Just supposing...........

[Alien]

Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?

No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?

Would you please give me an example of me "bottling" it when someone has asked me about a "misunderstanding of something in Christianity." Bearing in mind you say I have done this "every time" you should have plenty of examples to choose from."

The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.[/quote]Would you please provide an example where I have done this.

[Alien]

* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.

Very wise of you!

Being a Christian (i.e. following his teachings) seems to include so many different interpretations of what he taught that it has become an unintelligible hotch-potch of ideas. It seems from reading this forum that very few Christians agree entirely about everything.

Do you know of two humans who "agree entirely about everything"? However, expecting Christians to "agree entirely about everything" is a cop out if that is a significant reason why you don't think Christianity is true.

[Alien]

I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.

Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

[Alien]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.

King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.


King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.

The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.

God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.

King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.

Why do you always quote from a version which was written 400 years ago when certain words and phrases mean things they don't mean today and which is generally difficult to understand, Sassy?

[Shaker]

Would you please give me an example of me "bottling" it when someone has asked me about a "misunderstanding of something in Christianity." Bearing in mind you say I have done this "every time" you should have plenty of examples to choose from.

Indeed. This thread passim:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.0

[Alien]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

Strong atheist? Weak atheists?

[Alien]

Credibility isn't about belief.

LOL

[Shaker]

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.

[Shaker]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

Strong atheist? Weak atheists?

Nope. Try again.

[jjohnjil]

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence.  As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores.  You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist.  Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters.  All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.

I agree with you that there may well be additional parameters that are as yet unknown to us.  I'm sure there are a myriad of things we may never know.  The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.
It was intelligent guesswork on their part but that's all it was.  They had no evidence for it, just their common sense telling them there had to be some reasonable explanation. 

We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.

By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.

[Alien]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

Strong atheist? Weak atheists?

Nope. Try again.

Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.

[Gordon]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

Strong atheist? Weak atheists?

Nope. Try again.

Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.

But the only real 'qualification' for atheism is the lack of belief in gods - so 'strong' and 'weak' are tautologies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.

And yet you haven't come up with a methodology which establishes your philosophical naturalism yet press on in delusion.

[Alien]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

Strong atheist? Weak atheists?

Nope. Try again.

Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.

But the only real 'qualification' for atheism is the lack of belief in gods - so 'strong' and 'weak' are tautologies?

No, they are not. Weak atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods; strong atheism is a belief that there are no gods.

[Hope]

The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.

To the contrary, jj; 'they made brave attempts to explain things' by seeking out patterns and processes that allowed them to develop some of the earliest scientific theories and discoveries.

We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.

By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.

By the time of Christ, very few of the things that you suggest were attributed to God, as opposed to being understood as natural events were actually attributed to God.  I will accept that when we go back 5 or 10,000 years what you say would have been largely true - but then of course, we aren't talking in this instance about that distance back in time.

[Alien]

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.

Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.

[Shaker]

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.

Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.

If you check the thread again you'll discover that I've addressed this point already, to the effect that these things are merely opinion since nobody seems able to provide any method by which their truth can be determined.

[Alien]

Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.

Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.

Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.

If you check the thread again you'll discover that I've addressed this point already, to the effect that these things are merely opinion since nobody seems able to provide any method by which their truth can be determined.

Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?

[Shaker]

Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly.

Well ...

Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?

No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.

[Alien]

Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly.

Well ...

Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?

No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.

OK with that.

The question remains though whether we have such a methodology. That's for discussing tomorrow.

[Shaker]

Well you haven't come up with it so far - why tomorrow?

Will there be jam too?

[Hope]

No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.

That may hold for atheism, and its various cults, Shaker, but there is a methodology which perfectly suits the scientific method by which one can determine whether or not they have any basis in fact.  Using lit. crit. techniques, one can determine what Christ taught and what, if anything, was added by someone else.

That is very different to the question of what, if any, truth there is in what was taught.

[Shaker]

That may hold for atheism, and its various cults

You have asserted that atheism has "cults" but haven't demonstrated, with evidence, that this is anything more than just another ridiculous opinion. I addressed this earlier today; no doubt it'll be yet another one of your posts left untouched in the hope that others will quietly forget that you've yet again asserted something without substantiation. Numerous other examples available upon request.

Shaker, but there is a methodology which perfectly suits the scientific method by which one can determine whether or not they have any basis in fact.  Using lit. crit. techniques, one can determine what Christ taught and what, if anything, was added by someone else.

As I said to Alien earlier this determines no more than that something appears in a book. Well, big deal.

That is very different to the question of what, if any, truth there is in what was taught.

What's the methodology for ascertaining that? Alien reckons it's something he's going to address tomorrow (for the first time ever despite having been asked multiple times by umpteen different posters over a period of months at least to my knowledge)..

[2Corrie]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.

King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.


King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.

The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.

God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.

King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.

No answer to this on the Trinity thread:

By whom did the prophet's speak?

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1-11

[jjohnjil]

The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.

To the contrary, jj; 'they made brave attempts to explain things' by seeking out patterns and processes that allowed them to develop some of the earliest scientific theories and discoveries.

We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.

By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.

By the time of Christ, very few of the things that you suggest were attributed to God, as opposed to being understood as natural events were actually attributed to God.  I will accept that when we go back 5 or 10,000 years what you say would have been largely true - but then of course, we aren't talking in this instance about that distance back in time.

The scientific among them may have had ideas that some of these things had natural causes but the vast majority of the people - and especially the simple fishermen and carpenters around the Middle East - knew nothing of any theories or discoveries, Hope, they and the church elders still put everything down to that super hero in the sky, just as you do today - only now you make him responsible for causing the Big Bang etc.