[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[BadFish]

You're responsible for what you do with your body. You are in charge of it and you control it, so if that's what you've done, then it's on you.

This is another one of of those lines that seems very inconsistent to me. Like the ability to pick and choose which stories of the bible as true and which are not people seem to choose what God is responsible for.

Here we have PPF being responsible for his own
Shart yes Mwepu was only social media thanking God for Zambia's qualification.

These inconsistencies are easily explained by faith and most understand people's connection with religion in this way. It makes sense and is logical. What concerns me is your certainty and your use of evidence to feed that certainty. I am concerned that this kind of fundamentalism leads to dangerous decision making.

You've already written many of us off as sinners bound for hell (with or without AC DC) and dismissed our decision making and influences while spruiking the virtues of your own. I fear where this kind of thinking leads.

This I'm right and you are wrong and I am here to spread the word of Jesus/save you really is one of the worst facets of Christianity. Breathtaking arrogance resulting at conversion of others by force. Can't imagine Jesus giving that shit the green light.

 

[Triggaaar]

There you go again, asserting for definite something that peer reviewed science doesn’t support.

I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just told me this was what you believe.

Yeah, but when a religious person says with conviction 'god created us' etc etc, you know that what they're really saying is 'I believe god created us', just as when an atheist like me says 'Jesus Christ this is a load of old crap isn't it', what I'm really saying is 'Oh my, I really disagree with this'. There's no need to get hung up on any of us from either side saying something as if it's fact (as in, a general opinion about our beliefs, as opposed to saying something has actually been proven as fact, when it hasn't - that's different).

Faith I can handle. Stupidly, I can’t.

I don't think that's fair. Firstly (and this is not aimed at anyone posting here), if you can't handle stupidity, you're on the wrong forum - but mainly, although I couldn't disagree with @kuzushi more, it's not fair to say he's stupid (IMO).

NSC has always encouraged free speech and debate but that doesn’t include you using us as a free platform to try and convert people. Make sure you’re aware of that line.

Is that what's happening? Maybe I'm the stupid one, I seem to have missed it

 

[BadFish]

We've had a number of consultancy theorists on this board over the years. Is anyone else seeing similarities on this thread?

- the I know something you don't/more enlightened tone.
- the cherry picking of 'evidence' to fit the 'truth' while ignoring or dismissing other evidence.
- the picking and choosing which questions to answer.
- when challenged on claims moving back to safer ground before venturing forth again later.
- questioning other's influences and biases while ignoring their own.

What have I missed.

Edit: forgot the evidence from suspect sources posted as fact (scripture)
- and the YouTube evidence and lots of it (also from suspect sources).
- and the whole, the mainstream is against us.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes, I am sure of what I'm saying, and there are reasons for this.

I'm guessing trauma?



Sorry, just teasing

 

[Krafty]

People seem to be getting upset at this point in the thread, although all I'm saying is that we have a soul. It seems a weird thing to get upset about. The stuff about hell was quite a way back in the thread, and it was in response to people's quite insistent questioning as I recall. It's not as if I came out ranting about hell. I don't want to upset people, but the gospel is the gospel. If there were no need, Jesus would not have gone through what he did on the cross. He said his blood was for the remission of sins. That's just basic Christianity.

How committed are you to Christianity?
What is your stance on aspects such as science, premarital sex, homosexuality and other topics?

 

[BadFish]

Yeah, but when a religious person says with conviction 'god created us' etc etc, you know that what they're really saying is 'I believe god created us', just as when an atheist like me says 'Jesus Christ this is a load of old crap isn't it', what I'm really saying is 'Oh my, I really disagree with this'. There's no need to get hung up on any of us from either side saying something as if it's fact.




I don't think that's fair. Firstly (and this is not aimed at anyone posting here), if you can't handle stupidity, you're on the wrong forum - but mainly, although I couldn't disagree with @kuzushi more, it's not fair to say he's stupid (IMO).



Is that what's happening? Maybe I'm the stupid one, I seem to have missed it

It's definately what's happening, I've just signed up for my local church. Sadly my closest one is Hillsong so I no longer have any money.

 

[kuzushi]

Christianity is the main religion of the English speaking world, and we tend to use words as expletives (although Jesus is not actually a swear word). It's nothing particularly against Christianity as opposed to any other religion.

That's true.

He isn't.

He is generally considered one of the most influential people. Over 2 billion followers worldwide.

Who’s Biggest? The 100 Most Significant Figures in History | TIME.com

A data-driven ranking. Plus, have former TIME People of the Year been predictive?

ideas.time.com

Some may rank him top, others in the top 3 or 4, depending on their point of view.

Most people think he did exist.

Jesus 'not a real person' many believe

A survey for the Church of England suggests 40% of people in England do not believe that Jesus was a real person.

www.bbc.co.uk

This by the way is something I seek to change. People might not want to follow him, but they should at least know that he was a real person.
A lot of people on this very thread were telling me stuff like, "It's all pure fiction", and "he may or may not have existed." Hopefully if nothing else, they have learnt the truth about this.

I'm sure most people here aren't offended by you? I haven't found you offensive at all. And I don't expect you to change your beliefs because of a discussion on a forum.

I got the impression by the way they were behaving that some people were getting offended, so I appreciate what you say here

I'm not sure where Muslims fit into your point - they believe he is a prophet, because they used Christianity to help them build support for their new religion. Wider society here (if that's what you're calling us) encourages people to seek the truth, and most people think the truth is that Jesus was not the son of god, and should not be followed. Why would we encourage others to embrace and follow Jesus when we think it's a load of nonsense?

@Commander asked me a question about people in Muslim countries choosing to follow Jesus.

 

[Triggaaar]

He is generally considered one of the most influential people. Over 2 billion followers worldwide.

Who’s Biggest? The 100 Most Significant Figures in History | TIME.com

A data-driven ranking. Plus, have former TIME People of the Year been predictive?

ideas.time.com

Some may rank him top, others in the top 3 or 4, depending on their point of view.

Yes, I agree. I'm just saying it's not a given fact that he is the single most influential.

I got the impression by the way they were behaving that some people were getting offended, so I appreciate what you say here

I'm just reading along the thread (I've missed a fair bit, it's quite long) and I see that you've stated as fact (and I know it's just you're opinion, which happens to be wrong) that people's family are currently (and will be for all eternity) in hell. I can see that can annoy some people. You are adamant that 2 of my children are in hell. I'm ok with you saying that, purely because I think you're as mad as a box of frogs. But perhaps when it comes to sensitive areas like that, you can be more careful with your wording.

 

[Triggaaar]

@Commander asked me a question about people in Muslim countries choosing to follow Jesus.

Ah yes I see, my bad.

 

[Triggaaar]

People seem to be getting upset at this point in the thread, although all I'm saying is that we have a soul. It seems a weird thing to get upset about. The stuff about hell was quite a way back in the thread, and it was in response to people's quite insistent questioning as I recall. It's not as if I came out ranting about hell. I don't want to upset people, but the gospel is the gospel. If there were no need, Jesus would not have gone through what he did on the cross.

Jesus went through what he did on the cross because the Romans put him there.

I think most of us here think he was crucified and suffered on the cross - but you don't really have reason to believe that, because how can Jesus, the son of god, be suffering? Any normal human on the cross would be in pain and knowing their life was about to end, but Jesus would have been above all that nonsense.

It reminds me of someone claiming to have been CIA and having been water-boarded as part of training, so they knew what it was like, but I argue that they couldn't possibly know what it was like, because they knew for a fact that they weren't going to die, they knew that if they went unconscious they'd have a medical team on standby to make sure they were ok, and they knew that shortly afterwards they'd be having a beer and joking about how tough they are, whereas a prisoner would be scared for their life and aware that no one in the world could help them. Jesus can't have suffered, he knew it was part of his plan (if that is your belief).

 

[kuzushi]

This I'm right and you are wrong and I am here to spread the word of Jesus/save you really is one of the worst facets of Christianity. Breathtaking arrogance resulting at conversion of others by force. Can't imagine Jesus giving that shit the green light.

Well, if I have an opinion (in this case that Jesus is the only way to be spared the judgement of God), it's not about arrogance, it's just that that's what I believe. What do you want me to do? Change my opinion on this, or not talk about it?

 

[BadFish]

Well, if I have an opinion (in this case that Jesus is the only way to be spared the judgement of God), it's not about arrogance, it's just that that's what I believe. What do you want me to do? Change my opinion on this, or not talk about it?

You are free to talk about whatever you want. My concern here is that you appear to have proven your opinion to yourself and now consider it fact.

Your posts come across as no trying to prove your fact to the contributors to this thread. As I said I find this kind of fundamentalism concerning as it can lead to some dark places.fwiw I have no idea if this is you or just your on screen persona.

In terms of arrogance though you have championed a biblical scholar as a world leading expert. Disingenuously ommiting the fact that he disagrees with you about the thing you were talking about. Then you use his evidence but disagree with his conclusion, presumably because you know better (than a world leading biblical scholar). Sorry but it comes across as arrogance

 

[kuzushi]

I'm just reading along the thread (I've missed a fair bit, it's quite long) and I see that you've stated as fact (and I know it's just you're opinion, which happens to be wrong) that people's family are currently (and will be for all eternity) in hell. I can see that can annoy some people. You are adamant that 2 of my children are in hell. I'm ok with you saying that, purely because I think you're as mad as a box of frogs. But perhaps when it comes to sensitive areas like that, you can be more careful with your wording.

What am I supposed to say if people ask me blankly what happens if they die without being reconciled to God?
I tried not to spell it out to harshly, but people accused me of being evasive, so I was backed into a corner.
I don't think you should call me mad. Although I think people are wrong, I don't get abusive. I haven't called anyone mad or stupid or an idiot. I did suggest than one person was silly, because they kept saying that Christianity was based on pure fiction. I've noticed that there is quite a bit of name-calling of this nature here.
My beliefs are based on, and I'll say it yet again, exactly the same thing as Bart Ehrman, except that instead of group hallucination, I believe in the resurrection. (I'm surprised that Bart Ehrman doesn't see the problem with group hallucination, that it doesn't account for why the body disappeared). I am therefore no madder than Bart. There's a lot more to it than that, of course. I've seen things that have further convinced me of my choice, but this is the basis of it. Once one has concluded that the resurrection is true, what are the conclusions to be drawn? Presumably that the gospel is true, and if the gospel is true then eternal punishment must be, too.

 

[Eeyore]

Well, it’s better than him windmilling through opposition fans, sending dozens of men, women and children flying in all directions as he has his wicked way with them. This guy is the hardest fella on NSC, one of the most famous and feared football hooligans in the country.

Or at least, that’s what he’d have people believe. Belief - it’s a funny old concept isn’t it!

There is far more convincing evidence for the resurrection than PPF being a 'Top Boy'. That's for sure.

 

[BadFish]

What am I supposed to say if people ask me blankly what happens if they die without being reconciled to God?
I tried not to spell it out to harshly, but people accused me of being evasive, so I was backed into a corner.
I don't think you should call me mad. Although I think people are wrong, I don't get abusive. I haven't called anyone mad or stupid or an idiot. I did suggest than one person was silly, because they kept saying that Christianity was based on pure fiction. I've noticed that there is quite a bit of name-calling of this nature here.
My beliefs are based on, and I'll say it yet again, exactly the same thing as Bart Ehrman, except that instead of group hallucination, I believe in the resurrection. (I'm surprised that Bart Ehrman doesn't see the problem with group hallucination, that it doesn't account for why the body disappeared). I am therefore no madder than Bart. There's a lot more to it than that, of course. I've seen things that have further convinced me of my choice, but this is the basis of it. Once one has concluded that the resurrection is true, what are the conclusions to be drawn? Presumably that the gospel is true, and if the gospel is true then eternal punishment must be, too.

But you don't think all the gospel is true do you? Or is it just the old testament that is fiction?

 

[kuzushi]

You are free to talk about whatever you want. My concern here is that you appear to have proven your opinion to yourself and now consider it fact.

Isn't that what it means to have an opinion about something. If you think a thing is true, then you will consider it a fact.

Your posts come across as no trying to prove your fact to the contributors to this thread. As I said I find this kind of fundamentalism concerning as it can lead to some dark places.fwiw I have no idea if this is you or just your on screen persona

I think it's more a case of responding to people. People ask questions, so I respond

Is it fundamentalist to believe in the resurrection?
How can a belief in the resurrection lead to dark places?

 

[kuzushi]

But you don't think all the gospel is true do you? Or is it just the old testament that is fiction?

What I do is keep an open mind about things that are not clear.
There is a lot in the Bible that is not clear, so I keep an open mind about it, but the one thing that is clear to me is that Jesus rose from the dead, so I believe in it, and no one has been able to present me with a reason not to. Plus I have seen the power of God in my life, but I won't discuss that here because I've already seen how people respond to uncontroversial facts about Christianity. Basically they resort to mocking even about things such as the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead. As I've said, even Bart Ehrman agrees with this, so there's no need to try to mock or belittle someone for stating this. The correct response would be to accept it. Yes, Jesus did live, was crucified and did have disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, because that's the historical view.

 

[BadFish]

Isn't that what it means to have an opinion about something. If you think a thing is true, then you will consider it a fact.



I think it's more a case of responding to people. People ask questions, so I respond

Is it fundamentalist to believe in the resurrection?
How can a belief in the resurrection lead to dark places?

No opinions and facts are two different thing. As are faith and fact.

It is this that is fundamentalist and causing me concern not your option or faith driven belief in the resurrection but your opinion that it is fact.

 

[BadFish]

What I do is keep an open mind about things that are not clear.
There is a lot in the Bible that is not clear, so I keep an open mind about it, but the one thing that is clear to me is that Jesus rose from the dead, so I believe in it, and no one has been able to present me with a reason not to. Plus I have seen the power of God in my life, but I won't discuss that here because I've already seen how people respond to uncontroversial facts about Christianity. Basically they resort to mocking even about things such as the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead. As I've said, even Bart Ehrman agrees with this, so there's no need to try to mock or belittle someone for stating this. The correct response would be to accept it. Yes, Jesus did live, was crucified and did have disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, because that's the historical view.

I am not sure who is not accepting these ideas but perhaps you can discuss that with them.

But listen to your words here, read them from a different perspective.

"The correct response would be to accept it. Yes, Jesus did live, was crucified and did have disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, because that's the historical view."

I am not even arguing those point and your language is like this.

'the correct response . . .'

My point about Ehrman is: (I edited my post to explain my accusation of arrogance).

In terms of arrogance though you have championed a biblical scholar as a world leading expert. Disingenuously ommiting the fact that he disagrees with you about the thing you were talking about. Then you use his evidence but disagree with his conclusion, presumably because you know better (than a world leading biblical scholar). Sorry but it comes across as arrogance

 

[kuzushi]

I am not sure who is not accepting this ideas but perhaps you can discuss that with them.

But listen to your words here, read them from a different perspective.

"The correct response would be to accept it. Yes, Jesus did live, was crucified and did have disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, because that's the historical view."

I am not even arguing those point and your language is like this.

'the correct response . . .'

My point about Ehrman is: (I edited my post to explain my accusation of arrogance).

In terms of arrogance though you have championed a biblical scholar as a world leading expert. Disingenuously ommiting the fact that he disagrees with you about the thing you were talking about. Then you use his evidence but disagree with his conclusion, presumably because you know better (than a world leading biblical scholar). Sorry but it comes across as arrogance

What I'm about to write doesn't apply to everyone here, but to a few.

What I've found is that people have tried to ridicule me for holding the view that Jesus lived, was crucified and had disciples who believed that he rose from the dead, even though this is the view of scholars who are experts in the field, and yet you are trying to paint me as the arrogant one. Surely it's more arrogant to mock someone (not saying you have, you might have done but I've lost track of exactly who has) where you are the one in the wrong, and not even bother to research the facts or be open to changing your view.

People don't have to accept it any more than they have to accept the holocaust (unless they are in Austria), or that the earth is a sphere, but don't mock the one who is holding the correct (in terms of expert consensus) opinion on the matter, and if he sticks to his opinion, don't accuse him of arrogance, or being mad or an idiot or intransigence.