The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.
The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!
The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.
The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.
The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.
The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.
I've actually heard that one. Needless to say, this seems like a much stronger argument when surrounded with decent people at church and not when you're flipping through the evening news or driving by a megachurch or cracking open a history book.
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PMThe Argument From Substance:
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!
The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!
I would take back like 90% of my criticism if they would give me the Doubting Thomas treatment.
Quote from: John 20:24-28 (NIV)24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!†But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.â€
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!â€
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.â€
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!â€
It's super simple stuff. Just make a housecall, show something that's pretty clearly supernatural, and boom, instant convert. Well, that might be moving too fast. Someone who now takes religious claims a lot more seriously and finally has something tangible to work off of.
From there, it's relatively simple matter to investigate the religious group further and as evidence starts stacking up, it's pretty easy to admit that there's something there. And it doesn't have to be to showy, it can just be a couple amputee healings in plain view or something similar. As long as it's something that wouldn't spontaneously happen, that's pretty strong evidence.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 12:06:50 AM
I've actually heard that one. Needless to say, this seems like a much stronger argument when surrounded with decent people at church and not when you're flipping through the evening news or driving by a megachurch or cracking open a history book.
"They will know we are Christians by our love." God I hate that song. Patting themselves on the back, acting like they're better than everyone else, like they're not responsible for many of the world's problems.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 12:06:50 AM
I've actually heard that one. Needless to say, this seems like a much stronger argument when surrounded with decent people at church and not when you're flipping through the evening news or driving by a megachurch or cracking open a history book.
Were you surrounded by people who exhibited superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior that can only be explained by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 12:06:50 AM
I've actually heard that one. Needless to say, this seems like a much stronger argument when surrounded with decent people at church and not when you're flipping through the evening news or driving by a megachurch or cracking open a history book.
Pagans did nothing wrong ;-) Colosseum, Aztecs ...
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 27, 2020, 02:57:12 AM
"They will know we are Christians by our love." God I hate that song. Patting themselves on the back, acting like they're better than everyone else, like they're not responsible for many of the world's problems.
Yes, virtue signalers are so un-cool. Particularly SJWs?
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 08:07:11 AM
Were you surrounded by people who exhibited superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior that can only be explained by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost?
Casper the Friendly Ghost ... actually ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2020, 12:22:03 AM
I would take back like 90% of my criticism if they would give me the Doubting Thomas treatment.
When Jesus told Thomas that it's more blessed to believe than to doubt, I've often wondered if that means we should believe everything we are told by any person.
In any case, Thomas received special treatment from Jesus. Jesus won't bother to appear to most of us to convince us he rose from the dead.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 27, 2020, 02:57:12 AM
"They will know we are Christians by our love." God I hate that song. Patting themselves on the back, acting like they're better than everyone else, like they're not responsible for many of the world's problems.
I believe that song is more of an incentive for Christians to love others than it is a declaration of their love for others.
But it is basically true; we can know Christians by their love.
Quote from: Baruch on May 27, 2020, 09:11:46 AM
Casper the Friendly Ghost ... actually ;-)
Casper would be an improvement over the Holy Ghost. Consider what the Holy Ghost did to Ananias and his wife. (Acts 5) As far as I know Casper never bumped-off anybody because they didn't give him everything they had.
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 08:07:11 AM
Were you surrounded by people who exhibited superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior that can only be explained by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost?
Haha, no. Just decent enough people who thought that meant more than it did and were pretty desperate for new arguments.
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 01:57:52 PM
I believe that song is more of an incentive for Christians to love others than it is a declaration of their love for others.
But it is basically true; we can know Christians by their love.
In apocryphal gospels it is gay Jesus loving young men (Greek pederastry). That is the "young man fleeing naked" from Gesthemane when the Temple guards came to arrest Jesus. In Greek there is eros, philos and agape. No reason to think that this was just limited to agape. Philos could mean several things, but included pederastry. Literally this was a gay initiation ceremony, to gain membership to a roving gang of homeless men. Women weren't members, just material supporters (a gnostic group not a church). Though I don't think a little eros (straight sex) would have been out of place. Think the broadway play, Godspell, but with realistic interpersonal relationships, like in the 60s ... including taking local drugs (wine, opium and weed). Of course no "church" congregation would accept this, now or 2000 years ago. The original Jesus Hippie movement died out by 135 CE. At that point "elders", "deacons" of the Pauline Church were the norm, which was totally square. And by that time the first bishops had come into play. The "Didache" is the best documentation of an early Pauline Church. Complete with pentecostalism. Pentecostalism was driven from the Pauline Church by the bishops, in the 2nd century CE, because of the prophet Montanus and his two female hierophants/hierodules. It had to be reimported into Christianity, from the African Church (in America 120 years ago). Unless you can realistically "see" what an ancient cultus was like, you are just projecting 21st century sour grapes.
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 02:03:33 PM
Casper would be an improvement over the Holy Ghost. Consider what the Holy Ghost did to Ananias and his wife. (Acts 5) As far as I know Casper never bumped-off anybody because they didn't give him everything they had.
The early Jerusalem Church was a commune, like the kibbutz but urban. The Last Supper was in the urban Essene quarter of Jerusalem. Also broad minded in that both Hellenized and Palestinian Jews could be members. But not Gentiles. The story is referring to the assassination of a couple of welshers, who needed to be made an example of "for others". This is basically the same as any other Leftist revolution. Do not imagine, that in the first two centuries CE, that Jewish revolutionaries were typically pacifist, or pro-Gentile. That was the Pauline mission, which existed N and W of Antioch. That mission dies out when Constantine takes over. The Church since 320 CE has nothing to do with the New Testament. The New Testament being a pastiche of Pauline or Pauline-compatible preaching and novellas ... which does not accurately reflect 1st century CE conditions.
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 01:57:52 PM
I believe that song is more of an incentive for Christians to love others than it is a declaration of their love for others.
But it is basically true; we can know Christians by their love.
It's based on John 13:35, which says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If there's one thing Christians are not known for, it's their love. But of course, they say, "They aren't
real Christians!" But claiming that most Christians don't count only proves my point.
So many times I wind up thinking someone is a real dick weed and then they turn out to be a big time xtian :bigbye:
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 28, 2020, 12:12:20 PM
It's based on John 13:35, which says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If there's one thing Christians are not known for, it's their love. But of course, they say, "They aren't real Christians! But claiming that most Christians don't count only proves my point.
Pontius Pilate should have asked ... "What is love?"
One thing I learned long ago is if there is a sign something like this in a business window, 'Christian Business', I will not go in. that is a sure sign that they will fuck you without hesitation.
There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 28, 2020, 02:25:13 PM
One thing I learned long ago is if there is a sign something like this in a business window, 'Christian Business', I will not go in. that is a sure sign that they will fuck you without hesitation.
How many Chinese products have you bought over the last 25 years? You are a round eye Barbarian ;-)
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 28, 2020, 03:03:25 PM
There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...
The blame game is ... prejudicial. Arab Muslims would say, the problem is with non-Arab Muslims, including Turkish Muslims (see WW I). For example, the reason there are problems with the Indian reservations ... is it because of their relationship with the Federal government, because of their religion/culture or because they are Native Americans? One party would blame "fire water". Arabs originally had small scale desert oasis society in Arabia. They had to be hardy to survive at all. Yemen had successful irrigation by dam, but an earthquake destroyed that dam and it was never rebuilt. And they conquered in the name of Islam, like any other nomad society, off of the backs of prior successful farmers/ranchers.
I think it depends on the location (see Guns, Germs and Steel). Agriculture (and favorable weather) is the basis of prosperity, so location, location, location. Egyptian agriculture was very good until the building of the Aswan Dam by Nasser. But Iraqi agriculture has been underperforming since the Persian Empire. Both exist in deserts, but the Nile rejuvenated Egyptian crop land, but this doesn't happen with the Tigris/Euphrates. Why is that? Because the Nile did its annual silt deposit without human aid. Subsequent irrigation has to happen with manpower. This silt deposit doesn't happen in Iraq. Ancient Iraq had massive manpower every year to keep up the irrigation, but the soil became increasingly saline/infertile. After 3000 years of irrigation, it was played out.
Anatolia on the other hand, has had agriculture as long as Egypt and Iraq ... but doesn't even have massive rivers. Agriculture was small scale, and local flat areas were divided up by mountains. Already in the late Bronze Age, the Hittite Empire starved. The Indus Valley civilization failed even more quickly, by the Middle Bronze Age, because of changing monsoon patterns. Their cities depended on rain fed cisterns. China has had massive populations always, because of rejuvenating flooding of the Yellow river, and irrigation off of it ... the Yangtze river doesn't flood, but you can irrigate some off of it ... and massive rains in S China (necessary for rice farming) eventually contributed.
Iron age agricultural kingdoms and empires did prosper, though of course they had problems with weather, warfare and plague. In particular, the Crusades didn't set back Islam by much, it was the much more damaging destruction by the Mongols, that destroyed the whole Eastern half of Islam (as it existed then). Do maybe blame those Central Asian nomads, like the Turks ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 28, 2020, 12:12:20 PM
It's based on John 13:35, which says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." If there's one thing Christians are not known for, it's their love. But of course, they say, "They aren't real Christians!" But claiming that most Christians don't count only proves my point.
I think the argument goes like this:
I maintain that Christians can never be hateful because they are led by God.
Some professed Christians are hateful.
Such Christians are not real Christians because "no true Christian" would be hateful.
Therefore, Christians can never be hateful.
So I think the fallacy here is that the problem of Christians being unloving is being "solved" by defining away the problem. It would be like saying that pit-bull terriers don't bite, and if any of them do bite, then just say that those dogs aren't "true" pit bulls.
Anyway, Christians are like any other group of persons--some are good, and some are bad. I think a real God could do better.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 28, 2020, 03:03:25 PM
There is a common claim as to why the majority of Islam countries are underdeveloped: It's not because of Islam, It's because of Muslims. That is, Islam is not problem, the problem is with Muslims ...
That sounds like the claim that Christ is not the problem, but some Christians are the problem. So Christianity, like Islam, can survive with corrupt followers but not with a corrupt founder. That's why Christian apologists are so adamant that Jesus cannot be blamed for the inquisition or the witch hunts. And did you notice that Christian apologists rarely attack individual Mormons but tend to aim at Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? The excesses of Mormonism, as far as apologists are concerned, are to be blamed on its founders. If you get a "head shot," then the whole body will die.
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.
You don't even need to invoke atheistic "inspired" behavior or even sophisticated modal logic to negate this argument. Anyone that isn't a Christian, yet moral, will negate this argument by Proof By Contradiction.
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to be convinced ...
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.
I usually respond to these "divinely" inspired relays with "If god wants me to believe in him, let him tell me, not you."
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.
Easy to experiment with. Pray for some event to happen that otherwise would not happen (defies natural laws) and sit down and wait within a reasonable time frame. I'm confident jack shit will happen. And I reckon they'll respond with "god cannot be tested", or some shit which is quite convenient when you realize a bunch of people have been left with disappointment throughout the millennia.
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.
I already have. 5 times even. I'm an apostate because of it. Which I reckon they'll respond with I never believed or I wasn't really a Christian or some similarly scuffed response.
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!
Nothing short of someone appearing to me and claiming they were god and doing genuine miraculous stuff would convince me at this point - yet even that I would be skeptical about, because what if it was some advanced alien taking the piss of an earthling?
Don't ask an advanced but dirty minded alien, to piss on you!
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 29, 2020, 11:54:51 AM
You don't even need to invoke atheistic "inspired" behavior or even sophisticated modal logic to negate this argument. Anyone that isn't a Christian, yet moral, will negate this argument by Proof By Contradiction.
Obviously, any people led by a perfectly good God should exhibit exemplary moral behavior. Obviously, since such behavior is sorely lacking among Christians generally, apologists do not dare argue that it is not lacking.
QuoteWell, I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to be convinced ...
Sure, but I'm betting that actually seeing God rather than apologists merely arguing him would be a step in the direction of your being convinced that God is real.
QuoteI usually respond to these "divinely" inspired relays with "If god wants me to believe in him, let him tell me, not you."
If a Christian could tell you what you dreamed last night, would you believe God told that Christian what you dreamed?
QuoteEasy to experiment with. Pray for some event to happen that otherwise would not happen (defies natural laws) and sit down and wait within a reasonable time frame. I'm confident jack shit will happen. And I reckon they'll respond with "god cannot be tested", or some shit which is quite convenient when you realize a bunch of people have been left with disappointment throughout the millennia.
You have probably noticed that many Christians go to great lengths to rationalize failed prayers. Whether prayer works, or whether it doesn't, God always wins.
QuoteI already have. 5 times even. I'm an apostate because of it. Which I reckon they'll respond with I never believed or I wasn't really a Christian or some similarly scuffed response.
The reason no Christian apologist will argue "the Argument From Read the Bible and See" apologetic is because they know that the Bible is not going to convince everybody. Apologists also won't promise to respectfully accept the reader's judgment of the Bible because they want the option of telling the person how wrong she is if she does not accept the Bible as the word of God.
QuoteNothing short of someone appearing to me and claiming they were god and doing genuine miraculous stuff would convince me at this point - yet even that I would be skeptical about, because what if it was some advanced alien taking the piss of an earthling?
Apologists criticize some skeptics as refusing to believe no matter what evidence those skeptics might see. As you say here, though, even apparent miracles may not be actual evidence for God but evidence for something else. Christians have basically created a God that cannot be proved or disproved even in principle.
And that's their problem--not ours!
But what will atheists offer in place of a magic wishing tree? Communism?
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2020, 11:18:31 PM
But what will atheists offer in place of a magic wishing tree? Communism?
Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.
Quote from: Jagella on May 27, 2020, 01:57:52 PM
we can know Christians by their love.
Or their lack of it. Most Christians I have known, are more judgemental than loving. My closest friends where I now live are Christian, and they are also devout fundamentalists. The fact is, from my personal experience they are exceptions to the norm. I have never known Christians like this before who actually love others without setting conditions for their kindness. But it seems to me that for such people, love comes from a place far deeper from within them. It comes from a core of goodness that has little to do with their religion. Their Christianity is just something they have added to their lives, but it's not a part of that inner core that makes them decent.
We know people of decency by their love. Occasionally, some may be Christians. But it is hardly the norm. George Bush was a Christian. He murdered hundreds of thousands, maybe most of whom were innocent, and then he strutted around like King Kong. Bush wanted to legislate how people loved, but he had no loving core. Christianity? I'm not that impressed. Religion is the sheep's clothing that hides the wolf. It is not the cause of love. Islam and Christianity are just different suits of clothing.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 30, 2020, 02:28:46 AM
Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.
Baruch guides himself through life by channeling Joe McCarthy and other dead icons of the far right, so he comes off a bit weird most of the time.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 30, 2020, 02:28:46 AM
Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.
I could tell, even the women here have big beards and speak with a Russian accent ;-))
So, what is your magic wishing tree? Electing Joe Biden? Modern Monetary Theory (aka Weimar Republic)? You can't have hope without insane idealism of some kind! 2020 isn't over yet.
Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2020, 07:31:45 AM
Baruch guides himself through life by channeling Joe McCarthy and other dead icons of the far right, so he comes off a bit weird most of the time.
Not your grandfather's communists. Not your father's communists. The 21st century belongs to Karens From Hell ;-)
Atheism shmatheism. People here by self choosing are Leftist. I have been a Leftist my whole life. Liberal domestically, conservative internationally. Aka a Stalinist. Most of you are Trotskyites or Maoists. Leftists always oppose other Leftists, because they are puritans. Not looking for heretics, but closet Capitalists ... like Bernie.
Machine Gun Joe isn't my inspiration. Lavrenty Beria is.
Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2020, 07:20:08 AMOr their lack of it.
Again, if Christians don't exhibit a level of love and general morality that is noticeably better than that of the "heathen," then their claim to follow an omnibenevolent god becomes suspect. It seems reasonable to me that such a god would inspire people to attain great heights of goodness more regularly than Christianity does.
QuoteMost Christians I have known, are more judgemental than loving.
Well, we all should judge others, but I assume by "judgment" you are referring to a judgment based on prejudice and unyielding dogma. Whether Christians want to accept it or not, they do often judge people that way, and that kind of judgment follows directly from their religious beliefs. Christianity has a very dim view of people.
Quote...it seems to me that for such people, love comes from a place far deeper from within them. It comes from a core of goodness that has little to do with their religion. Their Christianity is just something they have added to their lives, but it's not a part of that inner core that makes them decent.
Yes. The kindness we treat others with results from our being social animals. We cannot survive as a species living in societies if we unnecessarily hurt each other or don't bother to help others in need. Christianity has effectively "hijacked" morality claiming falsely that it has invented morality.
QuoteChristianity? I'm not that impressed. Religion is the sheep's clothing that hides the wolf. It is not the cause of love.
Actually, the "love" preached by Jesus (if we can trust what was written about him) really wasn't what we normally think of as love. The gospel version of love is not the love between friends and surely not the love that sex partners may share. In the New Testament love is more akin to the love between a master and his slaves or between fellow slaves. Such love is based on either cooperation to reach a common goal, getting others to follow orders, or to avoid punishment. Jesus commanded love for his "Father." Jesus never told anybody to love God if you find him to be lovable.
And wouldn't a perfect being be perfectly lovable having no need to demand love?
Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If y[tou skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.
This "argument" is rarely used by apologists because they know that their god rarely changes people for the better. That said, we do sometimes hear of some person who allegedly quit using drugs, alcohol, or sleazy sex after converting to Christianity. Why is god so good in that regard yet cannot restore limbs (see below)?
QuoteThe Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!
Apologetics simply lacks substance, so apologists use a ton or words hoping we won't notice that it's all talk.
QuoteThe Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.
I lower the bar here by merely expecting Christians to know something a god might tell them. They can't even do that.
QuoteThe Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.
What do you call a Christian who tests prayer? Answer: An atheist!
QuoteThe Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.
No apologist would use this argument because they want to denigrate all Bible readers who don't agree with Christian dogmas. Are any apologists honest enough to admit that if you take their challenge to read the Bible and remain a doubter, then they will ridicule you telling you that you are too stupid to understand it?
QuoteThe Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!
Much of apologetics involves explaining away the dearth of verifiable miracles or ignores the problem completely. Does anybody wonder why?
@Jagella .. it is Greek to you ;-)
Agape, eros and philos. Agape was preached, this is love of the larger community, even enemies. Not master/slave. Epistle to the Ephesians states, that Free (aka Master) and Slave are equal in the sight of G-d. A completely radical POV for that time. Most people still consider the rich and powerful to be better than the poor and powerless. That the boss is better than the employee. The politician is better than the voter.
Eros is physical love. So you would like a Jesus who preaches lots of sexy times? Philos primarily means brotherly love. The women followers of Jesus were not included, just the disciples. This is a kind of Buddhist monk fellowship.
QuoteApologetics simply lacks substance, so apologists use a ton or words hoping we won't notice that it's all talk.
I love to watch this in debates. They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct. That follows etc." Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur. I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather. They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists." And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.
Quote from: SGOS on June 08, 2020, 07:33:53 AM
I love to watch this in debates. They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct. That follows etc." Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur. I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather. They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists." And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.
Circular reasoning is required for theological arguments ;-) Note: circular reasoning = you can falsely prove whatever you want
On other subjects, most people go for feels, they don't have any worthwhile ideas.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2020, 12:24:31 AM
Agape, eros and philos. Agape was preached, this is love of the larger community, even enemies. Not master/slave. Epistle to the Ephesians states, that Free (aka Master) and Slave are equal in the sight of G-d. A completely radical POV for that time.
I'm not sure why you see "slave love" as somehow different from love for the community. No doubt virtually all Jewish slave masters expected their slaves to behave themselves obeying Jewish law and living in harmony with others in the community. These masters then loved their slaves in that the masters did not want their slaves to end up in prison or executed--except if their slaves had very good reason to get themselves in trouble. I think Jesus drew an analogy between such masters and slaves and God and his followers. Jesus' disciples were to behave themselves only getting into trouble for the sake of "God's kingdom."
QuoteMost people still consider the rich and powerful to be better than the poor and powerless. That the boss is better than the employee. The politician is better than the voter.
Christianity lives right alongside of these attitudes. The "love" Christians preach for others is that subordinates obey their authorities much like slaves are expected to obey their masters. In other words, love your masters or pay a price.
QuoteEros is physical love. So you would like a Jesus who preaches lots of sexy times?
Absolutely Jesus should have preached eros. Our modern notion of sexual love is absent from the gospel story. Jesus is never said to have loved a woman in that way, and neither did he preach that it was good. Heck, he even said it was better to have yourself castrated! Such an attitude is misogynist and devoid of love for women and sexual passion.
So again, the gospel's version of love is very different from what most of us think of as love today. Jesus never preached that we should encounter God so we get a chance to love him for his wonderful nature--rather, we are to love God or face his wrath.
Interesting. You seem to have a fixation on sex ;-) Pretty common you know ;-))
Also English is your first language? You seem to be unaware that Greek words have meanings different than the King James English.
Criticize because of what you think it says or what you wished it said ... as opposed to reconstructing what it meant to the people who first heard it. Pretty much what the Church does too ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on June 08, 2020, 07:33:53 AM
I love to watch this in debates. They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct. That follows etc." Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur. I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather. They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists." And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.
I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who feels this way. When I watch debates, I often get lost listening to the apologist wondering how they come to some of their conclusions. It's common for William Lane Craig, for example, to assert his points with little or no logic or evidence to back those assertions. That said, I do catch some fallacies as they wiz by, but, of course, I'm not there to correct the apologist.
To be fair, though, skeptics are not perfect debaters either. Like apologists, all they usually present is a lot of words. However, a lack of substance is not a problem for skeptics like it is for apologists. That's why skeptics are skeptical after all--there is no substance to the issues surrounding the truth of Christian claims.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2020, 05:56:11 PM
Interesting. You seem to have a fixation on sex ;-) Pretty common you know ;-))
I'm not the topic.
QuoteAlso English is your first language? You seem to be unaware that Greek words have meanings different than the King James English.
I've studied some New Testament Greek...
Ï,,á½° πολλά μοÏ... γÏάμμαÏ,,α (!)
And yes, I'm well aware that there are different Greek words for "love" and that those words are defined differently. I think you need to build a case that the "love" Jesus preached cannot be the kind of love that might be shared between master and slave like I have argued.
By the way, I got my idea of the gospel version of love from Bible scholar Hector Avalos in his book,
Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence (https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Words-Origins-Religious-Violence/dp/1591022843/ref=sr_1_7?crid=2EB93RFYEVOM2&dchild=1&keywords=fighting+words&qid=1591658819&s=books&sprefix=fighting+w%2Cstripbooks%2C206&sr=1-7). I'd recommend you read the book.
QuoteCriticize because of what you think it says or what you wished it said ... as opposed to reconstructing what it meant to the people who first heard it. Pretty much what the Church does too ;-)
If you're going to debate the meaning of archaic languages, then it would be a good idea to use complete sentences in English.
I won't debate, just pointing out an obvious bias. Proof texting is a Christian practice ;-)
Yes, people who post here are the issue, even if they don't believe it ;-) People who lived 2000 years ago aren't the issue, they are long dead.
Could master/slave have love? Of course, I wasn't denying it. I misinterpreted you as saying that was a key value.
Typical master/slave sexual behavior in Roman times happened in the home. Mistress could F who she wanted, and Master did the same. Both sexes. But in modern terms, sex between unequals is considered exploitation, regardless of the feelings involved. Philos love of a master would lead to manumission. Roman slaves were frequently manumitted. But under manumission, you became the employee, not free. Patron/Client system. With Gentile slaves of Jewish masters, these frequently were manumitted to the synagogue (community) that the master was a part of. This is where many "god fearers" came from, associated but not kosher. This is why circumcision was such an issue with Apostle Paul ... in his community only, a Gentile god-fearer, however he came to faith, didn't have to be kosher (or circumcise). Very popular, because only Jews, Arabs and Egyptians circumcised (ancient African practice). Non-semitic/non-hamitic people considered uncircumcision with pride, considered circumcision a horrible disfigurement. With Gentile slaves of Gentile masters, you became part of his "corporation". Clients had to appear each morning at the foyer of their Patron, to sing his praised and to ask for work or a handout. They didn't have an HR department ;-)
Have you seen the mini-series Rome? Very accurate in detail about Romans.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/554985.In_Search_of_Paul
John Dominic Crossan knows his material. Not just text studies, but archeology and anthropology.