Christians don&#39;t read their Bible

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.14.2020 09:52PM

-->

@PGA2.0

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.

What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.

#123

Intelligence_06

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

Intelligence_06

08.15.2020 01:40AM

false. Christians read their bibles.

#124

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.15.2020 12:44PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.

Don't you think that is a cop out response? True culture plays some part in what book we read - but in a multi-cultural country, the odds of picking up any number of books is pretty good. And if he had picked up - say a book on Marxism which would be a pretty high probability, can we say that such a pick up had any influence?

And I would say yes. What many non-Christians like to say however is that our culture determines our religion - rather than allowing for the possibility that our parents actually considered education and logic and reason as good things - and that because of their influence of such things the child still picked up the bible amongst a whole lot of other books and found that the bible had a lot of reasonable things to say to our culture.

I think it is a form of arrogance to suggest otherwise. A cop out if you like.

My parents encouraged me to read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Marx, Shakespeare - and the bible. I also read Dawkins and Hawking amongst other books - yet, nothing compares to the Bible. Nothing comes close. One of my parents was atheistic and the other Christian. Both wanted me to have a broad education - hence why I could study law and economics with honors. I loved logic and rhetoric etc. Yes, culturally there was a probability I might pick up the bible - but so what?

I actually came to the bible as an atheist. And I was one of those people who tried to prove it wrong. And yet we here we are. I went from defending crooks in the court room to defending Christians in the forum. Culture can only play a part of this change.

#125

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

Stephen

08.16.2020 06:32AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Christians don't read their Bible

Does that include you?

#126

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.16.2020 06:47AM

-->

@Tradesecret

I regularly come to the bible as an atheist, and accept it for what it is. Which doesn't mean accepting everything as fact. As with all mythologies, it's pretty easy to determine which bits are perhaps fact and which bits are definitely fictional embellishment.

#127

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.16.2020 10:01AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Ok I can live with that response - but it still does not mean that because a Christian happened to be born in the West that he is simply one because of the culture he was born into.

#128

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.16.2020 10:31AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Yep I can agree with all that.

Though West is only really

relative to ones present location.

And I would suggest that conditioning plays a huge part in how most people eventually turn out....So how, when and more importantly where one receives ones formative conditioning will undoubtedly have a significant influence.

If someone were born in either the American Bible Belt or in Iran, I think that it's fair to suggest that one could quite confidently predict certain outcomes.

Of course, there are always exceptions to rules.

#129

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.16.2020 12:57PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Interesting discussion.

I think that the nature of the religious person often demonstrates whether it was conditioning, culture, or perhaps something else that created the way people turn out.

In Christian circles and I suspect in other circles as well there is often a distinction between children born into the faith of their parents and their own ownership of the same faith. It is true that Christians and I suspect other circles as well desire to see their children continue in their faith they were brought into - but also recognise that unless there is ownership of it personally, then the faith will not be as strong as it ought to be.

I think this probably applies in other types of society as well. This is one reason that the educationalists like to have as much say over children from as young an age as possible. They know that if they get a kid from 7 years of age - they can get them for life. I think one reason there is a strong increase of people in non-religious views these days is because the school system is educating religion out of people. If we got rid of public schools, religious numbers would increase. And this is not because education is bad for religion - in fact religions love education - it is the type of education that begins with a different worldview.

I think some of the studies that reflect that the Left are more likely to be non-religious and more highly educated are misleading. It is undoubtedly true on raw stats. Yet it is misleading because it assumes that the religious are therefore less likely to be able to discern between good and bad politics - or between good and bad thinking. Yet the reality is that most religious folk are quite educated - not necessarily with higher degrees or even a college degree. And many churches - at least the ones I have been involved within - contain quite successful business persons - large and small, they contain large numbers of tradies - people who are concerned with largely practical matters - but nonetheless are making significant decisions and reasoning in quite complex manners everyday - and what is more - are very wealthy. Interestingly in the past previous three churches I have been involved with in three separate cities - the leading medical and legal practitioners have also been quite involved at the churches.

It might be true that the more educated in college degrees and post graduates - the less you are going to be religious - yet - if the colleges are essentially churches or seminaries for the secular this would not be surprising. In fact I would be surprised if it were not the case. This is one reason I think that college and universities and indeed EVERY school should not be publically funded. ALL education facilities should be totally funded by those who attend and or by private beneficiaries - who support the primary culture of those facilities. Then - the market would determine our politics and religion more justly not those in positions with agendas that they mostly can run with because the taxman is paying for it.

#130

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.17.2020 03:34AM

-->

@Tradesecret

What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.
Don't you think that is a cop out response?

No, not at all. I asked a valid question of Peter, and made an educated guess at his answer. He is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

Also, for the record, your reply did not address my question as you neglected the implied indoctrination and focused on a limiting (and absurd) reduction of culture (and picking up random books).

I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.

#131

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.17.2020 04:18AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

No, not at all. I asked a valid question of Peter, and made an educated guess at his answer. He is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

Fair enough.

Also, for the record, your reply did not address my question as you neglected the implied indoctrination and focused on a limiting (and absurd) reduction of culture (and picking up random books).

I did not address the implied indoctrination because I take the view that indoctrination is inescapable. I do not hold to the view that some people or cultures are unbiased. Everyone believes what they think is true - otherwise they would think something else. And since everyone thinks they are correct in their worldview, even though most would espouse that they are not perfect and make mistakes they would still continue to promote their views all the same. It does not matter which culture or worldview this is how it is.

I also don't think my notion reduced culture absurdly or otherwise. In America indeed as it is throughout the world in Western Nations specifically, they are melting pots of cultures. By their very nature - most of these nations have removed the bible and Christian influence from schools - and most homes, even Christian homes don't have a bible. 50 years ago this was not the case - but it certainly is the case now. And many people don't necessarily read the bibles well enough to understand it. Many people call themselves - Christian - mostly nominally. And they certainly don't put their religion ahead of their current culture.

When people then suggest that the reason I have a bible is because I was born into this culture - I do see it as cop out. It is our culture which unlike most other cultures has a tolerance of other religions. It is our culture which believes in principle in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It therefore is just as likely that we will pick up a Koran or Marx's book or Hitler's book as we are a bible. In fact probably now bibles are less in vogue. I saw the NYT suggest that the bible burning recently was because it was good for kindling. The fact is - go to another culture in the world and it is very likely you won't get a bible. Only one book - supporting whatever dogma or political system is the primary one in power. It is only in the West - that it is more likely than not that you will have available other books - which is ironic. That the very book which provided for the freedoms we enjoy - will in fact probably be the first book to be burned permissibly for kindling to set up a fire for the American flag.

I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.

Yes, but if also picked up another book - it would be for the same reason - and if he was in another country - he would not be able to pick up a bible. Not unless it had been totally censored.

#132

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.17.2020 04:41AM

-->

@Tradesecret

There's too much unrelated to my post for me to engage your entire reply. It would drag us down too many rabbit trails. Ill just point out the mistaken reduction - I did not suggest owning a Bible was purely due to being born into a culture. I didn't even suggest revering a Bible was solely a cultural phenomenon. I suggested the Bible was sought by Peter because of influences related to "culture, authority figures, etc."...and you agree:

I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.
Yes [...]

I don't see any reason for us to disagree on my views presented here. We would certainly disagree on most of the rest of your post, but that would derail the thread. I think there is potential for an interesting discussion so I'll refrain for once in my life. :-)

#133

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.17.2020 06:25AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

There's too much unrelated to my post for me to engage your entire reply. It would drag us down too many rabbit trails. Ill just point out the mistaken reduction - I did not suggest owning a Bible was purely due to being born into a culture. I didn't even suggest revering a Bible was solely a cultural phenomenon. I suggested the Bible was sought by Peter because of influences related to "culture, authority figures, etc."...and you agree:

I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.
Yes [...]
I don't see any reason for us to disagree on my views presented here. We would certainly disagree on most of the rest of your post, but that would derail the thread. I think there is potential for an interesting discussion so I'll refrain for once in my life. :-)

Ok. I will not disagree with your response - though I reserve the right to if necessary to do so in the future.

#134

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.17.2020 07:44AM

@ Tradesecret

Well starting at the end and working backwards:

Firstly, when is public funding not public funding?

Paying for ones own children's education and the choice of ethos therein, is in essence no different to accepting State provision through taxation. The difference is, that you inevitably will end up with a factional society based upon religious difference. In my opinion religion should be separate from State especially in education and especially in early years when children are at their most vulnerable and easily influenced. Let's be honest, religious information by the very nature of it's variation and uncertain origins is not a sound factual basis for the needs of a cohesive society. By far the best basis for a cohesive society is to enforce the notion of equality and that just cannot be achieved if formative conditioning is based upon a privately funded system of religious separatism.

The academic ability and consequent social status and wealth of an individual has little to do with religion per se. Inherent physiology, and inherited social status and it's associated influences and effects are far more important. In short there will inevitably be clever and wealthy Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etc. Just as there will always be the opposite. In other words, natural hierarchy prevails irrespective of religion.

"Religion loves education" and "getting kids for life" yep you said it.... Religion getting kids for life is no different is to educationalists getting kids for life. Though you cannot teach religion out of people as it fundamentally is not there in the first place. Religion is taught into people, and for the reasons given above is not necessarily a benefit to the needs of a cohesive society.

So how people "turn out" is determined by inherent ability, inherited social status and formative and ongoing conditioning.....Natural hierarchy and what you were taught to think by parents, family, community, school, state and media. And I would suggest that the immediacy of media through technology based information systems, is rapidly becoming the overriding conditioner of younger people. If every option is available, then kids will choose for themselves....Though on the other hand the concern is that who controls the media controls the future. Which may or may not be a good thing from a human perspective, but looks like it's inevitably the way things will evolve.

Whether or not highly evolved technology will take on board the concepts of traditional religions as an operating system seems pretty unlikely. One would imagine that pure, emotionless logic is the only way forwards.

#135

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.18.2020 10:53AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Forgot to tag you above. #134

#136

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.19.2020 12:22AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Hi, I saw it - I am just working on a reply.

I have started numerous times and then deleted what I wrote.

Will reply soon. Good questions.

#137

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.19.2020 07:19AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Firstly, when is public funding not public funding?
Paying for ones own children's education and the choice of ethos therein, is in essence no different to accepting State provision through taxation. The difference is, that you inevitably will end up with a factional society based upon religious difference. In my opinion religion should be separate from State especially in education and especially in early years when children are at their most vulnerable and easily influenced. Let's be honest, religious information by the very nature of it's variation and uncertain origins is not a sound factual basis for the needs of a cohesive society. By far the best basis for a cohesive society is to enforce the notion of equality and that just cannot be achieved if formative conditioning is based upon a privately funded system of religious separatism.

The academic ability and consequent social status and wealth of an individual has little to do with religion per se. Inherent physiology, and inherited social status and it's associated influences and effects are far more important. In short there will inevitably be clever and wealthy Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etc. Just as there will always be the opposite. In other words, natural hierarchy prevails irrespective of religion.

"Religion loves education" and "getting kids for life" yep you said it.... Religion getting kids for life is no different is to educationalists getting kids for life. Though you cannot teach religion out of people as it fundamentally is not there in the first place. Religion is taught into people, and for the reasons given above is not necessarily a benefit to the needs of a cohesive society.

So how people "turn out" is determined by inherent ability, inherited social status and formative and ongoing conditioning.....Natural hierarchy and what you were taught to think by parents, family, community, school, state and media. And I would suggest that the immediacy of media through technology based information systems, is rapidly becoming the overriding conditioner of younger people. If every option is available, then kids will choose for themselves....Though on the other hand the concern is that who controls the media controls the future. Which may or may not be a good thing from a human perspective, but looks like it's inevitably the way things will evolve.

Whether or not highly evolved technology will take on board the concepts of traditional religions as an operating system seems pretty unlikely. One would imagine that pure, emotionless logic is the only way forwards.

Public funding of education ensures that the secular view of the world will dominate and squeeze out other perspectives. My view is that this is unjust and cruel to other worldviews and perspectives especially given they are the ones who end up paying for their own views to be squeezed out while the secular view is paid for by all other positions. This is a form of cultural genocide - in substance - just one that takes generations to achieve.

The ironic thing about secularism is despite its rhetoric of equality - it tends to favor views that agree with it rather than those who oppose it. Hence it does not practice equality. And while I do happen to agree with equality - but let me explain that further. I think that equality occurs when the state applies the law equally to all people under the law. I don't take the view that this means that everyone has to be equal per se. I am not even sure that everyone being equal means except and save it is the same under the law.

Keeping kids in one's religion is a good thing to desire. We all have views about the world and we obviously think they are right even if we would concede that they are not perfect. Otherwise we would think differently. I don't agree that all religions or worldviews are equal - I think some are far more dangerous than others. I think some are far better than others. I do however believe that all religions and worldviews ought to be treated equally under the law.

I also agree that church and state ought to be separate - though exactly what that means is vague. For me it means that the state is not subject to the church and the church is not subject to the state - because their is a separation of powers doctrine underlying it. Others though take a perverse view and one that is based more upon a doctrine of secularism rather than separation of powers. They think the state can tell the church what to do and that the church should just keep out of politics and society.

When you talk about separation of church and state what are you referring to?

#138

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.19.2020 08:42AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Well as I see it "Church" is a bit like riding a bike, it should be something that people choose to do when the basic day to day chores are out of the way. And lets be honest some people are just as passionate (religious) about a chosen sport or leisure activity as others are about theist ideas.

The overwhelming problem for me is that Theism is a collection of diverse and unproven "worldviews" and rigidly conditioning young minds with such uncertain ideas is socially counter-productive. Here in the U.K. the destructive divisions created by the enforced teaching of Catholic and Protestant dogma in faith schools has been all too apparent.

The problem also with an unproven and diverse choice of "world view" is the inevitable overspill from pure theist hypotheses into conflicting ideas and dictates of social governance. Just look at how the anti-abortion lobby is dominated by religious groups in the U.S. and yet pure theism makes no such judgements. That is to say, that theism always tends to try and exceed it's hypothetical parameters and dominate or influence the rules of social governance.

And so my questions to you are, that given the availability and accessibility of theist ideas anyway, why do you see the need to enforce a system of theism based social separatism upon vulnerable young children? Are you suggesting that the needs of an uncertain "Church" are greater or more important than the needs of a cohesive and real-time society?

#139

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.19.2020 09:05AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Well as I see it "Church" is a bit like riding a bike, it should be something that people choose to do when the basic day to day chores are out of the way. And lets be honest some people are just as passionate (religious) about a chosen sport or leisure activity as others are about theist ideas.

The overwhelming problem for me is that Theism is a collection of diverse and unproven "worldviews" and rigidly conditioning young minds with such uncertain ideas is socially counter-productive. Here in the U.K. the destructive divisions created by the enforced teaching of Catholic and Protestant dogma in faith schools has been all too apparent.

The problem also with an unproven and diverse choice of "world view" is the inevitable overspill from pure theist hypotheses into conflicting ideas and dictates of social governance. Just look at how the anti-abortion lobby is dominated by religious groups in the U.S. and yet pure theism makes no such judgements. That is to say, that theism always tends to try and exceed it's hypothetical parameters and dominate or influence the rules of social governance.

And so my questions to you are, that given the availability and accessibility of theist ideas anyway, why do you see the need to enforce a system of theism based social separatism upon vulnerable young children? Are you suggesting that the needs of an uncertain "Church" are greater or more important than the needs of a cohesive and real-time society?

Thanks for your email. I think suggesting church is a bit like riding a bike is unhelpful. While it may be true that there is a perception along those lines for some - it is not likely that anyone is going to agree that following a sport is religious. Whether or not some people choose to go to church does not reduce its validity and ongoing place in the community. There are still more people attending church each week that attend sports games. And while the numbers may be reducing the numbers are still a force to deny it should have any say. After all - even the local sporting club is prepared to advocate to the government for its specific interests.

Now while the problem for you seems to be the collection of diverse and unproven worldviews, this too is unhelpful. No worldview is proven. Secularism for instance is not a proven worldview - indeed many people would react against the idea that it is a worldview at all. Similarly with atheism. Yet it seems you don't have a particular problem with it been forced onto children. I for the record do not want secular ideas pushed onto my children. And nor do I want to be forced to pay for them to be secularized with someone' else's worldview. The world has diverse views because there are diverse points of religion. People who send their children to faith schools - and who pay for the education of their children - ought to be able to dictate what they are paying for. Education is a tool. Yet it is NEVER neutral. If a catholic wants to send their child to a protestant school - that is a choice they make - and ought to pay for. Similarly, if the situation was reversed. Forcing all people to send their children to a public school which is going to teach against their family values is more of a problem for society. It causes resentment by children towards their parents. It causes resentment by parents against the teachers and against the government. It causes resentment by the parents against the so called Left wing progressive elements in society. It is actually one of the most destructive and divisive tools against families and I suggest society as a whole.

I see the teaching teaching young kids necessary - because all education is non-neutral. It is never a matter of teaching in a vacuum - someone will always fill up the hole somewhere. Secular teachers desire to fill it up with the secular worldview and they don't care how it hurts the family. In fact they think it is their responsibility to recondition the children. I say that is elitist and unhelpful and morally wrong.

#140

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.19.2020 02:20PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.
What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.

It was because even though my parents were not overly religious, even lived like atheists by their lifestyle to some degree, they did not discourage my faith. One of my fondest memories from my youth was of my mother and me kneeling by my bed and saying a simple prayer, "Gentile Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Pity my simplicity and suffer me to come to Thee. Bless Mommy and Daddy, cousins and friends, and make me a good boy, Amen."

Another is a Bible which I still have which was given to me by my grandmother with her written inscription quoting Jesus, "Suffer little children to come unto me." So, even though I did not know my grandmother well (I only met her a couple of times) I had an ally praying for my salvation. I also had other allies praying for my salvation later in life when I had a car accident in South Africa in 1979 because my roommate in the game reserve I worked on was a "born again Christian," so was another staff member. Four members in the car suffered life-endangering injuries, including me.

Other fond memories from earlier life were of a Christian family who befriended me and took me to a Presbyterian church on Sunday during my early teens.

So, when I ran into difficulty in my mid-twenties I had a foundation to turn back to and sought after God. When my father died in 1979, I went back to South Africa. His death triggered my quest for meaning in life. The events that happened after that orchestrated my coming to faith, as I look back on them; as I said the car accident being one of those incidents, but there were many other "coincidences" that drew me to God. My uncle who lived in a suburb of Cape Town would take me up the mountains to cut down a tree that was choking out the indigenous vegetation. As we climbed he would quote Scripture to me, "As you sow, so shall you reap..." I kept running into Christians during that period in my life who left an impression upon me. I kept having things happen that while uncomfortable lead me to seek meaning.

Although I accepted the teachings of Christianity in the early 1980s, I only started investigating the biblical faith when I started attending church, evangelizing, and meeting secular and other religious faiths roadblocks and contrary teachings to the Christian faith. I have spent extensive periods of my life investigating opposing beliefs and finding out what makes them tick. I have read extensively great Christian thinkers in trying to respond to unbelievers' objections. I have tackled a number of religious faiths in getting to their core beliefs. God has continually confirmed His Word during this time as being able to make sense of life's ultimate questions like no other religious view I have examined can, including atheism and agnosticism, especially atheism and agnosticism.

Where our "stories" depart is that during difficulties and times of testing I did not turn away from the faith and was rewarded for my perseverance. You turned away too soon. Through God's grace I pray that in His mercy He will lead you back from your apostasy to trusting Him, nevertheless His sovereign will determine what happens. So, go your own way, and may God be merciful to you and your family that you may find hope and life in abundance. Time will tell.

#141

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.19.2020 02:55PM

-->

@PGA2.0

These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination (ie. the unsubstantiated claims put upon me in my upbringing) and you did not. You viewed your life experiences as validation of those claims and went to the source of the claims (the Bible), but that method can be used by a person of any faith in any culture (it would simply be a different Holy book). If the 'path to god' can be used by those who would oppose your particular god, then the reasoning is flawed. One person can validate their indoctrination with life experience and find Jesus, another can find Allah, another finds Vishnu, etc.

Not to mention, this speaks to my point, that the Christian belief (most often) comes before the investigation, and, because of this, not knowing the Bible and being a Christian isn't all that surprising.

#142

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.19.2020 03:01PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

PS. One thing I have come to believe about you is that you have a poor understanding of the Bible. I am given that insight by what you say. That was confirmed in our debates on prophecy. You practice eisegesis, not exegesis. Of our two positions/debates mine was more reasonable and followed the teaching of Scripture. Unfortunately, those who judge the debates also have an interest in determining the outcome. The overall bias on this and other debate forums is against the Christian worldview and thus it is confirmation bias, IMO. Your fatal flaw in our debates was that you ignored the primary, relevant audience of address and the biblical time statements. So, to you, "this age" became another age, "this generation" became another generation, "you" and other pronouns became general and universal applying to way future generations that have nothing to do with OT Israel and that covenant, instead of speaking specifically to the disciples and 1st-century Jews in that covenant relationship. You have a bias against Scripture that does not let you hear what the words actually teach/say and to whom. Thus, you interpreted your own meaning instead of finding the different author's (and ultimately, the Author's) meaning.

On top of this, you now look at life from a relativist, secular perspective and have much invested in this new foundation whose core beliefs are built on no foundation at all, no means of making sense, no means of visible support, but in mid-air. When you critique me, your own particular bias and investment comes shining through. As I have said, none of us are neutral, we all come to the table (so to speak) with a bias. Remember that - there is no neutrality! The question is as to whether the bias reflects the truth or not. So, which worldview is capable of making sense of existence? I claim that yours can't. It is inconsistent.

#143

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.19.2020 03:14PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination (ie. the unsubstantiated claims put upon me in my upbringing) and you did not.

No, you were indoctrinated into another system of belief that is inconsistent with its starting or core beliefs, the things that you would have to believe about origins.

You viewed your life experiences as validation of those claims and went to the source of the claims (the Bible), but that method can be used by a person of any faith in any culture (it would simply be a different Holy book).

Yes, it can, but the key is how the internal belief stacks up with reality. I claim yours does not, and I have discussed this in varied posts throughout our correspondence. I always come away very dissatisfied with your ability to explain and make sense of ultimate questions. Your worldview has no explanability when you lift up the hood and look at what powers your belief.

If the 'path to god' can be used by those who would oppose your particular god, then the reasoning is flawed. One person can validate their indoctrination with life experience and find Jesus, another can find Allah, another finds Vishnu, etc.

The evidence comes with the religious writing, and I would include atheism and agnosticism as a religious belief. I have explained why I do so many times before.

Not to mention, this speaks to my point, that the Christian belief (most often) comes before the investigation, and, because of this, not knowing the Bible and being a Christian isn't all that surprising.

Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there? To do so you would have to understand how Christ is revealed in every OT writing and in detail. The NT explains the typology to some extent. We, as Christians, discover it more as we study Scripture. I could lay it out in minute detail but the unbeliever seldom picks up on the UNITY of Scripture. Those who depart from the faith seldom understand the intricacy of Scripture. Not only this, but they do not understand the audience of address. Dispensationalism has made many doubt the audience of address. They no longer take the word at face value but apply all kinds of foreign and private interpretations to it. They make their own meaning instead of extracting the Author's meaning.

#144

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.19.2020 03:19PM

-->

@PGA2.0

The subject of this thread is about Christians not reading their Bible, and I've provided reasons why that statement may be true. You've not argued against my point, but have focused on me and how I have strayed from a path to your god. I'm not opposed to having that conversation (again), but this thread is not the place.

#145

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.19.2020 06:18PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

The subject of this thread is about Christians not reading their Bible, and I've provided reasons why that statement may be true. You've not argued against my point, but have focused on me and how I have strayed from a path to your god. I'm not opposed to having that conversation (again), but this thread is not the place.

You made it personal when you questioned my belief or why I believe what I do.

How does what you said,

"What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar,"

relate to reading my Bible? Whether I had beliefs about the Christian God before I read the Bible does not necessary mean that I misinterpret it. I charge you do misinterpret, thus even though you may have read it you are not understanding the message and I provide reasons why.

YOU: "These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination."

You turned to another indoctrination. We all build on something to form our opinions and beliefs. The secular society you live in indoctrinates you.

I gave my opinion why your faith failed. And with that I charged that you did not have a good biblical understanding, judging on our past debates. The subject is "Christians don't read their Bible" so you are guilty just as much of avoiding the subject and are being duplicitous in providing a double-standard by your accusation. What you give an example of you doing is in avoiding the subject but you do not allow me to do the same. And, then again, I would say that a misinterpretation has to do with how you read the Bible as I explained in previous posts.

I addressed the particular passage and argued for why I believe what I do.

When I read my Bible I glean reason from its pages and I can make sense of why the universe and world is as it is. What about it is so unreasonable? In many of my posts with unbelievers, I provide evidence by the impossiblity of the contrary/reductio ad absurdum. I can give a reason for something (i.e., existence, life, morality) or give evidence of something by showing the unlikelihood or absurdity of the opposite or contrary. What was the purpose of this particular thread titled, "Christians don't read their Bible?" I would say that the chances are it was to discredit or shine a poor light on the Christian faith, mock the believers as clowns or people who cannot justify their belief system or not read the biblical message properly. I turn the tables on that discussion. Your faith outside of God is the absurd faith. I have questioned many times how you can make sense of meaning, value, purpose without presupposing God. I keep claiming you can't. I am totally dissatisfied with non-Christian belief systems in their ability to explain things. What are these titles designed to do? They are skeptical and they promote Christians to doubt their faith, like you did and admit to doing, oh skeptical one.

#146

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.19.2020 06:32PM

-->

@PGA2.0

You made it personal when you questioned my belief or why I believe what I do.

I didn't question your belief, just the faulty reasoning by which you adopted someone else's religious beliefs (not necessarily those in the Bible) as your own.

I didn't read the rest of your post - sorry. It didn't seem relevant. I started a new thread based on an argument from your last reply.

#147

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263

08.20.2020 07:12AM

-->

@Tradesecret

So: If "left Wing Progressives" and their associated worldview, want to set up their own school for their own children then that's ok. (What ever a "Left Wing Progressive" might be. Perhaps they have two heads and six legs.)

Where does this end?....World view encompasses ideology in all forms....How tolerant of radical worldviews are you? Or is this just a case of all worldviews are equal but some worldviews are more equal than others.

The bottom line is that factional ideologies are divisive and serve no real educational purpose other than to proliferate divisive worldviews. Which is what has been happening for millennia and clearly doesn't work in terms of a tolerant and cohesive world.

And let's be honest, no matter how well engrained a persons theistic beliefs or worldviews have become. Theism in all forms is still nonetheless, archaic, myth based unprovable hypothesis.....Historical value maybe, but even the value of teaching about the past is debateable.

Personally I cannot see the value of conditioning children with a 2000 year old worldview in the 21st century....China for example is no longer a mysterious and inaccessible place on the other side of the world. China is now only the click of a button away. Conditioning our children to believe that they are different from Chinese children just isn't a benefit to the advancement of a now global society...So teaching our kids that they are different from the kids down the street is just plain backwards thinking and frankly a quite stupid way of carrying on in a Nation that probably considers itself to be a progressive world participant.

#148

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.20.2020 08:01AM

-->

@zedvictor4

So: If "left Wing Progressives" and their associated worldview, want to set up their own school for their own children then that's ok. (What ever a "Left Wing Progressive" might be. Perhaps they have two heads and six legs.)

Absolutely. I have no issue with this so far as they pay for it themselves. It is their right. I don't have to agree with their ideas.

Where does this end?....World view encompasses ideology in all forms....How tolerant of radical worldviews are you? Or is this just a case of all worldviews are equal but some worldviews are more equal than others.

I take the view that if they pay for their own worldviews by themselves - that unless it is a pretty successful one with good ideas it will fall flat. I take the view that progressive political views would die if they had to actually pay for it themselves - this is why they make it compulsory so that it wont die out. I think all worldviews should be equal under the law - in the sense that all views ought to be subject to the same laws.

The bottom line is that factional ideologies are divisive and serve no real educational purpose other than to proliferate divisive worldviews. Which is what has been happening for millennia and clearly doesn't work in terms of a tolerant and cohesive world.

No that is incorrect. Factions are part of our human pysche. No one is totally absolute - we all fall somewhere on the line of absolute v relativism. Factions are just another word for competition. We don't want a system where there is no competition. Yet we do want one where successful worldviews are promoted fairly and where others fall by the wayside.

And let's be honest, no matter how well engrained a persons theistic beliefs or worldviews have become. Theism in all forms is still nonetheless, archaic, myth based unprovable hypothesis.....Historical value maybe, but even the value of teaching about the past is debateable.

So you keep saying - but I disagree with you. It is not just religious worldviews - it is EVERY worldview that is unproveable. Yours included. It takes as much faith to believe yours as it does for me to believe mine.

Personally I cannot see the value of conditioning children with a 2000 year old worldview in the 21st century....China for example is no longer a mysterious and inaccessible place on the other side of the world. China is now only the click of a button away. Conditioning our children to believe that they are different from Chinese children just isn't a benefit to the advancement of a now global society...So teaching our kids that they are different from the kids down the street is just plain backwards thinking and frankly a quite stupid way of carrying on in a Nation that probably considers itself to be a progressive world participant.

I am not into conditioning per se - the point is every child is ALWAYS going to be conditioned by someone - so let us at least do it in a way that suits someone. In my view - it should be user pays themselves - that way - we will see worldviews that reflect the views of their parents - and if they want to pay someone else- good - and if they dont good.

The more the merrier in my view - so far as they pay for it themselves.

#149

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.20.2020 03:16PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

You made it personal when you questioned my belief or why I believe what I do.
I didn't question your belief, just the faulty reasoning by which you adopted someone else's religious beliefs (not necessarily those in the Bible) as your own.

Again, you are equivocating, trying to turn the tables on what I have said. My belief is in the Lord Jesus Christ. There as essential things about Him I must believe to be a Christian. If I am wrong in my interpretation, biblically speaking, point out my apparent misinterpretation. Whose religious beliefs did I adopt? Show me. Show me where my religious beliefs are not biblical.

I didn't read the rest of your post - sorry. It didn't seem relevant. I started a new thread based on an argument from your last reply.

That is because you have a particular agenda. I read every part of your posts to find out what you are saying. Regardless, perhaps other are interested in what I have said, so it is not solely for you that I explain myself.

#150

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,263