belief make Jesus the son of God? By what measure and how do you prove it? I will ask another one as well, what does conquering death by resurrection mean?
I believe a man called Jesus used to walk the earth and he was a teacher and perhaps even healer and that he was most likely persecuted. That doesn't mean he is the son of some supernatural entity come to save the world of its sins.
Christ Is the Son Of God because He has no human father. He was Conceived By the Holy Spirit. However, only 2 of the 4 Gospels tell the Nativity story. All 4 Gospels tell the story of His Passion, His Death, and His Resurrection. In addition, the Gospels also tell of 3 Instances where the Father Speaks to Jesus, & 2 of those Instances (His Baptism & His Transfiguration), He Says that Jesus Is His Son. You are free to believe that Jesus was just a gifted healer when He Walked on Earth. Nobody is forcing you to believe otherwise. I was asked why I believe my religion (Christianity) was true, & I answered the question. I agree with you here. I prefer to say that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit rather than "by" but this is a minor point of semantics.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 11:33:49 GMT
Sam Young was born into a Mormon family. So was I. This came with expectations. My attending church meetings was not really optional when I was a kid, it was similar to other things my parents told me to do. I remember one Sunday when I was about 16 my friend Dave invited me to go bowling. I told my mother I was going with him. She said, "No you are not, you are going to church." I was basically told when I could start dating, who I could date, etc. by the church. I was told what I could and couldn't drink. As an adult I was rather typical, I was largely still part of a Mormon community. There was a lot of pressure about what to believe and what to do. This was definitely control, and it is ingrained and difficult to resist. Yes, being a part of a religion does come with expectations and guidelines to follow which is not the same as being obligated to stay. You were a kid, your parents loved you, and thus they raised you the way they felt best which is exactly how parents are supposed to behave. If your parents decided they didn;t want to be Mormons, they could leave. If the kid runs the family, that family sucks. However, now that you are an adult, you have the ability to make your own choices. One of those choices was deciding whether or not to accept the teachings of the Mormon Church which is something I assume you decided your didn;t want. Literally no control. When I was 36 years old I had ceased going to Mormon services and was worshipping with a Presbyterian congregation. In some ways they were like the Mormons, to officially join them one had to go through a series of Sunday School lessons to learn what they believed. I did so and one week we were interviewed by an elder to determine if we had the essential required beliefs. I passed but selected not to become a member. I had told my mother about the opportunity and she started crying. She said she could explain an inactive son to her friends but not an excommunicated one. Back then it a Mormon was excommunicated for joining another church. She said her friends would all assume that I was involved in grave sins. She was correct, so I just let it pass and attended as a non-member. Sam Young cried when he read his letter of excommunication. It was still a wrenching experience. You are ignoring the immense amount of mind control involved. According to the church their action against him will result in his being separated from his family in eternity. So even if a member leaves it affects their families.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 11:09:26 GMT
I wasn't trying to be funny. The fact that you believe it to be funny is puzzling. CB-90 Because it was funny. No one is being forced to accept the teaching and thus there is literally no control. Sam Young was born into a Mormon family. So was I. This came with expectations. My attending church meetings was not really optional when I was a kid, it was similar to other things my parents told me to do. I remember one Sunday when I was about 16 my friend Dave invited me to go bowling. I told my mother I was going with him. She said, "No you are not, you are going to church." I was basically told when I could start dating, who I could date, etc. by the church. I was told what I could and couldn't drink. As an adult I was rather typical, I was largely still part of a Mormon community. There was a lot of pressure about what to believe and what to do. This was definitely control, and it is ingrained and difficult to resist.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 8:53:29 GMT
Because you can't reason with simple logic and explanations, only see it as your belief and so it must be true because the bible says so and see that as an absolute. You have no sense of discernment, believe in fallacies and bogus accounts of something you can't POSSIBLY have any concrete sounding or fact based evidence to prove YOUR truth as it has been conditioned and brainwashed onto you. When you get back to the point you started at with your 'circular reasoning', you can only see one pov and that is what is inside the circle and forget that there is space all around it as well. You overlook one thing here, Cheesy: I never said I believed it was true, just because it is in the Holy Bible. Amysghost asked why I believe Christianity to be the truth, & I answered: Because Of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. FYI, I HAVE studied world religions, & have done so for many, many years. Interesting beliefs; interesting theologies. I still come away withe conclusion that Christianity is truth because of Christ's Suffering & Death for all our sins, & His Conquering Death by His Resurrection. Islam also claims to have the fullness of Truth, yet, all its belief is, there Is Only One God. That belief is shared by numerous religions (Christianity included). All the differences between other monotheistic religions seem to be that they have different founding Prophets, Gurus, or other kinds of religious leaders. Christianity takes it a step further by the fact that Christ Is MORE than just a Prophet: He Is the Son Of God. I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 19, 2018 11:19:24 GMT
amyghost You should learn to mind your own business. Goz does your accusation to everyone. It is only fair that I return her favor.
OK, whose sock are you? Which froot loop are you? You responded to the second part? At least I understood the meaning of that. The use of English in the first part is so ambiguous that I can't derive the meaning.
|
|