The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Christian liberty: are you serious?? > Comments

Christian liberty: are you serious?? : Comments

By Darren Nelson, published 11/5/2018

Christianity is by-far-and-away the most compatible religious faith or spiritual belief with Liberty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All
GrahamY is letting his beliefs get in the way of logic...It's his site he can do that if he wishes.

Some believers who are in themselves good people give credit to God...they're delusional but good people. It's a mistake, but hey if they want to give God credit for their niceness so be it.

I prefer to be more generous than that and appreciate the goodness in the person not their chosen deity.

Call me old fashioned but I think it's time we were a bit more honest than religions and the religious allow.

SteelR did nothing wrong. Rache summed up the early Christian religions and the Catholics turned oppression into an artform through the many inquisitions.

The believer mind wants to dump Stalin on Atheism as their example so we should be allowed to dump Catholism and Christianity on the later Roman Empire, the crusades and Hitler.... http://tinyurl.com/y7kp5bkb

With all the kids having been abused in religions and covering up of the crimes one should hardly say liberty in the same breath as Christian. The Royal Commission was quite conclusive wasn't it?

As Christians wrongly and bigotedly believe non-believers rot in hell....one should hardly claim a Christian liberty, should they?

As the Christian religion through Paul taught and encouraged the oppression of women for a further almost 2000 years where is the liberty in that? News recently https://tinyurl.com/ybx2vmgh

Modern believers are just 100 years behind the times in logic, knowledge and human advancement.

They, in most things if not everything, including their charities, have a hidden agenda to manipulate and indoctrinate...so where is the liberty in that?

Sorry but some of us are a bit smarter than to accept religious piffle keeping most believers blind to the facts.

Entrenched lies and indoctrination are hard to break down even when the victims/parishioners are presented with facts.

The question is....Is covering up your religions crimes against women and children and scaring people/children who don't believe in Jesus with rotting in hell providing liberty?

Christian Liberty history doesn't support the concept...sorry!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 16 May 2018 9:39:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//But Christianity is unique in ascribing equal worth to each person.//

No it isn't. One does not need to be Christian to believe that all men are born equal, and holding that belief is not considered sufficient to make one a Christian.

Also, it took quite a while for Christians to cotton onto that idea... and there's a few firmly in the nutjobs & extremists camp that still don't believe it.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 17 May 2018 9:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP,

This is absolutely the last I'll post on this piece of AJPian lunacy. Hereafter you'll have a free kick to make up any reconstructed scenario to salvage whatever pride you need.

In the previous thread I originally opined what I thought was an uncontroversial position that the deity can't be disproved (or proved for that matter) using logic.

You then asserted that "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic."

While I never disputed that you could imagine a particular type of deity and the seek to discredit it, I pointed out that that didn't disprove the deity overall. eg "So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you ie you’ve discredited that type of God."

After some to and fro you asserted that "No, I have rebutted you by saying that the god can be disproved".

But then I started pointing out that you're understanding of "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god" isn't the only potential understanding and all you'd disproven was a god of your own design.

When that finally sunk in we got this from you:

“Deities can be disproven, depending on how they’re defined.”

and

“there are some deities that can be disproven.”

This was of coarse my very original point and it'd only taken christ-knows how many posts for you to recognise it.

On a more general note, I think the problem for you here is that you have this conceit that your understanding is THE understanding. That, for example, the way you define a word such as omnibenevolent is the only way it can be defined. It seems that it was only after I started showing you other authorities that had differing definitions that you started to see the light. Equally you assume that your definition of the deity is THE definition and that discrediting that version is all that's needed to disprove 'the deity'.

That you finally saw the light there, is, hopefully, some sort of break-through.

FIN
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 May 2018 12:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SR,

We've been down this road before. Agreed, Chesterton probably didn't say it. But the sentiment is widely attributed to him...so. There are many 'quotes' like that.

When I see someone who wants to concentrate on the periphery of an issue rather than the substance, I see someone who is incapable of addressing the substance.

________________________________________________________________

"Atheism is not a religious belief, it's the absence of religious belief."

No atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. But there are plenty of religions (as defined) that don't have a deity. I've mentioned a few that I'd venture many here would adhere to such as eco-catastrophism, but there's other example such as ancestor worship, many forms of shamanism, some forms of Shinto and Confucianism.

Humans are tribal creatures and seek the protection of the group. There is no particular reason for Christians to form congregations (Christ having specifically given them licence to worship alone) but they do because that's the human thing to do. Equally, atheists, despite their own self-image as individualistic free thinkers, seek the herd, be it through green groups or various anti-religious movements. Its one of the reasons social media is so successful in that it allows one to join the herd. #MeToo isn't a religion but feminism, in its current forms, is. #MeToo only works because of reinforcing memes from the overriding religion.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 May 2018 12:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I haven't specifically addressed the issues of the confluence of liberty and Christianity as raised in this article since I'd already recently been down that road here and found the group rather adverse to going there.

But just for fun I'll mention the questions I raised in earlier threads which I think go to explain why Christianity spawned liberty and freedom and progress and scientific endeavour and why the slow demise of Christianity threatens all those advances....

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?

Why was it that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Christian West?

Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?

Why, if Christianity caused the Dark Ages, was there no Dark Ages in the Christian East?

While not myself a Christian, I remain convinced that the key to the West's freedom, liberty, economic and scientific success was and is the confluence of Greek and Roman culture and Christian values and loss of these spells the demise of Western culture to be replaced by something far worse.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 May 2018 12:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I can understand why you would want to pre-emptively bow out now.

<<This is absolutely the last I'll post on this …>>

After all, you wouldn’t want to have it look like you were sent packing now, would you?

<<In the previous thread I originally opined what I thought was an uncontroversial position that the deity can't be disproved … using logic.>>

Indeed you did.

<<You then asserted that "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic.">>

Not just asserted, I soon demonstrated that to be the case. Disproven, too.

<<While I never disputed that you could imagine a particular type of deity and the seek to discredit it, I pointed out that that didn't disprove the deity overall.>>

No, you never said “overall”, or anything to that effect. You just kept referring to this vague concept you labelled “the deity” and never really clarified what you meant by that, despite my requests that you do:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286

If you were referring to every single possible god imaginable, then, so what? At no point had I claimed that every single possible god imaginable could be disproved. I only claimed that one version could. But I don’t think even you really know what you were referring to. I think “the deity” was a deliberate attempt on your part to keep things as vague as possible for maximum wriggle room and confusion.

<<After some to and fro you asserted that "No, I have rebutted you by saying that the god can be disproved".>>

Yes, the god I described. There was no to-ing and fro-ing. You are making that up. My position remained consistent the entire time.

<<But then I started pointing out that you're understanding of "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god" isn't the only potential understanding …>>

Yes, and I explained why this was irrelevant:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252253

<<… all you'd disproven was a god of your own design.>>

No, the deity that I disproved is the deity that most believers in the Abrahamic religions, and the OP, believe in.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 17 May 2018 1:39:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy