When's the last time you heard something new from the Christians?

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus could've easily said,

Yes, Jesus COULD HAVE SAID that same sex marriage is a sin, but apparently he didn't.

Dude,nyour whole argument was that Xians are not bigots, they just believe what Jesus told them. It's a stupid argument, but you cannot even support that.

So, if you have to put words into Jesus' mouth in order to make him say what you want to believe, how are you not bigots?

Jesus spoke the same way about marriage as Christians do today. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Very very simple.

SO, STILL WAITING FOR EVIDENCE THAT JESUS SAID SAMESEX MARRIAGE WAS A SIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Or, admission that you were making shit up...?

[Politesse]

Jesus could've easily said,

Yes, Jesus COULD HAVE SAID that same sex marriage is a sin, but apparently he didn't.

Dude,nyour whole argument was that Xians are not bigots, they just believe what Jesus told them. It's a stupid argument, but you cannot even support that.

So, if you have to put words into Jesus' mouth in order to make him say what you want to believe, how are you not bigots?

Jesus spoke the same way about marriage as Christians do today. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Very very simple.

He didn't say that either. Are you a compulsive liar? You quoted him correctly earlier in the thread, so I know you know what he actually said, and it wasn't that.

[steve_bank]

WTF does that mean?

What do you think "physical laws" mean? We gotta be speaking the same language if you want a discussion.

You know it sounds ridiculous in a materialistic universe to say that the universe follows laws. But if you say it's random, then that also sounds ridiculous because anyone can tell the universe is ordered.

Materialism is bankrupt.

Philosophical and religious definitions of reality are useless but for something to believe in.

Scientifically the universe exists. People conflate scientific laws with civil laws.

Civil laws are conducted to be followed for a purpose.

In science models are the better words. Science laws are models of observation. When an experimental observation predicted by a model it is sometimes but not always called law. In science a law is not absolute.

Newton's Laws Of Motion do not work at very fast speeds and small atomic scale particles. Within bounds Newtonian mechanics work so well and predictably we trust them to work, like sending a probe to the moon.

The word materialism applied to science and philosophy is rather useless and meaningless. One of thousands of -isms. One can get a PHD in the use of ism-ology. The art of using -isms to sound profound.

We can debate science models vs philosophy on sconce forum. We can start by you define what you mean by obviously ordered in an objective sense. The observable universe is in constant change and motion down to atomic particles. To me philosophically the universe is chaos and violence. Another extinction level asteroid strike is when not if.

Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water. The question why that is so is unasnwearble and meaningless. Models in chemistry show how to create water from hydrogen and oxygen which the ultimate origins of which are not knowable. The BB theory does not explain ultimate origins, only initial conditions for a theoretical event. What led to the conditions is not known or modeled.

There is no need for a creator in sconce. It works regardless of a god existing or not. Theist proofs of god generaly reduce to a few categories.

I can not image the univwerse existing without god, therefore god exists.
It is obvious the biblical Abrahins god creted it ll, just look at it.

My favorite.

How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.
How you know the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.
How do you know god inspired it?
Because it is in the bible....and so on and so forth.

And the old standby when all else fails, I just know in my heart god exists and created everything. That's all the proof I need.

[ideologyhunter]

Absolutely, and as long as the (Christian) believer knows that any Rastafarian, Pastafarian, Muslim, Moonie, Latter Day Saint, Scientologist, et al.,ad infinitum, can make the exact same statement with the same level of zeal and fulfillment, then everything's wonderful, innit??? It's all good!

[ronburgundy]

But if you refuse to have conversations about anything other than the majority perspective in your country, you can't very well complain about a lack of novelty, can you?

But do you bring up novel perspectives by initiating a new thread for discussion?
Because my impression has been that you bring up a novel POV in the middle of a thread about something that is a majority or at least a plurality position.
Which may mean that it's not a case of refusing something new, but not wanting to derail to discuss something that is not-the-OP.

I may be wrong, but that's what the back of my mind is suggesting. But I threw out all my otherposter surveillance notes...

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

[Sarpedon]

The roll of the craps dice is random, but you will never roll a 14.

Just because something has constraints, doesn't mean it isn't random.

[Politesse]

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas. The impression the OP is complaining about is a natural outcome of the belief that only common ideas should be considered legitimate topics of discussion, or even belonging to the tradition under discussion. You can only maintain the impression that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, whichever) has no original thinkers is if you ignore the persistent minority fringe in those traditions.

[Politesse]

It's funniest to me when I'm accused of making up an idea personally when I know it to be fairly ancient, pervasive, and widespread. In real life, I was chatting with an atheist friend a few weeks back who absolutely refused to believe that the Eastern Orthodox perspective on Hell... existed? I even pulled Google up and showed him, and he still insisted that this was some wacky theology invented yesterday, against the evidence of his own eyes. In fairness, he was a bit drunk at the time.

[Rhea]

It can't be helped if my honest opinion on an issue is seen as a "derail".

Except, most of the time it is objectively a derail. When the discussion is about the general nature of Christian ideology, then the fact that you think differently but call yourself a "Christian" is no more relevant than your feelings would be if you called yourself swiss-cheese to a discussion about the nature of swiss-cheese.

People are not ignoring you b/c what you say is "new", but b/c it's a-typicality is a byproduct of it having no relation to the core ideas that define Christianity as a meaningful concept that would warrant such a label to distinguish it from anything else.

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas.

Or - maybe because your novel idea isn’t a “Christian” idea at all, and that makes it a derail in a thread about Christian ideas?

Your ideas are novel, and interesting. Just not Christian since they do not follow the tenets of the religion and often contradict those tenets. If it’s the beliefs of a one person fringe, then it’s not really a “religion” at all.

[Politesse]

Thank you! Yes, exactly. That is a precise summary of the argument that is always proffered, and which I pointed out in my offensive post in this thread. If every time you encounter a novel idea you ignore it because it hasn't been embraced by "most" of the people you know, you will naturally come away with the impression that there are no novel ideas. The impression the OP is complaining about is a natural outcome of the belief that only common ideas should be considered legitimate topics of discussion, or even belonging to the tradition under discussion. You can only maintain the impression that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, whichever) has no original thinkers is if you ignore the persistent minority fringe in those traditions.

Or - maybe because your novel idea isn’t a “Christian” idea at all, and that makes it a derail in a thread about Christian ideas?

Your ideas are novel, and interesting. Just not Christian since they do not follow the tenets of the religion and often contradict those tenets. If it’s the beliefs of a one person fringe, then it’s not really a “religion” at all.

Again, if you define anything that is unfamiliar as being outside the tradition, naturally you will never again encounter a new idea within that tradition. It is pretty clear, there.

I am once again tickled by the notion that I am the originator of... what, educated Christian agnosticism? You do me far too much honor, sir. I can't think of a single thing I believe that is actually unique. What are you even talking about?