Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 121 of 531 (515834)
07-21-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rahvin
07-21-2009 2:27 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I've seen that - it's pretty eye-opening. I also enjoyed the exposure of Popoff by James "The Amazing" Randi.
I never heard of Popoff, just read up on it, once again, it's very sad.
I'd provide YouTube links, but work prevents me from doing so. Perhaps I'll edit some in when I get home.
I was able to find a current Inside Edition clip on it.
You're right, this dude is still at it. Fucked up!
People still believe this crap Miracle Spring Water ...WOW!
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 07-21-2009 2:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 9:04 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 123 by dronestar, posted 07-22-2009 9:57 AM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 531 (515905)
07-22-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
07-21-2009 3:59 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Well, Oni, if there is a hell, I'm sure Popoff will be roasting away because he makes Madoff look like a saint.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 3:59 PM onifre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 123 of 531 (515914)
07-22-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
07-21-2009 3:59 PM


Who is Amazing Randi . . .
Hey Oni,
Often, if one knows about "the Amazing Randi," one also knows about the "Randi exposing Popoff incidence/scam." For those who don't know: Randi is a magician and debunker of paranormal claims. He was a favorite of Johnny Carson, many times a guest on the tonight show.
I liked his books "Flimflam" and "the Unmasking of Nastrodamus". I used to be a frequent reader of Randi's web site when it devoted most of its resources to scientific inquiries. Sadly, its current format and subjects are not as interesting. Seems to have removed the scientific experiments/challenges in favor for tabloid fluff.
But most importantly, . . .
. . . this is an opportunity for me to remind others of his continuing crusade against illogical/irrational thinking. Seems to me an excellent companion to EvC eh? Particularly, everyone here at EvC should know about his million dollar challenge to all paranormal claims (such as astrology, talking to dead, dowsing, religious miracles, etc). Unsurprisingly, the million dollar prize has never been in danger of being paid out.
JREF - Home
The Million Dollar Challenge - JREF
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."
Edited by dronester, : expanded thoughts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 3:59 PM onifre has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 531 (515921)
07-22-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by onifre
07-21-2009 1:49 PM


Marjoe
Fascinating. I still believe that there are preachers who are genuine and who don't lie to themselves or others. Some would argue, however, that simply by believing we lie to ourselves. I of course would disagree. Honestly, my belief often conflicts with rationality, but I don't always see it as necessary for rationality to always prevail. There is some value in cultural myth and belief, and possibly even some truth in it.
Edited by Phat, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:49 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 07-22-2009 12:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 125 of 531 (515954)
07-22-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Phat
07-22-2009 10:50 AM


Re: Marjoe
Fascinating. I still believe that there are preachers who are genuine and who don't lie to themselves or others.
If you believe something to be true, it's not a lie. I'm certain most preachers fully believe what they're saying, and that Popoff and his ilk are a relative minority.
Some would argue, however, that simply by believing we lie to ourselves. I of course would disagree. Honestly, my belief often conflicts with rationality, but I don't always see it as necessary for rationality to always prevail. There is some value in cultural myth and belief, and possibly even some truth in it.
Nobody disputes the value of cultural myth. We still study Greek mythology today, long after the religious beliefs that spawned it have died out.
There can certainly be truth in myth. After all, there is truth to be found in Cinderella; in the story of Bambi; in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
But as we all learn in our very first science class, fact and [/i] truth[/i] are very different things. Truth does not require any degree of accuracy relating to objective reality. Truth is "fuzzy." It's philosophical. Profound truths are found in fiction all the time, yet the fictional works have absolutely no basis in reality. Fact is the opposite - facts are directly related to objective reality.
You may well find some "truth" in believing in a deity. But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether your deity actually exists. There is a distinct negative value in conflating truth and fact, believing philosophical and subjective truths to somehow carry the weight of objective fact.
I think we would all agree that anyone who believes today that Thor is the cause of lightning is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.
What value is there in an irrational belief that something is an objective fact without any supporting evidence? Is there value in believing that Fairy Godmothers will actually turn pumpkins into carriages, simply because there is "truth" to be found in the story of Cinderella?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 07-22-2009 10:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 531 (533307)
10-29-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brian
07-07-2009 11:04 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Brian writes:
But what he(Bishop Spong) is promoting Phat is NOT Christianity.
If he was honest he would admit that he had been following a pile of crap for years, and now he would like to search for some other answers because Christianity is wrong.
He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Why cant he just admit that Christianity is wrong?
And yes, all religious people have something missing.
What is Christianity, then? Is there an agreed upon definition that all agree with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 11:04 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:16 AM Phat has replied
 Message 128 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:18 AM Phat has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 127 of 531 (533573)
11-01-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Phat
10-29-2009 11:35 PM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Phat writes:
What is Christianity, then? Is there an agreed upon definition that all agree with?
Insert the word 'morality' or 'evil' or 'good' in the place of the word 'Christianity' and you'll recognise the question on embarking on a hiding to nothing. Does the lack of universal agreement mean there is no such thing as 'good'?
-
Spong a Christian? It's hard to know - given his view on the teaching of the Christan church. Whatever his exposure has been, it doesn't appear to have been to the gospel of grace.
quote:
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
The gospel according to Spong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Phat, posted 10-29-2009 11:35 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 11-01-2009 9:40 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 128 of 531 (533574)
11-01-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Phat
10-29-2009 11:35 PM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
double post.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Phat, posted 10-29-2009 11:35 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 531 (533580)
11-01-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by iano
11-01-2009 8:16 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Iano writes:
Spong a Christian? It's hard to know - given his view on the teaching of the Christan church. Whatever his exposure has been, it doesn't appear to have been to the gospel of grace.
The gospel of grace is an interesting topic unto itself. We can get to that after addressing Spong. Your link was an accurate one! Spong definitely adheres to the stuff Wiki stated. Here is my beliefs surrounding Spongs theology:
Wiki writes:
Twelve points for Reform
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Phats belief writes:
I see no reason why we can't define God any way that we choose. Personally, I believe, though cannot prove that I have a personal relationship..or at least an open ear..to the living God expressed through Jesus Christ(whom I believe to be alive today)
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
Again, I disagree..but am willing to discuss the reasoning and question my beliefs. I believe that God does not mind me questioning.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
Spong has a point here. The premise of the story can be questioned. Much of what is taught is based on human interpretation.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
The Virgin Birth is a belief, yet explains how the impossible can be possible. It is not something to be tossed aside lightly.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
The very idea of supernatural is not scientific. Spong would have us bow to logic, reason, and reality and to throw away our belief in the supernatural. Not an easy nor comfortable option for most of us.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Questioned? Perhaps. Dismissed? No.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
Where does he get this idea of cannot?
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
Again, a bunch of babble from Spong. I would have to hear the full context and support from his argument before commenting here.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
I agree that if God is living and active, we should not limit ourselves to the revealed standard of the written word. OTOH, we should not allow ourselves to redefine God in our own image either. Should we???
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Prayer has no limitations nor standards. It is simply understood as communication between God and individuals. No judgment should be made one way or the other, IMHO.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
Spong has a point here, and I think that its legitimate to question what we have been taught regarding this.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
I agree also with the last question. People will be judged on their behavior and on what they could have done versus what they have done, unless Grace is a factor. Now lets talk about the gospel of grace, shall we? Divine Grace Comments, Ian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:16 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 4:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 130 of 531 (533607)
11-01-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
11-01-2009 9:40 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Phat writes:
The gospel of grace is an interesting topic unto itself. We can get to that after addressing Spong...
The number of people who've denied some or all of the central tenets of Christianity are a dime a dozen - whatever the era they happen to operate in. And Spong seems to run into all sorts of trouble with ideas that are perfectly reconcilable with a holy, just, wrath against sin God. The God as revealed in the Bible. The God who loved us enough to die in order that we would not face his wrath. I mean..
quote:
"The idea that God killed Jesus to pay the price of sin is a barbarian idea because human sacrifice is a barbarian idea," he declares. "Why doesn't God just say 'I forgive the sin of the world'? Why does God insist that the murder of his son be a part of the forgiveness?"
Human sacrifice?
Spong seems to ignore the reasonably obvious conclusion that Jesus is God. God paying the price for mans offence against God shouldn't raise the eyebrow of anyone familiar with the principle of forgiveness. And what it takes to forgive.
quote:
Spong is even more adamant that it (atoning sacrifice) must have no part in a church which hopes to attract people in the 21st century. "If a human father were to offer his son for the sins of the world we would arrest him for child abuse and murder. We would not worship him."
Then there is Spongs stumbling over the 'spirit of the age' when he insists Christianity conform to the era. This appears to ignore the problem harmonising any truth with changing fashions. What is it about the 21st in particular that requires such a 'reformation' of view? Perhaps the Bishop considers the demise of cultural Christianity indicative of a dwindling church, when in all likelyhood, those same cultural Christians never belonged to the church in the first place.
I dunno Phat, discussing Spong sounds as much fun as discussing Islam.
-
I agree also with the last question. People will be judged on their behavior and on what they could have done versus what they have done, unless Grace is a factor. Now lets talk about the gospel of grace, shall we?
Why not? In it's simplest format it precludes the notion that people will be judged (with the end result being salvation or no) on what they have done from the range of options open to them (the so called 'works gospel'.
It seems to be the only gospel that can be reconciled with the NT without having to resort to:
a) Tradition over Scripture (I'm thinking Romans Catholicism here)
b) What seems reasonable to 'fair minded people'. The fact that unbelievers would plump for a works gospel ("in the case that God actually exists") is good testimony to the fact that this isn't how things work.
c) Supposing one piece of the Bible more authorititive than another (eg: Matthew trumps Paul)
----
One comment in relation to this comment of Spongs/Yours
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
Spong has a point here, and I think that its legitimate to question what we have been taught regarding this.
Whilst there is little doubt the lost will be punished and there exists reasonable argument that the saved-by-grace will obtain heavenly reward because of their post-salvation behaviour, Spong seems to labour under the erroneous conclusion that the church at large teaches a works (behaviour-based) salvation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 11-01-2009 9:40 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 2:37 AM iano has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 531 (533641)
11-02-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by iano
11-01-2009 4:36 PM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
iano writes:
b) What seems reasonable to 'fair minded people'. The fact that unbelievers would plump for a works gospel ("in the case that God actually exists") is good testimony to the fact that this isn't how things work.
Why would the opinion of unbelievers have any effect on what is true? Is it simply that the preference of unbelievers prevents it from being exclusive enough for you to feel superior for believing it? If unbelievers were strongly in opposition to a works-based gospel would you consider it to be a good testimony that it was how things worked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 4:36 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by iano, posted 11-02-2009 5:21 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 132 of 531 (533655)
11-02-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phage0070
11-02-2009 2:37 AM


Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho ...
Phage writes:
Why would the opinion of unbelievers have any effect on what is true? Is it simply that the preference of unbelievers prevents it from being exclusive enough for you to feel superior for believing it?
The comment was addressed at Phat who, I'm assuming, holds to some of the basic tenets of Christianity. If so, it would mean he'd appreciate the fact that lost men are "under the sway and rule of the wicked one" and so, are subject to all the twisted machinations of that individual.
It's not a matter of feeling superior. I was once like you - lost. Were it a gospel of works by which I saved myself then I'd have something to lord it over you about. As it was, I was saved by a gospel of grace and so have nothing to feel superior about.
When it comes to salvation and how it is wrought, nothing could be more twisted than the notion that a man work for his salvation - because nothing could be less effective in ensuring a mans salvation - than his working for it.
So no insult intended: men existing under the sway of Satan will naturally labour under the lies of Satan. So whatever unbelievers think, is proof positive (I'm arguing to Phat) of this not being the way Goddidit.
-
If unbelievers were strongly in opposition to a works-based gospel would you consider it to be a good testimony that it was how things worked?
If a works based gospel was the way it was, then the sway of the wicked one, the father of lies, could be expected to come up with it's opposite. So yes.
If you're an unbeliever and consider it good that salvation be based on a man's behaviour ("...should it transpire that God actually does exist"), take note of point raised. You fit the M.O. of the unbeliever as described in the Bible. Indeed, as an unbeliever you'd sail in the same (sinking) boat as the earnest believer in a false god (false gods invariably demand that a person work for a favourable afterlife outcome).
The point might seem like a distant irrelevancy to you - but hopefully the curious positioning of you: opposing God - but on the same side as believers in false gods - will stick with you. It might come in useful someday.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 2:37 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 11:21 AM iano has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 531 (533686)
11-02-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by iano
11-02-2009 5:21 AM


Re: Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho ...
iano writes:
The comment was addressed at Phat who, I'm assuming, holds to some of the basic tenets of Christianity. If so, it would mean he'd appreciate the fact that lost men are "under the sway and rule of the wicked one" and so, are subject to all the twisted machinations of that individual.
Atheists are quite fond of breathing, would you consider that a sign that your god does not want you to breath? We also are pro-eating, as well as avoid poisons and disease like, well, the plague. Is that an indication that your god wants you to starve and get sick?
Atheists are also generally against murder. They are for kindness and hospitality. Should we assume your god goes for the opposites there as well?
My point here is to highlight another example of your poor thinking.
iano writes:
The point might seem like a distant irrelevancy to you - but hopefully the curious positioning of you: opposing God - but on the same side as believers in false gods - will stick with you. It might come in useful someday.
I thought this was abundantly clear, but as an atheist I am in favor of no gospel. Claiming that I am on the same side as believers in any god is a gross misunderstanding of my position.
I hope my point will stick with you as well: You are really doing a terrible job in thinking. Thinking, in the sense of logic and reason, is a skill that requires practice and is aided by education. It would be very helpful if you put a little effort into thinking well, even if it does not change your ultimate position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by iano, posted 11-02-2009 5:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 11-02-2009 12:38 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 134 of 531 (533698)
11-02-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Phage0070
11-02-2009 11:21 AM


Re: Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho ...
Phage writes:
Atheists are quite fond of breathing, would you consider that a sign that your god does not want you to breath?
I think you're conflating two things: that which has a bearing on your damnation (working for your salvation) and that which doesn't (your liking breathin0g.
I'd remind you of something you seemed to have overlooked.. again.
iano writes:
The comment was addressed at Phat..
Phat might be expected to believe as I believe on the matter of lost men being ruled by satan. If he believed that then my point might resonate with him. It can't be expected to resonate with you (unless of course you believe the Bible on the matter of Satans dominion over you - for the sake of discussion)
-
My point here is to highlight another example of your poor thinking.
My thinking is, I'd hope, spot on. The problem lies, I think, more with the audience, who has stumbled in on a discussion and supposing it relevant to his case.
-
I thought this was abundantly clear, but as an atheist I am in favor of no gospel. Claiming that I am on the same side as believers in any god is a gross misunderstanding of my position.
Globally, you are to a believer-in-a-false-god what chalk is to cheese. But if belonging to that Corps d'Atheist which reckons that entry to heaven - if it transpires that one actually exists - should be based on how the person lived their life (re: good deeds/bad deeds), then you are bosom-buddies with the aforementioned false-god-worshipper.
You'd both be works-based salvationists.
-
I hope my point will stick with you as well: You are really doing a terrible job in thinking. Thinking, in the sense of logic and reason, is a skill that requires practice and is aided by education. It would be very helpful if you put a little effort into thinking well, even if it does not change your ultimate position.
Hopefully, you're having grasped the wrong nettle won't have stung too badly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 11:21 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 3:32 PM iano has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 531 (533730)
11-02-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by iano
11-02-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho ...
I'd remind you of something you seemed to have overlooked.. again.
Phat might be expected to believe as I believe on the matter of lost men being ruled by satan. If he believed that then my point might resonate with him.
Look, I don't care! Just because he believes as you do that unbelievers are on the side of Satan does not make your thought process logical. It can resonate all you want, but it is still poor thinking!
Lack of belief in your god does not prevent people from behaving similarly to believers. This is evident in things that having nothing to do with religious rules, such as breathing, or things that do, such as murder. Assuming that just because someone differs on the subject of belief that they must differ on other subjects is idiotic. You have to show a logical progression from one to the other.
For instance, non-believers can also be in favor of salvation not based on works. (Personally, I would be in support of that since there seems to be no way of telling what God wants us to do.) Your argument is simply a "Guilt by Association" logical fallacy:
quote:
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2) Therefore P is false
Source: Page not found - Nizkor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 11-02-2009 12:38 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 11-04-2009 6:04 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024