Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now?

01-28-2009 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
Nice, you just blasphemed a Sacrament in, oh, more than half the Christian world....
Yep. Do it all the time. Like I said, I'm not Catholic.

Quote:
It's obvious you're on an elevator, DOWNSTAIRS.... (if you know what I mean)

I don't think so.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopey
Then why does your religion push it so much? My Christian friends and family were absolutely mortified that I wouldn't be getting my daughter baptized. My mother even asked me in a worried tone of voice: "But what will happen to her if she dies at a young age?" My mother apparently believes that my daughter's everlasting soul will be at risk if I don't put her through a primitive water ritual in front of family and friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
I'm not Catholic.
Do you think it's only Catholics who believe in baptism? It's all fine and good if your particular sect doesn't believe in baptism, but most Christian sects do.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopey
Do you think it's only Catholics who believe in baptism? It's all fine and good if your particular sect doesn't believe in baptism, but most Christian sects do.

Infant baptism does nothing except get the baby wet. It's not salvific.

I was baptized after becoming a christian. That's why it's referred to as believer's baptism.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
Nice, you just blasphemed a Sacrament in, oh, more than half the Christian world....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
Yep. Do it all the time. Like I said, I'm not Catholic.
Catholic? Just Catholic? Do you have any idea how many Christian denominations practice infant baptism?

Google and Wiki are your friends. You should really understand what you are talking about, before you type...
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
Infant baptism does nothing except get the baby wet. It's not salvific.
OMG, do you actually believe that "believer's baptism" is necessary for salvation? Really?

Now you're in even MORE of a minority....
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
OMG, do you actually believe that "believer's baptism" is necessary for salvation? Really?
That's not what I said. Those are your words.

*hint* notice that the word baptism comes after the word believer's. I wonder why that is?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
Infant baptism does nothing except get the baby wet. It's not salvific.

I was baptized after becoming a christian. That's why it's referred to as believer's baptism.
This has always seemed a lot more reasonable to me than baptizing babies who have no idea what is going on. I understand the original reasoning behind it (the high infant mortality rate of our ancestors), but think that this reasoning has long since stopped being applicable.

I told my Christian friends and family that my daughter can go and get herself baptized when she's old enough to understand what she's doing. I'm sure that most of them feel like I'm playing Russian roulette with her soul.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
That's not what I said. Those are your words.
You used the word "salvific", regarding baptism, not me.

sal·vif·ic: Having the intention or power to bring about salvation or redemption:

Do you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, or not?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-28-2009 , 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
You used the word "salvific", regarding baptism, not me.

sal·vif·ic: Having the intention or power to bring about salvation or redemption:

Do you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, or not?
No. They're two different things. Baptism in itself is not salvific.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad1970
No. They're two different things. Baptism in itself is not salvific.
Thank you. We can move on now.

What were we talking about?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
You used the word "salvific", regarding baptism, not me.

sal·vif·ic: Having the intention or power to bring about salvation or redemption:

Do you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, or not?
I know you didn't ask me but imo I'd always go for the baptism.

Whether or not its salvific is of course a matter of great theological dispute but I don't see how you can ever go wrong following the man. Jesus himself was baptized. That alone is enough to make me want to do it.

Remember the bronze serpent. People in the desert were to look to it and be saved. Jesus is our bronze serpent.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Whether or not its salvific is of course a matter of great theological dispute but I don't see how you can ever go wrong following the man. Jesus himself was baptized. That alone is enough to make me want to do it.
That is sensible. I was baptized as an infant. According to Brad, that's as worthless as an elavator in an out house. Agree?

Quote:
Remember the bronze serpent.
Yes I do, it was an idol, by all common definition. Kinda contradictory in the whole scheme of the Bible, wouldn't you agree?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 12:43 AM
yes, i do find some dislike toward my religion, mostly because it was forced down my throat until i realized how much of a lie it was
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
That is sensible. I was baptized as an infant. According to Brad, that's as worthless as an elavator in an out house. Agree?



Yes I do, it was an idol, by all common definition. Kinda contradictory in the whole scheme of the Bible, wouldn't you agree?
I lean towards full immersion and personal conscious decision myself but I wouldn't claim theological mastery on it. More like a personal preference based on example. I guess I tend toward the literal in action here but I also tend towards Christian group tolerance. I think sect division is God's plan.

I think the bronze serpent was a foreshadowing of a prophetic sort. The OT is littered with them.

I'd like to know how the atheists explain all the OT foreshadowings that just happen to connect to the Gospel accounts. Its all too elaborate to me for it to not be prophetic. I just don't think its plausible for prophecy to continue for 1500 years unless its true. I could see a short burst of phoney prophecy say 5 or 10 years but not a connected 1500 year chain of prophecy. I mean I just don't see a 1500 year prophecy con job as a reasonable conclusion.

Another thing about the bronze serpent. Its symbolic: Jesus came to replace the Serpent.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
I'd like to know how the atheists explain all the OT foreshadowings that just happen to connect to the Gospel accounts. Its all too elaborate to me for it to not be prophetic. I just don't think its plausible for prophecy to continue for 1500 years unless its true. I could see a short burst of phoney prophecy say 5 or 10 years but not a connected 1500 year chain of prophecy. I mean I just don't see a 1500 year prophecy con job is a reasonable conclusion.
Suppose you're trying to persuade some superstitious people who really believe in this bunch of prophecies that your church is "The Real Thing".

Wouldnt it be a useful strategy to tell some stories about how your founding figure fulfilled all those prophecies?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
Suppose you're trying to persuade some superstitious people who really believe in this bunch of prophecies that your church is "The Real Thing".

Wouldnt it be a useful strategy to tell some stories about how your founding figure fulfilled all those prophecies?
Lol...that's a slick question bunny but it still seems too elaborate. Plus you have history for the last 2000 years tailoring to the prophecies.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
I lean towards full immersion and personal conscious decision myself but I wouldn't claim theological mastery on it. More like a personal preference based on example. I guess I tend toward the literal in action here but I also tend towards Christian group tolerance. I think sect division is God's plan.

I think the bronze serpent was a foreshadowing of a prophetic sort. The OT is littered with them.

I'd like to know how the atheists explain all the OT foreshadowings that just happen to connect to the Gospel accounts. Its all too elaborate to me for it to not be prophetic. I just don't think its plausible for prophecy to continue for 1500 years unless its true. I could see a short burst of phoney prophecy say 5 or 10 years but not a connected 1500 year chain of prophecy. I mean I just don't see a 1500 year prophecy con job as a reasonable conclusion.

Another thing about the bronze serpent. Its symbolic: Jesus came to replace the Serpent.
Another interesting thing that's anthropomorphic is that sectarianism looks like a vine. If you imagine the Spirit as the vine and each church hanging off it separately like a grape. Of course there are many different types of grapes still they are all grapes.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:27 AM
I actually used to be a profound believer, and if asked, would have sworn up and down (swearing to Almighty God no less) that my faith would never waver. You would think that something shocking would have to happen in my life in order for such a strong faith to die. But in actuality, nothing more than a college education and some honest discussion slowly withered my faith away. It was no single decision I made, it was a process that took several years, and had several stages. The last of which was me simply saying that I was a Christian while not actually believing any of it. Finally I was able to let it go and since then my life has improved in many ways. (Though in some ways it's a little more empty. But I'm ok with that.)
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Lol...that's a slick question bunny but it still seems too elaborate. Plus you have history for the last 2000 years tailoring to the prophecies.
Elaborate? What's so "elaborate" about a cultist who decides to write down the biography of the cult leader 50 years later deciding to make the anecdotes match well-known prophecies? Seems far less "elaborate" than the alternative.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subfallen
[My power went out yesterday. Not sure what the weather will do tonight.]



How could a dictionary allow someone to learn the concept 'red'? Or 'angry'? Etc.

Remember, I'm talking about the criteria for having a concept. Someone who is color-blind cannot have 'red', even if he knows about the physics of color.
The existence of red doesn't depend on it being perceived, though if you're a complete subjectivist you may argue so. In which case, how is any communication possible?

Quote:
The 'concept' of a symbol X is how X orients minds like ours toward the world. (An 'orientation' means a behavioral disposition, and may be described at a level ranging from intentional psychology to neurobiology.)
You don't think the dictionary definition of design orients anyone's mind toward the world? (I disagree with what's in your parentheses - concept is more than psychology. How would you define psychology, anyway?)
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Lol...that's a slick question bunny but it still seems too elaborate. Plus you have history for the last 2000 years tailoring to the prophecies.
I think one should be careful when claiming biblical prophecies have been coming true for the last 2000 years. Remember the prophecy dating the founding of Israel example which came up back in SMP.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 02:40 AM
I don't believe in the religion I was brainwashed to believe in because unlike everyone who still follows that religion, I took some time to think about it realistically. Imagine that!
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
The existence of red doesn't depend on it being perceived, though if you're a complete subjectivist you may argue so.
I'm talking about the concept 'red'; not about red-colored objects. The latter would still exist if the human race was color-blind, but the former would not. (I'm not sure what objectivity/subjectivity has to do with this?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
In which case, how is any communication possible?
Because our minds are, mostly, "like each other." We can communicate about 'red' because red-colored objects do the same sort of thing to both of our minds. Of course, if I go chat with Myra (who's color-blind) then I can't communicate with her about 'red'. But that's exception, not the rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
You don't think the dictionary definition of design orients anyone's mind toward the world?
If I already have concepts X, Y, and Z, then I can learn concept C = f(X, Y, Z) from a dictionary. But how did I learn my primitive concepts X, Y, and Z? Not from a dictionary! Let's go back to 'red.' Could a color-blind learn the concept 'red' from a dictionary? (Obviously not, I would think!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
(I disagree with what's in your parentheses - concept is more than psychology. How would you define psychology, anyway?)
Let me re-paste that section:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subfallen
The 'concept' of a symbol X is how X orients minds like ours toward the world. (An 'orientation' means a behavioral disposition, and may be described at a level ranging from intentional psychology to neurobiology.)
I'm saying that a concept is a mind-world relation. Specifically, a relation between something in the world; and its orientation in minds like ours.

The "something" can be a word, or a color, or a doorknob...whatever. The "orientation" isn't limited to the broad brush of psychology; it can be described to the detail of a fMRI, etc. (By 'intentional psychology', I mean the everyday language we use to talk about beliefs, moods, etc.. E.g., "Red wallpaper makes me unhappy!")

------------------------

Ok. To keep our bearings: this is why a dictionary definition is not enough to show the meaning of a common-language concept like 'design'.

Notice that I would accept a dictionary definition as a good starting point for 'xenophobic' or 'autochthonous.'

Last edited by Subfallen; 01-29-2009 at 03:37 AM.
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subfallen
If I already have concepts X, Y, and Z, then I can learn concept C = f(X, Y, Z) from a dictionary. But how did I learn my primitive concepts X, Y, and Z? Not from a dictionary! Let's go back to 'red.' Could a color-blind learn the concept 'red' from a dictionary? (Obviously not, I would think!)
Are you saying design is a primitive concept (whatever that is) that the dictionary definition doesn't describe? When you read the definition and I say that's what I mean by design, that conveys nothing to you?
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote
01-29-2009 , 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
Are you saying design is a primitive concept (whatever that is) that the dictionary definition doesn't describe? When you read the definition and I say that's what I mean by design, that conveys nothing to you?
I mostly think of 'primitive' as a relative term. If concept C is composed by X, Y, and Z; then X is a primitive of C.

Ok. Here's the real question: is 'design' like C? Viz.---is 'design' composed by simpler concepts, each of which we agree has a trivial meaning? If so, then your dictionary definition would be fine. (For example, 'posterior' = 'situated behind or at the rear of'. Gotcha.)

But 'design' isn't like 'posterior.' The dictionary definition of 'design' only offers a cluster of related images, the use of which is deeply ambiguous. To review...your initial sentence was: "But given design it's far more rational to believe in a designer than not."

So let's try to use the first image the dictionary had on tap:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary
1a. A drawing or sketch. b. A graphic representation
"But given [that the universe can be drawn or sketched as a graphic representation] it's far more rational to believe in a designer than not."

Um...that's an interesting image, but it comes with a half-dozen question marks attached!

If we want to use 'design' carefully, we need more than images and suggestions. We need the real heart of the matter---the actual criteria for having the concept of 'design'.

Last edited by Subfallen; 01-29-2009 at 04:20 AM. Reason: word choice
for those that were once believers, why do you not believe now? Quote

      
m