Poll: If you are a Trump supporter, do you consider him to be a “good Christian?”

[Septic]

I think trying to convince either side via two different and conflating "languages" is not a good faith argument.
or maybe put another way you are wanting visual proof that a smell is the way the person describes it. two different senses, impossible to justify, but neither is invalid. its just invalid as a way to describe the other.
requiring physical proof of a non-physical being is an impossibility, and not a good faith argument.

"What does argument in good faith mean?

When a person argues in good faith, they intend to argue that a claim is true by using good logic and true (or at least plausible) evidence and reasons. Arguing in good faith does not require that a person believes the claim they are arguing for, but they do need to be honest about this."

bolded is my emphasis. when considering what should be considered "plausible" evidence when discussing a metaphysical being, is going to exclude most physical explanations just based on the subject.

you don't have to make any leap, or take anything on FAITH, a good faith argument is just a term used in debates to describe an "honest" discussion. I don't think either side has partaken in a good faith argument to this point, which again is why I have called out both sides.

I think the difference here and something you're not recognizing is - is that I'm not arguing for a position other than a lack of belief based on personal criteria. I'm not suggesting there is no possibility of a "god" and I'm not trying to convince anyone that there isn't a supernatural, unseen, unheard sky god that is all powerful. Me not seeing and not recognizing any compelling evidence that would support your claims isn't an attack on your belief.

I simply reject the premise of all 3000+ gods and religions because of a lack of evidence - the Abrahamic religions are not particularly special. For the EXACT same reason you probably reject Thor and Ra, I reject the Christian god.

Frankly, the only evidence I can see for such a being is wholly laid out in a heavily edited collection of books whose stories of god aren't even original in many, many cases. For a religion that is based solely on faith, it seems odd that the miracles recounted in the bible were somehow a part of the convincing of many during the bronze age - but were limited to that period. Why no more miracles? Reminds me of this:

 

[OrangeTsar]

Long story short. I think folks like you abandoned the faith because of rigid mindedness, judgmental, coerced conformism, blatant hypocrisy, and monetizing religion as opposed to what the claimed ministry was supposed to be about. In short, you were pushed out over time rather than drawn in. So many denominations can't or refuse to acknowledge this.

People eventually stop looking at the perfect Jesus and His example and start noticing his imperfect followers. “Keeping your eyes on Jesus” “the author and finisher of our faith” is the only way that works.

 

[Septic]

Long story short. I think folks like you abandoned the faith because of rigid mindedness, judgmental, coerced conformism, blatant hypocrisy, and monetizing religion as opposed to what the claimed ministry was supposed to be about. In short, you were pushed out over time rather than drawn in. So many denominations can't or refuse to acknowledge this.

Probably some truth to this. Certainly, lots of hypocrisy.

 

[Septic]

For some reason that we cannot understand, God created the universe and made its central principle that of belief. He prizes Faith above all virtues and makes it the entire basis of our eternal Salvation. God wishes to be believed in and to be trusted for His Character in my opinion. He gives us signs and revelations of Himself (the most prominent being Jesus); but He never gives enough for Proof. We all want to believed for what we say and who we are. I feel God wants the same from us.
If we could be certain of God, we would be in a perilous position as we would have no excuse before God for our bad decisions. The fallen angels and Lucifer had certain knowledge of God but chose rebellion and as a result are eternally damned.
Jesus was able on the cross to say of humans “Father forgive them for that know not what they do”. The same cannot be said of angels who definitely knew what they did because they knew God with absolute certainty/

Forget Occam's Razer for a second and that an explanation with the fewest number of assumptions is likely the correct explanation.

Isn't it just as plausible that man created this system and since the "god" was unseen and unheard that the requirement of "belief" was (conveniently) its only requirement? Religious control of the unknown has kept the world's religions in power of the masses since the beginning of man.

The only knowledge of your religion is what you're told to believe or read in a heavily edited collection of books of stories of men who never met the main character. How do you reconcile that what you believe and who you believe in as a unadulterated truth is almost wholly dependent on which geographic region of a singular planet in a universe of almost infinite planets?

 

[lostsheep]

I understand the doubts about Christianity and the questions about why and how did it "win out" over all the various other religions.
Even though I am a Bible-believing Christian, I've asked myself those same questions.
At the end of the day what I hang my hat on is the resurrection of Christ. Take this away and Christianity is arguably no different than other religions.

In the event anyone's interested, Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is a good read for those who doubt.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I understand the doubts about Christianity and the questions about why and how did it "win out" over all the various other religions.
Even though I am a Bible-believing Christian, I've asked myself those same questions.
At the end of the day what I hang my hat on is the resurrection of Christ. Take this away and Christianity is arguably no different than other religions.

In the event anyone's interested, Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is a good read for those who doubt.

Thanks Dude! I will check that book out.

 

[LouderVol]

I think the difference here and something you're not recognizing is - is that I'm not arguing for a position other than a lack of belief based on personal criteria. I'm not suggesting there is no possibility of a "god" and I'm not trying to convince anyone that there isn't a supernatural, unseen, unheard sky god that is all powerful. Me not seeing and not recognizing any compelling evidence that would support your claims isn't an attack on your belief.

I simply reject the premise of all 3000+ gods and religions because of a lack of evidence - the Abrahamic religions are not particularly special. For the EXACT same reason you probably reject Thor and Ra, I reject the Christian god.

Frankly, the only evidence I can see for such a being is wholly laid out in a heavily edited collection of books whose stories of god aren't even original in many, many cases. For a religion that is based solely on faith, it seems odd that the miracles recounted in the bible were somehow a part of the convincing of many during the bronze age - but were limited to that period. Why no more miracles? Reminds me of this:

View attachment 648021

are you saying you don't believe in Texas Toast Jesus?

depends on what you mean by miracles, as a Catholic that means something different to me than it probably does to others.

I think it is fair to think/assume that many of the miracles that makes accepted saints were false/not real. The Church has revised its policy on what gets counted towards a miracle several times, and has rejected several that I know about it in my life. so now there are far less than there were.

there are also fewer, proportionally, Christians to claim miracles. and even amongst Christians there are varying levels of "miracle", and currently the Church is less inclined to take other faith's word for it. right or wrong.

I think the rise of agnosticism would also incline many to not come forward with a faith claim (miracle) or to make claims that run counter to accepted science and or social norms. but this has likely also cut down on the number of false ones too.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Forget Occam's Razer for a second and that an explanation with the fewest number of assumptions is likely the correct explanation.

Isn't it just as plausible that man created this system and since the "god" was unseen and unheard that the requirement of "belief" was (conveniently) its only requirement? Religious control of the unknown has kept the world's religions in power of the masses since the beginning of man.

The only knowledge of your religion is what you're told to believe or read in a heavily edited collection of books of stories of men who never met the main character. How do you reconcile that what you believe and who you believe in as an unadulterated truth is almost wholly dependent on which geographic region of a singular planet in a universe of almost infinite planets?

Yes, none of this is easy and it doesn’t subscribe to the certainty that we humans value so much. The Apostle Paul makes the point that our basic knowledge of the existence of a God is independent of scripture or religion; but is seen in creation itself.


There is a reason that every human society of which we know (I could be wrong here) basically believes in gods (or in the case of the Abrahamic faiths. A God). I don’t know of any originally atheistic tribe or culture.
The question of WHICH faith (if any) is the most correct is of course a totally different discussion.
My basic point and belief is that God creates man with a basic baked in belief if Himself and then helps man seek the true Him in our lives. God seeks a relationship of trust and man can either seek that, ignore that, or not even believe in Him at all. But He GREATLY desires that relationship

 

[OrangeTsar]

Thanks Dude! I will check that book out.

My favorite work of basic the basic arguments in favour of Christian belief is “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. Very clearly written and makes its arguments very logically step by step.

 

[Septic]

Thanks Dude! I will check that book out.

When you're done with that, I'd encourage you to read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins. "The God Delusion" and "The Selfish Gene" - both make compelling arguments as I'm sure "The Case for Christ" does.

I suspect however that anyone with preconceived notions will have a hard time getting past personal bias, one way or the other.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

When you're done with that, I'd encourage you to read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins. "The God Delusion" and "The Selfish Gene" - both make compelling arguments as I'm sure "The Case for Christ" does.

I suspect however that anyone with preconceived notions will have a hard time getting past personal bias, one way or the other.

Well thanks buddy! You ever heard of Hustler mags? Go check em out, some of my personal favs!

 

[Sandman 423]

When you're done with that, I'd encourage you to read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins. "The God Delusion" and "The Selfish Gene" - both make compelling arguments as I'm sure "The Case for Christ" does.

I suspect however that anyone with preconceived notions will have a hard time getting past personal bias, one way or the other.

Who knew Sep was the president of the Oprah Book Club..

 

[Sandman 423]

Well thanks buddy! You ever heard of Hustler mags? Go check em out, some of my personal favs!

To much writing for my taste.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

are you saying you don't believe in Texas Toast Jesus?

depends on what you mean by miracles, as a Catholic that means something different to me than it probably does to others.

I think it is fair to think/assume that many of the miracles that makes accepted saints were false/not real. The Church has revised its policy on what gets counted towards a miracle several times, and has rejected several that I know about it in my life. so now there are far less than there were.

there are also fewer, proportionally, Christians to claim miracles. and even amongst Christians there are varying levels of "miracle", and currently the Church is less inclined to take other faith's word for it. right or wrong.

I think the rise of agnosticism would also incline many to not come forward with a faith claim (miracle) or to make claims that run counter to accepted science and or social norms. but this has likely also cut down on the number of false ones too.

For my part, I believe we are born with a need for faith. Now, don't assume this automatically means being a Christian. What I'm saying is that even in our contemporary modern, educated, and what have you era, something in us looks for assurance and/or understanding of the reason for our existence. Thus, the subtle reminders that show up in various aspects of our lives and/or the lives of others. Things like, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Things like when it seems the jig is up, "Oh my God!" and other last gasp utterances invoking a deity or power. In some hardened, and I do mean hardened people, they utter an angry outburst against that same deity or power. I think something in us sort of knows we are subordinate to SOMETHING above and beyond us. Even many astronomers acknowledge the universe exhibits a design, that no design is without a designer. That's as close to a scientist acknowledging the existence of a God as you can get without overtly stating so. To me, it's made all the more amazing when you look at the post creation debris in our solar system that whizzes around at the usual cosmic speed of PPZZZZT, that and eventually they have and will hit our little rocky mudball planet. It is shocking we exist at all. Only recently, we have learned about the deadly threat of gamma ray bursts, black holes, the effects nova and super nova explosions. To think in all this time, the only planetary home we have, as yet, over the eons, has been spared. That life, ours particularly, has endured despite being inwhat amounts as a shooting gallery. And now, we're learning that there are even rogue planets that were gravitationally expelled from their solar systems, roaming the galaxy. I mean, it is amazing, that distances measured in light-years work to increase our being spared. That things are so far apart. That even within Sol's confines, the VAST number of planet-killing asteroids somehow avoid colliding with earth. Just look at the moon. Pock marked with giant hits. Yes, we have been hit, and revelation says we will be hit TWICE again. What I'm trying to say is stuff like this, even for modern humans, provokes a sense that we must somehow be vested with some kind of divine protection. Even in those of us who don't believe, I think there is a spark of, "What if there really is a...?" And I think we're born with that spark. Because even among the doubtful in these very exchanges here, why are you participating in something you don't believe in? The spark is there.

 

[creekdipper]

My mind has always been open. Heck, I was even "saved" at one point - I was fully in the club.

Asking tough questions without convincing reply's opened the door to agnosticism.

You shouldn't feel sorry for or otherwise pity those who have no faith - many like me are perfectly at peace with their place in the universe. It doesn't owe me a thing. Being moral and having good character isn't dependent on some hope of reward later. I'd argue that that is a truer form of altruism that the religious could ever claim.

You have touched upon a familiar, common fallacy often expressed by unbelievers...that the "religious" folk whose beliefs system includes later rewards only (or primarily) behave in ways generally acknowledged as "good" because they are doing so in order to earn rewards.

That's another canard which I've often seen brought up by nonbelievers in order to assert some imagined moral superiority.

The fallacies involved with that view are many. To begin with, the charge is false. Those whose hearts are truly converted are loving others because they want to, not because they are being forced to do so or in order to earn rewards. The Bible makes that abundantly clear (verses/paraphrases available upon request lol). Those who do so to "earn rewards" are similar to the hypocrite who prayed loudly in public extolling his own virtues)...and who were judged harshly by Jesus for his actions. Good works are done to glorify God and out of obedience and gratitude and efforts to emulate Christ. Putting money in the collection plate in order to be noticed earns no favor from God. God rewards the contrite and broken heart and sincere acts of charity and sets very high standards for charity and forgiveness to keep people humble.

As far as "being moral" and "having good character," what does that even mean? By whose standard? Each person becomes his/her/zir own personal god who makes and lives by the rules that appeal to self. There is no higher power or authority to which to appeal. Any action can be justified or condemned or ignored in this system...and who can say that the ideas are wrong? And if the person decides that the opposite is true tomorrow and reversed course, who can judge that view? All things become logically acceptable in the absence of God and ultimate Truth. We see that reflected in statements about "my truth" as though truth is arbitrary (which is oxymoronic).

Also, non-believers should acknowledge that they did not develop their "morals" in a vacuum. Parental/family instruction, peer pressure, societal mores, government institutions and laws, etc. all helped form the non-believer's belief system. Some nonbelievers may even appeal to evolutionary hard-working as the basis for their moral beliefs.

At any rate, the idea that non-believers independently develop their own morality and/or are more "pure" in their motivations is based upon wishful thinking or bias, I would submit.

 

[volbound1700]

I am very much appreciating the civil, thoughtful conversation and exchange of ideas.

My experience is thst this forum is alot stronger than most that I have been on. The posters in here seen more human and willing to listen instead of acting like 12-year old trolls.

 

[creekdipper]

Long story short. I think folks like you abandoned the faith because of rigid mindedness, judgmental, coerced conformism, blatant hypocrisy, and monetizing religion as opposed to what the claimed ministry was supposed to be about. In short, you were pushed out over time rather than drawn in. So many denominations can't or refuse to acknowledge this.

The problem here is that folks often blame bad experiences for completely abandoning religious institutions but rarely do so with other institutions. For instance, having a bad experience with a banking institution or doctor usually doesn't result in the person burying all their money in mason jars or refusing to go the hospital in an emergency. We see flawed individuals in politics, medicine, charities, families and marriages, education, businesses, military, courts, etc., but we normally don't paint the institutions with a broad brush due to the actions of some individuals. If we did, we'd become hermits.

It's understandable that bad experiences are off-putting, but those experiences don't have to write off the institutions as bad due to some bad actors.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Your post history really helps sell your testimony

At least she took the advice in that regard and sinned no more. As far as we know.

 

[OrangeTsar]

The only thing I can add to this discussion it the fact that at various times in my life I have both tried to live by my own light and abilities and I have tried (very imperfectly) to walk with Christ.
There is no comparison that the time trying to follow Christ has been infinitely better. And I don’t mean financially or materially (I despise that prosperity gospel stuff) but in terms of just being at peace, being a nicer person, less fearful, and the ability to understand and connect with others.
All any believer really can do is bear witness of what they have seen and experienced. And then invite others to come and see for themselves. We echo the final glorious invitation from the book of Revelation

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

My mind has always been open. Heck, I was even "saved" at one point - I was fully in the club.

Asking tough questions without convincing reply's opened the door to agnosticism.

You shouldn't feel sorry for or otherwise pity those who have no faith - many like me are perfectly at peace with their place in the universe. It doesn't owe me a thing. Being moral and having good character isn't dependent on some hope of reward later. I'd argue that that is a truer form of altruism that the religious could ever claim.

The hard part for me is accepting that being good or moral have nothing to do with it. However if you try to follow in Jesus' footsteps, those things happen naturally.

I fail daily.

I have a question though. Do black holes exist?

 

[volbound1700]

I think the difference here and something you're not recognizing is - is that I'm not arguing for a position other than a lack of belief based on personal criteria. I'm not suggesting there is no possibility of a "god" and I'm not trying to convince anyone that there isn't a supernatural, unseen, unheard sky god that is all powerful. Me not seeing and not recognizing any compelling evidence that would support your claims isn't an attack on your belief.

I simply reject the premise of all 3000+ gods and religions because of a lack of evidence - the Abrahamic religions are not particularly special. For the EXACT same reason you probably reject Thor and Ra, I reject the Christian god.

Frankly, the only evidence I can see for such a being is wholly laid out in a heavily edited collection of books whose stories of god aren't even original in many, many cases. For a religion that is based solely on faith, it seems odd that the miracles recounted in the bible were somehow a part of the convincing of many during the bronze age - but were limited to that period. Why no more miracles? Reminds me of this:

View attachment 648021

I personally believe alot of the miracles were actually something that can be explained off in Science. There is a real life, Scientific explanation for how the Red Sea Parting could have really happened for example. I also tend to believe that a lot of myths are somewhat engrained in truth. I think the Trojan War happened for example. We long thought Troy was a Myth until someone discovered it.

Edit: another example would be Dragons. Every culture in the globe seems to have a version of one. Could dinosaurs or their bones be the origin?

I tend to believe the Earth is older and somewhat in Evolution. Carbon Dating is problematic and a lot of Scientists have pointed it out so I am not sure about all of the dating. However, I do think Dinosaurs (or some of them) walked the Earth with humans at some point. That is where I disagree with Science. Their is just a lot of historical concepts and ancient cultures across the globe that point to this idea IMO.

 

[creekdipper]

My experience is thst this forum is alot stronger than most that I have been on. The posters in here seen more human and willing to listen instead of acting like 12-year old trolls.

I was a member of another forum that for many years had informative and spirited debates about all the most controversial topics ..religion, politics, sexuality, race, abortion, evolution, Britney Spears...and 99% of the conversations were respectful and fun. Lot of genuinely caring, good-natured folks where friendships and off-forum private conversations could be had even among people who seemed diametrically opposed on certain "hot-button" issues. And most posters were quick to apologize if offense was given, usually unintentionally, and apologies were accepted and conversations continued. Very little moderation needed.

That spirit changed over time. It was really sad to see.

 

[LouderVol]

For my part, I believe we are born with a need for faith. Now, don't assume this automatically means being a Christian. What I'm saying is that even in our contemporary modern, educated, and what have you era, something in us looks for assurance and/or understanding of the reason for our existence. Thus, the subtle reminders that show up in various aspects of our lives and/or the lives of others. Things like, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Things like when it seems the jig is up, "Oh my God!" and other last gasp utterances invoking a deity or power. In some hardened, and I do mean hardened people, they utter an angry outburst against that same deity or power. I think something in us sort of knows we are subordinate to SOMETHING above and beyond us. Even many astronomers acknowledge the universe exhibits a design, that no design is without a designer. That's as close to a scientist acknowledging the existence of a God as you can get without overtly stating so. To me, it's made all the more amazing when you look at the post creation debris in our solar system that whizzes around at the usual cosmic speed of PPZZZZT, that and eventually they have and will hit our little rocky mudball planet. It is shocking we exist at all. Only recently, we have learned about the deadly threat of gamma ray bursts, black holes, the effects nova and super nova explosions. To think in all this time, the only planetary home we have, as yet, over the eons, has been spared. That life, ours particularly, has endured despite being inwhat amounts as a shooting gallery. And now, we're learning that there are even rogue planets that were gravitationally expelled from their solar systems, roaming the galaxy. I mean, it is amazing, that distances measured in light-years work to increase our being spared. That things are so far apart. That even within Sol's confines, the VAST number of planet-killing asteroids somehow avoid colliding with earth. Just look at the moon. Pock marked with giant hits. Yes, we have been hit, and revelation says we will be hit TWICE again. What I'm trying to say is stuff like this, even for modern humans, provokes a sense that we must somehow be vested with some kind of divine protection. Even in those of us who don't believe, I think there is a spark of, "What if there really is a...?" And I think we're born with that spark. Because even among the doubtful in these very exchanges here, why are you participating in something you don't believe in? The spark is there.

I think the concept of gods arose like many things. a way to explain the unexplainable (at the time). and I think it was that acceptance of beings like gods, made it possible for our understanding of God to evolve. and I think our understanding of God has been wrong in the past, and is definitely not perfect today. going back to science it is still the "theory" of God (really our understanding of him), but it started with several wrong hypotheses, the various gods. and as our collective but undefined knowledge became more refined we began the "theory" of God, again as we understand him. and it has gone thru several paradigm shifts. the jewish faith has changed over time, eventually to a point where another new "theory" was proposed: the christian God (old vs new testament God).

for me the distinction was that Christianity arose with the best proof/understanding of God, and while that proof (Jesus) was perfect, our understanding remains imperfect, and will likely remain.

I think a lot of what drives humanity stems from there being God, and our lack of understanding of him. to me science is just a way to understand part of what God did for us, not some evil that explains away God or pokes holes, it just changes our understanding/view of God. those who question the faith understand that our current understanding of God, or at least how they were taught, is imperfect and leaves enough room to question the narrative (religion) while maybe not the theory (God/creator being) itself. and as was said ITT there is a major difference between the two that get conflated way too much. often as a direct result of the religion claiming things it shouldn't.

I like putting a twist on the Mark Twain: I never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
I never let my religion get in the way of my faith.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Who knew Sep was the president of the Oprah Book Club..

I am pretty sure Ole Sep is Stedman.

 

[Septic]

You have touched upon a familiar, common fallacy often expressed by unbelievers...that the "religious" folk whose beliefs system includes later rewards only (or primarily) behave in ways generally acknowledged as "good" because they are doing so in order to earn rewards.

That's another canard which I've often seen brought up by nonbelievers in order to assert some imagined moral superiority.

The fallacies involved with that view are many. To begin with, the charge is false. Those whose hearts are truly converted are loving others because they want to, not because they are being forced to do so or in order to earn rewards. The Bible makes that abundantly clear (verses/paraphrases available upon request lol). Those who do so to "earn rewards" are similar to the hypocrite who prayed loudly in public extolling his own virtues)...and who were judged harshly by Jesus for his actions. Good works are done to glorify God and out of obedience and gratitude and efforts to emulate Christ. Putting money in the collection plate in order to be noticed earns no favor from God. God rewards the contrite and broken heart and sincere acts of charity and sets very high standards for charity and forgiveness to keep people humble.

As far as "being moral" and "having good character," what does that even mean? By whose standard? Each person becomes his/her/zir own personal god who makes and lives by the rules that appeal to self. There is no higher power or authority to which to appeal. Any action can be justified or condemned or ignored in this system...and who can say that the ideas are wrong? And if the person decides that the opposite is true tomorrow and reversed course, who can judge that view? All things become logically acceptable in the absence of God and ultimate Truth. We see that reflected in statements about "my truth" as though truth is arbitrary (which is oxymoronic).

Also, non-believers should acknowledge that they did not develop their "morals" in a vacuum. Parental/family instruction, peer pressure, societal mores, government institutions and laws, etc. all helped form the non-believer's belief system. Some nonbelievers may even appeal to evolutionary hard-working as the basis for their moral beliefs.

At any rate, the idea that non-believers independently develop their own morality and/or are more "pure" in their motivations is based upon wishful thinking or bias, I would submit.

The concept of sin and atonement is objectively to avoid eternal damnation, is it not?

If one does not believe in sin, one does not worry about the punishment of hell. You can dress up your argument any way you choose but the underlying premise for a failure to "believe" is damnation. I don't need that hanging over me in order to not commit immoral acts. Hopefully fear of eternal damnation is not the only thing keeping you from murdering your neighbor.

Non-believers can choose to behave in a way you/we describe as moral as a way to innately further the propagation of our species. A god isn't required to be the arbiter of morality as Dr. Lane claims.