Definition of Christian

[Chip]

Are we on a long obedience of anything or worth?

English translation?

[Chuck Naill]

Thanks for asking. Anything worth accomplishing takes endurance over a long period of time. Nothing of much value is accomplished overnight.

[Chip]

Some discussion points from Richard Dawkins:

“We humans are the only animals capable of knowing why we exist, where we exist, what we are made of and how we are assembled. We are the only animals capable of revelling in the joy that such knowledge can bring.”

“There is a real world out there, and the only way to learn about it is objective evidence gathered by the scientific method.”

“There is no such thing as your truth as distinct from my truth. “There is just the truth, and that means evidence-based scientific truth.”

“Truth is not obtained by tradition, authority, holy books, faith or revelation. Truth is obtained by evidence and only evidence.”

“Truth is not obtained by private feelings but by publicly testable evidence.”

[TSherbs]

What about "alternative facts"? They've become popular.

[Chuck Naill]

Has science solved the problem of human selfishness, how to stop screwing a neighbor’s spouse, the ability to love yourself and then others, or the capacity of being willing to lay down your life for something greater than yourself?

Dawkins concludes, “That the meaning of life is subjective, personal and that every individual person must set out to give our lives their own meaning.” I can see that at least two here are disciples of Dawkins. The problem is, they still impose their subjectivity as the right way to live and think.

If you believe Dawkins, why would it then be necessary to to be critical what others believe unless you are insecure?

Why are two atheist more active on this thread than others?

[Chip]

You have repeatedly defined christian doctrine as truth. You have also urged that others adopt it as you have done.

Tossing out accusations again? Who's insecure?

[Chuck Naill]

You have repeatedly defined christian doctrine as truth. You have also urged that others adopt it as you have done.

Tossing out accusations again? Who's insecure?

You are, Chip. You chose Hawkins, not me.

What you don’t understand is, experience trumps theory. What I have posted has power, not because of me, but from the origin. If you can love your neighbor as yourself, that’s wonderful. If you can love your neighbors and treat them well, even more wonderful. Most of us need help. If you can live having forgiven everyone who has ever offended you, you might be a god.

And remember, it was religion that put Jesus to death. It was preachers and teachers that brought the accusations. It wasn’t the atheists.

[Chip]

I quoted Dawkins, not Hawkins.

My experience of this world is not theory. But I don't resist scientific theory, which clarifies how the world works.

Have you been checked for early onset dementia?

I'd recommend it.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, I was on my phone yesterday and unable to correct the spelling.

I'll ask again. "Has science solved the problem of human selfishness, how to stop screwing a neighbor’s spouse, the ability to love yourself and then others, or the capacity of being willing to lay down your life for something greater than yourself?"

Now, we are just discussing a topic, but you want to needle me a bit because you don't agree with Christianity. I get it. However, on this side of life, you have faith that you know the truth and I think I do. I have experienced the change it has made and perhaps you've had some transformations yourself. Maybe not. Anyway, if you can address my posts first and then whatever else you want, if might make for a better experience for those trying to follow the exchange. Just saying you believe is science is like me saying I believe in potatoes. Are you smarter than Dawkins? At least he admitted is subjective.

[Chip]

Are you smarter than Dawkins? At least he admitted is subjective.

I quoted Dawkins. Never said I was smarter.

That last bit is typical gibberish. You should read your stuff before you post it.

[Chuck Naill]

Are you smarter than Dawkins? At least he admitted is subjective.

I quoted Dawkins. Never said I was smarter.

That last bit is typical gibberish. You should read your stuff before you post it.

You've not shown you've got a clue about the topic, but I agree, you have shown you understand "gibberish". I understand your posts are an attempt to appear cute or get attention. Maybe you have a past photo of you at seminary you can share to show you are also an expert in the topic.

My question is relevant. You and you alone know that science does not attempt to address anything spiritual for yourself. Science cannot fix how you act and think unless you are taking a medication. Yes, medications are science based, but those medication produce an artificial affect. Since you've ignored the question twice now, I will assume that is your answer.

[Chuck Naill]

True Christianity is obedience to do what Jesus said to do. In his commission to his students he told them to teach them to do...

What the apprentices are to do is love God and our neighbors as ourselves. Those are very general parameters. Over time perhaps, but the disciple comes to see those 10 rules of the road as from a loving parent. As I have said before, lying, sleeping around, stealing, and such are destructive to the human body and mind.

Being a disciple is no just going to heaven when you die, but this is the way it is most commonly considered. Choosing to honor others is a brilliant manner in which to live. It isn't dumb or backward. What is backward is to ignore those rules of the road.

Loving does not require agreeing with or being afraid to point out error. Jesus addressed the preachers and teachers of his day, yet he did love them. Nicodemus is a good example to depict Jesus' love for him.

"Fixing sin" is what occurs as a disciple grows. Sin just means to miss the intent of God. And if we miss the intent of God, we receive mercy. Living this way is better than ignoring poor social behavior or hiding behind excuses and thinking you are above it all when you really aren't.

Disciples of Jesus don't have to physically abuse themselves or carry a heavy load, though some think they do. It is being at rest. If is not doing something for God, but learning what God is doing and being able to participate.

Why do disciples love and protect the unborn and little children? Why would they offer a pregnant woman help to preserve a life? At least one reason is because they understand the nature of body and soul that every human receives. When a dog bites, he is not being mean. When a human bites, they are being mean. Meanness stems from our inward being. When that meaness is brought out in the open and it ceases to be, this is part of what Jesus means by making apprentices.

This is a good working definition of spirituality from Dallas Willard: "unbodily personal reality and power". I've noticed this in pre-term neonates. The personal reality is present even if the power is immature at that point. There is no doubt that the unborn have a soul/personality. Dismissing the soul might allow one to be okay with killing the child, but it doesn't do justice to reality, otherwise.

[TSherbs]

.... Over time perhaps, but the disciple comes to see those 10 rules of the road as from a loving parent. As I have said before, lying.....

Yeah, I'm not going to listen to this after you sermonize on "lying." You've been doing a bunch of it lately. It's what I call "bullshit": faux Christian superiority, a kind of privileged status of the believer over the non-believer. Just above you asked for Chip's certificate of expertise to have a valued opinion on science and religion. That's EXACTLY what I mean by faux superiority: that someone else needs to produce their bona fides simply to have a valid reason to reject the so-called "truth" of Christian mumbojumbo. Spirituality is a respectable pursuit. But religious exceptionalism and righteousness are legitimate targets of criticism and scorn. It 8s evil, and nearly always turns toward injustice.

[Chuck Naill]

You weren’t intending to listen to me anyway.

I told you the truth. You cannot copy and paste one time gave any value to the unborn. Not one time for appreciation toward parents not thinking out of work Drag performers a good source for story time.

As @dneal noted, your participation here is being scrutinized. You may have yourself fooled, but not us.

[Chip]

Seminary? Is that where you get inseminated by your priests and ministers?

Lucky you can't get pregnant.

[TSherbs]

You weren’t intending to listen to me anyway.

I told you the truth. You cannot copy and paste one time gave any value to the unborn. Not one time for appreciation toward parents not thinking out of work Drag performers a good source for story time.

Ah, here is some more of that obsession with *me.* This is getting odd, Chuck. I'm not doing anything you suggest about defending myself against these stupid aspersions. I've now posted this twice (on two different threads).

Get back on the topic.

[TSherbs]

Seminary? Is that where you get inseminated by your priests and ministers?

Turns out, that's not far off:

mid-15c., "plot where plants are raised from seeds for transplantation," from Latin seminarium "plant nursery, seed plot," figuratively, "breeding ground," a noun from seminarius "of or pertaining to seed," from semen (genitive seminis) "seed" (from PIE root *sē- "to sow").

The literal sense now is obsolete; the figurative meaning "place of origin and early development" is from 1590s. The meaning "school for training priests" is recorded from 1580s; the word was used generally in names of places of education (especially academies for young ladies) from 1580s to 1930s.

Related: Seminarial.

The schools for "young ladies" part starts to get weird, in retrospect.

[Chip]

How many drag queens have been busted for molesting children as opposed to Catholic priests and christian preachers?

[TSherbs]

How many drag queens have been busted for molesting children as opposed to Catholic priests and christian preachers?

Yet we allow priests to continue to read to groups including children every week, all across the nation. We even let them handle naked children in water baths, or kiss them. Even while credible evidence has been brought forth that thousands of priests have abused tens of thousands of children.

<Yes but those trans people>

[TSherbs]

Oh wait. I don't EVER "advocate for children." I gotta remember Chuck's "truth" about me. I have to produce ONE TIME when I have advocated for children, or else the faux charge sticks.

I had better erase all my posts railing against priests and the church cover ups, and even the entire thread i started on the topic. Cuz, you know, I don't "care about children."