Milestone as an Atheist

[imachristian]

So what, it didnt before? Or it did before? God changed his/her mind(s)?

Yeah, theologically speaking, things have changed between the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were permitted, even commanded, to physically punish those in rebellion against God. However, after Jesus came, punishment of non-Christians is now solely to be spiritual, or mainly after death. All Christians are supposed to do now is make known the gospel, and endure persecution if and when that comes.

If you think God's actions in the Old Testament are unfair or immoral, where do you get your moral standard from? If God exists, how is it immoral for him to punish people who have sinned against him? This is hypothetical for you, since you probably do not believe there is a God. Nevertheless, how does the approval of physical violence in the Old Testament logically disprove the existence of God? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

...since I think Roman Catholicism has deviated from the true biblical gospel...

That is a huge discrepancy in your statement. Thats one of many reasons what god falls through.

How is this a discrepancy? Sorry, I don't understand. Just because I say Roman Catholicism is wrong does not mean my position is wrong. Are you talking about the divisions within Christianity? If so, how does this fact prove that "god falls through"? Could you re-explain what you mean?

[imachristian]

The Bible now forbids Christians to kill or use violence to further the Christian faith, so any "Christian" who does this is not really a Christian.

Ignoring the "No True Scotsman" fallacy,

Well, if it's true, then it's not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if my assertion is in fact not really true, but my own opinion, I believe. And I'm certain what I said is true, and not just my opinion.

Matthew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Seems clear enough to me....

I would suggest that you read the context surrounding that verse. It's rather important...

[imachristian]

I'm still looking for a true christian who really follows the gospel. I assume that you can only find them on deathrow or in a lunatic asylum.

What do you mean by "follows the gospel"? I assume you mean believe the Bible and try to live out its teachings. If that's the case, then there are plenty. For just one example, google John Piper. He's a pastor of a big Reformed church. And then, I'm sure many people in his congregation "follow the gospel."

[imachristian]

One last important thing... seeing as how I am severely outnumbered in this forum, and how I have a life outside of this forum =P, I won't be able to answer everything that everyone tosses my way. I'll just respond to what I see that I find worthwhile to respond to.

[tacoma_kyle]

Earlier you talked about changes in the bible or some shit from the old ot the new. Then you stated:

...since I think Roman Catholicism has deviated from the true biblical gospel...

You talk about how you feel Roman Catholicism has changed from the 'true biblical gospel.'



It makes no sense. Now that there is actual science, knowledge and respect for others regardless of beliefs (mostly, yes from all ends); religion had to be wrapped around the changes. Similar way to evolution. People that kill for fuckin ridiculous reasons (such as old testament stuff) would not last too long. Their beliefs certainly wouldn't move too far. It takes straight brainwashing to accomplish that.


Got a question. I initially hoped you would assume it prior in my first post to you, nope. But yeah, why would god mysteriously change his 'punishments' from 'our world' to the afterlife?

For a perfect being, it seems very uhh.... in lacking if he/she needs to make any changes at all through any time period.

[tacoma_kyle]

Yeah, my family has started doing that too. My grandpa sent me a mass email about why god allows suffering, using an analogy of barbers and cutting hair and how one actually has to go to god to be healed. *groan*

So I replied with this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

After that (I'm sure he told my grandma who probaby told my dad and now everyone knows), everything I get from them has excessive references to god. It's amusing to me.

I would be more likely to respond with somethin like that, but wont because of the condition of my grandfather.

Ironically a little after she responded stating how she thinks praying works (specifically for grandpa) he was diagnosed with several possible cancers. A sort of bone and lung cancer I recall. But prostate was also a possibility. Just to note, as of about 6-7 months ago my gandfather even stopped drinking; they have prayed at every meal for over a decade.

God works in mysterious ways, eh? Too bad Demerol and Percocet have to be implemented to get him out to enjoy the days. Doc says he has about a year.

[ShimShamSam]

Yes, contradictions are a problem. You could say the true christian who follows everything in the bible is impossible because of the contradictions. But I think they see it like, if the bible has contradicting views on both sides of the fence on an issue, they can choose which ever they want, ignore the other, and still consider themselves a good christian because they're following "some" of the bible.

[SteveS]

Well, if it's true, then it's not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if my assertion is in fact not really true, but my own opinion, I believe. And I'm certain what I said is true, and not just my opinion.

Okay: suppose another Christian says that the bible is clear about cases where one must kill to follow the faith.  That Christian says, "No true Christian would deny this".

How do you separate?  What is a true Christian?  If nobody agrees, then the question stands: which way is the true way?

I know you don't like the Catholic church, but at least they have set up a way to resolve these disputes: whatever the Pope says is the "true" way.  You don't like this, I don't like this.  I don't like it because it is an appeal to authority.  Is what the Pope says "true" because it makes sense, or is it "true" just by virtue of the Pope saying it?

Anyway - how do the non-Catholic Christian faiths determine which is the "true" interpretation?  If it was self-evident or axiomatic, why are there so many different "true" interpretations?

This is what leads to the fallacy.  Consider the following paragraph from the Wiki I posted:

The truth of a proposition depends on its adequacy to its object ("Is the drawing a true likeness of Antony Flew?"). The truth of an object depends on its adequacy to its concept ("Is the figure drawn on the paper a true triangle?"). Problems arise when the definition of the concept has no generally accepted form, for example when it is vague or contested[6].

"A true Scotsman" (a concept) is not on the same level as "a true triangle" (a concept) never mind "the true Antony Flew" (a concrete existing object). The formal similarity, "true X", and the corresponding feeling that the concepts should be on the same level, in some sense must be on the same level (even perhaps all exist as objects), motivates the fallacy. It is a short step from that feeling to treating one's own definition, however arbitrary[7], of a "true Scotsman" (who else's?) as having the same objectivity as that of a geometrical figure or an existing individual, and then attempting to make the world agree.[8]

[MikeyV]

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is one of the most frustrating cards in the christian's bag of tricks. I think they use it on purpose. How do we defend against it? We don't. We can point out the fallacy, but just like the absurdity of the circular mental gymnastics that believers perform, they are blinded to it.

"No true Christian would violate God's commandment not to eat blood by getting a blood transfusion!" - Jehovah's Witnesses

"No true Christian would celebrate the the sabbath on Sunday. Everyone knows it's on Saturday!" - Seventh Day Adventists

"No true Christian believes you can be saved by accepting Jesus christ, your salvation was predetermined!" - Calvinists

"No true Christian would believe anyone other than David Koresh is the reincarnation of Jesus!" - Branch Davidians

"No true Christian would believe anyone other than white people have a soul!" - Christian Identity

"No true Christian would baptize an infant!" - Baptists

"No true Christian would take their sick child to a doctor. God will save them if we pray hard enough!" - Christian Scientists

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

Blech...

[ShimShamSam]

The fact that there are so many variations of the same religion, should almost seem to be proof that it was the creation of man. Especially when you got guys like Joseph Smith with his Mormonism, I mean, that's a very recently created religion, or Scientology, I think those are what's really hurting organized religion, when they're created and it's well documented as to when they were created, it seems only logical that religion is simply man made.

[Msblue]

The Catholics I know laugh and say those religions are ridiculous. Their followers crazy. They live by my God is better than your God.

[ShimShamSam]

Yes true, to the Catholics, mos tother religions might seem quite crazy, I mean all the Catholics do is drink wine and eat crackers so they can pretend their eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood.

[morphyx]

Earlier you talked about changes in the bible or some shit from the old ot the new. Then you stated:

...since I think Roman Catholicism has deviated from the true biblical gospel...

You talk about how you feel Roman Catholicism has changed from the 'true biblical gospel.'

In the early spreading of the gospel, a Christian church was formed by followers of Jesus and existed in Rome (as evidenced in part by Paul's letter to the Church at Rome; NT book of Romans). That group of believers (known as The Church, not a building) was heavily persecuted by Nero, who later blamed the followers of Jesus of burning down Rome. As Christianity grew, the leadership of Rome (then the center of world power) adopted Christianity as a religion and wove it into their gov't, culture, lifestyle, etc. while at the same time weaving pagan beliefs into this new form of Christianity to appease all the people. These gradual and subtle events were the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. In order to go further with this, we would have to dissect Catholic doctrine one piece at a time and compare it with Scripture.

It makes no sense. Now that there is actual science, knowledge and respect for others regardless of beliefs (mostly, yes from all ends); religion had to be wrapped around the changes. Similar way to evolution. People that kill for fuckin ridiculous reasons (such as old testament stuff) would not last too long. Their beliefs certainly wouldn't move too far. It takes straight brainwashing to accomplish that.

Today, that may seem illogical. However, 2000 years ago it was a matter of Jewish Law which had existed up to that point for almost 2000 years. Jesus was executed for blasphemy beside 2 thieves. Today, blasphemy is not punishable by law and theft is not a death penalty case. And yet, during that time period and for many decades following, stoning continued to be used by temple leaders for religious crimes and crucifixion by the gov't leaders for national crimes. This form of religious justice (stoning) as authorized and instructed by God in scripture had been practiced for over 1500 years prior to Jesus' birth. For one to say, "It doesn't make sense to me now", or "religion had to be wrapped around the changes" are simply observations born of a lack of understanding and comprehension of the subject matter.

Got a question. I initially hoped you would assume it prior in my first post to you, nope. But yeah, why would god mysteriously change his 'punishments' from 'our world' to the afterlife?

For a perfect being, it seems very uhh.... in lacking if he/she needs to make any changes at all through any time period.

Again, if one "Hasn't read it ?- Won't get it" applies. God didn't "mysteriously" change anything. There had been in place a system of laws (commandments) and punishments (consequences)  that were instituted by God. To break God's law is called "sin". And, because of God's grace, mercy, and love for mankind also implemented a means (sacrifice) to have sin atoned for (pardoned; forgiven). The person originally given the position to "judge" was Moses. There followed a over the centuries many judges and priests who carried out the Law while at the same time becoming more and more morally bankrupt.

Throughout this time, there was the prophecy and promise of the Messiah (the Deliverer; the Savior). Jesus fulfilled all prophecy concerning the Messiah, gave His life as the final sacrifice to atone for sin, and was given (by God the Father) the seat of all authority over heaven and earth including judgment. As a result, Jesus instructed His followers to live in a manner that demonstrated God's love towards all people and to spread the gospel (truth).

I hope this helps out.  

[MommaSquid]

I  wish we had a strike-thru function of this forum.  The paragraphs above my post are in serious need of some corrections.  


In order for me to see "God's grace, mercy, and love for mankind..." I need to see evidence of God first.  And I just don't see it.