I agree with the decision to move this thread to /tat/.

I'm a bit confused by your behaviour here. You went into a community that you knew had particular beliefs, expressed a request for their opinion on a matter and you're surprised by how their responses are rooted in their beliefs?

I believe in the case of Christians, a big part of what validates their decision to stay loyal to Christ are their stories of divine intervention where a miracle occurred. People's stories of being healed from illness or strong feelings that were experienced during moments of religious fervor.
Overall, I believe in the case of Christianity, there is a call to obey God and do as he says despite your own interpretations of reality. To, seemingly paradoxically, abandon riches so that you might be rich in heaven instead. As an example, Reason based purely off of Sense-Perception would say to abort foetuses diagnosed with Down's Syndrome since they will only be a drain on society however Divine Revelation reveals that those with Down's Syndrome have an immortal soul and that killing them is a sin so Christians disapprove of that eugenic practise.

You've chosen to have faith in your own reasoning based off of human sense-perception however, surely this also places you in a bubble where you are unable to address the "Why?" behind a lot of big questions? As you seem open-minded (or at least see yourself as such), are you open to the idea that you might be in a bubble of your own?

>>692
>I agree with the decision to move this thread to /tat/.
It was my decision. I did it myself, not a mod.
>I'm a bit confused by your behaviour here. You went into a community that you knew had particular beliefs, expressed a request for their opinion on a matter and you're surprised by how their responses are rooted in their beliefs?
I'm not suprised. Seeing it in front of me is just a bit comical. I wanted to give them a chance and see if they're more reasonable than I thought of them. I pointed out facts which go against humans being special, and they just keep thinking human are special regardless. They don't think.
>I believe in the case of Christians, a big part of what validates their decision to stay loyal to Christ
Their beliefs don't need any validation. Observing the world itself is enough to see their beliefs are highly improbable. They believe despite that though, and they're absolutely confident in those beliefs.
>Reason based purely off of Sense-Perception would say to abort foetuses diagnosed with Down's Syndrome
I fully support that.
>are you open to the idea that you might be in a bubble of your own?
Absolutely. If given enough observable evidence which I or anybody else could find themself, I would change my mind on something. I'm also not telling anybody that they'll be punished if they disagree with me.

>>693
>It was my decision. I did it myself, not a mod.
Yes, I was aware of that possibility and so I phrased my statement as such with no hint of presuming it was either a mod or you.
>They don't think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbDKVewwx0U
When I look at Catholic theology, it seems to have a lot of depth to it. I think the issue in this case is that you're questioning something fundamental to their beliefs. You're questioning dogmatic teachings that must be accepted in order to be a true follower. Can you imagine asking a Mathematician if the Peano axioms are true?
>Their beliefs don't need any validation.
Everyone's beliefs need some validation, especially in the case of the Christian where there seems to be evidence against Christianity. They believe in the biblical accounts of the miracles Christ performed, in the personal testimonies given by others of the miracles Christ has worked in their life as well as past reported miracles such as the one of Lanciano.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
>If given enough observable evidence which I or anybody else could find themself, I would change my mind on something.
And what do you make of the "First Cause" argument?

>>694
>Can you imagine asking a Mathematician if the Peano axioms are true?
Some Mathematicians reject it actually, and it does have some sort of proof. It's also not central to mathematics. If you questioned the pythogorem theorem, a mathematician could give you proofs built upon other things all the way down to what any person can easily observe. When you become absolutely sure that your beliefs are correct, you stop thinking. You should act on what makes the most sense to you, but to be convinced regardless of anything that is presented to you that you are right is another thing.
>They believe in the biblical
The validation for their beliefs is their own beliefs. It's circular.
>And what do you make of the "First Cause" argument?
It's built on human intuition alone. Aristotle's method of coming to conclusions doesn't lead to the truth because our intuition is so flawed. It's interesting and has its own value, but believing it is restricting. Look up how the Gospel of Matthew differs from the Gospel of Luke. They describe the same events, yet Luke appears to have some "embellishments" that would make it more appealing to Romans.

Regional fedora tipping champion, age bracket 12-15.

>>695
>When you become absolutely sure that your beliefs are correct, you stop thinking.
Firstly, I don't believe that's true since even within Catholicism, there's various factions that disagree with each other on things such as the nature and origins of grace. Also, isn't the implication of this then that you'll never settle on believing anything?
>It's built on human intuition alone.
Aren't all theories built off of intuition? Off of an initial observation? I'm afraid I don't follow.

>>696
Fedora faggots don't read the bible and don't care about its cultural significance. There's a lot of things about Christianity I like and i'm glad it rose to massive prominence in the past. If you think talking about religion critically is something only redditors do, you belong there.
>>697
>Firstly, I don't believe that's true since even within Catholicism, there's various factions that disagree with each other on things such as the nature and origins of grace.
Catholics are their own thing with their own canonicity and heirarchy. This thread is about a protestant forum. Protestants seem very adamant that they have it all figured out and there's no meaningful divergence among them. Divergence is evidence in itself against their religion because its doctrine is supposed to be perfect.
>isn't the implication of this then that you'll never settle on believing anything?
The key word is settle. Settle implies these beliefs can't change based on new information.
>Aren't all theories built off of intuition?
The key word is alone. Intuition does contribute to scientific theories, but empirical data are their bedrock. It's also "vulnerable" to change or complete overhaul at any time.

>>698
>Protestants seem very adamant that they have it all figured out and there's no meaningful divergence among them. Divergence is evidence in itself against their religion because its doctrine is supposed to be perfect.
I just want to clarify: you think Protestants must have (or are more likely to have) a better doctrine because there's less "meaningful" divergence amongst them? I assume you're aware of the 10,000+ different Protestant denominations, correct?

>Intuition does contribute to scientific theories, but empirical data are their bedrock.
How does one provide empirical data for something like the "Ways to God" of Aquinas? I feel that the observations are rooted in phenomena so fundamental to our Universe, you cannot provide data for them as they're simply not tangible and yet, their presence is self-evident.
>It's also "vulnerable" to change or complete overhaul at any time.
What are the alternatives and how are they better?

>>699
>because there's less "meaningful" divergence amongst them? I assume you're aware of the 10,000+ different Protestant denominations, correct?
Did you look at the thread I posted? I'm just going off of what they said. Denominations are just a symptom of misunderstanding the bible according to them. Religous scholarship is slowly fixing it.
>in our "information age" many denominations are slowly giving those doctrines that divide and aren't correct. In another 100 years Churches won't look the same as they do today in that the differences will be very minor.
>There is a difference between the idea that society and culture creates what is morally acceptable and what is acceptable by God.
>As Christians we understand these morals because of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 as a general standpoint that most are familiar with. We know that God's laws are true because God is a righteous judge.

>How does one provide empirical data for something like the "Ways to God" of Aquinas? their presence is self-evident.
Christianity is an explanation for everything in the universe. It's a possibility. Is it the explanation most likely to be true though? Is there any reason to think it's more likely than Greek mythology or Nordic or Native American? Popularity isn't a measure of truth. If god lifted up the Eiffel tower, flipped it upside down, made it disapper and a booming voice came from above saying he's the christian god, that would be pretty compelling.

There's nothing wrong with following their doctrine, until that gets in the way of something. When art or research is hindered by them, I have a personal problem with it.

>What are the alternatives and how are they better?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

>>700
>If god lifted up the Eiffel tower, flipped it upside down, made it disapper and a booming voice came from above saying he's the christian god, that would be pretty compelling.
Rather than God, what of the spouse he selected for himself? Catholics believe that Mary has spoken to us on Earth on occasion. One incident was Our Lady of Fatima where the Miracle of the Sun occurred (you can google and research into that) and another was Our Lady of Akita.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDGf3O3oZKM

>I'm not sure what you mean by this.
If you're criticising intuition because its conclusions are "vulnerable", then that implies to me that there must be a method of arriving at conclusions that isn't "vulnerable". You wouldn't criticise George Bush's presidency on the grounds that Bush breathed air unless you believed there was a better non-air-breathing candidate. There must be a better alternative otherwise you wouldn't have raised the criticism for the reasons you gave.

>>702
I've heard of the sun miracle before. Non-replicatable, not recorded, possibly caused by staring at the sun too long or hallucinating something you expect too much, inconsistent eye-witness testimonies. Eye witness testimony is also the weakest form of evidence. As for the crying statue, I don't have much faith in Tokyo Channel 12. Catholics and their borderline idolatry are fun.

>If you're criticising intuition because its conclusions are "vulnerable"
Opposite. I was talking about scientific theories being vulnerable, which is a good thing.

>>703
>possibly caused by staring at the sun too long
Are there any reports of people staring at the sun too long and experiencing hallucinatory observations such as those made at Fatima? I believe Yogis practise a kind of Sun meditation that involves staring at the Sun for extended periods of time and as far as I'm aware, they've never described anything like what was reportedly seen at Fatima.
>or hallucinating something you expect too much
If I recall correctly, there was a news reporter that worked for an atheist newspaper. He specifically went to Fatima to prove that all of the rumours that something grand would happen were false. Then, he would talk about the failure of anything to materialise and how outdated it is to still believe in God. When he went however, he did see the miracle. Much to the chagrin of his colleagues, he proceeded to faithfully and truthfully reported on what he saw.
>inconsistent eye-witness testimonies
Do some report seeing nothing at all? How different are the testimonies?
>Eye witness testimony is also the weakest form of evidence
Surely the beginning of any new theory is the eye-witness of an as-of-yet unexplained phenomenon? If you dismiss eye-witness testimony on the grounds of it being the weakest then surely you only restrict yourself?
>As for the crying statue, I don't have much faith in Tokyo Channel 12
And what of the unexpected end of the nun's deafness?
>Catholics and their borderline idolatry
Mary herself says in the Bible that her soul magnifies the Lord. She doesn't say that it rivals or supersedes it so the reverence for Mary by Catholics alone doesn't seem to be valid evidence that they practise or come close to practising idolatry.

>>705
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2009/11/the_real_secrets_of_fatima/
Here you go. A nice summary of questionable things about the "sun miracle". The accounts are not consistent in the slightest other than the sun doing some weird stuff in that specific location where people were expecting it.
>Surely the beginning of any new theory is the eye-witness of an as-of-yet unexplained phenomenon?
Beginning. Then it's backed up with research and experimentation and peer review. Two well-respected scientists claimed to have witnessed cold fusion under normal Earth pressures. Despite them saying they observed it and how good their reputation was, their claim was ruled out because it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>And what of the unexpected end of the nun's deafness?
Her hearing got better and worse over and over. Is a crying statue of Mary one possible explanation? Yes. Is is the most likely given the 1970s Japanese medical field's ability to make diagnoses and the complexity of the human body?
>Mary herself says in the Bible that her soul magnifies the Lord.
I don't think that was meant to be taken literally or is something which is unique to her. Mangnify the Lord probably means the same thing as glorify the Lord, which all christians are supposed to do constantly. Catholics also think the corpses of saints, rosaries and water blessed by a human have special holy powers.

>>706
I've been re-reading our discussion and I noticed something odd. I seemed to have skipped over a point you made, earlier (post 695).
>The validation for their beliefs is their own beliefs. It's circular.
You mean that they think God is the reason why they believe in God? Surely if they have faith in the miracles then to them, they have faith in something real? Then again, there is the belief that faith in God in itself is in fact a gift from God (at least that's the case amongst Catholics as I'm unaware of the Protestant stance on this).
Continuing on.
>Is is the most likely given the 1970s Japanese medical field's ability to make diagnoses and the complexity of the human body?
I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering that. Are you saying that 1970s Japanese medical industry was unreliable? That due to the human body's complexity, there's a naturalistic explanation for why her hearing would come and go? Also, her hearing only came and left once, according to the video (before coming again and then staying for good). There wasn't a multitude of incidents of it coming and leaving so I think the stance that the hearing is likely to have come back naturally is implausible.
On that note, what of the report that the facial expression of the statue changed?
>I don't think that was [...] something which is unique to her
I believe that in the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, Mary is described as being full of grace (I remember reading somewhere that you won't find this in the KJV). Since she is the one that bore, nursed, clothed and raised the Lord, since she is believed to be full of grace, since she was without sin and since she was crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth (in Revelations, if I'm correct), she is believed by Catholics to be the greatest saint- God's greatest creation. And yet, despite her greatness, she is perfect in her humility and never fails to point to God as the reason for her greatness. Thus, her soul magnifies the Lord. It makes his greatness more apparent.

>Sister Agnes lost her hearing on the 16th of March, 1973... she was again plunged into that world of silence
>It was about the time of Ash Wednesday, in February, that headaches and buzzing of the eas assailed her, plunging her again into the world of silence.
>The Municipal Hospital delivered the following medical certificate: “One must fear a brutal lowering of hearing in both ears. First consultation 7th of March, 1975.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160514134533/http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Akita.pdf

Maybe it really was holy magic, but the video is innacurate anyway. Her deafness didn't come all at once either. It's not like her hearing was fine the day before.

>Are you saying that 1970s Japanese medical industry was unreliable? That due to the human body's complexity, there's a naturalistic explanation for why her hearing would come and go?
Yes and yes.
>since she was without sin and since she was crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth (in Revelations, if I'm correct), she is believed by Catholics to be the greatest saint- God's greatest creation.
First of all, Revelation is a complete mess and its canonicity is very debatable. I haven't gotten to it yet(i'm on exodus now), but from what I know about it, it is very suspect. Every human is born with sin which cannot be removed, every single one, and nobody is the ruler of heaven or earth except god and god alone. There's god at the very tippy top, and everybody else is infinitely beneath him. That's how it works according to protestants. You can't even get any kind of help from dead saints or loved ones because they have no power after death. The only special "human" is Jesus because he's part of the trinity. Mary is not.

It's very dry and uninspiring, but if I had to accept some form of christianity, that would be it.

Post edited on 18th Oct 2019, 3:20pm

>>708
On what basis do you assume the 1970s Japanese Medical Industry was unreliable?
>First of all, Revelation is a complete mess and its canonicity is very debatable.
I need sources on this. From my understanding, the Bible is a product of the Church and the Church heavily reviewed these things. They even removed the Book of Enoch at one point.
>Every human is born with sin which cannot be removed, every single one
What do you think of this article?
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
>and nobody is the ruler of heaven or earth except god and god alone
What do you think of the The Annunciation when the Angel Gabriel greeted Mary? I've read some say that in the past, it was human beings greeting angels with reverence since angels were so close to God and yet, in the The Annunciation, it's the angel greeting Mary with reverence- a complete role reversal. I believe Catholics believe that Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth and that the angels, despite being superior to man, still revere Mary. If it helps, even if you were to accept Revelations, it wouldn't change the fact that the Queen is not the ruler and really has no say in things beyond gentle influence in the King's decision. In a nutshell, she's the Queen and the while the King never denies the Queen's request, the Queen is powerless.
>You can't even get any kind of help from dead saints or loved ones because they have no power after death
What do you think of this article?
https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints

>>709
>On what basis do you assume the 1970s Japanese Medical Industry was unreliable?
The modern medical industry is unreliable, just less so then 40+ years ago. We don't fully understand the body now and we certainly didn't back then.

>So generally, the canon of the New Testament, our twenty-seven books, is accepted by all Christian churches, generally. Except that the Revelation of John is still not part of the lectionary or canon in some Eastern and Middle Eastern churches... And some of them don't have the Revelation of John in their New Testament. The canon of all the scripture therefore has never been completely the same for all Christians everywhere.
>The Western Roman Catholic canon, and the Greek Slavonic bibles, have for example, Tobit, part of the Old Testament, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the letter of Jeremiah, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also have a longer version of Daniel and a longer version of Esther.
>It's the Easter letter by the Bishop Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria. Bishops at this time, especially of major cities, would sometimes send around what we call a paschal letter, an Easter letter. In which they'd give instructions or different kinds of things to their churches. And in one year when he's doing this, he says, "These are the books that you should read and should not read."
>when Bishop Athanasius sent around his Easter letter. And they say that's when the Christian canon of the New Testament was set. Because it's the earliest that we have. But that's not really right. He was just bishop of one area. His letter was not binding on anybody else, except the churches in his Alexandrian diocese. So it didn't set the canon. 367 is simply the time when we get the earliest list that matches our list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
https://cosmolearning.org/video-lectures/from-stories-to-canon-6796/

>What do you think of this article?
I think grace is such a broad and loosely defined concept, you can interpret it in whatever way you feel like. This is how The Annunciation went in Matthews:
>This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
>But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
Luke, the source of that quote from Gabriel, is also very suspect in how contradictory it is with Matthews, which is an older account without Luke's "embellishments".
https://www.nonstampcollector.com/blog/footnotes-for-the-gospel-of-luke-the-alternative-facts-gospel

>What do you think of this article?
Also relies on Revelation, heavily. Besides that it makes a good point about how asking other Christians to pray for you doesn't make much sense since you shouldn't have to rely on others. That's not what the article meant by it, but it's just another example of emotions being the ultimate bed rock of Christianity after everything else is said and done. Don't question, just feel.

>>710
Here's another source on Revelation.
https://books.google.com/books?id=AmMEhsEYHUsC&pg=PA3

>>691
>They can't seem to accept human similarities with animals
well sure OP, you may act like an animal but you dont need to project that on everyone else. the whole point of religion is to distance yourself from animals, usually through God.

>>721
You're acting like an animal right now, whether you like it or not. In any social situation you may find yourself in, everyone acts like an animal. We are animals. There is no distancing yourself from it. You don't even know what acting like an animal means.

Post edited on 3rd Dec 2019, 12:25pm

>>722
>In any social situation you may find yourself in, everyone acts like an animal
I tend to act like a plant: a wallflower.

>>691
>Why do you think people get stuck in these bubbles?
Because Christians are stupid.
/thread

>>788
this.