138 replies to this topic

[scowl]

Paranoid Android, on 13 February 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Because the paintings were being composed by Europeans, and it was more appealing to the eye to paint a white Jesus.

Isn't it blasphemy to paint a false image of Jesus? If not, should Americans paint a Jesus that looks more like Michael Jordan now?

In contrast some Jews believe it's blasphemous to even write down "God". English subtitles in Israeli films will say "G-d" instead.

[IamsSon]

euroninja, on 13 February 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Hindus and Buddhists have their final destination. Christians who are in the Book of Life have their place with Jesus Christ. It's not complicated. To have Jesus Christ in your heart the truth of grace from God comes in the picture. Only God can give that grace into a person's thinking and heart. Knowledge that God exists is throughout the internet but is it in your heart? It's the meaning of being born again. You will feel the presence of the Holy Spirit like an invisible wind. John 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

You're obviously right that Christianity is not the only religion in the world, but that does not mean all religions are equal, or all are true.  In almost any other human endeavor/interest there is rarely an issue when one points out that out of many possible choices only one is right, or that not at all right, but for some reason some people seem to think this just does not apply to religion.

Seeker79, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

And I would not expect you to. I guess the only thing i try to acomplish in these discussions is to try and soften the heart of Christians a bit. being honest, I guess it bugs me a bit that respectable people think I will suffer spiritual death ( or in some cases hell), because I do not believe what they do. A pet peive I guess. I certainly don't think that about them. I'm not terribly emotional about it, but Christian dogma is hurtful, ends friendships, separates people and communities, and has prooven to be down right dangerous in the wrong minds, so I guess I feel obligated to speak up. Do you think christianity will ever open up and be truely tolerant of others as a whole?

Why do you think it's up to Christians to just "soften their stance?"  You act like it is our desire to have many/most to be lost, when, I think for any Biblical Christian the reverse is true and we feel like God, who, as Paul points out in 1 Timothy 2:4 wants all to be saved.

I think you are confusing "accepting" with "tolerant."  No sane Christian who studies the Bible can remain true to what is clearly taught in Scripture and also accept that there are many paths to salvation.  So, what you are asking in effect, is if Christians will give up Christianity and accept the beliefs of others.

[Seeker79]

Zaphod222, on 13 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Oh really now. Please do explain the "contradiction".
In what way exactly is your belief in Jesus, the virgin-born human-god halfbreed, whose flesh you claim to eat in church occasionally, more rational than the Flying Spaghetti monster?

I am all ears.

First off I'm not Christian genius nor catholic ( the flesh eaters you are talking about). Non Catholics do not practice comunion. ( eating bread wafers).

The FSM is what is called a STRAW MAN a logical fallacy.

http://en.m.wikipedi.../wiki/Straw_man

The contridiction is that people such as yourself will claim the a belief in god is illogical while using a logical fallacy like the FSM which in fact makes their argument Illogical by definition.

But I'm sure you were not thinking of that while trolling.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 February 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[SpiritTraveler]

Zaphod222, on 13 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Oh really now. Please do explain the "contradiction".
In what way exactly is your belief in Jesus, the virgin-born human-god halfbreed, whose flesh you claim to eat in church occasionally, more rational than the Flying Spaghetti monster?

I am all ears.

Seeker is not a christian and not all christians have communion.

Edited by SpiritTraveler, 13 February 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Seeker79, on 13 February 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

Non Catholics do not practice comunion. ( eating bread wafers).

SpiritTraveler, on 13 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

not all christians have communion.

Most Christian groups will have a communion of some kind.  However, it is primarily the Roman Catholics who believe in the concept of Transubstantiation.  Most other groups simply think of the bread and wine as reminders of what Christ did, there is no literal flesh or blood of Jesus.  Personally, my church has communion once a month, though I don't necessarily think it should be a ritualised event such as what it is.  I feel Jesus' primary intention of the communion was for it to be an informal event that took place when believers met to share a meal with one another.  But that's aside the point at this stage.

[Paranoid Android]

scowl, on 13 February 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Isn't it blasphemy to paint a false image of Jesus?

No.  Why would it be blasphemous to paint a false image of Jesus?  Of course, if the picture was depicting Jesus doing something sinful, that may be grounds for blasphemy, but the simple image - no.

scowl, on 13 February 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

If not, should Americans paint a Jesus that looks more like Michael Jordan now?

Why?  Jesus wasn't African-American!  Chances are he wasn't 6'6" either.

[Seeker79]

IamsSon, on 13 February 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

So, what you are asking in effect, is if Christians will give up Christianity and accept the beliefs of others.

Not give up Christianity, but yes. God may have reveled itself to many others in different contexts. It's quit obvious that for quit a while in north America or Paupa New guinea that there were souls dieing that never new of Christ and lived their own spiritual lives. Native Americans were doing just as good or better as any Christian nation pre Colombian. The had a solid spirituality connecting with god and nature. How can another spiritual and intelligent person then come and say "no no you have got it all wrong" and actually consider themselves still rational. What makes one spirituality more valid than another? Is it age? Is it how closely it matches scientific data? Is numbers of adaherants?  What validates Christ as god and not some rebel rabbi? If I told you right now that I am god and you should have faith in me, would you believe me? Why not? Couldn't a modern day Christ type on an Internet forum?

[Mr Walker]

Zaphod222, on 13 February 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Do you people also worry if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is black, white, or pink-striped?

If not, why not?

What is the friggin difference?

Jesus (as opposed to god) is historically accepted as a real entity. The flying spaghetti monster is not.

  Second it does not matter what colour an imagined being with no influence over millions of people's live is, whereas it is important to maintain historicla verisimiltude as far as possible for a real human being worshipped by bilions.

For example, jesus was a jew, as were all his first followers. They worshipped in synagogues and on saturday and followed jewish rituals and practices, and his teachings both transformed an element  of judaism and created a nexus between judaism and its own historical antecedents and 2000 years of christian theological evolutionary development. Thus christ's jewish appearance is important, if not his actual personal looks.

Ps in my cultural experience spaghetti is always a light browny tan colour and so i perceive the FSM as being of that colour However i am not an exclusivist on the matter and would accept a black  FSM as  an equally legitimate construct. Not sure about  pink striped. Hard to imagine a pink striped monster, unless it was a bit ambivalent about its sexuality. Maybe if it was a female pink striped monster, but then christ was definitely male.

Edited by Mr Walker, 13 February 2013 - 11:39 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Paranoid Android, on 13 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

To be honest, I don't care how other Christians use the word "faith".  To me, the only correct definition of faith is the one provided within the Bible.  And that definition is inevitably linked to the concept of Trust.  If someone wants to define Faith with a non-biblical understanding, that is their choice.  But they are wrong to do so.

Of course they are not 'wrong', you're pretending like 'faith' has one definition.  By your same logic here, are scientists 'wrong' when they use the word 'theory' as 'guess' ('I have a theory that Baltimore won the Super Bowl because they were motivated by the impending retirement of their longtime linebacker, Ray Lewis') because that is not consistent with what 'theory' means in a scientific sense?  Here are the top 2 definitions from dictionary.com, which roughly cover what we are talking about:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You don't dispute (or care actually) that Christians use 'faith' in the sense of definition 2 when discussing why they believe in God.  With all very due respect man, I think it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of 'abusing' the word 'faith' here.  The fact is that I'm using the word faith consistently with how some Christians use the word (and who are under no obligation, even though it is confusing, to adhere to the biblical definition; they can use definitions 1 and 2 in different contexts), although I fully admit I may be misinterpreting exactly what these Christians mean.  In addition, here's a quote from you on the problem of evil thread, emphasis mine:  "I agree with you that God knows what will happen, but that doesn't lessen my belief in him, or in my belief that predestination and free will can coexist (despite being mutually exclusive concepts)."  I'd say you've done far more violence to those two much less ambiguous terms than I have to 'faith' (although I sympathize with you that the limitations of language and our limited comprehension get in the way of discussions concerning both predestination and free will).

Quote

The point is that one can talk the talk as much as they like.  They can praise Blondin and tell him he's the best in the world and can easily push a person across the Falls in a wheelbarrow.  But paying lip-service like this is not faith.  True faith is having the conviction in your beliefs to stand up and get into that wheelbarrow.  The analogy was to show what Faith really is.  Faith is not mouthing words of belief in God.  Anyone can say "I have faith in God".  But true faith, biblical faith, is not just your words, but the conviction of your beliefs to stand up and allow that conviction to change the way you act in the world.  That is biblical faith, and as I said above, if someone wants to change that definition to suit themselves, that is a choice they can make but they would be wrong to do so.

It's probably my fault for not communicating clearly and talking about other subjects, but I don't see how this fits in to our conversation, although I appreciate the information.  This mini-thread started when I responded to an objection you made to another commenter saying that the truth of Christianity I assume is based on 'flimsy evidence'.  I've attempted and I'm sure failed to keep this discussion within this context:  is it upon reason and evidence alone that one is to conclude that God exists and how good is this evidence?  I'm interested in both what the bible says about this and what Christians say about this, but those are not necessarily always one in the same.   Yes, I said I thought that some amount of 'faith definition 2' is inherent in many Christians beliefs and in the theology somehow in general, I guess I've never heard someone (successfully) defend the idea that one can conclude God exists using the exact same reasoning from evidence that I use to conclude the sun exists.  Nor have I seen that many Christians attempt it.  Regardless, I don't think your discussion here of Faith/Trust and what people say and give lip-service to has much to do, I don't think, with the context of the reasoning and evidence for God and whether or how 'faith definition 2' is involved.  If it does, then I would argue that it doesn't matter what we call it, 'Trust' still has the same issue as 'faith'; I wouldn't go as far as 'without proof' like the definition, but 'Trust' involves some type of leap, you don't really 'trust' what you know.

Again, thanks for the info, I do recognize that this conversation is pretty far afield of the thread topic, but I appreciate your responses. If I feel that I can better put in to words my points on this subtopic, I may start another thread on it in the future.

[IamsSon]

Seeker79, on 13 February 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Not give up Christianity, but yes.

So, "Yes."

Quote

God may have reveled itself to many others in different contexts.

Romans says that God reveals Himself to all through His creation and through our conscience.  Expecting Christians to accept anything else would require they stop being Christians.

Quote

It's quit obvious that for quit a while in north America or Paupa New guinea that there were souls dieing that never new of Christ and lived their own spiritual lives. Native Americans were doing just as good or better as any Christian nation pre Colombian. The had a solid spirituality connecting with god and nature. How can another spiritual and intelligent person then come and say "no no you have got it all wrong" and actually consider themselves still rational. What makes one spirituality more valid than another? Is it age? Is it how closely it matches scientific data? Is numbers of adaherants?

What makes every spirituality as good as every other?  And if you really believe this, then why would you expect Christians to give up their spirituality since it's as good as any other exactly as it is, including it's requirement of exclusivity?  So, are all religions as good as all others?  Or are all religions except Christianity as good as all others?

Quote

What validates Christ as god and not some rebel rabbi? If I told you right now that I am god and you should have faith in me, would you believe me? Why not? Couldn't a modern day Christ type on an Internet forum?

Jesus fulfilled specific prophesies.

[spartan max2]

this is a dumb thread

[Zaphod222]

Mr Walker, on 13 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Jesus (as opposed to god) is historically accepted as a real entity. The flying spaghetti monster is not.

Was there there some guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago? Heck, yes! There there thousands of guys called Jesus. Just there are today.

Was Jesus the result of some fictitious supernatural being impregnating a virgin Mary? Just as much as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The difference is zip, zilch, nada, nix,. nill.

So, you are discussing the skin color of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No banana, try again.

[Zaphod222]

Seeker79, on 13 February 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

First off I'm not Christian genius nor catholic ( the flesh eaters you are talking about). Non Catholics do not practice comunion. ( eating bread wafers).

The FSM is what is called a STRAW MAN a logical fallacy.

Is not. It is an entirely valid comparison. There is no logical reason to regard believers in the bible in any different from believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

An irrational belief system is an irrational belief system. To claim that one irrational belief system is superior to another irrational belief system is simply not a position that you can defend.... other than by posturing and name-calling.

[Paranoid Android]

Zaphod222, on 14 February 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Was there there some guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago? Heck, yes! There there thousands of guys called Jesus. Just there are today.

Was Jesus the result of some fictitious supernatural being impregnating a virgin Mary? Just as much as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The difference is zip, zilch, nada, nix,. nill.

So, you are discussing the skin color of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No banana, try again.

Just in case you missed my post on the matter -


The difference is that the majority of historians accept that there most likely was a person named Jesus who began the movement later known as Christianity.  In contrast, the FSM can be traced to a physics lecturer protesting the Evolution/Intelligent Design in 2005, whose words were later picked up and turned into an internet meme via bloggers and such.

That's a pretty big difference.  While the FSM meme might work in a discussion about religion in the classroom, it's illogical to extend that to claim no difference between this and a person who most historians agree was a real flesh-and-blood human being.

Even if the discussion were about God and not Jesus, there's still the matter that we KNOW the FSM was invented in 2005, 7-8 years ago.  We cannot have that same knowledge about a being thousands of years old.  Even if it is an entirely invented being we cannot pinpoint where it started and certainly we cannot pinpoint that it was created as an ironic counterbalance to the evolution/creationism debate.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 14 February 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

I think Zeus had it right the whole time, opps Jesus my bad.