Print

[Anthony Horvath]

As you get bogged down after 500 words, let me cut to the chase for you.  The entry I linked to documents from official Christian church sources the following:

We can safely say that a solid 1,725,000,000 people ascribe to a view of Christianity as understood in the creeds.  A relative minority accepted the content but not the formulations.  A sizable remainder accepted the content and I found explicit acceptance of at least one of the creeds, and the majority accepted all the creeds.

That's 1.72 billion, friend.  Out of 1.95 'self-described.'   That is a huge raw number and extremely high percentage of Christians who "agree on how to describe him."

Here are a link to the creeds:  http://www.creeds.net/

The ones in question as the 'three ecumenical creeds' are the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian (The Trinity).

[stathei]

That's pretty impressive - they actually asked two billion people if they ascribed to Christianity as understood in the creeds? Wow. The Christies I know wouldn't know their creeds from their elbow. They just like bake sales.

Your figures are ridiculous. They assume, for example, that every Catholic is fully on board with the teachings of their Church. That is like saying that no Catholic uses contraception. Laughable.

Back to your original question:

So what would it take to persuade you that there is a God and he is as Christians describe him?

I think a good childhood brainwashing would have done it, but it's too late now.

[Anthony Horvath]

"Your figures are ridiculous. They assume, for example, that every Catholic is fully on board with the teachings of their Church. That is like saying that no Catholic uses contraception. Laughable."

Now you're just playing hard to get.  If I understand your contention, unless we go around and interview every self-described Christian on the planet and ask them directly about certain things, we cannot think we've offered a substantive answer?

Doesn't it make at least a little sense that if a person is going to belong to a particular group that it is reasonable that there is enough to that group to a person agrees with to warrant them staying with it?

Moreover, do you apply your reasoning in all other spheres?  Have you interviewed every atheist to determine what they think?  Why stop there?  For every term that you can think of do you require direct interviews with every person who claims the label?

You dismiss the fact that 1.72 billion people belong to organizations that agree with God and Christ as described by the three ecumenical creeds?  You asked for agreement about how God is described and retort with an example from the Roman Catholics about birth control?

Meanwhile, you protest that you want Christians to at least agree on their description of God (attitudes on birth control don't qualify) but have you asked every Christian about their description of God in order to know that they differ as widely as you suppose?

Are you really contending that Christians are not in fact largely agreed that God is the 'maker of heaven and earth' that he is a transcendent entity, that Jesus is God incarnate, that he died and rose from the dead to atone for our sins, and that God is trinitarian in nature?

Is that really your contention?  Please, answer it straight and direct. 

"I think a good childhood brainwashing would have done it, but it's too late now."

Since so many people have become Christians outside of their childhood I don't agree that it is too late.  Francis Collins was raised (your term: brainwashed) as an atheist but nontheless has become a Christian.  We can therefore set aside your implicit argument that religion requires brainwashing.  Back to the question:

Now that we have established that Christians are indeed united on a number of important core teachings about God (see my paragraph summary above beginning "Are you really...") what is your next objection?

[stathei]

That was only 400 words - are you sure you're finished?

Are you really contending that Christians are not in fact largely agreed that God is the 'maker of heaven and earth' that he is a transcendent entity, that Jesus is God incarnate, that he died and rose from the dead to atone for our sins, and that God is trinitarian in nature?

Of course not. But are you really contending that all Christians think, like you do, that embryonic stem cell research is sinful? Are you contending that all Christians think, like you do, that gay people have no place in the Christian Church? Are you contending that all Christians think, like you do, that the earth is 40 times older than my Granny and that our ancestors lived in fear of pterydactyls? These are the things that actually matter, as they affect how we treat each other and how we respond to progress. I don't care if someone thinks God has antlers and smokes a pipe, but if they think that it is sinful to use a collection of stem cells to relieve horrific suffering I have a major problem.

Of course Christians think God is the supernatural Big Man - but there is rather more to it than that.

We can therefore set aside your implicit argument that religion requires brainwashing.

Oh no, we can't. You base your opinion on one person and I am sure there are thousands more who change religion or become believers/atheists late in life. But there are BILLIONS who do not. You are simply wrong. "Give me the child, I will give you the man" as those nutty Jesuits like to say. "Give me the man, and he'll tell you to leave him the f&%k alone" is what I say.

And I guess that is what I am saying to you  .

[Anthony Horvath]

"Of course not."

Sure looks like it.

"But are you really contending that all Christians think, like you do, that embryonic stem cell research is sinful?"

This is not a description of God.

"Are you contending that all Christians think, like you do, that gay people have no place in the Christian Church?"

This is not a description of God.

"Are you contending that all Christians think, like you do, that the earth is 40 times older than my Granny and that our ancestors lived in fear of pterydactyls?"

This is not a description of God.

"These are the things that actually matter,"

Sure, they matter.  But they are not a description of God.  You asked for:  "If Christians could agree on how to describe him that would be a start."

That is what I gave you.  A set of doctrines that virtually all 'self-described' Christians agree about in relation to how God is described.

"Of course Christians think God is the supernatural Big Man - but there is rather more to it than that."

Sure, and also that Jesus was God, in the Trinity, in the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins....  lots more.  :)

"Oh no, we can't. You base your opinion on one person and I am sure there are thousands more who change religion or become believers/atheists late in life."

Yea, CS Lewis, Muggeridge, etc.  Lots.

"But there are BILLIONS who do not. You are simply wrong."

No, I'm not wrong.  See below.

""Give me the child, I will give you the man" as those nutty Jesuits like to say."

The question is whether or not this is 'brain washing.'

Is it a true fact that if you 'have the child' you will increase the odds the child will grow to have those particular beliefs?  Sure.  And I know you agree because this is one of your arguments for atheism.

But is it brainwashing?  Or is it rather simply a fact of reality and the nature of humans and so imperative to make sure that you have the right assessment of reality when you transmit it to the next generation?

You act as though it were possible to raise children without transmitting values and beliefs.  You denounce the Jesuits but I predict that you have no objection to promoting your secular atheistic ideas through the public educational system...

Incidentally, were you raised Christian?

[stathei]

This is not a description of God.

Oh, but it is. It is certainly a description of God to say, for example, that he is the type of god who has a furnace with a sign saying "HOMOS" on it.

You act as though it were possible to raise children without transmitting values and beliefs.

No, I don't. My whole point is that you can't.

Incidentally, were you raised Christian?

Yes. Add my name to the few on your list who broke away.

[Anthony Horvath]

I forgot about another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-433628/Do-stop-behaving-God-Professor-Dawkins.html

"Oh, but it is."

No, it isn't.  It is obviously and self-evidently isn't.

This is proved by your own argument, for remember you began by implying that Christians don't agree about anything about God.  I showed otherwise- they actually agree on a fair bit.  But as there are Christians who disagree about homosexuality, etc (not that I concede your characterizations) this shows that these things are not inherently related to the description of God.

If the idea that a transcendental, trinitarian God who incarnated himself for our sake inevitably led to the things you described then perhaps you would have an argument.  However, as you yourself admitted when you insist that we present a shared understanding of the term, there are many people who do not believe that these things lead to the ideas you reject.

There are only a few options, then.  1.  People who believe those core beliefs ought to share the views you reject but don't because they are inconsistent.  2.  Those core beliefs don't actually logically entail the views you reject.

Only if it is the former can you say that these things really speak to the nature and description of God.  So, are you saying that all of the Christians who are for embryonic stem cell research and endorse homosexuality are actually misguided and deluded and that if they really believed in the existence of a God as so far described they'd be 'homophobes'?  Is that your position?

If not, you concede that they do not directly relate to a description of God.

"No, I don't. My whole point is that you can't."

Right.  That's my point, too.  As such it doesn't automatically qualify as 'brainwashing.'  It is the nature of the way things are.  Sure, in some cases it might be brainwashing.  But in most cases it probably isn't.  Note, btw, that adults can be brainwashed, too.

"Yes. Add my name to the few on your list who broke away."

See, so it can be done!  And it can go the other way, too, as you admit.  You are allegedly a free thinker so you should be able to examine the issue impartially, right?  So, we are back to the question, but perhaps with more precision:

What would it take to persuade you to the existence of a transcendental God with a Trinitarian nature who incarnated himself for our sake and died and rose again and promises to return?  Ie, if you will permit, can I just summarize that in the future by saying, 'the existence of God as Christians understand him'? or do I have to expand on it each time?

If I have to provide the expanded description every time it is your fault that my posts are long, not mine. 

[stathei]

You are saying that if you think God is a spiteful homophobic your description of God is somehow the same as someone who thinks God is tolerant? Just because you both agree he is the Big Man?

Sorry, SJ, you are on another loser here - you can't possibly maintain the absurd position that all Christians agree on their description of God any more than you can say that you and I are the same just because we both have two arms, two legs and a head.

So, are you saying that all of the Christians who are for embryonic stem cell research and endorse homosexuality are actually misguided and deluded and that if they really believed in the existence of a God as so far described they'd be 'homophobes'?  Is that your position?

No. But those Christians confirm my statement that Christians can't agree on what they mean by God.

[Anthony Horvath]

"Sorry, SJ, you are on another loser here - you can't possibly maintain the absurd position that all Christians agree on their description of God"

You are flat out wrong.  You have actually conceded all my points.  All you did when faced with my straight answers which were slam dunk refutations of your objections is move the goal posts. 

"No. But those Christians confirm my statement that Christians can't agree on what they mean by God."

But these have nothing to do with what is meant by God.

What you're saying is as ridiculously stupid as asserting that because you and I have different ideas about Obama, we can't agree on who we mean by the term.   That is a better analogy than your idea that just because we both have a head and limbs that doesn't mean we are the same.  No kidding.  But it does mean that we know what we mean by 'humans.'

In fact, its really just like that.  Just as saying that we know what we mean when we say we are both humans despite the fact that we have disagreements about certain behaviors, neither does it follow that we can't mean the same thing by 'God' just because we have disagreements about those behaviors.

But allow me to address what I perceive is the real flaw in your logic.  It is essentially this:  you wanted an agreement on the nature of God (which I have provided) but under your breath you meant 100% shared agreement about the nature of God, extending to every subject (that you arbitrarily decide on) and every man.

In other words, you have moved to the position that if all 1.72 billion Christians are not 100% carbon copies of each other in their beliefs, they are not expressing agreement on the nature of God.

And that of course is absurd, for you will never find any human who is a carbon copy of another human no matter what the beliefs.  That's just not the nature of reality.  You need a more rational set of expectations, my friend.  How about giving me a set of expectations that you're willing to apply in all areas of your life and not just in the one area that makes you uncomfortable?

[End Bringer]

What a hoot. It's asked if Christians largely agree about the description of God. It's shown that they do about His nature (for you can't be definitionally a Christian if you don't agree with some fundamental concept). Then there's hemming and hawing about His character. Of course by such thinking one can be comfortable rejecting atheism simply because atheists can't agree on what a-theism precisely means by definition irregardless about it's truthfulness.

Though I have to say stathei, I wouldn't think there'd be so many objections for someone who supposedly doesn't care that much.

[stathei]

Alright, alright, I concede that Christians agree that God is the bunch of made up stuff you listed. That is what I don't care about because that imaginary world does not impinge on the one we all live in.

It is what their disparate views of what God expects them to do in the real world that I care very much about because it can sometimes stifle scientific progress, legitimize homophobia, lead to bigotry and misunderstanding and is, in my opinion, sometimes not helpful to say the least. Please note excess use of the word "sometimes" in the hope that SJ will not come out with one of his sweeping statements about Communism.

We can get hung up on who can define "description" most accurately if you want, but the fact is that Christians do not agree on how God should impact the world - that is more important than whether they agree he is major voodoo magic daddy. To say that 100% of Catholics agree on what they mean by God is not only untrue, it misses the point.

EB, I don't think it is hemming and hawwing to discuss the importance of God's "character" given the incredible influence peoples idea of God's character has on the world we live in. It is hemming and hawwing, however, to waste time debating the meaning of words.

Atheism is not a religion, it can't be rejected or embraced. It just means you don't believe in God. There is only one way to not believe in God, but there are many, many, many ways to believe in him. I wonder why that is?

[End Bringer]

Alright, alright, I concede that Christians agree that God is the bunch of made up stuff you listed. That is what I don't care about because that imaginary world does not impinge on the one we all live in.

A sure sign tht atheism is founded on circular logic if ever there was one.

It is what their disparate views of what God expects them to do in the real world that I care very much about because it can sometimes stifle scientific progress, legitimize homophobia, lead to bigotry and misunderstanding and is, in my opinion, sometimes not helpful to say the least. Please note excess use of the word "sometimes" in the hope that SJ will not come out with one of his sweeping statements about Communism.

Hey, it just shows atheism is no better when it comes to intolerance. One can say it's even worse because it has no innate reason to prohibit it.

We can get hung up on who can define "description" most accurately if you want, but the fact is that Christians do not agree on how God should impact the world - that is more important than whether they agree he is major voodoo magic daddy. To say that 100% of Catholics agree on what they mean by God is not only untrue, it misses the point.

No, it misses your point when your challange crumbled to dust. Of course disagreement is inherently a stupid thing to hang your objections on anyway. Or is it your contention that the number of disagreements in the scientific community warrants an abandonment of science? I bet it doesn't, which is why your arguements amount to picking and choosing.

EB, I don't think it is hemming and hawwing to discuss the importance of God's "character" given the incredible influence peoples idea of God's character has on the world we live in. It is hemming and hawwing, however, to waste time debating the meaning of words.

It is when you specifically demand an answer about whether God's nature is agreed upon.

Atheism is not a religion, it can't be rejected or embraced. It just means you don't believe in God. There is only one way to not believe in God, but there are many, many, many ways to believe in him. I wonder why that is?

And I know many a-theists that would say it's a belief that God doesn't exist. See? There's disagreement so I can reject it. That's how it works, right?

And as it's a belief about the nature of reality and no one exists in a theological vacuum it's as much a religion as any other.

[Anthony Horvath]

See? There's disagreement so I can reject it. That's how it works, right?

Exactly.  :)  There is no point in evaluating atheism since atheists are not in 100% agreement with each other on every topic- not even important ones!

Stathei, I am willing to concede that certain beliefs about behaviors reflect on God's nature and that as the circle widens there can be more and more disagreements.  I have a real problem with judging the core of a thing by the periphery issues, however.  That kind of thing just comes across as petty and pedantic, especially when we see that this sort of reasoning is not restricted to God but applies to just about everything under the sun.

Name a term or concept.  There will now be some core tenets involved in that term.  Now there will be other issues closer and closer to the edge.

We used the term 'atheist.'  Well, there are atheists who are for abortion on demand and atheists who are against it.  The 'edges' may not be unimportant but even so it doesn't change the fact that there is a 'core' that all atheists more or less affirm (theoretically   )  Same with Republicans, Democrats, Humanists, Philosophers, Cooks, Waiters, Garbage Men.

No different.  So it shouldn't be a stumbling block in evaluating the core claims of Christianity, either.

[Zagzagel]

It's also interesting the FACT that religion doesn't cradle rob as suggested by Stat.  Many non-religous folks... even Athiests have gone out to prove the so called "bible" erronous only to discover that there are no errors.  With other words.. Adults.. and smart adults and very strained professions have done this and came back with the conclusion that Athiests hate... erm.. don't agree with, I mean.   

[stathei]

Thanks, Z, I was missing Wholly but clearly you have stepped in as the non sequitur oaf.

SJ and EB, you make good points and I take them - but I am not so sure you really can compare the diverse opinions of groups of individuals to the Supreme Being. You seem to say that because not all plumbers think alike, it is ok for Christians to have wildly different opinions of who God is. It makes no sense. It is disgraceful to label major differences of Christian opinion as somehow "peripheral", when people have died for and because of these differences.

You both use the utterly laughable tactic of saying "Atheists don't think alike, therefore if you think Christies not thinking alike is lame, Atheists must be lame too - so there!". Of course Atheists don't think alike - there is no supreme being to tell them what to think, so they think for themselves. If Christians think for themselves about God, you are saying that they can simply choose who God is. I thought God made man in His image, not the other way around. Silly me.

If there are, say, one hundred different opinions of who God is, there are only two possibilities. Either a) 99 are wrong and only one is correct, or b) All 100 are wrong. Which do you think is more likely?

[End Bringer]

SJ and EB, you make good points and I take them - but I am not so sure you really can compare the diverse opinions of groups of individuals to the Supreme Being. You seem to say that because not all plumbers think alike, it is ok for Christians to have wildly different opinions of who God is. It makes no sense. It is disgraceful to label major differences of Christian opinion as somehow "peripheral", when people have died for and because of these differences.]/quote]

Hey you're the one who takes this reasoning, such as it is, and begin and end with those religions you don't agree with. Nor should it be pointed out that what people "have died for" matters an iota about the truthfulness about a claim.

You both use the utterly laughable tactic of saying "Atheists don't think alike, therefore if you think Christies not thinking alike is lame, Atheists must be lame too - so there!". Of course Atheists don't think alike - there is no supreme being to tell them what to think, so they think for themselves. If Christians think for themselves about God, you are saying that they can simply choose who God is. I thought God made man in His image, not the other way around. Silly me.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We have done nothing but take your reasoning and applied it to other areas. So if you think it's an "utterly laughable tactic" then that's simply been our contention for your objection this whole time.

[stathei]

EB, your latest technique seems to be to quote me to make it look like you are actually addressing the issues quoted. You aren't. I preferred Z's post - it had more insight.

[Zagzagel]

Thanks, Z, I was missing Wholly but clearly you have stepped in as the non sequitur oaf.

Thanks.

I preferred Z's post - it had more insight.

Thanks Again!!

Wow. 

heh.

IF I wanted to be as insulting as you then I would say that Wholly actually made more sense than you.. at best maybe Wholly even took things more seriosly and even OWNED what he said (which he did) AND probably at least would have acknowledged this post less strangly than you.  Heh.

:)

Peace bro.. not war!

[stathei]

Z, sorry I called you an oaf - but it was a non sequitur.

[Zagzagel]

I accept your apology.  Thanks.