Axiom: Christian God exists and the Bible is true. page 2 (locked)

73 posts

Flag Post

Ooh seems like I’ve made some waves.

MyTie,

Well, we disagree. Concerning the “deity” of Christ, I wonder how you reconcile you beliefs about what the Bible says in the first 14 verses of John, particularly the 10th verse. Anyway, I don’t plan on changing yours, nor anyone else’s mind. Believe what you’d like. Instead of typing a wall of text in return, I’m gonna go make a taco. Night!

I would suggest once again metaphor. The start of John is, to be fair, intensely strange. It is perhaps the most simultaneously gradoise and abstract language within the entire bible. The notion of Christ as Logos, or The Word, finds no repetition elsewhere – not even with the rest of John’s gospel. So it is certainly something to tackle.

It is the tale of the Word, representing eternity, light, and truth becoming flesh. I see this as an affirmation of (divine) inspiration. Of the importance of the mental and spiritual plane over the physical plane, the flesh, the personage becoming secondary to the message the Word. The idea of Logos as an identity as opposed to a Concept I find as a strained interpretation.

I find the idea of a Spiritual analouge to an Earthly familiarity quite common in John. Consider the treatment of King/Lord, and especially Kingdom. Also worth noting is the treatment of genealogical terms in John 1.

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

A specific denunciation of earthly literal child/father in favor for a spiritual birth and possession. Also using the same language attributed to the divinity of Jesus.

I feel there was some more we could hash out in my last post. I’d enjoy the discussion if you’d like to return to it. I am particular curious as to what you feel it means to be “the Son of God” in the literal sense.

422,

Ungeziefer This isn’t an English literature essay. Your more likely to get accurate responses, if you use plain English that the mass can understand clearly. Your writing style certainly isn’t the norm and this isn’t a forum for creative writers.

Quite right, it is an English literature dialogue. I’ve no interest in doctoring my expression for mass appeal. I do well enough to keep myself entertained. I also find some of the terms I use take on greater implication due to their role in previous discussions. I and a few others often really hash out the nature and understanding of the words we are using.

The course Christianity has gone in as a whole is not surprising to me, that’s another assumption. I’m not talking about customs I’m talking about whole new spirituality concepts and additional mythologies not varied interpretations of biblical ones. I’m not going to mention them by name because that would derail the topic even further.

Sounds interesting to me. Would you like to create another topic in the regard perhaps?

This is where the discussion falls apart, The whole point of the axiom was to draw believers who would respond within the constraints of actually believing in God in the first place. But obviously my wording was my downfall.

I think it might be worth establishing, believers of “what” exactly? I am not a theist, granted. I was raised Roman Catholic and The Bible represents my first introduction to literature, philosophy, and poetry. It remains also quite dear to much of my family. It has been an important work to me throughout my life in many,sometimes contradictory, ways. I found the question you asked in the OT a compelling one. There is some teeth to the notion of how cultural preconceptions affect the reception of the bible. I’d be happy to continue discussing it further. I just feel the ramifications of such a notion are large. We’re looking at Information Theory, Cultural Relativism, Communication Theory, Morality, Poetry. Lots of things start to get drawn in.

I admit though, I’m a text waller. Think it stems from my love of Masonry?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:

Topic: A thread about studying the Word of God in spirit and in truth. (Bible)

axiom Conjecture : “But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way.” – John 4:23

Fixed it for you.

 
Flag Post

Going back to the OP, which is dense and hard to plow through btw, the reason Christians are not united is because they are divided by doctrine. Many Christians are guilty of “majoring in the minors.”

My salvation is not based on a collection of stories from the Old Testament, the writings of Paul the Apostle, or my political views. Jesus is a non-denominational common denominator, and the relationship I have with God through Christ is a personal one. I thank God that I have to suspend my doubt, and extend my Faith, no further than the teachings of Christ Jesus to be saved.

422537, instead of accusing people of being dictatorial, set an example by being gentler and simplifying your posts as well.

 
Flag Post

Jan:

“Demanding logic isn’t anti-God. It’s the ability of Christians to understand the bible, assuming it’s divine, and their presumptions about God, that are at issue here, not the existence of God itself.”

Demanding logic is most definitely not anti-God. What may be surprising to many Atheists is that Christians find it far more logical to believe in the existence of a God over one not existing. Honestly there is almost too much to explain about the Christian faith and why we believe in what we do. The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe. All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

What may be surprising to many Atheists is that Christians find it far more logical to believe in the existence of a God over one not existing.

Well obviously, it’s not like they’re going to say “I find it highly illogical to believe in this god, but I will anyway.”

Honestly there is almost too much to explain about the Christian faith and why we believe in what we do.

Not always.

The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe. All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

I liked the part where you grouped together at least 1/5th of the world’s population.

 
Flag Post

The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe.

:-)

I was raised Catholic. The Catechism is one of the most ridiculous core texts in Catholicism – other than the majority of the Papal Bulls, of course – something that children might find useful to understand God, but not thinking adults. Of course, it’s better than nothing at all, which is what every other christian on this thread is hampered by – no formal understanding of Christianity other than what they read (literally) from the bible.

Other than that you might want to reread my post as I wasn’t in disagreement with any of your other points.

Well obviously, it’s not like they’re going to say “I find it highly illogical to believe in this god, but I will anyway.”

Actually that’s exactly what GK Chesterton – who was also Catholic – thought. He was a weird guy.

 
Flag Post

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it about the Catechism that makes you call it “one of the most ridiculous core texts in Catholicism”? I’ll be honest, I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

Y’see the irony here?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

Y’see the irony here?

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter. I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught. There are many connections and mentions of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God in the old testament and through the tradition of the church, there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it. Maybe my one use of “Thinking for myself” wasn’t proper to what I meant. I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe. I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter.

Except that that is blind obedience.

I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught.

And I was pointing out that what you said described blind obedience.

there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it.

Well obviously, though that doesn’t mean that they will believe it for those reasons, but instead because that’s how they were taught and raised.

I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe.

If you were taught to jump off a bridge, would you?

That came out wrong.

I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

There’s still the part where you said you generally believe your faith without question.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter.

Except that that is blind obedience.

I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught.

And I was pointing out that what you said described blind obedience.

there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it.

Well obviously, though that doesn’t mean that they will believe it for those reasons, but instead because that’s how they were taught and raised.

I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe.

If you were taught to jump off a bridge, would you?

That came out wrong.

I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

There’s still the part where you said you generally believe your faith without question.

1. It’s not “blind” if I agree to what I am being told. It’s blind when you do what you are being told and you don’t know why you are doing it.

2. ^ I agree with the basics, now to learn more and see if I agree with the details.

3. Is it bad to believe in God because of the things you were taught?

4. lolwut? No, because logic tells me that is stupid. Logic tells me that believing in God is
smart.

5. Yeah, I believe in the basics of what I am taught without question. Questions may pop up the more I go into details.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

1. It’s not “blind” if I agree to what I am being told. It’s blind when you do what you are being told and you don’t know why you are doing it.

You can still agree with it even if you don’t know.


3. Is it bad to believe in God because of the things you were taught?

I didn’t say it was.

4. lolwut? No, because logic tells me that is stupid. Logic tells me that believing in God is
smart.

Under the assumtion that he exists, yes.

5. Yeah, I believe in the basics of what I am taught without question.

Handy-dandy little phrase you didn’t say in your other posts, “the basics”. It really changes your position.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Azolf:

Going back to the OP, which is dense and hard to plow through btw, the reason Christians are not united is because they are divided by doctrine. Many Christians are guilty of “majoring in the minors.”

My salvation is not based on a collection of stories from the Old Testament, the writings of Paul the Apostle, or my political views. Jesus is a non-denominational common denominator, and the relationship I have with God through Christ is a personal one. I thank God that I have to suspend my doubt, and extend my Faith, no further than the teachings of Christ Jesus to be saved.

422537, instead of accusing people of being dictatorial, set an example by being gentler and simplifying your posts as well.

True, but are you then doubting that the epistles are God-inspired? Salvation is indeed through Christ alone, but are you then saying that the disciples have not been instructed by Jesus Christ and their writings are not after all his teachings and from him? I don’t want to put any words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong.

Galatians 1:11-12 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul only ever claims to have been directly instructed by Jesus. He never claims that his writings are his own teachings.

Now, I will speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command from the Lord. If a Christian man has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to continue living with him, he must not leave her. -The Apostle Paul -1 Corinthians 7:12

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. -The Apostle Paul -1 Corinthians 7:12

Believe me son, you don’t want to bark up this tree.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:

Paul said that because, for that particular command he didn’t have a command from the Lord, hence the “I do not have a command from the lord”

In other passages he clearly doesn’t say this, but he did say, as I have already demonstrated He speaks from revelation from the Lord, not from human origin. Read it in context, he was directly referring to the notion of marriage in your particular quote.

EDIT: You still have not answered my question, do you think that the epistles where not instructed by Jesus?

Are you saying the Apostle Paul was infallible? Did not Paul himself say that he was a wretch, a chief of sinners, and that God’s strength is made perfect in our weakness. Paul may have been more on the ball than the pastor down the street, but he covered plenty of doctrine that, according to the Gospels, Jesus said nothing about.

Are you a follower of Jesus, or a follower of Paul. Paul himself was concerned about this, saying, “I’m glad I only Baptized a few of you, because now you’re all arguing over who baptized who, don’t you know that we are all of one Spirit?”

Likewise, when performing miracles, the people bowed to Paul, and he said, “We are men of like devises, the same passions.”

I would go so far as to say that God is present in these very writings, because here we are having a conversation under the name of Jesus in a little corner of cyberspace… but sin is still present on both our parts. No ministry is untainted. God be praised that He uses us for the greater good of His Providence despite ourselves.

 
Flag Post

It’s funny to see that even religious people among the same faith can’t seem to agree with each other. And that goes for Muslims, Christians, Jewish, etc. And you people expect others to take your believes seriously that way?

 
Flag Post

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

So, your God inspired book is ambiguous and misleading. Now, that’s all you have. And your God will pass judgement on you based on how well you learned that book. And that makes sense to you because…?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:
Originally posted by 422537:
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

So, your God inspired book is ambiguous and misleading. Now, that’s all you have. And your God will pass judgement on you based on how well you learned that book. And that makes sense to you because…?

I was actually expecting you to say something else but nevermind.

Please point out the scripture about God passing judgment on us for not learning the book well. I’d like to read it.

Your book says that no one will enter Heaven unless going through Jesus. True or false? Also, the only source of your Jesus’ existence, teachings, life, etc is that ambiguous, misleading book. Also, the only book of reference as to which God’s son was Jesus is the Old Testement. So, in order to believe in Jesus obviously you need to know what the Old and New Testements are about, commonly known as the Bible. So, no biblical understanding → No Jesus → bad judgement → Hell.
quod erat demonstrandum

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

Atheism (that is, the kind you’re expressing in this thread, anti-theistic atheism) is no ‘simple philosophical movement’, it’s an ideology. One that tends to take a reductionist view of religion in order to feed into its inherent prejudices about how religious people think and act.

Then,

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

No, arguing among human beings is something expected. Human beings disagree, they reason over points of issue. The bible, even if inspired by God (which is the Ax of this thread btw) was transmitted by human beings. So it doesn’t surprise me that the language is often ambiguous. You seem to have this idea about how religious people are supposed to think because of some dogmatic doctrine they all follow, but the reality contradicts that – people are rational creatures who engage in healthy (and sometimes unhealthy) debate. Yes, even religious people are or can be rational.

 
Flag Post

Jantonaitis, It’s an ideology based on something very simple, that if you don’t have proof or evidence for your claim, then you have nothing. It’s very simple, anything that is conjured without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You don’t have any harder evidence that Jesus existed over Hercules. You don’t have evidence that the God of Abraham is any more a god than Zeus or Ra or Odin was. That’s a fact

Now, debating can happen between human beings, true. But debate on something that is supposed to be dogmatic is something like an oxymoron. Is like debating why blue is called blue. Your Bible is supposed to be the Absolute Word of a Divine being. What exactly do you have to debate that causes Christians do be divided in so many fractions? You all supposedly follow the word of the one true god. So, either your god is very mysterious and weird or man made. Obviously you will say ‘he works in mysterious ways’. No, science proves that if a god creator exists he/she/it works in mathematical ways. And mathematics is absolute and well defined. Your God isn’t.

 
Flag Post

It’s been a long philosophical debate defining what constitutes as ‘evidence’. It’s not that simple. Are you familiar with positivism?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Jantonaitis, It’s an ideology based on something very simple, that if you don’t have proof or evidence for your claim, then you have nothing. It’s very simple, anything that is conjured without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You don’t have any harder evidence that Jesus existed over Hercules. You don’t have evidence that the God of Abraham is any more a god than Zeus or Ra or Odin was. That’s a fact

Now, debating can happen between human beings, true. But debate on something that is supposed to be dogmatic is something like an oxymoron. Is like debating why blue is called blue. Your Bible is supposed to be the Absolute Word of a Divine being. What exactly do you have to debate that causes Christians do be divided in so many fractions? You all supposedly follow the word of the one true god. So, either your god is very mysterious and weird or man made. Obviously you will say ‘he works in mysterious ways’. No, science proves that if a god creator exists he/she/it works in mathematical ways. And mathematics is absolute and well defined. Your God isn’t.

Number one, I am not a christian. I’m just trying to stick to the AX of this thread, something you’ve consistantly ignored to trumpet a tune everyone in SD has heard hundreds of times before…you hate religion. You think logic (bluntly defined) is almighty. WE GET IT. But the AX says bible is inspired by God, so it is. Get your head around that.

Number two, all that stuff about logic? Yeah, what you’re espousing is called positivism, a social ideology that was discarded decades ago when it was discovered, among other problems, that there’s like, hundreds of things people believe in that can’t be empirically measured. Not just religion.

It’s more than possible to debate over supposedly dogmatic issues so long as you observe a certain decorum, which is not the same as civility. The Jewish philosophers like Maimonides were able to debate the nature of God and their discussions helped codify Judaism. Of course, in that situation, it would be rather difficult to debate with someone who came from the belief that there is no god and continually reinforced that position through the debate. Therefore it’s the combination of having a flexible mind that at the same time can stay within the cohesive internal logic of the ideology in question, in the example I made, of Judaism.

Now, in case I didn’t make myself absolutely clear before, I dislike being made out as a Christian just because I defend certain aspects of it. Don’t assume the guy defending religion is much of a fan of religion himself…perhaps he just fucking despises the no-nothing, sycophantic Richard Dawkins internet fanboys moreso than the Christians.

 
Flag Post

1) “you hate religion”

No, i don’t hate religion. I don’t hate god/jesus either. Since i don’t know whether he existed or not and since i don’t think that he was god hating him is just pointless. I don’t hate God, the real God, IF such a being exists. Why would i, did he/she/it ever did something to me? I simply ignore whether he/she/it exists because i don’t have evidence and also my life won’t change dramatically by saying “oh, he/she/it is real”.

2) I think i know what i espouse better than you do, so please stick to the facts and don’t make things up. What i believe is that unless you bring something tangible to present in an argument, then your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff about how to have a debate. Schools teach it. Except for religious schools, i guess. I am not the type to want measurements. As long as it has a “place” a logical place, i will see its value.

3) Making philosophy about “God” is nothing new, Plato did it too. You know what he believed? He believed that God is part of the world of Ideas, the perfect world and that God doesn’t transform to amaze humans or he doesn’t trick them. You know, exactly the opposite from what the God of Abraham did? To be honest the God of Abraham and the Ancient Greek Gods are so similar. They both interefere in battles, politics, everything.

4) Again, maybe you should stick to facts instead of making stuff up. I am not a Dawkins fan in any way. I haven’t even heard his views and ideas. I don’t need someone else to hold my hand while forming my opinions about things.

So, now that i made the mistake of calling you a Christian and you spewed your ignorant, labeling venom back at me i guess we are even.

 
Flag Post

No, i don’t hate religion. I don’t hate god/jesus either. Since i don’t know whether he existed or not and since i don’t think that he was god hating him is just pointless. I don’t hate God, the real God, IF such a being exists. Why would i, did he/she/it ever did something to me? I simply ignore whether he/she/it exists because i don’t have evidence and also my life won’t change dramatically by saying “oh, he/she/it is real”.

If you were content to ignore it, as I expect the majority of atheists are, you would not see fit to constantly trumpet your anti-theist views and derail threads so you can swing your cock around.

2) I think i know what i espouse better than you do, so please stick to the facts and don’t make things up. What i believe is that unless you bring something tangible to present in an argument, then your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff about how to have a debate. Schools teach it. Except for religious schools, i guess. I am not the type to want measurements. As long as it has a “place” a logical place, i will see its value.

Yeah? Nothing you’ve said so far tells me you know what you’re talking about. For one thing, debate is a matter of opinions, not capital-f Facts. For another, you wield logic like a hammer, like it’s simple and straightforward. It isn’t. Finally, before you try to teach me how to debate, you might want to recognize that one addresses the argument in a debate – both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with…oh, I’m sure you dish out an adequate, PHIL 101 understanding of Plato, bravo. But as they say, a bit of learning is a dangerous thing…it gives false confidence to fools. Nor does a rigorous understanding of philosophy fit together too well with the ridiculous universalist assumption that all religion is bullshit and all religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.

If I seem upset, it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them. It’s a mindset I’ve encountered many times before and I have no patience for it. If you’re doing it unwittingly, here’s your wake-up call. If you’re doing it deliberately…goodbye.