Official delusional religionist thread

Post Reply New Topic

Prior to that... go all the way back, before "the church acquired earthly power"... before it was thought of as "a church" separate from "life" or "the world". The time when religion and government were exactly the same thing and even proposing a separation wouldn't even have been heresy, it would have just confused the hell out of people because they would have no idea what you're talking about. When there was no such thing as "church law", merely "the law". Tribal civilizations. The Catholic church is pretty new. Anything that happened subsequent to the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived would have been long, long after the time I'm talking about.

Nonsense. Your choices are influenced by factors, not utterly controlled by them. You can learn to change the outcome of many of the influences. People who have difficulty controlling a "sweet tooth" can learn to distract themselves to overcome it. That's a choice, and it's not shaped by diet or environment or genes. You can say that once they've learned it becomes conditioning, and that may be true, but the original choice to learn is a conscious, non-conditioned response.

Why do they "choose" to do so? What determines their decision?

Could they have made any other decision, given the same situation, same data, same moment in time?

You may believe that they could have chosen differently, but it is just that, a belief. There is no proof to support your assertion, and in fact some proof about decision-making processes in the brain which shows that what we think of as our choice happens after the brain has already got on with the action following the decision. We simply "observe" the decision made by our brains, and in our culture are brought up to believe that it is something that "we" did, "freely".

.

Possibly, most theists don't use natural theology as much as they used to. In any case, the arguments for the existence of the supernatural that are part of natural methods usually are attempts to prove that the natural cannot exist without the supernatural, such as the cosmological argument which argues that there cannot be an infinite causal chain but that natural causal chains would logically go on eternally, or the teleological argument argues that the world we see does not make sense to exist from a natural perspective and this approach has 2 levels, the ID movement(which is scientifically questionable) and questions about the nature of physical constants and the placement of heavenly bodies and that one seems to point to a part where we are legitimately ignorant as Newtonian physics was originally criticized for not explaining the whys, finally the ontological argument tries to prove that based upon the concept of a god, one must exist, and this was actually put in mathematical terms by Godel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

It could be argued that all of these arguments fail. A number of theists reject the ontological argument, and the teleological argument. In any case, 2 out of the 3 arguments are somewhat inductive, and thus cannot prove the existence of God but rather attempt to point towards it.

Umm.... ike, that is before Christianity existed, so I don't see how we can argue about a Christian belief before Christianity, and still talk about Christian beliefs.

Free Will.



Yes.



Mmmm... nope... That would be mistaking the evidence of the effects for a cause. The evidence of the effect that certain things happen in the brain and are then followed by certain things happening in the body is not evidence of a causal relationship in which the body causes the specific set of thoughts. It is evidence that things happen in the brain when we think. There is evidence that certain kinds of stimulus trigger the lower brain for survival. Those survival responses sometimes override higher thought, however, higher thought can also be used to override those lower responses if we prepare for them. There is no evidence that higher thought is caused by the body. Looking at the time between an event in the brain and reaction in the body is the same logical fallacy as believing that mercury causes autism. Believing that this is evidence of a causal relationship is just that, a belief.

Godel's proof while very interesting failed in his lack of clarity surrounding the terms positive and his personal definition of positive is... weak at best.

I do not attempt to prove the existence of a god because that would be impossible. I only want to demonstrate that proving or disproving the existence of a supernatural being is impossible using the methods we use. So to argue over whether there is or is not a supernatural being is pointless and a waste of time. Both beliefs require faith and both beliefs could coexist (since both beliefs could be either right or wrong and no beliefs provides answers without a doubt... one would just choose which one they personally believed in and someone else would choose a different stance).

But people don't want truth they want to be right. So carry on.

As long as you realize that everyone believes in spontaneous generation... you just disagree with how it occurred (unless you believe that life existed for an eternity which is silly since the universe hasn't existed for an eternity, that belief would insinuate that life is the supernatural being and you are back to square one).

America existed before the revolution and the naming of America as "United Stated of America" it just went by a different name "13 colonies" and before that whatever the Indians referred to it as. Beliefs can exist outside of name changes. You are arguing over a name change and not the existence of a belief and that is just silly. The beliefs of Christianity existed before they were given the name "Christianity".

Yes, but Platonism didn't exist before Plato. America is a physical location, it has existed as long as the earth has existed. Christianity is a religion though, and religions start at a point in space and time, involving specific prophets. Christianity is a specific religion that started based off of a man named Jesus, and a number of men claiming to be his disciples, and it did *not* exist before Christ, messianic Judaic beliefs may have, but there is little reason to suspect them to be the same given the differences between Judaism and Christianity. It is correct, that Christianity was a group that broke from Judaism, however, it holds different enough beliefs from Judaism that the beliefs of Christianity would be best traced to the beliefs of it's founding members rather than going directly to Judaism, just as it would be best to understand Mormon views through Joseph Smith or Calvinist views from John Calvin rather than appealing to Christ or the Jewish peoples.

Christianity as a state sponsored religion did not exist before Constantine. "Christiani" The name of the persecuted religious sect/offshoot of Judaism was coined 30 to 50 years after Jesus' life and was originally derogatory. It was recognized as an official religion in 261 A.D. It is a movement within Judaism. Religions do not *start* at a specific point and space in time. They are gradual processes incorporating teaching of various individuals. You cannot define the second, minute and place that Christianity began. One person would argue the origination of the teachings, another would argue the origination of the name, and still another would argue the legalization or even the state-sponsorship of the religion. But religions have existed long before they were officially named, legalized, or state-sponsored. So you are back to the origination of the beliefs. Since Christianity uses multiple beliefs from Judaism including the entire old testament and only adds New Testament then you argue if the beliefs go back to the beginnings of Judaism or begin with the birth, teachings, or death of Christ. You could argue about Christianity only beginning with canonization.

My point is that things exist before they are named. Ideas exist before they are named. So your line of arguing is a moot point. The concept of love has existed before it was named "love" or would you argue that no one has loved before the 8th century AD because that's when the term "love" was first recorded in English writing. Or no one loved before the Greeks began to develop the different concepts of love. Or no one loved before the study of neurobiology established the chemical reactions involved in love.

I don't want to just jump into someone else's argument but I do have something that I think needs to be pointed out. Between Judaism which was the first monotheism of its particular chain to Christianity, up to Islam, the last two delineate in that their respective prophet and messiah make enough abrogations to the original law through their teachings that its taught to disqualify parts of the earlier book as the messiah or prophet instructs.

Christianity makes its breaks with the divinity of Christ, in the new testament makes commentary that one should not "put new wine in old wine skins" or "patch old clothing with new cloth"; statements that put a context to the old testament where its taken more as a historical document and where everything Christ teaches supersedes any older rules. With Muhammed, very similar story. One of its most pronounced breaks was from Christianity in which Jesus was relegated to being a prophet rather then messiah.

I think the idea of people calling Christianity as something that started forming in 30 and 40 AD initially or Islam in 680 D and later, is because their respective prophets made the breaks and made the statements that superseded older religion. Up until the time of Jesus, Judaism was Judaism, just like mainstream Judaism and Christianity were what they were up until the time of Islam. Yes, you had many gnostic break-away sets in all kinds of directions, including the Valentinians in Christianity or esoteric Judaism such as Kaballah. Ideas may have been churning around before Christ or before Muhammad but these figures are still considered the lynch pins or turning points which is why many people would make the semantic argument of calling them the origins of their faith - its maybe 70% true but for point of reference its about as accurate as you can get without going on a diatribe and glazing people's eyes over.

As for Christianity's existence pre-Constantine, it was definitely there; they were throwing people to the lions in Rome for the reason that while Jews believed in one God but did not say that polytheists would not be saved, Christians said that not only was their one God but that the pagans and pantheists would not be saved. This attacked Rome in the sense that their city states had their own gods and it was similar to a severe affront to patriotism, almost to treason, to turn away from the state Gods. That conflict is part of how it spread, Constantine's act of taking it on just meant that it had taken root as being state-related.

yes, when a religion makes enough of a break to redefined the basic constructs of the original religion it becomes a separate religion. Which is why I consider Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (among many others) as being separate religions even though they share many of the same teachings. It could be argued that Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses are also completely separate from the basics of Christianity (Catholics for their beliefs in saints, their mini worship of Mary, the allowance of the Pope to supersede scripture and their inclusion of non-canonical books)(Jehovah's witnesses for their rejection of the Trinity, denial of hell and the existence of the soul, the belief than only *certain* Christian will go to heaven and the belief that Jesus is a lower god than God).

Right, and we aren't talking about "state sponsored religion" we are talking about when the Christian religion formed as a separate entity. The term "Christiani" does not even matter, as it is clear from Christian scriptures that Christianity differed to an acknowledged extent from the current Jewish theology, and to an extent that it was considered heresy. Religions to some extent *do* start, not at an exact point, but there was some overall time period where Christianity could be recognized as distinctly non-Jewish, and the fact that Christianity emerged is *really* what I was trying to get at, that it was not the same as a continent or some other pre-existent body. And as for Christianity, it really seems as if it was always considered heretical by the Jewish theological authorities. As for the use of the Old Testament, this use is really only so because the major figures of Christianity *called for* the Old Testament, however, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is profoundly different from the Jewish interpretation, so much so, that it is difficult to just say it was an off-shoot of Judaism, and then stumble back to what the Jews thought on given matters. Doctrines such as the trinity, original sin, the incarnation, the atonement, and so on, are all read into the Old Testament despite the fact that the Jews do not believe *any* of those ideas!


And to get to that point, I would argue that this is ridiculous. On one hand, your idea is tautological, something non-existent cannot have a name, and there is no reason to suppose a perfect matching of an idea and a name. However, my point was not a legalism on "Oh, when did Christians start being called Christians?" but rather related to when the Christian church began to exist, and this really does not seem to be a hard question unless we start having to do a fact-hunt about what about early Christianity can be considered mythical or not, as the simplest view is that the ministry of Jesus was a separate entity from Judaism. This isn't even similar to love as the man, Jesus, was born on a specific date, in a specific location, and a movement dedicated to following him and worshiping him cannot have arisen before that, so even if you are taking the view of Christ as a fulfillment of Judaism, there were no Christians, as the term can be best understood, before Christ.

Interesting, do you come from a conservative Christian background? Most would unquestioningly consider Catholics to be Christians. In any case, Catholic views on scripture currently tend towards being moderate on these matters compared to many Protestant groups. As for the inclusion of the apocrypha, well, honestly, the only Christian group that does not include the apocrypha ends up being the Protestants, and to be honest, the Protestants defined their own canon to a good extent as well, as Martin Luther is well known for calling certain books into question in the canon. As for the Jehovah's witnesses, a major part of the issue is one of defining the relationship of trinitarian beliefs to Christianity, as there have been some people who have called themselves Christians who have rejected the trinity, such as the Sabellians, the Arians, the Socinians, the Unitarians, and so on, and these groups use Christian scriptures, they just reject the Trinity.

I am saying that there is no place and time that Christianity existed, where before it did not exist, while Jesus was a man the concept of Christianity is an idea. You did not argue when Jesus existed you argued when Christianity existed. Christianity did not suddenly come into existence when Jesus was born. And according to scriptural writings people believed in the concept of a "Christ" long before Jesus was born, as the term "Christ" refers not to Jesus's last name but to the Hebrew word "Messiah". And I am saying that at best you could only narrow it down to a time frame. So when you said "Umm.... ike, that is before Christianity existed, so I don't see how we can argue about a Christian belief before Christianity, and still talk about Christian beliefs" and Ike was referring to "before it was thought of as "a church"" it was silly as you were simply playing semantics. There are multiple offshoots of Judaism where a group believed that the Messiah had already arrived. They are not all separate religions. And while Christianity changes a good portion of Jewish beliefs the central beliefs are the same, the only main difference is that Christians believe that the Hebrew Messiah has already arrived and did so to abolish the restrictions of the law so mankind could be reconciled to God.

I only added the last part of the Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses *because* conservative Christians would argue that they are different religions. Whether or not they are viewed as completely different religions depends on who you talk to. Same with the different splits of Judaism and Islam (which incidentally enough had its own major split of Shi'ite and Sunni which they consider to be different religions but "we" do not).