Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I was tryin to discuss Christianity with some people when I kept getting interrupted by someone who claims to be Christian but is not a fundamentalist nor moderate Christian.

I guess that is fine. But, it was him defending Christianity as a whole from his perspective that religion is meant to evolve adapt and borrow so he had no problem accepting that Christian stories were taken from other various sources and cultures: Sumerians, Canaanites, Babylonians.

I tried to explain that his view of Christianity is not really shared by the majority of Christians whether moderate or fundamentalist b/c the core of the Christian belief is faith in the truth of the bible a few being: Moses was real and God spoke to him, Yeshua was real and the Son of God, God of the bible is real.

I asked, how could he defend Christianity from his perspective if he doesnt belief or have faith that they are literal truths and it's okay if they are not real or if they are stolen stories from myths.

He calls himself Christian but has no firm stance which led me to question if he had ulterior motives in the discussion. b/c every time I asked what he does believe in the bible he wouldnt say, if I tried to talk about a portion of the bible or a story he would simply claim he never claimed any validity to it and wanted me to prove the story true or false.

I could only offer historical accounts of certain events that dont match up with biblical events or were in question by theologians or scholars as being unlikely and outright false, or the stance where extraordinary claims require extraordinary prove. he would retort with show me the evidence.

Now my question is can one be a Christian without having a set believe of what it is to be a christian, If God does not actually have to exist as stated in the version of the bible is one still christian?

To me he sounded more like a spiritualist then an actual christian since it didnt matter to him if the biblical god is real and he was aware that the aspects of El and Yahweh were of Canaanite origin.

He simply said he was undecided as to which version of god to worship but, called, himself Christian.

the guy was driving me insane and would say I was committing ad hominid b/c of his spiritual/religious stance which I was not but simply trying to explain his argument for christianity cannot fit for the majority christian views. hence his argument could not defend Christianity as is.

He later said He liked to debate but he seem to be a more of a troll then anything although well spoken.

So what's your question?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
So what's your question?

I'd guess: What is the divide between being vaguely "spiritual" and being part of the liberal hyper-moderate Christian sects that exist in some parts of the world today, in which the bible, Jesus, and God are seen more as the particular moral guides that one has chosen rather than inherently good figures or even literally extant ones?

Lulz Rape

Any divide in solely for linguistic convenience. There are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

Originally posted by Digi
Any divide in solely for linguistic convenience. There are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.


It just seems that more and more people are calling themselves Christians but have no actual stance. In Western society it just seems as if people just take the title due to simply being born in a Christian society without having in any actual knowledge of the religion they claim to be a part of.

I understand that people can call themselves Christians and not go to church or even pick up the bible. Some simply view it as a moral guide which I dont find the bible that moral to begin but simply seeing Yeshua as a moral teacher and nothing else nor even caring if Yeshua or god is real, it doesnt seem to go to the tenets of the Judeo Christian foundation of faith.



It seems people are basically getting more liberal in their reinterpretation of what it is to be a christian. but, maybe its just me and I am jaded.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd guess: What is the divide between being vaguely "spiritual" and being part of the liberal hyper-moderate Christian sects that exist in some parts of the world today, in which the bible, Jesus, and God are seen more as the particular moral guides that one has chosen rather than inherently good figures or even literally extant ones?

yes.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
the guy was driving me insane and would say I was committing ad hominid b/c of his spiritual/religious stance which I was not but simply trying to explain his argument for christianity cannot fit for the majority christian views. hence his argument could not defend Christianity as is.

he could not defend the form of christianity you wanted him to defend

there is no christianity "as is"

Originally posted by Nietzschean
It just seems that more and more people are calling themselves Christians but have no actual stance. In Western society it just seems as if people just take the title due to simply being born in a Christian society without having in any actual knowledge of the religion they claim to be a part of.

I understand that people can call themselves Christians and not go to church or even pick up the bible. Some simply view it as a moral guide which I dont find the bible that moral to begin but simply seeing Yeshua as a moral teacher and nothing else nor even caring if Yeshua or god is real, it doesnt seem to go to the tenets of the Judeo Christian foundation of faith.

It seems people are basically getting more liberal in their reinterpretation of what it is to be a christian. but, maybe its just me and I am jaded.

Welcome to our increasingly secular modern culture.

srug

Realistically though, identifying yourself as Christian, even just in name only, has numerous potential social advantages.

I do not like how christians think today. If you just believe in god, heaven, and hell, but disagree with everything in the bible, or dont try to refrain from any of those sins, I dont call you a christian. Your just a happy thinker, who does not want to except all the baggage that comes with christianity.

Deep down (when talking about christianity) I think most people are agnostics/atheists, they just have many reasons why they don't want to admit it.

Faith based off of nothing is not faith at all. Its just wishful thinking.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Deep down (when talking about christianity) I think most people are agnostics/atheists, they just have many reasons why they don't want to admit it.

this:

Originally posted by Digi
Realistically though, identifying yourself as Christian, even just in name only, has numerous potential social advantages.

"Census" Christians, as I sometimes call them, are numerous. But there's a lot of social headaches to be avoided by "staying" a Christian even when your beliefs and practices more closely resemble agnosticism.

This, however, isn't anything new. As an atheist, I'm mostly ok with it, despite not understanding the apathy toward such a central thing in our culture and lives. I pretty much just don't care if people want to do that, and it's easier because there's less evangelicals. Though I see a lot of annoyance from Christians concerning such people, and I can understand that from their perspective.

But again, if you're a believing, practicing Christian, should it matter if someone else only pays lip service? No, of course not, we're talking about salvation and eternity and so on. But yet there's the annoyance (I've seen it plenty of times in my life, not just from the few in this thread). So where is it coming from? It's coming from the fact that other people are reaping the social benefits of being in the accepted norm of Christianity without doing the "proper" legwork.

Which, and here's the point driven home again, shows us just how much of a social, status-based phenomenon organized religion is.

Mind you, it's not everyone of course. But it's a LOT of people. I used to watch entire congregations bristle at the "two-timers" (family term) for those who only showed up to mass on Christmas and Easter. Great fun. But the same thing.

We're literate as a society now, and we have the Word of God. On our own we should be able to read scripture, pray, meditate, and have the same spiritual benefits. But what happens instead? We don't read, don't contemplate alone, we still only get exposed to the Bible once a week in a room full of people, then we have donuts afterwards and schedule the next meeting of the worship committee.

It's a social animal, it's how it thrives. I'm also not saying anything new here, just explaining the situation. It's silly really, but it's what we have.

Your statement is perfect, you worded it in a way that i could not, lol. Oh, and I dont know if you were implying it or not but im an atheist too, not a christian.

"It's coming from the fact that other people are reaping the social benefits of being in the accepted norm of Christianity without doing the "proper" legwork."

^^And this is exactly what bothers me. That and... people are just scared to admit it. Some people latch on to god, heaven, etc. etc. because they can not handle life by themselves, and they need it.


It usually does not bother me too much because I deal with so many christians that I am used to it, but I just don't like it when people lie to themselves like that...

Originally posted by Digi
I used to watch entire congregations bristle at the "two-timers" (family term) for those who only showed up to mass on Christmas and Easter. Great fun. But the same thing.

We're literate as a society now, and we have the Word of God. On our own we should be able to read scripture, pray, meditate, and have the same spiritual benefits. But what happens instead? We don't read, don't contemplate alone, we still only get exposed to the Bible once a week in a room full of people, then we have donuts afterwards and schedule the next meeting of the worship committee.

It's a social animal, it's how it thrives. I'm also not saying anything new here, just explaining the situation. It's silly really, but it's what we have.

I agree wholly and fully.

Not to get preachy, but Jesus Christ talked about those types. "Lord! Lord!"



I dislike how judgmental people are (Christians). Scoffing at the follies or "sins" of others so severely that it causes them to quit religion or hate the religion.

This is common among "Utah" Mormons and they irritate me, at times...just as an example.




The LAST thing a Christian should be doing is judging another for their faults. We should be welcoming people into churches with open arms. We should be quick to forgive and slow to forget good deeds.


I've become burned out on religion since becoming an "adult." I still can't stop believing in God...but I don't have much faith in people.

Originally posted by inimalist
he could not defend the form of christianity you wanted him to defend

there is no christianity "as is"

I gave him various sects to talk about: Catholic, Fundamentalist, Baptist, mormons. etc etc..

he simply defended Christianity from his point of view. he believes his singular view of Christianity and God applies to Catholicism and even God. "Religion grows and changes and borrows from other religions the christianity will continue to do this." Which I agreed it does b/c we see it happen all the time.


the problem is that his argument doesnt defend nor address each individual issues of each christian sect and claims. he is simply white washing it all with his own view and things that it is a shared view of each sect which it is not.

Example: Catholicism is based on the trinity, Yeshua, Holy Spirit and God. you preach that neither are true as stated in the bible then it is no longer catholicism.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I gave him various sects to talk about: Catholic, Fundamentalist, Baptist, mormons. etc etc..

he simply defended Christianity from his point of view. he believes his singular view of Christianity and God applies to Catholicism and even God. "Religion grows and changes and borrows from other religions the christianity will continue to do this." Which I agreed it does b/c we see it happen all the time.


the problem is that his argument doesnt defend nor address each individual issues of each christian sect and claims. he is simply white washing it all with his own view and things that it is a shared view of each sect which it is not.

Example: Catholicism is based on the trinity, Yeshua, Holy Spirit and God. you preach that neither are true as stated in the bible then it is no longer catholicism.

according to how you define Catholicism, sure

why should other people have to defend your views if that isn't how they think?

Being a Christian in word means only one thing ; that you believe that the person Jesus Christ was wholly divine and yet wholly human, you believe that he could perform legit miracles, and that he was murdered by the Romans by crucifixion, only to resurrection himself, show himself to his disciples and start his church - Christianity - and then ascend to heaven.

As long as you believe this, you can call yourself a Christian.

Now, I don't KNOW or necessarily BELIEVE this is EXACTLY what happened. I don't believe in any dogma or set of rules; I think that there is something spiritual that human beings can't understand

So if asked to describe my religion, I would put "theist." I believe in mysteries, energies, things that science can't explain as of yet, I believe in being open and Spiritual.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
things that science can't explain as of yet

in your perspective that presumes, a priori, that these things exist

Originally posted by inimalist
in your perspective that presumes, a priori, that these things exist

But we do know, a posteriori, empirically, that we don't yet have explanations for (note the use of "as of yet". That's why science still exists. It's actually a really bizarre thing to include on a list of reasons for being a theist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's actually a really bizarre thing to include on a list of reasons for being a theist.

Really?

It seemed fairly normal.

I also believe that one day, we will know all of God's secrets.


Some really love to think the supernatural can never be known by the natural because it is beyond our ability to measure/use/comprehend.

I do not subscribe to that. The supernatural is only "super" until we unlock its secrets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

It seemed fairly normal.

They don't seem to have any actual link that I can see.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They don't seem to have any actual link that I can see.

I don't want to assume too much so what is "they"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But we do know, a posteriori, empirically, that we don't yet have explanations for (note the use of "as of yet". That's why science still exists. It's actually a really bizarre thing to include on a list of reasons for being a theist.

sure, there are lots of things we cannot explain in full

however, almost 100% of the time, people making the "science can't explain" argument are saying "science doesn't validate my own interpretation of events"

I'd agree, when talking about "how did the universe come to be" or "what are the origins of life", yes, the unknown-ness of these things is a terrible reason to believe, however, things like "I saw a ghost" or "I have a spiritual feeling" or "I experienced something" have incredibly mundane and simple explanations most times.

Being "open" to spiritual energies is rather a statement about being unsatisfied with explanations for those things that don't validate the idea that spiritual energies exist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't want to assume too much so what is "they"?

Science not yet having explanations for everything.
Being spiritual or theistic.

I could understand the connection between thinking science won't every explain everything (or will never has a satisfying explanation). It's the 'yet' that trips me up, that implies the answers are coming.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science not yet having explanations for everything.
Being spiritual or theistic.

I could understand the connection between thinking science won't every explain everything (or will never has a satisfying explanation). It's the 'yet' that trips me up, that implies the answers are coming.

Oh, okay. I'm glad I asked because that is not what I thought you meant.


Anyway, I don't understand why the trips you up. For me, that seems the natural progression of man: to unlock all the secrets of the supernatural.




You would not be surprised if neuroscientists figured out how we can link two brains with meditation IF the mechanism they found for it was within the realm of natural, correct? Right now...it just seems supernatural.


What if God was all natural and not actually a creator of the universe? Meaning, there was not "first cause" or "prime mover" but the spiritual is just natural, too? Then it becomes easier to think science will completely subsume religion, entirely. Sometimes...I think the "god" that we know is actually a product of this universe or something like that (but a literal entity...not a fictional thought like smartasses will try and twist my words to mean).

Originally posted by dadudemon
You would not be surprised if neuroscientists figured out how we can link two brains with meditation IF the mechanism they found for it was within the realm of natural, correct?

I'd be astounded, as that experience has incredibly mundane explanations now that require no appeal to whatever weirdness it might be that produced it, there is no conceivable mechanism through which it could occur, it would overturn absolutely everything we understand about neuronal patterns of firing and communication, and the implications for everyday life are such that we can almost say for sure it isn't happening.

To hold out for "science will some day explain it" to describe something like that is, literally, the same as saying, "I don't accept the current scientific understanding because it is not in line with my a priori beliefs about what brains are capable of"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd be astounded, as that experience has incredibly mundane explanations now that require no appeal to whatever weirdness it might be that produced it, there is no conceivable mechanism through which it could occur, it would overturn absolutely everything we understand about neuronal patterns of firing and communication, and the implications for everyday life are such that we can almost say for sure it isn't happening.

Really?

So they figured out how the brains were "linking up" after they mediated together for 15 minutes...even when isolating one of them in a Faraday cage.

Originally posted by inimalist
To hold out for "science will some day explain it" to describe something like that is, literally, the same as saying, "I don't accept the current scientific understanding because it is not in line with my a priori beliefs about what brains are capable of"

No, that's like thinking that what people currently think is supernatural will eventually be explained in perfectly natural terms.

Make sure you don't strawman my point, please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

So they figured out how the brains were "linking up" after they mediated together for 15 minutes...even when isolating one of them in a Faraday cage.

using which neuroimaging technique?

Originally posted by Nietzschean
So I was tryin to discuss Christianity with some people when I kept getting interrupted by someone who claims to be Christian but is not a fundamentalist nor moderate Christian.

I guess that is fine. But, it was him defending Christianity as a whole from his perspective that religion is meant to evolve adapt and borrow so he had no problem accepting that Christian stories were taken from other various sources and cultures: Sumerians, Canaanites, Babylonians.

I tried to explain that his view of Christianity is not really shared by the majority of Christians whether moderate or fundamentalist b/c the core of the Christian belief is faith in the truth of the bible a few being: Moses was real and God spoke to him, Yeshua was real and the Son of God, God of the bible is real.

I asked, how could he defend Christianity from his perspective if he doesnt belief or have faith that they are literal truths and it's okay if they are not real or if they are stolen stories from myths.

He calls himself Christian but has no firm stance which led me to question if he had ulterior motives in the discussion. b/c every time I asked what he does believe in the bible he wouldnt say, if I tried to talk about a portion of the bible or a story he would simply claim he never claimed any validity to it and wanted me to prove the story true or false.

I could only offer historical accounts of certain events that dont match up with biblical events or were in question by theologians or scholars as being unlikely and outright false, or the stance where extraordinary claims require extraordinary prove. he would retort with show me the evidence.

Now my question is can one be a Christian without having a set believe of what it is to be a christian, If God does not actually have to exist as stated in the version of the bible is one still christian?

To me he sounded more like a spiritualist then an actual christian since it didnt matter to him if the biblical god is real and he was aware that the aspects of El and Yahweh were of Canaanite origin.

He simply said he was undecided as to which version of god to worship but, called, himself Christian.

the guy was driving me insane and would say I was committing ad hominid b/c of his spiritual/religious stance which I was not but simply trying to explain his argument for christianity cannot fit for the majority christian views. hence his argument could not defend Christianity as is.

He later said He liked to debate but he seem to be a more of a troll then anything although well spoken.
Maybe he is a "Thomas Jefferson" christian, i.e., thinks the bible makes good points but doesn't believe it actually happened.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

So they figured out how the brains were "linking up" after they mediated together for 15 minutes...even when isolating one of them in a Faraday cage.

Originally posted by inimalist
using which neuroimaging technique?

nvm, almost certainly a statistical issue regarding "autocorrelations" in using EEG data

http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/CorrelationFinal.pdf

EDIT: btw, the authors who wrote that are not sceptics of psi

Originally posted by inimalist
using which neuroimaging technique?

Originally posted by inimalist
nvm, almost certainly a statistical issue regarding "autocorrelations" in using EEG data

http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/CorrelationFinal.pdf

EDIT: btw, the authors who wrote that are not sceptics of psi


I was wanting something other than "ZOMG! PSIONICS!" as the explanation. As I said...I would not be surprised if my version of God interacted with us in a completely naturalistic way. To me, that's more elegant and "acceptable" then other versions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was wanting something other than "ZOMG! PSIONICS!" as the explanation. As I said...I would not be surprised if my version of God interacted with us in a completely naturalistic way. To me, that's more elegant and "acceptable" then other versions.

sure

however, I stand by what I said about brains "linking", and I'm sure your familiar with my positions on psi research in general (re: finding that it is an error in the application of statistics is the most unsurprising thing ever)

Originally posted by inimalist
sure

however, I stand by what I said about brains "linking", and I'm sure your familiar with my positions on psi research in general (re: finding that it is an error in the application of statistics is the most unsurprising thing ever)

To be honest, finding shit that interacts in an super-naturalistic way (like psionics) would actually be devastating to my core theistic beliefs.

I really do not know how I would deal with that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, finding shit that interacts in an super-naturalistic way (like psionics) would actually be devastating to my core theistic beliefs.

I really do not know how I would deal with that.

to be fair, it is, in theory, possible that it might exist through some materialistic manner

but then again, in theory, it is possible that the planets may orbit earth

it would be so absolutely inconsistent with everything we know and understand about the universe, it would be illogical, etc, but either thing, if we found evidence for it, wouldn't necessarily be proof of something "supernatural"

I do agree, if God exists it makes way more sense that it is a natural thing that we would eventually discover, and there are certainly mysteries in the universe.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, it is, in theory, possible that it might exist through some materialistic manner

but then again, in theory, it is possible that the planets may orbit earth

it would be so absolutely inconsistent with everything we know and understand about the universe, it would be illogical, etc, but either thing, if we found evidence for it, wouldn't necessarily be proof of something "supernatural"

This is my angle, as well. My first inclination is always to the natural, never the supernatural.

Originally posted by inimalist
I do agree, if God exists it makes way more sense that it is a natural thing that we would eventually discover, and there are certainly mysteries in the universe.

Indeed. At the very least, we should expect a "sentient" life out there that could be considered "God" or "gods" by our perceptions. What will humanity be like in 1000 years?

Already, some of our technologies would make us appear as "gods" to your ancient ancestors. So it's not that far fetched.

Supernatural is almost a meaningless term. If we find something occurring in the universe regularly, that would mean it is natural. So if psi was discovered, it would just mean there were natural laws that are not yet understood.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Supernatural is almost a meaningless term. If we find something occurring in the universe regularly, that would mean it is natural. So if psi was discovered, it would just mean there were natural laws that are not yet understood.

Well, in philosophy (the context), supernatural is something that is above and beyond the ability of the natural sciences to every directly measure or test (for the most part).


This goes in the miracles threads, I suppose.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, in philosophy (the context), supernatural is something that is above and beyond the ability of the natural sciences to every directly measure or test (for the most part).


This goes in the miracles threads, I suppose.
If its above the ability of the sciences to test, then how would psychologists ever get positive results in an experiment to begin with?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If its above the ability of the sciences to test, then how would psychologists ever get positive results in an experiment to begin with?

Indirect measures.


"We can see the psionics' effects but we don't know exactly how it works much less replicate it."

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've become burned out on religion since becoming an "adult." I still can't stop believing in God...but I don't have much faith in people.

lol. That's a shame, because people created God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indirect measures.


"We can see the psionics' effects but we don't know exactly how it works much less replicate it."
But that is true for all unknown phenomena when they are first discovered. It doesn't mean they are anything beyond scientific method.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But that is true for all unknown phenomena when they are first discovered. It doesn't mean they are anything beyond scientific method.

That's exactly what my point was.

Well, sort of.

My point was more, "There shouldn't be anything supernatural: it's all natural."

I never liked "supernatural" or "psychic" or even "spiritual." Too much baggage (especially "New Age" with each word (I don't like "divine" either).

I tend to use "transcendent" because I think it has the least baggage, and also it's the coolest looking/sounding of these words.

Now labeling things like, eg, "Level I, Level II, etc" is probably the most neutral approach, but also the most boring.

And while I do like using familiar words/terms in new ways (eg, using the Greek four elements to label the levels of reality), this would be largely for aesthetic/mneumonic reasons.

But generally I agree: there's "what we know" about reality and "what we don't know." The Whole is organic; distinctions are artificial/temporary.

Yeah, I hate labels too.

Originally posted by Mindship
I never liked "supernatural" or "psychic" or even "spiritual." Too much baggage (especially "New Age" with each word (I don't like "divine" either).

I tend to use "transcendent" because I think it has the least baggage, and also it's the coolest looking/sounding of these words.

Now labeling things like, eg, "Level I, Level II, etc" is probably the most neutral approach, but also the most boring.

And while I do like using familiar words/terms in new ways (eg, using the Greek four elements to label the levels of reality), this would be largely for aesthetic/mneumonic reasons.


I do like your take on how to label these things. I think I'll start using "transcendent" as well. Who says you can't change people's ways, eh?

I think that there may be many supernatural things in the sense that they cannot be repeated nor proved. These are not special nor magical things, simply elements that are in such a position that their description will be falsified or contradicted by information you have.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
...
Now my question is can one be a Christian without having a set believe of what it is to be a christian, If God does not actually have to exist as stated in the version of the bible is one still christian?...

If a Christian believes differently then you, why do you question his belief, instead of your own?

The answer is easy. You have developed an idea about what Christianity is to yourself. You then have projected this idea onto the world. Anyone who reaffirms your belief is normal,but anyone who believes differently is a threat, and you separate yourself from them. The problem you are having is with yourself, and not your friend.

Spiritual although I tend to follow the teaching of christ.



I try at least. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Spiritual although I tend to follow the teaching of christ.



I try at least. stoned

Which christ? There have been so many in the past.