The "right" to... whatever!

[guanophore]

I believe in King Arthur

And hobbits, dragons, etc.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes. And I am a nice person, BECAUSE I want to choose correctly. My upbringing does NOT force me to get up. I am perfectly free to stay seated. I just don’t make THAT selection.

Yes. And because they are nice, they would also WANT to choose correctly.

No, I don’t see.

Sure. The choice is there, even if you do not select it. Savvy?

Oh. I THOUGHT you said that you were going to make everyone be nice and make them so that they would WANT to relinquish their seat - or choose nicely for anything esle too.

If you make everybody be nice and make them want to get up because you made them to be nice,

Then where is the CHOICE??

I love circular reasoning…

 

[frangiuliano115]

That is what it is all about! What fun would a forum be without a good spar?

I do, and I am glad we can agree on this principle.

I trust that you and the other members will keep me honest if I stray from the argument to the personal.

It is not even and intrusion! It is free for all! And yes the more voices the better.

Did someone accuse you of treating someone “dumb” for not believing? I think I am more guilty of that. I posted the scripture that says “a fool says in his heart there is no God”. I think the capacity to imagine God is proof there is a God.

Hi Guanophore,

Tfhe capacity to imagine God proves there is a God.
The capacity to search for perfection proves that perfection must exist. Only God is perfect. So God must exist.

It’s not possible for humans to imagine something that does not exist. Where would the thought have come from?

(I hope nobody posts that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist and we could be grown up about this).

Such unscientific reasoning – But sounds good to me!

But, I must say, I don’t like sparring. Unless it’s about Law vs. Grace. You know me!

Fran

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Oho! A trenchant point, indeed.

I call it another feeble attempt to change the goalposts. More on that later.

So this prompts the question to** Pallas Athene:**
What is your explanation for why your desire to do good doesn’t meet with an actual life that IS good?

Now, to be sure, you are a good person, in general. But you need an explanation for why you choose to have your Starbucks rather than donate the $5 for the Syrian refugees, or why you choose to sleep in rather than go to the homeless shelter, why you have 2 extra blankets in your closet rather than giving them both to the family on the street.

Apply any kind of behavior that you do that you know you could do for others, but you choose to do for yourself.

I wonder, how could you spy on me, considering that neither my identity nor my place of residence has ever been revealed to you? Or maybe you just made another empty assumption based upon the well-known “fact” that atheists are all selfish SOB’s who eat bay-bees for breakfast?

So how do you KNOW that I don’t do all that, or something very similar? (I don’t go to Starbucks, but I confess that we do eat sushi once a month, and that is considerably more than five bucks.) If you are so knowledgeable, could you reveal how much I donated to different organizations to help the poor? Or how many boxes of goods we donated to “Goodwill”? We support our neighbor, who recently lost his wife - bringing him prepared dishes so he does not have to cook for himself… and many things like this. Now, I am going to be honest: I would not give my last shirt to a homeless, but I give as much as I can COMFORTABLY afford. And the operating word is “comfortably”. But that has nothing to do with “Utopia 1.0”.

Those who are given much, much is expected. I apply this expression to God, too. No one is “given” as much as God, and no one does less than God.

Of course you are free to doubt, just like those who keep on doubting my sincerity when I declare that I COULD be convinced about God’s existence. Guanophore was able to discern that I don’t know what “love” is, or what “freedom” is. So your (or his) authoritarian “knowledge” of what I do or don’t do is unfounded.

Moreover, I only spoke about violent intrusions, and not about “general” behavior. So typical of you to try to change the goalposts.

The utopia I described is only “Utopia 1.0”, and even that is immediately rejected by your side. By the way, I DO apply my standards to my myself. I don’t kill, I don’t rape, do not participate in a genocide, don’t ever torture others. So I summarily reject the accusations that I am a “hypocrite”, who wishes to run the lives of others, while “indulging” in the atrocities I wish to make impossible for the psychopaths.

I will worry about “Utopia 2.0”, as soon as God establishes “Utopia 1.0”. I would be very happy to see if everyone would be like Pope Francis or Gandhi. They both COULD have committed atrocities, but they would not have WANTED to do it. Would you say that they were “predestined” to be nice, and therefore they were “robots”? I would assume that their upbringing and their inherited characteristics made a lasting impression on their system, and they FREELY choose NOT to rape, or kill or torture… every time the opportunity arises.

In the world I proposed, the aim would not be “saints”, merely good people. But somehow even that is unpalatable to your group.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I have often said that Fundamentalist Bible Christians and atheists have the same view of the Bible.

You can only blame your church. It never took the initiative to separate the wheat from the chaff.

One need not look at the Bible as the Word of God.
One simply can look at it as an ancient historical text.

That would be like cutting off the branch of the tree you are sitting on. If the Bible is NOT the word of God, then it is a mildly interesting and irrelevant collection of stories made up by simple and ignorant people.

There are over 20 texts which detail the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Any one of them from independent parties? Nope.

And that means…someone KNEW it was not true, but proclaimed it nonetheless.

Why would someone create a legend about Christ, lying about his resurrection, while going to his gruesome death not recanting?

No one dies knowing he’s promoting a lie.

Ah, so the Muslim suicide bombers are the “evidence” of Islam’s veracity. By the way, there is no independent evidence that the first followers were ALL tortured and NONE of them recanted. And sometimes fanatics are willing to endure torture and death for something they BELIEVE is true… but that does not count as evidence that their belief IS true.

If you always choose to give your seat to an old lady, like you claim, you would be a robot. But if you make discerning choices based on everything you felt and observed, then you are a human. Maybe one day you had a bad day and you don’t feel like giving up your seat to anyone. You are a human. Sometimes humans do bad things.

That was the discerning process. I observed the old lady, or a pregnant woman, or a crippled young guy, and in every case I offer my seal. I do not offer to a young athlete, even if I see that she is tired.

Why do I have to explain elementary things?

Pallas is describing Christianity as a “myth” that has no historical evidence.

No, that is another twisting of what I said. Whether there was ONE particular person named Jesus, who was executed is irrelevant. Did that person perform any of those miracles that he allegedly performed?

Oh. I THOUGHT you said that you were going to make everyone be nice and make them so that they would WANT to relinquish their seat - or choose nicely for anything esle too.

If you make everybody be nice and make them want to get up because you made them to be nice,

Then where is the CHOICE??

You just don’t get it. Your problem.

Tfhe capacity to imagine God proves there is a God.
The capacity to search for perfection proves that perfection must exist. Only God is perfect. So God must exist.

That was Anselm’s “proof” of God’s existence. It has been abandoned by the apologists, because they realized how ridiculous it is.

It’s not possible for humans to imagine something that does not exist. Where would the thought have come from?

Fantasy and imagination. The winged unicorns are a “combination” of horses, birds and rhinos…

 

[guanophore]

You can only blame your church. It never took the initiative to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Jesus told us this was not our job, and to avoid it.

That would be like cutting off the branch of the tree you are sitting on. If the Bible is NOT the word of God, then it is a mildly interesting and irrelevant collection of stories made up by simple and ignorant people.

Why would they automatically become irrelevant if they are not divinely inspired? Is this how you think about all literature?

I think the Scriptures also have great historical value. I just watched a PBS special where they were using landmarks and historical accounts to find some of the cities in the Middle East.

Any one of them from independent parties? Nope.

What constitutes and “independent party”?

Do you think everyone described in the Scriptures is promoting the “myth of the miracles”? What about the accounts of those who did NOT believe?

And sometimes fanatics are willing to endure torture and death for something they BELIEVE is true... but that does not count as evidence that their belief IS true.

I agree, but don’t you think, if there were no truth/value to it, people would not continue to be martryd for the following centuries/milennia? Do they just do that because they are suffering from the shared “hallucination”.

Why do I have to explain elementary things?

Because unchecked assumptions are so prohibitive to understanding.

No, that is another twisting of what I said. Whether there was ONE particular person named Jesus, who was executed is irrelevant. Did that person perform any of those miracles that he allegedly performed?

Ok.

What evidence would you accept? You have rejected the first hand accounts, and the second hand accounts. You have rejected the stories that were passed down…I don’t see that there is any evidence you would find acceptable. This kind of thinking is what prevents one from encountering the divine.

That was Anselm’s “proof” of God’s existence. It has been abandoned by the apologists, because they realized how ridiculous it is.

I am curious, what do you think the writer meant when he wrote “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”?

Fantasy and imagination. The winged unicorns are a “combination” of horses, birds and rhinos…

The human capacity for fantasy and imagination is one of the qualities about is that enables us to penetrate and experience the spiritual realm. Rejecting the reality of these aspects of humanity rejects non-rational ways of knowing.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’d like to answer mine and then it’s really later here.

You sound really upset. I’m sorry about this and hope I haven’t contributed too much to it.
You do get very nasty with us all and you do seem very upset with us, as believers, I mean.

I don’t usually participate in atheist vs Christian debates. I never see a good outcome, so what’s the use? Somehow, as i’ve said, you do tend to pull me in. Why, I’m not sure. There’s a sense of anger and also of urgency in your posts. Almost like you’re mad at God so you like to talk about it here - or take it out on us somethow.

I’m very sorry about this. I’ve thought for some time now that you apparently have your reasons - which we all do for everything. One of your posts was about love. That’s the one where I actually posted back and forth because I thought it was important to understand love.

The thought came to me that maybe you haven’t experienced it. But that’s not true because you sound like a nice person and I’ve never said anythng derogatory about you - only about your ideas. P.A., they make no sense. It’s too bad we can’t just sit down and talk a bit; I think you’re an interesting person. These threads are not the place for this kind of stuff. We were scolded on another thread because of the advice we gave to someone who has had many problems the last few months. And how are we supposed to know this?? Who knows what each of us is going through. Life is not easy. If we come to these threads, all should be expected. I almsot quit a few weeks ago.

Wouldn’t it be better if when ou asked someting, you listened to the reply and just accepted it or left it? Or maybe just intellectualized it. You knew God once. It would be so good if you could stop being mad at Him and come back home.

I know what you mean about making everybody want to do good. It just means that you would not ALLOW evil. But evil there is. Who can know why. We discussed this already. Evil is a reality. Do you really think God created evil? If so, you have the right to be mad at Him. But then what created the good things? It’s a big mystery Pl.A. At some point you’re going to have to stop worrying about how everything is terrible and evil and jump off the fence and come to the good side - which is where you belong.

I wasn’t talking about Anselm re perfection. I don’t like reading the saints. They all have their own opinions. I actually think it could do a lot of harm. My idea of perfecton comes from C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity. Did you ever read it? It’s really the best explanation of christianity I’ve ever read.

I’m keeping you in my prayers. I have a feeling you may decide to get to know Jesus again someday. And then you could stop worrying about why everything is so lopsided.

Fran

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Jesus told us this was not our job, and to avoid it.

If so, then everyone is entitled to their own interpretation. All interpretations can be rejected or accepted at will. But that is NOT what the church says.

Why would they automatically become irrelevant if they are not divinely inspired? Is this how you think about all literature?

I don’t base my life on literature. Literature is mainly for entertainment.

What constitutes and “independent party”?

Anyone on the “other side” of the fence. History was written by the victors. What they write must be taken with a huge grain of salt. The opposition may not be objective either. Generally speaking I am not interested in history. But all this reference to “history” is inapplicable. God is supposed to be alive and well today. Let’s investigate what God DOES (or does NOT do) here and now, and draw our conclusions based upon the observable evidence. The picture will not be complimentary to God.

I agree, but don’t you think, if there were no truth/value to it, people would not continue to be martryd for the following centuries/milennia? Do they just do that because they are suffering from the shared “hallucination”.

To believe something is a very strong “inducement” to promote it, even become martyrs for it.

What evidence would you accept? You have rejected the first hand accounts, and the second hand accounts. You have rejected the stories that were passed down…I don’t see that there is any evidence you would find acceptable. This kind of thinking is what prevents one from encountering the divine.

There are no “first hand” accounts. The NT was written several decades after the alleged events occurred. I already gave an example about acceptable evidence. I will give some more.

I am curious, what do you think the writer meant when he wrote “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”?

I have no idea, but the “allegory” of “heart” has no informational value. It usually stands for emotions, contrasted by “cold, hard logic”. Give me logic any time.

The human capacity for fantasy and imagination is one of the qualities about is that enables us to penetrate and experience the spiritual realm. Rejecting the reality of these aspects of humanity rejects non-rational ways of knowing.

It certainly does not help me, and many others. “non-rational way of knowing” is an oxymoron.

You sound really upset.

I am not upset. Sometimes, when I see extremely dumb remarks I feel frustrated.

I know what you mean about making everybody want to do good. It just means that you would not ALLOW evil.

No, it does NOT mean that. And I already explained it, many times. Even if everyone “prefers” good, it does not mean that they are “forced” to follow their INCLINATION. They can try the opposite, just for the fun of it. That is freedom.

But evil there is. Who can know why. We discussed this already. Evil is a reality. Do you really think God created evil?

According to the Bible, God uses his own words to YES to that question. Of course I don’t believe in God, so I am not “mad” at him. I am baffled at people who “call” God good. Read Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

 

[robsully]

I kind of came in and have lost much. But here’s how I understand your post:

Re: The “right” to… whatever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
Indeed.

There is hardly a single academic, atheist or believer, who disputes that Jesus Christ, the historical Jew of ancient Palestine, lived, preached, established a church and was killed by Roman authorities.

To which you answered:
.
Hello PRmerger, I find this quite interesting, in fact intriguing, could I get a short list of atheists that support this claim?

So, if I understand correctly, you’re asking for a list of atheists that believe Jesus was in fact a historical figure.

If you’re asking for a list, you’re asking for proof.

That Jesus was a historical figure.

If you’re looking for proof, it means you don’t believe He was.

If I believe trolls live under my little bridge in town:

I must be pretty dumb.

Did I misunderstand something??

Fran

Hey Fran.

I was not looking for proof that Jesus was a historical figure, I was looking for articles from atheists that prove Jesus was a historical figure. I had never heard of it before and now, thanks to PR merger I have.

So if you find someone that is interested, intrigued and thankful makes one trollish, that is your problem.

And where exactly did I treat anyone dumb for believing in Jesus? (post #90)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That was the discerning process. I observed the old lady, or a pregnant woman, or a crippled young guy, and in every case I offer my seal. I do not offer to a young athlete, even if I see that she is tired.

Why do I have to explain elementary things?

QUOTE]

Because what you are doing involves free will. Why do I have to explain elementary things???

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Because what you are doing involves free will. Why do I have to explain elementary things???

There is no reason for you to “explain” anything, because THAT is what I was saying all along. Even if every time I choose to NOT to kill someone, it is STILL a free choice. Obviously I would choose to kill in self-defense, but if no one would wish to use violence on me (or my loved ones), there would be no need to impose violence.

And if I would (foolishly) choose to offer my seat to a tired-looking Olympic champion, it would also be a free choice. Even if I would offer my seat every time, to every conceivable person, it would STILL be a (stupid or idiotic, but) free choice. One never makes a choice without assessing the circumstances. In other words, our choices are always “relative”.

The “decent” people who have a predisposition to choose the “good” solution all have free will, even if they NEVER choose the “bad” option.

 

[guanophore]

If so, then everyone is entitled to their own interpretation. All interpretations can be rejected or accepted at will. But that is NOT what the church says.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpetation. This is part of the consequences of free will.

Yes, interpretations can be rejected or accepted at will. This is part of what it means to have the freeedom to choose.

Jesus told the Church not to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. The duty of the Church is to preserve, protect and preach what Jesus committed to her care. People can then decide to accept His message, or reject it.

What the Church teaches about interpretation is that the message must be understood from the point of view of those who wrote, taught it. This perspective is preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. When we understand/interpret “with the mind of the Church” then we can understand the message as it was originally written/preached.

People can reject it just as much now as they did back then.

I don’t base my life on literature. Literature is mainly for entertainment.

So we can agree that literature does have some value, even if it is not divinely inspired?

Can’t we also agree that the Scriptures have some historical value?

Anyone on the “other side” of the fence. History was written by the victors. What they write must be taken with a huge grain of salt. The opposition may not be objective either. Generally speaking I am not interested in history. But all this reference to “history” is inapplicable.

The Scriptures represent the opposition. Yes, it is written through the eyes of the victors, but they were certainly not victorious at the time it was written! They were a persecuted minority.

You say that history is not relevant. This is an example of you rejecting evidence for God. Christianity exists in and through history, and to disregard that history as evidence demonstrates a tremendous bias.

God is supposed to be alive and well today. Let’s investigate what God DOES (or does NOT do) here and now, and draw our conclusions based upon the observable evidence. The picture will not be complimentary to God.

Well, this statement certainly does not exemplify a person with an open mind. You have already disregarded some evidence, and pre-determined the results of any evidence that remains.

It represents a hardness of heart.

To believe something is a very strong “inducement” to promote it, even become martyrs for it.

Yes, of course. But the question remains, if these people were merely deluded, or suffering “hallucinations”, how is it that this belief has persisted so strongly over time, that there are people still being martryd today as they were 2000 years ago? Shouldn’t everyone, as you have, figured out by now that Christianity is without any solid merit or grounding in reality?

There are no "first hand" accounts. The NT was written several decades after the alleged events occurred. I already gave an example about acceptable evidence. I will give some more.

It seems that your information on the history and development of the New Testament is lacking. I suppose belieiving untruths like this reinforces your ability to reject the evidence. If the first hand testimony available is not valid, then of course you cannot take it seriously.

I have no idea, but the “allegory” of “heart” has no informational value. It usually stands for emotions, contrasted by “cold, hard logic”. Give me logic any time.

The “heart” of man is not an "allegory, Pallas. It describes all that is not “cold hard logic”. Yes, it does include emotions, but also the deep need of human beings to have meaning, the will, intuition, imagination, and all those capacities to know that are not logic based. If you reject these other ways of knowing, then what you are able to know will be limited to your “cold, hard logic”. I find it very sad.

It certainly does not help me, and many others. “non-rational way of knowing” is an oxymoron.

I can see why. A person who cannot apprehend any truths about life using the non-rational faculties is truly stunted.

No, it does NOT mean that. And I already explained it, many times. Even if everyone “prefers” good, it does not mean that they are “forced” to follow their INCLINATION. They can try the opposite, just for the fun of it. That is freedom.

Well, we see it diferently, don’t we? For us, true freedom means there is a choice, including the choice that goes AGAINST the inclination (which is to be self centered and sinful).

According to the Bible, God uses his own words to YES to that question. Of course I don’t believe in God, so I am not “mad” at him. I am baffled at people who “call” God good. Read Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Apparently your limited “logic” has made it impossible for you to understand how a good God can create darkness and evil.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hey Fran.

I was not looking for proof that Jesus was a historical figure, I was looking for articles from atheists that prove Jesus was a historical figure. I had never heard of it before and now, thanks to PR merger I have.

So if you find someone that is interested, intrigued and thankful makes one trollish, that is your problem.

And where exactly did I treat anyone dumb for believing in Jesus? (post #90)

I had said I came in late to the thread and explained how I understood it and asked if I had misunderstood.

So I guess I did. But just to add that many atheists believe Jesus is a real person, they just don’t believe He was the messiah.

But enough of this. If an apology is in order, I step forward.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

It is not even and intrusion! It is free for all! And yes the more voices the better.

Well…the more* reasoned* voices the better, right?

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder, how could you spy on me, considering that neither my identity nor my place of residence has ever been revealed to you? Or maybe you just made another empty assumption based upon the well-known “fact” that atheists are all selfish SOB’s who eat bay-bees for breakfast?

Oh dear. No need to over-react and act precious about this.

I said you were a good person, in general.

And I thought you would get that it wasn’t about whether you lived in a hot or cold environment.

I have you idea where your place of residence is. That is absolutely correct, PA.

So how do you KNOW that I don’t do all that, or something very similar?

Well, it turns out that I was correct about this, eh?

To wit: you eat sushi, when you could be eating bologna sandwiches and giving what you would spend on sushi to a homeless man.

QED.

(I don’t go to Starbucks, but I confess that we do eat sushi once a month, and that is considerably more than five bucks.)

So you need an explanation for why you choose to indulge yourself and your tummy rather than letting another human being eat.

Why is that?

 

[PRmerger]

If the Bible is NOT the word of God, then it is a mildly interesting and irrelevant collection of stories made up by simple and ignorant people.

You can look at as a historical document.

But for some reason you don’t want to do that.

Why is that, one has to wonder?

 

[PRmerger]

Any one of them from independent parties? Nope.

Ok.

So you’ve made an assertion here.

Please offer some evidence that John and the author of Hebrews knew each other.

And that Matthew and Luke knew each other.

And that Matthew and the author of Hebrews were acquainted.

And the author of Titus and the author of Hebrews were familiar with each other.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, so the Muslim suicide bombers are the “evidence” of Islam’s veracity.

Oh, you can believe that none of them is dying for what they know to be a lie.

No one dies promoting what he knows to be a lie.

By the way, there is no independent evidence that the first followers were ALL tortured and NONE of them recanted.

Well, for your position to hold water, you need to provide some evidence of a witness to the Resurrected Christ who recanted.

Please offer his name, as well as some individually corroborated testimony of his recantation.

Please provide sources, of course.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I said you were a good person, in general.

Irrelevant.

So you need an explanation for why you choose to indulge yourself and your tummy rather than letting another human being eat.

Why is that?

Simple. Because I am NOT a saint, nor I care to be one. I only give as much as I comfortably can. What does the “epitome” of “love”, God give to the hungry people? Nothing. So I am still much better than God.

Looks like you keep avoiding what I said. I am only interested in “Utopia 1.0” where the murderers, the rapists, the torturers and other VIOLENT offenders are eliminated. And I do adhere to these requirements, I do what I “preach”. There might be blasphemers, master-baiters (especially on deep-sea fishing boats), fornicators and other assorted vile abominations. What the heck, there can be even embezzlers, cheaters, liars, too. Not to mention “evil” comedians who make politically incorrect jokes to fun at other peoples’ beliefs. Also idolaters. That world would be incomparably better than the current one. And there would be a lot of “free will”. What is your objection to this world?

No one dies promoting what he knows to be a lie.

A fanatic may very well do that. But I do not accuse or call anyone to be a “liar”. That is a word that you use. I simply say that they believe (very strongly) in something, whether it is true, or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant.

Absolutely relevant.

Your “wounded” affect is totally repudiated by it.

Simple. Because I am NOT a saint, nor I care to be one.

Really?

You have no problem whatsoever with the concept of your eating sushi while someone else starves?