Does religion offend you?

[Achronos]

Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

Unfortunately for your argument, the presence of over 30,000 different sects show that either

Remember I said biblical Christianity and the interpretation of the Bible needs to be derived from the church, I believe I have explained the importance of this elsewhere if not I can explain it again.

In the Gospel story of the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus made this clear. “‘Sir,’ the woman said to him, ‘I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the our cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him’” (Jn. 4:19-21, 23). She asked him a question about cult (the outward practice of religion), and in reply Jesus changed the whole perspective of the matter. Nowhere in the New Testament, in fact, is Christianity presented as a cult (in its technical sense) or as a religion. Religion is needed where there is a wall of separation between God and man. But Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion.

Christianity often appears, however, to preach that if men will try hard enough to live Christian lives, the crucifixion can somehow be reversed. This is because Christianity has forgotten itself, forgotten that always it must first of all stand at the cross. Not that this world cannot be improved â€" one of our goals is certainly to work for peace, justice, freedom. But while it can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be. Christianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (Jn. 1:10). If we think seriously about the real meaning, the real scope of these words, we know that as Christians and insofar as we are Christians, we are, first of all, witnesses of that end: end of all natural joy; end of all satisfaction of man with the world and with himself; end, indeed, of life itself as a reasonable and reasonably organized “pursuit of happiness.” Christians did not have to wait for the modern proponents of existentialist anxiety, despair and absurdity to be aware of all this. And although in the course of their long history Christians have much too often forgotten the meaning of the cross, and enjoyed life as if “nothing had happened,” although each one of us too often takes “time off” â€" we know that in the world in which Christ died, “natural life” has been brought to an end.

Also, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge? I can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ (which historically it is) but it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

[Asmodean]

after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

I am on no such quest. I tend to only look for the truth when presented with a potential lie. And something makes me suspect I'm not the only one.

I find more time to enjoy my life when I'm not roaming the realm of science, fiction and philosophy in search for answers where there are no good ones to be had.

[Gawen]

Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

There is another post that you made here that contradicts this statement.

Remember I said biblical Christianity and the interpretation of the Bible needs to be derived from the church,

If you could link to this post, I'd appreciate it.

In the Gospel story of the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus made this clear. “‘Sir,’ the woman said to him, ‘I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the our cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him’” (Jn. 4:19-21, 23).

First, this god is not perfect if it "seeks" worshipers.
Second, (quote in red), one does not need the church in order to worship in spirit. And another 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

But Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion.

Jesus was not the messiah. Could not be. Do a search here for this topic. If Jesus ushered in no new religion, why are you not a Jew?

Christianity often appears, however, to preach that if men will try hard enough to live Christian lives, the crucifixion can somehow be reversed. This is because Christianity has forgotten itself, forgotten that always it must first of all stand at the cross. Not that this world cannot be improved â€" one of our goals is certainly to work for peace, justice, freedom.

You are right. Christianity has forgotten the basic precepts of itself. Christianity is not conducive to any other ideology with exception to communism. I submit, your goal is to achieve salvation within the basic precepts of your non religion.

But while it can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be.

You speak for an impotent, therefore an imperfect god....this is laughable.

Christianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (Jn. 1:10). If we think seriously about the real meaning, the real scope of these words, we know that as Christians and insofar as we are Christians, we are, first of all, witnesses of that end: end of all natural joy; end of all satisfaction of man with the world and with himself; end, indeed, of life itself as a reasonable and reasonably organized “pursuit of happiness.”

What is this wishy washyness you spew? Did you just not say that some of your goals are to "work for peace, justice, freedom"?...IOW, pursuit of happiness?

we know that in the world in which Christ died, “natural life” has been brought to an end.

Honestly...you know nothing of the sort.

I have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge?

Hey...if Saul/Paul can judge, you can as well.

I can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ (which historically it is)

So what happened during the 300 years before your orthodox church and Jesus's death?

but it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

Who are you to judge....indeed...*rolling my eyes*

Assertion after contradiction after fallacy. You are as unbelievable as your orthodoxy would have it.

[Fininho]

Good point about god seeking worshipers!
Indeed, he/she/it is an impersonator of a kind!
That also offends me: when people start throwing you verse from the Bible!
I know the Bible very well: I studied it for 35 years!
I don't need any more verses in my life, for Pete's sake!!!

[tunghaichuan]

2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

Isn't this just an appeal to authority fallacy?

Also, not recommended in America, as we are lawsuit-happy nation.

Not recommend if the person is bigger than you, can fight, etc.

[elliebean]

2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

Isn't this just an appeal to authority fallacy?

Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to the stick" or "appeal to force"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party

[Thumpalumpacus]

wiki

Of course! The all birds can fly-fallacy, as I have learned it.  

I like that, it gets old cracking wise about kilts and all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

Nonsense.  Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.  Your false equivocation here debases both words.  

Nowhere in the New Testament, in fact, is Christianity presented as a cult (in its technical sense) or as a religion.

What, then, do you think Paul was doing, if he wasn't founding a religion?  That too is part of the New Testament.

Also, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge? I can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ[/i] (which historically it is) but it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made. [Emphasis added]

In other words, you're not judging them, but you are discerning? This is a distinction without a difference.  No matter how you try to finesse it, you are certainly committing this fallacy; I have emphasized where you've repeated this error.  That you are so blasé in so doing does you no good credit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And, sorry for the run-on posting, but:

If reason isn't identical to logic, then unless it includes intuition, I have no idea what reason is. What is it? If reason is thinking, and thinking is logic and intuition, then I'm left with logic when debating.

Reason is the application of the real world to logic, in the effort to weed out flawed premises, in order to avoid issues with GIGO:

"All hammers eat spinach.
This is a hammer.
This eats spinach."

This is why "unreasonable" is often used as a near-synonym for "batshit crazy".

[SomewhereInND]

Logic gets you shroders cat.
Reason says the cat doesnt care what you think.

I have no idea what that is intended to clarify, since Schroedinger made no claims as to what the cat cared about.

Care was kind of the wrong word (language sucks),  I wasnt trying to imply that the cat was thinking, or wanting to be alive/dead.  More along the lines 'shroedingers view of reality doesn't effect the cat'

What I am trying to say is Schroedingers logical conclusion about reality is just wrong.  Reality is what it is, not what shroedinger/cat thinks/wants/claims/needs/believes/even observes it to be.  He needed to sit back add a little reason and ask himself 'WTF was I thinking?'.    By reason, I mean a little common sense, ie being reasonable.

Logic by itself, is unreasonable.  Something along the lines, statics don't lie, but liers use statistcs, or logic is a set of rules that are true/reason is sometimes wrong, everyone (christians/athiests) use logic without reason.

[Fininho]

You find in 1 Peter, the instruction "Add to your faith KNOWLEDGE" - gnosis.
Properly interpreted - my way - it disenfranchises faith.
Once you add knowledge to faith, faith is discredited.

[Achronos]

Nonsense.  Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.  Your false equivocation here debases both words.  

Faith is reliable, but on the other hand all knowledge is derived from the senses. The human intellect can not operate without phantasms or sensory data. And yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible. There is one human soul for each human person and that soul is the form or act of the human body. It is the business of the intellect to know natures and essences in their common or absolutely considered natures. But still, a knowledge both of itself and of particular things is possible for the human intellect. The final cause for mankind is salvation and felicity in beholding God.

What, then, do you think Paul was doing, if he wasn't founding a religion?  That too is part of the New Testament.

As I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

In other words, you're not judging them, but you are discerning? This is a distinction without a difference.  No matter how you try to finesse it, you are certainly committing this fallacy; I have emphasized where you've repeated this error.  That you are so blasé in so doing does you no good credit.

[/quote]

Judging them in regards to pointing out theological issues but I personally have to discern the truth because it is important to me. It may not be so important to another Christian, but it is absolutley vital for how my mind operates. I'm not deriding a certain person based on their theological approach to Christianity, but there are differences present and it is those differences that have caused me to find the truth.

[SomewhereInND]

Faith is reliable, .........(snip)

What?  I need help getting past your first 3 words, please help me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Faith is reliable, but on the other hand all knowledge is derived from the senses. The human intellect can not operate without phantasms or sensory data. And yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible. There is one human soul for each human person and that soul is the form or act of the human body. It is the business of the intellect to know natures and essences in their common or absolutely considered natures. But still, a knowledge both of itself and of particular things is possible for the human intellect. The final cause for mankind is salvation and felicity in beholding God.

Other than this word-salad, what support have you?  Bald claims bereft of evidence do not support make.

As I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

You dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Judging them in regards to pointing out theological issues but I personally have to discern the truth because it is important to me. It may not be so important to another Christian, but it is absolutley vital for how my mind operates. I'm not deriding a certain person based on their theological approach to Christianity, but there are differences present and it is those differences that have caused me to find the truth.

[/quote]

Again, this fallacy is present.  My point is this:  you realize that many of them say that you are not a true Christian.  From where I stand, you're both right.  

[Asmodean]

You dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Don't feel too special, Thump... he dodged quite a few of mine too