Contributors

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Quite Popular

Pope Francis is quite popular, as in, sky high approval ratings. A whopping 88 percent of American Catholics highly approve of Pope Francis. Among the American people as a whole, his approval rating stands at an incredible 75 percent.

So even though conservatives have made the pontiff the newest target of their hatred, Americans overwhelmingly side with him. This suggests that even many conservatives love the Pope despite what right-wing leaders think. After all, it’s unlikely that these numbers are composed only of those who lean liberal.

Man, that's a whole lot of "fake" Christians!

25 comments:

GuardDuck said...

that's a whole lot of "fake" Christians!

The day you actually read what is said to you and don't twist it into something completely unrecognisable from the original I will be utterly shocked.

Mark Ward said...

Here's your chance to explain it, GD. What should a "real" Christian believe here?

Is salvation by faith alone?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

Or here...?

Is there an unforgivable sin?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/unforgivable.html

Or here...?

Do Christians sin?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sin.html

Here's a bonus one...just for you and NMN

Does Hell Exist?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hell.html

GuardDuck said...

What should a "real" Christian believe here?

That's what you are twisting Mark.....


When you keep using the arguments of atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, it's hard to believe that you actually believe.

Mark Ward said...

The words of the Bible are atheist? That's a new one!

You accuse me of picking only the parts of the Bible I want to believe..that I have to look at ALL of it in order to be a true Christian. Well, here is all of it in terms of the topics we are discussing. Which column is correct? It's clear that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of...again:)

I reconcile the contradictions in the Bible by recognizing that historical context, cultural context, language barriers, and the fault of man translate into some errors. But so what? That takes nothing away from Christ's message and a fundamental spiritual structure that is second to none.

Getting to this point requires thought, reason, faith, reflection and prayer. The insecurity and belligerence that comes from adolescence works against you and the others as well.

GuardDuck said...

Is the Bible wrong? That is the heart of your questions, yes?

Your point is that we can dismiss certain sections of the Bible because it is wrong. You show some examples of contradictions and others that can be considered 'factual' errors. You then extrapolate that because of these errors other parts of the Bible, such as those dealing with sin and other items that can be considered moral issues and thus not a 'factual' issue, are also wrong.

The major error in your line of thought is thus: If the Bible is wrong, then why do you believe in God in the first place?

Do you believe in God? Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe in the salvation of your soul?

Where do you get this information?

Your primary source for the existence of God, Jesus and salvation is the Bible.

But you have said that the Bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. You cannot place your faith in it. Yet on matters that can cannot be verified, where the ONLY source for the matter is a book you say cannot be trusted you place ultimate faith and trust in it?

Does this at all seem like a contradictory thought process?

If, as you say, the Bible was written by men and thus full of errors and even falsehoods then the very existence of God as proclaimed may be an error or falsehood.

In point of logic, if the Bible is wrong at all then it must prove that God does not exist.

Follow: If God is an actual god, then he has the powers of a god. If he has powers then he can exert his will. If it is his will to communicate with man and have such communication written then he can have that communication written properly. Ergo, the Bible is the will of God. If the Bible is wrong, then it is not the will of God and it is ALL wrong - including the existence of the god portrayed within.

Now, when an atheist or agnostic such a juris says the Bible is wrong, that is not a self-contradictory argument. They do not believe in God and thus claiming the Bible is wrong does not conflict. Further, if they said that the Bible was always right then they would also be referring to the existence of God and thus such a statement would be self-conflicting.

If a believer, such as NMN, says that the Bible is right, that is not contradicting as they believe in God and the Bible as his word. But if MNM said the Bible was wrong that would be just as contradicting as if juris said it was right.

That leaves us with you. You supposedly believe in God but claim the Bible is wrong. Perhaps you do believe in God. But what you don't believe is the Bible. That is where I claim you aren't a Christian. Because the Bible is the guidebook for Christianity. If you don't think the Bible is correct, you may still believe in God, but whatever religion you are is not Christianity. It cannot be as you reject the book.

If you had said that your religious beliefs were loosely based upon Christianity, self-modified to fit within a framework of modern North American liberal political beliefs, then I would never have objected to your self characterization.

Mark Ward said...

I see. So I have to believe all of it or none of it, is that you are saying? Not just parts of it? Otherwise I am not a Christian? Funny, I had both an atheist and conservative Christian tell me that in the last week. I think there is a post in that somewhere.

Nowhere in your comment did I see what YOU believe, GD. Do you believe all of the Bible? If so, how do you reconcile the contradictory words contained therein? If not, do you just believe some parts?

GuardDuck said...

I had both an atheist and conservative Christian tell me that in the last week.

Didn't I just say that would make logical sense? You find it funny and should make a post about it? What's funny?

Nowhere in your comment did I see what YOU believe, GD

Why does it matter what I believe? Nothing I've argued regarding this has anything to do with what I believe, other than a belief in logic...

Look, if you were an atheist and argued that the Bible was wrong - I wouldn't bother arguing with you as religion is an act of faith and I can't argue you into believing. If you were a believer and argued that the Bible was right, I wouldn't argue, again because religion is faith and I won't argue you out of your faith.

But you are being inconsistent and that is what I am arguing. You don't believe the Bible, but you proclaim to follow the religion of the Bible......THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Not just parts of it

What parts? Who decides? You? So what you are saying is that YOU decide what parts of a particular religion YOU want to follow. Fine. Do that. But when YOU decide that then the religion is YOURS, one that YOU made up, not the one that you are picking choosing from.

Look back up there a bit. What religion do you follow? Follow. That word means something. You can't say you follow a religion if you are not ACTUALLY following it.....

Mark Ward said...

Look, GD, I've played this game with you many times. You won't admit what you are because then you'd have to open yourself up to the same examination you are giving me right now. You talk a pretty big game but can't take what you dish out, most of which is nonsense, btw. Why?

Based on the comments you have written here, NMN is not a Christian either. He only follows half the Bible which, I suspect, is the half that you follow. You don't believe all of the Bible and you think parts of it are wrong as well. But you like to "prove me wrong" hence the cowardice. You know full well that if you admit to being an evangelical then you have to answer your own questions.

Take a look at this again...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Now, NMN believes the left column to be true. I believe the right column to be true. They can't both be true. The passages on the right are prime examples of what I have been saying all along. So who follows the religion of Christianity? Me or NMN?

Here's something else for you to consider...

"[W]e recognize that the various books of the Bible were actually written down by quite a number of human beings, many of whom were
revising and compiling the earlier work of others, as well as conveying oral traditions
passed down through generations. So the Bible has many human fingerprints on it, all
those of men of their own times. Second, we believe that the Bible is inspired by the
Holy Spirit. What does 'inspired' mean? Surely, it does not mean 'dictated.' We do
not imagine the men who composed our scriptures becoming automatic writing
instruments under the total control of the Spirit."


http://www.wvdiocese.org/pages/pdfs/oldthingsmadenew/Chapter6.pdf

Also not followers of Christianity?

GuardDuck said...

You won't admit what you are because then you'd have to open yourself up to the same examination you are giving me right now.

No, because it is completely irrelevant. None of my arguments are dependent on my personal religious views.

you have to answer your own questions.

Except for the fact that I'm not trying to tell anyone that the Bible is right or wrong. You are.

NMN believes the left column to be true. I believe the right column to be true. They can't both be true

I can tell you don't actually read what NMN says and quotes because you are still ignoring what he says about context.

Also not followers of Christianity?

I don't know, do they say Bible is WRONG? Does inspired by the Holy Spirit allow them to change fundamental issues such as sin?

Or rather, does their stance allow them to explain minor inconsistencies without ALTERING the meaning like you try to do?

Juris Imprudent said...

Except for the fact that I'm not trying to tell anyone that the Bible is right or wrong. You are.

Well you see GD, there's the problem - you aren't agreeing that M's interpretation is the only correct one. That is what he is looking for - approval.

Mark Ward said...

Does inspired by the Holy Spirit allow them to change fundamental issues such as sin?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/unforgivable.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sin.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/forgive.html

Change from what to what? Which verse is correct? They are all part of the Bible.

Or rather, does their stance allow them to explain minor inconsistencies without ALTERING the meaning like you try to do?

Which meaning?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/peace.html

GuardDuck said...

Again, read what NMN has posted, read for context. You can't take one quote out of context and compare it to another taken out of context.

Context means reading what comes before and after. Then applying reading comprehension to that.

Remember NMN's post about the old testament laws set down for the sons of Israel don't apply to Christianity? Yeah. Palms are old testament. Oh, and Corinth 14:33 isn't talking about war or violence (reading comprehension fail).

Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 aren't talking about Jesus being non-peaceful. They are talking about man being non-peaceful due to the disruption that Christ's words would cause. (reading comprehension fail)

Luke 22:36 Heh! Is defence peaceful? Does one have to be a pacifist to desire peace? Strange thoughts there.

And for a final reading comprehension failure - Revelation

19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

FOLLOWED BY:

19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

I thought the question was about Jesus, not the unnamed rider of the white horse?

Mark Ward said...

So, there are no contradictions in the Bible? Only quotes taken out of context to make them appear that way? Does that mean you believe all of it as opposed to none of it?

GuardDuck said...

Don't try to put words in my mouth, you have a hard enough time properly dealing with the actual ones that come out of it.

Mark Ward said...

You're really arguing all over the place here, GD. First, you childlishly lie in characterizing my argument. But you always do this so whatever...

Then you bitch that I don't use the actual text of the Bible. So, then I point to the text, ask for an explanation and then you bitch about context. Then I provide my passages which illuminate the context further, even repeating the point again for clarity and it's still "not right."

I also point to the Episcopalian faith (2 million members) and one of their core beliefs which is essentially saying the same thing I am and you conveniently dodge it.

You do all of this without actually making an argument yourself or stating your basis for reasoning. You just know that I'm wrong. Or the fake version of me you created is wrong.

Two very simple questions, GD

Are there contradictions in the Bible? (Y/N)

Do you believe all of it, some of it, or none of it?

My answers are yes and some of it. Your turn.



GuardDuck said...

So, then I point to the text, ask for an explanation and then you bitch about context

YOU POINTED TO TEXT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE YOU DON'T READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

For fucks sake Mark, read the shit around those passages and apply a little fucking thought to it. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you even read them because it took all of a few minutes to determine the ridiculous nature of those so-called contradictions. It seemed a lot more like you just did a google search and copy-pasted the first thing that looked like it fit your argument.


I also point to the Episcopalian faith (2 million members) and one of their core beliefs which is essentially saying the same thing I am and you conveniently dodge it.

Uh, no they don't. Do they change the meaning of the words in the Bible to suit them? Then they aren't doing anything 'essentially' like you are.


You do all of this without actually making an argument yourself or stating your basis for reasoning.

Is logic such an unfamiliar concept to you that you can't see it when it is explained directly to you. The logic is the argument, that you can't see it says a lot.

Two very simple questions, GD

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the fuck do my beliefs fucking matter to this conversation? If I am a atheist would it matter in any way to my arguments? If I were a Muslim? My arguments are not based upon my personal beliefs - they are based upon logic and reading comprehension. The only use for you to have my beliefs is so you can engage in some twisted pecker measuring contest of 'my beliefs are better than yours'.

Hell Mark, I've not even told you that your beliefs are wrong, but you for some reason NEED to know mine so you can disparage them?

Juris Imprudent said...

M, I grew up in the Episcopal church. You are not saying the same thing as they do. I guess you really do have reading comprehension issues - because you are not saying the same thing as the link you provided. [And of course this is not the first time that has happened.]

The Episcopal tradition teaches the Bible in context - the part you keep insisting isn't relevant. That is how you get to a valid interpretation - not just by quoting one or two passages as the basis for your belief. The church also teaches reliance on doctrine (contra the fundamentalist reliance strictly on the Bible), and yes, doctrine has been known to change over time. But that does not mean the meaning of the Bible changed.

Mark Ward said...

My father's family was Episcopalian as well so I spent my youth going back and forth between that church and my mom's Presbyterian church. Ultimately, I settled on Presbyterian which would another one of those "liberal" churches, preaching serving the poor, helping the sick, extolling peace and love and largely ignoring sin. Both the church I went to in my home town in Wisconsin and the one I attend on occasion here helped to form the basis of my faith, although it has really been the last few years of individual study and reflection that has been more of a factor. With no one inserting themselves between you and the Lord, it makes spiritual growth a lot easier.

The church my wife belongs to is Lutheran and it's where we take our kids. They focus primarily on serving the community and ignore sin completely as well. After a recent trip to Target to buy gifts for less fortunate families, one of the church leaders and I got into a discussion about sin. She said, "Isn't it nice that with the Grace of Jesus, we don't have to worry about sin anymore? We can just focus on helping people." Amen.

My sister's church (Methodist) largely does the same thing and has even had sermons devoted to extolling the work of Rob Bell (Hell does not exist). Each church I have mentioned above has several thousand members and affiliates around the country. This is the direction that Christianity is moving and the sect where NMN belongs is in a shrinking minority.

So, it's obvious to me, juris that not only are you unaware of what is being preached today in the modern church but you haven't studied the Bible in awhile. Considering you are an atheist, I guess that makes sense yet your adolescent hubris compels you to contrary to me which is amusing as always. Example: you have admitted previously that you couldn't reconcile the differences in the text so that's why you don't believe. Yet now you are saying that there are no contradictions and I'm taking things out context. You offer no examples to back this up and have offered no commentary to the many passages I have offered that support my points....passages, btw, that you have requested. As I said, adolescent hubris...

A key question at the heart of this debate, however, can reveal if you understand the meaning and context of the Bible and I do not understand either.

Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?

I'll offer my answer after you offer yours.

Juris Imprudent said...

"Isn't it nice that with the Grace of Jesus, we don't have to worry about sin anymore? We can just focus on helping people."

That is hardly a new debate within Christianity. That you think this is some new feature (and "settled") and not a long historical debate just shows how little church history you know.

Yet now you are saying that there are no contradictions

Really? Where did I say that? Are you just so desperate to win that you have to invent things I did not say? That is just childishly dishonest.

Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?

Binding on whom? All people? Christians only? Jews only?

Mark Ward said...

I think you are capable of answering the question and detail the parameters for all groups of people.

GuardDuck said...

Look at this quote:

"Second, we must look at the context of each verse in the whole book in which it appears. What comes before and after? Often, it will be something quite contradictory, especially in St. Paul’s writing, but in the Gospels sometimes, as well. As in so many
things, context is everything.
Next, we might consider what the author’s original purpose seems to be. Of course, we may not know for sure. But from the text itself, and from
other writings, we can come to some strong suggestions. One part of that purpose might be found in examination of the setting of the work itself. It was written originally for a particular group of people, at a particular time, and in a particular place. Who were those people? What was going on for them? Why would this work need to be written to them? What were their cultural norms and expectations, and how would this work either affirm or challenge those?"


Now, would someone saying this be following along what I and NMN have been saying, or does that philosophy fall under what you say you essentially do?

Juris Imprudent said...

I'll answer your question after you apologize for lying about what I said. How does that sound? Otherwise fuck your sanctimonious stinking ass.

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm in an ever so slightly more charitable mood at the moment.

So, who are bound by OT law?

According to the OT - God's chosen people.

Mark Ward said...

I'm going to turn this into its own post later in the weekend so we can switch commenting to that thread.

Juris Imprudent said...

And notice that M never apologizes for lying and putting words in my mouth.

So very childish and dishonest.