Evil-ution

Your question regarding the Church of Sweden Luthan Church. I"m sad to say that most Lutheran synods have slipped into liberalism, thus making them be definition non-Christian Churches.

The most orthodox synod I know of among the Lutherans are the Missouri Synod. Though time will only tell if they remain with the essential lines of orthodoxy.

Viva

Viva said:

I have been warned by a specific moderator 4 times. Thus I may be kicked off shortly. Evidently some opinions are not all welcome here. But I'm still alive for the moment.

Click to expand...

I have never known RF moderators to act unfairly, or in a way that is not beneficial to the forums in general. Perhaps you have been warned for being rude or intolerant. (I used to care that some people's version of your religion thought I was going to hell- now I just care when someone actively mocks the beliefs of others.

Please reconsider who the problem with your being warned lies with.

Viva said:

Your question regarding the Church of Sweden Luthan Church. I"m sad to say that most Lutheran synods have slipped into liberalism, thus making them be definition non-Christian Churches.

Click to expand...

WHAT?!?!?!? A liberal Christian is not a Christian?! WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BIBLE!?!?!

The most orthodox synod I know of among the Lutherans are the Missouri Synod. Though time will only tell if they remain with the essential lines of orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy?! Whose Orthodoxy? Your Orthodoxy? Who on Earth says YOU are right?

Hello Viva,

You said:

>"I have been warned by a specific moderator 4 times. Thus I may be kicked off shortly. Evidently some opinions are not all welcome here. But I'm still alive for the moment."<

Hmmm. Perhaps you have been "cautioned", or advised to reconsider the method by which you express your "opinions". While I am not privy to the internal mechanics of this forum's "warning system", and thus no claimed expert - I note for the record that your public profile details NO "warning points".

While my time-to-date (and breadth of reading) as participant within this forum has been brief and limited, I would state that I have not encountered any evidence of capricious or prejudicial actions on the part of any moderators.

>"...a peson cannot be "less" Christian then another person."<

Perhaps you meant to say that "a Christian can not be 'less' Christian than another Christian". You may rightly conclude that I am "less Christian" than any self-professed adherent Christian (perhaps not in deeds, but in belief).

>"Either they are or they are not. The "Protestants" embracing Evil-ution would either most likely non-christian absolutely."<

"Most likely"? Is that expressed doubt from such an assured absolutist as yourself?

"Either they are or they are not" - correct?

Perhaps, in your efforts to inform and lead the astray back to the path of righteousness and delivering "truth" (according to Viva's revealed understanding of Scripture), you would lend this interested group of thread contributors your categorical list of professed and established Christian sects that are in fact, "non-Christian".

To further facilitate the redemptive process, you could also share which Christian sects are, in fact (beyond equivocation), veritably Christian. Who knows? Perhaps if you'd care to divulge which Christian sect/denomination you claim as your own (being of course, the "true Christian" sect/denomination"), their member rolls could swell to unprecedented new heights, practically overnight.

Or, perhaps you are a congregational church of one, claiming your own personalized and unique revelation of God's Word, with especial anointed insight into His Will, and of/upon whom He deems as worthy of salvation. If so, good luck with your newsletter, and best wishes for a subscriber list that exceeds one recipient.

>"s2a - your cliche that you adopted (to err is human) is what we call in philosophy - false."<

Your rebuttal is what I (or "we", as philosophical athiests) would call...dumb.

It is unwise to patronize an opponent of which you have no practical knowledge or personal experience. I am not unfamiliar with philosophy, neither am I ignorant nor unread of the many perspectives and existential conclusions proffered by the most noted and quoted of "deep thinkers" (You're invited to test me, at your disposal). Your self-servingly banal attempt to associate yourself amongst those that have actually evidenced contemplative thought would be laughable, if it weren't readily observed as benignly pathetic and pitiful.

>"To err is NOT human. Though humans err, they don't always err, and when they do, that's not human, that's the result of sin."<

Oh, I get it now.

So, by your established rationale (revelation?), human error is commensurate with (an equivalent of) "SIN" (against God). When Johnny goes to the blackboard in his 2nd grade math class, and writes "3", as answer to "What is 10 minus 4?"....Johnny hasn't "erred", he's "sinned". When an adult is asked, "What is the capital city of Maryland?", and that adult responds, "Baltimore" (the correct answer is Annapolis); that adult is not in "error", but has in fact, indulged a SIN against God.

Or perhaps it is your assertion that a sinful person is more (or most) prone to error, and a righteous, godly, and humbly pious person is not? If that is so, then I must relate that some of the most "sinful" people I have ever met are self-professed Christians.

[For the record: My signature (which you deem as cliché), is merely a personalized perspective of tolerance. It's OK to be wrong. It's not OK to be persistently and repetitively "wrong" once your viewpoint/opinion has been demonstrably evidenced and substantially supported as flawed/incorrect. To insist/persist in such a manner is...well, stupid. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is (unfortunately) self-gratifying, and self-sustaining.]

>"So you've life verse has guided you against concrete walls."<

Excuse me, but your offered profundity absolutely escapes me.

>"Regarding Atheism being faith based. I briefly spoke about this. But I can repeat it since you seem emotional."<

Thank you for stooping to my level. How beneficent of you. I'll try to keep my emotions in check.

>"Since belief and knowledge are interchangeable (historically this has been the case, Kant split this notion up via theory)."<

Whoa. Let's stop right here and examine this confusedly extrapolated premise.

First of all, let's recall that you are an expressed proponent of "the ontological reality of God":
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=187972#post187972 ]

Now, you cite Kant as support of such(?), despite the fact that Kant questioned same in his rebuttal of Anselm's take, in "The Only Possible Ground of Proof for a Demonstration of God's Existence". Kant defends the concept of a rational theology, then later contradicts and retracts his defense in subsequent critical works.

Get real. Even Kant admitted that his rationalized views espoused a "transcendental idealism". His existentially predicated "conclusions" (while of historical note) are highly debatable; have been demonstrably shown to be fallacious in content; and are, by NO means or measure, universally accepted or beyond even superficial review - amongst most contemporary philosophical perspectives.

Your attempt to somehow establish a premised, or otherwise "established" - "fact" - by means of fallacious "appeal to authority" and (a hoped for) "style over substance" posture of especially informed expertise - is so lacking and incredulous in delivery as to provide little more than obfuscatory gobbledygook (What we skeptics call "smoke and mirrors", or more colloquially, BS) .

>"And since the concept behind an atheist an absolute stance. It would venture that an Atheist (whether they admit it or not) is one who believes in no gods or God.
Now Russell in the 1930's has waved (see George Smith's book) the notion that atheism is a lack of belief."<

No need of a "ventured" conclusion here (or any contrite confession). As defined:

"atheist", noun -
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

I'm not shy or coy about my stated perspectives regarding beliefs (or lack thereof) in/of supernatural cause/effect. I have yet to encounter one compelling and convincing instance or piece of evidence to counter/modify that stance. However, I would qualify from a distinctly (and semantically articulated) personalized profession of self , that I neither "disbelieve" in "god(s)", nor do I "deny" their prospective adherent's claims of existence - I simply do not accept the claims of a "god/gods" as (un)supported by the evidence, or (to be) tolerably acceptable (logically or emotionally) "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in fact, a great deal of extant reasonable doubt).

>"This is not atheism rather agnosticism."<

NO, it's NOT. To wit:

"agnosticism", noun -
"1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God.
2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge."
Source: WordNet ® 2.0

CLEARLY, atheism IS NOT agnosticism. By definition.

In most simplistic terms, atheists retain NO doubt that claimed god(s) are in fact, mere constructs of human wishful thinking, and evidentially unsupported, ergo unacceptable claims as "fact". Agnostics adopt a doctrine of acceptable doubt - that god(s) might/could "exist", but such "proof(s) are unattainable or impossible to provide/determine.

This aspect of "surety" delineates the difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheists conclude that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics conclude that god(s) might/could exist, but that it's impossible to definitively determine.

>"Since belief is knowledge and knowledge is belief, to state the soft atheist position would denote that one has NO KNOWLEDGE. THus the historical position gives the atheist MORE respect then the mid 20th century atheists give their own following : )."<

Since your conclusion is premised upon a MOST arguably flawed assumption, it has no compelling merit or evidential substance. At best, it's empty and meaningless. At worst, it's intellectually corrupt and patently absurd.

>"Thus O'Haire would agree- since Atheism is a belief in nothing..."<

Whoa. GROSS and willful mischaracterization. Atheism is non-belief (or as I prefer, non-acceptance of claims) of supernatural cause/effect "explanations". Atheists acknowledge (and fully appreciate) a very real existence, natural world, and enveloping cosmos.

>"...it's faith is based upon that object of that belief via presuppositions deeming it as indeed a faith."<

What a crock.

THIS is your defense of your assertion that atheism is a "religion"? You proffer some confused and contradictory philosophical renderings as basis for such an absurd allegation/inference? Any first year philosophy student would utterly deconstruct and ridicule such a baseless and impotent "defense". Yet you attempt said same amongst a company of people most obviously well beyond your scope of experience and understanding?

I offered you the most straightforward of arguments to falsify, here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=188250#post188250 ]

You merely needed provide any demonstrable evidence that would illustrate how atheism meets/satisfies any of the "actual" definitions of "religion" that was previously provided for you.

You (most predictably) offered NONE (extraneously rationalized and logically strained "philosophical" extrications noted).

>"Thus it must be examined via the same criteria (philosophical, logical, psychological, etc) as any other faith based religion must."<

As your premised argument (and subsequent fallacious conclusion) has been utterly eviscerated on it's merits alone, I think not.

>"To rephrase the statement is just a scapegoat. My own Atheists Debaters Handbook agrees with this. So if you have yours, let me know so I can go over it with you."<

You'll excuse me if I have no "handbook" to reference. I'm kinda going on my own here. While your generous deference to "share" is superficially laudable, please understand that I am confidently capable in my own right, and that I find your "intellectual" gymnastic contortions impressively...um,..."unique" (to be polite) to behold, erstwhile earning neither my respect nor serious contemplative reflection.

[PS. Letters and credentials are moot with a forum of debate. It's what you say, not whom or what you may "claim" to be, that is of any substance or significance. Spare me (and the rest of the resident contributors) your patronizing "airs" of ethical/intellectual superiority. As well as I can determine, you're little more than a poseur - a wannabe - of better estimation and erudition. Perhaps you are well read, and a person of grandiloquent renown...and are merely handicapped by a lack of literary articulation and expositional elegance...but I kinda doubt it.]

Hello:

WHAT?!?!?!? A liberal Christian is not a Christian?! WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BIBLE!?!?!

Click to expand...

There are several places my friend. I suppose a locus classicus would be Galatians 1:8.

********************************************************************************************************

s2a, you've gone all over the place here. It is somewhat off topic of Evil-ution. But I'll try to help you out with some of your confusion. I can only try my best to address your slippery slope.

1) A Christian is a Christian or not a Christian. Period... There are no degrees. This isn't star wars or sci-fi.

2) You are confused with the concept of sin. The boy that can't get it right is not sinning, but rather in this examply effected by innate sin.

3) Do you really get it now? : ) ---yes, revelation defines the rational, the rational does not define revelation. To do it your way puts you in a horrible circular line of thinking which is completely fallacious (circular reasoning).

"atheist", noun -
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

Click to expand...

---that's right! Thus by default believing in nothing. To lack belief would require you to be in a vegetable state or dead. Which you kind of are (Romans 3:23). In philosophy, in order to verify a truth matter or truth statement, one must be able to propose a potential true/false statement. I don't want to get to complex here, but to not do this would cause atheism to fail miserably as a rational way of thinking. By taking the George Sale position, you've done my job for me much quicker. Atheism is completely irrational. Thank you. Dan Barker would be upset with you at this point.

4) Dan Barker and Sale made the distinction of "Soft" and "Hard" atheism. to Lack knowledge (true belief) in X is another way of saying you are an agnostic or "soft" atheist. THis is not my idea to lable this as such, rather leaders in the Atheist community. Take up your beef with them.

5) I DO NOT accept Anselm's ontological argument. Nor do I accept Aquinas' 5 arguments for the existence of God. Don't assume things so quickly. I realize probably most theists you have run into jump into these arguments. But they are invalid.

Rather I accept Kant's transcendental argument for the existence of God as a method though I disagree with his "theory" of the nominal and phenomonial conceptions of epistemology since this is not the biblical concept of knowledge.

If you want to continue, let's take 1 at a time so that way we can get deeper if need be.

Respectfully,

Viva

Viva said:

Your question regarding the Church of Sweden Luthan Church. I"m sad to say that most Lutheran synods have slipped into liberalism, thus making them be definition non-Christian Churches.

Click to expand...

1. Why do you mention synods, and how do you think that term is applicable to the CoS?
2. "Liberalism" means nothing to me or other Swedes when it comes to religion. We only use that term in politics. So, not understanding you, I can't comment on that part.
3. What definition of "Christan Churches" do you refer to when excluding the CoS?