My Beliefs- GDR

Actually, GDR, I don't think you're a heathen, which would mean you were basically unacquainted with the claims of Christianity. I think you're a heretic because you are very well acquainted with the claims of Christianity but you believe an extremely distorted version of those claims.On the subject of what is an atheist, hooah seems to be stirring up a tempest over nothing. What on earth is wrong with the definition of not believing in God or gods? Even Tangle said that's what it means.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have a problem in these discussions as, maybe I’m being unfair here, but essentially it seems that those that are atheistic or anti-theistic or ignostic or any other term they want to use, essentially seem to not believe or disbelieve anything for which there is no scientific evidence or proof.This means that everyone is free to take pot shots my beliefs, without having to provide an alternative belief to compare and discuss. Sure my reasoning is circular in the sense because I believe that there is an intelligent prime mover that the resurrection is possible. After that I believe that there is sufficient reason to believe that the resurrection is possible which in turns tells me that I should pay attention to what we have recorded of the teachings of Jesus which in turn tells me about the prime mover who I now term as God. It is circular reasoning, which does not mean that it is wrong or IMHO illogical. I wasn’t trying to make a point. I’m looking for clarification. The Bible is objective evidence. We can scientifically say that it exists. You can read it. There is no objective evidence concerning the truth of the accounts, and so we have to subjectively decide what to believe about them, as we do any historical document or even what we read in the newspaper. Certainly some things we read are more easily believed than others but that isn’t the point. Absolutely but that does not mean that those derived from personal factors are wrong and that does not mean that we can’t have opinions or beliefs about them. Science only says that there seems to be no precedent for such a thing happening in the natural world under natural laws. Science can’t say conclusively that it didn’t happen, it only can say that scientifically it shouldn’t happen.

As has been pointed out to GDR numerous times, that is not the definition he has been using. That is why I and others have had to correct him. There is a marked difference between "I believe there to be no gods" and "I don't believe there to be gods".Do try to keep up.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Often times "I don't know" is the best answer one can give. Feeding yourself empty platitudes and false hopes does no good if you only do so in the name of having a belief. Faith and belief are not virtues. Why does there have to be an alternate belief? You only see them as pot shots because they aren't standing up to legitimate scrutiny. You are being given a rather fair shake as far as christians on an internet forum spouting bullshit is concerned. A far more fair shake than I would give you. You just don't realize how good you have it.

But it does require the suspension of natural laws at least in the manner in which we currently understand them.

Well, that was the definition that I was working with until I was soundly rebuked for not understanding atheism. I'll buy that. Good point. The only problem is that what evidence would be acceptable for an improbable event 2000 years ago other than what some people have written about it? That is largely true but not completely. I think that in general the majority of theists, apart from religious fundamentalists in any of them, believe in a god that cares about us, has a moral code for us and has a plan whatever that might look like. I would still subscribe to that generic god without the resurrection. That would essentially be how I see it. Thanks I see what you are getting at. The only problem I have is how someone who believes that there is no supernatural can approach the specific question of the resurrection, where there is no conclusive evidence, with any kind of open mind. I don't think it is possible, given what we know, to not have our pre-conceived biases not affect our conclusions about the resurrection.My own personal experience is that I read C S Lewis as an agnostic and was influenced by him so that I came to believe that God existed. It wasn't until then that I considered the resurrection and I agree that I was biased towards believing the argument for it.If instead of reading Lewis I had read Hitchens or Dawkins and accepted their argument for atheism then I'm sure that my bias would have been against believing the accounts and reject them, if I would give it any thought at all.We all have influences in our lives that affect our beliefs and our moral outlook. They make us what we are. In a way, I just go one step further than you and believe that one of those influences in our lives is God.

I haven't followed all this discussion but I'd assume GDR gave some of the standard proofs of the resurrection but you are rejecting them as insufficient?Such as:No body was ever produced. The Jews claimed the body had been stolen but couldn't show the body. No claim to that was ever made either within the Bible or outside it.The disciples' stories all hang together, none of them gave a hint of disagreeing with the others about the resurrection, nobody ever questioned Thomas' testimony for instance, and all of them were fired up to preach the gospel even knowing they'd be put to death for it, because in their minds it had been thoroughly evidenced with supernatural proofs. They wouldn't have had the nerve otherwise, as their pathetic condition right after the crucifixion, and even after the resurrection up to Pentecost, ought to show. They had powerful grounds for their faith and therefore so do we.What's a reasonable alternative explanation? Not much that I can think of. Probably the best would be that somebody hid the body so well those who would have benefited by producing it were out of luck? Hard to believe, human nature being what it is, that somebody wouldn't have blown the whistle on that sooner or later. The evidence is on the side of the Biblical accounts. But if you want to believe the apostles had a superhuman sort of faith that was built on a mere subterfuge, a faith they all willingly died for nevertheless, that powered the spread of the gospel throughout the Middle Eastern and European world in a matter of a few hundred years, I guess you're going to believe it no matter what.Perhaps I'm only echoing what GDR said (he gets some things right, as heretics usually do), but it bears repeating even if so.

That's your problem right there. Perhaps you should read something before calling other people fucking names.

What names did I call whom????

Message 652Message 646You openly admit not being part of the discussion, yet you have the balls to call GDR a heretic? You're a crazy as loon and you have the balls to call anyone a heretic? You are a witch.:abe:
You do realize that you didn't even use the word heretic correctly, right? You do realize that YOUR beliefs are contrary to standard christian beliefs, right? Witch.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Zowie, I was careful to use the term heretic correctly, hooah, to describe GDR's untraditional beliefs, and mine ARE the standard historical beliefs, or were as of only a few years ago. Perhaps by now the heresies and apostasies have replaced them, but historically what I believe is what the Church always believed. I get all my views from the orthodox theologians and always have.In any case, I didn't use the word heretic about GDR without reading what he said and applying it aptly, earlier in the thread when I WAS part of the discussion. In the particular post you were replying to I was assuming he wasn't saying anything heretical, so your picking on that one is hard to fathom.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're a heretic and your beliefs are not at all mainstream. Your beliefs are such a small subset of jesus freaks that they make you looney tunes. 9/10 christians would lump you in with muslims ready to blow up a plane. Your beliefs are the same type that cause abortion centers to get blown up.yet you have the balls to call GDR a heretic?name calling isn't nice, is it? Maybe next time you shouldn't use stabbing words unless you are fine with getting cut.

I'm fine with getting cut for telling the truth which is all I've done here. Apparently "Christian" now refers to apostates, heretics, liars and antichrists, and the true historical Christians are marginalized and smeared with lies. Well, the time was coming, looks like it's arrived.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Point proven. Thanks. Now we return to our regularly sceduled programming.

So may I guess that you are a Catholic or ex-Catholic? It would make sense that you would anathematize me in that case.And in fact nothing else makes sense of your condemnation of me on this thread, since it's hard to imagine you care that much what I say about GDR's beliefs. So I conclude you are reacting to things I've said elsewhere about Catholicism.Apparently you don't want to answer, but that's fine, I think my theory holds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.