Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Samuraikoku]

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

I have an answer ready for that.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE ALMIGHTY BUNGHOLE!

[Ovisterra]

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

I would tell him that I had had a 'message' from 'gawd' after he had had it, and that I was the new 'messiah' and he should quickly give me all his cash, or burn in hell forever...

[Bluth Corporation]

How so?

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

What does this have to do with Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ? After all, he made no such claims.

[Samuraikoku]

What does this have to do with Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ? After all, he made no such claims.

When Pontius Pilate asked him, he said "you said it". Or something to that effect. (I can't be bothered to read the Bible, I'd rather read Dragon Ball.)

[Dododecapod]

Good to know, but I'm sorry to say I didn't hear much in the way of Christian dissent when Bush Jr. spoke of Atheists not being real citizens.

I didn't hear about that one. My europeanness didn't help.

Fair enough. It wasn't huge news even at the time, pretty easy to miss.
What knaws at me about it wasn't Bush Sr.'s (thank you, Farnhamia) statement as such, though it was pretty offensive. It was that it wasn't even especially challenged. Wheras if he'd said it about ANY other minority group, there would have been outrage - and much of it from the christian community.

[Ovisterra]

I didn't hear about that one. My europeanness didn't help.

Fair enough. It wasn't huge news even at the time, pretty easy to miss.
What knaws at me about it wasn't Bush Sr.'s (thank you, Farnhamia) statement as such, though it was pretty offensive. It was that it wasn't even especially challenged. Wheras if he'd said it about ANY other minority group, there would have been outrage - and much of it from the christian community.

Yeah. It's kinda horrible. If it was bush senior, then I don't think I would have heard the news at all. I'm still at school.

[Farnhamia]

Fair enough. It wasn't huge news even at the time, pretty easy to miss.
What knaws at me about it wasn't Bush Sr.'s (thank you, Farnhamia) statement as such, though it was pretty offensive. It was that it wasn't even especially challenged. Wheras if he'd said it about ANY other minority group, there would have been outrage - and much of it from the christian community.

Yeah. It's kinda horrible. If it was bush senior, then I don't think I would have heard the news at all. I'm still at school.

*waves to Dododecapod*

A quick google of "atheists not real citizens" will get you all you need to know.

[Ceannairceach]

How so?

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

Well, people do seem to think that of me, if its any assistance to your point. Though I more make a joke out of the mythology behind my title, rather than attempt to force them/convince them to lead a specific life.

[Samuraikoku]

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

Well, people do seem to think that of me, if its any assistance to your point. Though I more make a joke out of the mythology behind my title, rather than attempt to force them/convince them to lead a specific life.

Here's my answer to you.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE ALMIGHTY BUNGHOLE!

[Sociobiology]

Wrong.

He taught what he taught because he was the Messiah, not the other way round.

Why do you make this assumption?

I've never said he was the messiah, because the messianic property is bunk. He's the Christ (khristos). It's simply the acolytes of the cult of Jesus and Jehovah who have wrongly associated the status of being the Christ with being the supposed fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecy.

you do realize messiah also means anointed one. christ (Khristós) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word messiah. if he is a christ he is by definition also a messiah

[Condunum]

I have my reasons, some stupid, some smart. Many are relatable to LeVey satanism.

Well, people do seem to think that of me, if its any assistance to your point. Though I more make a joke out of the mythology behind my title, rather than attempt to force them/convince them to lead a specific life.

Here's my answer to you.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE ALMIGHTY BUNGHOLE!

You never did officially declare victory in our argument, where I pretended to be theist.

[Condunum]

Let's discuss a purely hypothetical scenario. You are walking down the street in your home town, when a man comes up to you. This man tells you that he is, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God (or, more accurately, God incarnate), and then procceeds to tell you how you should live your life if you wish to go to heaven. Would you not think this person was severely mentally handicapped?

Possibly. They could also be a true believer, a conman, a psychologist or a cynic.

Psychologists don't tell you how to live, how to get to heaven, or that they are the Messiah.

[Samuraikoku]

I have my reasons, some stupid, some smart. Many are relatable to LeVey satanism.

Here's my answer to you.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE ALMIGHTY BUNGHOLE!

You never did officially declare victory in our argument, where I pretended to be theist.

You fought well. I respect a worthy opponent.

[Condunum]

I have my reasons, some stupid, some smart. Many are relatable to LeVey satanism.




You never did officially declare victory in our argument, where I pretended to be theist.

You fought well. I respect a worthy opponent.

*bows* You do truly hold the Bushido Code to heart, don't you? I respect that

[JTorvik]

and yes humans, all humans, are the product of evolution
genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, behavior, and geology all back this up.
if the truth bursts your little self important bubble, too bad.[/quote]



Actually evolution has already been proven false. Modern evolution follows the assumpions of evolution or the Darwin Postulates. Postulate 5 states that there are an unlimited amount of mutations that can happen, or in other words there can be any type of variability in life. However, scientists ran the numbers and some molecular bonds needed for some theorized mutations defy the laws of physics. So, those mutations can't exist so therefore there isn't an infinite amount of mutations. This contradicts postulate 5 and all of the postulates need to work otherwise evolution is invalid. And since postulate 5 is invalid, evolution is invalid.

[New Alaxia]

and yes humans, all humans, are the product of evolution
genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, behavior, and geology all back this up.
if the truth bursts your little self important bubble, too bad.

Actually evolution has already been proven false. Modern evolution follows the assumptions of evolution or the Darwin Postulates. Postulate 5 states that there are an unlimited amount of mutations that can happen, or in other words there can be any type of variability in life. However, scientists ran the numbers and some molecular bonds needed for some theorized mutations defy the laws of physics. So, those mutations can't exist so therefore there isn't an infinite amount of mutations. This contradicts postulate 5 and all of the postulates need to work otherwise evolution is invalid. And since postulate 5 is invalid, evolution is invalid.

By your argument, gravity is invalid because of the theory of relativity. Just because there are not an infinite number of combinations does not mean evolution doesn't exist. It just means there are a finite number of possible mutations, limiting, not stopping, the number of adaptations that lead to eventual evolution.

[Condunum]

and yes humans, all humans, are the product of evolution
genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, behavior, and geology all back this up.
if the truth bursts your little self important bubble, too bad.

Actually evolution has already been proven false. Modern evolution follows the assumpions of evolution or the Darwin Postulates. Postulate 5 states that there are an unlimited amount of mutations that can happen, or in other words there can be any type of variability in life. However, scientists ran the numbers and some molecular bonds needed for some theorized mutations defy the laws of physics. So, those mutations can't exist so therefore there isn't an infinite amount of mutations. This contradicts postulate 5 and all of the postulates need to work otherwise evolution is invalid. And since postulate 5 is invalid, evolution is invalid.[/quote]

1: What scientists?
Citation needed

2: So one section of the theory, based on what you say, is not entirely true. Jumping to the conclusion that Evolution is falsified is a massive and unproven leap.

3: It can be explained like this:

Darwin in his time, did not have the knowledge of physics and chemistry required to understand these things. Thus, he assumed, based on his observations, that there could be an unlimited number of mutations.
Now, since we know that some of these are impossible, the theory can evolve, as all do, to encompass this new information. Postulate 5 could be rewritten as There is a vast number of possible mutations for any given species, of any given organism.
Since we can assume that you are an idiot for not understanding you just don't quite understand that a theory is not solidified fact, but something backed by sufficient evidence to not be falsifiable, and new evidence constantly adjusts said theories, I can declare your statement to be false.

I can prove the Christian god false different ways, in one sentence for one, and a quote for the other, right now:

1: If god is all powerful, can he create a rock which he himself can not lift? If not, he is not all powerful. If he can, then his power is so great that he can not complete the task of lifting this boulder, and he is, again, not all powerful.

2: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus.

Now, given that the Christian god is all powerful, he is proven to be false by statement one. Given that the Christian god is actually an interventionist and "good", statement two can also falsify the Christian god, because intervention is nonexistent in much evil, which would make the Christian god, in truth, apathetic, and thus not "good".


I will no doubt expect you to claim that I am talking out of my ass. I will note this: I am a 16 year old using the boundaries of my vocabulary to explain this to you. I am knowledgeable, but I do make mistakes in grammar. Deal with it.

[Bluth Corporation]

I can prove the Christian god false different ways, in one sentence for one, and a quote for the other, right now:

You've done no such thing. For one, there is no such thing as a "Christian god", since Christians do not believe in a god. But the the method you have chosen to attempt to disprove the existence of the type of god whose existence you are trying to disprove is unsuccessful because it ignores one important attribute of such a god, as I shall explain:

1: If god is all powerful, can he create a rock which he himself can not lift? If not, he is not all powerful. If he can, then his power is so great that he can not complete the task of lifting this boulder, and he is, again, not all powerful.

2: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus.

The problem with attempts like these is that they ignore the fact that if a deity of the sort envisioned by the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and the cult of Jesus and Jehovah) exists (and I do not believe one does), it would necessarily transcend the boundaries of logical thought. Thus, attempting to disprove the existence of such a being using logic is, quite simply, missing the point. The existence of logical contradictions within the conception of such a god does not disprove the existence of such a god because such a god is quite literally above logic.

[Condunum]

I can prove the Christian god false different ways, in one sentence for one, and a quote for the other, right now:

You've done no such thing. For one, there is no such thing as a "Christian god", since Christians do not believe in a god. But the the method you have chosen to attempt to disprove the existence of the type of god whose existence you are trying to disprove is unsuccessful because it ignores one important attribute of such a god, as I shall explain:

1: If god is all powerful, can he create a rock which he himself can not lift? If not, he is not all powerful. If he can, then his power is so great that he can not complete the task of lifting this boulder, and he is, again, not all powerful.

2: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus.

The problem with attempts like these is that they ignore the fact that if a deity of the sort envisioned by the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and the cult of Jesus and Jehovah) exists (and I do not believe one does), it would necessarily transcend the boundaries of logical thought. Thus, attempting to disprove the existence of such a being using logic is, quite simply, missing the point. The existence of logical contradictions within the conception of such a god does not disprove the existence of such a god because such a god is quite literally above logic.

Hmm.... I guess I can see your point. I won't withdraw my argument, I'll just accept I don't know enough to back it further. Not sure if you are Theist or not, but you present a good argument in that. *slinks to corner*

[Salandriagado]

You've done no such thing. For one, there is no such thing as a "Christian god", since Christians do not believe in a god. But the the method you have chosen to attempt to disprove the existence of the type of god whose existence you are trying to disprove is unsuccessful because it ignores one important attribute of such a god, as I shall explain:


The problem with attempts like these is that they ignore the fact that if a deity of the sort envisioned by the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and the cult of Jesus and Jehovah) exists (and I do not believe one does), it would necessarily transcend the boundaries of logical thought. Thus, attempting to disprove the existence of such a being using logic is, quite simply, missing the point. The existence of logical contradictions within the conception of such a god does not disprove the existence of such a god because such a god is quite literally above logic.

Hmm.... I guess I can see your point. I won't withdraw my argument, I'll just accept I don't know enough to back it further. Not sure if you are Theist or not, but you present a good argument in that. *slinks to corner*

Bluth uses a different definition of "Christian" to the rest of us. I find it helps to just nod politely and assume that most things he says are irrelevant.

[Samuraikoku]

Bluth uses a different definition of "Christian" to the rest of us. I find it helps to just nod politely and assume that most things he says are irrelevant.

Or contradictory ("there is no God, yet we follow the divinity of the teachings of Christ"). Or just plain denial ("Christianity says no such thing").

[Bluth Corporation]

Bluth uses a different definition of "Christian" to the rest of us. I find it helps to just nod politely and assume that most things he says are irrelevant.

Or contradictory ("there is no God, yet we follow the divinity of the teachings of Christ").

No contradiction there.

Or just plain denial ("Christianity says no such thing").

Because in those cases, Christianity in fact does not hold those tenets, and anything that does is not Christianity.

[Samuraikoku]

No contradiction there.

You're right. Denial.

Because in those cases, Christianity in fact does not hold those tenets, and anything that does is not Christianity.

Circular definition.

[Bluth Corporation]

No contradiction there.

You're right. Denial.

I explained to you in the other thread how it's not a contradiction, I believe.

Because in those cases, Christianity in fact does not hold those tenets, and anything that does is not Christianity.

Circular definition.

No.

A circular definition would be if I had said "A Christian is someone who believes what Christians believe, and so someone who does not believe in what Christians believe is not a Christian," without actually specifying what exactly it is Christians believe. But I have done just that, many times.

I suppose that one sentence you just quoted, if you entirely take it out of the context of our past discussions in which I have in fact explicitly said what specifically it is Christians believe, might seem circular--but even then, only if you ignore the fact that the phrase "those tenets" seems to indeed refer to specific beliefs that have already been mentioned elsewhere. In the context of those past discussions, there is no way it could be circular at all.

[NeoByzantine]

I'm pretty sure there are no Christians going on crusades anymore, sending out missionaries to rape, or torturing and killing people for not believing ("sending" them to hell is not torturing -_-) but if you can prove me wrong, all the power to you.

sure there are they are called the KKK.
the KKK is to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

you are an wrong the KKK hates everyone. most blacks are christians fyi also the kkk hates catholics