Just got banned from Christian Forums

[Mike Cl]

Truth is not subjective and there is no alternative truth. Any departure from truth is falsehood. I remain, Sir, the one and only...

St Truth

I followed your reply to Baruch quite easily and in agreement. Except for this last sentence.  How is 'truth' not subjective?  What objective source of truth is there?

[St Truth]

Everyone judges.  Many are even aware of it.

Making judgments is probably one of the most fundamental survival mechanisms in evolution, and it occurs at all levels of intellect.  At higher levels of cerebral development, evolution gives the human species and unintended extra capacity to make incredibly stupid judgments beyond that of the lower mammals.  So extra capacity has both advantages and disadvantages.  Evolution has not had enough time to sort out the disadvantages of higher capacity because abundant consciousness has only been around for a few million years.  Evolution is still working on this unintended consequence, so to speak.

I think you are on the right track, but I do question what you expect to find in a Christian forum.  There is nothing new under the sun in Christianity.  Today, it suffers from the same irrational approaches to problem solving that it did two thousand years ago, and religion in general is still as irrational as it was when the Egyptians ran the world.  And in all my 70 years I have never seen a new religious perspective.

OK, you're 15, and I can certainly understand you needing answers to some of the biggest philosophical theoretical questions that have ever been proposed by man and con-men.  Christian forums have been answering these theoretical questions with the same illogical explanations that I was introduced to in Sunday school 65 years ago.  And the methodology has not changed.  It's still irrational answers to irrational questions.  And when you're 40, you will have gained nothing from a Christian forum that you won't have encountered at work, on the street, from cashiers at the grocery store, or books written by theologians.  But it's good that you examine the answers, and even better to examine the questions, because an irrational question is an immediate set up for a trip into Alice's Wonderland.  Just don't waste too much of your precious time and energy on it.

You're on track, but maybe ease off a bit, and don't feel so compelled to make sense out of the unintelligible nonsense, even though it's being shouted out from every street corner, which seems to be how mankind uses all this extra cerebral capacity and the unintended consequences he has been given.  Sure, man has made some stunning achievements, mostly from a few handfuls of very gifted men, some even thrown out of church for their gifts to mankind.  But most humans shout nonsense, even though we consider ourselves to be the cutting edge of evolution.

Thanks for your post. You have put it more eloquently than I could on why judging is important. No, I'm not searching for meaning in Christian Forums. It's a dumb place with strict rules. Anyway, they banned me. Actually, it was not a real ban. They wanted me to go for counselling with one of the admin folks. They banned me from all forums but allowed me to go to the 'Support' forum for counselling. I have listed myself as a Christian (Church of England) and the admin who wrote to me said that they had to ban me because of my posts. They were concerned that a Christian should argue so firmly against God.  Of course I refused to go for counselling. If there is anyone who needs counselling, it's the entire bunch of loonies in CF. I could easily search the internet and tell them what psychiatric medication they needed. I have left CF and have on intention of going back. Nor do I intend to go to any Christian or religious forum. It's really like a madhouse. I think I feel more at home here even though I'm a church-going Christian  and an altar boy. But my vicar knows my stand and so does at least two bishops. A bishop told me that as long as I was prepared to say the Creeds, I was a Christian. One of the creeds says 'We believe...' There's no problem there because it's a collective creed - I belong to the group. He says the other creed that says 'I believe...' is all right for me because the 'believe' means I submit to the tradition of...  If I recognise God as a tradition of Mother Church even though he doesn't exist as a being, that is fine. He says there are priests and prelates who don't believe in God either. My church is a liberal and progressive church.

But people in CF are extremists. They say my bishop is wrong and the entire Church of England is wrong. They insist that you have to mentally believe in God to be a Christian. So by their definition, I'm not a Christian. You might as well ask me to believe in Peter Rabbit if you want me to mentally accept blooming God. So, it's a constant tussle with the people in CF and they can get really malicious. I suppose they don't like to see a church-going altar boy speaking the truth about the non-existence of mythological beings. One of them said that if he were my bishop, he would not just excommunicate me; he'd burn me at the stake. Wonderful Christian love. LOL.

But I can't be silent if I see nonsense being trumpeted. I will have to say something politely. Because I believe if a boy of my age can tell it's nonsense, the adult who mouths the nonsense must know in his heart of hearts that it's nonsense. I'm just reminding him that it's nonsense.

[trdsf]

I followed your reply to Baruch quite easily and in agreement. Except for this last sentence.  How is 'truth' not subjective?  What objective source of truth is there?

Repeatable observation.

[St Truth]

I followed your reply to Baruch quite easily and in agreement. Except for this last sentence.  How is 'truth' not subjective?  What objective source of truth is there?

You have to bear with me. I am not au fait with philosophy and if you are going on some philosophical roller-coaster, I might not be able to follow you. I will explain how I see things in my own simplistic way.

Truth must be objective. It may not be accepted by someone who is ignorant of it but that doesn't change the truth. It's still the truth. So truth is true whether people can see it or not. We may all be deluded into believing in something erroneous and we may spurn the truth but truth is unchanging. I accept that there are many areas in the frontiers of science where we may accept an error as truth. But with the progress of knowledge, scientists (it's always scientists) soon correct their misapprehension and the truth is finally recognised by the scientific community and the more educated segment of the public.

The possibility that we may sometimes err and regard falsehood as truth does not give us the licence to assume that we can't be sure of what the truth is. That's rubbish that will only be circulated by people who have the agenda of pushing nonsense down your throat. Of course there will be dark areas and gaps in scientific knowledge but that is no excuse for someone to introduce his imaginary beings that aren't supported by any reason or evidence to the fore. Rational people should quash any such attempt to give space to imaginary beings. We must maintain general human sanity.

I hope religious people will forgive me here. I'm not saying they are insane. No, by no means. Many of them are intelligent people. But the idea itself is insane. These intelligent theists are highly intelligent people who accept without question insane ideas. But they are quite sane themselves. I hope I am clear there.

[Mike Cl]

Repeatable observation.

Are you saying that truth and facts are the same?

[Mike Cl]

You have to bear with me. I am not au fait with philosophy and if you are going on some philosophical roller-coaster, I might not be able to follow you. I will explain how I see things in my own simplistic way.

Truth must be objective. It may not be accepted by someone who is ignorant of it but that doesn't change the truth. It's still the truth. So truth is true whether people can see it or not. We may all be deluded into believing in something erroneous and we may spurn the truth but truth is unchanging. I accept that there are many areas in the frontiers of science where we may accept an error as truth. But with the progress of knowledge, scientists (it's always scientists) soon correct their misapprehension and the truth is finally recognised by the scientific community and the more educated segment of the public.

The possibility that we may sometimes err and regard falsehood as truth does not give us the licence to assume that we can't be sure of what the truth is. That's rubbish that will only be circulated by people who have the agenda of pushing nonsense down your throat. Of course there will be dark areas and gaps in scientific knowledge but that is no excuse for someone to introduce his imaginary beings that aren't supported by any reason or evidence to the fore. Rational people should quash any such attempt to give space to imaginary beings. We must maintain general human sanity.

I hope religious people will forgive me here. I'm not saying they are insane. No, by no means. Many of them are intelligent people. But the idea itself is insane. These intelligent theists are highly intelligent people who accept without question insane ideas. But they are quite sane themselves. I hope I am clear there.

No, I'm not being philosophical but realistic.  Are you saying that scientific facts are truth?  And that truth and facts are interchangeable? In order for us to communicate effectively, maybe yu could explain what it is you mean by truth--what is your definition?

[SGOS]

But people in CF are extremists. They say my bishop is wrong and the entire Church of England is wrong. They insist that you have to mentally believe in God to be a Christian. So by their definition, I'm not a Christian. You might as well ask me to believe in Peter Rabbit if you want me to mentally accept blooming God. So, it's a constant tussle with the people in CF and they can get really malicious. I suppose they don't like to see a church-going altar boy speaking the truth about the non-existence of mythological beings. One of them said that if he were my bishop, he would not just excommunicate me; he'd burn me at the stake. Wonderful Christian love. LOL.

I would guess that most Christian forums are extreme.  If they are mostly American, I doubt they even know that much about the Anglican Church, and here, when asked if you are a Christian, the context is usually posed as "Please don't tell me you are Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon (Anglican wouldn't even come to mind).  Here, if someone is so rude to ask that question, he's probably going to be from the extreme, the less tolerant Christians that thinks of themselves as the real Christians, while everyone else may be well intentioned, but miserably misguided.

Forums in general, often draw the extremes, at least the ones that are NOT devoted to topics like replacing leaky faucets.  Even this forum represents an extreme, if not a niche, at least in the sense that atheism and religion are continually being discussed.  Outside of this forum, I'm surprised when I count my atheist friends.  There are actually quite a few, but it's no big deal to them.  They don't talk about it unless pressed, they don't think about religion much, and to my knowledge, none have ever gone online to an atheist forum.  In my mind, I differ from them in that I think about religion a lot, which makes me at the extreme end, at least in my mind.

I came here during a time in my life when I was surrounded by fundamentalists.  It was an unusual to find myself in such an environment, and they were driving me so crazy, so I sought out a forum where I wouldn't feel like I was in a mental ward all the time.  And then I realized a lot of the topics here are just interesting by themselves, so I just hang around.

[Hydra009]

I would guess that most Christian forums are extreme.  If they are mostly American, I doubt they even know that much about the Anglican Church, and here, when asked if you are a Christian, the context is usually posed as "Please don't tell me you are Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon (Anglican wouldn't even come to mind).  Here, if someone is so rude to ask that question, he's probably going to be from the extreme, the less tolerant Christians that thinks of themselves as the real Christians, while everyone else may be well intentioned, but miserably misguided.

CF is disproportionately populated with American conservative/evangelical Christians - the "born again", "on fire for Jeezus", "The End Times are nigh" kind of Christian.  Southern Baptists, Catholics, and some pretty scary Calvinists.

They had some moderate and/or liberal Christians, but they were a distinct minority and treated kinda badly, imo.

[trdsf]

Are you saying that truth and facts are the same?

On some level.  I'm not prepared to get into some philosophical to-do about some rarified definition of 'truth'; suffice to say that I'm satisfied to call a repeatedly demonstrable fully explained observation objectively true.  It is objectively true that we live on a rocky worldlet an average of 150 million km from a self-sustaining fusion reactor, for example, and just because it's an observed fact doesn't put it in a different class from 'things that are true'.

[St Truth]

No, I'm not being philosophical but realistic.  Are you saying that scientific facts are truth?  And that truth and facts are interchangeable? In order for us to communicate effectively, maybe yu could explain what it is you mean by truth--what is your definition?

Truth is that which is true. The quality of being true. Or, in case you want to know what 'true' is, truth is that which accords with fact and reality. I'll give an illustration. This statement is true: 'The September 11 terrorist attack happened before I was born.' This can be verified by looking at my birth documents, checking with my parents, checking with the priest who baptised me, looking at the records in the hospital where I was born. Truth is verifiable with evidence or in some instances (for example some truths in astrophysics) by reason and calculations.

[Baruch]

Repeatable observation.

Confirmation bias and group think ;-)  I would agree, as long as no humans are involved.

[St Truth]

I would guess that most Christian forums are extreme.  If they are mostly American, I doubt they even know that much about the Anglican Church, and here, when asked if you are a Christian, the context is usually posed as "Please don't tell me you are Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon (Anglican wouldn't even come to mind).  Here, if someone is so rude to ask that question, he's probably going to be from the extreme, the less tolerant Christians that thinks of themselves as the real Christians, while everyone else may be well intentioned, but miserably misguided.

Forums in general, often draw the extremes, at least the ones that are NOT devoted to topics like replacing leaky faucets.  Even this forum represents an extreme, if not a niche, at least in the sense that atheism and religion are continually being discussed.  Outside of this forum, I'm surprised when I count my atheist friends.  There are actually quite a few, but it's no big deal to them.  They don't talk about it unless pressed, they don't think about religion much, and to my knowledge, none have ever gone online to an atheist forum.  In my mind, I differ from them in that I think about religion a lot, which makes me at the extreme end, at least in my mind.

I came here during a time in my life when I was surrounded by fundamentalists.  It was an unusual to find myself in such an environment, and they were driving me so crazy, so I sought out a forum where I wouldn't feel like I was in a mental ward all the time.  And then I realized a lot of the topics here are just interesting by themselves, so I just hang around.

I feel the same way you do. I joined Christian Forums to discuss matters pertaining to my religion. It seemed like the natural place to go to. But the hostility and the malice of Christians can be quite frightening. But to be fair to them, I posted quite a lot against the faith. I attacked the traditional view that Paul patched up with Peter and I took the view championed by Bart Ehrman that Paul started a new religion that was opposed to the religion of the real Apostles. I was warned by a moderator that questioning St Paul's authority as an apostle was not allowed in the Christians-only forums.  So they moved my thread to where atheists are allowed to be on. A lot of Christians tried to take me on but I had truth on my side. I could show from the Bible itself why there probably was no reconciliation as false reported in Acts and it was plain to everyone that I was right.

But we have to put everything in its proper perspective. I was only banned for blasphemy and for attacking the teachings of my own religion. I was merely banned from a forum. If I were a Muslim, I would have been killed. The world saw what happened when a 20-year-old journalist in Saudi twitted that he didn't agree with Muhammad on some points. And old clerics wept openly and demanded his death. He tried to run away but was arrested and today, he is still in jail. Just twitting that you don't agree with Muhammad is enough to attract such a terrible punishment. What a barbaric religion! For all that I have said against my faith, if I were a Muslim, I think I would have been stoned a thousand times over. Don't think they will excuse minors. I read about a boy my age who had his right hand and left leg cut off for refusing to 'fight for Islam'. The problem with Islam is the Hadiths which describe the cruel tortures by Muhammad against his enemies. And in Islam, every Muslim is required to emulate Muhammad and think of him as the perfect man. People who don't understand Islam won't understand why insults against Muhammad are deemed blasphemy which attract the death penalty.

So, I got away pretty lightly for my blasphemies and attacks against orthodox Christianity. I would be dead by now if I were Muslim.

[Baruch]

On some level.  I'm not prepared to get into some philosophical to-do about some rarified definition of 'truth'; suffice to say that I'm satisfied to call a repeatedly demonstrable fully explained observation objectively true.  It is objectively true that we live on a rocky worldlet an average of 150 million km from a self-sustaining fusion reactor, for example, and just because it's an observed fact doesn't put it in a different class from 'things that are true'.

Just because actual scientists, can agree on, within a band of error, what the rest mass of an electron is ... doesn't mean we objectively know who won the US Presidential election.  The first is fine ... for engineers.  It matters when I am doing engineering.  But the other ... is far more important, and there will never be any agreement ... because what one decides ... is based on philosophy, emotion or both.  Objective facts (like what I had for lunch) are important to me, but a nothing-burger for anyone else.  And to verify it, you would have had to be at the eatery at lunch time, and inspect what I was eating.  Now you will never know, because it can't be repeated (and I am not sure how much the conditions were controlled) ... you will never know ... anymore than anyone knows the real story behind the Lincoln assassination.  Other than repeating the official propaganda (aka what history is).

[Mike Cl]

On some level.  I'm not prepared to get into some philosophical to-do about some rarified definition of 'truth'; suffice to say that I'm satisfied to call a repeatedly demonstrable fully explained observation objectively true.  It is objectively true that we live on a rocky worldlet an average of 150 million km from a self-sustaining fusion reactor, for example, and just because it's an observed fact doesn't put it in a different class from 'things that are true'.

Yeah, I like that.  Sounds good to me.

[Baruch]

CF is disproportionately populated with American conservative/evangelical Christians - the "born again", "on fire for Jeezus", "The End Times are nigh" kind of Christian.  Southern Baptists, Catholics, and some pretty scary Calvinists.

They had some moderate and/or liberal Christians, but they were a distinct minority and treated kinda badly, imo.

Such people consider Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, High Church Lutherans, Mormons etc as hell-spawn.  So no surprise how they reacted to St Truth.  Try going on a Mormon website and shouting down Brigham Young.