Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

Theists predominate in the list of people who are banned for repeated rule infractions. For example, of the last ten people banned, seven or eight are Theists. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860481d25f

Why is this?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 167 by Zzyzx]

Volbrigade wrote:

They "cannot find God, for the same reason a burglar can't find a policeman."

A burglar can't find a policeman (whether he wants to or not) if there is not one. An honest person can't find a policeman that is invisible, undetectable, imaginary.

So now you're saying that in addition to God, policemen don't exist either? Odd.

You're a "non-police-ist"?

A burglar can't find a cop, because he's hiding from them. You?

I seem to have generated a plethora of perfectly good reasons not to believe in the God of the Bible, or in His Christ.

I never said there weren't any. In fact, I have often said that belief amounts to a 50-50: there is abundant, satisfactory reasons to either accept God, and the Biblical account; as well as to reject both.

The determining factor, in determining which way the scale tips, is the feather weight of your free will.

All I do -- and all I CAN do -- is make the case for why I believe the Bible.

As I have been doing in a discussion elsewhere, in response to yet another vague Whateverist who doesn't claim to have any particular beliefs, other than that Biblical claims, and Christianity, MUST be false. It may be something else, it may not -- it doesn't really matter, as long as it's not that icky old YHWH. In making his point, this gentlemen claims that the miracles of Jesus -- who he likes, as being a mensch of Jewish sage; though he is doubtful He ever existed -- amount to nothing more than magic tricks. And since he's not fooled by magic, he doesn't think the good people of 1st century Judea would be, either.

I'll repeat my response to him here, as it incorporates themes and verbiage I have used on this site -- mainly (I think) on the "Bold Claims..." thread.

Those whose minds are made up will likely remain unpersuaded by any arguments for the Deity of Christ. For the benefit of the open-minded, however:

Since we know that the universe had a beginning, and is thus finite in terms of both time and space; and that “everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a CAUSE�; then it is reasonable — not “magical� — to infer that the Cause for our spacial, temporal reality must reside outside of it.

And, owing to the spectacular evidence of detailed, intricate design and order in our universe, it is further reasonable — not “magical� — to infer that the cause of our reality has Mind, Will, and Intelligence.

That is why, even by the limited scientific knowledge and understanding of the 1st century, Paul was able to declare that those who deny the Creator are “without excuse� — since “His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…�.

That is as true today as it was then — arguably, more so, as we continue to discover the exquisite sychronicitous fine tuning involved with (e.g.) the gravitational, strong and weak atomic forces, and electro-magnetic constants; and the 4-letter code of the DNA molecule, expressed in three dimensions; etc.

Now, when it comes to the Biblical claim that God created man to have free will, in order to willingly CHOOSE whether to be in relationship and communion with Him: that is a claim each of us must CHOOSE to either accept or reject.

I maintain that it is reasonable — not “magical� — to accept that an omniscient God, who is outside of space and time, and “knows the end from the beginning� would devise a plan for His creation in which “all things work to the good for as many as love Him, and are called according to His purpose.� A plan which satisfies both our capacity for free will, and His divine sovereignty; the working out of which occurs in dimensional regions beyond our senses or measurement, in addition to our own physical reality.

And it is further reasonable — not “magical� — to marvel at the working out of that plan, described in 66 books, written by 40 authors over a span of 1,700 years, but which is “ an integrated message system from outside our time domain�. A plan in which the Creator himself enters His creation. A plan whereby only one man had to suffer a fall from the state of grace, so that through one man, Jesus Christ, all can be redeemed to that state of grace, and of eternal life.

And if that sounds "magical" — it is. DEEP Magic.

Because reasonable people understand that magic is underrated, and reason is overrated.

And that we exist in a paradigm where secular science un-ironically asks us to accept that “once there was nothing — and then it exploded�; the existence of ten dimensions; the particle-wave duality of light —

and the most “magical� claim of all: that animals turn into other animals — microbe to sponge to fish to lizard to rodent to ape to man — through the magic potion of “lots and lots of time�.

Break out the wizard hat and wand.

Past a certain point, we must choose which “magic� we will choose to accept.

Just as everyone must choose for themselves what to do with Jesus Christ:

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.

Anything else is tepid treacle. A half measure.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

[Divine Insight]

Just as everyone must choose for themselves what to do with Jesus Christ:

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.

Anything else is tepid treacle. A half measure.

The choices you've given are nowhere near complete. If you believe that's a complete list than you are the one who has accepted that collection of choices.

I don't need to choose any of those.

I can simply recognize and acknowledge that we have absolutely nothing written by this man name "Jesus" much less have any reason to believe that he was the "Christ". In fact, to believe that he was the "Christ" requires a belief in the original God and religion of the Old Testament as a prerequisite. A religion I have very good reasons to reject as clearing being false.

I can also recognize that the "Jesus" written about in the New Testament may have never existed at all.

Sure a man named "Jesus" may have actually lived, argued with the Jewish Chief Priests, and was ultimately crucified on charges of blaspheme, but that doesn't mean that the "Jesus" described in the New Testament represents everything that original man ever said or did.

In short, I have absolutely no reason to expect that any man named "Jesus" ever said all the things attributed to him by the authors of the New Testament. Therefore I don't need to call Jesus a "liar", or a "lunatic". He may have simply never made all the claims that the authors of the Gospel rumors claim he made.

In fact, I don't see how he could have since they have Jesus contradicting his own claims. If Jesus did say everything they attributed to him then Jesus may indeed have been mentally ill or a "lunatic". Some humans are mentally ill, why would it be so difficult to think that maybe Jesus himself was mentally confused?

What's wrong with that conclusion anyway?

In fact, the greatest reason I reject the stories and claims about Jesus is because I can't imagine a "Father God" who would be stupid enough to have orchestrated the whole Jesus scenario. I can't imagine why an omnipotent God would have created such an ignorant and utterly absurd centerfold for his religion as having Jesus hanging on a crucifix as the symbol of mankind's sin and dire need for repentance.

I mean seriously. FORGET about Jesus entirely! Christianity isn't about believing in Jesus anyway. It's about believing in the "Father God".

I have extreme problems with any supposedly omnipotent all-intelligent God having orchestrated such an ignorant drama play.

For me, this religion is asking me to believe that we were created by a lunatic!

Never mind Jesus!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Just as everyone must choose for themselves what to do with Jesus Christ:

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.

Anything else is tepid treacle. A half measure.

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
Nope. I admire both Abraham Lincoln, and Albert Einstein. But I don't worship them.

— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
Jesus left nothing written in his own hand. It would be unfair and unreasonable to brand Jesus a liar based on the words placed in his mouth by anonymous others years after he was dead.

— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.
Same problem as above. Reaching conclusions as to Jesus' sanity based on claims made by others concerning the things he said, did or believed is entirely unreasonable.

[Zzyzx]

.

They "cannot find God, for the same reason a burglar can't find a policeman."

A burglar can't find a policeman (whether he wants to or not) if there is not one. An honest person can't find a policeman that is invisible, undetectable, imaginary.

So now you're saying that in addition to God, policemen don't exist either? Odd.

You're a "non-police-ist"?

Is this another of your attempts to be funny or is it an indication of your level of understanding / reading comprehension?

There is no Forum Award for 'Forum clown' . . .

A burglar can't find a cop, because he's hiding from them.

NO? REALLY?

Would a burglar hide from cops if he was aware that there were none present in the area?

You?

I do not hide from cops because I am not a burglar.

I do not hide from 'gods' because I have found no reason to think they are anything more than products of human imagination.

I seem to have generated a plethora of perfectly good reasons not to believe in the God of the Bible, or in His Christ.

I didn't see a plethora of reasons for non-belief -- but carry on.

I never said there weren't any. In fact, I have often said that belief amounts to a 50-50: there is abundant, satisfactory reasons to either accept God, and the Biblical account; as well as to reject both.

Is this to say that a decision to worship one of the thousands of proposed 'gods' is similar to a 'flip of the coin' -- that evidence is equal in both directions? If so, flip away.

The determining factor, in determining which way the scale tips, is the feather weight of your free will.

This makes no sense.

All I do -- and all I CAN do -- is make the case for why I believe the Bible.

Feel free to start whenever you are ready.

As I have been doing in a discussion elsewhere, in response to yet another vague Whateverist who doesn't claim to have any particular beliefs, other than that Biblical claims, and Christianity, MUST be false. It may be something else, it may not -- it doesn't really matter, as long as it's not that icky old YHWH. In making his point, this gentlemen claims that the miracles of Jesus -- who he likes, as being a mensch of Jewish sage; though he is doubtful He ever existed -- amount to nothing more than magic tricks. And since he's not fooled by magic, he doesn't think the good people of 1st century Judea would be, either.

Kindly take that matter up in appropriate place with whoever made that point.

The topic of THIS thread is "Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?"

Care to give that a shot?

[Zzyzx]

.

Moderator Action

I have moved several recent posts to a separate thread "Resurrections and Hyperdimensions" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31694

In this thread the topic is "Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?"

Kindly stay on THAT topic here and debate resurrections and hyper dimensions in the appropriate thread.



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[OnceConvinced]

Again, it has been well and truly said that "God never said 'I'll show you, and then you'll believe'; He said, in effect, 'believe -- and then I'll show you.' "

The problem is that we have ample evidence that the above is clearly false.

I stand here as one such example of this. Over 30 years of studying and believing the bible. Over 30 years of worshipping Jesus and following his teachings. What I was shown in the end was that the god of the bible appeared to be non-existent.

[Volbrigade]

Again, it has been well and truly said that "God never said 'I'll show you, and then you'll believe'; He said, in effect, 'believe -- and then I'll show you.' "

The problem is that we have ample evidence that the above is clearly false.

I stand here as one such example of this. Over 30 years of studying and believing the bible. Over 30 years of worshipping Jesus and following his teachings. What I was shown in the end was that the god of the bible appeared to be non-existent.

Two items of interest:

DI -- could you cite some of your "ample evidence"?

OC -- I'm intrigued. I wonder if you might consent to trace, in narrative form, your movement from faith to unbelief?

[OnceConvinced]

DI -- could you cite some of your "ample evidence"?

Here is a list of reasons that I see are ample evidence:

94 reasons why I no longer believe

OC -- I'm intrigued. I wonder if you might consent to trace, in narrative form, your movement from faith to unbelief?

Certainly. Here is a link to the brief version of my deconversion story. I have a much more thorough one I can PM to you if you wish.

My brief story