Ask a Christian anything.

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 07:38:59 AM

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:30:47 AM

They were very stupid

Ooh, ooh, that one! Given that the educated people (scribes, pharisees) refused to follow the crazy jobless hippie and some illiterate fishermen with nothing to lose anyway did. Also, how did 33BCE Arabian fishermen learn to write? Very few people could at the time, particularly in that area.

The Pharisees rejected Christ and his message because they saw him as a threat to the established religious order, just as much of the Christian church does today.

They weren't Arabs.

And they obviously learned how to write, although bear in mind that most of the New Testament was written by very well-educated men.

How do you know their motives? Did they not live in Arabia? Was the New Testament not written by the disciples? Naming it after them seems unfair now, particularly given how many educated scribes were involved.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on April 10, 2010, 07:45:13 AM

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:39:52 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on April 10, 2010, 07:36:51 AM

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:30:47 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on April 07, 2010, 10:20:44 PM

How do you know if they're lying or not? Your faith is based entirely around testimony from humans.

I think you can gauge the honesty of an individual by how they follow up on their claims. Of the twelve disciples of Christ (after Judas was replaced by Matthias), 11 were martyred and 1 was exiled to Patmos. They were either very stupid, insane, or followers of the one true God.

What about the followers of other religions who martyr themselves?

They were either very stupid, insane, or followers of the one true God.

That being said I don't think there is any other religion that has ever endured martyrdom on the scale of Christianity, and while this in itself does not prove that the Christian God is real, it does strengthen the testimony of the saints.

The Holocaust was not an act of martyrdom, neither were the Salem witch trials.

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

martyr (plural martyrs)
One who willingly accepts being put to death for adhering openly to one's religious beliefs

If they aren't martyrs then nobody is.

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

I think Nazi's based it more on the "ethnic Jews" rather than taking a census sheet around to every household and asking what their religious position was.

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 10:07:13 AM

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

I think Nazi's based it more on the "ethnic Jews" rather than taking a census sheet around to every household and asking what their religious position was.

Then why were there no recorded incidences of people trying to renounce Judaism, choosing rather to pray until their very graves?

Quote from: Sadistic on April 10, 2010, 10:09:21 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 10:07:13 AM

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

I think Nazi's based it more on the "ethnic Jews" rather than taking a census sheet around to every household and asking what their religious position was.

Then why were there no recorded incidences of people trying to renounce Judaism, choosing rather to pray until their very graves?

What do you mean, ethnic Jews attempting to renounce their judaism? They would be killed anyways based on what I'm saying?

There are lots of stories of Jews who didn't look like ethnic Jews and were hence able to survive the holocaust living in plane sight.

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 10:26:48 AM

Quote from: Sadistic on April 10, 2010, 10:09:21 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 10:07:13 AM

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

I think Nazi's based it more on the "ethnic Jews" rather than taking a census sheet around to every household and asking what their religious position was.

Then why were there no recorded incidences of people trying to renounce Judaism, choosing rather to pray until their very graves?

What do you mean, ethnic Jews attempting to renounce their judaism? They would be killed anyways based on what I'm saying?

There are lots of stories of Jews who didn't look like ethnic Jews and were hence able to survive the holocaust living in plane sight.

I was unaware of those. Assuming you can provide links I retract my statement.

Quote from: parsec on April 07, 2010, 06:04:41 PM

Here's a question. If Adam and Even where the first humans, then who did their children mate with?

Their siblings.

   

No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.   (Deuteronomy 23:3 NAB)

Tuesday.

My question is:

If God can do anything he she or it wishes, can he she or it create something he she or it cannot pick up?

Similar question only plagerized; Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself cannot eat it?

Quote from: Midnight on March 02, 2010, 11:15:22 PM

Tuesday.

My question is:

If God can do anything he she or it wishes, can he she or it create something he she or it cannot pick up?

Similar question only plagerized; Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself cannot eat it?

Already asked about twn times, read pages 1-5

Sorry, when the amount of pages gets to many I tend not to read.

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:47:26 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on April 10, 2010, 07:45:13 AM

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:39:52 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on April 10, 2010, 07:36:51 AM

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:30:47 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on April 07, 2010, 10:20:44 PM

How do you know if they're lying or not? Your faith is based entirely around testimony from humans.

I think you can gauge the honesty of an individual by how they follow up on their claims. Of the twelve disciples of Christ (after Judas was replaced by Matthias), 11 were martyred and 1 was exiled to Patmos. They were either very stupid, insane, or followers of the one true God.

What about the followers of other religions who martyr themselves?

They were either very stupid, insane, or followers of the one true God.

That being said I don't think there is any other religion that has ever endured martyrdom on the scale of Christianity, and while this in itself does not prove that the Christian God is real, it does strengthen the testimony of the saints.

The Holocaust was not an act of martyrdom, neither were the Salem witch trials.

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

Quote from: Wiktionary

martyr (plural martyrs)
One who willingly accepts being put to death for adhering openly to one's religious beliefs

If they aren't martyrs then nobody is.

I get how the Holocaust victims may be seen as martyrs but how do you figure with the victims of the Salem witch of trials?

And FYI, by your definition, the Holocaust victims (BTW I thought you denied the holocaust) were put to death for their religion alright but who said it was WILLINGLY?

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 03:27:11 PM

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

The choice is right there. Die or give up your beliefs.

Quote from: FearTehGators on April 10, 2010, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 03:27:11 PM

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

The choice is right there. Die or give up your beliefs.

Again, I don't think they were given the choice.

Quote from: FearTehGators on April 10, 2010, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 03:27:11 PM

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

The choice is right there. Die or give up your beliefs.

I don't remember hearing about Nazis as the gate of death camps asking whether you would like to renouce Judaism in return for not being killed. Seriously - the people rounded up for the Concentration Camps (about 50% were Jews) were rounded up for being anything termed "undesirable" - homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, etc. The Nazis went as far as condemning those with genetic ties to Jews.... it was hardly a case of choosing to give up your religion to save yourself, if they we're going to kill you for just being related to Jews.

You guys need to brush up on your history.

Quote from: Areweonfiya on April 10, 2010, 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on April 10, 2010, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 03:27:11 PM

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

The choice is right there. Die or give up your beliefs.

I don't remember hearing about Nazis as the gate of death camps asking whether you would like to renouce Judaism in return for not being killed. Seriously - the people rounded up for the Concentration Camps (about 50% were Jews) were rounded up for being anything termed "undesirable" - homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, etc. The Nazis went as far as condemning those with genetic ties to Jews.... it was hardly a case of choosing to give up your religion to save yourself, if they we're going to kill you for just being related to Jews.

You guys need to brush up on your history.

I said that, so how could they be considered dictionary martyrs if they weren't given the choice?

Quote from: Death-T on April 10, 2010, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Areweonfiya on April 10, 2010, 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on April 10, 2010, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 10, 2010, 03:27:11 PM

I don't deny the Holocaust, and the definition of martyr is that they chose death over abandoning their beliefs.

I don't think they were given the choice, dummy.

The choice is right there. Die or give up your beliefs.

I don't remember hearing about Nazis as the gate of death camps asking whether you would like to renouce Judaism in return for not being killed. Seriously - the people rounded up for the Concentration Camps (about 50% were Jews) were rounded up for being anything termed "undesirable" - homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, etc. The Nazis went as far as condemning those with genetic ties to Jews.... it was hardly a case of choosing to give up your religion to save yourself, if they we're going to kill you for just being related to Jews.

You guys need to brush up on your history.

I said that, so how could they be considered dictionary martyrs if they weren't given the choice?

They can't. Victems - Yes. Did they die for the beliefs? - Hardly, they died only because they were genetically Jews, not because of their beliefs. Don't get me wrong, in war anything is possible. Maybe there was one Atheist Nazi guard who killed the Jews that wouldn't give up their beliefs, but this is hardly the overarching rule. They were not martyrs for their beliefs, but that hardly matters or takes away from the horror they had to endure, escape, or die from.

Bump

Quote from: Canadark on April 07, 2010, 10:01:46 PM

Quote from: parsec on April 07, 2010, 06:04:41 PM

Here's a question. If Adam and Even where the first humans, then who did their children mate with?

Their siblings.

   

No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.   (Deuteronomy 23:3 NAB)

Quote from: Canadark on April 10, 2010, 07:37:28 AM

Quote from: Sadistic on April 07, 2010, 10:24:35 PM

How does God choose to distribute the Holy Spirit? Why does he favor some over others, in some cases the immoral ones over the moral ones (Because someone who acts against Christian teachings would be acting immoral, but may still get into heaven, but someone killing because they genuinely think they are doing God's work would be moral, yet not get into heaven due to habitual sin)?

Grace is unconditional. Those who truly accept Christ receive the Holy Spirit. Immoral Christians are not Christians, no matter what they claim or may think in their own minds.

Well morality is subjective, as well as your interpretation of the passage on habitual sin, so this is still a No True Scotsman....

Morality is subjective according to your world view. In Christianity morality is only subject to what God says is moral. My choice to believe that eating ice cream on Thursdays is a sin does not make it a sin. Given this, how does the "No True Scotsman" fallacy apply, since living a "Christian lifestyle" is a consequence of having the Holy Spirit, not a cause of it?

No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.   (Deuteronomy 23:3 NAB)

Sorry for not replying for a while, check the date on Deuteronomy. I'll be honest I kind of set you up on this one...

The Jews didn't receive the Law of Moses until centuries after all of Adam's children were already dead. They were not held accountable to this law, in fact in Genesis God instructed Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it"

How do you know their motives? Did they not live in Arabia? Was the New Testament not written by the disciples? Naming it after them seems unfair now, particularly given how many educated scribes were involved.

Not everybody who lives in the Middle East is an Arab.

Most of the New Testament was not written by Jesus 12 disciples.

Were they not? People who chose to die rather than surrender their beliefs?

Quote from: Wiktionary

martyr (plural martyrs)
One who willingly accepts being put to death for adhering openly to one's religious beliefs

If they aren't martyrs then nobody is.

What??
The Jews who were killed in the Holocaust did not die willingly, and not all Jews killed were practicing Jews.

That being said, people of other belief systems can be martyrs, and while this doesn't implicitly mean that their religion is the real one, the fact that ALL of Jesus 12 disciples minus John plus nearly all the authors of the New Testament were martyred definitely says something about their convictions.

I can't imagine they thought that they had much to gain from the work they did, would it not then be logical to conclude that they were either insane, gullible, or followers of the one true God? Or perhaps all the stories about the early Christian martyrs are lies. Any takers?

repeat post

Quote from: Sadistic on April 10, 2010, 10:05:08 AM

Well morality is subjective, as well as your interpretation of the passage on habitual sin, so this is still a No True Scotsman....

Morality is subjective according to your world view. In Christianity morality is only subject to what God says is moral. My choice to believe that eating ice cream on Thursdays is a sin does not make it a sin. Given this, how does the "No True Scotsman" fallacy apply, since living a "Christian lifestyle" is a consequence of having the Holy Spirit, not a cause of it?

It is the No True Scotsman fallacy because you can interpret the textual evidence as you please, and hence apply it to those you do or don't want.

Does getting drunk once make you a habitual drinker? meaning you can't get into heaven.

Does getting drunk twice make you a habitual drinker? meaning you can't get into heaven.

Does sleeping with only one other women besides your wife not make you a habitual adulterer? meaning you can get into heaven.

"sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like"---All of the ones in bold can be interpreted nearly any way you wish.

The language is too speculative to apply any precise discretion. I think your words explains this perfectly "I don't know where to draw the line between habitual sin and a single act of sin, I think that the Lord deals with us at a personal level and it is difficult to define sin along clear-cut terms as it may vary from one to another"

P.S. I find it interesting that genocide, the example you used multiple times as a habitual sin, was not listed amongst the textual evidence. "That being said, I think for things such as genocide and molesting children, we can easily say that no Christian would do something like that, because it implies such an egregious act of rebellion away from the will of the Lord that if the person had in fact accepted the Holy Spirit into his life, he would be incapable of committing such crimes." Where is the textual evidence for this? Perhaps God treats pedophiles and murders more gently than he does drunks.

What race were Adam and Eve?

How come god is allowed to disobey the laws of physics that he so definitively created? Especially conservation of energy.

How come god is allowed to disobey the laws of physics that he so definitively created? Especially conservation of energy.

Why do you assume he does?

Quote from: Canadark on April 11, 2010, 01:47:41 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on April 10, 2010, 10:05:08 AM

Well morality is subjective, as well as your interpretation of the passage on habitual sin, so this is still a No True Scotsman....

Morality is subjective according to your world view. In Christianity morality is only subject to what God says is moral. My choice to believe that eating ice cream on Thursdays is a sin does not make it a sin. Given this, how does the "No True Scotsman" fallacy apply, since living a "Christian lifestyle" is a consequence of having the Holy Spirit, not a cause of it?

It is the No True Scotsman fallacy because you can interpret the textual evidence as you please, and hence apply it to those you do or don't want.

Does getting drunk once make you a habitual drinker? meaning you can't get into heaven.

Does getting drunk twice make you a habitual drinker? meaning you can't get into heaven.

Does sleeping with only one other women besides your wife not make you a habitual adulterer? meaning you can get into heaven.

"sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like"---All of the ones in bold can be interpreted nearly any way you wish.

The language is too speculative to apply any precise discretion. I think your words explains this perfectly "I don't know where to draw the line between habitual sin and a single act of sin, I think that the Lord deals with us at a personal level and it is difficult to define sin along clear-cut terms as it may vary from one to another"

P.S. I find it interesting that genocide, the example you used multiple times as a habitual sin, was not listed amongst the textual evidence. "That being said, I think for things such as genocide and molesting children, we can easily say that no Christian would do something like that, because it implies such an egregious act of rebellion away from the will of the Lord that if the person had in fact accepted the Holy Spirit into his life, he would be incapable of committing such crimes." Where is the textual evidence for this? Perhaps God treats pedophiles and murders more gently than he does drunks.

The entire basis of my argument depends on the existence of God. We can interpret acts of sin however we want, but in the end God's judgment is absolute. All you have proven to me is that interpreting actions as sin vs. not sin or a as single act of sin vs. habitual sin is subject to the judgment of an outside observer, which is precisely what I have been saying all along. The observer in Christianity is God.

Genocide was never mentioned because the term is a modern day construct; but what we do see are "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy", all of which can be tied unmistakably to the causes and acts of genocide throughout the course of human history.

What race were Adam and Eve?

I don't know. Weren't the first humans black?

The entire basis of my argument depends on the existence of God. We can interpret acts of sin however we want, but in the end God's judgment is absolute. All you have proven to me is that interpreting actions as sin vs. not sin or a as single act of sin vs. habitual sin is subject to the judgment of an outside observer, which is precisely what I have been saying all along. The observer in Christianity is God.

This is precisely my point, we don't know for certain what God wants, so to say whether or not anyone has the holy spirit is fairly speculative. With these rules being so arbitrary, you can pick and choose who you want to fit the criteria, which is what makes it a No True Scotsman. You can say that someone that commits murder in the name of God doesn't have the holy spirit, but someone who gets drunk in college a few times does have the holy spirit, but this is simply a reflection of your speculation of what is holy spirit worthy or not, not necessarily fitting the actual criteria. You are in no position to say whether or not someone does or doesn't have the holy spirit, or is/isn't a True Christian.

Genocide was never mentioned because the term is a modern day construct; but what we do see are "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy", all of which can be tied unmistakably to the causes and acts of genocide throughout the course of human history.

And I would argue that someone like Rudolf Höss did not order the killing of over a million jews with "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy", he did so in a cool and collected manner, and he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and that he was genuinely helping humanity overthrow the Jewish overlords (obviously he was wrong, but the characteristics you listed still would not be present whether or not he was right).

While I see Abraham Lincoln's incitements of African Americans as causing "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy" against their owners.

What I'm getting at, is that its too speculative to say whether or not someone has the holy spirit, or is Christian. Anyone can arbitrarily make up the criteria they so choose.

...but ultimately it is God who knows for sure whether or not we have the Holy Spirit, not me. We have a list that is subject to some interpretation, but it is still pretty clear cut. Its purpose is for Christians to recognize those in the church who are clearly not living in the Spirit so that it can be addressed. Some people who call themselves Christians might consider them to be "so arbitrary", but ultimately whatever I decide to pick and choose to be part of the criteria is irrelevant. The fact remains that a true Christian cannot go against the guiding of the Holy Spirit through committing acts of habitual sin, and while it is often difficult to know for sure exactly what is "habitual", there are other situations where we can know beyond a reasonably doubt if somebody is living with the Holy Spirit in them or not.

Do souls have genders? If so, why?

I asked this in the other thread but it was never answered.  

What evidence would you need to change faiths to a different god, such as Zeus or Thor?

...but ultimately it is God who knows for sure whether or not we have the Holy Spirit, not me.

I understand that! I fucking understand that! How have you not understood I'm talking about YOUR statements, not God's!?!?!? You have felt the need to mention that in nearly all of your posts.....

We have a list that is subject to some interpretation, but it is still pretty clear cut. Its purpose is for Christians to recognize those in the church who are clearly not living in the Spirit so that it can be addressed. Some people who call themselves Christians might consider them to be "so arbitrary", but ultimately whatever I decide to pick and choose to be part of the criteria is irrelevant. The fact remains that a true Christian cannot go against the guiding of the Holy Spirit through committing acts of habitual sin, and while it is often difficult to know for sure exactly what is "habitual", there are other situations where we can know beyond a reasonably doubt if somebody is living with the Holy Spirit in them or not.

It is only clear cut in your eyes. Clearly the gigantic multitude of Christian denominations is evidence that not everyone interprets the bible the same, so you simply can't say its a clear cut thing. So no, you can't say the militia people were non-Christians based on your arbitrary interpretation of that passage that declares who has the holy spirit and who doesn't, only God can. If you do make statements like that, your committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote from: Canadark on April 11, 2010, 05:21:52 PM

...but ultimately it is God who knows for sure whether or not we have the Holy Spirit, not me.

I understand that! I fucking understand that! How have you not understood I'm talking about YOUR statements, not God's!?!?!? You have felt the need to mention that in nearly all of your posts.....

Settle.

Quote from: Canadark on April 11, 2010, 05:21:52 PM

We have a list that is subject to some interpretation, but it is still pretty clear cut. Its purpose is for Christians to recognize those in the church who are clearly not living in the Spirit so that it can be addressed. Some people who call themselves Christians might consider them to be "so arbitrary", but ultimately whatever I decide to pick and choose to be part of the criteria is irrelevant. The fact remains that a true Christian cannot go against the guiding of the Holy Spirit through committing acts of habitual sin, and while it is often difficult to know for sure exactly what is "habitual", there are other situations where we can know beyond a reasonably doubt if somebody is living with the Holy Spirit in them or not.

It is only clear cut in your eyes. Clearly the gigantic multitude of Christian denominations is evidence that not everyone interprets the bible the same, so you simply can't say its a clear cut thing. So no, you can't say the militia people were non-Christians based on your arbitrary interpretation of that passage that declares who has the holy spirit and who doesn't, only God can. If you do make statements like that, your committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

But for the case of the militia people, we can assume beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not living with the Holy Spirit based on what we read in Galatians. I said it is a "pretty" clear cut thing, not that we can always know this 100%. However, for this case we can agree that there is little doubt that these people are not living according to the direction of the Holy Spirit.