Christianity shrinking in U.S.; Mormon numbers essentially flat

[NAOS]

Like I said, I don't make the rules. Jesus did that. And I'm not perfect and I'm often wrong, but I still try to follow Jesus' teachings as much as I can.

I'm going to refer to you as Hantttlersss from now on.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Quit the nonsense. There is no way to prove anything doesn't exist. I think unicorns exist. I feel it in my heart. This belief has informed all of my decisions and guided me thus far. How dare you doubt the power of the unicorn?!

Asking someone to prove something that is based on nothing but your own QUALIA is nonsensical. Present something that can be meaningfully proven, then we can talk about how such a task can be accomplished.

But can you set up a system of proofs based on assumptions.

For example, take the common claim that God is a caring/loving father. If we can get people to agree on what the characteristics of a caring and loving father are, then can we not compare these characteristics to the behavior (or presumed behavior) of God?

For example, take a very, very low bar for caring and loving. Can we all agree that a caring and loving father does not murder his children for disobedience?

If so, then I submit Noah's flood as evidence that the God of the OT (at least) does not meet this very low bar. Thus, while not 'proving' whether God exists, we can 'prove' he's NOT a caring and loving father.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Like I said, I don't make the rules. Jesus did that. And I'm not perfect and I'm often wrong, but I still try to follow Jesus' teachings as much as I can.

How do you know Jesus made the rules? All you have is someone's word on it, someone who wasn't there when the rules were presumably crafted, and someone who cannot demonstrate that he/she has any credible claim to have a direct link with Jesus to know what Jesus actually thinks on the matter.

 

[Stoked]

Like I said, I don't make the rules. Jesus did that. And I'm not perfect and I'm often wrong, but I still try to follow Jesus' teachings as much as I can.

You are missing the point, not sure if it is intentional or not. There is heavy debate within the overall Christian faith as to what those exact criteria are. No you did not "make them", but you certainly have your interpretation of what those criteria are. As do Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans...

Good for you for doing your best to follow Christ. But others with a different interpretation of Christ and his teachings are doing the same. I see them as no less Christian than you. Do you consider them Christian?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If you genuinely feel that the root of Gameface's position on this matter comes down to how believers talk amongst themselves about a God -- specifically, that the diversity in their discourse is a primary problem in his own belief in a God -- then I apologize for my comments. I think it's clear that this isn't the root, and that the comment you responded to was more of an outlying issue. It reads like you jumping at an outlying issue with a well-played (over-played?) sleight of hand which tries to jump over the main issue. (And, the main issue was something I was interested in discussing, so....)

I still find your point to be a truism, however.

It seems to me you are reading way more into my comments than should be.

I'm not making a statement about GF's position as a whole. If you want to call it an outlying issue, I don't care.
It just happens to be the issue I was addressing, which would then make it the main issue between he and I should he care to respond to our conversation.

I honestly don't know what the main issue is you are interested in and at this point and don't care to pursue it or read back into the thread to find out what you want to talk about. It's just the same merry go round with you of not really paying attention to what is said and assuming and assigning the statement to something else, then stating it is flawed in some way. Probably just the huge differences in how we communicate and think.

I'm not trying to fix Gameface, or solve something wrong I see in him... I'm not "jumping" at some issue.

I just found something he said interesting, and responded about only that point with another way to see it.

Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

P.S. Not a truisim.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And let the record show that you're the one who made this personal. There is not another comment between us that goes this far off the thread and into this level of presumptuousness.

Also, atheists still have access to the process of 'believing'. You don't have to go through any 'god' in order to have that. For someone who likes to debate with atheists, I'd think you'd either know this already or at least respect them enough not to throw out this kind of castigation. Calling my experience/world or their experiences/worlds "zero faith" is wildly off-the-mark.

Out of curiosity, what do you have faith in.

The conversation was a religious one, so I leave the secondary faith definitions out of this as I think about it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So the argument is "my feelings explain all of existence unless you prove my feelings wrong". Pretty much the level of discourse I expected. I guess I'll go watch some basketball.

I don't think that's what he's arguing. If I understand him correctly, he's NOT arguing that 'reality', per se, necessarily exists in personal perception/interpretation (although I think there's a lot of truth in this argument), but that everyone constructs his/her own reality based on his/her experience and there's no impartial judge to adjudicate between the different versions of reality.

Did I more or less get that right?

 

[NAOS]

It seems to me you are reading way more into my comments than should be.

I'm not making a statement about GF's position as a whole. If you want to call it an outlying issue, I don't care.
It just happens to be the issue I was addressing, which would then make it the main issue between he and I should he care to respond to our conversation.

I honestly don't know what the main issue is you are interested in and at this point and don't care to pursue it or read back into the thread to find out what you want to talk about. It's just the same merry go round with you of not really paying attention to what is said and assuming and assigning the statement to something else, then stating it is flawed in some way. Probably just the huge differences in how we communicate and think.

I'm not trying to fix Gameface, or solve something wrong I see in him... I'm not "jumping" at some issue.

I just found something he said interesting, and responded about only that point with another way to see it.

Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

P.S. Not a truisim.

You don't know what the main issue of the thread is, even though you were responding to a comment that was on the first page and was written by a poster who authored the OP? If it was just an issue between you and him, why didn't you send him a personal message? You don't care enough to discover the main points of the thread, but then have the drive to tell me how to respond to your contributions? and then tell me I'm out there on my own merry-go-round? LMFAO gui

 

[NAOS]

P.S.
It's the definition of a truism.

 

[NAOS]

Out of curiosity, what do you have faith in.

The conversation was a religious one, so I leave the secondary faith definitions out of this as I think about it.

Now why in the world would I answer this kind of personal question? My comment applied generally, to all atheists. "Faith" and "Belief" are not processes that are contained or controlled within some notion of God. This must be difficult for you to grasp. For someone who doesn't believe in God, what is a "secondary faith issue"?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

For someone who doesn't believe in God, what is a "secondary faith issue"?

Wouldn't that be belief in some kind of 'spiritualism' or something akin to The Force?

I personally know people who don't believe in God but who are, nonetheless, 'spiritual.' I'm not sure I understand this very well, though.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Now why in the world would I answer this kind of personal question? My comment applied generally, to all atheists. "Faith" and "Belief" are not processes that are contained or controlled within some notion of God. This must be difficult for you to grasp. For someone who doesn't believe in God, what is a "secondary faith issue"?

I was just curious what you would have faith in if you don't believe in God.

Most of the definitions of faith revolve around a belief in God and are religious in nature.

The "secondary" definitions of faith (for this conversation) would be something like this.

[I have faith in John that he will do well on his test today] -- not applicable to the religious tone of the conversation.

 

[Stoked]

Wouldn't that be belief in some kind of 'spiritualism' or something akin to The Force?

I personally know people who don't believe in God but who are, nonetheless, 'spiritual.' I'm not sure I understand this very well, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

Perhaps something along these lines?

 

[RandyForRubio]

You are missing the point, not sure if it is intentional or not. There is heavy debate within the overall Christian faith as to what those exact criteria are. No you did not "make them", but you certainly have your interpretation of what those criteria are. As do Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans...

Good for you for doing your best to follow Christ. But others with a different interpretation of Christ and his teachings are doing the same. I see them as no less Christian than you. Do you consider them Christian?

I think you're taking my point a bit too far. I'm not saying Baptists, Lutherans etc aren't Christians. I'm saying 70% of people are not. I'm certainly not saying only a certain denomination is saved. Although I would argue Mormonism is a bit different (work based salvation vs grace based)

Look, if 70% of people were Christians, our nation would act quite a bit differently. That's what I'm trying to get at. James teaches that our works are evidence of our faith, and I would argue that as a nation, our works show where our faith is. Fwiw, I don't get much into doctrine. Doctrine is man made for the most part...there are only a few salvation issues. I mean, I don't think people who believe in speaking in tongues are the only ones getting into heaven or going to hell for example.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Now why in the world would I answer this kind of personal question? My comment applied generally, to all atheists. "Faith" and "Belief" are not processes that are contained or controlled within some notion of God. This must be difficult for you to grasp. For someone who doesn't believe in God, what is a "secondary faith issue"?

How about you speak for all atheists then. What do all atheists have faith in?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You don't know what the main issue of the thread is, even though you were responding to a comment that was on the first page and was written by a poster who authored the OP? If it was just an issue between you and him, why didn't you send him a personal message? You don't care enough to discover the main points of the thread, but then have the drive to tell me how to respond to your contributions? and then tell me I'm out there on my own merry-go-round? LMFAO gui

I'm sure I read the main issues of the thread which have morphed. I just don't really care.

I have no issues with plucking some interesting topic out of a thread to go with it, just the same as you are.

Please don't bore me with the notion that you only ever respond to the main topic of every thread you post in.
I'm 99% sure most of the main points of threads are not to attack, tear down, or be surly with other posters.

Wow... newsflash, I responded to somebody on a board, and quoted him and didn't send a PM. Whoopty doo

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I think you're taking my point a bit too far. I'm not saying Baptists, Lutherans etc aren't Christians. I'm saying 70% of people are not. I'm certainly not saying only a certain denomination is saved. Although I would argue Mormonism is a bit different (work based salvation vs grace based)

Look, if 70% of people were Christians, our nation would act quite a bit differently. That's what I'm trying to get at. James teaches that our works are evidence of our faith, and I would argue that as a nation, our works show where our faith is. Fwiw, I don't get much into doctrine. Doctrine is man made for the most part...there are only a few salvation issues. I mean, I don't think people who believe in speaking in tongues are the only ones getting into heaven or going to hell for example.

Just to annoy Naos and cherry pick topics.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding out there of the "Mormon" salvation not being based on grace. People tend to incorrectly apply a heavier weight to the works part of the LDS doctrine than the grace part of the doctrine. The most important part of the doctrine is by far the grace of Christ. The works idea has morphed in some peoples minds into the idea that LDS people think they can "work" their way into heaven, when that is fundamentally false. The works part of the doctrine is basically this. Obey the commandments and follow Christ. If you come unto Him in this way, then is His grace sufficient for you.

It is not that men can do works and save themselves. It is that men need to work to come unto Christ. Christ is the only one that can save, and He is the one that sets the terms.

I don't know if I explained this well, but it's a try.

 

[NAOS]

How about you speak for all atheists then. What do all atheists have faith in?

"all atheists" is too big a category. There are many atheists I disagree with.

Let me follow my pattern of eluding a poorly worded question by asking a different question: what did people have faith in before the emergence of monotheisms?

 

[NAOS]

I'm sure I read the main issues of the thread which have morphed. I just don't really care.

I have no issues with plucking some interesting topic out of a thread to go with it, just the same as you are.

Please don't bore me with the notion that you only ever respond to the main topic of every thread you post in.
I'm 99% sure most of the main points of threads are not to attack, tear down, or be surly with other posters.

Wow... newsflash, I responded to somebody on a board, and quoted him and didn't send a PM. Whoopty doo

how many times are you going to turn yourself around? I have a hard time believing that you'd have a problem with someone, who is currently engaged in an ongoing conversation, trying to marginalize noise in order to continue with that conversation. For me, your comments was noise. When I look back through the record, I continue to see it as that. It also stood out to me because it's a card you've played before. And it's a truism.

Do I add noise to threads? Absolutely; I do it both consciously and unconsciously. Noise is good if you're trying to derail a conversation that you think is blindly groping toward a repetitive and un-vivifying themes.

Glad to know you were just casting off some energy by rehearsing an already-known logical woopty doo. We can move on now.

 

[NAOS]

Now this is something I can understand and to be honest with you I am much more in line with you than you would think at first.

As a Christian (how I identify myself int his discussion) this whole life is a test. Free agency, the chance to choose and mess it all up, is paramount to that. Without free agency the test of this life is pointless. The way I see these laws, stances and agendas (such as banning gay marriage, forced insurance coverage, forced birth control coverage, banning of weed...) is man's attempt to remove our own choices. That is something I am against. Granted their are limits to this view but it has gotten to a sickening extreme.

People need to back off and let others choose their own life and how they will live. Then comparing scores when we are all on the other side. I bet we will all be surprised.

Edit: I see many of the stated stances by Christianity (on a general scale) to be saddening and self defeating.

We may never be tightly allied on any particular project or perspective, but I find it easy to live alongside this general perspective.

That said, I bristle at the idea that life is a "test." That's one of the most thoroughly unromantic and enervating concepts I can think of, and life is about the opposite: increasing intensity and romantic fictions.

Your perspective makes a fair amount of sense to me on a pragmatic, political level. But life goes beyond the usual framings of pragmatics and politics.