Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
and guess who the original author might be? I'd stake money on the author being a Xtian. So tell me that Xtians aren't the ones going around challengin others 1st? U know i've read this whole thing b4, and its so obvious some xtian wrote this to sow discord amongst people. smart. reaaaaal smart.Originally posted by Icemoon:well, if this happened in real life, then shame on the professor. After all, if you want to challenge people, then prepared to be challenged back, with equal or more ferocity.
the problem I see here is such a scenario shouldn't happen in real life. The original author purposely made the professor look "dumb", hence the passage tastes like a flame bait. -
It may not be a professor who said that. Anyone could have issued those challenges, in fact those are quite valid challenges and we hear them often from non believers.Originally posted by HENG@:no i think YOU are missing the point here. the point here is that no such professor existed and no such student existed and hence the professor didn't challenge the student 1st because he couldn't have. He didn't exist. The point u missed is that the person who wrote this piece is undoubtedly christian, biased from a xtian P.O.V. hence it IS a christian who is doing the challenging 1st, and then a Xtian doing the challenging 2nd by starting a topic about this.
I don't think I am missing the point. -
depends on what you understand by bent.Originally posted by HENG@:wot makes u think that making something bent is to screw things up? Might u want to consider that he has a plan for the bent in his grand scheme of things as well? who are u to come out and say that god defo has no plans for them?
And we need to see it under a bigger framework. This is where hermeneutics come into the picture. Are your Christian friends familiar with biblical hermeneutics?besides, he also praised and promised the eunuchs of somewhere a special place by him in heaven or something. eunuches can't "go forth and multiply" can they?
I not read the verse in depth, but I can easily explain it as a case of hate the sin but not the sinner. Well, the robber beside Jesus was praised, didn't he? Similarly, no one is saying homosexuals will not go heaven. Come on lah, Christians also self admit they sin at least once in a while, but they are still damn sure they go heaven. -
the point is that a xtian wrote this and another xtian posted it here, hence xtians have challenged 1st twice. thats the point.Originally posted by Icemoon:It may not be a professor who said that. Anyone could have issued those challenges, in fact those are quite valid challenges and we hear them often from non believers.
I don't think I am missing the point. -
well maybe u could try to deny it, but the more i speak with those friends who are xtians, the more i am aware there is a split within christianity on the issue of homoseuality. those who believe it to be not a sin, and those who do. thats all i need to say. now i will sit back and wait for the xtian zealots to start labelling the former as misguided believers.Originally posted by Icemoon:I not read the verse in depth, but I can easily explain it as a case of hate the sin but not the sinner. Well, the robber beside Jesus was praised, didn't he? Similarly, no one is saying homosexuals will not go heaven. Come on lah, Christians also self admit they sin at least once in a while, but they are still damn sure they go heaven.
-
if you like, we can change professor to say, SISOriginally posted by HENG@:the point is that a xtian wrote this and another xtian posted it here, hence xtians have challenged 1st twice. thats the point.
, and the point will still remain. Doesn't matter if the class setting becomes an online forum setting.
The way I see the issue is this:
1. An atheist challenged a Christian with some valid questions.
2. The Christian gave a defence of her faith.
PS: SIS would be much much more intelligent than that professor, imho
-
I would like to see how both sides present their exegesis of the relevant verses.Originally posted by HENG@:well maybe u could try to deny it, but the more i speak with those friends who are xtians, the more i am aware there is a split within christianity on the issue of homoseuality.
-
the issue really is that the xtian started this thread.Originally posted by Icemoon:if you like, we can change professor to say, SIS , and the point will still remain. Doesn't matter if the class setting becomes an online forum setting.
The way I see the issue is this:
1. An atheist challenged a Christian with some valid questions.
2. The Christian gave a defence of her faith.
PS: SIS would be much much more intelligent than that professor, imho -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
me too. although it would seem that the side saying that its not a sin are more accepting of others.
I would like to see how [b]both sides present their exegesis of the relevant verses. [/b] -
I am interested to know something.Originally posted by HENG@:me too. although it would seem that the side saying that its not a sin are more accepting of others.
Your Christian friends .. do they defend the orthodox understanding of John 14:6?
My point is, how can any side be more accepting of others while defending John 14:6? wahaha .. -
aiyah .. dun be too harsh on Honeybunz lah.Originally posted by HENG@:the issue really is that the xtian started this thread.
some more this is EH, not CC, just treat it as some amateur version of apologetics lor. -
i think i've explained it before, i dunno about orthodox or what. i'll show u what one of them told me, word for word:Originally posted by Icemoon:I am interested to know something.
Your Christian friends .. do they defend the orthodox understanding of John 14:6?
My point is, how can any side be more accepting of others while defending John 14:6? wahaha .. that's why there's a biblical revival within the churches now. a movement within the church to awake chirstians to study and understand the bible.
it's to educate christians that the bible is not a direct memo
non-denomination biblical teaching
ie. teach straight from the bible. with emphasis on the historical context and then how to sensibly extrapolate biblical teachings into real life
and interpret the bible as intellectual as possible
the aim is to let christians to evaluate the bible on their own and educate them to evaluate the bible
well.. the bible nv clearly define what sexual immorality is
like i had mentioned, even protestant churches world wide has split into pro-gay and anti-gay sections
haiz.. i disagree with the anti-gay teachings.
hmm.. u shld reserve this verse for anti gay christians
then u shld question them in what authority they decide that a verse should be taken literally or metaphorically
i do realise that r christians who dont think, but just accept what their pastor says -
I have some questions (genuine ones) for non-Christians who visit EH.... and please, it is not meant as a flame, but I am just curious....
What do you hope to see in EH - what kind of posts are consider to be non-bias, safe, non-atheist/gnostic/other religion bashing? What do you think is the purpose of EH - can this objective be accomplished without any form of Christian flavour put in, intentionally or not?
The purpose for my asking is simple: seems that not much get posted without an accusation of bashing being thumped up.
Seems when I last check a couple of minutes ago, EH is the top religious/philosophical forum, at number 16. The next one is Light of Atlantis at 20+. A distant 3rd position is Buddhism - Wisdom Bliss at page 2.
For people constantly looking to bashing out the "non-scientific" folks, seems that the never visit these forums regardless of how "illogical and non-scientific" these forums are also.
Others come in and see what Christian have to say on some issues, somehow, still, nothing we say seem to be right....
So is EH a victim of it's popularity? or has it become popular because it is victimised? -
it was meant as a scenario. anyone could be dumbstruck by that reply. don't think only christians are that dumb to come out with that kind of unsound argument, some atheists are dumb not to see it.Originally posted by F Bunta:You're totally missing the point. This story is most likely written by a Christian, how could a professor be dumbstruck by such unsound argument?
and there was a second part to that, this time written by an atheist I suppose.
and I think some of the non believers may not see what is unsound until they read the version written by the atheist.My point is: instead of writing stories about how non-believers challenged your belief and you succeeded in making them look like a fool, you should focus on how your god has made your life better.
I'm sorry, but can't you see the professor in the story is an atheist? you think he cares a damn whether your "god" has made your life better?
I'm not sure whether you can use "how your god has made your life better" as the milder and better form of apologetics, when dealing with such a professor. -
I don't think so. If bible never define, then King David would be blameless for the things he had done .. wahhaOriginally posted by HENG@:well.. the bible nv clearly define what sexual immorality is
God seems to not like what is below:Leviticus 20:10-21 and Deuteronomy 22:13-30 provide explanations of sexual immorality. The following sexual behavior is forbidden by the Bible:
Adultery – sexual relations with someone married to another person
Homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) relations with the same sex
Incest – sexual relations between blood relatives who are forbidden to marry, such as parent and child or brother and sister
Pedophilia – sexual relations with children (1 Cor. 6:9)
Preventing conception – (masturbation), e.g., Onan (Gen. 38:9)
Prostitution – taking money for sexual favors (Lev. 19:29); This includes fathers who prostituted their daughters for money. The Canaanites (Joshua 2:1) and the Philistines had prostitutes (Judges 16:1)
Rape – taking a woman by force (Deut. 22:2
Sexual relations during menstruation – (Lev. 15:24; 18:19)
Sodomy – sexual acts with animals (Ex. 22:18; Deut 27:21; Lev. 18:23; 20:15)
Transvestism – erotic exchange of clothing between men and women (Deut. 22:5).then u shld question them in what authority they decide that a verse should be taken literally or metaphorically
I would say biblical hermeneutics, proper exegesis and edifying discussions among believers.i do realise that r christians who dont think, but just accept what their pastor says
This is true, especially among the charismatic churches. -
Originally posted by F Bunta:
This is Eternal Hope for goodness sake. Did the killer boss post this in CC?
What I really meant is that such jokes should be shared within groups of friends via email instead of pasting in a public forum and subject to scrutiny.You won't be happy to see topics thrashing Christianity too.
Depends on whether there is any argument at all. Clearly it is thrashing when the post is full of value judgement (all xtian gers are bitches that kind ..) and where is the topic posted. -
the post isnt anywhere near controversial. what is so controversial you tell me?
you start that anti-xtian forum .. ok with us .. dun tink any xtian here will mind yeah? but if you say how stupid christianity is without any argument, then you are making a judgement, ie. bashing.
and again, dun tink any xtian will go to that forum and rebuke you, unless he or she is too free. -
the fact is no xtian here starts spourting nonsense say all atheists are stupid that kind of thing, after reading the story.
on the other hand, anti-xtians in CC just screamed louder when "controversial" postings are made in CC.
you see the difference yeah? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
As this is a Christians forum, fundamentally whoever want to post here should respect what Christians believe, God, Jesus Christ, the BibleÂ…. What I see is that Christians beliefs or doctrines they do not agree become biased, atheists or agnostics bashing, Christians who standby what we believe become extremists or bigot. And they are ever ready to come in and give us a bashing for what they disagree.
I have some questions (genuine ones) for non-Christians who visit EH.... and please, it is not meant as a flame, but I am just curious....
[b] What do you hope to see in EH - what kind of posts are consider to be non-bias, safe, non-atheist/gnostic/other religion bashing? What do you think is the purpose of EH - can this objective be accomplished without any form of Christian flavour put in, intentionally or not?
The purpose for my asking is simple: seems that not much get posted without an accusation of bashing being thumped up.
Seems when I last check a couple of minutes ago, EH is the top religious/philosophical forum, at number 16. The next one is Light of Atlantis at 20+. A distant 3rd position is Buddhism - Wisdom Bliss at page 2.
For people constantly looking to bashing out the "non-scientific" folks, seems that the never visit these forums regardless of how "illogical and non-scientific" these forums are also.
Others come in and see what Christian have to say on some issues, somehow, still, nothing we say seem to be right....
So is EH a victim of it's popularity? or has it become popular because it is victimised?
[/b]
There are also those who do not believe in the Bible but are trying to "interpret" the Bible to justify their own course. They will not accept what God says if they do not agree. How they wish the Bible says that homosexual act is right, sexual immorality is right, then we can all go on doing what we like, "For apart from law, sin is dead." Roman 7:8.
Is there a way where we can be right? We have to maintain that what is right with the Bible is right with us, what is not right with the Bible is not right. Bigotry or not!
The purpose of this forum, as I understand from sillyme the mod and starter, is "A place where we look for hope or provide hopeÂ…for my hope is in Christ, Son of God and Giver of Life. I hope that through this forum, we can share how wonderful God has been in our lives." This should be a place where Christians shares about the God we believe. Non-Christians should come here if they are interested in the God we serve, the hope we have, ask questions about Christianity and even bring up behaviors in churches or among Christians which they think are not in line with the teachings of the Bible (Christians are not perfect), or doctrines that clash with their culture. In the end we are looking for a better understanding of one another.
I enjoy very much and learn a lot from bros like you, breytonhartge, laoda, icemoonÂ…. Keep it up. -
It is just how the story is presented. We can stop at part 1, where the professor is apparently winning. We can stop at part 3, where the student is finally shown to be a fool. Or so we think.Originally posted by F Bunta:It's not controversial to you because the Christian in the story is apparently winning the argument.To me the story is outright insult to science and atheists. And it also reflects on the intelligence of the topic starter, whom did not bother to check the facts before posting it.
It is atheists who tried to use science to understand religion first. This is an insult to religion.
facts .. what facts?By putting the professor as an atheist, the author's intention is very clear: bashing of the intellectual and enlightened.
The argument isn't novel and the original author did not invent it to bash the intellectual and enlightened. The problem of evil is a perpetual problem and it remains relevant today. -
The story may be fictitious, but the points raised inside are still as valid. The author did not assert "there is a God" and went on to give the evidence. He only defended the rationality of believing in the christian faith. Essentially he is saying "you believe you have a brain why can't I believe in a God".Originally posted by F Bunta:The points are:
1) The story is most definitely fictitious, ie written by a Christian. Why would he want to use an atheist to justify the existence of god? The intention is dubious.3) Everyone has his own belief. You believe in Jesus, just like I believe I'm a god reincarnated. It's not right to thrash others who are not in your group.
In the story, the professor trashed the student first. In real life, there are many people who have bones to pick with the believers. SIS is one good example.4) Atheists simply do not believe in religion, why would they try to use science to understand it? The purpose of science is to understand the nature of the universe and help to elevate the superstitions amongst fellow human beings.
In this story, the prof used science to show the irrationality of believing in a religion. instead of keeping it to himself, he chose to challenge the believer.My concern is not the story itself, but more of the purpose of the story.
I understand where you are coming from, but I hope you see the other side of the picture, the problem of scientific minded intellectuals applying their scientific principle on the realm of faith, as highlighted in part 1 of the story. -
Ironically it is the non believer's emotions which got fanned here. Strange, isn't it? When those xtian bashing topic comes out in CC, the non believers will start their endless tirade. You know who those people are.Originally posted by F Bunta:It's sort of like a "we against them" propaganda to fan the emotions.As I have said earlier, the point is: why write such a story?
hmm .. is the issue now about why write the story or why post the story? -
killer boss .. can you tell us why you post the story?
-
it is ok. no hard feelings.Originally posted by F Bunta:I rest my case. -
maybe he dun give a damn, but does that give Christians the right to be judgemental as well? I think F Bunta is right. Christian would do better to show how their religion has made them a better person, not to try to promote their religion by putting others down. That only gives people the impression that their religion has made them an uglier person really.Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm sorry, but can't you see the professor in the story is an atheist? you think he cares a damn whether your "god" has made your life better?
I'm not sure whether you can use "how your god has made your life better" as the milder and better form of apologetics, when dealing with such a professor.