"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[ABikerSailor]

I didn't say anything about well known scientists. Try again. Re-read your assertion. Then re-read my statement. Do it until you understand what is being said.

Like I said Halal Twit, got a link to back up your bullshit, or is it just more crap that you pull outta your ass (as usual)?

 

[koshergrl]

One of the signs of the dogma-slave is the confusion of human authority with divine authority, and inability to distinguish between them.

For example, consider a traditional Christian's view of the Bible. The Bible, we are told, consists of instructions provided by God. But has God Himself told the believer that this is so? No. Other human beings have told him. Thus, in accepting the Bible as reflecting the authority of God, the believer is implicitly accepting the authority of those other human beings who have told him this, to determine what is or is not the word of God.

Wrong. We accept the bible as the inerrant Word of God, and as such, we trust God is capable of seeing to it that the information we receive via imperfect men remains perfect in and of itself. This is specifically addressed in the Bible. We don't trust men to be perfect. We trust God and his word to be perfect and incorruptible, because God has told us it is, and God cannot (and does not) lie.

The authority of the Bible is therefore only as good as the authority of those human beings, and unless those human beings were also divinely inspired, the believer really has no good way to know this about the Bible.

No, the authority of the Bible is as good as the authority of God, which is good authority indeed.

In fact, there's a whole chain of human links between God and the believer by way of Scripture, with logical dependence as follows:

Statement X found in the Bible is believed because

the Bible is God's word, which is believed because

the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, and
the Jewish and Christian authorities who selected the books knew which ones were divinely inspired, and
the books were not edited or altered by these authorities, and
the translations available correctly provide the original meanings

and all of this is believed because

certain human beings (living and dead) have said so.

No, it has nothing to do with being "divinely inspired". It has to do with the fact that the bible in and of itself is imbued with the Holy Spirit, as are the words of the Bible. The writers of the bible were not "inspired". They spoke with the authority of God Himself.

It's the final sentence that's the important one, the one on which all of the others logically depend. If those who SAY that the Bible is divinely inspired, etc., are THEMSELVES divine authorities, then that should be believed. And yet, few Christians, if any, will make that claim, and this makes the claim of divine inspiration of the Bible dependent on the say-so of fallible human beings.

You're basing this on a whole lotta logical fallacy, false premises, and garbage assumptions...
Yet this is forgotten or glossed over. When I dispute some point or other of Christian doctrine (or Muslim, or whatever -- I don't mean to single out Christianity as unique in this way), I am sometimes accused of questioning the word of God, when in reality what I am doing is questioning the word of those fallible human beings who have claimed that the Bible is the word of God. I do not believe that those human beings were incapable of making a mistake, and indeed, I believe that they did just that.

This is an old and trite stance of anti-Christians. It has been dealt with so many times.
The irrationality of the belief that the Bible is the word of God, given the very shaky foundation of evidence on which this belief rests (ultimately, the unsupported say-so of people who have no ability to make that discernment) is quite obvious, and so the only plausible conclusion is that people make this mistake and think this way for non-rational, emotional reasons. What I think is behind it, from the believer's perspective, is a desire to be told what to do, a natural submissiveness and fear of freedom, a desire for a (benevolent) master. This is wholly separate from the desire for the love of God, for God is no one's master. (Whoever has an ear, let him hear.)

There's nothing irrational about it at all. The irrationality exists on the side of anti-Christian bigots who present lies and fallacy as established truth and logic.

And who pretend logical people can't have faith. Which is in and of itself, a lie.

 

[HUGGY]

One of the signs of the dogma-slave is the confusion of human authority with divine authority, and inability to distinguish between them.

For example, consider a traditional Christian's view of the Bible. The Bible, we are told, consists of instructions provided by God. But has God Himself told the believer that this is so? No. Other human beings have told him. Thus, in accepting the Bible as reflecting the authority of God, the believer is implicitly accepting the authority of those other human beings who have told him this, to determine what is or is not the word of God.

Wrong. We accept the bible as the inerrant Word of God, and as such, we trust God is capable of seeing to it that the information we receive via imperfect men remains perfect in and of itself. This is specifically addressed in the Bible. We don't trust men to be perfect. We trust God and his word to be perfect and incorruptible, because God has told us it is, and God cannot (and does not) lie.

The authority of the Bible is therefore only as good as the authority of those human beings, and unless those human beings were also divinely inspired, the believer really has no good way to know this about the Bible.

No, the authority of the Bible is as good as the authority of God, which is good authority indeed.

In fact, there's a whole chain of human links between God and the believer by way of Scripture, with logical dependence as follows:

Statement X found in the Bible is believed because

the Bible is God's word, which is believed because

the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, and
the Jewish and Christian authorities who selected the books knew which ones were divinely inspired, and
the books were not edited or altered by these authorities, and
the translations available correctly provide the original meanings

and all of this is believed because

certain human beings (living and dead) have said so.

No, it has nothing to do with being "divinely inspired". It has to do with the fact that the bible in and of itself is imbued with the Holy Spirit, as are the words of the Bible. The writers of the bible were not "inspired". They spoke with the authority of God Himself.

It's the final sentence that's the important one, the one on which all of the others logically depend. If those who SAY that the Bible is divinely inspired, etc., are THEMSELVES divine authorities, then that should be believed. And yet, few Christians, if any, will make that claim, and this makes the claim of divine inspiration of the Bible dependent on the say-so of fallible human beings.

You're basing this on a whole lotta logical fallacy, false premises, and garbage assumptions...
Yet this is forgotten or glossed over. When I dispute some point or other of Christian doctrine (or Muslim, or whatever -- I don't mean to single out Christianity as unique in this way), I am sometimes accused of questioning the word of God, when in reality what I am doing is questioning the word of those fallible human beings who have claimed that the Bible is the word of God. I do not believe that those human beings were incapable of making a mistake, and indeed, I believe that they did just that.

This is an old and trite stance of anti-Christians. It has been dealt with so many times.
The irrationality of the belief that the Bible is the word of God, given the very shaky foundation of evidence on which this belief rests (ultimately, the unsupported say-so of people who have no ability to make that discernment) is quite obvious, and so the only plausible conclusion is that people make this mistake and think this way for non-rational, emotional reasons. What I think is behind it, from the believer's perspective, is a desire to be told what to do, a natural submissiveness and fear of freedom, a desire for a (benevolent) master. This is wholly separate from the desire for the love of God, for God is no one's master. (Whoever has an ear, let him hear.)

There's nothing irrational about it at all. The irrationality exists on the side of anti-Christian bigots who present lies and fallacy as established truth and logic.

And who pretend logical people can't have faith. Which is in and of itself, a lie.

Your attempt at logic is circular, self serving and by any measure of critical thinking..wrong.

PS... Writing in bold red font doesn't make your argument any stronger.

 

[koshergrl]

I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.

And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.

 

[HUGGY]

I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.

And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.

They said god told them it was from god ....therefore it has to be gods words. This is because god does not lie.

Classical circular logic.

Why would a god be obligated to tell humans the truth?

If this "god" was as superior and all knowing as you believe then he wouldn't need some undereducated ignorant humans to scribe anything. This so called god should have more than enough ability to deliver "his words" in a manner that would stand the test of time on it's own independant of the possible and in truth the high likeihood of error by the feeble humans.

If I was a "god" I would turn a whole mountain into a big magnifying glass and put my words on the head of a pin safely buried inside the mountain. The whole mountain would be shielded by 20 feet thick of titanium to prevent any vandalism. There would be space to enter the viewing area for only one man so all could enter individually and have the word of "god" directly with no chance that some kniving human "interpreting" the words of "god" for their own benefit.

One would think any "god" worth his salt would have thought this out at least as well as I have laid it out.

OR...being "god" and all he would already know about mirochips and speaker systems..A human could get "the words" of god directly in any language..just like your laptop.

But no...you are stuck with a "god" that wasn't thinking ahead and supposedly left some rag tag hearsay scrolls ... and self serving notes jotted down by some guys that never actually saw this god OR jeebus.

You could not take your "evidense" into a muni court and beat a parking ticket.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say anything about well known scientists. Try again. Re-read your assertion. Then re-read my statement. Do it until you understand what is being said.

Like I said Halal Twit, got a link to back up your bullshit, or is it just more crap that you pull outta your ass (as usual)?

Why would I link supporting documentation for a statement I never made?

 

[koshergrl]

I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.

And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.

They said god told them it was from god ....therefore it has to be gods words. This is because god does not lie.

Classical circular logic.

Why would a god be obligated to tell humans the truth?

If this "god" was as superior and all knowing as you believe then he wouldn't need some undereducated ignorant humans to scribe anything. This so called god should have more than enough ability to deliver "his words" in a manner that would stand the test of time on it's own independant of the possible and in truth the high likeihood of error by the feeble humans.

If I was a "god" I would turn a whole mountain into a big magnifying glass and put my words on the head of a pin safely buried inside the mountain. The whole mountain would be shielded by 20 feet thick of titanium to prevent any vandalism. There would be space to enter the viewing area for only one man so all could enter individually and have the word of "god" directly with no chance that some kniving human "interpreting" the words of "god" for their own benefit.

One would think any "god" worth his salt would have thought this out at least as well as I have laid it out.

OR...being "god" and all he would already know about mirochips and speaker systems..A human could get "the words" of god directly in any language..just like your laptop.

But no...you are stuck with a "god" that wasn't thinking ahead and supposedly left some rag tag hearsay scrolls ... and self serving notes jotted down by some guys that never actually saw this god OR jeebus.

You could not take your "evidense" into a muni court and beat a parking ticket.

God didn't leave anything behind.

God spoke directly to Moses, and traveled with him in the desert. That wasn't just one man tripping on some golden tablets in the desert and bringing them home. Everybody experienced God's presence, and saw the miracles (the parting of the red sea, the plagues, passover...)

Everybody present heard God say "this is my Son" to Christ, so we can also accept his word as infallible...and he said the OT was correct. And the OT says the Word IS GOD.

 

[HUGGY]

I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.

And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.

They said god told them it was from god ....therefore it has to be gods words. This is because god does not lie.

Classical circular logic.

Why would a god be obligated to tell humans the truth?

If this "god" was as superior and all knowing as you believe then he wouldn't need some undereducated ignorant humans to scribe anything. This so called god should have more than enough ability to deliver "his words" in a manner that would stand the test of time on it's own independant of the possible and in truth the high likeihood of error by the feeble humans.

If I was a "god" I would turn a whole mountain into a big magnifying glass and put my words on the head of a pin safely buried inside the mountain. The whole mountain would be shielded by 20 feet thick of titanium to prevent any vandalism. There would be space to enter the viewing area for only one man so all could enter individually and have the word of "god" directly with no chance that some kniving human "interpreting" the words of "god" for their own benefit.

One would think any "god" worth his salt would have thought this out at least as well as I have laid it out.

OR...being "god" and all he would already know about mirochips and speaker systems..A human could get "the words" of god directly in any language..just like your laptop.

But no...you are stuck with a "god" that wasn't thinking ahead and supposedly left some rag tag hearsay scrolls ... and self serving notes jotted down by some guys that never actually saw this god OR jeebus.

You could not take your "evidense" into a muni court and beat a parking ticket.

God didn't leave anything behind.

God spoke directly to Moses, and traveled with him in the desert. That wasn't just one man tripping on some golden tablets in the desert and bringing them home. Everybody experienced God's presence, and saw the miracles (the parting of the red sea, the plagues, passover...)

Everybody present heard God say "this is my Son" to Christ, so we can also accept his word as infallible...and he said the OT was correct. And the OT says the Word IS GOD.

How convenient. Why not? A little short on miricles was he?

Everybody experienced "gods" presence? Nigga puulleeezzz!!! Poppycock...fiddlesticks!~ None of that shit ever happened.

Everybody heard god talk to jeebus? Ya right! Nonsense.

Tell ya what...I'll go on living as if there never was a god and if and when this oh so very mysterious sky fairy shows up... I'll decide then.

I like to deal with things one on one...straight forward. There is no human alive that is qualified to speak for something as all powerful as you believe this "god" is. If he doesn't like it then he can at least take comfort in the fact that I do not suffer fools.

 

[koshergrl]

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.

Links? When and where exactly did they discover those things, and who discovered them? Were photos taken? I'd really like to see the evidence you tout.

But, as usual Halal Twit, you're never gonna provide any proof.

BTW...............Josephus was known to exaggerate the truth.

 

[HUGGY]

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.

Boats and barges sink. Happens a lot more often than seas parting.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.

Forget it. They're determined to remain what they are. That's why I stopped tossing pearls before these swine.

 

[koshergrl]

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.

Links? When and where exactly did they discover those things, and who discovered them? Were photos taken? I'd really like to see the evidence you tout.

But, as usual Halal Twit, you're never gonna provide any proof.

BTW...............Josephus was known to exaggerate the truth.

No, Josephus wasn't.

And I can always back up my statements. If I can't, I don't say it:

snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

Yes, they've found chariots and horses in the Red Sea that appear to be from the right time period and are certainly in the right place to be concurrent with Moses' lifetime.

 

[Newby]

OK, I guess I need to clarify.

If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.

Such as? You make very broad statements, which are complete assumptions, you should put something tangible out there to back it up. What in our society wouldn't a christian be 'free' to do? What's 'almost everything'?

 

[Newby]

"Freethinker" is sometimes used to mean an atheist, but it seems to me that the word as literally interpreted -- anyone who thinks freely, atheist or not -- allows the statement, "A freethinker is Satan's slave" to truly state traditional Christian belief. In the context of traditional Christianity, not believing certain things is an unforgivable sin, and anyone who thinks freely risks changing his mind and becoming an unbeliever. Traditional Christianity, therefore, is opposed to free thought. It's also opposed to freedom of religion.

In fact, it's opposed to freedom generally.

I use the expression "traditional Christianity" to implicitly acknowledge that there are forms and sects of Christianity for which none of this is true, and that it doesn't follow from the teachings of Jesus, either. However, in the types of Christianity believed in and followed by those who call themselves "conservative Christians" or "religious conservatives," it is certainly true.

You make so many vague statements like they are facts? So, what denominations fall under 'traditional Christianity', define it. What does 'traditional christian' doctrine mean in your mind? Which of these christian 'sects' are saying they're christians but not following the teachings of Jesus? Can you please name the churches/denominations, and what it is in their beliefs that go against the teachings of Jesus? And what is a 'conservative christian', what denominations? What doctrines or beliefs do they hold that are different in your mind from other 'sects' of christians? Compare and contrast and illutstrate to us the differences between 'traditional christians', 'conservative christians', and any other 'sect' of christians that you think are out there? Without any basis or defining of these over arching labels that you've placed out there, there is no ability to have any relevent discussion on any of it.

 

[Newby]

The church used it just fine. You are the ones who didn't know what the hell it means...and Dragon is an atheist.

So either he's the most ignorant atheist in the world, or he's being deceitful.

Regardless of what the church meant, if this saying has been used on certain church signs (I've never seen any), then they are certainly going about showing the love and salvation of Christ in a wrong way.

 

[Newby]

amrchaos is correct. I am not an atheist. However, I do consider myself a "free thinker."

I'm well aware of the fact that "freethinker" is sometimes used as a synonym for "atheist." However, traditional Christianity is opposed to any sort of free thought, not just the kind that is a synonym of atheism. Free thought that does not venture in an atheist direction will instead become heresy and/or apostasy, either of which is considered just as bad by traditional Christianity as atheism, or even worse, since atheism isn't really a rival the way another religion or a heretical form of Christianity is.

Traditional Christianity is opposed, not just to atheism, but to free thought itself, and indeed to freedom in general.

Again, you make a statement, but what is that statement based on? Free thought of what? What does 'freedom' mean in this context? Freedom from what? Freedom to do what?

 

[Newby]

I'm going to Hell.

I can live with that. Better that than give in to group think...

So there isn't a 'group' out there that thinks just like you? Really?

 

[Dragon]

Such as? You make very broad statements, which are complete assumptions

Oh, come on. I'm not talking about some dead religion known only through archaeological relics and speculation. "Complete assumption" my ass.

If you really want to pretend ignorance about the tenets of traditional Christianity, fine. Here are some of the things I mean:

1) Holding spiritual beliefs outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
2) Not believing in God.
3) Failing to keep the sacraments. (Depends on the denomination, of course.)
4) Feeling sexual desire for anyone who is not one's spouse.
5) Feeling desire for any property that does not belong to one.
6) Feeling anger at a personal slight or injury.

There are many more, of course. All of these are problematical, but the first is particularly odious, and the teaching that puts the mind in chains.

 

[Newby]

Wanna know why most churches don't like free thinkers?

They challenge dogma.

Wanna know why most Christians think free thinkers are slaves of the SaTan? Because they don't like having their dogma challenged.

Interestingly enough, Yeshua (Jesus) was a free thinker, why else do you think that He challenged the religious authority and chased the money changers out of the Temple?

He chased them out of the temple because they were following/idolizing a false God, money, and not His Father as they were commanded to do. So, actually in my opinion, the 'religious authority and the money changers were the 'free thinkers' and veering away from God's word, which is why He challenged them.