Point Refuted A Thousand Times (P.R.A.T.T.)

[bluegreenearth]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

[Mithrae]

If we're only allowed to refute the parts of Christianity that Christians all agree with, there will be nothing left to refute.

I didn't even remotely suggest that. But perhaps we could start by trying for some basic honesty and common decency, rather than posting and 'liking' vitriolic brazen falsehoods such as

Christianity is basically emotional masochism. You need to believe the worst about yourself in order to believe in the religion. Of course, as we all know, no Christians actually believe in Christianity. . . . That's how utterly twisted the theology truly is. Christians don't even accept the religion for what it is.

Or is that too much to ask?

The fact that some of our atheist members don't recognize how truly tedious and constantly-refuted these talking points and diatribes such as that in post #5 have become - and already were many years ago - possibly gives a little insight into why some of our Christian members have similar blind spots about their own talking points We all have a tendency to lke the things that we want to hear, without always thinking it through very well. Mantras such as "no evidence for X" or "no valid justification" - or indeed the very idea of a 'point refuted a thousand times,' despite sometimes actually being the case - can only serve to enhance those tendencies, because they reinforce our existing opinions rather than encouraging us to constantly challenge them anew.

My rebuttal to your objections would be that you are simply viewing the theology from a totally different perspective than I am.

Your gross theological caricatures and hyperbolic insults would fail to be a legitimate critique even of bible belt Evangelical Protestantism: It's on about the same intellectual level as creationists describing evolutionists as "they believe their great grandfather was a monkey!" Though even those creationists are generally more civil.

You seem to allow that Christians can just make up anything they so desire and call that "Christianity".

My position is that I couldn't care less what individual Christians create in their own imagination. I go solely by what the original doctrines have to say. Period.

As I noted in post #12, there's a great deal of content in the 'original doctrines' which say that God's guidance to his people would be in their hearts and minds through his spirit, not through the written code (Jer. 31:31-34, John 14:26, Rom. 7:6, 2 Cor. 3:3-6, Heb. 8:7-13, 1 John 2:27, Rev. 19:12-13; cf. Deut. 18:16-22).

This fixation on biblical in/errancy that you share with fundamentalist atheists and Christians alike is largely a post-Reformation (16th to 19th century) development: Prominent early Christians such as Origen of Alexandria, John Chrysostom and Jerome recognized errors in the bible; Augustine apparently did not, but both his allegorical and 'literal' interpretations of Genesis would be rejected as wildly unorthodox by modern literalists/creationists. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther famously described the epistle of James the brother of Jesus as "pure straw"; other prominent reformers such as Erasmus and Calvin seem to have recognized errors in the bible also. The glasses through which you are viewing (and then absurdly strawmanning) the "original doctrines" seems to have been a late, reactionary development, partly a matter of some Catholics and some Protestants seeking to define and prop up a source of unquestionable authority in opposition to other groups' perceived heresies, and even moreso in response to the perceived threat to Christian faith itself in the wake of the Englightenment and especially Darwinian challenges to traditional assumptions. Of course at the same time, large segments of Christian thought took the other route in even more explicitly and broadly recognizing the gulfs in literal truth and often outright falsehoods to be found in the canon, but considering these shortcomings in the written text to be relatively unimportant compared to the ethical, social, spiritual and existential values of their religion (see liberal Christianity).

But of course, you've already told us all how intimately familiar with the religion you are, so we must suppose that you already know all this and simply don't care: Your fixation on this narrow, modern caricature of Christianity must be intentional, and your decision to spout brazen falsehoods and generalizations on that basis obviously are not just innocent mistakes.

Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians

All you are saying here is that there exist "Christians" who have already rejected Biblical Doctrine in favor of making up their own incompatible fantasies.

No; if we're going to stay on the low road of insulting rhetoric, what I'm saying is that your understanding of biblical texts and hermeneutics (never mind church history) is scarcely above that of a Sunday school kid. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed which came to delineate 'orthodox' Christianity in the 3rd-5th centuries CE declare and define doctrines such as Jesus' incarnation (in part precisely because they were not universally accepted) and yet they say nothing whatsoever about total depravity, or substitutionary atonement, or even biblical authority for that matter!

If you were correct in imagining these to be core or essential doctrines even for 'orthodox' Christians they would surely be found in these defining creeds: Did you even bother to check, on any of the hundreds of occasions you have posted these diatribes of yours?

My position isn't against "Christians". My position is as follows:

The Bible cannot be true as it is written.

I have no need to argue with any so-called "Christians" who already agree with my position.

As I have already pointed out to you "a thousand times" in other threads, Christians have held that view long before you became so deeply disillusioned with whatever sects and beliefs you once associated with. You're agreeing with a Christian position there, but for some reason trying to pretend that you are the one making some kind of winning argument. The vitriolic nature of your tirades against "Christian theology" suggest that, far from reasonably considering and agreeing with any time-honoured Christian critiques of and nuanced approaches towards the biblical anthology, it really is that "dismal religion" itself (as you call it) which arouses such passion in you.

And of course 9 times out of 10 I and doubtless many others simply skim past these lengthy and all-too-predictable posts, because as I originally noted they really have been extensively refuted if not actually "a thousand" times then certainly dozens of times in the past. It just seems particularly relevant to this thread - not to mention ironic - that your PRATT post was 'liked' by the fellow who wanted to promote the acronym in the first place

[Divine Insight]

Your gross theological caricatures and hyperbolic insults would fail to be a legitimate critique

No insults have been made. All I've done is speak to truth.

Apparently many theists find the truth to be insulting.

I can't help that.

I argue theology based upon the Biblical doctrine. Not based on fantasies that reject the Biblical doctrine and refuse to acknowledge the problems with it.

But I do understand the frustration of those who try to support Biblical theology by denying it. That's obviously a very frustrating position to be in.

Why should a theist be insulted when I point out the truth that Abrahamic theists can't even come close to agreeing with each other?

Clearly this must be a very touchy wound in their theological paradigm.

When you can make compelling and sound arguments to get all the Abrahamic theists on the same page let me know.

Until then, the truth of what I say stands.

[benchwarmer]

Does Christianity require belief in our sinful nature, yes or no?

No.

Does Christianity require you to accept the sacrifice of Jesus ON YOUR BEHALF to be saved, yes or no?

No.

Perhaps these Christians you seem to be speaking of have not read the Bible?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 1:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins.

That's pretty clear and part of the Christian canon. If some Christians don't believe they have sins which require Jesus to save them from, what exactly makes them Christian? They heard of a guy named Jesus? I guess anyone can make up anything they like.

Why are you asking such obvious questions?

Because, unlike some Christians apparently, I have read the Bible and take quotes like the above at face value. Perhaps I failed to interpret this to mean something wildly different than what it says?

I will give you this, I am aware that there are many, many different Christian groups who can't seem to agree what even make someone Christian. From that standpoint, sure, there are some groups who will believe whatever the want regardless of what at least some of the scripture clearly says.

Perhaps you could clear things up for us and tell us what Christians DO universally believe? Anything? I guess I wrongly assumed it had something to do with a Christ.

[Mithrae]

Does Christianity require belief in our sinful nature, yes or no?

No.

Does Christianity require you to accept the sacrifice of Jesus ON YOUR BEHALF to be saved, yes or no?

No.

Perhaps these Christians you seem to be speaking of have not read the Bible?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 1:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins.

That's pretty clear

Is it? An Abraham Lincoln fan could say that Lincoln saved America from its evil and injustice, without ever implying any kind of substitutionary atonement or inherent/natural degeneracy of all American individuals. What Jesus actually did according to 'Matthew' was teach people to love their neighbours, love their enemies, stop storing up earthly treasures and working for money, trust in God for their daily bread, give to the poor and help the sick etc. etc. Most if not all of the habits contrary to those teachings - greed, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, hypocrisy - can be acknowledged as often/usually detrimental to society in general, particularly when very widespread or taken to extremes. Regardless of whether or not its objectively true, saying that Jesus' teaching and example (potentially up to and including his willingness to relinquish his own life) would save his people from those sins - those willing to follow him at least - obviously needn't imply any kind of guilt transferrence nor inherent degeneracy of all individuals.

In fact of all the gospels, Matthew is arguably the one which most explicitly contradicts the feelgood "Jesus did it for me" notion in passages such as

• Matthew 7:21-23
  Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!
  
  Matthew 25:31-46
  They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?
  He will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.
  Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

and part of the Christian canon.

And what do you think that means? As I've already pointed out to Divine Insight (for all the good it does ) even the defining creeds of 'orthodox' Christianity say nothing about biblical authority, and while some measure of biblical authority was nevertheless widely presumed throughout Christian history it was also frequently acknowledged that there were errors in the bible too - the notion of biblical inerrancy is a relatively recent (16th to 19th century) development. These early chapters of 'Matthew' in particular are a wildly obvious example (when read with a critical eye) of invented, presumably/hopefully allegorical material creating a purported parallel between Moses and Jesus, leading up to the series of "Moses said... but I say to you" contrasts in chapter 5.

Why are you asking such obvious questions?

Because, unlike some Christians apparently, I have read the Bible and take quotes like the above at face value.

No, as I showed, you are reading way more into the quote than can be justified from that verse alone. There are a few verses which lend themselves more clearly to the doctrines broadly known as 'total depravity' - albeit even then not the gross caricature/strawman found in post #5 - but also many verses suggesting a much more nuanced perspective of human fallibility, beauty, imperfection and glory (eg. Matthew 6:26-30, Hebrews 2:6-8). Similarly there are somewhat more verses suggesting an idea of Jesus' death as a substitutionary sacrifice - hardly surprising given the movement's Jewish roots and particularly if indeed he died in the week of Passover - but also plenty of verses and stories, including from the 'old testament' and some attributed to Jesus himself suggesting that bloodshed really has nothing to do with forgiveness and 'salvation' (eg. Micah 6:6-8, Matthew 12:6-8, Mark 10:17-31, Luke 18:7-14).

Perhaps I failed to interpret this to mean something wildly different than what it says?

Perhaps you just failed to think very carefully about what it might mean to 'save' others from some bad habit, injustice or misfortune. Can you think of any other example, ever, in which saying that someone 'saved' another would be taken to imply some kind of metaphysical guilt transferrence?

[bluegreenearth]

It just seems particularly relevant to this thread - not to mention ironic - that your PRATT post was 'liked' by the fellow who wanted to promote the acronym in the first place

There are many reasons for "liking" someone's post and not all of them have to do with the OP. In this particular case, I "liked" that post for no other reason than I found it to be entertaining and cathartic. It had nothing to do with whether the argument in the post had already been refuted or not. However, your subscription to the confirmation bias that led you to a mistaken belief about my motivation for "liking" that post is at least consistent with your subscription to the confirmation bias that appears to influence your theological beliefs. We can only hope this experience serves as a cautionary tale.

[Zzyzx]

.

What Jesus actually did according to 'Matthew' was teach people to love their neighbours, love their enemies, stop storing up earthly treasures and working for money, trust in God for their daily bread, give to the poor and help the sick etc. etc.

Evidently Jesus didn't do a very good job of teaching people to do such things. Those who claim to be followers do not seem to be particularly adept at loving enemies, foregoing earthly treasures, getting their daily bread from God. The poor and sick are not very well cared for in many or most societies ('Christian nations' included)

Most if not all of the habits contrary to those teachings - greed, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, hypocrisy - can be acknowledged as often/usually detrimental to society in general, particularly when very widespread or taken to extremes.

Since 'greed, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, hypocrisy' prevail within and without Christianity, the 'teachings' evidently failed. Christians seem to fare no better in those regards than anyone else.

[Mithrae]

It just seems particularly relevant to this thread - not to mention ironic - that your PRATT post was 'liked' by the fellow who wanted to promote the acronym in the first place

There are many reasons for "liking" someone's post and not all of them have to do with the OP. In this particular case, I "liked" that post for no other reason than I found it to be entertaining and cathartic. It had nothing to do with whether the argument in the post had already been refuted or not.

It is both relevant to the thread to point out that the content and style of the post have been refuted "a thousand" times, and ironic for the person who started a thread about how "frustrating and mentally exhausting" such repetitive content is to 'like' it rather than noting it as a case in point.

However, your subscription to the confirmation bias that led you to a mistaken belief about my motivation for "liking" that post is at least consistent with your subscription to the confirmation bias that appears to influence your theological beliefs. We can only hope this experience serves as a cautionary tale.

I didn't say anything about your motivations for liking the post. I don't know what a "subscription to a confirmation bias" is; it sounds like a nonsense phrase, but perhaps it describes your own reasons for imagining that I had said something about motivation? And what theological beliefs are you referring to here? I wasn't aware that I had any, but it's always refreshing to learn something new about oneself.


#####
#####

What Jesus actually did according to 'Matthew' was teach people to love their neighbours, love their enemies, stop storing up earthly treasures and working for money, trust in God for their daily bread, give to the poor and help the sick etc. etc.

Evidently Jesus didn't do a very good job of teaching people to do such things. Those who claim to be followers do not seem to be particularly adept at loving enemies, foregoing earthly treasures, getting their daily bread from God. The poor and sick are not very well cared for in many or most societies ('Christian nations' included)
. . . .

Since 'greed, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, hypocrisy' prevail within and without Christianity, the 'teachings' evidently failed. Christians seem to fare no better in those regards than anyone else.

I pretty much agree with you on all points, though I'm not sure it's relevant to the thread? As I said, "Regardless of whether or not it's objectively true, saying that Jesus... would save his people from those sins obviously needn't imply any kind of guilt transference nor inherent degeneracy of all individuals." Actually, perhaps the fact that people do generally find it so hard to love one another and put others' physical needs above our own mere wants kind of lends support to the more nuanced Christian views of human imperfection? I imagine that even the likes of Gandhi or Martin Luther King struggled with their own moral shortcomings at times.

[Divine Insight]

.

What Jesus actually did according to 'Matthew' was teach people to love their neighbours, love their enemies, stop storing up earthly treasures and working for money, trust in God for their daily bread, give to the poor and help the sick etc. etc.

Evidently Jesus didn't do a very good job of teaching people to do such things. Those who claim to be followers do not seem to be particularly adept at loving enemies, foregoing earthly treasures, getting their daily bread from God. The poor and sick are not very well cared for in many or most societies ('Christian nations' included)

Exactly. If Jesus' purpose was to teach people how to live morally then he was the greatest failure who ever lived.

Besides, how silly is it to think that people would reject Yahweh, but not Jesus?

Even a Christian who was willing to listen to Jesus would still be a person who refused to listen to Yahweh. After all, if they were willing to listen to Yahweh there would be no need for Jesus.

Christianity is a religion that basically assumes that everyone has rejected Yahweh, but who would be willing to place Jesus before Yahweh. Exactly what Yahweh commanded must not be done.

But wait. The Christian apology is that Jesus is Yahweh incarnate so to love and obey Jesus is to love and obey Yahweh. But like all other Christian apologies this doesn't work. Why? Because if the Christians were willing to obey Yahweh there would never have been any need for Jesus. Pure and simple.

It's a theology that cannot be made to work no matter how hard we try.

Christians see me as someone who is against Christianity. But nothing could be further from the truth. I am a Christian who tried to make Christianity work only to discover that it's not possible. Unless a person is willing to deny what the theology is actually all about. Only by denying what the theology is all about can we pretend that it could work.

Just like Z said above. The people who claim to be Christians don't even do what Christ taught. They do the opposite and claim to be "Christians" anyway.

In the USA this is on grand display. Look at how many so-called "Christians" support Trump. A president who couldn't be more anti-Christ-like if he tried.

[Purple Knight]

You seem to allow that Christians can just make up anything they so desire and call that "Christianity".

They can. Henry VIII did it. Martin Luther did it. I just wish Mithrae would do it.

My opinion of Christianity would do a near 180 if there was an established protestant branch that was protesting sin transference.

Does Christianity require belief in our sinful nature, yes or no?

No.

Does Christianity require you to accept the sacrifice of Jesus ON YOUR BEHALF to be saved, yes or no?

No.

Why are you asking such obvious questions? I already pointed out in post #6 that neither total depravity nor substitutionary atonement are universally held Christian beliefs; and not only that but at least one our most prominent Christian members is outspokenly opposed to views along those lines.

I wish that member would create a Church, then.

I don't have any problem with people believing in fantasies. Quite simply I don't care if God exists or not. If believing so helps you do good (and Star Trek is just this for many people) then more power to you.

There was a quote in one of the Narnia books about just this, where the Emerald Witch casts a spell and convinces the marshwiggle Puddleglum that Aslan doesn't exist, and Puddleglum basically says fine, Aslan doesn't exist, but I'm going to live like a Narnian anyway. I agree with that as much as it is possible to agree with something.

My objection to Christianity is the concept of sin transference: The idea that a murderer who falls to his knees and apologises to Jesus is better off than someone who once sneezed on someone without covering his mouth or stole a penny from the cash register if the latter does not atone in this way.

However, I didn't get this concept from nothing. I didn't say the words "Jesus died for your sins" - Christians did. It's puzzling that those Mathew quotes seem to support that, because that is definitely not what is taught by Christians, to Christians.

[marco]

Your gross theological caricatures and hyperbolic insults would fail to be a legitimate critique even of bible belt Evangelical Protestantism: It's on about the same intellectual level as creationists describing evolutionists as "they believe their great grandfather was a monkey!" Though even those creationists are generally more civil.

Moderator Comment

It's hard to employ the phrase "intellectual level" and remain in civil territory, Mithrae. It's best to address the post and not the poster or his abilities. If indeed you see incivility, just report it and let moderators take whatever action is needed.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.