Unconditional love

[Aruntraveller]

You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?

Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.

In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.

The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be solely attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.

[Aruntraveller]

You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?

Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.

In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.

The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.

Just countering the Disneyworld of evil swivel eyed Christians as peddled on this forum and the oh for a 'Bright' childhood routine.
Rhiannon has just sniped at Christian parenthood mention after mention.

Yes but it's not countering it - it's just making the same stupid arguments they make. I know from some of your posts that you are funny and intelligent and I don't see why you have to apply the same kind of blanket condemnation of non-beleivers that some but by no means all Atheists/believers of other religions use against Christians. It just makes your arguments less convincing.

[Outrider]

Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.

In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.

The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be solely attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.

John Oliver's turn on the televangelist adherents of 'Prosperity Gospel' last weekend being a pertinent case in point.

O.

[floo]

Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide!

[Hope]

Oh dear Hope you don't get it do you? I doubt you ever will! 

You have no evidence, only a belief. You have never put up any credible evidence to support your faith, even though you claim you have. I am not the only one pointing this out to you!

Sorry, Floo, but it is you who don't get it.  I have nothing against science, and fully understand the value and nature of the scientific method of garnering evidence.  However, as a human being (note that this isn't my faith speaking) I do not believe that science and scientific methods are the sole way of describing and defining the universe and everything within it.  You do, and you have the right to do so (despite the fact that you have no more evidence to prove that your belief is any more correct than mine).

That is why I have said on a number of occasions on a number of threads that threads whereby you and others seek to dismiss faith as having no evidence in support of it are pointless, in the same way that some started by Sass and the like are pointless - as the two sides of the debate aren't even speaking the same 'language'.

[Hope]

Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide!

In other words, those particular evangelists are not dissimilar to some politicians, bankers, atheist and religious authors , 'business' men and woman.  So what?  We all know that there are shysters in every area of life.

[Hope]

You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?

I think that this would be better put, and more representative of all parts of humanity if you were to replace the word 'Christians' with 'people' or 'human beings'.  It isn't something restricted to religious people, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whatever, though there are 'judges' amongst those categories.

[floo]

Oh dear Hope you don't get it do you? I doubt you ever will! 

You have no evidence, only a belief. You have never put up any credible evidence to support your faith, even though you claim you have. I am not the only one pointing this out to you!

Sorry, Floo, but it is you who don't get it.  I have nothing against science, and fully understand the value and nature of the scientific method of garnering evidence.  However, as a human being (note that this isn't my faith speaking) I do not believe that science and scientific methods are the sole way of describing and defining the universe and everything within it.  You do, and you have the right to do so (despite the fact that you have no more evidence to prove that your belief is any more correct than mine).

That is why I have said on a number of occasions on a number of threads that threads whereby you and others seek to dismiss faith as having no evidence in support of it are pointless, in the same way that some started by Sass and the like are pointless - as the two sides of the debate aren't even speaking the same 'language'.

There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity!  Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve. As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide!

How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.

[Nearly Sane]

Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide!

How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.

Dearie me. This doesn't exactly tie in with your logic on your misbegotten idea of atheism/antitheism being a delusion then. According to this part of your posting that would, if you accept that it is merely about numbers, mean that you are then forced to declare theism in the UK as a delusion.

I think you better think it out again

[Dicky Underpants]

Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.

But at least it looks better for me than your daftness.  I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.

Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness

Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.

You really are out of touch. Analysis of the Resurrection has been the subject of thorough historico-critical debate by liberal Christians for decades, perhaps a couple of centuries. The 'Christ Event' (a term which telescopes the Resurrection, Ascension and Glorification into one phenomenon) is seen by such people as not a n external literal resuscitation of a dead body and its transmogrification into something that was somehow physico-spiritual (or whatever fantastical scenario we are supposed to swallow, depending on which NT author we read) - but an internal psychological reality for the disciples themselves.
As Jeremy has already pointed out, the details of the gospel stories were filled in - invented - later.
Schweitzer, Tillich, Bultmann, Spong, Bish. Robinson, even Bonhoeffer - none of these go  in for the literalism that you wish to foist on us.

Not forgetting Richard Holloway

[Hope]

There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity!  Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.

A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.

As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?

Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.

[Nearly Sane]

Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.

But at least it looks better for me than your daftness.  I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.

Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness

Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.

How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.

[Nearly Sane]

There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity!  Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.

A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Is it that, after all these years, and the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times this has been pointed out to, that you still fail to understand this? Or is it that you have decided to ignore it and argue vacuously fallacy laden approaches because you are happy about dissembling?

[Rhiannon]

There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity!  Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.

A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.

As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?

Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.

Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.

[Hope]

Analysis of the Resurrection has been the subject of thorough historico-critical debate by liberal Christians for decades, perhaps a couple of centuries. The 'Christ Event' (a term which telescopes the Resurrection, Ascension and Glorification into one phenomenon) is seen by such people as not a n external literal resuscitation of a dead body and its transmogrification into something that was somehow physico-spiritual (or whatever fantastical scenario we are supposed to swallow, depending on which NT author we read) - but an internal psychological reality for the disciples themselves.

And there is equally scholarly material that shows that this is a false understanding - including some by liberal Christian academics.

As Jeremy has already pointed out, the details of the gospel stories were filled in - invented - later.

A statement for which neither you nor he have any evidence, by the way.  This isn't a new idea; it's been around for almost as long as Christianity itself - yet no-one has managed to produce any evidence to support the theory

Schweitzer, Tillich, Bultmann, Spong, Bish. Robinson, even Bonhoeffer - none of these go in for the literalism that you wish to foist on us.

Yet, neither do they provide any evidence for their understandings.  Be careful with Spong and Robinson; I've heard liberal theologians dismantle their arguments with one virtual arm behind their virtual backs.

Incidentally, why don't you provide Spong with the honorific he is entitled to?

[Hope]

Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.

Since when?  It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).

[Hope]

I think you better think it out again

That would make a great lyric for a song   

[Nearly Sane]

I think you better think it out again

That would make a great lyric for a song   

Indeed, it is one of my all time favourites

http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=OCAyBb0yyaE

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide!

How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.

Dearie me. This doesn't exactly tie in with your logic on your misbegotten idea of atheism/antitheism being a delusion then. According to this part of your posting that would, if you accept that it is merely about numbers, mean that you are then forced to declare theism in the UK as a delusion.

I think you better think it out again

What has seeking out American antitheist media borne partly out of being in oppressive and suspicious theist majority in order to pep up a mundane british atheist existence got to do with the possible delusional aspects of antitheism?

[Shaker]

There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity!  Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.

A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.

Wrong. This atheist is an atheist - I suspect this is true for the vast majority - for a variety of reasons but in this context, principally:

1) The world does not in any way, shape or form look as we would expect the world to look if the claims made by theists about their gods are true. This is especially true for the traditional omnimax god (omniscient; omnipotent; omnipresent; omnibenevolent) of the monotheist. The world does not operate the way it would be expected to operate if such an entity existed; there is direct prima facie evidence against the existence of such a thing. That's why so many very silly people down the ages right up to the present day have wasted so much of their time and performed so many anti-intellectual contortions and done so many mental gymnastics trying to square the circle by attempting to make the existence of such a deity compatible with a world every part of which denies its existence. (This after all is why you are required to have faith, yes?). Your assertion that there is at least parity between theism and atheism is therefore on its face entirely false.

Of course, if you want to start pulling away these traditional attributes in some sort of cosmic game of Jenga, such that omnipotence doesn't actually mean omnipotence and omnibenevolence isn't really omnibenevolence, be my guest. Theists are very good at this sort of greasy, slippery logic-chopping, because if we know anything about most theists most of the time it's that the disproof-proof, indefeasible god-belief has to be defended no matter how absurd and ridiculous the conclusions it leads to, rather than accept that it's the pile of fetid dingo's kidneys that it actually is.

2) There is not one single feature of the world, not anything, anywhere, ever, which requires the positing of gods in order to further understanding of the world. Quite the opposite; invoking the supernatural is inimical to real understanding - as has been said here many a time, postulating the existence of entities you can't define doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain doesn't allow for the world to be explicable and rationally understandable; it makes it a random, capricious, incoherent mess, where any entity you like can do anything it likes any time it likes for no reason.

Positing gods isn't the furtherance of understanding; it is the death of understanding. 

As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?

Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.

1) Bald assertion with zero evidence to substantiate it.

2) There is no proof that we even possess such a thing as free will, no matter how many times Alan Burns screws up his eyes, clenches his fists and insists that we do.

3) Believing that is not the same at all as obeying - a point I covered in some detail just two weeks ago:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg543317#msg543317

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.

But at least it looks better for me than your daftness.  I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.

Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness

Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.

How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.

But the resurrection is also a  material event. Empirically witnessed.
Observed. Are all past events susceptible to scientific investigation? what about the unique historical event? So yep, the resurrection is susceptible to historical study. Whether it is able to conclude that the resurrection was a supernatural event, i'm not sure.


 

[Nearly Sane]

Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.

But at least it looks better for me than your daftness.  I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.

Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness

Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.

How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.

But the resurrection is also a  material event. Empirically witnessed.
Observed. Are all past events susceptible to scientific investigation? what about the unique historical event? So yep, the resurrection is susceptible to historical study. Whether it is able to conclude that the resurrection was a supernatural event, i'm not sure.

Nope, history as a study is methodologically naturalistic. Note I didn't mention science, just historical analysis.

[Rhiannon]

Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.

Since when?  It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).

So you are a universalist then?

[2Corrie]

Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.

Since when?  It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).

How would you interpret John 3:18 then?