News and Politics Forum

axe wrote:

Buho wrote:

This is not my experience.  I used to be agnostic.  I questioned the fundamentals of Christianity and I found myself utterly convinced of its truth.  Even still, I question and re-question the same fundamental truths, and still do today, four years later.  Each time I try, they stand firm and I become more convinced.  Perhaps you think I'm biased now, and not really testing them.  That skepticism cannot be satisfied until you meet me in person.

What convinced you of Christianity's truth?

Edit: I understand if it's a private thing, that's ok.

No worries, Axe; it's not a private thing at all.  But this is for another thread.  Probably a vigorous twelve threads, actually:  manuscript reliability (especially its historical transmission & coherence), archeology, biology, physics, geology, sociology, prophecy, formal proofs for God's existence (cosmological, ontological, etc.), and philosophy (especially the basis for truth, reason & logic). 

Some of the fundamentals of Christianity include:  Does God actually exist?  Did Jesus actually exist?  Was Jesus God?  Did Jesus die for our sins?  Did Jesus actually rise from the dead?  Did Jesus fulfill prophecy written hundreds of years ago?

Doctrine can be phrased in the form of a question.  Questions can be answered utilizing many of the areas I listed above.

Unka Bart wrote:

Unka Bart wrote:

OK, zuk, I'll play your game.

zukiphile wrote:

The "game" is primarily asking you what you mean or think.

I haven't shown any reluctance to address a clear question, and I don't have any.  Ask me what I believe about some specific thing and I'll tell you.  Or not, and if not, why.  Your pechant for terse one-liners using indefinite articles as the subject leaves the intent of many of your questions unclear.

zukiphile wrote:

I question your commitment to this thesis, and freely acknowledge that the idea can arise from causes other than insincerity.  The "no labels" protest can arise from insincerity where the proponent knows perfectly well the category into which his position falls, but knows that it is unpopular.  This was popular with liberals a few years ago, and we've seen some labelling games with agnostics and atheists.

This is evasive in the extreme.  If you question my sincerity, say so.  If not, say so.

Unka Bart wrote:

When one self-label one's self, one has, a priori, bought into a school of thought.  When one has done that, one has already ruled out considering facts/aspects of an issue that conflict with the "approved solution."

zukiphile wrote:

...or whether that is a platitude with the same degree of meaning as a horoscope.

Unka Bart wrote:

You may call it what you will.  It's a statement of what my experience in life has taught me.

zukiphile wrote:

How did it teach you this?  Can you name any specifics?

That's a hard question to answer.  Just try it yourself.  How much of what you believe is based upon your life's experience, and what specifics did it teach you?  Seriously.   I'm not even sure that I can answer this in a short answer, but I will make another reply devoted to this question after this one in an attempt to answer you if you wish.  Say so if you wish more.

Be advised that my life has been long, rich and unsheltered; so be careful of what you wish.

zukiphile wrote:

I read bunches of Edmund Burke as a lad, and I believe most would describe me as a conservative.  That doesn't prevent another conservative and me from differing on an issue or considering the same aspects of an issue with different conclusions.

Mere descriptions describe but do not obviously have the limiting function you describe.

First, it should be apparent from what I wrote that I believe that labels carry considerably more baggage than mere descriptions.

Look, we could argue this forever and it seem that you'd like to do just that.  Recall that all my statements about eschewing labels have been about my describing me and not preaching to anyone else about whether or not they should do, or avoid doing likewise.

If you don't understand that or for that matter, if you simply disagree; that's cool by me.  I'll give you your own sig line here:  I can explain it (and have to my satisfaction), but I can't make you understand.

I've read Locke, Burke, St Thomas Aquinas, and others.  I got my BS in 1961, it's been a few years since then.  In the years following, I've developed a disdain for reliance upon the thoughts of others and have tried to figure out for myself what I believe based upon my core values.  And live by them.

Unka Bart wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

I know you assert that the religious context is somehow different, but have not indicated any way they would be different.  On the contrary, you assert they are very much the same.

I've addressed that above in this thread.  If you still believe that they are not different, that is, of course your prerogative.

zukiphile wrote:

You've addressed it by simply claiming a difference, but declining to note any salient difference.  "Apples and rutabegas", idiom for different, does not elucidate.

I believe that the passage below, that you quoted yourself, addresses that adequately.

Unka Bart wrote:

What I intended to convey is that adhering to a political philosophy can be like believing in a religious faith.  The person who buys into the message becomes unwilling to critically examine the fundamental tenents.  In a religion, that's one thing, but in politics, it's often an impediment to progress.

Now my question to you is do you understand what I said, not do you agree with it?

zukiphile wrote:

I understand what you wrote.  You assert it is "one thing" and contrast that with a putative lack of progress it would cause in politics.  Would that mechanism have precisely the same effect in the religious realm?

You can't be serious if you are speaking of the religious realm.  Look at the problems between christianity and islam.  Religious intolerance is one of the primary motivations behind the migration of multitudes from europe to the new world. 

I don't have a religion.  I have a curiosity about what christians believe as to the role of christ's teaching in their lives.  You seem curiously reluctant to discuss that.

My lack of religion is similar to my lack of political labels.  I do not believe the tenents of western religions, and I do not believe the tenents of our secular political parties.

I do believe that we have two arms of one corporate political party, but that's not what I came to this forum to discuss.

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm a buddhist.  It's not a religion, it's a philosophy for living and seeking enlightment.

zukiphile wrote:

I think we may agree that the distinction between a philosophy and a religion is tenuous.  Why is it descriptive to note that your buddhism is not a religion?

That's a good question.  We do not agree in my particular case.  With regard to the world at large, I do agree that there's little, if any, difference between buddhism and other religion.

However, it's precisely because I see, and attempted to explain why I see a clear difference between my buddhism and religion in general.

Unka Bart wrote:

Aspects of what?  I don't understand your question.

zukiphile wrote:

The question revisits your thesis about labels limiting people from facts and aspects of issues.  Why would your self description as buddhist evade this limit?

It's hard for me to accept that you are not being deliberately obtuse because I don't think that you have a reading comprehension problem.  This is why I started by agreeing to play your game.

What I said about my buddhism is pretty clear.  What aspects of what I said are unclear to you?

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm not sure I can because the nature of your post indicates to me that you're simply out to goad me.

I would hope that my constitutional sarcasm and curiosity don't come across as malevolence.

It comes across as flippant and shallow.  It comes across as being unwilling to read and consider thoughtfully what I had to say.

I've got a thick enough skin, perhaps we just got off on the wrong foot.  I'm not slinging insults, I'm not crying the blues.  You don't have to either like or respect me,or for that matter, even take me seriously.  We're just two series of electrons flashing across the ether at the end of the day.

I've done you the courtesy of answering your questions, you might try the same approach and attempt to make your questions clear and specific.  Or not, as the spirit moves you.

yer kindly ol' Unka Bart

edit:  It shoud be obvious that I've screwed up the quote business, it wasn't deliberate and I know you can figure who struck john when.  Sorry, gotta run.

zukiphile wrote:

Bart, I regret that you find my questions unclear, vexing or frustrating.  Have a good evening.

And the same to you, Zuk.

Thundersnow wrote:

You cannot be saved without following Jesus, and vis versa. They are in one in the same, hand in hand. You can not separate them.

I've already heard that.   But please allow me politely to point out that I have already said that I do not believe that.  I happen to believe that I am the sole source of my salvation.

Please note that my disagreement with you is fundamental, but I say so with respect for your beliefs and for you personally.  I would appreciate the same consideration.

Now, if you would care to tell me, what role, if any, do the teachings of Christ play in your life?  Another way of asking the same question, is what do you mean by "following Jesus?"  I'm truly curious.

glfredrick wrote:

The initial question was not one of "seeking" but of "baiting" for a response...  Sorry, but a few of us are fairly well used to that tactic and know it when we see it.

If by baiting you mean trying to draw you out, guilty.  On the other hand, I usually see the term baiting used in a context that implies disrespect.  Where have you seen that in anything I've said?

It also implies duplicitousness.  What have you seen in my writing that would support such an interpretation?

Read what I said about my impressions so far.  Do you see either disrespect or duplicitousness or guile?

In my view, life's too short to waste time and effort playing such games.  I say what I mean and I mean what I say.  You can judge me from my responses to zuk and  Thunder.  Speaking truth from the git-go means not having to try to recall what you said earlier or get caught in contradictions.

glfredrick wrote:

You don't get to be the age of Unka Bart, use the smooth (if somewhat misdirected) intellect he professes, and also be ignorant of some of the basic issues he brings forth -- especially when claiming a rival belief faction.

I think you must have left something out of that paragraph; as it reads, it doesn't make sense to me.  Let me know what you meant, please.

(edit - ok, maybe I see it now, you're saying you don't get to my age and remain ignorant of some of the (unspecified) basic issues I bring forth.  Right? )  Speak frankly, what basic issues are you taking about?

And as to claiming a rival belief faction, I've merely - and forthrightly - told about mine as it applies to me.  Much, I might add, the same as I have asked of you.  Nothing I've said has been clever or ambiguous.  Don't read into what I say, read what I say.  It's what I mean, and nothing else.  I'm not here to persuade you anything about my belief system, I don't care what you believe, I just am curious to understand what you believe.  I do see some apparent contradictions, but I wish to explore them with you in a respectful manner.

A final note on the baiting issue.  I want to know what you believe on the subject of the thread.  I've been circumspect in my questioning, simply because I haven't wanted to get into some pissing contest with some hothead, spring-loaded to attack anyone questioning  his/her belief system.  I am questioning it, but not attacking it.

Capische?

glfredrick wrote:

I'll play the game, but not as a dupe...

Last edited by Unka Bart (07-23-2008 01:39 AM)

Thundersnow wrote:

Unka Bart wrote:

Now, if you would care to tell me, what role, if any, do the teachings of Christ play in your life?  Another way of asking the same question, is what do you mean by "following Jesus?"  I'm truly curious.

The teachings of Christ effect everything in daily life. The golden rule, etc. By following Jesus, I mean acting in manner that he would have me act. Treating others with love and respect. As Guy said, many Christians who engage in religious discussions have heard this line of questioning before, often followed by attacks. I am not accusing you of such, but stating ftr.

I hear you.  Thank you for an honest and direct response.  You need fear no attacks from me, even if/where we disagree.  We obviously don't disagree about what you said, as you've described what this means to you, and no one is in any position to say that but you.

Bart

BTW, do you prefer to be called "Thunder" or "Snow?"

glfredrick wrote:

The initial question was not one of "seeking" but of "baiting" for a response...  Sorry, but a few of us are fairly well used to that tactic and know it when we see it.

You don't get to be the age of Unka Bart, use the smooth (if somewhat misdirected) intellect he professes, and also be ignorant of some of the basic issues he brings forth -- especially when claiming a rival belief faction.

I'll play the game, but not as a dupe...

Ulgh.  I hate politics.  Hey all, I'll tell you my perception.  Maybe I'm a dupe.  I thought Unka Bart's question was honest and sincere.  I gave an honest and sincere response.  His response has been quite polite.  They were laced with opinions and I recognized them as such.  I thought Zuki's responses were a bit edgy, probing a bit too far in places I thought didn't need to go, and now glf is expressing skepticism.  Take this line:

Unka Bart wrote:

please allow me politely to point out that I have already said that I do not believe that.  I happen to believe that I am the sole source of my salvation.

This is stated about as clearly and non-offensively as imaginably possible.  It is a fact that he believes he is the source of his salvation.  Period.  His belief could be wrong, but there's nothing for anyone to get upset over.  I do not see this as baiting at all.

Thundersnow wrote:

As Guy said, many Christians who engage in religious discussions have heard this line of questioning before, often followed by attacks.

I don't know about you, but I like to subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty."

This may not seem especially civil initially, but it contributed to an milieu in which tempers genuinely flare rarely

I will not have my reputation attacked in such a manner, sir!

Qwinn

zukiphile wrote:

There is a hazing that occurs here, particularly when a new member opens with controversial assertions.  While the response may seem edgy, it serves the purpose of weeding out the many self-important nitwits who show up to evangelise for half baked prejudices.  Those people tend to self-select themselves away from this board.  This may not seem especially civil initially, but it contributed to an milieu in which tempers genuinely flare rarely and people can generally ask direct questions without having their bona fides questioned.

Hmmmm...

I can see what you are saying, but I still don't understand why you have/had (whichever applies) such trouble understanding my meaning with my explanation about my eschewing labels.  I went back and re-read what I said and believe it was clear and lucid.

But, upon reflection I can see you were probably offended by my making a comparison of the fact that self-applied labels tend to narrow the mind (Im paraphrasing myself again) in a manner similar to religion. 

I can see that this could easily be, and probably was construed as insulting, and I can only offer my apology to anyone who saw it that way and my assurance that such was not my intent.  I don't have a religion, but I respect you and yours.  It was a bone-headed faux-pas, and that's all.

I do offer my sincere apology for that to your and all others here.  I acknowledge that it was careless and not well thought out phrasing, and I am sincerely sorry for offending through my boneheaded carelessness.

Last edited by Unka Bart (07-23-2008 08:10 PM)

Unka Bart wrote:

I've been circumspect in my questioning, simply because I haven't wanted to get into some pissing contest with some hothead, spring-loaded to attack anyone questioning  his/her belief system.  I am questioning it, but not attacking it.

Around here, there's no difference.  See my "natural philosophy" thread; apparently I'm the worst kind of bigot for thinking that creationism is a scientific and intellectual dead end.

Turbiodiesel! wrote:

Fasted lately?

Um, actually, yes.  I also pray, worship, minister, evangelize, disciple, serve, give, and a few other Christian doctrines.