Alright Mediochre, regardless of whether you want to respond I think my responding here is worthwhile. That's in large part based on your follow up comments after the posts were moved to this thread by Ninshub, since I just think you came away from what I've said with a vastly different image of what I'm trying to say and what I'm trying to accomplish by saying the things that I am.
Quote:How can you have a debate about christian issues when you can't even decide what christian is? I'd ask what a christian issue is but that would just be redundant.
I'm not saying that no one has the slightest idea what a Christian is - but being a Christian, or a person of any faith or belief system, hardly means that it is very easy to surmise each and every belief you might hold. I like some of the beliefs/qualities Brian listed above as starting points: "sacrificial reason for Christ's death and his subsequent resurrection, a continuing walking of the path of love for God and for neighbour, and an ongoing relationship with God."
Not that this list is comprehensive, or that it covers all the bases that probably most Christians would agree are a requirement for being Christian. But surely you wouldn't disagree that there is loads of room outside those things for movement. For instance, Catholics disagree with Protestant sects regarding the body and blood given at mass and whether it truly becomes Christ's body. There is debate over the Holy Trinity and what shape it takes, or if it exists at all. Certainly there are differences of opinion in terms of what kind of afterlife there is - is it an immediate bliss, as some NDEs might make it seem, or is it something of an "eternal" sleep, until Christ rises again? And further, there are surely differences between how people deal with the "why is there evil in the world?" question, which necessarily goes to the heart of god's nature, etc.
Clearly there is considerable room for debate, if you're being honest, even when you have a baseline for what constitutes a Christian. Point me to any group that is without issue or is so well defined that there is no room for debate within the group whatsoever. I'm sure such a group does not exist, certainly not in any group claiming some metaphysical worldview. There have been books written regarding the Christian god's qualities. It is not reasonable to suggest that there is no, or should be no, debate about that within Christian circles just because everyone involved is a Christian.
Note here that I'm not trying to be an apologist for every worldview held by Christians. But I think you're way off base here.
Quote:Well in order for the shroud to be legit there had to be a Jesus and if there was a Jesus there's a god and if there's a god, etc etc.
Yes, Jesus' existence would seem to be a fair conclusion to draw, or at least someone very much like him. It wouldn't necessarily mean there's a god, but it would mean that this Shroud was created in a way that doesn't make much sense short of some miracle. But I think you missed the point of what I said. What I said was "how you could claim your post is so specific and then try to tie it to implications from the Shroud is beyond me."
You misunderstood my point. I was saying that if the Shroud is legitimate, the impact would be felt within Christianity at large and beyond Christianity, I would think. Part of the issue is that you still are completely not on the same page as me as to what you were being "specific" (or not specific at all) about.
Quote:Well that's my baseline which is what I have a problem with, deism, the very idea of a "supreme being", so apparently even according to you I've been just as specific I've been saying I was.
This doesn't make sense. I said Jesus Christ is god. That is not deism. That is Christianity.
You have not been specific, and this may be the root of our issues. If you'll recall, in your post that I originally responded to, you focused on Christians, stating that "every single one" you've met believes in an all-powerful being "who rewards or punishes people for reasons ranging from obedience/disobedience to mere whims," and that pure belief in this god makes them a better person. You also stated that all Christians you've met "worship a totalitarian dictator" and that those Christians believe that others "need help" if they don't believe that same thing. You also stated that they're not "humble, [but] pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards who couldn't be bothered to run their own lives so they outsourced it to someone else. And then claim that other people would be better if they outsourced their lives too."
Those are the things that you said, the terms that you associated pretty much all Christians with. As I said previously, you didn't attempt to make clear that these labels did not apply to all Christians. Instead, you've said things that make it seem like you think they apply to all Christians. And you seem to think that "specific" means, you saying "all Christians who believe in god." That's not specific at all. It can be fairly said that that statement would cover all Christians. And your follow up posts have basically confirmed that.
If this was not clear before, what I am arguing is that the labels I quote or paraphrased above do not apply, at all, to all Christians. My point is that you mischaracterized Christianity and attributed things to it that surely many, if not most, Christians would not subscribe to. For instance, I do not think all Christians believe that god literally rewards or punishes people, certainly not on a whim. Some might, maybe the more fundamentalist type, but certainly not all. There is room for reasonable debate there. So you've mischaracterized Christianity at large there. You did the same when you said that Christians worship a "totalitarian dictator", and that Christians think that other people "need help" if they disagree. Again, I would guarantee that most reasonable Christians do not believe that god is a totalitarian dictator, and certainly wouldn't be brash enough to contend that other people need to get help just because they disagree with their belief in god. And finally, calling an entire group of people that is as large as Christianity pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards without a hint of qualification or "maybe this doesn't apply to literally all of them" is confounding. And, yet again, I can promise you that there are plenty of Christians who aren't "outsourcing" their lives to god because they're lazy and don't want to deal with it themselves.
The overarching point I'm making is that, in your defense of the above post, you initially seemed to argue that you were only tossing those labels and insults at a "specific" subset of Christianity. Yet you have provided no limiting terms, such as stating that those labels and insults only apply to "Christians who believe x, y, and z, while I recognize that not all Christians believe those things."
My position is that you've been overly broad in your criticism, over the top, and you come off as angry and unreasonable. I don't think it's almost ever appropriate or accurate to try to paint a group that large with a brush that large, unless first qualified. I don't think you qualified it really at all. And in follow up posts, again, you seem to think you were being specific by stating you were attacking only the "kernel" of what is "largely considered Christian." That is not who you criticized, and it has been my position throughout that you are not taking what is largely considered Christian, you're mischaracterizing Christianity and criticizing it.
But not only that; you're also leveling serious and aggressive criticisms without even a hint of reservation - there doesn't seem to be any thought in your head of "hmm, maybe these accusations or descriptions don't apply to every single Christian. Maybe there are some out there who reasonably don't agree with the things that I've said, and these criticisms shouldn't or don't apply to them." You have never been
that specific. It seems to me that you were clearly stating that all these labels applied to all Christians. What I mean when I say specific is stating, clearly, that you're only criticizing a subset of Christians with specific beliefs. If that's what you've done or intended to do, I think you haven't been clear about that at all. If that's not what you meant to do, and your version of "specific" is just Christians (or who you think Christians are), then I'm arguing that your criticism is completely over the top and unreasonable, without any self awareness whatsoever.
It seems that all of this was lost in translation. The essence of my first post boiled down to: do not be so unreasonably critical of such a large group of people without qualification, because it is inaccurate, unfair, and comes off as an angry, uninformed, and misguided tirade.
Quote:Oh really...
Not specific enough? Giant blanket accusation of an entire religious group rather than individuals within it? Sure it was an edit but it's more than old enough that surely you would've seen it if you'd bothered to look, check the last edited date too in case you're suspicious that I recently put it in there.
How about this...
Hmmm... arguments that apologise for and people who materially support? Yeah that sounds real blankety don't it? I mean it doesn't include people who support ideologies that aren't about deities, such as those that define god as a neutral energy field or Buddhists who says it's about personal development. It doesn't include people who believe that there is a god out there but do not follow it or pay into it's churches or anything. So that cuts out in incredible number of spiritualists right there. It only includes those that believe in and follow an all powerful being and more specifically one that they believe can and will punish and/or reward people or otherwise have any influence in this or any other possible plane of existence based on it's own personal preference, thus making it a tyrant. And thus making the ideology tyrannical.
In your posts you quoted, you aren't limiting it to Christians who you clearly state don't make up the majority of Christians as far as their beliefs go. It seems a lot more like you think that all Christians "materially support" a "tyrannical ideology." It does not seem like you are saying "some Christians do this." It seems like you are saying all Christians do that. So you're not being specific, you're just saying "Christians," as far as my understanding goes.
When you say "it doesn't include people who support ideologies that aren't about deities," you have directly highlighted our discrepancy in terms of specificity. I was never talking about Buddhists, neutral energy folks, or spiritualists. We were talking about Christians, through and through. No doubt about that. While I've already said this earlier, I was never saying that you were unfairly criticizing Buddhists, spiritualists, etc. I said you were unfairly criticizing Christians.
These are qualities you described above as "specific": "only includes those that believe in and follow an all powerful being and more specifically one that they believe can and will punish and/or reward people or otherwise have any influence in this or any other possible plane of existence based on it's own personal preference, thus making it a tyrant." From everything you've written, it is my understanding that this description is equivalent to your view of Christianity. Or at least that anyone who doesn't believe those things, isn't really a Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it appears to me. That is not specific, at least not as specific as it ought to be given your criticisms. And so, what I've been trying to say, is that I do not believe that that description fairly represents Christianity or the views of all Christians. Thus, I think your over-the-top criticisms are unreasonably broad and incendiary.
What you seem to think "specific", based on your posts, appears to be "Christians, as opposed to all other people who are spiritualists, deists, etc." When
I said specific, I meant "Christians who believe in this type of punishing on a whim, dictator god, while recognizing that this does not represent nearly all of Christianity." Therein lies a large portion of our misunderstanding, I think.
Quote:No it isn't, if they're all powerful then they can take away your free will any time they please. Meaning you only have it until they whimsically decide to remove it one day. Furthermore there are examples of this sort of thing happening down here in the real world. Like banks who will shut off peoples bank accounts or ability to get one for having jobs that are legal but considered "High risk" or "immoral" such as pornstars and gun sellers. Why could this happen? Because the bank had the power to, nothing more nothing less. Try doing that with someone's cryptocurrency wallet. Thus anyone who believes that they are in control of their money when it's sitting in a bank are mistaken, they are only in control as long as the bank doesn't whimsically decide to take that control away. A god is infinity times worse, it requires no pretense, no justification, just a whim. Believing that a god is out there and could do that is one thing, actually desiring it for yourself and other people is sickening.
This is a different issue altogether, so I won't dive too deep here. Just because they're all powerful and could do that doesn't mean that they have, or will. Just because something could happen does not make the belief that it has not unreasonable. That's like saying that a child who has a toy should believe that they don't really have the toy because their parent has the ability to take it away at any time. That it could be removed, just because the god is all powerful, is inapposite. It doesn't make belief in free will logically inconsistent whatsoever.
Regarding your example, it's completely false that a bank can just take your money away without reason. You'd have grounds to sue if one day you went to the bank, all your money was gone, and their response was, "well we just felt like it." That isn't a real life thing. It's not comparable because the bank isn't literally all powerful and can't do what you just said they could. You're also anthropomorphizing god, which is a pretty classic misunderstanding of the idea. Making it seem like god is just sitting there, thinking, and is one day just like "well, I think I'll take free will away" is not really in line with a classical idea of how god works. It also suffers from attempting to assume that we could actually understand how god works, which is clearly an issue. One of the major notions regarding a god is that it is beyond our comprehension. So trying to fully assume that we could understand how god "thinks" or works, as opposed to simply the qualities god possesses, doesn't really get us anywhere.
Saying that it's "sickening" again I think totally misunderstands the idea of god, but that's a different argument. It's also purely your opinion.
Quote:Funny because most reputable organizations down here in the real world do exactly that, they have policies and records and codes of conduct and will absolutely kick people out for not abiding by them. Are you telling me that Christianity, a religion so old and with so many members couldn't get that together when all these other groups can? I mean China has a billion people and it manages to have social insurance numbers, passports, and all that sort of stuff. But christianity couldn't keep track of a few things here and there like what a christian even is?
Or is that just too much work. Or maybe you just want it to be a disreputable organization? I mean, there's people running around with the same label as you causing drama and smearing the reputation of that label and you're telling me you can't be bothered to protect your own reputation? What do you just wanna sit back and soak up the praise from the guys giving out free surgeries in third world countries but then complain when someone asks you to deal with the guys throwing molotov cocktails at abortion centers? Sounds pretty lazy and self entitled to me.
Religions are not jobs. What other groups are you talking about that "can" get together and kick people out? Certainly not most religions. I'm pretty sure China and government have little in relation to how religions work. I don't have much to add to that. They're totally different sectors.
Is it too much work? It's just a difference of opinion. People form their own opinions in faiths and use the inherent wiggle room to find their own way. I think that's nice. Apparently you think it's some horrible thing, which I think is absurd, but that's fine. Government is less about individual opinion, because governments make laws and enforce them by fines or jail time (generally - sometimes worse, in some places). Religions, at least in the West, don't do that. They certainly don't kick people out if they hold a different belief, and I think it's crazily unreasonable to think that they should. You can get as worked up about it as you like, but there's not much reason to think it's just laziness or "too much work" as opposed to recognizing just how little sense that would make. It does not make sense to me that religions should be as structured or rigid as you seem to want them to be.
There are always going to be bad apples in any group. Obviously you want to control that to a degree, but in religions it's either untenable to do so for certain issues, or just isn't worth trying to. In any event, it's not about "not being bothered." It's about being realistic and recognizing the differences between religion and other sectors of life. They're not all the same.
You can keep being snide - "sounds pretty lazy and self-entitled to me" - it's not doing anything for you. Again, keep living in your quixotic dream world where there is some religious enforcer who can take care of that. The people throwing molotov cocktails can be handled by police or government officials. Religious leaders can fairly say, "well if they're throwing molotov cocktails with the intent to harm or kill others, they're not really living Christian values." It may also be fair to expect them to say, "this behavior is not in accord with our belief system and values, and if you think it is then maybe this faith isn't right for you, or at least you've misinterpreted it." But almost certainly they can't literally kick people out, certainly not for differences of opinion of the nature of god and the like. You seem to take issue with that. Violence towards others in the name of faith is one thing; differences in particular beliefs are another altogether. I'm not here trying to solve all religions' problems. But I'm suggesting that your unrealistic and idealistic view of how things should be isn't in accord with real life, nor does it make it reasonable to say that not doing what you think should be done makes them "self-absorbed" or "lazy".
Quote:How am I or anyone else supposed to take that other than you admitting complicity in the intents and actions of those people? And if so, why should I see you as any different from them?
I mean take a look at Imam Shaikh Mohammed Tawhidi, One of the guys trying to fix the problem of radical islam in Australia. I may dissagree with the whole Allah thing, I may seem Islam as having even more severe structural problems than christianity or indeed most other deific religions, but I will absolutely respect this guy as a person for not handwaving the issue away and saying "we're not all like that"
Why should you see any one different person as different than another? Honestly how are you asking that question? That's just absurd to me. Because person X is a Christian, and person Y is a Christian, if person Y commits a murder that they would say was motivated by their faith are you honestly saying that person X is complicit in that murder? You ask why you should see those two people as different. Because they're different people, probably with different values and opinions, especially regarding whether such an act as the one person Y partook in actually could be supported by their faith.
If you live your life that way, wherein you think it's fair to judge many for the actions of few, I just think that's sort of absurd. But to each his own.
I'm not handwaving anything, as I said earlier. I'm arguing that not remotely all Christians believe what you've suggested they do, that your broad criticisms of Christianity at large are inappropriate, inaccurate and unreasonable, and that you're approaching things with a quite unrealistic and idyllic view of how things should be. Good for the Imam. It's a good thing for religious leaders to try to point out why their faith doesn't support certain actions, or to call out those who do bad things "in the name of their faith". That doesn't really weigh on anything I've said.
Quote:Hmmm sounds pretty deific to me, I mean there's guy who is a god. Pretty hard to say that doesn't meet the definition of a deity don't you think? So yes the videos were relevant and you just handwaved them. Pretty clear cut.
Never said it wasn't deific, at all. I don't understand how on earth you got there. I didn't say the videos weren't relevant and I don't know where you are getting that from. Nor did I handwave them. I said you presented them as if they supported your objective point of view, and in turn said that your view is subjective, not objective. I'm not gonna waste any more time on those. You clearly are just making up criticisms that I never made of the videos.
Quote:Ok so how many youtube channels does it take before it does? How many opinions? Because that's how we determine the validity of an argument right? By number of people who say it? Not analysis of the content or anything because that would be crazy!
?
The number of opinions about something doesn't change whether it's objective or subjective. Honestly what the hell are you even talking about here? I never said anything about number of opinions. I never said that we determine the validity of an argument based on numbers of opinions. I never said we don't look at the content. You're welcome to continue to make things up about what I said, or draw completely baseless inferences, but you're not even in the same universe of what my comments were about.
Quote:Your subjective beliefs become everyone's business when they are the explicit or implicit basis for actions or inactions in the real world. How many atheists killed kids because they took them to faith healers instead of doctors. None, probably because they don't believe in that sort of thing. Hide behind your subjectivity all you want but it only proves my point. You could check the "Respecting beliefs | Why we should do no such thing" video I linked for a full explanation.
How many atheists have killed people because they believe in nihilism? Honest to goodness, what a ridiculous thing to say. The vast, vast majority of religious believers would not, and have not, done that, just like the vast, vast majority of atheists would not kill because of nihilism.
I'm not hiding behind subjectivity, nor are my beliefs the subject of this thread. Certainly it's not proving any point. This is another example of you seeming to thing that we live in a world where things can be or should be perfect, easily defined, with no grey area, and if there's grey area then to hell with them, because what's the use of having a group that can include bad apples or have any sort of debate? It's not about respecting beliefs. It's about understanding that people have different beliefs, even when they purport to have the same ones. There are always going to be bad apples. Always. This is also at the root of why I called you out to begin with. It's totally unjustified and unrealistic to criticize and attack a group at large for the faults, interpretations, or beliefs of a few.
You come off as extremely unreasonable.
Quote:If a christian doesn't believe in a deity, I.e god, Yaweh, whatever, are they really a christian? Because according to you, no. At the base level, probably all christians believe in Jesus and god. So yeah it's pretty specific to what I'm talking about. If it happens that my specific definition hits a much larger amount of those who wear the christian label, that doesn't make it any less specific. It in fact makes me more accurate in my statements.
Correct. If a Christian doesn't believe in god in some form, I would say they're not really Christian. I agree that probably all Christians believe in Jesus and god.
Here is the specificity issue again, and yet again you've highlighted our misunderstanding. I've already said this, but that's not the "specific" I was talking about. We were only ever talking about Christianity. That's what I first responded about. We weren't talking about anything else. So saying "I was being specific because I was only talking about Christians" is exactly the problem. I was saying you were unreasonably criticizing Christianity without being specific about certain subsets of Christian beliefs, because I don't think your criticisms apply to (nearly) all Christians. On the flip side, you seem to think that you were being specific... by just targeting Christians.
Your specific definition above is "belief in Jesus and god." That's not specific at all, within Christianity. It applies to almost surely all Christians. Your
specific criticisms were the ones about pathetic, totalitarian dictator, others "need help" if they don't believe, etc. I don't think those apply to the larger body of "those who wear the Christian label" - my entire argument is that they don't. No only that, it absolutely does not make you "more accurate in your statements." It makes you far less accurate.
Saying "Christians are people who believe in Jesus and god" is a blanket description that makes you accurate if you are only discussing those views. As soon as you start throwing haymakers at more specific, detailed versions of those beliefs, while still purporting to be talking about Christianity at large, you are no longer being accurate in the slightest, nor are you being reasonable. It certainly does not make your statements more accurate. It does the opposite.
Quote:Yeah, see, that's the entire point here. I don't think there's any genuine historical value to the Shroud of Turin beyond it's claimed story and thus connection to the Christian religion. Therefore the only reasons someone would want to try so hard to prove it's legitimacy is because they want to shove christianity in other people faces, not any genuine historical interest. The implications of that are incredibly grim for those who aren't christian and not something that I at least would want to subject even my worst enemy to. To actually want that reality for others is pretty sick.
No, this is just your angry interpretation and guessing at why some people would want to discover that the Shroud is legit. There are certainly many out there who struggle with fear of death, or who are just curious as to the nature of life, god, existential questions, etc. It would make loads of sense for people who fit into any one of those categories (which aren't comprehensive) to be very interested in the legitimacy of the Shroud, without having any desire whatsoever to "shove it in other people's faces". You just have a very cynical view of Christianity, it seems, and as such are going to paint it in as negative a light as possible at every turn, no matter how unreasonable it may be to do so. The implications aren't "grim" for other people, unless those people, like you, think that the idea of a Christian god is this horrendous, foul, evil thing. There are more people on earth who wouldn't feel that way at all than who would.
"To actually want that reality for others is pretty sick." I mean, Mediochre, you just don't seem to have any ability to get past your own views on this issue. Okay, you hate the idea of an all powerful god. Good for you. Many are not so troubled by it, even though they understand the idea as well as you do, or even better. It's not sick in the slightest, especially when there are a whole lot of people who view the alternative of a godless, purposeless universe as being far worse. Of course I recognize that there being no god does not mean that there is no purpose or higher meaning or universal spirit, or something like that. But it's just your own hatred of the idea here that is polluting any balance or reasonableness in your responses.
I just have difficulty believing that you can't see an alternative to it being "sick" in being interested in the Shroud being legitimate. There are so many obvious reasons that go beyond wanting to be right and "shove it in others' faces", it makes comments like this question your ability to think about this in a balanced way.
Quote:Because realistically, what else could we learn out of the Shroud of Tuirin that we couldn't learn from any other random piece of cloth that might be from that time period? Why does it have to be the Shroud and not one of those other cloths that has all this reanalysis happening? What, are we going to learn some cool new facts about middle eastern weaving patterns of whatever B.C? Is that really worth such an extensive reanalysis? Are we gonna learn the DNA of some random dude from back then maybe? I mean it'd be interesting but is it worth all this? No, if you study the Shroud of Turin, you're trying to prove a pretty specific type of christianity, you're trying to prove Jesus, god, heaven, hell, all of that. Not love, compassion or any of that since those didn't come from Christianity and aren't it's defining features. You're trying to prove that Jesus died, he was resurrected, and there's a god up there judging all of us. That is the only value the Shroud of Turin has to scientific study.
I think you're drawing inferences that might be beyond what the Shroud's legitimacy would prove. If it's legit, what does it really prove? I don't know. Probably, again, that Jesus existed, and that something very, very out of the ordinary occurred with the cloth. I don't really know if the Shroud being legit proves heaven or hell, or even necessarily god. I don't disagree that its legitimacy would lend credence to Christianity, probably. But the reason you look at it so negatively is because you look at Christianity and an all-powerful god negatively.
Quote:If you disagree then please give me some other possibility to why someone would want to go through all this effort to try and overturn the existing carbon dating results and blood analysis and so on and so forth.
I don't disagree. I just don't view the possibility of it being legitimate as some horrible thing.
Note: Edits for grammar and clarity
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
