Faith Vs. Religion Vs. Santa Claus Vs. The Martians

Fair enough.

Too much???

Possibly. Or:

"He's a cooking something up."

Well, I answered his question, then I got a thinking so I typed it...

My fair enough wasn't saying too much- how could i when i asked for your thoughts. I was simply responding in a non-threatening manner. Cool.

This isn't gunna get threatening? Awww, I don't know if I wanna play anymore... I was gunna sit on the sidelines, egging people on, taunting them, screaming for blood. My side vs Your side, and the winner would be showered with praise and attention, and the loser will be booed and taunted until my throat is sore. Bring iiiiit!

No sidelines for you, you get yourself in the fight mister!

So, just to keep the ball rolling...

Glenjamin wrote:Atheist (there is no god)

A more accurate description, I would propose, would be "there are no gods"

Glenjamin wrote:Agnostic (There is a god/ higher power, but we cannot know or understand them)

Mmmm. I would personally say it was more like "IF there is a god(s), then we can't expect to know much about them." Though I don't know much of the history of the term and your definition could be closer to its original meaning (in fact I think I read something that it may be, sort of), in any case, the contemporary agnostic view is more along the lines of what I just put up, I think.

Glenjamin wrote:this is what Orthodox Atheism looks like here in post-modern Australia.

Are you saying that "Orthodox (if that word's appropriate) Atheism" in Aus is like your definition of Agnostic? Because I don't know how true that is.

Glenjamin wrote:there are many people who call themselves Christian who deny the validity of the bible-

Really? In what sense are they Christian? And in what sense do they deny the validity of it?

Glenjamin wrote:but i won't bore you with the difference between Evangelical Christianity and Liberal Christianity.

Ah, I guess you can, go ahead. I mean, that's what this place is for, and especially this topic... Also, we don't have to read it, like people do with my topics...

When I said agnostic, I was thinking along the lines of "if there is or isn't a god, we can't prove it either way." I guess that's an inaccurate definition.

I guess that's the problem with those terms, hey. But at least now you've just defined exactly what it is you meant; you could call it Mizarc's Brand Agnostacism

Andrew.C wrote: Ah, I guess you can, go ahead. I mean, that's what this place is for, and especially this topic... Also, we don't have to read it, like people do with my topics.

Sad face for Andy...

Happy face for Glenjamin! Liberal Christianity (a notable example would be the Australian Diocese of Perth) says that Jesus was a pretty cool guy, he taught us good stuff, but all those pesky details from the bible- that He is the Son of God, the He died and rose again, and that He performed signs and wonders are just fanciful rumors from the first century AD. the general idea is that we shouldn't take ANY of the bible as literal, and the teachings are just a guide, a loose one at best.

This results in wishy washy theology- and an organisation (to use a poor term for what church is supposed to be) that just makes up its own rules as it goes along.

Evangelical Christianity (Wollongong or Sydney Diocese), says that the bible is the final authoritative word of God, that Jesus is who the bible says He is, and that the only non-literal parts of the bible are the poetic or apocalyptic (a crazy word for the end times picture language of Revelation) sections- and even they should only be interpreted in relation to the rest of the bible. this results in an understanding that the bible is one book, that it is important and that God isn't someone who gets stored in a cupboard at the back of a building and referred to in a vague way every now and then.

Does that clear it up for you Andy?

Glenjamin wrote:Does that clear it up for you Andy?

Yes, that'll do nicely. Thanks.

So, I can assume that you're an Evangelical Christian (you might have already said this, but I wasn't sure)? My question would be "what's so wrong about the Liberal's position? I know you've already said just what you think they are, so I'll try address them specifically.

Glenjamin wrote:says that Jesus was a pretty cool guy [...] but all those pesky details from the bible [...] are just fanciful rumors

What's the problem with this, apart from the fact that it may offend you on a personal/emotional level? Surely they could potentially take exactly all the same 'good' lessons that christians propose Jesus gave, which I would also assume is perhaps the more important aspect?

Glenjamin wrote:This results in wishy washy theology [...] that just makes up its own rules as it goes along

And also the problem here is...? If they're good rules they're making up then what's the issue? In fact, it could be argued that it's better, in that they're capable of changing their ideas when situations change.

When addressing these I think you must put aside your own emotional attachments you might have to certain ideas, unless of course you believe that that is a defensible idea in itself, which I'll happily listen to.

Andrew.C wrote:So, I can assume that you're an Evangelical Christian

No, he's a orthodox Christian or so I am lead to believe.

Andrew.C wrote:What's the problem with this, apart from the fact that it may offend you on a personal/emotional level? Surely they could potentially take exactly all the same 'good' lessons that christians propose Jesus gave, which I would also assume is perhaps the more important aspect?

Some people might find it hard to believe in a metaphor(s).

Nick wrote:No, he's a orthodox Christian

Is he? I thought he was saying that it wasn't entirely accurate to say that, and that Evangelical and Liberal might be like sub-groups of the Orthodox group. But I don't know. Anyways, it wasn't integral to my response or anything... Did you just read the first line, Nick?

ADD ON

Nick sort of wrote:Believing in metaphors

I don't know if you're just having a jibe or not, but I'll just say: Who's talking about belief (except that it happens to be the main point of this thread), it sounded like he was critical of the Liberals, and I was just saying it sounded like their system was pretty good, in terms of their potential to have some good tenets or whatever.

How can he say that it was not entirely accurate to say that, "Orthodox Christianity" is a quote from Glen himself.

Glenjamin wrote:I was probably a little liberal in saying I hold to Orthodox Christianity

When you put the quote in its full context... you've been 'Sun' quoting so much that it's now become ingrained in your brain!

Well, at least that was the interpretation I read it to mean. But I don't know if we're talking at cross-purposes anymore...

Sorry, was going from this quote,

Glenjamin wrote:Fair enough... actually the purpose of this thread is an opportunity to state what we do believe (be it orthodox Christianity (mine), orthodox Atheism (Marc's)...

I had forgot he said that.

And I have only Sun quoted once, but is that ever enough?

No.

Check.

Who changed the title? And I'm waiting for more talk on the martians and Annual Gift Man. I can totally believe in the Martians.

Andrew.C wrote:

Nick sort of wrote:Believing in metaphors

I don't know if you're just having a jibe or not

No, it wasn't.

Also I didn't chage the title, I will assume Marc then...

It was Andy, he's fucking with you.

Marc Simpson strikes again...

Well he's a jerk then.

Slander! How very dare you!

How Very Indeed! Come along Cedric...

In answer to the Andy/Nick debate- i hold to evangelical Christianity, i was using the term Orthodox to say that for the purposes of this discussion my stance would be the normative view of Christianity, as opposed to other (Mormon!) less traditional views.

In answer to Andy's earlier question, i guess there's nothing wrong with the Liberal Christian view, unless you believe God is real, which many Liberal Christians don't. Or if they do He must be so distant that they don't think He'd get offended by changing His words. That sounds like a harsh attack, but basically it boils down to this- Christianity without the saving work of Christ is empty and useless, you may as well rename yourself an "Ian" (which is a name, not a faith) because they have effectively removed the Christ from the whole equation.

Removing the bible from Christianity is somewhat akin to removing the ball from a soccer match- without it there's no reason to run around doing your little tricks, because no matter how good you are there's nothing at the end of it, no possibility of GOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL! In fact, Liberal Christianity is worse than useless, because it takes the stance that every path leads to God, and every religion is correct- which is impossible.

Removing the Death and Resurrection of Christ from Christianity is ludicrous- in fact one of the writers of the bible says so himself: "...And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." it's from 1 Corinthians 15:14. Paul's audience were dealing with some people who came along and preached that the resurrection of Jesus was impossible, that we should focus on Spiritual knowledge and that our bodies don't matter- so do whatever you want! They said they had a special knowledge and were more spiritual than the Apostles, the problem with that is simple: the Apostles never claimed to be super spiritual, they called themselves witnesses, and only reported what they had seen with their own eyes. Which is what we have in the New Testament part of the bible, the eye-witness accounts of more than 500 people- who all said the same events occured.

Glenjamin wrote:unless you believe God is real, which many Liberal Christians don't.

Wow, I never knew that. That is interesting.

Glenjamin wrote:Christianity without the saving work of Christ is empty and useless (my italics)

Now that sounds way harsh. Empty and useless? I won't completely hold you to those words, since you may have said them in the heat of the moment, but I still want to comment on them. What you have seemed to be describing is a perfectly commendable practice in which people direct their lives around a set of norms that they view to be moral. What's more is that they seem to be able to amend and alter these norms if it appears appropriate to do so (whether this occurs is a whole other matter).

Glenjamin wrote:without it there's no reason to run around doing your little tricks, because no matter how good you are there's nothing at the end of it

What are you talking about? Nothing at the end of it? Have you considered that they are doing what they do perhaps not for the final reward but just to try and lead a virtuous and 'moral' life (something which, I must admit myself, I had never associated with "Christianity" before)? Why need the goal?

When we're talking about those Liberals, I understand you think that they're wrong in believing that God is not who you think he is, but I don't think that that means - or even that you could construct any argument to say - that it's "useless" or worse in anyway.

Glenjamin wrote:the eye-witness accounts of more than 500 people- who all said the same events occured.

I don't know if i should go into this but... what the hell

*holds breath, and takes the plunge*

What events? Saw what? What exactly are we talking about? That they saw a human being who was utterly dead - and I mean dead-dead - come back to life, and start kicking it about? Because, no, they didn't. That didn't happen.