FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


About Judas Iscariot...





storyteller
Often, when people read the NT gospels, they see Judas Iscariot as the betrayer, motivated by greed.

But did Judas really betray Jesus?

Is it really "betraying" if Judas was doing God's will?

For without the "betrayal", there would be no arrest. Without the arrest, there would be no crucifixion and death. And with no death, there can be no resurrection.

I know that some Christians believed that Jesus is God, but if Jesus really had the knowledge and the power of a god, then why didn't Jesus stop it?

So really...of the 12 original apostles, Judas seemed to be the real hero of the story (apart from Jesus himself).

What do you think?
badai
i was thinking about a man try to rape and murder 2 of your daughters and a cop manage to save one of them. that cop become a hero.

now without that murderer, would that cop become a hero? and you know what, this is all part of god's plan who knew from eternity it would happened.

on second thought, you are probably too young to have any daughter.
nickfyoung
Jesus didn't want to go there. Who would. If he knew what was going to happen he would do all he could to avoid it you would think. After all, crucifixion was no pic nic. The Romans had designed it to be the ultimate degradation. Those crucified were done so naked to increase the humiliation. It usually took a few days to die and there was no getting down to go to the toilet. Jesus knew what was coming and asked his Father to change history a bit so he didn't have to go there but accepted his fate in obedience. Not many kids today are that obedient.
storyteller
badai wrote:
i was thinking about a man try to rape and murder 2 of your daughters and a cop manage to save one of them. that cop become a hero.

now without that murderer, would that cop become a hero? and you know what, this is all part of god's plan who knew from eternity it would happened.

on second thought, you are probably too young to have any daughter.


Be that as it may, according to each gospel, Jesus was required to be betrayed and die on that cross, according to Christians, suffer for the sins of this world, so that you can enjoy the afterlife.

Without Judas, it would be a different story.
storyteller
nickfyoung wrote:
Jesus didn't want to go there. Who would. If he knew what was going to happen he would do all he could to avoid it you would think. After all, crucifixion was no pic nic. The Romans had designed it to be the ultimate degradation. Those crucified were done so naked to increase the humiliation. It usually took a few days to die and there was no getting down to go to the toilet. Jesus knew what was coming and asked his Father to change history a bit so he didn't have to go there but accepted his fate in obedience. Not many kids today are that obedient.


Ah, so you are not one of those Christians, who think Jesus and God are one and the same (Jesus = God)?

I have across some Christians who believed that Jesus is the son of God, but other Christians who believe Jesus is God.
Bikerman
You haven't got the hang of theology yet. They ALL believe ALL of that.
He WAS the son of God, he WAS/IS God, he IS a distinct 'presence' - all of that.
They then pretend it isn't the sort of talk one expects from students trying their first LSD, or (apparently, my wife insists) that I engage in whilst fast asleep sometimes - ie meaningless gibberish - and give it a name so they can use that, and pretend the underlying nonsense is then dealt with. This runs right through Christianity.
So here the nonsense is called a 'trinity' - a notion corrupted and twisted out of Greek and Egyptian culture, where it made some sort of sense, and made to do service here, where it not only makes no sense, the Christians actually ADMIT it. * Other examples would include Transubstantiation, Unconditional and Conditional election, Omniscience/Omnipotence, A ultimately loving father-type God....and on and on.

All these notions are either logically nonsense, or, where they can mean something, it is normally the opposite of what they DO mean - So the Deity who condemns his 'children' to eternal torture before they are born, for some reason which, to him, must seem important but, to anyone with moral sensibility greater than a jellyfish, is morally repugnant and monstrous, is described in language of a loving and caring Father figure when, in reality, NO father - andI have known some very BAD fathers, but, I repeat NO father, however depraved, psychotic or sociopathic, would EVER be able to summon the inhumanity and sheer evil of purpose to be able to carry such a thing forward. The worst imaginable horrific bastard would not be able to keep up extreme torture on another sentient being for ETERNITY without breaking.
The fact that this punishment is for crimes which are clearly imaginary, and, even if true, would amount to no more than having a distant relative who scrumped an apple when they were told not to, resulting in the condemnation of every living person since.....well, it just adds to the surreality of the whole thing..then you top it off with perhaps the ultimate insane notion - that God can only forgive us for this distant and wholly imaginary crime by having us torture and kill him for a long weekend. Not that this DOES result in forgiveness of course - you have to ACKNOWLEDGE that it us TRUE and your allegiance and love to the perpetrator of this soda-masochistic nonsense and convince yourself that his fairly routine and unremarkable death is the greatest act of love imaginable, even though, to an infinite being, it would be no more that a brief clip in existence.

THAT is the stuff we call theology - or more specifically, theologians (they are apologists with degrees) have the task of making this 'account' seem to be, well, less insane than it really is...
It is, of course, an impossible task, but they do manage to convince a truly astonishing number of people - largely by using tricks like infant indoctrination, hitting them at low points when vulnerable, and using clever sounding but fundamentally fallacious arguments they have been polishing for about 2 millennia....

Welcome to theology my friend....you will learn much, non of it useful, most of it demonstrable bollox and some of it dangerous and evil filth that would be best consigned to the deepest hole we can find and never talked of again....

*In such cases the Christians extend their 'trick' by bringing the admittedly nonsensical beliefs - which they admit cannot be understood in rational terms, under a new 'cover concept'. They are now classed as 'Divine Mystery' - as if this somehow changes them from illogical nonsense into something sane. They then pull the ultimate stunt by asserting that it is OUR FAULT that THEIR dogma is bollox - we just aren't 'Holy' or 'Advanced; enough to understand, or we are not in a state of 'Grace' in which, apparently, one becomes able to understand logically contradictory piles of meaningless twaddle easily. A State of Grace is what us non-believers sometimes think of as that mental state reached where one has pushed the head up the arse to such an extent that vision and smell have effectively shut0down, leaving the 'Graced' one to interpret the dull and barely audible noises that can penetrate such Stygian depths as the ears now occupy. Naturally people in this state don;t actually communicate well, if at all, since they hear little of what is said, and their responses, filtered through their lower intestines and anal sphincters, are rarely comprehensible, let alone relevant or informative. Still, they seem happy with their lot, so who am I to criticise?
nickfyoung
Storyteller
Quote:
Ah, so you are not one of those Christians, who think Jesus and God are one and the same (Jesus = God)?


Bikerman has got it pretty right but I can't help laughing at his animated description especially the bit at the bottom where it is all filtering through the annal passage etc.
storyteller
Bikerman wrote:
You haven't got the hang of theolohy yet. They ALL believe ALL of that.
He WAS the son of God, he WAS/IS God, he IS a distinct 'presence' - all of that.
They then pretend it isn't the sort of talk one expects from students trying their first LSD, or (apparently, my wife insists) that I engage in whilst fast asleep sometimes - ie meaningless gibberish - and give it a name so they can use that, and pretend the underlying nonsense is then dealt with. This runs right through Christianity.
So here the nonsense is called a 'trinity' - a notion corrupted and twisted out of Greek and Egyptian culture, where it made some sort of sense, and made to do service here, where it not only makes no sense, the Christians actually ADMIT it. * Other examples would include Transubstantiation, Unconditional and Conditional election, Omniscience/Omnipotence, A ultimately loving father-type God....and on and on.

All these notions are either logically nonsense, or, where they can mean something, it is normally the opposite of what they DO mean - So the Deity who condemns his 'children' to eternal torture before they are born, for some reason which, to him, must seem important but, to anyone with moral sensibility greater than a jellyfish, is morally repugnant and monstrous, is described in language of a loving and caring Father figure when, in reality, NO father - andI have known some very BAD fathers, but, I repeat NO father, however depraved, psychotic or sociopathic, would EVER be able to summon the inhumanity and sheer evil of purpose to be able to carry such a thing forward. The worst imaginable horrific bastard would not be able to keep up extreme torture on another sentient being for ETERNITY without breaking.
The fact that this punishment is for crimes which are clearly imaginary, and, even if true, would amount to no more than having a distant relative who scrumped an apple when they were told not to, resulting in the condemnation of every living person since.....well, it just adds to the surreality of the whole thing..then you top it off with perhaps the ultimate insane notion - that God can only forgive us for this distant and wholly imaginary crime by having us torture and kill him for a long weekend. Not that this DOES result in forgiveness of course - you have to ACKNOWLEDGE that it us TRUE and your allegiance and love to the perpetrator of this soda-masochistic nonsense and convince yourself that his fairly routine and unremarkable death is the greatest act of love imaginable, even though, to an infinite being, it would be no more that a brief clip in existence.

THAT is the stuff we call theology - or more specifically, theologians (they are apologists with degrees) have the task of making this 'account' seem to be, well, less insane than it really is...
It is, of course, an impossible task, but they do manage to convince a truly astonishing number of people - largely by using tricks like infant indoctrination, hitting them at low points when vulnerable, and using clever sounding but fundamentally fallacious arguments they have been polishing for about 2 millennia....

Welcome to theology my friend....you will learn much, non of it useful, most of it demonstrable bollox and some of it dangerous and evil filth that would be best consigned to the deepest hole we can find and never talked of again....

*In such cases the Christians extend their 'trick' by bringing the admittedly nonsensical beliefs - which they admit cannot be understood in rational terms, under a new 'cover concept'. They are now classed as 'Divine Mystery' - as if this somehow changes them from illogical nonsense into something sane. They then pull the ultimate stunt by asserting that it is OUR FAULT that THEIR dogma is bollox - we just aren't 'Holy' or 'Advanced; enough to understand, or we are not in a state of 'Grace' in which, apparently, one becomes able to understand logically contradictory piles of meaningless twaddle easily. A State of Grace is what us non-believers sometimes think of as that mental state reached where one has pushed the head up the arse to such an extent that vision and smell have effectively shut0down, leaving the 'Graced' one to interpret the dull and barely audible noises that can penetrate such Stygian depths as the ears now occupy. Naturally people in this state don;t actually communicate well, if at all, since they hear little of what is said, and their responses, filtered through their lower intestines and anal sphincters, are rarely comprehensible, let alone relevant or informative. Still, they seem happy with their lot, so who am I to criticise?


Ah...Mmm...Uh... WOW! Shocked

I didn't expect that...

...uh...WOW! Surprised

Razz
redhakaw
not only you are new with theology, you are also new in atheist evangelism.

welcome!
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
You haven't got the hang of theolohy yet. They ALL believe ALL of that.
He WAS the son of God, he WAS/IS God, he IS a distinct 'presence' - all of that.


and we use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.

Quote:

They then pretend it isn't the sort of talk one expects from students trying their first LSD, or (apparently, my wife insists) that I engage in whilst fast asleep sometimes - ie meaningless gibberish - and give it a name so they can use that, and pretend the underlying nonsense is then dealt with. This runs right through Christianity.


yes, and it also runs in atheism. all these nature stuff, ufo baloneys and not to mention the agnostics who couldn't make up their mind.

whether christian or atheist, what matters is who really can think critically.

Quote:

So here the nonsense is called a 'trinity' - a notion corrupted and twisted out of Greek and Egyptian culture, where it made some sort of sense, and made to do service here, where it not only makes no sense, the Christians actually ADMIT it. *


admit what? that the trinity doctrine is a twisted version of another belief? attempting ad populum again?

Quote:

Other examples would include Transubstantiation, Unconditional and Conditional election, Omniscience/Omnipotence, A ultimately loving father-type God....and on and on.

those are doctrines or teachings, it's just part of theology.

Quote:

All these notions are either logically nonsense, or, where they can mean something, it is normally the opposite of what they DO mean - So the Deity who condemns his 'children' to eternal torture before they are born, for some reason which, to him, must seem important but, to anyone with moral sensibility greater than a jellyfish, is morally repugnant and monstrous, is described in language of a loving and caring Father figure when, in reality, NO father - andI have known some very BAD fathers, but, I repeat NO father, however depraved, psychotic or sociopathic, would EVER be able to summon the inhumanity and sheer evil of purpose to be able to carry such a thing forward. The worst imaginable horrific bastard would not be able to keep up extreme torture on another sentient being for ETERNITY without breaking.
The fact that this punishment is for crimes which are clearly imaginary, and, even if true, would amount to no more than having a distant relative who scrumped an apple when they were told not to, resulting in the condemnation of every living person since.....well, it just adds to the surreality of the whole thing..then you top it off with perhaps the ultimate insane notion - that God can only forgive us for this distant and wholly imaginary crime by having us torture and kill him for a long weekend. Not that this DOES result in forgiveness of course - you have to ACKNOWLEDGE that it us TRUE and your allegiance and love to the perpetrator of this soda-masochistic nonsense and convince yourself that his fairly routine and unremarkable death is the greatest act of love imaginable, even though, to an infinite being, it would be no more that a brief clip in existence.


I suppose you have your basis on these claims? can you site your source, and preferably directly from the scriptures and not borrowing from known doctrines. let's see how good you are in your comprehension skills, and critical thinking in your interpretation. Show me your source that

1.) God condemned his children to eternal torture before they are born
2.) that it was an apple
3.) that His death does not result to forgiveness
4.) that His death is the "greatest act of love"

perhaps you are misinformed, you attack christians without even knowing or understanding what we believe.

Quote:

THAT is the stuff we call theology - or more specifically, theologians (they are apologists with degrees) have the task of making this 'account' seem to be, well, less insane than it really is...
It is, of course, an impossible task, but they do manage to convince a truly astonishing number of people - largely by using tricks like infant indoctrination, hitting them at low points when vulnerable, and using clever sounding but fundamentally fallacious arguments they have been polishing for about 2 millennia....

Welcome to theology my friend....you will learn much, non of it useful, most of it demonstrable bollox and some of it dangerous and evil filth that would be best consigned to the deepest hole we can find and never talked of again....


there is not much useful information in this block of text, it's just like an old man's rant on how miserable his christian experience was.

Quote:

*In such cases the Christians extend their 'trick' by bringing the admittedly nonsensical beliefs - which they admit cannot be understood in rational terms, under a new 'cover concept'. They are now classed as 'Divine Mystery' - as if this somehow changes them from illogical nonsense into something sane.


it's a "mystery" my dear, how on earth can it be logical.

Quote:

They then pull the ultimate stunt by asserting that it is OUR FAULT that THEIR dogma is bollox - we just aren't 'Holy' or 'Advanced; enough to understand, or we are not in a state of 'Grace' in which, apparently, one becomes able to understand logically contradictory piles of meaningless twaddle easily.


being in a state of "Grace" does not imply that you are holy/advanced, in fact, being in this state means that you need Grace and therefore is sinful, and that you have turned into a worthless thing.

Quote:
A State of Grace is what us non-believers sometimes think of as that mental state reached where one has pushed the head up the arse to such an extent that vision and smell have effectively shut0down, leaving the 'Graced' one to interpret the dull and barely audible noises that can penetrate such Stygian depths as the ears now occupy. Naturally people in this state don;t actually communicate well, if at all, since they hear little of what is said, and their responses, filtered through their lower intestines and anal sphincters, are rarely comprehensible, let alone relevant or informative. Still, they seem happy with their lot, so who am I to criticise?


baseless, uneducated, and an amateur attempt to sound funny and/or annoying.
if you are to attempt ad hominem, please do it with finesse.
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
and we use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.

Ahh...enter the fundamentalist...and immediately we see the problem. You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
FAIL.
The only other thing in the posting worthy of comment is the usual ignorance of the meaning of 'atheist' and 'agnostic' which, coming from someone who claims to have been an atheist, is odd.
Nothing 'runs through' atheism except a lack of belief in God(s). Anything else is simply YOU making assumptions. An agnostic doesn't think it possible to know/prove God(s) exist. They may well have chosen to believe (theist agnostic) or not believe (agnostic atheist).
Educate yourself fundy, THEN you can comment on my ignorance without revealing your own lack of knowledge rather than mine.
Next please...
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
redhakaw wrote:
and we use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.

Ahh...enter the fundamentalist...and immediately we see the problem. You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
FAIL.


first, it's good that you know how to use wiki and borrow definitions there but let me remind you that wiki is not a very reliable source.

second, It seems that you are relax and over-confident about yourself in this subforum, I don't see a lot of theists challenging your posts here, maybe I'm just new or maybe they're just too annoyed, well, I'll change that, I believe I am more than welcome to engage "heavy" discussions.

finally, your post above is obviously careless, "orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox", this shows how poor your comprehension skills are, but then again I refuse to believe that, I really think that you are too relax and have no idea who you are up against.

Quote:
The only other thing in the posting worthy of comment is the usual ignorance of the meaning of 'atheist' and 'agnostic' which, coming from someone who claims to have been an atheist, is odd.
Nothing 'runs through' atheism except a lack of belief in God(s). Anything else is simply YOU making assumptions. An agnostic doesn't think it possible to know/prove God(s) exist. They may well have chosen to believe (theist agnostic) or not believe (agnostic atheist).
Educate yourself fundy, THEN you can comment on my ignorance without revealing your own lack of knowledge rather than mine.


putting words into my mouth, I said it runs through atheism, I did not say IT IS atheism.

and please stop imagining that agnostics are atheists. I said I was an atheist, not an agnostic, so do not take it against me for not knowing what agnosticism is, and even so, the very fact that there are atheist and theist agnostic as you said just proves that there is not really a solid stand in agnosticism on the existince of God.

Quote:
Next please...


you seem to be forgetting to address the rest of my queries from your previous posts?
or are you trying to evade them?
it's ok, just tell the readers that you can't answer them. Wink


storyteller wrote:
Often, when people read the NT gospels, they see Judas Iscariot as the betrayer, motivated by greed.

But did Judas really betray Jesus?

Is it really "betraying" if Judas was doing God's will?

For without the "betrayal", there would be no arrest. Without the arrest, there would be no crucifixion and death. And with no death, there can be no resurrection.


well, if God's will is Judas betraying Jesus then when Judas betrayed Jesus, Judas did what was the will of God, therefore Judas betrayed Jesus. If Judas did something other than betraying Jesus, then he did not do His will. Smile

Quote:

I know that some Christians believed that Jesus is God, but if Jesus really had the knowledge and the power of a god, then why didn't Jesus stop it?


first, it's because it's part of the plan, rooting to God's will.
when Jesus was in mount Gethsemane, He was actually showing His pain for doing what needs to be done, but in the end He says to the Father that His will should be done.

and also, death is needed in order for resurrection to happen. you cannot resurrect if you did not die.

Quote:

So really...of the 12 original apostles, Judas seemed to be the real hero of the story (apart from Jesus himself).

What do you think?


if God did not know Judas' heart then perhaps he can be considered a hero. But we all know that Jesus knew his heart, he knew that he is going to be betrayed by him if he is to be chosen as a disciple. And Jesus even initiated his betrayal by rebuking him during when Mary poured the oil in the alabastar jar.

When Jesus chose His disciples, He did not chose base on the disciple's natural qualities, James and John had a bad temper like thunder, Matthew a tax collector, Peter who seem to fail in alot of accounts, and of course Judas Iscariot, a greedy person. Jesus chose His disciples according to spiritual insight, He made it a point that His mission will be carried out, and Judas is part of that. it is also a part of the fulfillment of a prophecy (Psalms 41"9)

the point here is, Jesus chose Judas because He knew he is filled with the devil, and in order to fulfill the prophecy and carry out God's will, he needed to choose Judas.
storyteller
redhakaw wrote:
welcome!

Thanks, redhakaw. Smile

Quote:
not only you are new with theology, you are also new in atheist evangelism.


No, I'm not an atheist. Agnostic...I'm agnostic...assuming that you're still talking to me, me being new and all. Confused
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
finally, your post above is obviously careless, "orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox", this shows how poor your comprehension skills are, but then again I refuse to believe that, I really think that you are too relax and have no idea who you are up against.
Not much - someone with delusions of adequacy and a rather over-inflated opinion of their own importance and abilities, judging from what you have posted to date. What I said was correct and your attempt to mask/distract with a semantic quibble (which is also incorrect) is noted. I said that orthodoxy is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. That means that you cannot determine orthodoxy using critical thinking/logic. The beliefs available to chose from are ALL ultimately irrational, in that they depend fundamentally on a non-rational element which must be believed and not demonstrated.
There IS a rational way to decide between such orthodoxies - reject all of them, or select the one with the fewest non-rational elements - but that is not an available choice to the zealot/fundy. Most Christians cherry pick which dogma they will abide by. That is, for example, why Italy - the most Catholic country in Europe - has one of the lowest birth rates. Fundamentalists generally like to think that they are the 'full fat' versions, in that they buy the whole deal. In this they are, of course, delusional. For example, you claim that the bible is absolute truth and yet I doubt you follow many of the rules/laws laid out in Leviticus.
If religious orthodoxy could be decided via critical thinking and the use of logic, we would have an agreed Christian orthodoxy. In reality we have thousands (conservative figure) of different orthodoxies spread amongst tends of thousands of different christian sects - all claiming to be the 'real' Christians.
Your claim to use logic and critical thinking is shown to be false by the fact that you assert, axiomatically, that the bible is absolutely true. The bible contains hundreds of errors (and that is very conservative). I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore. This is not how critical thinking works and nor is it logical. The assertion, and the complete inability to deal with counter-evidence, is absolutely what one expects from fundamentalist religious zealots, not critical thinkers.
Quote:
and please stop imagining that agnostics are atheists. I said I was an atheist, not an agnostic, so do not take it against me for not knowing what agnosticism is, and even so, the very fact that there are atheist and theist agnostic as you said just proves that there is not really a solid stand in agnosticism on the existince of God.
I don't imagine anything, you simply don't know what the words mean and are arrogant enough to assume that your mistaken understanding must be correct. Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism - it isn't measuring the same thing. Atheism/theism is whether one believes in God or not. Agnosticism is whether one thinks the existence of God can be proven or not. The two measures are not exclusive and thus, of course, you CAN be an atheist agnostic (as I am) or a theist agnostic (as many theists would readily admit to being). The fact that you don't understand this has nothing to do with my imagination and everything to do with your ignorance of basic concepts.
Quote:
you seem to be forgetting to address the rest of my queries from your previous posts?
There was nothing worth addressing. For example, your comments about being in a 'state of Grace' were complete nonsense. A 'State of Grace' is a Catholic notion and describes someone who is able to receive the sacrament of Communion because they have no mortal sins on their conscience (because they have confessed them). What you said was basically gibberish.
storyteller
redhakaw wrote:
if God did not know Judas' heart then perhaps he can be considered a hero. But we all know that Jesus knew his heart, he knew that he is going to be betrayed by him if he is to be chosen as a disciple. And Jesus even initiated his betrayal by rebuking him during when Mary poured the oil in the alabastar jar.

When Jesus chose His disciples, He did not chose base on the disciple's natural qualities, James and John had a bad temper like thunder, Matthew a tax collector, Peter who seem to fail in alot of accounts, and of course Judas Iscariot, a greedy person. Jesus chose His disciples according to spiritual insight, He made it a point that His mission will be carried out, and Judas is part of that. it is also a part of the fulfillment of a prophecy (Psalms 41"9)

the point here is, Jesus chose Judas because He knew he is filled with the devil, and in order to fulfill the prophecy and carry out God's will, he needed to choose Judas.


When I first read the gospels, and other parts of the bible (as a teenager), I used to take the stories the way it is, as taught by any Christian, and didn't think to question or challenge it.

But the last 10 to 12 years, reading the same story of Jesus with the Last Supper, betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, death and resurrection, it sound a little too "staged". Hence, the doubts, and the questions.

[Mod]Tags fixed[/Mod]
Bikerman
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
Not much - someone with delusions of adequacy and a rather over-inflated opinion of their own importance and abilities, judging from what you have posted to date. What I said was correct and your attempt to mask/distract with a semantic quibble (which is also incorrect) is noted. I said that orthodoxy is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. That means that you cannot determine orthodoxy using critical thinking/logic. The beliefs available to chose from are ALL ultimately irrational, in that they depend fundamentally on a non-rational element which must be believed and not demonstrated.


no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used.
I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say.

when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height.

so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics. It's one of the reasons why we have the Critical Texts as opposed to Received Texts.

Quote:

There IS a rational way to decide between such orthodoxies - reject all of them, or select the one with the fewest non-rational elements - but that is not an available choice to the zealot/fundy. Most Christians cherry pick which dogma they will abide by. That is, for example, why Italy - the most Catholic country in Europe - has one of the lowest birth rates. Fundamentalists generally like to think that they are the 'full fat' versions, in that they buy the whole deal. In this they are, of course, delusional. For example, you claim that the bible is absolute truth and yet I doubt you follow many of the rules/laws laid out in Leviticus.


we have 3 problems in this block of text,
first, you are giving a fork tongued statement.
first you say that determining orthodox is "subjective", "not amenable" to critical thinking, now you are saying that there IS a rational way (which is not really rational).

second, you are introducing a strawman (again), we are talking about determining orthodoxy, not what christians wants to believe, which brings us to the 3rd problem

ad hominem, you are attacking my supposed beliefs and use it to prove that orthodoxy is indeterminable.
I can always succeed in demonstrating and proving how faster trains are than horses, and still choose to ride horses over trains.

Quote:

If religious orthodoxy could be decided via critical thinking and the use of logic, we would have an agreed Christian orthodoxy. In reality we have thousands (conservative figure) of different orthodoxies spread amongst tends of thousands of different christian sects - all claiming to be the 'real' Christians.


let me remind you that there are orthodox beliefs that are shared by ALL christians. so saying that it is impossible to have an agreed christian orthodox is simply absurd.

Quote:

Your claim to use logic and critical thinking is shown to be false by the fact that you assert, axiomatically, that the bible is absolutely true.


that is not what I've said, what I've said is that for me (subjective), the bible is absolute truth. I did not say that I have arrived at this by using critical thinking and logic. (too bad I couldn't find that post anymore)

Quote:

The bible contains hundreds of errors (and that is very conservative). I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore. This is not how critical thinking works and nor is it logical. The assertion, and the complete inability to deal with counter-evidence, is absolutely what one expects from fundamentalist religious zealots, not critical thinkers.


give the best error you can find and let me explain to you to the best of my experience and knowledge.

and again, I am not a fundamentalist™
I do refer always to the fundamentals, but I am not those you see waving banners or plackards calling gays the devil. Or one of those who tell people to stone sinners to death because the bible says so.

Quote:
I don't imagine anything, you simply don't know what the words mean and are arrogant enough to assume that your mistaken understanding must be correct. Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism - it isn't measuring the same thing. Atheism/theism is whether one believes in God or not. Agnosticism is whether one thinks the existence of God can be proven or not.
The two measures are not exclusive and thus, of course, you CAN be an atheist agnostic (as I am) or a theist agnostic (as many theists would readily admit to being). The fact that you don't understand this has nothing to do with my imagination and everything to do with your ignorance of basic concepts.


I have no problems with the definitions you have given, my problem is your failure to demonstrate why I did not understand or why I am mistaken to what I have posted.

I said that there are a lot of things that runs in atheism, and I have named 3.
1.) nature stuff, I refer to those atheists who are more likely buddhist who have a weird way of looking at nature.
2.) ufo baloneys, who due to realizing that God is evil, tried to find other sentient beings that are a bit more scientific and somehow to look smart and geeky.
3.) agnostics, or specifically, atheist agnostics (because agnostics also runs in atheism) who cannot make up their minds on their contrasting positions whether a deity is unknowable(no way to find out), or currently unknown (unknown, for now)

and then I said that agnostics are not atheists, which is quite true for they are not the same in like you said, not measuring the same thing.

I said that I was an atheist and not an agnostic, which simply means that I am a strong atheist, not the agnostic variant, so you can't simply doubt whether I was an atheist or not because I do not understand agnosticism (even if i did)

Quote:
There was nothing worth addressing.

well it's gibberish if you don't want to read them seriously.

the points that I have enumerated from what you have said are questionable and requires evidence. unless of course if evidence is not something of worth to you.


Quote:

For example, your comments about being in a 'state of Grace' were complete nonsense. A 'State of Grace' is a Catholic notion and describes someone who is able to receive the sacrament of Communion because they have no mortal sins on their conscience (because they have confessed them). What you said was basically gibberish.


I was describing "Grace" and how you are graced, or in a state of grace. The Catholics can have their own terms and own meanings all they want, but our basis here is the Bible, and what I have said is based on the Bible. In other words, if you want to use Catholic doctrine, then be prepared to think critically by explaining whether these doctrines are biblical.
redhakaw
storyteller wrote:

When I first read the gospels, and other parts of the bible (as a teenager), I used to take the stories the way it is, as taught by any Christian, and didn't think to question or challenge it.

But the last 10 to 12 years, reading the same story of Jesus with the Last Supper, betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, death and resurrection, it sound a little too "staged". Hence, the doubts, and the questions.



well, one christian used to tell me, it is better to read the Bible like an innocent child to get the riches from the Word of God.

you see, reading is not enough, you have to learn to eat it, enjoy it, constitute it in you, develop an appetite for it, even pray it. But above all, read with a pure heart, and with love.
Bikerman
Quote:
no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used.
I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say.
when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height.

so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics. It's one of the reasons why we have the Critical Texts as opposed to Received Texts.

Do you actually BELIEVE that this makes any sense?

Where I can discern some signal amongst the noise it is nonsense. Thus

"when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height. "

Nonsense and obvious nonsense at that.
Determining the height of a person means what it seems to mean and most certainly does NOT (and cannot) mean anything to do with deciding on methodologies or techniques of measuring in general.
Determining a persons height is clear semantically. It doesn't require Hermeneutics (which you appear to have just thrown into the text almost at random.

Seriously, if you are aware of what I'm telling you then OK - you are just a bit of a prat and should remember that the readers here are not idiots and include people who probably actually are in the field of textual analysis and Hermeneutics. It certainly includes a lot of people who will, like me, realise you are either ill, trolling, or a bit of both.

Needless to say, the rest of your posting is almost completely meaningless and, where it isn't it is simply wrong. Seriously - go and consult with someone wise and LISTEN to what they say - you are just making a fool of yourself here.

I need to consult in the staff forum before saying more because I am almost sure it is a troll for a moment, then I think it can't be, then...well, I need other opinions on this...'posting'.

I will come back to this when I have consulted and thought more on it.

At the very least this might serve as a warning - if reading theology does this to your command of the language then it is clearly MUCH worse than my article - intended as a light and humorous piece - even hinted at.
In this case it seems to have triggered dispraxic episodes, mixed with chronic mania and almost certainly delusional disorder.

I will most certainly take a copy of this for more research later....
storyteller
redhakaw wrote:
storyteller wrote:

When I first read the gospels, and other parts of the bible (as a teenager), I used to take the stories the way it is, as taught by any Christian, and didn't think to question or challenge it.

But the last 10 to 12 years, reading the same story of Jesus with the Last Supper, betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, death and resurrection, it sound a little too "staged". Hence, the doubts, and the questions.



well, one christian used to tell me, it is better to read the Bible like an innocent child to get the riches from the Word of God.

you see, reading is not enough, you have to learn to eat it, enjoy it, constitute it in you, develop an appetite for it, even pray it. But above all, read with a pure heart, and with love.


That's good and well, in a world of fantasy, but it is impossible to be child-like for the rest of your life.

The problem with an innocent child is that they couldn't distinguish right from wrong, good from bad. The child wouldn't also be able to understand what it is written, especially in scriptures, like the Bible.

Hell, even an adult can have problem understanding the bible, let alone a child.

And the bible is really written for children, because they would have to navigate the positives and negatives of the biblical stories, and it is impossible for them to do so without guidance. The stories contained murders (as well as few massacres), violence, rapes, incest.

Even David is far from perfect, and most people view him as a hero. I am not saying he is not a hero, but he was a far-better person before he became king, because not only committed adultery with Bathsheba, but arranged so that her husband was killed in battle, so that he could marry her.

Jacob is far better person than his twin brother Esau, and yet Jacob had lied and tricked his father, fooling Isaac into giving Esau's blessing to him. So if you were a child reading Jacob's story, would you think it would be OK to lie or to trick someone?

And Abraham was quite willing to sacrifice his only son to Sarah, to God. He would have carry this sacrifice out, had not an angel stop him. If God made the same demand to you, today, would you have sacrifice your child? It is highly doubtful that God or any angel would intervene had you being holding the knife yourself.

It is not easy for adult to know the good and bad from these biblical stories, and it would be even more difficult for innocent child to correctly interpret any story or passage from the bible.
Bikerman
Are you assuming that there IS a good morality in the bible, but that it is hard to find? When you say 'correctly interpret' that would suggest that the moral messages are there but need to be 'revealed' by interpreting the text 'correctly'.
I take a very different position. The God of the Old Testament - Yahweh - is the Jewish God who comes from a Polytheist Pantheon, and is later 'adapted' to be a mono-theistic Deity (possibly the first, but the Egyptians also have a claim to that). Polytheistic deities tended to be specialists rather than overall 'good' - and I think the origin of Yahweh was probably as the War God. This would explain why he is so blood thirsty and why he kills so many and so gratuitously.
You can't really interpret stories like Sodom & Gommorah, The Flood etc etc in ANY way which would give you a good moral lesson in my opinion. They are pretty evil however you spin it.....
Indi
You know, there's actually a Gospel of Judas that didn't make it into the Bible, with exactly that argument.
Bikerman
ROFLMAO - You know, I really HAD forgotten - and I recently formatted the lost and left-out books for inclusion on my site...should have it around somewhere.,.,...let's see....
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:

...Determining a persons height is clear semantically.
It doesn't require Hermeneutics (which you appear to have just thrown into the text almost at random.


ok then, what is not semantically clear when we say "determining orthodoxy"?

and what on earth does hermeneutics has to do with determining a person's height?
determining what is orthodox, that's where you need hermeneutics.

the Nestle Alands CRITICAL texts are good examples of how CRITICAL thinking is applied, and I mean that without any play of semantics.

Quote:

Seriously, if you are aware of what I'm telling you then OK - you are just a bit of a prat and should remember that the readers here are not idiots and include people who probably actually are in the field of textual analysis and Hermeneutics. It certainly includes a lot of people who will, like me, realise you are either ill, trolling, or a bit of both.


so what are you really telling me? so far you haven't given any inch of sound argument nor any bit of concrete statement, all I can see are crude hominems.

and please, try to be more interesting, I can actually create a template on how you respond your posts.

I am still waiting on how you will resond to the points I have mentioned here:
RH wrote:
1.) God condemned his children to eternal torture before they are born
2.) that it was an apple
3.) that His death does not result to forgiveness
4.) that His death is the "greatest act of love"


Quote:

Needless to say, the rest of your posting is almost completely meaningless and, where it isn't it is simply wrong. Seriously - go and consult with someone wise and LISTEN to what they say - you are just making a fool of yourself here.


you have to give evidences or any refutations on how my posts are meaningless or wrong, and if you did, please specify and highlight them. ad hominems are not really refutations.

Quote:

I need to consult in the staff forum before saying more because I am almost sure it is a troll for a moment, then I think it can't be, then...well, I need other opinions on this...'posting'.

I will come back to this when I have consulted and thought more on it.


I might also need that staff to consult them if you are the one trolling. fair enough?

Quote:

At the very least this might serve as a warning - if reading theology does this to your command of the language then it is clearly MUCH worse than my article - intended as a light and humorous piece - even hinted at.
In this case it seems to have triggered dispraxic episodes, mixed with chronic mania and almost certainly delusional disorder.

I will most certainly take a copy of this for more research later....


right.

so can you start defending your position in your original post.
1.) the four points already mentioned earlier
2.) your fork tongued statement about determining orthodoxy by implying it is irrational at first, and then later saying that it can be rational

you said:
"That means that you cannot determine orthodoxy using critical thinking/logic."
"There IS a rational way to decide between such orthodoxies"


clearly, a contradiction.

3.) you mentioned hundreds of error, and yet you are not able (or evading) to give one good error.
Bikerman
OK, I have consulted with academic colleagues and friends. Opinion is split. But since you have now posted another pile of excremental nonsense, I will proceed without the last reply.

If Indi had been active in this thread I would have asked him for comment as well....(feel free to offer it anyway Indi), but in the event I asked 6 other academic colleagues for an opinion. The reason I did this was concern about your status. I have been debating at this sort of level for a long time and your contributions are not just wrong, they cause me to question whether you are in a position to actually engage in a proper debate. Specifically I was concerned that you were either very young - a teenager, or perhaps an older adult with some degree of special needs. In neither case did I think it would be appropriate to debate you, given that I do not tend to be gentle in such debates and was (and still am) concerned that you are neither intellectually able to participate well in such a debate and would simply make a fool of yourself, and further concerned that this could be a real problem for you to deal with. I based this on several observed factors - an important one being your unrealistic self-image. I think that you genuinely believe that your postings are making valid points and scoring, rather than demonstrating a complete ignorance of the subject, coupled to a poor understanding of both formal and informal logic, and an already obvious Tendency towards some of the standard 'tactics' one sees particularly from creationists - and which the rest of us generally call deliberate dishonesty.

This rings alarm bells. In short I thought (and still think) that your personality may not be sufficiently grounded and robust for this sort of demanding encounter, and might 'break' if subjected to the sort of gloves-off demolition of your 'arguments', with the strong possiblity of this developing into ridicule as you dig and dig a deeper whole for yourself.
Secondary considerations would include the obvious *even at this early stage) fact that you obviously have nothing substantive to offer in any debate - it would almost certainly develop into me not only demolishing your position in short order, but then having to give you basic instruction before you would understand that I HAD done so. N
o thanks. I do that in my day job with people who actually WANT to learn, and even then I want paying for it. I ain't giving it free to someone who does't even realise that he doesn't know elementary rhetoric and logic, and is unlikely to accept that it might be worth his while to learn.
I therefore decided to consult trusted sources in order to make sure I wasn't imposing my own misreadings on the sitution and to make a judgement on the best was to proceed if that is not the problem. I therefore asked 6 people I know for a comment on this, giving then nothing other than links to postings, a brief decription of why I was contacting them, and some specific questions I wanted them to address. I have 5 replies and hope for the 6th fairly soon.
Commonly agreed were the following points:
a) You don't know what the basic logic fallacies actually are, and make frequent allegations of informal logical fallacies where they don't exist, most commonly misdiagnosing ad hominem, or ad populum fallacies. I have agreed to deal with this and will do so in my later reply.
b) You don't appear to read the points you reply to, or you don't fully understand them. There are many examples of you replying to criticisms or perceived problems that simply do not appear in the text in question.
c) You are so far out of your depth you may require oxygen and will almost certainly suffer nosebleeds. It was felt that there are already signs one might associate with Hypoxia - mental confusion, difficulty with simple cognitive tasks etc. It was felt that your habit of Peri-anal and Trans-anal interlocution might be the problem rather than simply a symptom.
The advice here was to take your head as far out from your arse as you feel able to manage.
This will aid respiration and oxygenate the brain, as well as reducing the effects of noxious gas such as SO, CO and H2S, giving you much sweeter breathe and finally improving your ability to actually read text before replying to it. Again I concur with my colleagues on this.

After this concordance, views were divided pretty equally as follows:
Two colleagues think you are either very young (teen), or have not completed a college education at any rate. I concur with this view, with some reservations..A more worrying scenario is that you are actually a mature adult. Two others take the view that you are trolling deliberately as a wind-up.
The other colleague (the Doctor) thinks you are almost certainly taking heavy duty pharmaceutical products and should stop doing so.

All agree with me that you initially represented yourself as a serious and experienced apologist and/or defender of religion (which I believe is known as 'bigging yourself up' amongst the youf). They further agree that this is either delusional or simply invented, and that you are clearly NOT experienced at this level of debate, and have either stepped-up a BIG level, or you were simply whistling to keep your spirits up. The feeling was that you would not be able to maintain a viable position IN such a debate for any significant period before succumbing to the effects mentioned earlier.

The two who think you 'very young' described you as a cocky/arrogant teenager with plenty of bravado and little in the way of brains or experience to back it with. I should say that neither saw this as anything to worry about because that is a phase which most teenagers will pass through at some stage. Again I concur with my colleagues. If you are 15-18 then there is no serious issue of concern.

The doctor, as I said, put it all down to industrial strength pharmaceuticals and told me that you should consult your GP and discuss the issue.
(I wouldn't worry about the Doc - I have known S for about 20 years and in all that time I think he has classified nearly all the people who we have discussed with one of two possible diagnoses. Either they are doing heavy duty pharmaceuticals in quantities more suited to tranquillising the species Loxodonta africana Subfamilia Elephantinae. These people, he insists, need to stop.
The other group he invariably diagnoses as obviously psychotic and in urgent need of some heavy duty pharmaceuticals.
Nobody has ever worked out why S became a doctor - he doesn't like people much, hates blood and thinks Medical Doctors are all quacks who give the patient Valium because it is quicker than talking to them for 5 mins. I might add that he is an MD, and his receptionist tells me he prescribes a lot of tranquillisers and keeps his consultations under 10 mins if he can possibly manage it...S cheerfully agreed when I confronted him with a charge of hypocrisy, and cheerfully added that he is the worst quack imaginable. I like S a lot, and he is brilliant in many respects, but the reason he became an MD seems destined to remain a mystery which he will probably take to the grave...)


The last view was, I suspect, rather tongue in cheek, but I know where she is coming from.
The lady in question advised me to seek you out, urgently, and arrange to have you quarantined (she actually suggested you be hunted, shot and buried somewhere offshore) so that whatever infection or genetic complaint you have got is not released into the wild. It was Y's view that your 3 postings to date have actually been responsible for a small but measurable decrease in global rationality and comprehension levels, and she fears that if you are left to continue, the consequences could be dire, and we may sink back into a global dark age. OK she was joking and we happen to share a similar sense of humour,so she wrote this very much for my amusement, knowing I would enjoy it (and I did - 3 pages of very funny 'panic').

But there is a serious underlying point which is why I felt the need to stop in the first place.
In the hope that you might see it, I'm going to explain what was wrong with your last posting,
I'll try to find the time needed later tonight, but this is on my list of jobs as a batch entry job (in other words a low priority which will get my time only when more important tasks release that timer into my 'idle' stack.
Bikerman
_________________
Keep it Real
Faith is believing something you know ain't true
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
ROFLMAO - You know, I really HAD forgotten - and I recently formatted the lost and left-out books for inclusion on my site...should have it around somewhere.,.,...let's see....

If you put a copy up, let me know - i've never actually read the text itself.
Bikerman
Doing it now...watch this space.
Bikerman
Try these:

Text version of Gospel of Judas

Bart Ehrman Commentary on GoJ

Indi
Awesome, dankon!
redhakaw
storyteller wrote:


That's good and well, in a world of fantasy, but it is impossible to be child-like for the rest of your life.

The problem with an innocent child is that they couldn't distinguish right from wrong, good from bad.


Jesus said: The Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.

He didn't say that it is about what is good or what is evil.

Quote:

The child wouldn't also be able to understand what it is written, especially in scriptures, like the Bible.

Hell, even an adult can have problem understanding the bible, let alone a child.

true, that's why you have to enjoy the Word of God, eat it, be constituted with it.
then that's the time you will arrive at the full knowledge of the Truth.

Quote:

And the bible is really written for children, because they would have to navigate the positives and negatives of the biblical stories, and it is impossible for them to do so without guidance. The stories contained murders (as well as few massacres), violence, rapes, incest.


I did not say that you should give the Bible for children to read.
What I said is that we should have an attitude like a child when reading the Bible.

It simply means that we should empty ourselves, not assuming that we know some things, but is ready to receive new things, not with a heart full of opinions but one that is open.

Quote:

Even David is far from perfect, and most people view him as a hero. I am not saying he is not a hero, but he was a far-better person before he became king, because not only committed adultery with Bathsheba, but arranged so that her husband was killed in battle, so that he could marry her.


just shows that there is no perfect person except Christ, David heavily repented on what he did, and accepted his punishment by not being able to build the temple

Quote:

Jacob is far better person than his twin brother Esau, and yet Jacob had lied and tricked his father, fooling Isaac into giving Esau's blessing to him. So if you were a child reading Jacob's story, would you think it would be OK to lie or to trick someone?


Jacob obeyed his mother, and Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of food. Birthright is a very sacred, very important thing and yet Esau took it for granted.

Jacob was also punished to set things straight, he was renamed Israel by Jehovah after exposing his weakness in Bethel, and he was also supplanted for not having his desired wife. He labored a great deal working for his uncle.

From being a supplanter, he became someone who gives blessings, even to a Pharoah.

we should learn from this that we are sinners and thus needed to be born again, and to be transformed, in order to be a blessing to God and man.

Quote:

And Abraham was quite willing to sacrifice his only son to Sarah, to God. He would have carry this sacrifice out, had not an angel stop him. If God made the same demand to you, today, would you have sacrifice your child? It is highly doubtful that God or any angel would intervene had you being holding the knife yourself.


of course I would not sacrifice my only son, only God can make me do that according to His power. It is not of my will, but of His will.

Quote:

It is not easy for adult to know the good and bad from these biblical stories, and it would be even more difficult for innocent child to correctly interpret any story or passage from the bible.


the only reason why someone would not understand the Word is when that someone does not read the entire Bible, and was not touched by the Spirit. I have encountered a lot of people, and have discussed the things in the Bible, and yet a lot of them would not receive the gospel, it is by God's choosing, specifically, the Spirit's sanctification. This is pictured in the parable of the woman who lost her coin, we are the coin who was lost, the Spirit is the woman, and the lamp is the light of the Word.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
OK, I have consulted with academic colleagues and friends. Opinion is split. But since you have now posted another pile of excremental nonsense, I will proceed without the last reply.

If Indi had been active in this thread I would have asked him for comment as well....(feel free to offer it anyway Indi), but in the event I asked 6 other academic colleagues for an opinion. The reason I did this was concern about your status. I have been debating at this sort of level for a long time and your contributions are not just wrong, they cause me to question whether you are in a position to actually engage in a proper debate. Specifically I was concerned that you were either very young - a teenager, or perhaps an older adult with some degree of special needs. In neither case did I think it would be appropriate to debate you, given that I do not tend to be gentle in such debates and was (and still am) concerned that you are neither intellectually able to participate well in such a debate and would simply make a fool of yourself, and further concerned that this could be a real problem for you to deal with. I based this on several observed factors - an important one being your unrealistic self-image. I think that you genuinely believe that your postings are making valid points and scoring, rather than demonstrating a complete ignorance of the subject, coupled to a poor understanding of both formal and informal logic, and an already obvious Tendency towards some of the standard 'tactics' one sees particularly from creationists - and which the rest of us generally call deliberate dishonesty.

This rings alarm bells. In short I thought (and still think) that your personality may not be sufficiently grounded and robust for this sort of demanding encounter, and might 'break' if subjected to the sort of gloves-off demolition of your 'arguments', with the strong possiblity of this developing into ridicule as you dig and dig a deeper whole for yourself.
Secondary considerations would include the obvious *even at this early stage) fact that you obviously have nothing substantive to offer in any debate - it would almost certainly develop into me not only demolishing your position in short order, but then having to give you basic instruction before you would understand that I HAD done so. N
o thanks. I do that in my day job with people who actually WANT to learn, and even then I want paying for it. I ain't giving it free to someone who does't even realise that he doesn't know elementary rhetoric and logic, and is unlikely to accept that it might be worth his while to learn.
I therefore decided to consult trusted sources in order to make sure I wasn't imposing my own misreadings on the sitution and to make a judgement on the best was to proceed if that is not the problem. I therefore asked 6 people I know for a comment on this, giving then nothing other than links to postings, a brief decription of why I was contacting them, and some specific questions I wanted them to address. I have 5 replies and hope for the 6th fairly soon.
Commonly agreed were the following points:
a) You don't know what the basic logic fallacies actually are, and make frequent allegations of informal logical fallacies where they don't exist, most commonly misdiagnosing ad hominem, or ad populum fallacies. I have agreed to deal with this and will do so in my later reply.
b) You don't appear to read the points you reply to, or you don't fully understand them. There are many examples of you replying to criticisms or perceived problems that simply do not appear in the text in question.
c) You are so far out of your depth you may require oxygen and will almost certainly suffer nosebleeds. It was felt that there are already signs one might associate with Hypoxia - mental confusion, difficulty with simple cognitive tasks etc. It was felt that your habit of Peri-anal and Trans-anal interlocution might be the problem rather than simply a symptom.
The advice here was to take your head as far out from your arse as you feel able to manage.
This will aid respiration and oxygenate the brain, as well as reducing the effects of noxious gas such as SO, CO and H2S, giving you much sweeter breathe and finally improving your ability to actually read text before replying to it. Again I concur with my colleagues on this.

After this concordance, views were divided pretty equally as follows:
Two colleagues think you are either very young (teen), or have not completed a college education at any rate. I concur with this view, with some reservations..A more worrying scenario is that you are actually a mature adult. Two others take the view that you are trolling deliberately as a wind-up.
The other colleague (the Doctor) thinks you are almost certainly taking heavy duty pharmaceutical products and should stop doing so.

All agree with me that you initially represented yourself as a serious and experienced apologist and/or defender of religion (which I believe is known as 'bigging yourself up' amongst the youf). They further agree that this is either delusional or simply invented, and that you are clearly NOT experienced at this level of debate, and have either stepped-up a BIG level, or you were simply whistling to keep your spirits up. The feeling was that you would not be able to maintain a viable position IN such a debate for any significant period before succumbing to the effects mentioned earlier.

The two who think you 'very young' described you as a cocky/arrogant teenager with plenty of bravado and little in the way of brains or experience to back it with. I should say that neither saw this as anything to worry about because that is a phase which most teenagers will pass through at some stage. Again I concur with my colleagues. If you are 15-18 then there is no serious issue of concern.

The doctor, as I said, put it all down to industrial strength pharmaceuticals and told me that you should consult your GP and discuss the issue.
(I wouldn't worry about the Doc - I have known S for about 20 years and in all that time I think he has classified nearly all the people who we have discussed with one of two possible diagnoses. Either they are doing heavy duty pharmaceuticals in quantities more suited to tranquillising the species Loxodonta africana Subfamilia Elephantinae. These people, he insists, need to stop.
The other group he invariably diagnoses as obviously psychotic and in urgent need of some heavy duty pharmaceuticals.
Nobody has ever worked out why S became a doctor - he doesn't like people much, hates blood and thinks Medical Doctors are all quacks who give the patient Valium because it is quicker than talking to them for 5 mins. I might add that he is an MD, and his receptionist tells me he prescribes a lot of tranquillisers and keeps his consultations under 10 mins if he can possibly manage it...S cheerfully agreed when I confronted him with a charge of hypocrisy, and cheerfully added that he is the worst quack imaginable. I like S a lot, and he is brilliant in many respects, but the reason he became an MD seems destined to remain a mystery which he will probably take to the grave...)


The last view was, I suspect, rather tongue in cheek, but I know where she is coming from.
The lady in question advised me to seek you out, urgently, and arrange to have you quarantined (she actually suggested you be hunted, shot and buried somewhere offshore) so that whatever infection or genetic complaint you have got is not released into the wild. It was Y's view that your 3 postings to date have actually been responsible for a small but measurable decrease in global rationality and comprehension levels, and she fears that if you are left to continue, the consequences could be dire, and we may sink back into a global dark age. OK she was joking and we happen to share a similar sense of humour,so she wrote this very much for my amusement, knowing I would enjoy it (and I did - 3 pages of very funny 'panic').

But there is a serious underlying point which is why I felt the need to stop in the first place.
In the hope that you might see it, I'm going to explain what was wrong with your last posting,
I'll try to find the time needed later tonight, but this is on my list of jobs as a batch entry job (in other words a low priority which will get my time only when more important tasks release that timer into my 'idle' stack.
Bikerman


this whole post just shows that you really do not know how to defend yourself. You even needed to consult with your colleagues. if you know what you are doing then you should be able to argue, conveniently without doubting your capabilities. There are multitude of very good resources out there in the Net and they are BETTER than other people's opinion.

first, let me give you a piece of advice about logic and ad hominem.
you can't, JUST CAN"T, declare that the arguments of a person are wrong based on whether that person is a teenager, or a sick person or a dog etc. That is called ad hominem.

what you should do is to refute the arguments head on, and if you prevail (which you haven't demonstrated yet), then that's the time you may try to argue whether that person has problems.

second, you have relentlessly accused my contributions are wrong, and yet when faced to name them and put up good refutations, you hide under your mommy's skirt. you say that I do not know formal and informal logic, and yet you fail to prove it, like when I told you that you are using a bandwagon, you won't admit even if you are already exposed in every direction.

third, my points are "scoring" because you haven't countered them, you have not given a convincing argument or proof to counter my points, that's why you are overruned, that's why you needed help from your "consultants".

Lastly, i will not go through with all those doctor stuff that you have posted as they are clearly red herrings, and are offtopic.

now if you will excuse me, before you accuse me of something, or question my points, please ready yourself and do it in a logical way, and stop putting a lot of offtopic nonesense to try and poison the well.
Bikerman
Quote:
this whole post just shows that you really do not know how to defend yourself. You even needed to consult with your colleagues. if you know what you are doing then you should be able to argue, conveniently without doubting your capabilities. There are multitude of very good resources out there in the Net and they are BETTER than other people's opinion.

I'll deal with you in due course, don't worry about that. I am writing my response as and when I find the time. I'm not going to simply dash-off a quick rebuttal, and I don't really care about your opinion on that. I have plenty to do at any given time and dealing with you is pretty much a 10 on my 1-10 scale, partly because you have nothing interesting to say, but mostly because I'm quite sure that most readers have already seen enough of your postings to form a view. I also don't intend to enter a back-forth with you because - as I advise other posters - one should not feed the trolls. The only reason I am going to reply to your nonsense at all is that you are pretending to understand things which you don't have a clue about in order to mislead people and I don't think such dishonesty has any place in this forum. I have confidence that most readers have already spotted you for what you are, but I think you provide a useful case study in fundamentalism. I will therefore need a bit more time to compile my response - and I'll post it when I am ready. Judging from what I have written to date, it will probably take a couple of days more, but I'm not going to impose any timetable on myself, because there are lots of more interesting things I should doing right now, and a 101-level debunking of rather stupid fundamentalists is not, and should never be, any sort of priority.
nickfyoung
Indi
Code:
You know, there's actually a Gospel of Judas that didn't make it into the Bible, with exactly that argument.


Sorry I am a bit late again but I am discovering all these interesting posts since my email notifications have been malfunctioning.

There are lots of books and letters that didn't make it into the Bible but were vetoed by the people putting together the cannon. There are some that nearly didn't make it and only just did, like James. We have to believe that those making the choices were inspired to make the correct ones.
Bikerman
You have to believe that if you want to cling to the belief that the bible is a divinely inspired document.
The problem with that view is that it not only requires you to believe an increasingly long list of rather ridiculous and unlikely things, it also requires you to deny, or explain away, facts which contradict the view. The main such fact is that the bible contains lots of errors. I have a list of some of the more obvious bloopers on my main website and that is just a sample. So then you are faced with explaining how this divinely inspired document is so erroneous - and the usual attempt (that it was written by fallible men and therefore contains the error that such men might make) is unconvincing. to put it very mildly.
nickfyoung
Yes, that is the point that has always worried me. It is all very well to believe that the Bible was written by men inspired of God but then we also have to believe that when the cannon was put together the men doing that were also inspired so they included some writings in the Bible and not others. The Catholic Bible has several more books than all the other Bibles.
When the reformed church sat at the council of Dorte and decided that Arminianism was heresy were they inspired too. How come now then Arminianism is the theology of the modern church and all of Pentecostalism. Is it still heresy.?
Bikerman
OK. Time to deal with a fundamentalist.
I was going to spend more time on this and do a complete job, but frankly it doesn't merit the effort and I don't have the time to spare, so I'll post this mini-version to get the main points out of the way...

Firstly, I have tried to ensure that my frank comments are not aimed at someone who is just too young or otherwise unable to defend themself. I am happy that this is not the case, so now I will dispose of their mendacious, semi literate rubbish point by point. The assumption that I was simply straw-manning or launching an ad-hom is both wrong and rather silly - I wouldn;t go to that sort of trouble - even if he HAD made some decent arguments. My concern was as what I said and nothing more,

1. Fundamentalist or not?
A reasonable definition of a religious fundamentalist is one who holds the scriptural source to be inerrant. A person who believes that a particular document or set of documents is not only inspired by a divinity, but is absolutely true. Wiki offers a more precise definition:
wiki wrote:
Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or simply fundamentalism, refers to a movement begun in the late 19th and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which evangelicals viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

RedHakaw claims he is not a fundamentalist, but admits:
Redhakaw wrote:
what I've said is that for me (subjective), the bible is absolute truth
The term fundamentalist is therefore accurate when applied to him, despite his protestations.

2. Ignorance.
Early on we see that RedHakaw doesn't know the meaning of really basic terms like agnostic and atheist, so it is no surprise to find that many of the errors made by Redhakaw are errors which reflect a basic lack of knowledge. For example, he makes the following meaningless statement because he doesn't know orthodox from orthodoxy
Redhakaw wrote:
We use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.
. The error is obvious - orthodox is a person or body which follows a parrticular teaching/rules/doctrine. ;Determining the Orthodox' is simply a tautology - the orthodox are already defined. So I correct it for him, without making an issue of it, so that it is at least sensible English. Orthodoxy - the rules/dogma - is clearly what he meant.
Not only does the correction escape him, he then compounds his error by misquoting me and returning to his original error, Thus my 'determining orthodoxy' is quoted back as :
Quote:
"orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox"
He then continues to dig his hole even deeper when this error is pointed out by posting a pile of garbage meant to hide his original ignorance.:
RedHakaw wrote:
no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used. I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say. when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height. so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics.
This is, obviously, confused and mostly gibberish, and here is BikerTip 1 - if you are loosing an argument, resorting to bullshit is a VERY dodgy move which will probably rebound if your opponent is good enough to already have you in trouble....DUMB MOVE.
The only comprehensible point in the mangled prose is the assertion that orthodoxy is arrived at logically, using critical thinking.
This is SOOO wrong it is funny. The orthodoxy of the various Christian sects is a pretty good example of what you get when you ABANDON logic and critical thinking and base your ideas of truth on a set of texts which reflect the beliefs of bronze-age ignorant zealots. No process of critical thinking and no chain of logic could lead to virgin births, resurrections, transubstantiation, the trinity and the host of other fundamentally irrational concepts that are key to most Christian sects.

He finally tops off this display of ignorance by scrabbling around for some example, coming up with:
Quote:
the Nestle Alands CRITICAL texts are good examples of how CRITICAL thinking is applied
Unfortunately, like many who google without groking, he gives an example which does nothing for his case. The critical texts he cites are indeed the product of scholarship and do indeed rely on logic and critical thinking. The product is a version of the New Testament texts which is as accurate as possible. This is nothing to do with determining religious orthodoxy and is, in fact, much more likely to be used by Scholars in works which undermine such orthodoxy by revealing the contradictions or errors which such orthodoxy relies on. A nice example is the orthodoxy, shared by many Christian sects, of the virgin birth. It was only with the development of critical text analysis that it became clear that this whole belief is very possibly based on a mistraslation of a word in Isaiah.
Another example he takes a phrase I use and which he obviously doesn't understand, and then simply invents some meaning of his own for it:
Quote:
being in a state of "Grace" does not imply that you are holy/advanced, in fact, being in this state means that you need Grace and therefore is sinful, and that you have turned into a worthless thing.
Quote:
(Being in a state of Grace is a specific Catholic idea which means you are free from mortal sin, having recently confessed, and can therefore receive the sacrement of communion in good conscience.) When his error is pointed out he responds by inventing more nonsense:
Quote:
I was describing "Grace" and how you are graced, or in a state of grace.


3. Carelessness
A number of Redhakaw's errors result from careless reading of posts. He thinks a post says something which it doesn't, and then responds to that instead of what was actually said. The result is a straw-man fallacy.
For example, he reads my statement [quote="Bikerman"]You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy. Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
And apparently thinks it means:[quote="Redhakaw"]determining orthodox is "subjective", "not amenable" to critical thinking
Firstly - note his error, yet again, with orthodox/orthodoxy...But even ignoring that, this is NOT what I said and the difference, though apparently small, is crucial. I said that YOU (meaning Redhakaw, but equally well interpreted as meaning 'the believer') cannot use critical thinking to determin orthodoxy, and explained that this is because FAITH is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. I have NOT said that determining orthodoxy is not amenable to critical thinking. Because he has either not read or not understood this, he then jumps into an erroneous accusation that I am being 'forked tongued'. This is because I later explain that you CAN use critical thinking to determin religious orthodoxy, but that it would result in much of it being thrown away. Critical thinking would insist that we reject supernatural explanations unless there was no possible alternative and that wherever several possible explanations were possible, we would choose the one which required the fewest assumptions. That would require the abandonment of most, if not all, of the basic Christian doctrines. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in my position, simply the confusion of someone who doesn't read before replying.

Another example is his apparent conviction that I have failed to support an assertion I made.
Quote:
you mentioned hundreds of error, and yet you are not able (or evading) to give one good error.

In fact I previously said :
Quote:
I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore.
This was referring to another thread in which Redhakaw posted and in which a made the same assertion (that the bible contains hundreds of errors) and supplied a link to my website where there is a list of itemised examples.
To avoid any further bogus assertions, here is the link I supplied
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/faith/papers-books/my-writings/bible-errors
4. Loose ends
Redhakaw makes repeat references to a set of questions he wishes me to address. The reason I ignore this is because the questions are framed to be misleading - in fact quite dishonest. They refer to things I did indeed say, but he asks for scriptural references for each. I did not claim that these were specific things mentioned in scripture, I said that they were dogmas - things believed by Christians. I don't normally respond to such balatant dishonesty in debate because it is beneath contempt and not worth the time taken to point that out. In this case I will deal with the points because I will not be returning to this exchange and would not wish people to think these are somehow killer arguments. Redhakaw asks for scriptural references, I will supply what I claimed, doctrinal references.
1.) God condemned his children to eternal torture before they are born
This is standard Protestant belief. There are several versions - conditional election, unconditional election being the two main ones. Simply google either of those terms for more information.
2.) that it was an apple
This is traditional belief. The bible talks of 'fruit' but the fruit is tradionally portrayed as an apple. This may result from either confusing, or punning on, the latin word - mālum - which can mean apple and also evil.
3.) that His death does not result to forgiveness
Again this is a dogma common to most Christian sects. Evangelicals tend to the belief that acceptance of Christ is necessary, whereas Catholics believe that generally (with a few exceptions) only Catholics are 'saved'. Other sects have their own requirements for attaining salvation and some (protestants, esp Calvinists) believe that it is entirely a matter of God's whim. No Christian sect that I can think of teaches that Jesus's death means that everyone is saved unconditionally.
4.) that His death is the "greatest act of love"
Common to most Christian sects. Catholics need only to read the 2007 Papal Homily, entitled“Jesus’s death on the Cross is the greatest act of love in all history." (which is also contained in at least one encyclical and is, therefore, theologically infallible).

And that
Bikerman
OK. Time to deal with a fundamentalist.
I was going to spend more time on this and do a complete job, but frankly it doesn't merit the effort and I don't have the time to spare, so I'll post this mini-version to get the main points out of the way...

Firstly, I have tried to ensure that my frank comments are not aimed at someone who is just too young or otherwise unable to defend themself. I am happy that this is not the case, so now I will dispose of their mendacious, semi literate rubbish point by point. The assumption that I was simply straw-manning or launching an ad-hom is both wrong and rather silly - I wouldn;t go to that sort of trouble - even if he HAD made some decent arguments. My concern was as what I said and nothing more,

1. Fundamentalist or not?
A reasonable definition of a religious fundamentalist is one who holds the scriptural source to be inerrant. A person who believes that a particular document or set of documents is not only inspired by a divinity, but is absolutely true. Wiki offers a more precise definition:
wiki wrote:
Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or simply fundamentalism, refers to a movement begun in the late 19th and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which evangelicals viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

RedHakaw claims he is not a fundamentalist, but admits:
Redhakaw wrote:
what I've said is that for me (subjective), the bible is absolute truth
The term fundamentalist is therefore accurate when applied to him, despite his protestations.

2. Ignorance.
Early on we see that RedHakaw doesn't know the meaning of really basic terms like agnostic and atheist, so it is no surprise to find that many of the errors made by Redhakaw are errors which reflect a basic lack of knowledge. For example, he makes the following meaningless statement because he doesn't know orthodox from orthodoxy
Redhakaw wrote:
We use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.
. The error is obvious - orthodox is a person or body which follows a parrticular teaching/rules/doctrine. ;Determining the Orthodox' is simply a tautology - the orthodox are already defined. So I correct it for him, without making an issue of it, so that it is at least sensible English. Orthodoxy - the rules/dogma - is clearly what he meant.
Not only does the correction escape him, he then compounds his error by misquoting me and returning to his original error, Thus my 'determining orthodoxy' is quoted back as :
Quote:
"orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox"
He then continues to dig his hole even deeper when this error is pointed out by posting a pile of garbage meant to hide his original ignorance.:
RedHakaw wrote:
no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used. I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say. when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height. so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics.
This is, obviously, confused and mostly gibberish, and here is BikerTip 1 - if you are loosing an argument, resorting to bullshit is a VERY dodgy move which will probably rebound if your opponent is good enough to already have you in trouble....DUMB MOVE.
The only comprehensible point in the mangled prose is the assertion that orthodoxy is arrived at logically, using critical thinking.
This is SOOO wrong it is funny. The orthodoxy of the various Christian sects is a pretty good example of what you get when you ABANDON logic and critical thinking and base your ideas of truth on a set of texts which reflect the beliefs of bronze-age ignorant zealots. No process of critical thinking and no chain of logic could lead to virgin births, resurrections, transubstantiation, the trinity and the host of other fundamentally irrational concepts that are key to most Christian sects.

He finally tops off this display of ignorance by scrabbling around for some example, coming up with:
Quote:
the Nestle Alands CRITICAL texts are good examples of how CRITICAL thinking is applied
Unfortunately, like many who google without groking, he gives an example which does nothing for his case. The critical texts he cites are indeed the product of scholarship and do indeed rely on logic and critical thinking. The product is a version of the New Testament texts which is as accurate as possible. This is nothing to do with determining religious orthodoxy and is, in fact, much more likely to be used by Scholars in works which undermine such orthodoxy by revealing the contradictions or errors which such orthodoxy relies on. A nice example is the orthodoxy, shared by many Christian sects, of the virgin birth. It was only with the development of critical text analysis that it became clear that this whole belief is very possibly based on a mistraslation of a word in Isaiah.
Another example he takes a phrase I use and which he obviously doesn't understand, and then simply invents some meaning of his own for it:
Quote:
being in a state of "Grace" does not imply that you are holy/advanced, in fact, being in this state means that you need Grace and therefore is sinful, and that you have turned into a worthless thing.
Quote:
(Being in a state of Grace is a specific Catholic idea which means you are free from mortal sin, having recently confessed, and can therefore receive the sacrement of communion in good conscience.) When his error is pointed out he responds by inventing more nonsense:
Quote:
I was describing "Grace" and how you are graced, or in a state of grace.


3. Carelessness
A number of Redhakaw's errors result from careless reading of posts. He thinks a post says something which it doesn't, and then responds to that instead of what was actually said. The result is a straw-man fallacy.
For example, he reads my statement [quote="Bikerman"]You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy. Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
And apparently thinks it means:[quote="Redhakaw"]determining orthodox is "subjective", "not amenable" to critical thinking
Firstly - note his error, yet again, with orthodox/orthodoxy...But even ignoring that, this is NOT what I said and the difference, though apparently small, is crucial. I said that YOU (meaning Redhakaw, but equally well interpreted as meaning 'the believer') cannot use critical thinking to determin orthodoxy, and explained that this is because FAITH is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. I have NOT said that determining orthodoxy is not amenable to critical thinking. Because he has either not read or not understood this, he then jumps into an erroneous accusation that I am being 'forked tongued'. This is because I later explain that you CAN use critical thinking to determin religious orthodoxy, but that it would result in much of it being thrown away. Critical thinking would insist that we reject supernatural explanations unless there was no possible alternative and that wherever several possible explanations were possible, we would choose the one which required the fewest assumptions. That would require the abandonment of most, if not all, of the basic Christian doctrines. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in my position, simply the confusion of someone who doesn't read before replying.

Another example is his apparent conviction that I have failed to support an assertion I made.
Quote:
you mentioned hundreds of error, and yet you are not able (or evading) to give one good error.

In fact I previously said :
Quote:
I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore.
This was referring to another thread in which Redhakaw posted and in which a made the same assertion (that the bible contains hundreds of errors) and supplied a link to my website where there is a list of itemised examples.
To avoid any further bogus assertions, here is the link I supplied
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/faith/papers-books/my-writings/bible-errors
4. Loose ends
Redhakaw makes repeat references to a set of questions he wishes me to address. The reason I ignore this is because the questions are framed to be misleading - in fact quite dishonest. They refer to things I did indeed say, but he asks for scriptural references for each. I did not claim that these were specific things mentioned in scripture, I said that they were dogmas - things believed by Christians. I don't normally respond to such balatant dishonesty in debate because it is beneath contempt and not worth the time taken to point that out. In this case I will deal with the points because I will not be returning to this exchange and would not wish people to think these are somehow killer arguments. Redhakaw asks for scriptural references, I will supply what I claimed, doctrinal references.
1.) God condemned his children to eternal torture before they are born
This is standard Protestant belief. There are several versions - conditional election, unconditional election being the two main ones. Simply google either of those terms for more information.
2.) that it was an apple
This is traditional belief. The bible talks of 'fruit' but the fruit is tradionally portrayed as an apple. This may result from either confusing, or punning on, the latin word - mālum - which can mean apple and also evil.
3.) that His death does not result to forgiveness
Again this is a dogma common to most Christian sects. Evangelicals tend to the belief that acceptance of Christ is necessary, whereas Catholics believe that generally (with a few exceptions) only Catholics are 'saved'. Other sects have their own requirements for attaining salvation and some (protestants, esp Calvinists) believe that it is entirely a matter of God's whim. No Christian sect that I can think of teaches that Jesus's death means that everyone is saved unconditionally.
4.) that His death is the "greatest act of love"
Common to most Christian sects. Catholics need only to read the 2007 Papal Homily, entitled“Jesus’s death on the Cross is the greatest act of love in all history." (which is also contained in at least one encyclical and is, therefore, theologically infallible).

And that
Bikerman
OK. Time to deal with a fundamentalist.
I was going to spend more time on this and do a complete job, but frankly it doesn't merit the effort and I don't have the time to spare, so I'll post this mini-version to get the main points out of the way...

Firstly, I have tried to ensure that my frank comments are not aimed at someone who is just too young or otherwise unable to defend themself. I am happy that this is not the case, so now I will dispose of their mendacious, semi literate rubbish point by point. The assumption that I was simply straw-manning or launching an ad-hom is both wrong and rather silly - I wouldn;t go to that sort of trouble - even if he HAD made some decent arguments. My concern was as what I said and nothing more,

1. Fundamentalist or not?
A reasonable definition of a religious fundamentalist is one who holds the scriptural source to be inerrant. A person who believes that a particular document or set of documents is not only inspired by a divinity, but is absolutely true. Wiki offers a more precise definition:
wiki wrote:
Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or simply fundamentalism, refers to a movement begun in the late 19th and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which evangelicals viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

RedHakaw claims he is not a fundamentalist, but admits:
Redhakaw wrote:
what I've said is that for me (subjective), the bible is absolute truth
The term fundamentalist is therefore accurate when applied to him, despite his protestations.

2. Ignorance.
Early on we see that RedHakaw doesn't know the meaning of really basic terms like agnostic and atheist, so it is no surprise to find that many of the errors made by Redhakaw are errors which reflect a basic lack of knowledge. For example, he makes the following meaningless statement because he doesn't know orthodox from orthodoxy
Redhakaw wrote:
We use critical thinking, philosophy and logic to determine which exactly is orthodox teaching.
. The error is obvious - orthodox is a person or body which follows a parrticular teaching/rules/doctrine. ;Determining the Orthodox' is simply a tautology - the orthodox are already defined. So I correct it for him, without making an issue of it, so that it is at least sensible English. Orthodoxy - the rules/dogma - is clearly what he meant.
Not only does the correction escape him, he then compounds his error by misquoting me and returning to his original error, Thus my 'determining orthodoxy' is quoted back as :
Quote:
"orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox"
He then continues to dig his hole even deeper when this error is pointed out by posting a pile of garbage meant to hide his original ignorance.:
RedHakaw wrote:
no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used. I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say. when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height. so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics.
This is, obviously, confused and mostly gibberish, and here is BikerTip 1 - if you are loosing an argument, resorting to bullshit is a VERY dodgy move which will probably rebound if your opponent is good enough to already have you in trouble....DUMB MOVE.
The only comprehensible point in the mangled prose is the assertion that orthodoxy is arrived at logically, using critical thinking.
This is SOOO wrong it is funny. The orthodoxy of the various Christian sects is a pretty good example of what you get when you ABANDON logic and critical thinking and base your ideas of truth on a set of texts which reflect the beliefs of bronze-age ignorant zealots. No process of critical thinking and no chain of logic could lead to virgin births, resurrections, transubstantiation, the trinity and the host of other fundamentally irrational concepts that are key to most Christian sects.

He finally tops off this display of ignorance by scrabbling around for some example, coming up with:
Quote:
the Nestle Alands CRITICAL texts are good examples of how CRITICAL thinking is applied
Unfortunately, like many who google without groking, he gives an example which does nothing for his case. The critical texts he cites are indeed the product of scholarship and do indeed rely on logic and critical thinking. The product is a version of the New Testament texts which is as accurate as possible. This is nothing to do with determining religious orthodoxy and is, in fact, much more likely to be used by Scholars in works which undermine such orthodoxy by revealing the contradictions or errors which such orthodoxy relies on. A nice example is the orthodoxy, shared by many Christian sects, of the virgin birth. It was only with the development of critical text analysis that it became clear that this whole belief is very possibly based on a mistraslation of a word in Isaiah.
Another example he takes a phrase I use and which he obviously doesn't understand, and then simply invents some meaning of his own for it:
Quote:
being in a state of "Grace" does not imply that you are holy/advanced, in fact, being in this state means that you need Grace and therefore is sinful, and that you have turned into a worthless thing.
Quote:
(Being in a state of Grace is a specific Catholic idea which means you are free from mortal sin, having recently confessed, and can therefore receive the sacrement of communion in good conscience.) When his error is pointed out he responds by inventing more nonsense:
Quote:
I was describing "Grace" and how you are graced, or in a state of grace.


3. Carelessness
A number of Redhakaw's errors result from careless reading of posts. He thinks a post says something which it doesn't, and then responds to that instead of what was actually said. The result is a straw-man fallacy.
For example, he reads my statement [quote="Bikerman"]You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy. Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
And apparently thinks it means:[quote="Redhakaw"]determining orthodox is "subjective", "not amenable" to critical thinking
Firstly - note his error, yet again, with orthodox/orthodoxy...But even ignoring that, this is NOT what I said and the difference, though apparently small, is crucial. I said that YOU (meaning Redhakaw, but equally well interpreted as meaning 'the believer') cannot use critical thinking to determin orthodoxy, and explained that this is because FAITH is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. I have NOT said that determining orthodoxy is not amenable to critical thinking. Because he has either not read or not understood this, he then jumps into an erroneous accusation that I am being 'forked tongued'. This is because I later explain that you CAN use critical thinking to determin religious orthodoxy, but that it would result in much of it being thrown away. Critical thinking would insist that we reject supernatural explanations unless there was no possible alternative and that wherever several possible explanations were possible, we would choose the one which required the fewest assumptions. That would require the abandonment of most, if not all, of the basic Christian doctrines. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in my position, simply the confusion of someone who doesn't read before replying.

Another example is his apparent conviction that I have failed to support an assertion I made.
Quote:
you mentioned hundreds of error, and yet you are not able (or evading) to give one good error.

In fact I previously said :
Quote:
I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore.
This was referring to another thread in which Redhakaw posted and in which a made the same assertion (that the bible contains hundreds of errors) and supplied a link to my website where there is a list of itemised examples.
To avoid any further bogus assertions, here is the link I supplied
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/faith/papers-books/my-writings/bible-errors

4. Loose ends
Redhakaw makes repeat references to a set of questions he wishes me to address. The reason I ignore this is because the questions are framed to be misleading - in fact quite dishonest. They refer to things I did indeed say, but he asks for scriptural references for each. I did not claim that these were specific things mentioned in scripture, I said that they were dogmas - things believed by Christians. I don't normally respond to such balatant dishonesty in debate because it is beneath contempt and not worth the time taken to point that out. In this case I will deal with the points because I will not be returning to this exchange and would not wish people to think these are somehow killer arguments. Redhakaw asks for scriptural references, I will supply what I claimed, doctrinal references.
1.) God condemned his children to eternal torture before they are born
This is standard Protestant belief. There are several versions - conditional election, unconditional election being the two main ones. Simply google either of those terms for more information.
2.) that it was an apple
This is traditional belief. The bible talks of 'fruit' but the fruit is tradionally portrayed as an apple. This may result from either confusing, or punning on, the latin word - mālum - which can mean apple and also evil.
3.) that His death does not result to forgiveness
Again this is a dogma common to most Christian sects. Evangelicals tend to the belief that acceptance of Christ is necessary, whereas Catholics believe that generally (with a few exceptions) only Catholics are 'saved'. Other sects have their own requirements for attaining salvation and some (protestants, esp Calvinists) believe that it is entirely a matter of God's whim. No Christian sect that I can think of teaches that Jesus's death means that everyone is saved unconditionally.
4.) that His death is the "greatest act of love"
Common to most Christian sects. Catholics need only to read the 2007 Papal Homily, entitled“Jesus’s death on the Cross is the greatest act of love in all history." (which is also contained in at least one encyclical and is, therefore, theologically infallible).

And that is about all I have time for right now, but I think it is enough. Redhakaw is just another fundamentalist with a hugely over-inflated opinion of his own rhetorical abilities - which are average in small parts and poor for the most part, and his knowledge of subject and his ability to communicate that intelligently and comprehensibly - which is bloody awful...

So when he arrogantly posted that I
Redhakaw wrote:
have no idea who you are up against.
Then that is possibly the most accurate comment he has made to date - I didn't know what I was up against, and now I do...and it isn't even funny, just sad.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:

RedHakaw claims he is not a fundamentalist


that is a lie. I have made myself clear that I definitely and usually refer to the fundamentals, and one of which is the Bible being an absolute truth.

I also said that I am not the Fundamentalist™ which you amateur atheists identify as those who bring placards and banners that curses gays like the westboro types.

There is no denial whether I am a fundamentalist nor was there any confirmation.
and I don't really care what you want to call me. It's irrelevant, childish and is prone to ad hominems.

Quote:
Early on we see that RedHakaw doesn't know the meaning of really basic terms like agnostic and atheist, so it is no surprise to find that many of the errors made by Redhakaw are errors which reflect a basic lack of knowledge. For example, he makes the following meaningless statement because he doesn't know orthodox from orthodoxy

non sequitur
it doesn't mean that I do not know the meanings of a lot of things and terms just because I did not know what atheism and agnosticism are. (even if I did)

Quote:
The error is obvious - orthodox is a person or body which follows a parrticular teaching/rules/doctrine. ;Determining the Orthodox' is simply a tautology - the orthodox are already defined. So I correct it for him, without making an issue of it, so that it is at least sensible English. Orthodoxy - the rules/dogma - is clearly what he meant.

Not only does the correction escape him, he then compounds his error by misquoting me and returning to his original error, Thus my 'determining orthodoxy' is quoted back as :
Quote:
"orthodox" is different from "determining orthodox"
He then continues to dig his hole even deeper when this error is pointed out by posting a pile of garbage meant to hide his original ignorance.:
RedHakaw wrote:
no, that is not semantics, if it were then I should have given a different meaning for orthodoxy or the words I have used, or you have used. I simply highlighted what I have said, and compared it to the issue you are trying to say. when I say "determining the height of a person", it is not describing anybody's height, what it describes are the ways or methods we calculate a person's height. so when I say determining orthodoxy, it is not describing an orthodox belief, it's simply the methods on how to find orthodoxy, and the ways to do that like I have said is usually logic, critical thinking and a lot of hermeneutics.
This is, obviously, confused and mostly gibberish, and here is BikerTip 1 - if you are loosing an argument, resorting to bullshit is a VERY dodgy move which will probably rebound if your opponent is good enough to already have you in trouble....DUMB MOVE.
The only comprehensible point in the mangled prose is the assertion that orthodoxy is arrived at logically, using critical thinking.
This is SOOO wrong it is funny. The orthodoxy of the various Christian sects is a pretty good example of what you get when you ABANDON logic and critical thinking and base your ideas of truth on a set of texts which reflect the beliefs of bronze-age ignorant zealots. No process of critical thinking and no chain of logic could lead to virgin births, resurrections, transubstantiation, the trinity and the host of other fundamentally irrational concepts that are key to most Christian sects.


you are not making your point clear in the above attempt.
whether "orthodox" is a noun or an adjective, a person or what is already defined, is not the point here.

but then I will humor you by using what you have posted. you said that "orthodox" in "determining orthodox" is already defined. fine. but that's the difference I am pointing out. "orthodox" by itself (person or rule/dogma) is of course, different from "determining orthodox", because the latter is the process of finding and establishing or recovering orthodox teaching. whether the former is logical or baloney, finding or determining the "authentic" baloney must be logical and done through critical thinking

Quote:
He finally tops off this display of ignorance by scrabbling around for some example, coming up with:
Quote:
the Nestle Alands CRITICAL texts are good examples of how CRITICAL thinking is applied
Unfortunately, like many who google without groking, he gives an example which does nothing for his case. The critical texts he cites are indeed the product of scholarship and do indeed rely on logic and critical thinking. The product is a version of the New Testament texts which is as accurate as possible. This is nothing to do with determining religious orthodoxy and is, in fact, much more likely to be used by Scholars in works which undermine such orthodoxy by revealing the contradictions or errors which such orthodoxy relies on. A nice example is the orthodoxy, shared by many Christian sects, of the virgin birth. It was only with the development of critical text analysis that it became clear that this whole belief is very possibly based on a mistraslation of a word in Isaiah.


this is offtopic, my case in not about "what the critical texts have done", my case here is whether "determining orthodoxy requires logic and critical thinking". And I guess I have succeeded on this when you positively concurred.

I will, if you want, discuss your problem concerning the virgin birth of Christ in another forum, if you wish.

Quote:

Another example he takes a phrase I use and which he obviously doesn't understand, and then simply invents some meaning of his own for it:
Quote:
being in a state of "Grace" does not imply that you are holy/advanced, in fact, being in this state means that you need Grace and therefore is sinful, and that you have turned into a worthless thing.
Quote:
(Being in a state of Grace is a specific Catholic idea which means you are free from mortal sin, having recently confessed, and can therefore receive the sacrement of communion in good conscience.) When his error is pointed out he responds by inventing more nonsense:
Quote:
I was describing "Grace" and how you are graced, or in a state of grace.



it's ok if you think that my post was nonsense, but it's not if you cannot give a valid reason why.
or is this your way of giving us some thrill?


Quote:
A number of Redhakaw's errors result from careless reading of posts. He thinks a post says something which it doesn't, and then responds to that instead of what was actually said. The result is a straw-man fallacy.
For example, he reads my statement [quote="Bikerman"]You CANNOT use logic or critical thinking to determine an orthodoxy. Orthodoxy (orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief") - in other words it is a subjective opinion about correct belief - and in religious context the 'belief' is 'faith' which is not something amenable to either logic or critical thinking - hence theology.
And apparently thinks it means:[quote="Redhakaw"]determining orthodox is "subjective", "not amenable" to critical thinking
Firstly - note his error, yet again, with orthodox/orthodoxy...But even ignoring that, this is NOT what I said and the difference, though apparently small, is crucial. I said that YOU (meaning Redhakaw, but equally well interpreted as meaning 'the believer') cannot use critical thinking to determin orthodoxy, and explained that this is because FAITH is not amenable to logic/critical thinking. I have NOT said that determining orthodoxy is not amenable to critical thinking. Because he has either not read or not understood this, he then jumps into an erroneous accusation that I am being 'forked tongued'. This is because I later explain that you CAN use critical thinking to determin religious orthodoxy, but that it would result in much of it being thrown away. Critical thinking would insist that we reject supernatural explanations unless there was no possible alternative and that wherever several possible explanations were possible, we would choose the one which required the fewest assumptions. That would require the abandonment of most, if not all, of the basic Christian doctrines. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in my position, simply the confusion of someone who doesn't read before replying.


well, I would really love to help you vindicate yourself, but it's really hard if the original thread was already deleted. But then again, even with the original posts, I really believe that you are alrady splitting hairs.

Quote:

Another example is his apparent conviction that I have failed to support an assertion I made.
Quote:
you mentioned hundreds of error, and yet you are not able (or evading) to give one good error.

In fact I previously said :
Quote:
I have plenty of specific examples and have previously supplied links to such, which you apparently ignore.
This was referring to another thread in which Redhakaw posted and in which a made the same assertion (that the bible contains hundreds of errors) and supplied a link to my website where there is a list of itemised examples.
To avoid any further bogus assertions, here is the link I supplied
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/faith/papers-books/my-writings/bible-errors


I didn't asked for a hundred error, I only asked for 1 good or best error that you think you know.
that's what you failed to give. I even told you that linking stuff is not good enough, you should yourself explain why it is an error.

Quote:

Redhakaw makes repeat references to a set of questions he wishes me to address. The reason I ignore this is because the questions are framed to be misleading - in fact quite dishonest. They refer to things I did indeed say, but he asks for scriptural references for each. I did not claim that these were specific things mentioned in scripture, I said that they were dogmas - things believed by Christians.


liar, you said that it is theology, not dogmas. remember? "welcome to theology my friend..."

Quote:
I don't normally respond to such balatant dishonesty in debate because it is beneath contempt and not worth the time taken to point that out. In this case I will deal with the points because I will not be returning to this exchange and would not wish people to think these are somehow killer arguments.


fine, I will also not treat them seriously, and will not even try to refute them.
Bikerman
Redhakaw wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

RedHakaw claims he is not a fundamentalist
that is a lie. I have made myself clear that I definitely and usually refer to the fundamentals, and one of which is the Bible being an absolute truth.
You are either a clown or an idiot....
You deny what is in black and white in this very thread and which ANYONE can read, revealing the lies. So here, for example, my sentence is not only NOT a lie, it is 100% accurate.
RedHakaw wrote:
and again, I am not a fundamentalist™

Redhakaw wrote:
I also said that I am not the Fundamentalist™ which you amateur atheists identify as those who bring placards and banners that curses gays like the westboro types.
Again with the lies - I defined a fundamentalist very clearly and in perfectly reasonable terms in my previous postings. I defined it as someone who is a scriptural literalist and I even provided an alternative definition from wiki which seemed reasonable.
RedHakaw wrote:
There is no denial whether I am a fundamentalist nor was there any confirmation.and I don't really care what you want to call me. It's irrelevant, childish and is prone to ad hominems.
This is pathological I think. Yet another lie which is so easy to check it makes me wonder whether you actually know the difference between truth and untruth....There is confirmation from my postings that you are what I claim, and confirmation in YOUR postings that you have said what I claim and that you ARE a scripural literalist...2 strikes in 1.
RedHakaw wrote:
you are not making your point clear in the above attempt.
whether "orthodox" is a noun or an adjective, a person or what is already defined, is not the point here.
I made my point perfectly clear to anyone who can read English and who has a mental age/IQ greater than show size....the fact you think otherwise speaks volumes, and I doubt it is telling us that you have huge feet....
Quote:
I will, if you want, discuss your problem concerning the virgin birth of Christ in another forum, if you wish.
LOL......You? Discuss MY problem? There is that delusion of adequacy again...Do you honestly think that people don't read these postings? Or maybe you genuinely think you have come across as something other than a moron? I have to tell you, both those assumptions would be in error.
Quote:
I didn't asked for a hundred error, I only asked for 1 good or best error that you think you know.
that's what you failed to give. I even told you that linking stuff is not good enough, you should yourself explain why it is an error.
The Link is to MY site and the information is written by ME. I'm not going to copy-paste my own work simply because you are too dumb to read it. There are 100 contradictions in the link.
The BEST one? ANY contradiction demonstrates that either the scripture is NOT divinely inspired, let alone literal truth, or that the Divinity is either incompetent or malign....take your pick.

However, if you want a nice simple to explain contradiction to play with, try reconciling the two accounts of Jesus birth - from Matthew and Luke.
Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2).
Herod died 4BCE. Quirinius became governor, and the census took place, in 6 and 7 CE - Ten years AFTER Herod died.
They also screw up the lineage (different in each account). Luke invents an insane census technique that the Romans never used and nobody sane ever would - simply to get Jesus born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth where everyone KNOWs he was born....both accounts are not just wrong, they are obviously and stupidly wrong, they are whole-cloth fabtications from start to finish and are one good reason for doubting that a character like Jesus ever actually existed at sll....so, go ahead little fundy...explain that one away and stay fashionable if you can....

Quote:
liar, you said that it is theology, not dogmas. remember? "welcome to theology my friend..."
Nope. I said [quote="Bikerman"]THAT is the stuff we call theology - or more specifically, theologians (they are apologists with degrees) have the task of making this 'account' seem to be, well, less insane than it really is...It is, of course, an impossible task, but they do manage to convince a truly astonishing number of people - largely by using tricks like infant indoctrination, hitting them at low points when vulnerable, and using clever sounding but fundamentally fallacious arguments they have been polishing for about 2 millennia.... [.quote]Not a lie, not inaccurate either - I'm happy to defend any part of that, since it is factually correct AFAICS
Quote:
fine, I will also not treat them seriously, and will not even try to refute them.
The first sensible (or coherent) think you have posted - absolutely you shouldn't try to refute ANYTHING. Refuting is tricky and best left to people who have a basic grasp of logic, a vocabulary able to deal with complex argument and sufficient to delineate , a memory sufficient that they can avoid denying what they recently posted explicitly, and a degree of personal and intellectual honesty sufficient to make it important to them that they do not knowingly lie.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
...both accounts are not just wrong, they are obviously and stupidly wrong, they are whole-cloth fabtications from start to finish and are one good reason for doubting that a character like Jesus ever actually existed at sll...


Can someone tell me what whole-cloth fabtications are? You are either a clown or an idiot you say?

Certainly anyone can believe what they want. If someone wants to believe that Jesus Christ never existed then they certainly can. They can even choose to try to prove to others that their belief is right. That is up to them.

I choose not to believe that the bible is untrue but will continue to keep my own personal beliefs on the subject. The bible does not have to be a perfect document. The writing are not factual documents like some science study papers but actually a bit of a mess. I can say that with humour but not without respect. The fact that the bible has inaccuracies just makes it more interesting. Inaccuracies do not necessarily make something invalid but it does make it open to critiques.

The original post put forth a question about Judas and his role with Jesus. Throughout the thread Bikerman you have seemed more interested in discussing how in your opinion Christians talk meaningless gibberish on an LSD trip. Ok, what do statements like that actually prove? What I find so very strange is that you believe that Jesus Christ did not exist, yet you wish to talk about what? Perhaps you don’t want to debate the topic at all?

Did Judas betray Jesus or not? Oh, right how could it be possible, you do not believe Jesus existed.
Bikerman
I value truth higher than personal considerations of what I want to be the case.
That means that I don't believe something because I want to - I can't - it doesn't work like that.
(Nor can you actually).

Judas was possibly a historical character as was Jesus (possibly - I'm currently about 30% yes, 70% no) but everything else is speculation and the simple fact is that nobody knows, almost certainly nobody ever will know and fewer people each year care.

I can say a lot about it - more than you and probably more than any theist contributor I know, because I have read the Gospel of Judas and the other apocrypha, as well as the official cannon, so I have more of what data exists on the matter. I don't usually want to because the data is very probably spurious, if not totally false.

Whole-cloth fabrication is complete invention rather than slotting a few lies into an otherwise true story.
Quote:
The writing are not factual documents like some science study papers but actually a bit of a mess. I can say that with humour but not without respect. The fact that the bible has inaccuracies just makes it more interesting. Inaccuracies do not necessarily make something invalid but it does make it open to critiques.

I don't strongly disagree with much of that - thought obviously the errors are nothing to do with making it interesting and everything to do with people doing what people do - making mistakes. An astonishing number of Christians insist it contains NO errors (including the fundy apprentice here) which is not just wrong, but requires a special type of stupidity to believe, since it takes 30 seconds to find LOTS of errors - so to deny they exist is not just perverse, it strikes me as a possible mental illness (though that assumes the previously mentioned college education - without that then all bets are off).
Redhakaw is the literalist who thinks the bible is 'true' -, I've never thought that, and very few people with any sense do think so - once they are educated to college level.
Some continue to cling to anti-science, blatantly and demonstrably untrue nonsense - the creationists being the most obvious. The educated ones are generally (in my opinion) bent (ie making money from their 'ministry'. Examples would include Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and his boyfriend, Hovind Jr, and (possibly) Ken Ham - though I'm not completely certain with Ham - he may be a sincere nutter rather than a petty criminal on the make - not sure which I would prefer.....
Bluedoll
I can see how there is a huge communication barrier between what you have said and what I said.

Bikerman wrote:
I value truth higher than personal considerations of what I want to be the case.
That means that I don't believe something because I want to - I can't - it doesn't work like that.
(Nor can you actually).



I understand what you mean here. You are looking for facts right? As your quote says “keep it real”. That is actually very reasonable and well done but it doesn’t work that way in religion. You are bold enough to point out that your logical reasoning is correct, not only correct but it should apply to everyone when you put in brackets (Nor can you actually). Everyone is different and they do have different beliefs. You may not agree with them but just because you can’t doesn’t mean their beliefs are not correct from a different perspective.

I however view religious topics much differently. I see you taking on a commanding stance (in this case me) by telling me what I can/need to do and what I can not do. You have proven often in writing (this thread is good example) that anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot and you express this so well.

In fact, I value truth higher than personal considerations too. When I said I choose to, I didn’t mean what you think I meant. Yes, some things need to be taken on faith but I have absolute proof about the things I believe in. What I did mean by saying that I have choice is that I know that the bible is true and can therefore can choose to believe in it. I can also choose to see your web-site from a different perspective than you do. I do not have to follow your logic because it I see it as incorrect. I can choose not to be manipulated by a false logic.

Bikerman wrote:
Judas was possibly a historical character as was Jesus (possibly - I'm currently about 30% yes, 70% no) but everything else is speculation and the simple fact is that nobody knows, almost certainly nobody ever will know and fewer people each year care.

You are speculating, I can see that, not knowing can be frustrating with any subject even science? I think you might be possibly right about the last point in that peoples loose their care. In that I might agree.

I can say a lot about it - more than you and probably more than any theist contributor I know, because I have read the Gospel of Judas and the other apocrypha, as well as the official cannon, so I have more of what data exists on the matter. I don't usually want to because the data is very probably spurious, if not totally false.


Are you sure about what I can or can not do? I am sure you have proven that you are very -> religious minded. I do question your comprehension on the subject however when you describe the religious material you have read as data. Think about this before you go off in a rage. Is this logical? You yourself say that the material you read is not accurate as say a scientific document would be and perhaps you think a Gospel should be. You apply the same reasoning to religion as you do science? To do this is actually illogical. If you think so little of the material you read then why read it all and then go on about it?


Bikerman wrote:
Whole-cloth fabrication is complete invention rather than slotting a few lies into an otherwise true story. I don't strongly disagree with much of that - thought obviously the errors are nothing to do with making it interesting and everything to do with people doing what people do - making mistakes. An astonishing number of Christians insist it contains NO errors (including the fundy apprentice here) which is not just wrong, but requires a special type of stupidity to believe, since it takes 30 seconds to find LOTS of errors - so to deny they exist is not just perverse, it strikes me as a possible mental illness (though that assumes the previously mentioned college education - without that then all bets are off).
Redhakaw is the literalist who thinks the bible is 'true' -, I've never thought that, and very few people with any sense do think so - once they are educated to college level.
Some continue to cling to anti-science, blatantly and demonstrably untrue nonsense - the creationists being the most obvious. The educated ones are generally (in my opinion) bent (ie making money from their 'ministry'. Examples would include Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and his boyfriend, Hovind Jr, and (possibly) Ken Ham - though I'm not completely certain with Ham - he may be a sincere nutter rather than a petty criminal on the make - not sure which I would prefer.....


I can agree about the misapplication of religion in general and the crimes thereof. There are plenty of modern day examples. I don’t know whom these people are you mentioned but I do agree on your point here. We are talking about or should be talking about Judas? In reference to the op, I believe and many other people would agree that everything has a purpose. These are modern day examples.

I can see a purpose for atheism and its followers as well as for Christians groups some of which have strayed off into something that is Judas like. Atheists can and do demonstrate how some religious groups can be abusive. This is good thing. I think Judas did have a purpose but he chose that role. Not everyone will stand by Jesus. Some will want to deny his existance. Some will want to kill him. Some will just want to flee. This applies to our modern day as well as yesterdays.



I do not think education level has much to do with a belief in atheism or a non-belief in atheism. What you are basically saying here and correct me if this is not what you are saying is that if a person is educated if they will accept the bible as not true because it contains as you said “errors”. You read the bible and then profess to say that is untrue because you found contradictions and incorrect information. Then you go on to tell people that if they do not believe what you do they are not educated.

I see a fault in your logic. There are educated people on both sides of the debate. There are also less educated people who still have validity, choice and reasons to believe anything they want. Facts do speak logically to people but so does philosophy and religion. Religion has merit in reasoning that does go beyond a mere factual scientific logical analysis. This itself is a fact that you are not considering in your logical assessment of the subject. There is more to religion than just your selective viewpoints.

What I got from your post was basically that you don’t want to discuss anything about Judas because you think the information source is false. So you talk about Christians and how you think the bible is a false historical document instead.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
You are bold enough to point out that your logical reasoning is correct, not only correct but it should apply to everyone when you put in brackets (Nor can you actually). Everyone is different and they do have different beliefs. You may not agree with them but just because you can’t doesn’t mean their beliefs are not correct from a different perspective.
I'm afraid that is exactly what it means. It isn't about what I agree with, it is about things which are real and things which are not. When someone says the world was created 6-10000 years ago, they are WRONG. It doesn't matter whether they believe it or not - people have all sorts of beliefs, many untrue.
Quote:
I however view religious topics much differently. I see you taking on a commanding stance (in this case me) by telling me what I can/need to do and what I can not do. You have proven often in writing (this thread is good example) that anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot and you express this so well.
You were not part of the conversation so what you think I am telling you to do I simply don't know. I disagree with many people on many things and that certainly doesn't make them an idiot. When someone denies something that they wrote and which is in plain view - THAT makes them an idiot.
Quote:

In fact, I value truth higher than personal considerations too. When I said I choose to, I didn’t mean what you think I meant. Yes, some things need to be taken on faith but I have absolute proof about the things I believe in. What I did mean by saying that I have choice is that I know that the bible is true and can therefore can choose to believe in it. I can also choose to see your web-site from a different perspective than you do. I do not have to follow your logic because it I see it as incorrect. I can choose not to be manipulated by a false logic.
No, you simply don't understand what words like 'true' and 'proof' mean. Personal conviction is not proof - the mental wards are full of people who believe they are Napoleon, or Jimi Hendrix - their belief may be sincere but it is simply WRONG. There is no 'my logic' or 'your logic' , there is just 'logic'.
Quote:
Are you sure about what I can or can not do? I am sure you have proven that you are very -> religious minded. I do question your comprehension on the subject however when you describe the religious material you have read as data. Think about this before you go off in a rage. Is this logical? You yourself say that the material you read is not accurate as say a scientific document would be and perhaps you think a Gospel should be. You apply the same reasoning to religion as you do science? To do this is actually illogical. If you think so little of the material you read then why read it all and then go on about it?
If I want to know if a written account is true then there are procedures and things to look for. Not exactly science - this is history after all. We look for primary sources, internal contradictions, the reliability of the authors generally, any agenda in play .. and so on. I read the material for the same reason that I keep 6 copies of the bible in different translations - as someone opposed to religious influence on secular life I debate religion a great deal and I like to ensure I am at least as well informed as any debating opponent....
Quote:
I do not think education level has much to do with a belief in atheism or a non-belief in atheism. What you are basically saying here and correct me if this is not what you are saying is that if a person is educated if they will accept the bible as not true because it contains as you said “errors”. You read the bible and then profess to say that is untrue because you found contradictions and incorrect information. Then you go on to tell people that if they do not believe what you do they are not educated.
No, I am saying something different. I am saying that a college level education gives you certain mental tools and techniques - critical thinking, fallacy awareness etc. Without those tools people are much easier to con and manipulate. Having those tools does not mean that you are right, but it massively decreases the probability of believing something stupid or impossible - mental self-defence.
The errors in the bible are real and I have described one set - not my opinion, read it for yourself. Likewise the truth is nothing to do with what I believe - it is true or it is not and in the case I describe it is NOT. Opinion counts for nothing.
Quote:
What I got from your post was basically that you don’t want to discuss anything about Judas because you think the information source is false. So you talk about Christians and how you think the bible is a false historical document instead.
Not quite. I don't want to talk about Judas because nobody up to now has demonstrated that they know anything worth talking about. Talking from a position of ignorance is fine if that is what floats your boat - it sinks mine. If someone here had demonstrated some knowledge of the existing literature, some original insight, then I'd be happy to discuss it. If you want to know about Judas a good starting point is to read ALL the material we have, including the Gospel of Judas, otherwise you are just regurgitating the tiny amount of skewed 'information' in the canon.
Bluedoll
Looking back to the op..

Judas was a traitor because he made a choice. He sold out. He sold Jesus for 40 pieces of silver. I can relate to Judas as I can Thomas or Peter. Peter denied Jesus because he was afraid of the Romans. I can understand that, I think I would be too, for the Romans and religious leaders of that time are just horrible, men.

Thomas was unsure and wanted proof. I can understand this too for we even today get so many different and sometimes conflicting information. I might understand Judas, as he was probably beside himself and like Thomas did not fully comprehend all the things transpiring.

Everyone wants to see the truth clearly but the truth can hide itself sometimes I think. It was not God’s will that Judas do what he did but perhaps predictable that someone would turn Jesus over to his enemies and Judas did fill that role. He served a purpose but it was not an admiral one. His action was not stopped because free will is very important to God.



Bikerman wrote:
I'm afraid that is exactly what it means. It isn't about what I agree with, it is about things which are real and things which are not. When someone says the world was created 6-10000 years ago, they are WRONG. It doesn't matter whether they believe it or not - people have all sorts of beliefs, many untrue


We can agree that some beliefs are untrue. I believe atheism is an untruth.

Bikerman wrote:
You were not part of the conversation so what you think I am telling you to do I simply don't know. I disagree with many people on many things and that certainly doesn't make them an idiot. When someone denies something that they wrote and which is in plain view - THAT makes them an idiot.


I was commenting on what you wrote in brackets (Nor can you actually) and thought it was directed to me. Not part of a public forum? – right you were directing it to another idiot poster – I do understand your frustration because I think we can both agree topics can become heated and exchanges can go down hill from there – I get that, sadly.

Bikerman wrote:
No, you simply don't understand what words like 'true' and 'proof' mean. Personal conviction is not proof - the mental wards are full of people who believe they are Napoleon, or Jimi Hendrix - their belief may be sincere but it is simply WRONG. There is no 'my logic' or 'your logic' , there is just 'logic'.


Yes and no? I agree about the mental wards. Looking at logic from a scientific point of view ... logic is accepted when the author’s logic is sound. (Einstein’s theory of relativity for example) At one time did he must have had confidence in his own conviction. In this case is not personal conviction relative to logic? All he had to do was prove to others that his logic was sound. I do not think logic will mind if someone’s logic gets disputed and think you appreciate this as well.

Bikerman wrote:
If I want to know if a written account is true then there are procedures and things to look for. Not exactly science - this is history after all. We look for primary sources, internal contradictions, the reliability of the authors generally, any agenda in play .. and so on. I read the material for the same reason that I keep 6 copies of the bible in different translations - as someone opposed to religious influence on secular life I debate religion a great deal and I like to ensure I am at least as well informed as any debating opponent....


All well and good. Religion is certainly a subject to debate about. I don’t look at people as debating opponents though but do understand your reasoning.

Bikerman wrote:
No, I am saying something different. I am saying that a college level education gives you certain mental tools and techniques - critical thinking, fallacy awareness etc. Without those tools people are much easier to con and manipulate. Having those tools does not mean that you are right, but it massively decreases the probability of believing something stupid or impossible - mental self-defence.


I agree 100% and your point very well said. I can appreciate this wisdom.


Bikerman wrote:
The errors in the bible are real and I have described one set - not my opinion, read it for yourself. Likewise the truth is nothing to do with what I believe - it is true or it is not and in the case I describe it is NOT. Opinion counts for nothing.


I have not looked at each bible quotation at this present time but the ones I did look at were accurate. I have wondered myself and sure others have wondered too what is going on in the bible.

I do not share your view however those errors make the bible invalid. The bible is not a history book. It can be used for that purpose but the bible truly is religious writings. The truth for the historian mind does not apply since the bible refers to the truth about spiritual matters. If one chooses not to acknowledge spirituality that is a decision but it will make the topic of religion rather narrow and shallow.

I agree the bible has errors if it is to be considered only to be a very old historical reverence book. I do not look at the bible this way.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Looking back to the op..
Judas was a traitor because he made a choice. He sold out. He sold Jesus for 40 pieces of silver. I can relate to Judas as I can Thomas or Peter. Peter denied Jesus because he was afraid of the Romans. I can understand that, I think I would be too, for the Romans and religious leaders of that time are just horrible, men.
According to the Gospel of Judas, it was JESUS who ASKED Judas to betray him and Judas did so unwillingly. This version is supported by other Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of James and the Apocalypse of Peter. The accounts in the canon are clearly evolving over time. Luke has him as a victim of Satan. The later Gospel of John has him as a mercenary traitor. By the time John was written the early Christians had split from Judaism and were interested in playing the Jews as villains/ Earlier the Christians were still actually a Jewish sect - so the earliest writings are much more sympathetic.
Quote:
Thomas was unsure and wanted proof. I can understand this too for we even today get so many different and sometimes conflicting information. I might understand Judas, as he was probably beside himself and like Thomas did not fully comprehend all the things transpiring.
That is not what the Gospel of Thomas says, and it is not what other texts say. Even the canon only has an oblique reference in John, and otherwise no mention of Thomas doubting. This makes the story dubious....
Quote:
We can agree that some beliefs are untrue. I believe atheism is an untruth.
That is a silly statement which not only is not true, it is incoherent (meaningless).
Atheism = lack of belief in God. A lack of belief cannot be untrue - it can be wrong but only evidence can show that and evidence would make me a theist
Quote:
I was commenting on what you wrote in brackets (Nor can you actually) and thought it was directed to me. Not part of a public forum? – right you were directing it to another idiot poster – I do understand your frustration because I think we can both agree topics can become heated and exchanges can go down hill from there – I get that, sadly.
That comment WAS for you but didn't imply (and wasn't meant to) any idiocy. It is simply a reminder that non of us can choose to believe things - we either do or we do not and it isn't a matter of conscious choice.
Quote:
Yes and no? I agree about the mental wards. Looking at logic from a scientific point of view ... logic is accepted when the author’s logic is sound. (Einstein’s theory of relativity for example) At one time did he must have had confidence in his own conviction. In this case is not personal conviction relative to logic? All he had to do was prove to others that his logic was sound. I do not think logic will mind if someone’s logic gets disputed and think you appreciate this as well.
No, you are confused here. Logic is a set of fundamental rules which must be kept if you want to make sense. Logic does not make an argument or theory correct - a theory must be logical to be even considered as a theory. If something breaks the laws of logic then it is simply wrong or nonsensical and can be safely ignored. Logic is the entry requirement which any position, argument, theory or assertion MUST pass before it can even be discussed. Logic is a formal set of laws which is taught in philosophy. Relativity HAD to be logical to even be printed - whether it was right depended on evidence, not logic.
[quote]
Quote:
I do not share your view however those errors make the bible invalid. The bible is not a history book. It can be used for that purpose but the bible truly is religious writings. The truth for the historian mind does not apply since the bible refers to the truth about spiritual matters. If one chooses not to acknowledge spirituality that is a decision but it will make the topic of religion rather narrow and shallow.

Spirituality is meaningless, since people use it to mean different things and never agree on the meaning. I am spiritual in some senses of the word - in most senses actually.
The concept of 'religious truth' is not coherent. Something IS true or it is NOT true (or it might be partly true of course). True is when something we think matches up to some empirical criterion. Religious truth is a nonsense phrase invented by theologians to make their prattling seem more plausible.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
No, you are confused here. Logic is a set of fundamental rules which must be kept if you want to make sense. Logic does not make an argument or theory correct - a theory must be logical to be even considered as a theory. If something breaks the laws of logic then it is simply wrong or nonsensical and can be safely ignored. Logic is the entry requirement which any position, argument, theory or assertion MUST pass before it can even be discussed. Logic is a formal set of laws which is taught in philosophy. Relativity HAD to be logical to even be printed - whether it was right depended on evidence, not logic.



I do admire your knowledge on science and logic. I agree with everything you said here but it is also inaccurate! I will not argue this here further because I think it is not the place for it, perhaps another post? There is more to philosophy and arguments than what is being presented in your statement and this is but one source that a person could read about philosophy and types of arguments. There are many more examples that could be shown that your statement is not complete.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument#Argument_in_informal_logic

See Argument 8:1: Argument in informal logic

The argument is neither a) advice nor b) moral or economical judgement, but the connection between the two. An argument always uses the connective because. An argument is not an explanation. It does not connect two events, cause and effect, which already took place, but a possible individual action and its beneficial outcome. An argument is not a proof. A proof is a logical and cognitive concept; an argument is a praxeologic concept. A proof changes our knowledge; an argument compels us to act.


My only point is that there are other methods of arriving at a logical conclusion and at having philosophical arguments than what you are describing. As I previously said, it doesn’t negotiate what you said but it would show if it were researched that what you are describing is not the only way to think. Also it would be incorrect to say if someone does not use the described method in your quote that they are breaking a law, confused or should not be taken seriously.


Bikerman wrote:
That is a silly statement which not only is not true, it is incoherent (meaningless).
Atheism = lack of belief in God. A lack of belief cannot be untrue - it can be wrong but only evidence can show that and evidence would make me a theist


No you are incorrect it is not a silly statement. Your statement is silly, incoherent and meaningless? Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. Show me a real atheist that does believe God exists?

This is another topic for another discussion.

Bikerman wrote:
Spirituality is meaningless, since people use it to mean different things and never agree on the meaning. I am spiritual in some senses of the word - in most senses actually.
The concept of 'religious truth' is not coherent. Something IS true or it is NOT true (or it might be partly true of course). True is when something we think matches up to some empirical criterion. Religious truth is a nonsense phrase invented by theologians to make their prattling seem more plausible.



I disagree 100% with this! If it is meaningless then love is meaningless for the same applies. I will not use religious truth in this context but rather spiritual truth with is not something that needs to add up to “empirical criterion” as does love.


Bikerman wrote:
That comment WAS for you but didn't imply (and wasn't meant to) any idiocy. It is simply a reminder that non of us can choose to believe things - we either do or we do not and it isn't a matter of conscious choice.


We can do this on many occasions. I can agree here and disagree at the same time. Again if you consider that belief is only something you would get out of a scientific journal yes but not if you considering religious type questions. Some things are simply taken on faith but there are other ways to arrive at conclusion.

Does your wife cheat on you? Can you answer this question with complete surety? If you were to tell me you have undisputed evidence (you secretly monitor all her events) then I would say that is very sad. I am going to assume that you do no such thing. Therefore you must have some set of reasons other than using the scientific model to believe in her. If not all I can do is offer pity. I am only using this as an example for making a conscious choice to believe in something. It is not always arrived at in the way you have described. Beliefs can be arrived at logically in other ways than logical analysis.





____________________________________________________________________





I think Thomas could be described as the doubter simply because he did ask Jesus for proof and that Judas was not asked to betray but did act of his own free will to sell his information.

Bikerman, I think it is the way that you deal with religious subjects that gives rise to you not being qualified to teach the bible. – sarcasm Laughing
Indi
Bluedoll wrote:
My only point is that there are other methods of arriving at a logical conclusion and at having philosophical arguments than what you are describing.

There is only one way to arrive at a logical conclusion: use logic. You may have options on exactly how to use logic, but the bottom line is that you must use logic and only logic, or what you've got will not be a logical conclusion.

It's the same as mathematics. If you want to arrive at a mathematical conclusion, you have only one choice: use mathematics. There may be options for how to use math, but the bottom line is that you must use math and only math, or what you've got will not be a mathematical conclusion.

You cannot solve a math problem by consulting your favourite oracle or holy book. You cannot figure out a 100-step mathematical conclusion by doing 99 steps properly using math, but have 1 step hidden somewhere in the middle that says "and then a miracle occurs".

The same is true for logic (which is not surprising, since math is just a specialized form of logic). It's all or none. Either you use logic all the way through, from start to finish, or what you've got at the end is not a logical conclusion.

In other words, your only point (and everything that follows from it) is wrong.

Bluedoll wrote:
Does your wife cheat on you? Can you answer this question with complete surety? If you were to tell me you have undisputed evidence (you secretly monitor all her events) then I would say that is very sad. I am going to assume that you do no such thing. Therefore you must have some set of reasons other than using the scientific model to believe in her. If not all I can do is offer pity. I am only using this as an example for making a conscious choice to believe in something. It is not always arrived at in the way you have described. Beliefs can be arrived at logically in other ways than logical analysis.

There is no need for "faith", and no need for "choosing" to believe that his wife isn't cheating on him. You are simply playing a dishonest game by insisting on "complete surety" for his beliefs, while not insisting on the same standard for your own. "Complete surety" is completely impossible, for anything but a few fundamental philosophical conclusions, and tautologies. Bikerman can't even be "completely sure" his wife is alive - she could have died years ago and was replaced by a robot or shapeshifter to fool him. Hell, he can't even be "completely sure" that his wife even exists - someone could be manipulating his sensory inputs or memory.

You aren't "completely sure" of anything either, and if you were honest you would admit it. If you were "completely sure" that your religion was correct, you wouldn't be here defending it. It's your insecurity about your beliefs that compels you to try to rationalize them in the face of challenges. If you were "completely sure" that your flavour of Christianity was correct, you would be just as vigorously condemning every other flavour of Christianity and every other religion as you are condemning non-belief... but of course, the reason you're specifically worried about rebutting atheists and not Jainists is because you are not "completely sure" the atheists don't actually have it right.

Logic does not demand "complete surety". It only requires that the evidence "for" outweighs the evidence "against". Bikerman almost certainly has a bunch of evidence that his spouse (assuming he has one) is not cheating on him - such as a policy of transparency and communication, and familiarity with each others' personalities - and little or no evidence that ze is. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that there is no cheating going on. Simple as that. No faith and no forced, faked "belief" necessary.

It's exactly the same logic you use when you try to figure out whether your house is currently on fire. You can never know with "complete surety" that it isn't, but the fact that the alarm is not going off and there's no smell of smoke coupled with the extremely low probability of a fire leads to the obvious and logical conclusion that there's probably no fire. You don't need to have "faith" that your house isn't on fire, and you don't need to "choose to believe" that your house isn't on fire. To claim you do is just absurd.

If you apply the same standards of reason and evidence that you use to decide whether it's safe to cross the street to your religion, you wouldn't have a religion. You can never be "completely sure" it's safe to cross, but that doesn't mean you stand on the curb forever - you balance the evidence "for" it being safe (the light is with you and there are no cars that seem about to ignore it) versus the evidence "against" it being safe (there's a speeding car approaching that is not slowing down), and you know that whatever the weight of the evidence says is true is probably true. You don't stand there and say you have "faith" that it's safe to cross or that you "choose to believe" it's safe to cross. It's only by insisting on these ridiculous notions of "faith" and "choosing to believe" something in lieu or in spite of evidence that you can possibly maintain religious beliefs. And it's only by playing games with absurd standards of belief like "complete surety" that you can dismiss reasonable people.
Bluedoll
It is impossible to presume to know someone else’s motivations for posting unless the poster actually says so. Someone can say another person is defending a religion but I know this is not my outlook. I have different beliefs than what I’ve read in this thread so I am just indicating it. Is there something wrong with this? Is someone offended by anything I wrote? If so what did I write that was offensive? I can not recall using the word condemn in my post so not sure where that connects to my post?

Some topics are religious, so it stands to reason some explanations from the atheist viewpoint will be very different especially if the bible is being explained.

There is time to use a disciplined approach to logic. There is a time for collecting all the evidence so to come to a logical conclusion. I do agree this is a fine standard but is this topic about math or logic analysis of complex problems in science? I do not connect the same logic to religious subjects.

I believe in God with my whole heart. I know for certain (a surety) that God exists.

I do not agree that a belief in God is playing a game. Not at all. Complete surety in the context that I’ve used the word is very reasonable. It is not that I am rejecting logic but how logic is applied to religious subjects, I do reject.

Though it is not unreasonable for someone to say they are not sure is it unreasonable to presume that everyone else in the world must comply with the same thinking process. I certainly will not comply with to adhere to just one process.

I’ll give this short example to show just where surety (how I think of surety in this topic) can be applied.

When someone asks another person if they sure that they want to marry someone else and their answer is, “I can not be sure” perhaps then they should not get married is my view. It is very reasonable to answer, “yes I am sure, I love this person.” I am not saying it should be the only consideration but it is reasonable to have this kind of “surety” in a marriage.

Judas could have been faithful but instead made a conscious choice to trade it for something else.
Indi
Bluedoll wrote:
It is impossible to presume to know someone else’s motivations for posting unless the poster actually says so.

There's no need to be purposefully stupid about what is obvious. You're still playing dishonest games by asking for "absolute certainty" rather than admitting that reasonable certainty - as shown by the weight of the evidence - is what you really use. For example, you don't even know with "absolute certainty" that if you stopped posting or outright flaunted the Frihost rules that you'd lose your hosting. Bet you won't try it, though. You also don't know with "absolute certainty" that if you lit yourself on fire you wouldn't discover you have superpowers and are invulnerable. Again, I know you won't try it. Because you don't really need absolute certainty - you just pretend you need it when you're demanding stuff from atheists.

While it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, it is not impossible to know someone's motivations for posting here with reasonable certainty. For example, we can be reasonably certain that part of the reason they're doing it is to maintain their hosting. You can also be reasonably certain that when someone posts an argument defending something, they either believe it or at least they're trying to force people to take it seriously (for example, to make them think harder about what they believe). And if someone continues to post the same arguments long after they've been refuted (repeatedly), you can be reasonably certain they have a vested emotional interest in defending them.

Bluedoll wrote:
Some topics are religious, so it stands to reason some explanations from the atheist viewpoint will be very different especially if the bible is being explained.

But we are not talking about "the atheist viewpoint". We are talking about "logical". There is not such thing as "the logical viewpoint", because what is logical is universally logical - it is not a matter of perspective. For example, if the Bible says Adam is the only man alive other than his only 2 sons - Cain and Abel - and Cain kills Abel, then we can now logically deduce that there are supposedly only 2 men alive (Adam and Cain), and if we're not descended from Cain, that must mean Adam went on to have more sons. That logical conclusion is the same, whether you're a Christian who believes that literally happened, or an atheist who thinks the whole story is bullshit.

You are simply pretending that "logical" = "atheist" when logic leads to conclusions you don't want to accept. But that's nonsense. "Logic" has no relationship whatsoever to atheism. If there were actually any real evidence that a god existed, then logic would lead to theism, not atheism. I am honest enough to say that if there were any real evidence or logic that proved gods existed, then i would accept that (i wouldn't have a choice) and no longer be an atheist. You are not that honest, and want to cling to your beliefs even when logic works against them, while still pretending to be logical. This is not a difference of "viewpoint". It's me being honest, and you not being honest.

Bluedoll wrote:
It is not that I am rejecting logic but how logic is applied to religious subjects, I do reject.

Rejecting "how logic is applied" is rejecting logic. Logic is not a set of conclusions, it is a method for reaching conclusions. So if you reject the method (which you are), that's rejecting logic.

Bluedoll wrote:
Though it is not unreasonable for someone to say they are not sure is it unreasonable to presume that everyone else in the world must comply with the same thinking process. I certainly will not comply with to adhere to just one process.

No one is "forcing" you to comply with any thinking process. What we are forcing you to do is be honest. If you are not using logic, then you cannot say your conclusions are logical. You're free to believe what you want, and you're free to think the way you want... but if you don't use logic, you can't honestly call your conclusions logical.

See, you're smart enough to realize that logical reasoning is the right way to come to conclusions, and that any conclusions you reach by logical reasoning are almost certainly the right conclusions. But there is no way to use logical reasoning to come to the conclusions you want to come to. Nevertheless, you want the legitimacy, so you claim your conclusions are logically reasoned out, even though they aren't. That's lying. Asking you not to lie is not forcing you to think like an atheist, unless you believe non-atheist thinking means lying is okay.

And when claiming that your conclusions are logically reasoned out fails - because people spot the lie and see there's plainly no logical way you can come to those conclusions - you fall back on plan B. You insist that logic is a matter of "viewpoint", and that all viewpoints are equally valid. Bullshit, on every level. Logic is no more a matter of viewpoint than mathematics (because mathematics is logic, narrowly applied). And all viewpoints are not equally valid. A viewpoint backed up by logical argument and evidence is not equal to one that someone clings to merely by faith.

This whole pretence at being "forced to think the same way we do" is bullshit. No one is forcing you to think like them - you can look at the world any way you please. We're just demanding that you be honest. You're not using reason, so stop saying your conclusions are reasonable. It's as simple as this - either:
  1. Use logic. Then you can say your conclusions are logical. Of course, people will demand to see your logical proof, to check your work.
  2. Don't use logic, and stop pretending that your conclusions are logical. If you believe by faith, then be honest enough to say so, and stop the pretence that you believe by logic.
Frankly, if you said flat out that you believe in God or whatever by faith, not by reason or evidence, that would be the end of it - i couldn't say anything to argue that, and i doubt anyone else could either. I wouldn't agree with it, but i couldn't argue it. The problem is not your belief in God, nor is it your faith. The problem is your pretending to use reason or evidence. That is what i - and others - are objecting to. Because you're not using logic or evidence, or if you are, you have failed to show your work. So either show your logical reasoning (and stand ready to have it judged), or quit claiming your conclusions are logical or reasonable. This is not "forcing you to comply" with any way of thinking. It's saying you're free to think or believe any way you please... but demanding that you be honest about it.

Bluedoll wrote:
I’ll give this short example to show just where surety (how I think of surety in this topic) can be applied.

When someone asks another person if they sure that they want to marry someone else and their answer is, “I can not be sure” perhaps then they should not get married is my view. It is very reasonable to answer, “yes I am sure, I love this person.” I am not saying it should be the only consideration but it is reasonable to have this kind of “surety” in a marriage.

You can't seriously believe that when someone says they're sure they're marrying the right person, that that means "absolute certainty". Come on, don't be stupid. Haven't you ever heard of pre-wedding jitters? Why do you think people are nervous walking down the aisle? (Good grief, just Google any relevant phrase like "unsure about marriage" or "not sure he's the right one to marry". The evidence is bountiful that people get married with doubts.) When someone says they're "sure" they're marrying the right person, they just mean they're reasonably sure. But of course they still have uncertainty, though they usually ignore their doubts so they can go through with it because they hope it will all work out well.
Bluedoll
Faith did not decide Judas actions.
His actions were decided from his free will to act. The op asked the question “Is it really "betraying" if Judas was doing God's will?” When we make choices we decide our fate. God is not a controlling God but has gives everyone the power of free will. How we use free will to determine our fate. So, yes Judas did choose to betray.

Indi wrote:
But we are not talking about "the atheist viewpoint". We are talking about "logical". There is not such thing as "the logical viewpoint", because what is logical is universally logical - it is not a matter of perspective. For example, if the Bible says Adam is the only man alive other than his only 2 sons - Cain and Abel - and Cain kills Abel, then we can now logically deduce that there are supposedly only 2 men alive (Adam and Cain), and if we're not descended from Cain, that must mean Adam went on to have more sons. That logical conclusion is the same, whether you're a Christian who believes that literally happened, or an atheist who thinks the whole story is bullshit.


I think with bullshit the more you stir it up, the worse it gets.

I agree that there are points to be made about being logical. We could discuss the difference between deductive arguments and inductive arguments for example. There is not just one universal method for logic. There are also different results. It might be shown how differently we can arrive at our rational thoughts and opinions or how we make classifications and judgments. I do argue that this thread is not really about logic reasoning at all but about questions put forth about the bible (see op). The bible is not “a let us try to figure this out using formal logic book.”


Indi wrote:
There's no need to be purposefully stupid about what is obvious. You're still playing dishonest games by asking for "absolute certainty" rather than admitting that reasonable certainty - as shown by the weight of the evidence - is what you really use. For example, you don't even know with "absolute certainty" that if you stopped posting or outright flaunted the Frihost rules that you'd lose your hosting. Bet you won't try it, though. You also don't know with "absolute certainty" that if you lit yourself on fire you wouldn't discover you have superpowers and are invulnerable. Again, I know you won't try it. Because you don't really need absolute certainty - you just pretend you need it when you're demanding stuff rom atheists.



I’m asking for clarification here. What in heavens name are you talking about? It makes little sense to me. Demanding what stuff from atheists? I have not the faintest idea of what you mean. Do you think you could write clearly more concisely how you think I am “demanding” without going on about “absolute certainty” since I think your stuck in some endless loop of a I’m right and you are wrong certainty eh?

Listen ............. just for the record here! When it comes to evidence and certainty I can follow along quite clearly with what your saying. Just know you wouldn’t be telling me anything about you belief about God though because you are so far away from God you are like a little lost puppy. Think about what you are demanding before you demand it. If you enter religious type threads do you actually expect anyone with a belief in God not to challenge your belief?


Indi wrote:
No one is "forcing" you to comply with any thinking process. What we are forcing you to do is be honest. If you are not using logic, then you cannot say your conclusions are logical. You're free to believe what you want, and you're free to think the way you want... but if you don't use logic, you can't honestly call your conclusions logical.


I am saying logical thinking is a thinking process. Arguments force one belief against another. I can say with complete honesty that my beliefs are very solid. There are many ways to get to a conclusion. The idea that a conclusion can only be achieved in one way is simply not true. This really is a subject for a philosophical topic; not a religious topic is what I am saying.





Indi wrote:
You are simply pretending that "logical" = "atheist" when logic leads to conclusions you don't want to accept. But that's nonsense. "Logic" has no relationship whatsoever to atheism. If there were actually any real evidence that a god existed, then logic would lead to theism, not atheism. I am honest enough to say that if there were any real evidence or logic that proved gods existed, then i would accept that (i wouldn't have a choice) and no longer be an atheist. You are not that honest, and want to cling to your beliefs even when logic works against them, while still pretending to be logical. This is not a difference of "viewpoint". It's me being honest, and you not being honest.



I disagree about what you say about God and biblical truths. Logic is the wrong approach and what is working against a belief in God. You are following inaccurate information in this case and it is creating a distortion of the truth. What you do not understand is the bible. You are looking for proofs. Thomas and perhaps Judas wanted the same thing. It is not a crime to want to get evidence it is merely going in the wrong direction and will not bring you anywhere near a belief in God.

Anyone can be aware of God’s existence if they choose to. You know how but you choose not to and that is your choice.



You are using the word demand your post! I am not demanding anything! Rather my argument is that your claim that I am being dishonest is “the bullshit”. I have explained in part why.

Indi wrote:
See, you're smart enough to realize that logical reasoning is the right way to come to conclusions, and that any conclusions you reach by logical reasoning are almost certainly the right conclusions. But there is no way to use logical reasoning to come to the conclusions you want to come to. Nevertheless, you want the legitimacy, so you claim your conclusions are logically reasoned out, even though they aren't. That's lying. Asking you not to lie is not forcing you to think like an atheist, unless you believe non-atheist thinking means lying is okay.

And when claiming that your conclusions are logically reasoned out fails - because people spot the lie and see there's plainly no logical way you can come to those conclusions - you fall back on plan B. You insist that logic is a matter of "viewpoint", and that all viewpoints are equally valid. Bullshit, on every level. Logic is no more a matter of viewpoint than mathematics (because mathematics is logic, narrowly applied). And all viewpoints are not equally valid. A viewpoint backed up by logical argument and evidence is not equal to one that someone clings to merely by faith.

This whole pretence at being "forced to think the same way we do" is bullshit. No one is forcing you to think like them - you can look at the world any way you please. We're just demanding that you be honest. You're not using reason, so stop saying your conclusions are reasonable. It's as simple as this - either:



You have good arguments about logical reasoning and many that I can agree with. They are wonderful educational methods for everyone to appreciate. My argument with your argument is that your refusal to accept a fact (or you do not understand my argument). It is not about me holding only a viewpoint without logic at all. This is your conclusion. I will extract, review, edit anything in this thread that I have written that implies that I am. For now, I can say clearly that what I am saying, which you may not agree with is the truth.

You can not arrive at a conclusion that God exists or the bible is truth by using proof acquiring reasoning which are formal. I agree with you that having faith is much stronger in religious subjects than mere logic, spock, but if you want to find spiritual truths you have to open you mind to deductive reasoning that are not hard core formal reasoning.

Indi wrote:

1. Use logic. Then you can say your conclusions are logical. Of course, people will demand to see your logical proof, to check your work.
2. Don't use logic, and stop pretending that your conclusions are logical. If you believe by faith, then be honest enough to say so, and stop the pretence that you believe by logic.


1) I agree it is to the common good in non-religious topics to use a formal method.
2) To tell someone not to be logical is good advice? I defend my right to be logical with logical arguments when they are inserted into religious topics. Many religious topics digress to logical arguments. These arguments I can debate. I can debate using logic for example that a spiritual subject like “God does not exist” is very much a religious topic and not a scientific one.


I agree with you that Faith is an acceptable position. I disagree that I am being dishonest because I do disagree with your argument that I am not giving you logical reasons.

If you want more detail, I suggest you slow it down and stick to one point instead of ranting on about so many points. Be specific, stay on one point and I will do the same. I am providing logic reasoning.


Indi wrote:
Frankly, if you said flat out that you believe in God or whatever by faith, not by reason or evidence, that would be the end of it - i couldn't say anything to argue that, and i doubt anyone else could either. I wouldn't agree with it, but i couldn't argue it. The problem is not your belief in God, nor is it your faith. The problem is your pretending to use reason or evidence. That is what i - and others - are objecting to. Because you're not using logic or evidence, or if you are, you have failed to show your work. So either show your logical reasoning (and stand ready to have it judged), or quit claiming your conclusions are logical or reasonable. This is not "forcing you to comply" with any way of thinking. It's saying you're free to think or believe any way you please... but demanding that you be honest about it.



I know for certain that God exists. I already have the “honest proof.” You have a belief that God does not exist.

It is logical to know that when a tree falls, it falls to the left or to the right. That my associate is from the bible and it is very logical.

What you are attempting to do in your post is the force. I am not forcing you. You have become what you have hated. Look, I am not forcing any religion on you. You can believe what you want. What I am saying is that spiritual truths can use logic and reasoning if you are willing to look at spirituality in a reasonable way. If you don’t want to that is your choice.

Show me where I have made all these logical inaccuracies like you claim I have. The truth is, I simply have said I believe God with my whole mind and heart and I know that God exists and you are taking a fit about it! I don’t think you are as honest as you claim by the way. It may not even be a question of honest or not honest but one of degree. I think you may not be willing to accept reasonable statements concerning religious subjects because you wish to demand that they be dealt with from an understanding of them out of atheism. Many people that belief in God would agree with me that a question of God existing is indeed very logical. I do have my proof.

Indi wrote:
You can't seriously believe that when someone says they're sure they're marrying the right person, that that means "absolute certainty". Come on, don't be stupid. Haven't you ever heard of pre-wedding jitters? Why do you think people are nervous walking down the aisle? (Good grief, just Google any relevant phrase like "unsure about marriage" or "not sure he's the right one to marry". The evidence is bountiful that people get married with doubts.) When someone says they're "sure" they're marrying the right person, they just mean they're reasonably sure. But of course they still have uncertainty, though they usually ignore their doubts so they can go through with it because they hope it will all work out well.


I can agree with this, very true. I was simply using this example to show that people are not clones. Just as not everyone has jitters, not everyone is unsure of their beliefs nor has the exact same method to arrive at a conclusion. Some people go into things with complete confidence.

Certainly the other apostles talked with each other, reasoning logically with each other. When it came to having honest trust though I think they might have made their choice also out their of love for Jesus.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Faith did not decide Judas actions.
His actions were decided from his free will to act. The op asked the question “Is it really "betraying" if Judas was doing God's will?” When we make choices we decide our fate. God is not a controlling God but has gives everyone the power of free will. How we use free will to determine our fate. So, yes Judas did choose to betray.
That is simply a lie. You have no way to know any such thing and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Had you said it was your opinion then that would be one thing, but to state this as fact is insupportable.
Quote:
but if you want to find spiritual truths you have to open you mind to deductive reasoning that are not hard core formal reasoning.
You are just spouting words that you don't understand. Deductive reasoning (logic) is, necessarily, tautological. That is, the conclusions one arrives at using deductive logic are inescapable and are necessarily true if the premises (starting conditions) are correct. It is the MOST hard-core formal reasoning we have. What you do, in reaching your conclusions about God, is no sort of reasoning at all. It is something we call personal revelation - ie you BELIEVE that the truth has been revealed to you. If it were a reasoned conclusion then you would be able to support the notion and provide logical or evidential reasons for believing that the conclusion is correct, You cannot do this for the simple reason that your conclusion that God exists is not the result of ANY sort of reasoning - which is why we call it, and similar beliefs, non-rational (or irrational if you prefer) - that is, it is not the result of any rationale - any process of reasoning.
Quote:

I disagree about what you say about God and biblical truths. Logic is the wrong approach and what is working against a belief in God. You are following inaccurate information in this case and it is creating a distortion of the truth. What you do not understand is the bible. You are looking for proofs. Thomas and perhaps Judas wanted the same thing. It is not a crime to want to get evidence it is merely going in the wrong direction and will not bring you anywhere near a belief in God.
More dishonesty. You don't even know the bible, let alone understand it. This has been established pretty conclusively in previous threads. Whenever specific issues from scripture arise you fall back on your standard 'I don't have to defend my beliefs' - which, although true for most forums is actually NOT true here and makes one wonder why you bother posting in this forum where you ARE required to do so....
Quote:

Many people that belief in God would agree with me that a question of God existing is indeed very logical. I do have my proof.
But you don't - that is the point. You have a personal conviction which is not the same thing at all and until you understand the difference you will continue to post the nonsense we see here.
Indi
Bluedoll wrote:
Faith did not decide Judas actions.

I find it amusing and revealing that you insist it is impossible to know the motivations of a person posting on Frihost... yet seem absolute certain about the motivations of a 2000 year-old dead guy who lived in a culture you know next to nothing about, when you only have fragments of his story.

Bluedoll wrote:
His actions were decided from his free will to act. The op asked the question “Is it really "betraying" if Judas was doing God's will?” When we make choices we decide our fate. God is not a controlling God but has gives everyone the power of free will. How we use free will to determine our fate. So, yes Judas did choose to betray.

You've misunderstood the question, and haven't given it any real thought.

What do you think the word "betray" means? If you look it up in a dictionary, you'll find it basically means "violation of trust".

Now, stop and think for a second. What did God/Jesus think Judas was going to do? Did God/Jesus trust that Judas would not go to the Romans? Do you really think Judas surprised him by turning him in?

Of course not. Jesus (assuming he really was God, and really was omniscient) HAD to have known what Judas was going to do (possibly before Judas was even born). So it makes no sense to say that Jesus trusted Judas and Judas "betrayed" his trust. That's ridiculous. Judas didn't betray Jesus's trust. He did exactly what Jesus trusted he was going to do!

In fact, take it a step further. Someone HAD to turn Jesus over to the authorities for the big sacrificial plan to play out. Judas didn't betray Jesus's plans... he was the most essential part of them! Without Judas, there could have been no crucifixion. God NEEDED Judas to do what he did, God WANTED Judas to do what he did, God KNEW that Judas was going to do what he did. That's not a betrayal. God should be thanking Judas for helping him out.

In fact, take it even further! When Jesus was selecting his disciples, he had to have known even then what Judas was eventually going to do. He chose Judas for the express purpose of turning him in later.. Again, that's not a "betrayal".

Go even further! The plain fact is that God knew he was going to need someone to turn Jesus in, long before any of the people involved were born. That means God had to arrange things in Judas's life so that Judas would become the person he did. He had to make sure Judas was going to be the kind of guy would would turn Jesus in, rather than sticking by him like the other disciples, and rather than simply sticking a shiv into Jesus's back.

So if God made Judas to be the person who would one day turn Jesus in, and God knew all along that Judas was going to do it, and God needed him to do it... how in hell is what Judas did "betraying"?

Bluedoll wrote:
We could discuss the difference between deductive arguments and inductive arguments for example. There is not just one universal method for logic.

There is just one universal logic (not "method for logic" - that is gibberish because logic IS a method, and you can't have a method for a method). Inductive and deductive reasoning are not two different kinds of logic, any more than addition and multiplication are two different kinds of math.

Bluedoll wrote:
I’m asking for clarification here. What in heavens name are you talking about? It makes little sense to me. Demanding what stuff from atheists? I have not the faintest idea of what you mean. Do you think you could write clearly more concisely how you think I am “demanding” without going on about “absolute certainty” since I think your stuck in some endless loop of a I’m right and you are wrong certainty eh?

You are using different standards of "knowing" for atheists than you use for yourself. In fact, you are deliberately assigning ridiculous and impossible standards of "knowing" for atheists that you don't use yourself.

For example, you wanted Bikerman to explain why he has "complete surety" that his spouse isn't cheating on him, which is ridiculous, because you don't even use "completely surety" yourself for anything. You ate food yesterday, i'll wager... did you have "complete surety" that it wasn't infected with harmful bacteria or poisons? Of course not. You literally risked your life on food that you didn't have "complete surety" about, and you do that every time you eat.

So why does Bikerman need "complete surety" that his spouse isn't cheating, but you don't need "complete surety" that your food isn't poisoned or your house isn't on fire? That's a double standard, and it's dishonest.

Bluedoll wrote:
Listen ............. just for the record here! When it comes to evidence and certainty I can follow along quite clearly with what your saying. Just know you wouldn’t be telling me anything about you belief about God though because you are so far away from God you are like a little lost puppy. Think about what you are demanding before you demand it. If you enter religious type threads do you actually expect anyone with a belief in God not to challenge your belief?

Let them. They are free to challenge anything i believe or claim. Unlike you, i will be honest about what i believe and why. If i say one of my beliefs is logical, i will show the logic, if asked. If my belief is not logical, i will not call it logical.

Bluedoll wrote:
There are many ways to get to a conclusion. The idea that a conclusion can only be achieved in one way is simply not true.

I didn't say a conclusion can be achieved in one way. I said that there is only one way to achieve a LOGICAL conclusion. And the one, and only one, way to achieve a logical conclusion is: use logic.

Bluedoll wrote:
You are using the word demand your post! I am not demanding anything! Rather my argument is that your claim that I am being dishonest is “the bullshit”. I have explained in part why.

It is my conclusion based on the facts that:
  • You have not shown any use of logic in forming your viewpoint.
  • You have repeatedly said you don't use logic.
  • If you were using logic, you had many opportunities to show that before now, and haven't.
In other words, if your viewpoint is based on logic, you can prove me wrong in a heartbeat just by showing your logic. If you do that and show that it is actually logical, then i will retract my claims that your viewpoint is not logical and offer an apology. But you and i both know you won't because you can't, because your viewpoint is not logical.

So no, you haven't "explained" anything. You are still saying two different things, changing your tune every time the wind changes, and never backing up certain claims you have made even though you easily could if the claims were true.

Bluedoll wrote:
It is not about me holding only a viewpoint without logic at all. This is your conclusion. I will extract, review, edit anything in this thread that I have written that implies that I am.

Seriously? You aren't aware of anything in this thread that suggests that your viewpoint isn't logical?

Here is a sample of things you have said in just this post that suggest you don't use logic:
  • I do argue that this thread is not really about logic reasoning at all but about questions put forth about the bible (see op). The bible is not “a let us try to figure this out using formal logic book.”
  • Logic is the wrong approach and what is working against a belief in God.
  • You can not arrive at a conclusion that God exists or the bible is truth by using proof acquiring reasoning which are formal.
All that is in one post. Half the time you say you don't want to use logic (or logic "can't be used"), and the other half the time you're swearing blind that you're using logic but won't show us the logic you're using. Which of those things is true? Only one of them can be true, max; at least one must be a lie.

Bluedoll wrote:
You can not arrive at a conclusion that God exists or the bible is truth by using proof acquiring reasoning which are formal. I agree with you that having faith is much stronger in religious subjects than mere logic, spock, but if you want to find spiritual truths you have to open you mind to deductive reasoning that are not hard core formal reasoning.

Now, see, you use this phrase "formal logic" (and various derivations like "formal reasoning")... but you don't actually know what it means.

Formal logic is a way of formalizing logic - the one and only logic - so that you can write it symbolically, and solve it with mathematical reductions. Despite what you think, it is not a different "kind" of logic. It's the same old logic. The thing that makes it formal is that it's formulated in a formal manner. Formulating logic formally makes it easier to spot common fallacies, and may help you see conclusions you couldn't see otherwise. It's just another way of looking at the same old logic - the one and only logic.

So this idea that you seem to have that there is logic and then there is "formal logic" is gibberish. They are not two different things. There is only logic. Formal logic is just a way of writing logic formally, but it's the same old logic.

Bluedoll wrote:
Indi wrote:
2. Don't use logic, and stop pretending that your conclusions are logical. If you believe by faith, then be honest enough to say so, and stop the pretence that you believe by logic.

2) To tell someone not to be logical is good advice? I defend my right to be logical with logical arguments when they are inserted into religious topics.

What i said was "don't use logic AND STOP PRETENDING YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE LOGICAL". You only read half the sentence, and ignored the whole point of everything i've been saying.

No one's saying you can't be logical about religious topics (except you, half the time). You are the one saying you don't want to use logic (half the time - other times you're swearing you use it). I am saying that's fine - if you don't want to use logic, you don't have to use logic, but then you can't call your conclusions logical.

I don't care what you believe. I only care WHY you believe. And despite your assertions that i'm somehow trapped by atheism and unable to change my mind, the reason i care about why you believe is because if you actually do have logic for your beliefs, and that logic is sound, then i would learn something new and change my own beliefs. Don't you get what's happening here? If i thought you were just an idiot, i wouldn't be wasting any time on you. The fact that i'm trying to get to the core of your beliefs means i want to understand them, learn from them, and maybe - if your logic is sound - change my own beliefs. That's the whole point of philosophical discussion. The smart thing for you to do, if you actually had logic supporting your beliefs, would be to show it. If you could do that, you would change my beliefs, and the beliefs of any reasonable person. Instead, when asked for your reasoning, you're throwing up smokescreens and dodging. So where does that leave me now? The only thing i'm left to conclude is that you don't actually have any reasoning at all. Which is fine for you - you're free to believe by faith if you want, you don't need to use logic - but the fact that you're pretending to have logic when you don't means you're lying to us all and wasting our time.

So show it, or shut it. If you have logic, show it. If don't have it, stop saying you do - because that's lying.

Bluedoll wrote:
I agree with you that Faith is an acceptable position. I disagree that I am being dishonest because I do disagree with your argument that I am not giving you logical reasons.

Don't "disagree with my argument that you are not giving logical reasons". Just give me the logical reasons you are using. Honestly, it makes no sense when someone says "you didn't use logic" to simply throw a fit and say "i did! i did! i did!" All you'd have to do is just show the damn logic you used and you'd prove them wrong.

So do it. You claim you are using logic (that is, you claim that half the time - the other half the time you say you're not, so i can't make sense of anything you say at all), then show it. That's all you have to do.

Bluedoll wrote:
It is logical to know that when a tree falls, it falls to the left or to the right. That my associate is from the bible and it is very logical.

Ah, actually, a tree could also fall forward or backward, you know. Or straight down even. In other words, that logic is flawed.

Bluedoll wrote:
Show me where I have made all these logical inaccuracies like you claim I have.

Show me your logic, and i will show you the inaccuracies. All you're doing now is barking noise about how indignant you are that i've said you're not using logic. You still haven't shown that i'm wrong by actually showing the logic you used. That's all you have to do.

Bluedoll wrote:
The truth is, I simply have said I believe God with my whole mind and heart and I know that God exists and you are taking a fit about it!

No, that is NOT all you "simply have said", and that's the whole problem. If that was all you said, i wouldn't have spoke a word to you. But you didn't just say you believe with your whole mind and heart... you said your belief is LOGICAL. So what i've been repeatedly asking you to do is SHOW THE LOGIC. You're not doing that. You're claiming your belief is logical on one side of your face, while saying logic doesn't apply on the other, and at the same time berating me for having the gall to ask you to show the logic you claim to have. That is what i am taking a "fit" about.

I do not care if you believe God exists. I do not care if you use faith to believe God exists. If all you said was "i believe God exists - i have faith that God exists", that would be fine - in fact, i would even defend your right to say that against others! What i care about is you claim to use logic. So if you used logic, you should show the logic you used and have it assessed to see if it is right or wrong. Or, if you're not using logic, stop pretending you are and claiming your beliefs are logical.

Bluedoll wrote:
I think you may not be willing to accept reasonable statements concerning religious subjects because you wish to demand that they be dealt with from an understanding of them out of atheism.

No, i demand that "reasonable statements" be dealt with using reason. Otherwise, they're not really reasonable statements. It is you who likes to pretend that "reason" = "atheism" when you can't make reason give you the answers you want.

Bluedoll wrote:
Many people that belief in God would agree with me that a question of God existing is indeed very logical.

Many people would agree that fairies exist (80% of Icelanders, for example). Just the fact that "many people believe" something does not make it right, and it certainly does not make it logical. You know what makes a belief logical? If logic was used to form that belief. So if your belief is logical, you should be able to show the logic used to form it. Why can't you? Why won't you? Why would you rather waste a whole post huffing and fuming that someone actually asked you to show your logic, instead of just showing it?

Bluedoll wrote:
I do have my proof.

Then instead of throwing a fit that i'm daring to challenge your claim, why not just show the proof?
Bluedoll
I have no argument against tautology.

I have in the past written, “I don't have to defend my beliefs”. This is true but this is also now and not the past. What I meant a year ago is that I do not have to justify my belief in God.

My argument here is not to prove that God exists. My argument is that a belief in God can be a rational decision. You are saying that a belief in God is a non-rational one and not the result of any process of reasoning. This is an atheist belief because atheism teaches this.

People do believe in God for more reasons than you have supplied. Some people have come to the conclusion because certain events in their life have supplied the information that they have needed. As far as you two are concerned they are brainless idiots but this is not true. There are many people who believe in God who have sound rational beliefs. I can agree though that how people approach religion and the bible is very different.

Look I did say I would debate and provide proofs about certain topics. I might want to debate why I think there are various ways to arrive at any reasonable conclusion but I will not continue any further in this thread debating this.

I never said I was absolutely certain about Judas, yes it is an opinion not a fact. What I am sure about is that God exists. This is a fact, which I am not required to debate.
Bikerman
Quote:
I have no argument against tautology.
I know, how could you have? And if you really knew what a tautology was then you would also know why that sentence is both funny and idiotic.

Indi, myself, and anyone else who knows how to use a dictionary, say that belief in God is non-rational is BECAUSE IT IS - BY DEFINITION. In other words, we know what words like 'logic' . 'rationality' and 'reasoning' actually MEAN, and ANYONE who knows that also knows that any faith position is non-rational since it is not based on logical reasoning or empirical evidence.
Quote:
People do believe in God for more reasons than you have supplied. Some people have come to the conclusion because certain events in their life have supplied the information that they have needed. As far as you two are concerned they are brainless idiots but this is not true. There are many people who believe in God who have sound rational beliefs. I can agree though that how people approach religion and the bible is very different.
I don't give a hoot why people believe - it changes nothing. A position/stance is either based on reasoning/logic/evidence or it is NOT. The motivation of the believer is entirely irrelevant to the matter, insofar as it might provide an explanation for WHY he/she believes in non-rational entities, but it certainly won't and cannot change either the ontological status of that entity, and nor will it convert personal conviction as an evidence base from non-rational to rational. These are not things which I decide or you decide. These are things for which we have agreed definitions as a society, and individuals who disagree can basically go boil their heads for all the difference it will make.
Quote:
Look I did say I would debate and provide proofs about certain topics. I might want to debate why I think there are various ways to arrive at any reasonable conclusion but I will not continue any further in this thread debating this.
OK - that is your prerogative, just as it is MINE to spamcan any postings which don't abide by the rules. Since this forum requires posters to back-up assertions and provide evidence or reasoning for claims then.....well, we'll see won't we....
Quote:
I never said I was absolutely about Judas, yes it is an opinion not a fact. What I am sure about is that God exists. This is a fact, which I am not required to debate.
Err..yes , you pretty much said exactly that, when you posted
BlueDoll wrote:
Yes, some things need to be taken on faith but I have absolute proof about the things I believe in.
Here is where basic logic is useful and you really should make an effort to at least learn the basics. If what you believe has absolute proof then it follows that you MUST be absolutely certain it is correct and it further follows that IT IS correct. The snag, of course, is that you either don't know or don't care what the words 'absolute proof' actually mean, or you would realise that you don't have absolute proof of anything, let alone events from history which happened or did not happen 2 millennia and more in the past. You have a personal CONVICTION, mostly based on ignorance. You don't actually KNOW what most of the bible says and means, so you have a personal 'bluedoll' viewpoint of what YOU would LIKE the bible to say, and you have built a religious faith around that.

Not only do you not have absolute proof of those beliefs, the beliefs are not even coherent in their own terms, never mind providing evidence, they don't even get beyond the first and most basic requirements for any assertions propositions or statements - ie they are not self-consistent,
Ankhanu
Steve Shives (SteveLikesToCurse) did a video in his 5 Stupid Things... series on Judas last week. Seems kinda relevant, so here it is. WARNING - there may be curses in there, it's kinda Steve's schtic.



Bluedoll wrote:
I have in the past written, “I don't have to defend my beliefs”. This is true but this is also now and not the past. What I meant a year ago is that I do not have to justify my belief in God.

True... just don't expect it to be taken seriously as a result.
You seem to have that expectation, which is where you're running into problems.

Bluedoll wrote:
My argument here is not to prove that God exists. My argument is that a belief in God can be a rational decision. You are saying that a belief in God is a non-rational one and not the result of any process of reasoning.

That's your statement, not an argument. An argument would include supporting information... which you've not supplied, and apparently WILL NOT supply.
Bluedoll wrote:
This is an atheist belief because atheism teaches this.

You know this is a lie.

Bluedoll wrote:
People do believe in God for more reasons than you have supplied. Some people have come to the conclusion because certain events in their life have supplied the information that they have needed. As far as you two are concerned they are brainless idiots but this is not true. There are many people who believe in God who have sound rational beliefs.

Believing something to be rational doesn't make it so. I've yet to encounter an actual rational reason to believe that doesn't distill down to "I want to believe it's true". Unfortunately, most also take the same approach you do to defending their belief, I believe what I do and I don't have to justify it... While true that no one needs justify their beliefs, it's also true that none need take those unjustified beliefs seriously (see above).

Bluedoll wrote:
What I am sure about is that God exists. This is a fact, which I am not required to debate.

And it baffles me that you enter such debates so frequently, given they always boil down to this.
Ankhanu
Steve Shives (SteveLikesToCurse) did a video in his 5 Stupid Things... series on Judas last week. Seems kinda relevant, so here it is. WARNING - there may be curses in there, it's kinda Steve's schtic.



Bluedoll wrote:
I have in the past written, “I don't have to defend my beliefs”. This is true but this is also now and not the past. What I meant a year ago is that I do not have to justify my belief in God.

True... just don't expect it to be taken seriously as a result.
You seem to have that expectation, which is where you're running into problems.

Bluedoll wrote:
My argument here is not to prove that God exists. My argument is that a belief in God can be a rational decision. You are saying that a belief in God is a non-rational one and not the result of any process of reasoning.

That's your statement, not an argument. An argument would include supporting information... which you've not supplied, and apparently WILL NOT supply.
Bluedoll wrote:
This is an atheist belief because atheism teaches this.

You know this is a lie.

Bluedoll wrote:
People do believe in God for more reasons than you have supplied. Some people have come to the conclusion because certain events in their life have supplied the information that they have needed. As far as you two are concerned they are brainless idiots but this is not true. There are many people who believe in God who have sound rational beliefs.

Believing something to be rational doesn't make it so. I've yet to encounter an actual rational reason to believe that doesn't distill down to "I want to believe it's true". Unfortunately, most also take the same approach you do to defending their belief, I believe what I do and I don't have to justify it... While true that no one needs justify their beliefs, it's also true that none need take those unjustified beliefs seriously (see above).

Bluedoll wrote:
What I am sure about is that God exists. This is a fact, which I am not required to debate.

And it baffles me that you enter such debates so frequently, given they always boil down to this.
Bluedoll
Indi wrote:
You've misunderstood the question, and haven't given it any real thought.

What do you think the word "betray" means? If you look it up in a dictionary, you'll find it basically means "violation of trust".

Now, stop and think for a second. What did God/Jesus think Judas was going to do? Did God/Jesus trust that Judas would not go to the Romans? Do you really think Judas surprised him by turning him in?


I think I gave it some thought and and I agree betray means violation of trust. I agree he may of understood the characters of his apostles but it is also possible that he only knew when the chips were down someone would betray. Jesus said that “someone” would betray him but he did not say who it was by name. Anything anyone says about what Jesus “thought” is conjecture. I think Jesus knowing what men are like in stressful times someone would go to the enemy’s side.


Indi wrote:
Of course not. Jesus (assuming he really was God, and really was omniscient) HAD to have known what Judas was going to do (possibly before Judas was even born). So it makes no sense to say that Jesus trusted Judas and Judas "betrayed" his trust. That's ridiculous. Judas didn't betray Jesus's trust. He did exactly what Jesus trusted he was going to do!


I do not believe Jesus was God but you can. You believe God is omniscient – interesting! I do not share your beliefs. I can understand though how after a while we learn about people and what they are like. Free will though does tend to make future events unpredictable.


Indi wrote:
In fact, take it a step further. Someone HAD to turn Jesus over to the authorities for the big sacrificial plan to play out. Judas didn't betray Jesus's plans... he was the most essential part of them! Without Judas, there could have been no crucifixion. God NEEDED Judas to do what he did, God WANTED Judas to do what he did, God KNEW that Judas was going to do what he did. That's not a betrayal. God should be thanking Judas for helping him out.


I think the authorities were out to get Jesus in this I agree. There was getting to be so much tension about Jesus’ presence that I think it was inevitable that he would be eventually found and executed regardless if anyone betrayed or not. It was only a question of time. Betrayal just made it happen the way it did.

I do not read anywhere in the bible where it says that God wanted a man to betray. I do not think God needs to thank anyone. I would not write something like that but you can if you want. It is a free country. It is rather obvious even to me what men are like. They do have lack of faith and trust.

Indi wrote:
In fact, take it even further! When Jesus was selecting his disciples, he had to have known even then what Judas was eventually going to do. He chose Judas for the express purpose of turning him in later.. Again, that's not a "betrayal".


Fact? LOL there is not an account saying that Jesus choose his disciples for the purpose of betrayal. Another example is Simon Peter. Jesus as a man got to know Simon Peter. He denied Jesus existence because he got afraid but I do not think he choose them for that very purpose. Even if what you are saying is true Judas still could have made a different choice.

Indi wrote:
Go even further! The plain fact is that God knew he was going to need someone to turn Jesus in, long before any of the people involved were born. That means God had to arrange things in Judas's life so that Judas would become the person he did. He had to make sure Judas was going to be the kind of guy would would turn Jesus in, rather than sticking by him like the other disciples, and rather than simply sticking a shiv into Jesus's back.

So if God made Judas to be the person who would one day turn Jesus in, and God knew all along that Judas was going to do it, and God needed him to do it... how in hell is what Judas did "betraying"?


Everyone including Judas has a choice. Lack of trust and lack of belief in something or belief in someone (to believe in here means to love and trust) is a choice that people make based on some mental process. How life arranges things does not necessarily determine our characters and decisions. We determine who we are!
Bikerman
Quote:
It is rather obvious even to me what men are like. They do have lack of faith and trusting
The rest of the post is what I've come to expect, and I'm not going to waste energy on it. I think we can do without the sexist crap, however, and in case you are thinking of saying that it isn't, then I'll give a parallel example - let me see, yes, got it.....

Mary Madeline was (and still is), regarded by Catholics and many other Christians as a prostitute, rather than the important character many scholars believe she was - a senior apostle, perhaps THE senior apostle , who was later written-out of the story after the Pauline sect began to take control of the early Christian groups and impose the misogyny- no, actually it is more accurate to call it gynophobia - that is so obvious in Paul and such a feature of his writings. It is one of the many tragedies of Christianity. From soon after it started it was, remained, and STILL IS s a deeply bigoted set of institutions which have conspired to keep women out of sny meaningful involvement for centuries. Gynophobia, along with anti-Semitism, whilst not being exclusively Christian inventions, would certainly have been long dead BUT for Christianity that encouraged, nurtured and defended both forms of bigotry quite openly. Absolute morality? Almost funny if not so seriously atrocious.

Now, if someone posted that the traditional picture is more likely to be correct because, after all, she WAS a woman, and therefore likely to be of loose sexual morals, then I would be removing postings and issuing warnings for offensive sexism.

I see little difference so I'm going to give one warning and ONLY one - this applies to all, of course, as well as specifically in this instance. Sexist comment of this sort will not be tolerated - I hope it goes without saying (but in case, I will) that the same applies to racism homophobia etc.
In future postings with such content will just be spam canned without warning and in serious enough cases AWITs (official warnings) will be issued.

I have no problem (and actively encourage) robust debate which can be biting, satirical and pulling no punches, when dealing with the arguments and issues, but bigoted comment is clearly against TOS and will, therefore, not be tolerated.
I hope this clarifies the position for all.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
It is rather obvious even to me what men are like. They do have lack of faith and trusting
The rest of the post is what I've come to expect, and I'm not going to waste energy on it. I think we can do without the sexist crap, however, and in case you are thinking of saying that it isn't, then I'll give a parallel example - let me see, yes, got it.....

Mary Madeline was (and still is), regarded by Catholics and many other Christians as a prostitute, rather than the important character many scholars believe she was - a senior apostle, perhaps THE senior apostle , who was later written-out of the story after the Pauline sect began to take control of the early Christian groups and impose the misogyny- no, actually it is more accurate to call it gynophobia - that is so obvious in Paul and such a feature of his writings. It is one of the many tragedies of Christianity. From soon after it started it was, remained, and STILL IS s a deeply bigoted set of institutions which have conspired to keep women out of sny meaningful involvement for centuries. Gynophobia, along with anti-Semitism, whilst not being exclusively Christian inventions, would certainly have been long dead BUT for Christianity that encouraged, nurtured and defended both forms of bigotry quite openly. Absolute morality? Almost funny if not so seriously atrocious.

Now, if someone posted that the traditional picture is more likely to be correct because, after all, she WAS a woman, and therefore likely to be of loose sexual morals, then I would be removing postings and issuing warnings for offensive sexism.

I see little difference so I'm going to give one warning and ONLY one - this applies to all, of course, as well as specifically in this instance. Sexist comment of this sort will not be tolerated - I hope it goes without saying (but in case, I will) that the same applies to racism homophobia etc.
In future postings with such content will just be spam canned without warning and in serious enough cases AWITs (official warnings) will be issued.

I have no problem (and actively encourage) robust debate which can be biting, satirical and pulling no punches, when dealing with the arguments and issues, but bigoted comment is clearly against TOS and will, therefore, not be tolerated.
I hope this clarifies the position for all.
Yes, I did write men. I should have wrote human. Often the bible makes reference to men or man in a general sense and I certainly do think of man or men in a plural sense in the general sense too as meaning mankind, that is him and her.
It was not meant to be sexist comment.
It is not my intention to apply that kind of meaning to my sentence. It was not my intention but I did ...WRiTE THE WRONG WORD! I WROTE MEN INSTEAD OF HUMAN.
I meant man or men to = human.
Bikerman
OK...in that case it will do no harm to have a general heads-up and refresher on policy and I accept that it was just an unfortunate choice of words....
Related topics
Favorite metal bands
[MUSICA] Qual sua banda favorita?
The Gospel of Judas
Judas did not betray Jesus, says ancient document
What is your point on the gospel of Judas?
The Truth About Easter
why did "god" create "satan"
Most Christians do not read the Bible, this is a fact!
2012
Religion and selfishness
Christians are pigs?
Bible study
Reason why 13 is an unlucky number
What does Jesus say?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.