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?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 185 by Divine Insight]

Christianity is merely one of many diverse spiritual and mystical religious paradigms. And it's actually the most immoral and irrational of them all.

Opinion stated as fact.

Surely there doesn't even exist a Christian who won't confess that Christianity is the most immoral and irrational religion of all? Many famous Christian theists have actually proclaimed that they believe it must be true precisely because it is so utterly absurd.

Christianity holds that every human who ever existed has rejected a loving benevolent God and all that is good, and instead lusts after evil and all that is bad. There is no way that they can merit their own salvation. This was why this loving benevolent God had to send his only begotten Son down to earth. The idea is to have these immoral hateful humans brutally crucify him so that he can pay for their sinful behavior as their "Sacrificial Lamb".

And supposedly this has vindicated the humans who are willing to condone this horrible crucifixion on their behalf. In fact, that's the only way they can be saved from damnation. If they refuse to condone having God's Son beaten and brutally crucified as their penal substitute then they will be condemned to eternal damnation.

The only way to be "saved" in this religion is by condoning the most immoral act imaginable as our penal substitution. So you can't even be saved in this religion without committing the most immoral act possible.

Christianity is a religion where humans are in a state of extreme desperation with no way out but to condone the crucifixion of God's only begotten Son to pay for their hatred of God and their unquenchable lust for evil.

So -- if you can name another "one of (the) many diverse spiritual and mystical religious paradigms" that comes anywhere close to that --

that would certainly strengthen your point.

Every religion has its own long list of things that make it "distinct" from all other religions.

Christianity is far from being unique in that regard. In fact, if this wasn't the truth then there could only be TWO religions. Christianity and the "other one" that isn't like Christianity. But clearly that's not the case. There are thousands of other unique religions. Each one being quite distinct from all the others.

In fact, Christianity itself continues this same trend even within its own cults. There are something like 40,000 registered denominations of Christianity. Each one claiming some special "uniqueness" from all the other Christian cults.

This is necessarily the case, because if this wasn't the case then there would be no need to have so many disagreeing cults of Christianity. Instead it could just be a single religion. Clearly it's not.

Christianity is actually no different from any other religious cult. They all give rise to a multitude of disagreeing cults within their own abstract paradigm. So Christianity isn't even remotely "unique".

[OnceConvinced]

I've encountered so many of them that I really wonder if everyone's had some sort of "experience"; perhaps as children; and many have closed themselves off from it. Just speculation...

I consider myself a scientific naturalist these days. ie I believe everything has a natural explanation, because I have seen more and more throughout my life that everything does. Things I used to believe were supernatural have been proven to me to be natural. Things that people in the bible believed were supernatural have often been shown to be natural. (eg the causes of natural disasters and diseases)

When I hear stories of ghosts, séances and demons I take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, humans are easily tricked and manipulated. Secondly, the majority of these things occur when people are in their beds at night. I have experienced times when I am waking up or falling asleep when I experience some bizarre and sometimes frightening things, that seem very real, but then I realise that it was a dream. Especially as I've grown older, I've found it happens more regularly. My mind starts to drift off and I hear or see things, but when I shake myself awake properly and I see they are not there. Other times I am waking up but still groggy and I see things, but I shake myself awake and they are gone. They seem very very real.

So I can see how someone, even when they are not quite awake or not quite asleep can have supernatural experiences that seem real. It is possible for the brain to dream when you are in between the awake and sleep state. You can still even be aware of being awake, but yet the dreams can still occur.

I have also seen many documentaries on things like ghosts and there are just about always other natural explanations or potential explanations for them. I have many other theories too based on what I have studied.

One thing I can agree on there is many things we do not have answers for yet, but we are beginning to learn a lot about the brain and how easily it can be fooled and influenced, even by our own selves. Who knows what other phenomena there is that seems bizarre and supernatural, but which actually has completely natural explanations.

Having said all that, not being there to witness the things you and your friends have seen/heard I cannot make any real judgements. I can only make theories.

Let me clarify.

God didn't whisper in my ear. "Let me tell you about Jesus...".

He works through other people.

Yes, I understand that is what Christians believe. I used to believe the same thing. This seems to me now to be damning evidence that there is no God. Humans are doing everything. Why should we believe God is involved at all? You can't actually prove God had anything to do with it at all. You can only presume.

Some, dead -- e.g., great authors (e.g., Lewis). Some, as Lewis points out, who are not Christians themselves. I began to see patterns and connections in literature, movies, music; and long for what Lewis calls "the echo of a far off tune from another country, never quite heard..."; a yearning for that country, an appetite for something this world can never satisfy.

I'm not sure why you would put all that down to God. It's only natural that people who study the bible will come up with a lot of stuff that connects. Patterns will form. I still don't see any evidence of God in that.

Having gotten tired with the retread rock music of classic AOR stations, I began to search the dial when in the car. I discovered Christian radio. Vernon McGhee. Adrian Rogers. Ravi Zacharias. Many, many others. I began to get doctrinally sound instruction. Sometimes I would turn on a sermon, and it would be EXACTLY what I needed to hear. Synchronicities would pile up on each other. "There are no coincidences in God's Kingdom..."

So from what you are telling me here God had nothing to do with bringing these things to you. You went out and searched for them yourself. You sought out the books to read. You flicked to the Christian radio station and listened.

I once prayed and prayed for a wife. When God finally sent me one (after about 2-3 years of praying) I praised god for it, claiming that God had answered my prayers and brought me a wife. However later I realised God did none of that. I got my wife because after 2 years of praying I decided that enough was enough and started to be more proactive about finding a wife. It was my actions and my actions alone that got me my wife.

You talk about having "got tired". I know that feeling. When you are in a rut, something has to change but it requires us to take action and make changes. From what I can see you did exactly that. You sought out something new and you found it.

Here, I have to mind my p's and q's. Which is good. Christians say "you are saved -- so act like your saved."

By the same token, I have discovered you should post as though you are moderated, whether you are or not.

I must say it's nice discussing things with a theist who is not judgemental and not automatically jumping to conclusions like "you were never a true Christian" and stuff like that (even though I guess you may be thinking it. lol )

No, I was more interested in -- well, what I asked.

Well it's a tough question because there were many different things that led to my realising that I no longer believed. Things every step along the way, so to pinpoint any one thing is not really possible. It was a mixture of a lot of things.

Happy to send you my longer story if you feel inclined to read it. It may answer the question for you.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 189 by OnceConvinced]

I want to address you post, OC. But first, there is this, from DI:

Volbrigade wrote:

I would definitely add as a distinctive that the Creator of matter, time, and space entered into His creation, manifested as a man, at a particular point in history, in a specific place, in the company of well-known, authenticated historical figures. Suffered at the hands of some of them, both Jews and Romans; and was seen to resurrect from the dead into some transformed, hyperdimensional, eternal mode of existence. So profound was the impact of these things, that His followers established a faith that is with us to this day -- they even have message boards devoted to attacking and defending it!

So -- if you can name another "one of (the) many diverse spiritual and mystical religious paradigms" that comes anywhere close to that --

that would certainly strengthen your point.

Divine Insight wrote:

Every religion has its own long list of things that make it "distinct" from all other religions.

Christianity is far from being unique in that regard. In fact, if this wasn't the truth then there could only be TWO religions. Christianity and the "other one" that isn't like Christianity. But clearly that's not the case. There are thousands of other unique religions. Each one being quite distinct from all the others.

If that is intended as a serious response to the serious distinctives I mentioned, I'm afaid it... uh, "misses the mark", my friend.

OC --

Re supernatural phenomenon -- I'm not talking about things that could be confused with dreams. The incident I recounted from my own childhood, involving a seance by children, did not happen in bed, but rather among a group of us -- "fully clothed and in our right minds."

I experienced another troubling event as an adult, involving a tarot card reading.

Both events involved physical phenomenon -- flickering lights, knocks on walls, and so forth. I bring up the topic by way of suggesting that such things are pretty common experiences; and that they at least point to the fact that our reality is much more than the dull and prosaic one offered by conventional secular materialism. I'll go a little bit further, and suggest that while belief in a loving God may be a bit of a challenge; belief in a malevolent supernatural being is an easier reach for a lot of people, who can claim to have had contact with such. After all, "the Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence."

But, I don't see any point in further discussion on the matter if you have ruled out the possibility of paranormal activity being legitimate -- that is, if you have determined that such events MUST have natural explanations. And, for a fact, most do. But as with the UFO phenomenon (and for the same reason) -- most are explainable. Some are not.

As C. S. Lewis put it -- paraphrasing, because the quote did not come easily to hand -- the doctrine of the Devil is not essential to his apologetics for Christianity. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Here is an actual quote, which I came across while looking for the other one. It's a good one:

"If devils exist, their first aim is to give you an anesthetic -- to put you off your guard. Only if that fails, do you become aware of them."

I like that one, because I think that is the condition of the typical secular "Whateverist" (many of whom are cultural Christians, even churchgoers). They are, in a sense, anesthetized. "Sleepwalking". IMO.

Volbrigade wrote:


Here, I have to mind my p's and q's. Which is good. Christians say "you are saved -- so act like your saved."

By the same token, I have discovered you should post as though you are moderated, whether you are or not.

I must say it's nice discussing things with a theist who is not judgemental and not automatically jumping to conclusions like "you were never a true Christian" and stuff like that (even though I guess you may be thinking it. lol )

I'm afraid you're not going to like what I have to say here. And I apologize in advance: as I said earlier, it is not my intention to offend. But since you brought up the subject, I think it is fair that I am allowed to respond with my view on it.

I think an open-mind assessment of the situation has to include at least the possibility of the part in bold.

And I think that possibility is on the following grounds:

I think it may be that the "God" you believed in, and prayed to, WAS a "figment of your imagination". I think it MAY be that you were not focused on the Creator of time and space, who entered into His creation, manifested in the Person of Jesus Christ.

I say "MAY". I obviously don't know enough about your situation to say with anything within lightyears of certainty.

Another possibility, which is related to the first: like those in the Apostolic Church ("Ephesus" in Revelation 2), you may have become "so busy doing the work of the King, that you forgot about the King" -- specifically, your love for Him. So busy going to Church events and revivals and picnics and evangelizing outreach and whatnot, and so tied up in the personalities and concerns and politics of your congregation, that your actual devotion to the "life" and "mind" of Christ may have been pushed aside.

I say that, because my understanding is that it happens. The Devil (again ) doesn't care what you're busy doing, as long as it is not in relationship to Him. Good works can be an excellent distraction in that regard -- "making the world a better place to go to hell from."

There is still another possibility, in my mind. I adhere to the doctrine of eternal security, "once saved, always saved", the sealing of the Holy Spirit. No-thing and no one can wrest out of His hands the ones the Father has given Him.

It could be that you were saved, and ARE saved, and are being permitted a period of testing.

Frankly, and though it's not really my placer to say so -- your evangelizing against faith in our Lord may cancel that possibility. "MAY".

At any rate -- former Christian or not, your insistence that matter is all that exists merely places you in the camp of all other atheo-materialists, and the same arguments apply. Either what cause our space-time environment has a Mind, Will, and Purpose; or it is mindless and random.

I think the best argument can be made for the former; and that Christianity is the full and complete expression of the argument, by and from the Creator Himself.

I have been having (what I consider to be) an interesting dialogue on this subject with Tired of the Nonsense; and invite you to investigate it, and my comments made last night (post #39, here):

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30

[Divine Insight]

After all, "the Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence."

This is absolutely false. To the contrary we have precisely the opposite. We have empirical evidence that death, disease, animals eating each other, thorns growing on plants, and all manner of natural disasters have been occurring on the earth long before humans ever appeared on the planet.

Therefore we have absolute proof that these Hebrew fables are false. Mankind is not responsible for the so-called "evils of the world".

So you are wrong. There is no empirical evidence for the mythological "fall from grace".

You keep proclaiming to have empirical evidence for things when we actually have empirical evidence for precisely the opposite.

You need to at least start owning up to the truth of reality before trying to support ancient fairy tales with false claims.

[Volbrigade]

After all, "the Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence."

This is absolutely false. To the contrary we have precisely the opposite. We have empirical evidence that death, disease, animals eating each other, thorns growing on plants, and all manner of natural disasters have been occurring on the earth long before humans ever appeared on the planet.

Therefore we have absolute proof that these Hebrew fables are false. Mankind is not responsible for the so-called "evils of the world".

Your evidence for "death, disease, animals eating each other, thorns growing on plants, and all manner of natural disasters have been occurring on the earth long before humans ever appeared on the planet", is the same evidence for a catastrophic global flood, as described in the Bible.

So there is hardly "empirical evidence for precisely the opposite."

For empirical evidence of the Fall, I direct you to today's newspaper, or tonight's newscast.

Some more evidence was revealed in Washington today...

You need to at least start owning up to the truth of reality before trying to support ancient fairy tales with false claims.

Do tell.

I direct you, as well as OC, to my post #39, at the link provided in my last post.

[Divine Insight]

For empirical evidence of the Fall, I direct you to today's newspaper, or tonight's newscast.

The fact that the world isn't perfect is actually a religious problem. It's called "The Problem of Evil".

Christianity attempts to solve this problem by blaming evil on humans. But as I have just explained that's absurd as we already have empirical evidence that things we consider to be "evil" existed long before humans ever evolved from primates.

So what you keep pointing to as your so-called "empirical evidence" only demonstrates your own lack of understanding of why those things are not evidence for any ancient mythological stories that try to pin the blame for evil onto humans.

Clearly, you are simply not understanding what constitutes empirical evidence. I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to help you there other than to suggest taking a course on logic.

I can only offer the obvious. Even if we allow that "evil exists" in our world that wouldn't be evidence for any fall from grace anyway. Those same conditions and behavior that we call "evil" would exist in a purely secular materialistic world. In fact, if they didn't exist that would actually be a huge problem for secular materialism. So a secular atheist could point to this as being "empirical evidence" for secular materialism.

Buddhism also has an a religious explanation for "The Problem of Evil" on a theological level. But just because they both explain why what we call "evil" exists, and why it came to be, doesn't means that the existence of "evil" then serves as empirical evidence for Buddhism.

In short, consider the following:

Is the existence of behaviors we consider to be "evil" compatible with the following worldviews?

Secular Materialism - Yes
Christianity - Yes
Islam - Yes
Buddhism - Yes
Hinduism - Yes
Wicca - Yes


I'm sure this list could be added to greatly.

So since every single last one of these worldviews predicts that there will be things in the world that we consider to be 'evil' how can any one of these worldview proclaim that the existence of evil is empirical evidence for their favorite worldview?

Please explain to me why you think the existence of 'evil' could be said to be empirical evidence for Christianity's "fall from grace" but it wouldn't be empirical evidence for any of the other worldviews listed above.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 193 by Divine Insight]

Please explain to me why you think the existence of 'evil' could be said to be empirical evidence for Christianity's "fall from grace" but it wouldn't be empirical evidence for any of the other worldviews listed above.

I'm on record as saying that just because Christianity is the highest, fullest, most complete form of truth available to men, that doesn't mean all the other religions are "wrong all through."

I even quoted Lewis to that effect. And it's worth quoting him again:

"If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others."

As well as (immodestly) myself, from last night. My wife suggested I make the following my signature line:

"Nowhere does the fusion of the mystical, the magical, the lyrical, the poetic, the symbolic, the idiomatic, the thematic and the scientific occur more fully and completely — NOWHERE — than in the Person of Jesus Christ. 'And the volume of the Book is written about Him.' "

[Divine Insight]

I'm on record as saying that just because Christianity is the highest, fullest, most complete form of truth available to men

You are welcome to say anything you want. That's called an "opinion".

Let me know when you can provide any compelling evidence for your opinion. Then we can have something to debate.

I have been demonstrating for many years that Christianity clearly does not contain truth. And the proof is in the Biblical stories themselves. There is no need to even bring any outside evidence into it. We don't even need scientific knowledge to know that the Bible is clearly false. It's "self-contradictory" within its own stories.

[Volbrigade]

I'm on record as saying that just because Christianity is the highest, fullest, most complete form of truth available to men

You are welcome to say anything you want. That's called an "opinion".

Let me know when you can provide any compelling evidence for your opinion. Then we can have something to debate.

I have been demonstrating for many years that Christianity clearly does not contain truth. And the proof is in the Biblical stories themselves. There is no need to even bring any outside evidence into it. We don't even need scientific knowledge to know that the Bible is clearly false. It's "self-contradictory" within its own stories.

One man's "compelling evidence" -- I've provided pages and pages of it, imho -- is another man's opportunity to "cover your ears and hum."

While we can disagree as to whether or not the arguments and evidence I've been presenting qualify as "compelling":

One thing that is beyond dispute is your dodging the directed point I presented to you:

Volbrigade wrote:

...the Creator of matter, time, and space entered into His creation, manifested as a man, at a particular point in history, in a specific place, in the company of well-known, authenticated historical figures. Suffered at the hands of some of them, both Jews and Romans; and was seen to resurrect from the dead into some transformed, hyperdimensional, eternal mode of existence. So profound was the impact of these things, that His followers established a faith that is with us to this day -- they even have message boards devoted to attacking and defending it!

So -- if you can name another "one of (the) many diverse spiritual and mystical religious paradigms" that comes anywhere close to that --

that would certainly strengthen your point.

Name one that compares with those stated claims. Not a generalized "ALL religions..." blah blah blah.

ONE wil do. Two would be better. If you can cite a handful, I will eat my hat.

One religion that claims that God became a specific human being, who lived under the auspices of religious and civic leaders that are a matter of historical record, the events of his life recorded in documents within decades of their occurrence, and died to reconcile His creation to Him.

That reconciliation incumbent entirely on the acceptance of the atoning sacrifice. The payment of the debt. And nothing else -- nothing YOU must, or can, do.

Its all been done.

"Jesus paid it all."

"It is finished."

Go ahead. I'll be waiting.

[Divine Insight]

I'm on record as saying that just because Christianity is the highest, fullest, most complete form of truth available to men

You are welcome to say anything you want. That's called an "opinion".

Let me know when you can provide any compelling evidence for your opinion. Then we can have something to debate.

I have been demonstrating for many years that Christianity clearly does not contain truth. And the proof is in the Biblical stories themselves. There is no need to even bring any outside evidence into it. We don't even need scientific knowledge to know that the Bible is clearly false. It's "self-contradictory" within its own stories.

One man's "compelling evidence" -- I've provided pages and pages of it, imho -- is another man's opportunity to "cover your ears and hum."

While we can disagree as to whether or not the arguments and evidence I've been presenting qualify as "compelling":

One thing that is beyond dispute is your dodging the directed point I presented to you:

Volbrigade wrote:

...the Creator of matter, time, and space entered into His creation, manifested as a man, at a particular point in history, in a specific place, in the company of well-known, authenticated historical figures. Suffered at the hands of some of them, both Jews and Romans; and was seen to resurrect from the dead into some transformed, hyperdimensional, eternal mode of existence. So profound was the impact of these things, that His followers established a faith that is with us to this day -- they even have message boards devoted to attacking and defending it!

So -- if you can name another "one of (the) many diverse spiritual and mystical religious paradigms" that comes anywhere close to that --

that would certainly strengthen your point.

Name one that compares with those stated claims. Not a generalized "ALL religions..." blah blah blah

Why?

What would be the point to it?

I've already acknowledged that ALL RELIGIONS are unique. How does that make Christianity special? It doesn't.

So I don't see your point.

Name another religion that proclaims that the Moon Goddess created the world. If you can't then I guess that makes Wicca TRUE!

Do you see how ridiculous your logic is?

In fact, can you name another religion that has an illiterate prophet who rewrote "God's Word" via divine revelation and then flew off to heaven on a winged horse?

If not, then I guess that makes Islam SPECIAL and therefore TRUE.

You have absolutely nothing to offer but extremely flawed reasoning.