"Salvation" rests on the idea that people are otherwise condemned, which rests on the idea that mankind will be divinely punished, which rests on the idea that mankind should be divinely punished, which rests on the idea that mankind can be divinely punished...
you have free will,damn you!
Quote:
After a theologian named Armenius attempted to be both Reformed, and an advocate of free-will, the leaders of the Reformed theology met at the Synod of Dordt. At Dordt, the Reformed (read Calvinist) churches further defined what we know as Calvinist theology.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
There's an old saying: "To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I would argue that the Christian sees nothing but nails, and expects ideal results from an ideal hammer.
But I digress...
"Salvation" isn't the foundation of Christianity. "Salvation" rests on the idea that people are otherwise condemned, which rests on the idea that mankind will be divinely punished, which rests on the idea that mankind should be divinely punished, which rests on the idea that mankind can be divinely punished...
Now, we can climb the tower a bit, and drag explanation-bricks from higher up back down, jack up the tower and force-fit these ideas into place - but we can't change the foundation, the myriad of assumptions required for Christianity to make any sense whatsoever. We can build up the tower, and drag the Christian understanding of god back down. We can force-fit that brick into a gap, use it to reinforce our position.
We can drag down the idea of God, for example, and force-fit it under the ideas that mankind can and should be divinely punished. But then we ask the questions and make new assumptions in answer.
When the tower starts sinking into the sand, we drag more and more down bricks from the top, plant them on the sand of assumption, and keep building. We drag down parables and passages, assume they are true, and keep building, in a herculean effort to prevent the construct from toppling.
Science works differently. We dig up the sand, we plant the foundation on demonstrable truth, and we build slowly, carefully, and methodically. We constantly dig through the sand, trying to find additional bedrock truths upon which to build supports and reinforcements. If we discover that we mistook sandstone for bedrock (newtonian physics, for example) we tear down anything we built on that assumption. We can use that sandstone pier only to support our building efforts, not to support the building itself.
You asked me to name the fallacies of salvation, and demonstrate where the bible doesn't have it right. I cannot do that. If we assume the bible, salvation is the logical result. I cannot argue from within the construct of the bible any more than I can lift myself out of the muck by pulling on my own bootstraps. But I can point at the assumption, call it sand, and ask why.
Every time I do this, I'm told that faith is a virtue. Faith is just another word for the sand. The sand is useful - we can use it to move our equipment around, to form and test new ideas, new building methods. In this sense, yes, faith is a virtue. But as a basis upon which to construct an entire world view? No.
Damn, I wish I was smart enough to have said that...I would have said that.
RA: If the best that you can do is move bricks and sand around and admit that you can't deal with biblical fallacies that is admitting that you jumped out there a little to quick to make that statement of yours:
Quote:
The rest of the original post is a tall tower built not on bedrock, but on sand. The entire construct comes tumbling down when one starts looking at the fallacies upon which it is built.
You had no facts to back up that false charge against Christianity. But then for you folks that is nothing new yet you just had to say that the entire construct comes tumbling down. The only thing that came tumbling down was your false charge. Its easy to make a charge but it is another to back it up.
RA: If the best that you can do is move bricks and sand around and admit that you can't deal with biblical fallacies that is admitting that you jumped out there a little to quick to make that statement of yours:
You had no facts to back up that false charge against Christianity. But then for you folks that is nothing new yet you just had to say that the entire construct comes tumbling down. The only thing that came tumbling down was your false charge. Its easy to make a charge but it is another to back it up.
I fully agree with you. It IS easy to make a claim, and it is much harder to support a claim. But you're wrong - it is not me who is making a claim about religion, it is you. I'm challenging your claim, pointing out the problems with your claim. The closest I came to a claim about religion was pointing out that science does not suffer from the same flaws.
I've pointed out what appear to be unfounded assumptions. The assumption that there is a god. The assumption that god created man. The assumption that mankind is lacking in god's eyes, and deserving of eternal punishment. That the bible is the word of god. You provide all sorts of scripture to demonstrate these positions, blatantly ignoring the tautology, which I described as pulling down bricks from the top of the construct and using them to try to support the structure itself.
Do you have a non-tautological argument to support Christianity? Or does everything require a god and/or bible that is trusted because it is claimed that they declare themselves to be true? Where is the bedrock?
I've *never* heard a valid claim for Christianity. I've found fatal errors in *every* claim for Christianity that has been presented to me. That doesn't mean that a future claim will make those same errors. It only means that the arguments that I have been exposed to have had demonstrable fallacies, and are logically invalid.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I fully agree with you. It IS easy to make a claim, and it is much harder to support a claim. But you're wrong - it is not me who is making a claim about religion, it is you. I'm challenging your claim, pointing out the problems with your claim. The closest I came to a claim about religion was pointing out that science does not suffer from the same flaws.
I've pointed out what appear to be unfounded assumptions. The assumption that there is a god. The assumption that god created man. The assumption that mankind is lacking in god's eyes, and deserving of eternal punishment. That the bible is the word of god. You provide all sorts of scripture to demonstrate these positions, blatantly ignoring the tautology, which I described as pulling down bricks from the top of the construct and using them to try to support the structure itself.
Do you have a non-tautological argument to support Christianity? Or does everything require a god and/or bible that is trusted because it is claimed that they declare themselves to be true? Where is the bedrock?
I've *never* heard a valid claim for Christianity. I've found fatal errors in *every* claim for Christianity that has been presented to me. That doesn't mean that a future claim will make those same errors. It only means that the arguments that I have been exposed to have had demonstrable fallacies, and are logically invalid.
The barbaric habits of mankind at that time are reflected in stories like that of the beheading of John the Baptist. The bible was no more inspired by a loving caring god than my trip to the moon on Apollo 12.
Methinks god was created in the image of man and not the other way 'round.
Linear Mode
