Anglican church against gay marriage

[Mostrov]

Exactly - traditional. Modern lay Christians almost never do.

Who is to define what is normal regarding Christianity here? The Eastern Orthodox generally follow this practice after all and the consider themselves as to be 'modern lay christians'.

Why are you grilling me on the Jewish faith when the context here is Christianity?

I am aware that Christians don't follow all OT rules, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

Because referring to a specifically Jewish practice that is not observed today seems somewhat silly, especially given the fact that Judaism itself changed enormously in its structure from the time of writing of Genesis to the time of writing of Daniel. To make statements concerning the Old Testament without any acknowledgement of the context that it appears in seems foolish. After all, why did Christianity not follow on all Jewish practice? Surely there must be some reason as to why the kippah, tzitsit and tefillin are not worn by Christians in prayer?

[United Marxist Nations]

He has intervened in such cases, as shown in the documented miracles.

What documented miracles?

With me, it was less an intervention in my life, as it was making His presence known. I must be willing to join with Him to receive His grace. But, still, it was not an intervention in my earthly problems, as those are still abounding, but of a purely spiritual nature.

Look, I don't know your life or what you're going through, but I'm pretty sure that murdered kids needed your god's help more than you did. Doesn't it seem even the slightest bit odd that he prioritized getting you to worship him over saving lives?

Am I not in a position to help those people?

[The Rich Port]

Logically speaking, you're engaging in fallacy... Multiple ones. Ones that people have exposed over and over again on this forum. Therein lies the ultimate flaw of rationalism: logic is useful for analysis and investigation... But by itself it cannot designate something to be truth. Logical arguments are not necessarily valid, nor necessarily sound. Evidence, on the other hand, stands outside of logical arguments, and can only be analyzed around. You can't logically argue your way out of a video of you shooting someone and a fingerprint on a gun in a good court of law. However, you can logically argue that you may have handled the gun, but not necessarily murdered someone if the evidentiary standard has not been set. Therein lies the flaw in empiricism.

You assume that God was what created us when something else is equally possible due to researching the very beginning of the universe is nigh-impossible. You assume it is impossible for his purpose to be to make us happy because it predates his purpose, even though God is supposedly unknowable, timeless and benevolent. If he is none of those things, he is not a God by any definition, but he is especially not the the Abrahamic God of Christian doctrine, which you defend as infallible. You conclude on such baseless assumptions God gave us a purpose. Your conclusion assumes, on top of the other baseless assumptions, that any positive conclusions can be reached on God based on current logical and evidentiary standards, that the universe has a purpose, and that the universe NEEDS a purpose.

For the record, I'm an atheist. I could be convinced God exists in many ways... Theology isn't one of them, especially the mess that is Christian theology. Especially by beating me around the head with it.

Call me crazy... But I could have sworn you were one too. What happened?

We are arguing on the assumption of God's existence for the purpose of argument. If we do not, then there is no argument to be had, as that was the whole pretense of the argument (i.e. the discussion was on God's purpose; for God to have a purpose, there must be God; therefore, to argue about God's purpose, we must presuppose God).

No, I am no longer an atheist, though I have not yet become a member of a Church.

... And that's why both logic and evidence lead to the conclusion God doesn't exist. There is no evidence God exists beyond anecdotal, false or non-falsifiable evidence, and the logical presupposition of God existing is not logically SOUND nor VALID. Ergo, using it as a logical foundation for a field (theology) is... ILLOGICAL. Also, really, did you just fucking Sye Ten Bruggencate on me? First off, the discussion wasn't on God's purpose. The discussion was on God's existence and how it's lack of logical validity extends to anything studying it. It was YOU that assumed he existed and had a purpose. There is no evidence God exists. Ergo, to assume he exists is illogical. Ergo, anything derived from the false presupposition of God existing is, by extension, illogical and pointless to discuss.

From the perspective of an atheist, debating theology is debating over nothing, and, ironically, against religious freedom, especially when arguing from an orthodox perspective. In other words, religious orthodoxy is pointless censorship.

Stick with blind faith in your Holy Spirit. It was at least informing the rational that they shouldn't bother.

[Othelos]

God created us with free will. That we disobey Him and inflict such great suffering upon our brothers shows that we are in error, and is clear evidence that we have wronged. He doesn't call us to worship in-spite of our failings, but because of them, as it is only through Him that we can stop such tragedies from happening. He will not force us to change our ways.

No, you're missing the point. Even if he gave everyone free will, he's still choosing to help you out over sex trafficking victims, starving and dying children, and kids molested by priests in his own house.

How is it okay for god to ignore them when they are dying, tortured, or damaged, while spending time to get you to worship him?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I would say that the most obvious example would be the actions of His followers, i.e. the charity of the Church. The Catholic Church alone spending well over 100 billion annually on charity, when healthcare is included. For others, simply look up the miracles resulting in the canonization of the saints, there are various ones there.

So it is a miracle that an organization dedicates itself partly to charity, and the other parts to shifting priests from parish to parish and trafficking Spanish Babies while throwing Irish ones in sceptic tanks?

God created us with free will. That we disobey Him and inflict such great suffering upon our brothers shows that we are in error, and is clear evidence that we have wronged. He doesn't call us to worship in-spite of our failings, but because of them, as it is only through Him that we can stop such tragedies from happening. He will not force us to change our ways.

(1) You would agree that how you use your free will is, partly, a product of who you are as a person, no? To clarify what I mean, think of it this way: a bad natured person will use his free will to be a bad person, and a good natured person the opposite. So, someone whose character is such that he is absolutely good as a person is one who will freely never choose to do evil---and exactly the type of person God would create if he was serious about being all Good. Somehow, we didn't get these sorts of people.

(2) Natural Evils is still unexplained, and Platingina, if I recall correctly, had this wildly absurd notion that this is all cause by Angels using their Free Will (logically possible, if it did not suddenly resort to magic and superstition).

[The Rich Port]

What documented miracles?
Look, I don't know your life or what you're going through, but I'm pretty sure that murdered kids needed your god's help more than you did. Doesn't it seem even the slightest bit odd that he prioritized getting you to worship him over saving lives?

Am I not in a position to help those people?

You're halfway across the world and not omnipotent.

Way to miss the point, first of all, and second, no, you are not.

God, on the other hand, is. AS ALLEGED BY THE BIBLE.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

What documented miracles?
Look, I don't know your life or what you're going through, but I'm pretty sure that murdered kids needed your god's help more than you did. Doesn't it seem even the slightest bit odd that he prioritized getting you to worship him over saving lives?

Am I not in a position to help those people?

The criticism is that God somehow found time to help you out with your first world spiritual crisis, but can't be bothered with kids in war torn countries who risk starvation or getting their limbs cut off bit by bit actual crisis.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What documented miracles?
Look, I don't know your life or what you're going through, but I'm pretty sure that murdered kids needed your god's help more than you did. Doesn't it seem even the slightest bit odd that he prioritized getting you to worship him over saving lives?

Am I not in a position to help those people?

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

[The Rich Port]

Am I not in a position to help those people?

The criticism is that God somehow found time to help you out with your first world spiritual crisis, but can't be bothered with kids in war torn countries who risk starvation or getting their limbs cut off bit by bit actual crisis.

Those kids obviously didn't believe in God hard enough.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Am I not in a position to help those people?

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

Let's get back to Anglicanism, because while most of us think that Christianity is bunk (and I would agree with that assessment), the Anglican Church is still Christian.

[United Marxist Nations]

God created us with free will. That we disobey Him and inflict such great suffering upon our brothers shows that we are in error, and is clear evidence that we have wronged. He doesn't call us to worship in-spite of our failings, but because of them, as it is only through Him that we can stop such tragedies from happening. He will not force us to change our ways.

No, you're missing the point. Even if he gave everyone free will, he's still choosing to help you out over sex trafficking victims, starving and dying children, and kids molested by priests in his own house.

How is it okay for god to ignore them when they are dying, tortured, or damaged, while spending time to get you to worship him?

As I said:
1) He did not sort out issues in my life, for that I must seek help.
2) I would be in a position to help people in need, and therefore my conversion can be helpful to those people in dire need.

[Othelos]

Exactly - traditional. Modern lay Christians almost never do.

Who is to define what is normal regarding Christianity here? The Eastern Orthodox generally follow this practice after all and the consider themselves as to be 'modern lay christians'.

In the context of western society, most christian women don't wear headdresses to church.

Why are you grilling me on the Jewish faith when the context here is Christianity?

I am aware that Christians don't follow all OT rules, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

Because referring to a specifically Jewish practice that is not observed today seems somewhat silly, especially given the fact that Judaism itself changed enormously in its structure from the time of writing of Genesis to the time of writing of Daniel. To make statements concerning the Old Testament without any acknowledgement of the context that it appears in seems foolish. After all, why did Christianity not follow on all Jewish practice? Surely there must be some reason as to why the kippah, tzitsit and tefillin are not worn by Christians in prayer?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Christians disregard the OT for the most part. However, they are still willing to follow it when it comes to things that fit into their worldview, such as the ten commandments. I have heard/read christians using Leviticus to denounce homosexuality.

I am questioning why, to some christians, it is okay to cherrypick things that support their views, but then claim that cherrypicking or ignoring parts of the bible is not okay.

[The Rich Port]

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

Let's get back to Anglicanism, because while most of us think that Christianity is bunk (and I would agree with that assessment), the Anglican Church is still Christian.

Technically, that was all to prove a point about this topic. The wonders of discussion. Mwah. Fucking beautiful.

And that point is... DRUMROLL PLEASE

The Anglican Church is bunk and can shove it's theology where the Devil doesn't even dare to go.

... Anti-climactic, I'm sure, but... What were you fucking expecting? Mary Fucking Poppins? You read that fucking Bible?

[Faustian Fantasies]

I am questioning why, to some christians, it is okay to cherrypick things that support their views, but then claim that cherrypicking or ignoring parts of the bible is not okay.

It's a cognitive bias that affects everybody.

[United Marxist Nations]

Am I not in a position to help those people?

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

So, you wish for all of humanity to be robotic slaves? Yes, He could take away our free will and force us to do as He pleases, but this would be pointless, as that would basically require stripping us of our senses entirely.

Obviously no one person can, but think about how if enough people were to step in. The power of collective action has already been displayed in the world.

EDIT: It is 2 am here, just about, so if I go offline suddenly, it was to bed.

[Threlizdun]

I would say that the most obvious example would be the actions of His followers, i.e. the charity of the Church. The Catholic Church alone spending well over 100 billion annually on charity, when healthcare is included. For others, simply look up the miracles resulting in the canonization of the saints, there are various ones there.

And the same organization called for the Crusades, carried out the inquisition, covered up the rape of children by their priests, contributes to AIDs deaths around the world from their policy on contraceptives, and makes more money than some of the world's largest corporations.

No, children born or abducted into slavery are not there through any fault of their own. The victims of the Holocaust were not just "accidents of human will". Your god ignored this. He knew everything that would happen, and chose to do nothing. He made humans knowing every sin that would ever be carried out, and he thought that was a great creation not needing of any improvement. If he ignores dying children, but calls to people to worship him then he is a selfish monster. He is a being that stands by idly and watches people suffer. We have words for such beings. We call them psychopaths. If your god exists, then he is a monster. Fortunately, there is no evidence that this monster exists.

God created us with free will. That we disobey Him and inflict such great suffering upon our brothers shows that we are in error, and is clear evidence that we have wronged. He doesn't call us to worship in-spite of our failings, but because of them, as it is only through Him that we can stop such tragedies from happening. He will not force us to change our ways.

He knew every tragedy that would happen before he made us. He could have anything he wanted, but this was what he desired. We sin because he made us to sin. Every rape, murder, torture, and enslavement occurred because he created specifically in a way that would ensure this would happen. If he exists, then he is responsible for every horrible thing we have ever done. He made psychopaths. Those aren't just regular people choosing to be bad. He made people that are incapable of caring about other people. He made Jeffrey Dahmer and decided that was exactly how he wanted him to be. He saw everything he would do, but choose not to prevent him from being born a psychopath. Our, supposed "free will", which neuroscience strongly indicates does not exist, is worthless when it comes to the freedom to do monstrous things. Your God supposedly decided that Hitler's freedom to be able to commit genocide was more important the the freedom of his victims of live. Why would you value the words of someone who believes that?

Again, fortunately this being almost certainly doesn't exist, nor does anything like it.

[Mostrov]

... You like philosophical discourse because it's not possible to reach conclusions about divinity in it? ... You're the worst philosopher ever, and, by extension, the worst scientist ever.

It doesn't need a purpose. Nothing does, technically.

And yet, ironically, the last time I checked, the religion you described has less purpose than a religion that followed Jesus's teachings about kindness, equality, and tolerance.

So, you know what, I'm gonna give it a purpose: to replace all of the madness that came before it.

Also, gnosticism hasn't failed. A religion doesn't "fail" because it has less followers than others.

I think you read to quickly and jumped to conclusions. I did say that I preferred philosophy in general to whatever mishmash of systems you were promulgating, the inference being that philosophy deals with the validity of the systems itself such as rationalism and empiricism. This can also be separated from my statement regarding divinity insomuch that I find that the topic of divinity within philosophy to be not as definitively settled as you find your mixture of rationalism and empiricism claims it to be. Say would you be able to confidently assert the qualities and relationship to the world of knowledge? If so you have rather done what the collective efforts of the worlds philosophers have never achieved in an afternoon. This can be coined Epistemology.

scio me nihil scire

You again miss the point I make regarding religion, religion itself has a self-justification. And that is what we are evaluating. What would you care that might be for Christianity?

You certainly argue a great deal for someone who claims that his very argument has no purpose. And you make a poor scientist for claiming that a belief system has failed because it empirically has failed to last a length of time.

[The Rich Port]

I am questioning why, to some christians, it is okay to cherrypick things that support their views, but then claim that cherrypicking or ignoring parts of the bible is not okay.

It's a cognitive bias that affects everybody.

As a former Catholic... I can say that you can overcome that bias.

UMN reached it and then fucked it up by being incredibly vague about what he "saw".

I'm sure he's going to convince a lot of fucking people with that shit, though.

[Othelos]

No, you're missing the point. Even if he gave everyone free will, he's still choosing to help you out over sex trafficking victims, starving and dying children, and kids molested by priests in his own house.

How is it okay for god to ignore them when they are dying, tortured, or damaged, while spending time to get you to worship him?

As I said:
1) He did not sort out issues in my life, for that I must seek help.
2) I would be in a position to help people in need, and therefore my conversion can be helpful to those people in dire need.

1. He took the time to give you a spiritual conversion, in order to help you to realize that you need help. He is not taking the time to give the people I mentioned the help they need. If there's anything common about human history, it is suffering and death. If he really cared about saving lives over your spiritual conversion [to get you to worship him], he would do something about it.

2. Are you really? How are you going to prevent children in the church from being molested? How are you go to stop systematic corruption and inefficiencies that lead to mass starvation? How are you going to prevent genocide? How are you going to rescue the victims of sex trafficking, murder or violence?

[Faustian Fantasies]

It's a cognitive bias that affects everybody.

As a former Catholic... I can say that you can overcome that bias.

UMN reached it and then fucked it up by being incredibly vague about what he "saw".

I'm sure he's going to convince a lot of fucking people with that shit, though.

I'm always ready to hear a revelation story.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

So, you wish for all of humanity to be robotic slaves? Yes, He could take away our free will and force us to do as He pleases, but this would be pointless, as that would basically require stripping us of our senses entirely.

Obviously no one person can, but think about how if enough people were to step in. The power of collective action has already been displayed in the world.

(1) Prove that Free Will is worth having given something like, say, the Khmer Rouge, where actors who have free will freely willed that a third of the population of Cambodia be starved and murdered (guess they should just magically free will their way into food and a less repressive regime).

(2) Why did God not create people whose character is such that, being naïve or just supremely good, would never freely choose evil?

[Neu California]

No, you're missing the point. Even if he gave everyone free will, he's still choosing to help you out over sex trafficking victims, starving and dying children, and kids molested by priests in his own house.

How is it okay for god to ignore them when they are dying, tortured, or damaged, while spending time to get you to worship him?

As I said:
1) He did not sort out issues in my life, for that I must seek help.
2) I would be in a position to help people in need, and therefore my conversion can be helpful to those people in dire need.

And you wouldn't be in a position to help had you not converted, why?

[United Marxist Nations]

I would say that the most obvious example would be the actions of His followers, i.e. the charity of the Church. The Catholic Church alone spending well over 100 billion annually on charity, when healthcare is included. For others, simply look up the miracles resulting in the canonization of the saints, there are various ones there.

And the same organization called for the Crusades, carried out the inquisition, covered up the rape of children by their priests, contributes to AIDs deaths around the world from their policy on contraceptives, and makes more money than some of the world's largest corporations.

God created us with free will. That we disobey Him and inflict such great suffering upon our brothers shows that we are in error, and is clear evidence that we have wronged. He doesn't call us to worship in-spite of our failings, but because of them, as it is only through Him that we can stop such tragedies from happening. He will not force us to change our ways.

He knew every tragedy that would happen before he made us. He could have anything he wanted, but this was what he desired. We sin because he made us to sin. Every rape, murder, torture, and enslavement occurred because he created specifically in a way that would ensure this would happen. If he exists, then he is responsible for every horrible thing we have ever done. He made psychopaths. Those aren't just regular people choosing to be bad. He made people that are incapable of caring about other people. He made Jeffrey Dahmer and decided that was exactly how he wanted him to be. He saw everything he would do, but choose not to prevent him from being born a psychopath. Our, supposed "free will", which neuroscience strongly indicates does not exist, is worthless when it comes to the freedom to do monstrous things. Your God supposedly decided that Hitler's freedom to be able to commit genocide was more important the the freedom of his victims of live. Why would you value the words of someone who believes that?

Again, fortunately this being almost certainly doesn't exist, nor does anything like it.

1) It is impossible to know how rich the Church is, but, by far, most of its spending goes to charity.
2) So, you would rather the entire world (keep in mind, including you) be composed of senseless robots, merely imitations of humanity?
3) Let's take an example of intervention: A warlord in Liberia stopped his war crimes (and his war), and now dedicates his life to charity because of (according to him) a vision of Christ. Now, he could have just refused the vision, as countless others have done as is evident by your list. However, does this mean that God did not attempt to stop him? No, it simply means the person refused to change.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's a cognitive bias that affects everybody.

As a former Catholic... I can say that you can overcome that bias.

UMN reached it and then fucked it up by being incredibly vague about what he "saw".

I'm sure he's going to convince a lot of fucking people with that shit, though.

What are you trying to say, I don't really follow.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, you aren't. What could you possibly do to help people who are being murdered? What can you do to help those who are starving across the globe? What can you do to help those who are doomed to a life of crime because of circumstances out of their control? What can you do to help those living in repressive dictatorships that will kill them for stepping out of line?

Your god on the other hand could solve all these problems with nothing more than a thought if he really was all powerful. But he doesn't.

So, you wish for all of humanity to be robotic slaves?

Not at all, it would just be nice for your god to actually stop being a jackass and do something worthwhile every now and again. We have no problem restricting someones rights when they plan to do something awful, why does God have a problem with it? Is one persons "free will" more important than other peoples lives? If I see someone about to gun down a preschool should I just let it happen because "free will"? Because if I'm following Gods examples I would just sit back and watch.