• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A defense for and proof for Christianity

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sermon from UU If you don't accept this I will assume your not smart enough to argue with anymore.

I’d say that it’s unnecessary for you to wait for him to accept or reject to make the judgment call with regard to his level of ignorance on the subject. I think, based on what he’s posted thus far, he has no idea what he’s talking about; he makes outrageous assumptions and lends them credibility with florid language. And then makes unfounded accusations because no one fits his idea of how we *ought* to be. It’s a classic, fallacious ruse, designed to be provocative for his own entertainment.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The UU was founded on liberal Christian theology. Nowadays it is a one-stop collection of the confused, the eternal seeker, the spiritual but not religious, and ever other term of woo available
As if there’s something wrong with seeking clarity, seeking meaning, and not buying in to one particular faith system. Unless, of course, you mistakenly claim that clarity and meaning are not worth our time seeking. Is that your claim?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Faith in the conduct of one's wife can be adduced from evidence. Faith in a deity, particularly the theistic kind, is not predicated on any evidence whatsoever. If one has evidence, then religions, deists and theists would't need faith. One simply isn't comparing oranges with oranges in your analogy.
I simply don't see why are faith/(or trust) and evidence mutually exclusive.


You can trust (or have faith) in something or someone and at the same time have good positive evidence that proves that "it" is worthy of trust .

Perhaps this is just semantics, maybe your definition of faith and my definition are different. .... So how would you define faith ?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
This history of UU is liberal Christianity. The UU is tax exempt. like all churches. The piece from the website you quotes states a welcome for all faiths. A large clue even for the slowest of minds. Given that atheists attend doesn't attest to anything other than their curiosity and confusion and the simple fact that UU is a cult, as are all religious affiliations. What is signally off base is the UU's claim to be Christian and the attending atheists claim that they do not accept the existence of the supernatural. Your two wrongs do not make a right. What is further off base, so much so that it is not even in the ball park, is your lack of reasoning, use of logic and understanding of the terms on which you discuss. Still, as a member of faith you have no need for truth, accuracy, dialectic rigour, logic or evidence. Faith will do. Different cult, same sham to elicit money from the credulous under the pretext of invisible friends in high places.

Not sure why you quoted me on this response?
I think you need to reprise your understanding of the word “supernatural.” Not all Christian theological constructs are concerned with anything outside the natural world.

Interesting. Which ones do not believe in a supernatural god?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Back to the topic of the bible. I know I always claim its a scam and probably made up by Pagans.I believe that.However it doesn't mean God did not work through Pagans,does not mean the bible is no good.

God can work through anyone including earth based folks who may have had a hand in creating parts of the bible. I do not agree with some things, especially stuff about women and sexuality in the bible,however there is a lot of good in the bible.

I want to get back into my bible this year.
If you believe God created parts of the bible how do you know the parts about women and sexuality were not written by God also?
Your saying you don't like or agree with some things but they could still be Gods law. You may not like all of the laws or agree with all of the laws, who agrees with all laws? If you just pick and choose stuff you like how would you know if you were ignoring important laws?
 
I simply don't see why are faith/(or trust) and evidence mutually exclusive.


You can trust (or have faith) in something or someone and at the same time have good positive evidence that proves that "it" is worthy of trust .

Perhaps this is just semantics, maybe your definition of faith and my definition are different. .... So how would you define faith ?

Religious faith means a
I’d say that it’s unnecessary for you to wait for him to accept or reject to make the judgment call with regard to his level of ignorance on the subject. I think, based on what he’s posted thus far, he has no idea what he’s talking about; he makes outrageous assumptions and lends them credibility with florid language. And then makes unfounded accusations because no one fits his idea of how we *ought* to be. It’s a classic, fallacious ruse, designed to be provocative for his own entertainment.
I'd say you have summarised your rationale and contribution to a tee....Now, where is my postcard from Stockholm?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Interesting. Which ones do not believe in a supernatural god?
Panentheism is more or less a construct wherein God is all of nature. Another is a construct where The God concept is a metaphor or avatar to give form to concepts that are amorphous. A third is the concept that God is existence, itself, which is more or less a blend of the other two. None of them buy into anything other than natural, human experience.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Panentheism is more or less a construct wherein God is all of nature. Another is a construct where The God concept is a metaphor or avatar to give form to concepts that are amorphous. A third is the concept that God is existence, itself, which is more or less a blend of the other two. None of them buy into anything other than natural, human experience.

None of them sound like Christianity, which is mono-theistic, and depends upon the dogma concerning original sin, the death and resurrection of a man-god, heaven, hell, etc.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
None of them sound like Christianity, which is mono-theistic, and depends upon the dogma concerning original sin, the death and resurrection of a man-god, heaven, hell, etc.
Not necessarily. There are lots of Christians like myself who take a more naturalistic view. There are many who don’t buy into original sin, and who see the resurrection as completely mythic.
 
*Yawn*

Atheistic bollocks.


*Yawn*
Such erudition you have. Still, it doesn't take too long until you exhaust your canon of drivel. Whatever next, a Christian that takes a naturalistic view? If you reject the resurrection you are in no sense a Christian. Your clearly not going to Stockholm and what you remain with are unsupported assertions, cluttered thinking and the boring tendency to add on extra layers of complications where none are needed.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Such erudition you have. Still, it doesn't take too long until you exhaust your canon of drivel. Whatever next, a Christian that takes a naturalistic view? If you reject the resurrection you are in no sense a Christian. Your clearly not going to Stockholm and what you remain with are unsupported assertions, cluttered thinking and the boring tendency to add on extra layers of complications where none are needed.
*Yawn*

More desperate, now ad hominem, atheistic bollocks.

Where did I say I reject the resurrection? Not that it mattters to you.

1) You have no authority to say what is, or is not “Christian,” since you, yourself, reject it as “unreasonable.” Fallacy #1

2) If you think the theological construct is unsupported, you know even less than I gave you credit for.

Please continue, though. It’s sort of entertaining in a macabre way.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I don't need proof to believe in God and in Dharma I experience proof everyday so.
seemed a bit self-contrary on this remark

but anyway.......
why not?... just continue in believing in God
and not bother about religion
 
*Yawn*

More desperate, now ad hominem, atheistic bollocks.

Where did I say I reject the resurrection? Not that it mattters to you.

1) You have no authority to say what is, or is not “Christian,” since you, yourself, reject it as “unreasonable.” Fallacy #1

2) If you think the theological construct is unsupported, you know even less than I gave you credit for.

Please continue, though. It’s sort of entertaining in a macabre way.


Desperation is your domain. Still awaiting the postcard from Stockholm. If it is the macabre you want then stick with a Jewish zombie, created through human sacrifice.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Desperation is your domain. Still awaiting the postcard from Stockholm. If it is the macabre you want then stick with a Jewish zombie, created through human sacrifice.
Fan of Pee-Wee Herman, are you? Don’t you think the “I know you are but what am I” ploy is a bit jejune? Even for you? I think you could be a lot more Napoleon Dynamite if you just put a little more effort in and stepped up your intellectual game a bit.

I find your playground posturing a lot more morbidly entertaining than Jesus. But hold off for a few moments, won’t you? I’m making popcorn.

I’m not the least bit interested in Stockholm, but I do have friends in Gothenburg and Mullsjo I’d like to visit... but feel free to nominate me for a Nobel Prize for engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
 
Fan of Pee-Wee Herman, are you? Don’t you think the “I know you are but what am I” ploy is a bit jejune? Even for you? I think you could be a lot more Napoleon Dynamite if you just put a little more effort in and stepped up your intellectual game a bit.

I find your playground posturing a lot more morbidly entertaining than Jesus. But hold off for a few moments, won’t you? I’m making popcorn.

I’m not the least bit interested in Stockholm, but I do have friends in Gothenburg and Mullsjo I’d like to visit... but feel free to nominate me for a Nobel Prize for engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

More diversionary waffle. You would do better demonstrating the case for your claims. Good luck.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
More diversionary waffle. You would do better demonstrating the case for your claims. Good luck.
More pathetic, atheistic, claims-making. Please demonstrate the case for your claim that I must believe in a certain something in order to be a person of faith, and a Christian.

Yet again: I’m not making claims. I have no claims to make. You’re the one making up these “rules” as you go. You’d do better demonstrating an actual interest in discovering my theological position, rather than simply dismissing and scorning my posts.
 
Top