86 thoughts on “Would You Call Yourself a “Christian”?”

  1. It means I get to believe in any deity, some, or none at all. It also means I can “pray” to any deity, some of them, all of them, or none at all.

    The sore backside? That’s just my hemorrhoids from sitting at a computer all day for most of this Pandemic Lockdown 😂

  2. You Stated — “The point is, I’m VERY familiar with the Christian Religion, its’ various flavors, and the people who proudly self-declare their belief system.”

    My Response — A Christian only has one kind of religion, no more no less:

    James 1:27
    Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

    https://realitydecoded.blog/2020/10/28/how-to-know-who-is-a-christian/

  3. You Stated — “Many of them persist in decidedly un-Christ-like speech and behavior, while simultaneously claiming to be “deeply religious”…. the vocal majority of self-identified Christians do NOT live or even THINK the way Jesus Christ “our Lord and Savior” prescribed. In fact, they are often the opposite of Christ-like, both in word and in deed.”

    My Response — If someone claims to be Christian (even by faith) but you can clearly see that they behave in a way that goes against scripture, then they are what scripture says they are:

    Titus 1:16
    They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

    Matthew 15:7-9
    You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

    https://realitydecoded.blog/2020/10/28/how-to-know-who-is-a-christian/

  4. You Stated — “Modern-day “Christianity” is mostly “Belief Not Behavior”.

    My Response — There is no such thing as “Modern-day “Christianity” just like there is no such thing as “Make America Great Again”

    There are, however, clever people who are good with words. Education is the only defense the mind has to idiocracy, of which in absence of, hateful people are guaranteed an audience that will follow them. Nothing more nothing less.

    1. Education is the only defense the mind has to idiocracy,

      And yet it doesn’t prevent Christians, some of whom are well educated, from believing in the nonsense of the resurrection of the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
      This suggests religious indoctrination coupled with the emotional issues associated with religious belief will Trump ( I couldn’t resist) education.

      Maybe wilfull ignoranc also plays a part?

      1. I think for them it’s basically a Mental Comfort Blanket, a coping technique to keep us sane in light of the madness that is Sentience Coupled With Existentialism. Humans do that a lot, across the globe. It manifests in various forms and practices. It just happens that Religion is the most popular/prominent technique. Many people don’t – or can’t – find a better/different way to achieve the same comfort WITHOUT losing their status as part of The Tribe. If they lose it, they might have worse problems than those they encounter WITHIN the tribe.

        So yeah, willful ignorance… KINDA.

        1. Every deconvert I have dialogued with over the years has expressed in one way or another that, irrespective of the consequences – including loss of family and friends, ‘out’ is far better than ‘in.’
          Furthermore, not one deconvert has ever suggested they would like to back ‘in’.

          THis is why indoctrination is crucial to maintian cult members.
          Skip just a single generation of kids and see what happens.

          1. Oh I know exactly what you mean! Those who finally broke the chains and brainwashing, I’ve met a few of those too. I am one of them as well.

            My comment was referring to those people who are still “in”, and really don’t have (or THINK they don’t have) any recourse. Think globally – random grandmas or grandpas in rural Nigeria, random teenage students in small towns in India, random semi-helpless elderly people in rural America… religion is all they know, all that binds them with their family/tribe. They don’t have the freedoms and resources we in the urbanized/progressive western world have (I assume you’re in a western/developed country). I assume you’re a productive self-sufficient adult – You and I can “afford” to be agnostic or atheist, with almost zero consequences. I mean, what’re our parents/community gonna do… NOT feed us until we re-accept Jesus? Cut off our allowance? Not do business with us? Disinvite us from family events? Half the time they’d be doing us a favor, LOL 😄

            Most of those OTHER religious people in other parts of the world (or rural America), however… if they leave their religious tribe, might face VERY harsh social consequences… sometimes including ostracization, exile, and physical violence (in the Muslim world, maybe even death, yo) 😨

            Anyway… So I kinda have SOME empathy for THOSE “trapped” individuals.

          2. You Stated — “Skip just a single generation of kids and see what happens.”

            My Response — In China they skip multiple generations of kids from having any belief in Christianity but yet they now have a record number of new converts.

            Your comment seems nonsensical. People and cultures historically flip back and forth for a plethora of reasons, yet your comment attempts to oversimplify the complexity of human belief systems.

            I’m not convinced by your opinion.

          3. In China they skip multiple generations of kids from having any belief in Christianity but yet they now have a record number of new converts.

            Thank God the church/missionaries and the internet. All hail Google!
            Like all nations that came under the Christian ”cosh” through one form of infiltation or another, China’s population has previously been almost a closed society for such a long time that they are now much more vulnerable to such nonsense.
            If we use the more socially advanced nations as a religious barometer (The US is probably an outlier with regard religion – for now ) China will eventually dump Christianity and move toward a secualar humanist democracy.
            My advice: Patience, Lander. or you could pray it won’t happen? Maybe Yahweh will listen?

            I’m not convinced by your opinion.

            Well, what’s a few hundred years when the history of the idiocy of Christianity/religion in general is concerned?
            And why should you be convinced by my opinion?
            After all, the evidence is there for all to see. Besides you are convinced you are a sinner and your redemption hinges entirely on the unconditional belief that a 2000 year old itinerant Jewish prophet, ther Lake Tiberias pedestrian, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead after three days in a tomb.

            If we going to base opinions on anything then evidence would be a good start.
            Feel free to present the evidence for the claims made avout your god.

          4. You Stated — “China’s population has previously been almost a closed society for such a long time that they are now much more vulnerable to such nonsense.”

            My Response — But you indicated that a few skipped generations would reduce the numbers and I provided evidence that you were incorrect.

            Your response doesn’t prove you right it just indicates that you make statements based on feeling rather than facts.

            I’m still not convinced by your opinion on generational teachings in relation to long term belief systems, it’s too overly simplified.

          5. I’m still not convinced by your opinion on generational teachings in relation to long term belief systems, it’s too overly simplified.

            And yet the evidence tells us otherwise.
            Is there a particular reason you don’t feel comfortable providing evidence for your personal religious beliefs or is it simply that you do not have any evidence to support them and what you believe in this regard is based solely on faith? ( underpinned by culture and possibly indoctrination)

          6. You already have all my evidence and stated previously you weren’t going to re-ask me that same question any more.

            I told you back then that your memory of past conversations was lacking and assured you that you would re-ask me.

            BUT

            You don’t re-ask as much if that means anything.

          7. Well, we are on a diffeent platform with a different host, so it might be nice to share, don’t you think?
            I dialogue with quite a number of people and it is unfortunate, I know, but I do not have an eidetic memory.
            In the interest of simplicity, as a courtesy to out new host, and of course helping my faulty memory get back up to speed, please post the evidence.
            Thanks.

          8. As we agreed the last two times, you have all the links and can post any past conversation from me. You have it and can share anytime you want, I still don’t mind.

            I still think you have a memory issue and lack organizing your conversations. I stated that repeatedly and you assured me I was wrong. I keep insisting that you debate solely for the joy of debating not the content.

            Just my personal observation from over 30 conversations with you.

          9. That you have kept track and remember we have had over 30 converstations is a little disconcerting, if not leaning toward creepy.

            As for links. For someone who remembers the number of conversations we have had
            It would be far easier for you to either provide the links – save me trawling – or bullet point the evidence you have.
            And I will give you my word that this time I shall cut and paste your answers and keep them in a special yellow folder on my hard drive. Furthermore, just in case I dribble tea all over my keyboard and it goes for a ball of chalk I shall also keep a copy on an external hardrive.
            How’s that?
            A bargain I’d say.
            So, be a sport. Post the evidence.

          10. You Stated — “That you have kept track and remember we have had over 30 converstations is a little disconcerting, if not leaning toward creepy.”

            My Response — That seems fair, being organized is like being big brother, if you understand the reference.

            You Stated — “It would be far easier for you to either provide the links – save me trawling – or bullet point the evidence you have.”

            My Response — Not true, it would be easier for me to do nothing and let you post my answer that I’ve already provided you multiple times and what you agreed to do anyway. It’s nonsensical to believe that me working to provide you repeated answers is easier than me letting you do it yourself.

            You Stated — “And I will give you my word that this time I shall cut and paste your answers and keep them in a special yellow folder on my hard drive.”

            My Response — You’ve already stated similar so, you know, be that person now, why wait Oo.

            You Stated — “Furthermore, just in case I dribble tea all over my keyboard and it goes for a ball of chalk I shall also keep a copy on an external hardrive.”

            My Response — You may just want to use YouTube and have it teach you how to search WordPress, since we only communicate in WP and that would be a million times easier than going back to 1980 to copy files.

            Just curious: What does this mean, “it goes for a ball of chalk”? Something English I’m guessing.

          11. You’ve already stated similar so …

            Really? Well you know my faulty memory.
            Is this among the 30 or so conversations?

            Just curious: What does this mean, “it goes for a ball of chalk”?

            My response: You may just want to use Google or any other search engine and have it teach you how to utilise its data base.
            You being a polymath I am surprised you would need to ask.

            To be fair to our host – who isn’t familiar with our history, I shall not push you further regarding the evidence for your belief in the veracity of Christianity and its claims and will provide the bullet-point list you offered in so many words sometime during our conversations.
            I will just reference the top five if that’s okay?
            1. Faith,
            2. More faith
            3. The bible
            4. Even more faith
            5. Jesus speaks to me.

          12. That’s an interesting response 🙂 but at least you are trying harder and that’s a good start, well done.

            Also I find it interesting that you want me to google so you don’t have to type out answers. 😉

            I looked it up, interesting phrase.

          13. I certainly had an experience with an evangelical cult that put me off anyone who wants me to suspend my critical thinking and believe something without empirical evidence. What I retained, however, was the moral compass to want to live consistently with the words of Jesus, just because I do feel that we are all sisters and brothers, even though I don’t imagine a deity telling me to do so. It just makes sense, if we want to do some good in our lives.

          14. “What I retained, however, was the moral compass to want to live consistently with the words of Jesus, just because I do feel that we are all sisters and brothers, even though I don’t imagine a deity telling me to do so. It just makes sense,…”

            Exactly! It sounds like you’re aligned with the original intent of Jesus Christ (as described in the scripture)… to “Treat others like you’d want to be treated, and don’t be an a-hole” (I’m paraphrasing, obviously). It’s basic Humanist stuff, just with a tinge of Abrahamic/faith stuff per the culture at the time.

            This simple “love one another” tenet is frankly not that difficult to grasp, it is quite self-evident… but it is NOT great for amassing material wealth or oppressing/controlling/genociding “the other” (blacks, gays, women, etc). Which is why the fakes go to GREAT LENGTHS to push their hateful, anti-humanist agenda under the guise of Christianity (or Islam, for that matter).

            I’m glad there exist people like YOU who understand what Jesus wanted for us. I know it’s a tall order to ask folks (like you, I mean) to come up with a new label, in order to distance yourself from the Fake Christians… nevertheless, I recognize a real Christ Follower when I see/hear one.

            Peace and blessings be unto you, Beth! 😊✌🏾

          15. the words of Jesus,

            What you mean, unintentionlly or un knowingly, the words, written by an unknown author, and attributed to the biblical character ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.

          1. You Asked — “Is this what you think I am saying?”

            Because I asked — “So you are saying that believers are not intelligent people?”

            This is why I asked:

            You Stated — “Christians, some of whom are well educated”

            My Response — You are stating that only some are well educated while the remaining are not. I’m not sure why you would judge so many people with such a wide brush. I can understand not agreeing with what they believe (that’s a choice) but you targeted them directly.

            You Stated — “ignoranc also plays a part”

            My Response — With the spelling errors aside, I believe you were suggesting that they may be applying ignorance in a way that indicates a need to hide “truth in reality”. From my perspective, I think you are either saying you support thought policing or you think they are damaged mentally.

            I couldn’t discern which because your statements are a bit passionate rather than logical so I was attempting to see if you would provide more clarity with fewer emotions attached.

          2. The primary cause of religious belief is cultural, often underpinned by indoctrination.
            There is a very good reason why it has been pointed out that one’s religion is so often merely a matter of geography.
            I’m sure I don’t need to expand on that?

            A specific example might well be Francis Collins. Born into a Western Culture, (USA) highly educated and from all accounts I have read and listened to, intelligent as well. Yet, based on what has been termed death aniexty, and no doubt influence of his cultural background, he accepts the ridiculous and unsubstantiated notion he is a sinner and is required to believe in the redemptive powers of a specific human sacrifice – namely the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth – to ensure he is saved/redeemed. Later if all goes to plan, when he ‘Pops His Clogs’ he will be in Yahweh’s Mansion in the Sky.
            Amen to that, right?
            Of course such a belief has no evidence whatsoever to support it and thus to avoid cognitive dissonance many people are generally able to compartmentalise such beliefs in order to function on a day to day basis where ridiculious religious beliefs do not interfere with things such as science.

            Hope my spelling is up to scratch this time?

            Regards
            Ark.

          3. In reply to my asking: “So you are saying that believers are not intelligent people?”

            You Stated – “The primary cause of religious belief is cultural, often underpinned by indoctrination.”

            My Response – Understood, but just out of curiosity why did you reference a lack of education in most Christians and a willing ignorance on their part rather than just say cultural indoctrination?

            You Stated — “to avoid cognitive dissonance many people are generally able to compartmentalise such beliefs in order to function on a day to day basis”

            My Response — But isn’t the opposite true? If a person compartmentalizes two opposing ideas within their mind then they are, in fact, engaging cognitive dissonance. I think you got this one backwards.

            You Stated — “where ridiculious religious beliefs do not interfere with things such as science.”

            My Response — Religious belief has zero effect on science, thus cannot interfere. The observation of things and the end results of experiments exist outside of belief systems.

            I can see where religious people, with a lack of scientific understanding, could hinder the application of solutions provided via observation and experimentation but not the observation itself or the results of experiments (Science).

            You Asked – “Hope my spelling is up to scratch this time?”

            My Response – I understand what you are saying but your spelling is still off a bit.

            You misspelled the following words:
            aniexty — anxiety
            compartmentalise — compartmentalize
            ridiculious — ridiculous

            Don’t worry about it (no big deal really) I just saw it as a bit ironic given the context of the conversation.

          4. I am English. not American. I spelled compartmentalise correctly.

            The ability of the religious to compartmentalise actually avoids cognitive dissonance thus preventing such opposing views coming into conflict.
            A simplistic example for a Christian might be:
            Yahweh created humans beings/ Evolution is fact.

            Look up the term.

            Religious belief has zero effect on science,

            Hence the wonder of religious compartmentalisation.
            However, this may be regarded as a grey area by someone such as Hugh Ross for example.
            Or any number of proponents of Intelligent Design.

          5. Words have meanings so I’m not sure why your being wrong about this is such a big deal.

            cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
            the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

            If a person maintains two opposing thoughts within their one single mind then they are in fact experiencing cognitive dissonance regardless of how they define the storage of that thought in gray matter (grey for you since you’re english).

            Referencing someone doesn’t change the fact that religious belief has zero effect on observation and experimental results (Science).

            Unless you are implying a belief shapes reality, like the Buddhist say or those who believe we are living in a simulation. If this is the case then I now understand what you are trying to convey.

          6. I understand what cognitive dissonance is.

            This is why those that suffer from religious indoctrination – such as you for example – utilize compartmentalisation.
            You know people don’t come back from the dead or turn water into wine or that prayer works or you need a human sacrifice to redeem yourself from ‘sin’. Yet on some level you do believe it. Sort of.

            You are able to avoid the cognitive dissonance of holding such a silly belief by compartmentalising – keeping such religious ideas separate from rational ones.
            Although not related to this topic the title of a Stones song comes to mind: Flip the switch.

          7. You Stated – “I understand what cognitive dissonance is.”

            My Response – Then you willfully use it incorrectly.

            You Stated — “This is why those that suffer from religious indoctrination – such as you for example – utilize compartmentalisation.”

            My Response — That’s your opinion but it’s not a fact. You have no idea how my mind works.

            I could easily say that you suffer from an over exaggerated sense of self-importance that has lead you to believe your opinions are factual simply because you say so, but I’m sure you would disagree.

            Anyone can say anything.

            You Stated – “Although not related to this topic the title of a Stones song comes to mind: Flip the switch.”

            My Response – For me “ODD TV & Payday Monsanto – They Live, We Sleep” seems to pop up more often when I talk to people but to each their own.

          8. Your reply proves that you do not understand cognitive dissonance since the page was correct in it’s description. They even go as far as to list out methods to reduce dissonance.

            1) assimilate the dissonant cognition and change beliefs accordingly.
            2) alter his or her conceptualization of the dissonant cognition to fit his or her existing mindset.
            3) augment his or her explanation for a phenomenon to reduce dissonance.
            4) allay the source of dissonance to reduce the burden of the mental discord.

            You on the other hand were saying Christians use compartmentalization to avoid dissonance, which is not possible with two opposing thoughts. This makes me wonder if you are confusing conceptualization with compartmentalization since they look similar or is it a more complex misunderstanding of the term.

            In the end I am going to think you just don’t want to admit you used the term incorrectly but that’s just my opinion.

          9. cognitive dissonance
            nounPSYCHOLOGY
            the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

            It is about separating irreconsilable beliefs in order to function.

            Example: You know dead people do not come back to life yet you still believe the biblical character did, without any evidence whatseover to support such a belief.
            So why on earth would anyone believe it?

            Reality dictates the first belief is fact, but your faith obliges you to also accept the second.
            Therefore you assimilate both beliefs and compartmentalize each one so as to avoid the effects of cognitive dissonance.

            So, yes, I do understand and the article supports what I am saying.

          10. Clearly given that response you do not understand what cognitive dissonance is.

            If a person believes something then they do not have cognitive dissonance. It has to be two opposing beliefs in the same mind.

            You not believing something someone else believes does not mean that person has cognitive dissonance.

          11. You are a christian and you hold at least two different beliefs that in the real world are incompatible regarding dead people coming back to life.

            Thus, the best way for you to avoid cognitive dissonance is to compartmentalise them.
            That way, when you talk faith you can marily carry on a conversation regarding the tale of the Resurrection and how you are saved by the blood of christ blah, blah.
            Conversely should you be having a discussion on biology you can merrily rabbit on about death and decomposition etc without the need to mention your other belief that a dead itinerant prophet came back to life 2000 years ago.
            I suppose I could rummage about and find other examples, but perhaps it is because you recognise this cognitive dissonance you refuse to acknowledge that you compartmentalise?

          12. Bearing in mind there are over 30,000 different Christian sects/cults/denominations I tend to accept that if people say they are Christian then who am I to disagree?
            There is, however, one overriding belief that in all the years I have been in dialogue with Christians – my mother included – which seems completely non-negotiable – the belief in the bodily resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
            Do you uphold this core belief?
            A simple yes or no will suffice.

          13. You Asked — “I tend to accept that if people say they are Christian then who am I to disagree?”

            My Response — You can accept anything you want from anyone you want, that’s your prerogative.

            As for me:

            The term “Christian” originates from scripture found in the bible, thus the bible defines the term
            It is only used 3 times in the bible
            And it is only defined in one verse
            Acts 11:26 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

            A Christian is only one thing: a person who is a pupil or an adherent of Jesus Christ:

            This is directly confirmed in scripture:

            John 8:31
            31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,

            There is nothing a person can say that makes them a Christian, they can only be identified via repeatable observation, in adherence to scripture found within the books of the bible. Simply put, If they are not consistently following the doctrines of Jesus Christ then they are not Christian.

            A Christian only has one kind of religion, no more no less:
            James 1:27
            Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

            As for core beliefs, you already have 30 conversations with me so feel free to post my already provided answers. And I will note for the ever-growing record, you forgot you just asked me this yesterday. Memory issues 😉

          14. However, saved by faith is generally considered key and that faith requires yoyu to accept that the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
            Do you accept this core doctrine as a historical reality/fact?

            Furthermore,w hy would you base your understanding of what a Christian is on a text ( the bible) that has been shown to contain error across almost every known discipline?
            Also, on what grounds do you put any stock in Acts?

            Memory Issues(?)
            Hmm … maybe. Have you bumped into any little old ladies lately who you suspect might have a surrepticious messenge from Yahweh?

          15. You Asked — “Furthermore,w hy would you base your understanding of what a Christian is on a text ( the bible)”

            My Answer — That seems nonsensical. The bible is the source of the term Christian. How do you not know that?

          16. Perhaps it would be easier if we take it in smaller chunks?
            Let’s start with this.
            Do you believe the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth was bodily resurrected?
            Once again. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.

            Thanks.

          17. Asked and answered in 30 conversations with you. Just post what I already provided you as you said you would many times now.

            Again, how do you not know that the term Christian originated in the bible?

          18. Again, how do you not know that the term Christian originated in the bible?

            Perhaps my question was poorly phrased? I do acknowledge that the term ‘Christian’ likely originated in the bible. Certainly the term is first encountered in ‘print’ in Acts.

            Asked and answered in 30 conversations with you

            I challenge this assertion. I do not recall and have not been able to find a single instance where you have stated that you believe as a historical fact/reality in the bodily resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
            Please provide a link and if it turns out I am mistaken I will apologise unreservedly.

            However, a simple yes or know would clear this up without anymore nonsense.

          19. You Stated — ” I do acknowledge that the term ‘Christian’ likely originated in the bible.”

            But You Also Stated — “Certainly the term is first encountered in ‘print’ in Acts.”

            My Response — So you acknowledge it first appeared in Acts but are not fully sure it was first found there by saying, “Likely”.

            That is cognitive dissonance at it’s best.

            You Stated — “I challenge this assertion. I do not recall and have not been able to find a single instance…”

            My Response — Not my problem, learn how to use WordPress better. I can easily see our past conversations on my side, so try harder. I can even see the ones on your site that I posted.

            Let’s skip to the end. You will soon start insulting me directly, then claim a conspiracy of some religious faction you believe I’m a part of and will end with a challenge for me to come talk on your site (again). I’ve seen your pattern so many times that I can do both sides of the conversation.

          20. My Response — So you acknowledge it first appeared in Acts but are not fully sure it was first found there by saying, “Likely”.

            We have no original texts and have no conclusive evidence of what may have been lost or gone before.
            Thus, our only reference of ”first use” is Acts.

            Your silly conspiracy notion aside, that you won’t reply with a simple yes or no suggests a smugness about not ”learn (ing)how to use WordPress better.”
            and/or yet another attempt at avoiding the key/core issues of why you are a Christian.
            You danced in a similar fashion with Ron recently and you seem to respond in this manner with those who engage you on certain aspects of your religious belief that you might feel uncomfortable when challenged.

            Herein lies the real problem, I suspect. Because for all your attempts to try to (personally) justify your religious beliefs/Christianity there is no evidence for it and emotional issues are what holds the house of cards together.
            Emotional issues linked to culture and indoctrination.

            Your encounter with the woman illustrates this more than adequately.

          21. You keep saying things like, “Thus, our only reference of ”first use” is Acts.” but then you keep following up with “we don’t know”.

            How can you not know when something is first found somewhere? This is where it’s confusing to talk to you. On the one hand you say you know something but then a few lines later you dodge to other topics because it’s clear you don’t know.

            Just admit when you don’t know something like, “What is a Christian” or what is “cognitive dissonance”.

            This is a game that Trump plays but I’m not buying it.

          22. The smile is new I will admit but like you always tell me, do it yourself, you have access to that answer.

            You just made me look up the chalk thing because you refused to spend any time telling me something I could find myself Oo.

            Who does that?

          23. You were unable to figure why I did this after your insistance I learn how to use WordPress and your refusal to offer a link regarding your assertion over claims of the resurrection?

          24. I said you always do this not you just did this.

            Even now you’re doing it. You are still ignoring your misuse of terms while at the same time stating you don’t know where the term Christian comes from.

            I remember that time it took over 12 replies to get you to provide one real answer to your thoughts of a simulated universe.

            I honestly don’t think you read peoples replies, I think you just copy paste responses.

          25. Then let’s see if we can remedy the situation and return to a more eqiuitable footing, shall we?
            First your question re: Christian /Acts.

            The bible is the source of the term Christian. How do you not know that?

            I do know it. I am also aware that the earliest known use of the word Christian that we are aware of is found in Acts.
            Any other considerations we can discuss later, perhaps?

            Now let’s see of we can get a straight answer to the resurrection question.

            And I reiterate the sentiments I expressed in my original reply and now add that I have scoured all the conversations on my blog where you have commented and included a word search and there is not one instance where you have acknowledged that you believe in the bodily resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
            While I didn’t do a similar specific word search on your blog, I did read the posts where you and I have dialogued and again there is no comment where such a statement is made.

            So …
            Do you believe the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth was bodily resurrected?
            Once again. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.

          26. I am not repeating any answers to questions I have already answered with you. You repeat old questions whenever you make a mistake or get hard questions. It’s a nonsensical dodge that’s time consuming.

            Look at this reply from you: “I do know it. I am also aware that the earliest known use of the word Christian that we are aware of is found in Acts.”

            That doesn’t even make sense Oo

            The question I asked you : “The bible is the source of the term Christian. How do you not know that?

            So you answer saying that you do know it but that you ALSO know it was found in Acts Oo

            Acts is part of the Bible Oo

            These slip ups are an obvious lack of knowledge on your part, hidden in a sea of repetitive questions to redirect focus from your lack of nuanced understanding of the topic.

            Also for the record you don’t answer questions directly. The last time I responded to your challenge and went to your site where I answered every question asked from you and 3 of your bloggers, I myself could not get more than two direct replies from you on softball questions. Especially using Yes and No formatted questions. You stated repeatedly that you can answer anyway that pleases you and that I could leave your site if i didn’t like it.

            You don’t like hard questions because you don’t know the topic and you don’t like being called out on it.

          27. You truly are hilarious and your behaviour is one of the reasons I do so love to engage Christians.

            I am not repeating any answers to questions I have already answered with you.

            Except that you have not answered my question if you believe in the bodily resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth so how on earth could you repeat an answer?
            With regards your stance on this question I’m wondering at what point the term ”liar” might be legitimatelty used here?
            Or should one just presume that as you regard yourself as a Christian, and a very naughty sinner you do in faxct accept that the bible character Jesus of Nazareth did rise from the dead?
            *Sigh* What a conundrumrumrum … rum.

            That doesn’t even make sense Oo

            Not to you,, this much is obvious.
            Unfortunately I cannot type in crayon.
            It does seem that you simply struggle with basic comprehension.

            As we do not have the original texts we have no idea what was originally wriiten.
            Scholars such as Ehrman have been pointing this out to believers like you for years.
            Of course, as many critical scholars now regard Acts as historical fiction whoever wrote it could have simply invented the term himself.

            The last time I responded to your challenge and went to your site …

            Your forst appearance was on the post abut evolution. I never offered you any ”challenge” to come to my site, you were the one who suggested it.
            This is now the second time you have made this assertion on the blogs. Must Icall, you out on it and produce the relevant conversation for this as well?

            You don’t like hard questions …

            You haven’t asked a hard question yet, but feel free to pose one anytime you’re ready chief. No problem.

          28. You are still missing the fact that you didn’t know Acts was part of the Bible. How can there be a conversation without basic knowledge?

          29. Of course I know that Acts is part of the bible. What sort of person asks such a ridiculous question?
            I don’t mean to be overtly rude by asking such a personaal question, but do you suffer from some sort of psychological issue?

          30. You clearly are still dodging the fact that you didn’t know.

            Making personal comments won’t distract me from that fact.

            You simply don’t know much about the Bible and don’t want to admit it. I get you are dedicated to religious deconversion but you lack detailed understanding of the topics you argue.

            How else would I take a statement about knowing “Christian” is in the Bible but saying that it’s also is in acts Oo.

          31. Now that is funny.
            Isn’t Acts the book that comes after Luke? Luke being the physician and mate of Paul who is claimed by certain of your faith to have written it – A sort of Luke Part deux?

            But, you are correct , I don’t know much about the bible, but I’ll venture I probably know enough.
            And the fact you are a Christian suggests you obviously don’t know enough … yet as if you did, you would have deconcerted already.

          32. You Stated — “But, you are correct , I don’t know much about the bible, but I’ll venture I probably know enough.”

            My Response — You clearly don’t know enough since you tried to talk about the book of acts but didn’t know it was a part of the bible.

          33. You tell me you can’t find past conversations with me (now over 30) but yet you just stated, “Your forst appearance was on the post abut evolution.” Clearly you can see past conversations (when you want to see them)

            And why all the spelling errors? When it was just one or two (no big deal) but now it’s happening repeatedly. In the past I just brushed it off as typos but there are just too many of them to ignore. It’s becoming obvious that you have been pretending the entire time to be something that you are not.

            “Your forst appearance”

            Really? How can I take you seriously when you don’t know the topics, can’t remember past conversations, and can’t spell?

          34. Sorey abowt the smelling errers I wos reeding somthin mor eimprtant at the time in anuther window.

            As to the thrust of your diatribe – I’ll take that as a ‘yes’, and save us all the trouble.

            So, if you do not have any emotional issues why do you believe a three day corpse rose from the dead?

          35. Taking me seriously is not an issue. I am an atheist.
            Whether you take YOURSELF seriously regarding you believing the bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead is what’s really at stake, surely?

          36. So you are saying that the critical issue here is if I take myself seriously but not you putting out an entire paragraph where all the words were misspelled because you didn’t want to explain why you didn’t know acts was part of the bible.

            You don’t feel like you have to respect this conversation and get serious. Not everything is a joke.

          37. Really, I don’t know where you get this strange idea that I did/do not know what Acts was or the fact that it is in the bible.
            Acts was there the first time I read the bible and also the second time.
            It comes directly after Luke.

            Maybe you should give this silly line of comments a rest already?

            Perhaps you should save your asperity for another time and simply answer the question why you believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

          38. You Stated — “Really, I don’t know where you get this strange idea that I did/do not know what Acts was ”

            I saw that you didn’t know it when you stated that the term Christian “LIKELY” came from the bible (lol really) BUT then you said it “CERTAINLY” came from acts. oO

            One cannot be likely and the other Certainly when they are the same.

            Not to mention where else would the term christian come from if not the christian scripture.

            I can’t take you seriously because you are obviously googling to keep up with the conversation.

          39. No problem. I have never taken any Christian belief seriously -except of course where they have indoctrinated others with this filth.
            People believing they are sinners, and dead people coming back to life merely tends to give normal people the impression there may well be a screw loose somewhere.

          40. You Stated — “I have never taken any Christian belief seriously”

            My Response — Of course you don’t and that’s my point. It’s clear from the fact that you didn’t know acts was a part of the bible.

            I debate with atheist all the time and I find them to be fascinating and well read but you are an outlier. Every conversation with you is the exact same conversation, there is no nuance. This is to say that you copy and paste the exact same Q/A every single time.

            It’s obvious you don’t know the material but googling your way through the conversation is time consuming because you are making to many mistakes that sound nonsensical on my side.

            If all you want, is to be acknowledged as a non-believer then I believe you but stay out of the deep end asking more granular questions since you don’t know the reference material.

            As for your issues with spelling I will leave it alone moving forward since you are starting to take it personally.

          41. My Response — Of course you don’t and that’s my point. It’s clear from the fact that you didn’t know acts was a part of the bible.

            Either you are behaving like a ginormous Nob on purpose merely to try to get a rise or you really are suffering from some form of pyschologial issue. Based on past history I am inclined to plump for the latter. Either way, if this were your blog and you were to continue to behave true to form you would be on the verge of deleting the thread offering some sort of disengenuos platitude as you rode away into the sunset gloating and hugging yourself.

            I debate with atheist all the time

            Grammar problem now, I see?

            I am not particulalry interested in nuance where it is appled to religious text. I prefer to focus on evidence and honesty, two things you have trouble with, suggesting you really do have a pyschological problem. After all, you are a Christian.

            I take no issue on the blog personally. That would be rather silly.
            So,why do you believe in the ressurection of the character Jesus of Nazareth?

          42. You Stated — “I am not particulalry interested in nuance where it is appled to religious text.”

            Your Question — “So,why do you believe in the ressurection of the character Jesus of Nazareth?”

            My Response — My answer is based in the bible and since you have no interest in it, the question is nonsensical.

            Again, you are going into your repeated Q/A asking questions you don’t care about and have no knowledge of the source material.

            You don’t believe
            I believe

            You can’t prove god doesn’t exist
            I can’t prove god does exist

            You want to save me from my bad reasoning by convincing me of yours

            I myself have nothing to convince you of and have no need for more thought police in my life

            At any rate… I’m not convinced by your argument today. Maybe try again in another post.

          43. You don’t believe
            I believe

            Indeed you do! Is is unfortunate you do not have the integrity to acknowledge you have no evidence to substantiate your belief.

            However, all your ego-driven posturing aside, at least this is as close to an emotional outburst demonstrating a more honest motivation behind your reason for believing.

            Anyone familiar with what it is like to be an indoctrinated Christian will be familiar with this type of defensive behaviour.

          44. You admit you don’t really know the bible and yet you keep framing your questions as though you do. Scripture is a bit more complex, that’s why it’s hard to have a serious conversation with you, you have no nuance of it’s complexity.

            It’s easier, (and I respect you more), when you just stay in the kid section of making simple requests like, (prove god exists) but when you start pretending to know scripture enough to ask a more granular question it just becomes a bit silly.

            Take this for instance, “saved by faith is generally considered key and that faith requires yoyu to accept that the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead”

            Spelling aside (again), what is it that you think you are asking?

          45. Scripture is a bit more complex, that’s why it’s hard to have a serious conversation with you, you have no nuance of it’s complexity

            Actually it isn’t complex at all. Christians, like to think it is and this is what they have been brought up to believe. Thus, apologists are able to con people such as you when straightforward questions are asked.
            This is often where the cognitive dissonance comes into play.
            As you continually try to school me on my supposed missuse of the term using your usual bowl of word-salad I feel no particluar inclination to demonstrate the veracity of this assertion.
            However, anyone who holds a degree in geology from a recognized university and understands plate techtonics and yet STILL believes that the world was flooded by Yahweh because of sinners and dinosaurs shared a wooden boat with an incestuous family has some real issues even.

            The bible does not function as a genuine learning tool and is so strewn with error across almost every discipline as to be ridiculous and as history shows it has been used to support some of the most vile practices.
            It has to be inculcated and such indoctrination has to be maintained.
            But don’t take my word for it.After all, you canopt take me seriously, right? Besides, I never believed in it, considering it palpable nonsense from begining to end.

            Why not discuss it with any deconverted Christian or visit the Clergy Project?
            Better to get it straight from the horse’s mouth, yes?

            While some consider the bible has high literary qualities much of it is simply revolting – a testimony to barbarism and man’s ignorance.
            That it has been imbued with being divinely inspired or some other nonsense
            – spitirual properties perhaps – is testimony to the credulity of people such as you and the power of indoctrination.
            Humans have evolved to see agency in many things.
            It is not difficult to understand how a tribal chief or a shamen or witch doctor could get members of the clan to believe thunder was from ”gods”.
            It is not such a big leap from such ideas to human sacrifice to appease such gods.
            And lo and behold … Christianity is born.

            I suggest that, in future, you will need to be more specific when you use the word ”know”.
            I was trying to be as intellectually on the level as I could when I used it.
            Certainly, compared to a scholar such as Ehrman, I don’t ”know” it.
            Compared to you, and the average pew sitter, my ”score” would likely come out above average.

            You might want to look at one or two of your own recent comments regarding spelling. You do have an edit facillity I presume?

            Spelling aside (again), what is it that you think you are asking?

            Certain aspects of Christian doctrine is divided: In general it teaches, saved by works and faith, or by faith alone, depending on which cult one belongs to.

            ”And if Christ has not been raised … blah blah.”
            I’m sure you are savvy enough to work out
            what ” …..you think I am (you are) asking?
            After all, I have been asking the question for a while now.

          46. You Stated — “Actually it isn’t complex at all. Christians, like to think it is ”

            My Response — The complexity I’m talking about here is knowing the books that are part of the bible. Since you didn’t know acts was a book in the bible it shows me that your understanding level is beginner. There is more complexity in the bible for more advanced conversations.

            I agree with you, that at your level of understanding, there is no complexity. You just want it known that you are an atheist and that from your perspective the bible is fake (I get it, easy to understand your position).

            BUT

            When you start to postulate more advanced aspects of belief vs nonbelief you become visibly ill-prepared. You just don’t have enough understanding of the source material for a deeper conversation.

            That’s why I keep saying for you to just stick to your base argument of not believing and leave it there.

            Take this for instance:

            You Stated — “Certain aspects of Christian doctrine is divided: In general it teaches, saved by works and faith, or by faith alone, depending on which cult one belongs to.”

            My Response — This is an ill-prepared attempt to go deeper on your part.

            1 Timothy 2:15
            15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

            How people are saved in the bible has more complexity than your google search can produce.

            Christian doctrine also has no cults listed in the bible so there is no reference point for you comment within scripture.

            But again this is all just a waste of time because you don’t care about the bible or the books in it (which is fine). But why pretend you know the source material at any level other than beginner, just saying.

          47. When you start to postulate more advanced aspects of belief vs nonbelief you become visibly ill-prepared. You just don’t have enough understanding of the source material for a deeper conversation.

            Would you please provide an example of a more advanced aspect of belief/non belief; if not for me then for the benefit of our host and any others reading along who do not have the depth and breadth of knowledge you obviously have.

            Ill prepared?
            Are you not aware of this major doctrinal point between Catholics and Protestants?
            Perhaps you should do a little mre study?

            Christian doctrine also has no cults listed in the bible so there is no reference point for you comment within scripture.

            Christianity is a cult and it has over 30,000
            sects/denominations.

            Correct, I do not care about the bible or the books in it. I do care about a lot of things, but the bible is not one of them.

          48. You Stated — “Correct, I do not care about the bible or the books in it.”

            My Response — Exactly, and that’s why you didn’t know acts was a book in the bible.

            I can’t really take you seriously without a grasp of basic knowledge.

          49. My apologies. I missed this.

            1 Timothy 2:15
            15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

            Of what possible benefit is there to your argument by quoting a piece of fraudulant text?

            How people are saved in the bible has more complexity than your google search can produce

            Now that IS funny!
            After so many years dialoguing with Christians and being married to a Catholic why on earth would you think I Googled about being saved?
            If you weren’t so deceitful, one could almost pity you.

          50. You Stated — “My apologies. I missed this.”

            My Response — Of course you missed it, just like you missed the fact that acts was a book in the bible 😉

            You are trying to google your way though a discussion about something you know very little of.

  5. You Stated — “It promotes and foments HUGE amounts of bigotry, hypocrisy, and in some unfortunate cases, sociopathy – The literal antithesis of Jesus Christ’s ministry.””

    My Response — No it doesn’t and it never has. People promote bigotry, hypocrisy, and sociopathy. Leave the blame with the individual who does it, stop letting them hide behind titles and labels.

    The answer isn’t to keep changing who you are because they copy your name. Just keep being who you are and let the world see the difference between the two.

    1. That sounds great in principle, but not in practice. Labels exist for a reason – snap judgements, even though most of us progressives abhor them, helped our early ancestors survive the dangerous serengeti. Sure, in the modern age, human society and individuals are far more complex, so snap judgements (basically System-1 Thinking) are discouraged due to them being “lazy shortcuts” that can promote bigotry and division.

      However, they still happen. With alarming frequency.

      You said, “Just keep being who you are and let the world see the difference between the two.”
      Alas, most people in the real world won’t or can’t be bothered to “see the difference between the two”, they tend to employ System-1 Thinking right away. Then, if the opportunity is there AND if the individuals are so-inclined, they MIGHT employ their System-2 Thinking.

      The human brain isn’t QUITE that evolved yet to NOT default to System-1 Thinking from square one.

      That’s why “non-fake” Christians should at least TRY and make new or better labels.

      1. So you say “Labels exist for a reason”, but at the same time you say people can’t use them correctly because, “The human brain isn’t QUITE that evolved yet”

        AND

        You want a select minority of people to actively work to change the perception of what you see as “lazy bigots” with unevolved brains.

        In The Hopes Of:

        Freeing said minority from being associated with uneducated monsters even though they don’t desire to persuade others in any way other than by example.

        Oo

        1. Addressing the last paragraph – Yes, I’m sure some good Christ-followers lead by example. I did same thing for a long time – I got sh*t on and mocked for my efforts (yet I continue modeling Good Humanist Behavior up till today but WITHOUT the religious labels).

          Regardless of modeling good behavior, people WILL still make judgements based on labels (definitely initially, and often times forever). So my suggestion – and it’s only a suggestion, not an imperative – was for Good People to simply *dissociate* themselves from the tainted religious labels (and just keep being a Good Person). It’ll be FAR easier to recognize and engage with Good People if they don’t carry the “stink” of the tainted and “rubbished” religious labels.

          I hope that helps clarify my point.

          BTW, whether or not we agree on everything, I thank you (and the other user Arkenaten) for the engagement and the civility of discourse… I really do appreciate it.

          Cheers!

          1. You Stated — “I’m sure some good Christ-followers lead by example.”

            My Response — There are no “good Christ-followers”, people can do good or bad things, but they are not capable of being the embodiment of good itself. If someone adheres to the scriptures of Jesus, then they are simply Christians nothing more nothing less. It has no bearing on them personally being good or bad according to scripture.

            From a secular perspective it would also be nonsensical since being part of a group has no bearing on an individual’s mental state or propensity to commit to being either good or bad. A person can be part of an organization considered to be bad but doing so for what they believe are good reasons. This secular belief is best seen in politics.

            You Stated – “I continue modeling Good Humanist Behavior up till today but WITHOUT the religious labels”

            My Response – Same as above, good and bad are relative and have little meaning in secular understanding.

            You Stated – “So my suggestion – and it’s only a suggestion, not an imperative – was for Good People to simply *dissociate* themselves from the tainted religious labels (and just keep being a Good Person)”

            My Response – I understand your view, but I was suggesting that people don’t have a need to run and reorganize based on what others do. We should not be on edge over what others do to the point that they pack up and run.

            I hope that helps clarify my point also

            You Stated – “BTW, whether or not we agree on everything, I thank you (and the other user Arkenaten) for the engagement and the civility of discourse… I really do appreciate it.”

            My Response – I find your comments challenging and really appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you also, I enjoy it.

            Seek the conversation less comfortable, less the mind rest so easily it never wakes up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s