Book debate on Christians Are Revolting

[otseng]

It's been suggested to debate the book "Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress":

viewtopic.php?t=34841

We'll start the debate soon in the Book Debates subforum. And who knows, we might even be able to get the author of the book to participate also!

Reply below if you'd like to be added to the book debate group to participate.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Tam, I think it's awesome that you're willing to even concede it's possible to hear God's voice. So long as that voice doesn't tell you to do evil things and is always on par with a God of Love, I am all down with it. Few Christians allow for it anymore and instead listen to the voice of man.

[Divine Insight]

What are you calling "The voice of Christ"?

I meant just what I said.

My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. John 10:27

I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. John 10:16

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Rev 3:20

Quoting these verses doesn't tell me anything about how you are using the phrase "The voice of Christ".

In fact, by quoting those verses it appears to me that you are indeed saying that the "Voice of Christ" is what the authors of the Gospels have written as the words of Christ.

If that's the case, then many Christians listen to the voice of Christ. However, since they all seem to interpret those verses differently then they all hear Christ saying different things.

Again, it boils down to personal interpretations and perceptions. The so-called "Voice of Christ" then becomes whatever a person gets from reading the Gospels. And other Christians could certainly argue with you concerning what the "Voice of Christ" is actually saying. In fact, Christians disagree on what Jesus might have meant all the time. This is quite common in this religion. This is why there are so many disagreeing factions of Christianity.

So I see this as being quite problematic. Your claim to be hearing, or listening to, the "Voice of Christ" then has no more credibility than the Christian in the next pew over.

Because, don't forget, they consider themselves to be "Christ's Sheep" too.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

Why does it need credibility? If you hear the voice of Christ, why would you need to convince others of it? You simply need to know it for yourself.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

Why does it need credibility? If you hear the voice of Christ, why would you need to convince others of it? You simply need to know it for yourself.

If you are frequenting a public religious debate forum claiming to hear the voice of Christ, then you have chosen to step into an arena where the credibility of your claims will naturally be questioned.

I don't tell anyone on this forum, because it's none of their business, but as far as I'm concerned I'm convinced that if a God exists She is very pleased with me, and does give me great insight and inspiration at times.

However, if I were to make this claim on a debate forum I couldn't blame anyone for questioning me on how I know this to be true. And to be perfectly honest, if they did ask me that, I would simply say, "Because it's what I feel".

Then they would say, "If that's all you have then you have nothing in terms of any kind of meaningful debate".

I would then agree.

So what would be the point in even bringing it up?

As you suggest, I'd be far better off just keeping it to myself.

At least with respect to any debate forums.

However, it might go over quite well as a "testimonial" at a Wicca Circle Ceremony.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

No one has indicated that hearing the voice of God is something to be used as credible evidence toward an argument. However, the voice of God might very well be useful in helping one identify and put together arguments. So it's not entirely useless. And if the voice of God tends to prove itself trustworthy to the listener, then it can indeed be sufficient evidence of a God to the listener, just not to the rest of the non-listeners. It could become scientific of a sorts. Every time I listen to the voice it proves to be right, and every time I don't listen it tends to hurt me. Therefore, the voice [strike]must [/strike] is likely to be good to listen to and perhaps even God.

[Divine Insight]

Every time I listen to the voice it proves to be right.

Again, the question becomes, "What are you calling the voice of God?"

Jesus said that you are to sell all your possessions and give your money to the poor.

Is that the voice of God?

And have you done that?

And has it proven to be the right thing to do?

The Gospels have Jesus saying that if you believe in him you can drink any deadly poison and it won't harm you. Does Jesus count as the "voice of God", and have you tried doing this? Did it prove to be right?

Again, the question becomes, "What are you calling the voice of God?"

And from whence have you obtained it?

If it's all that great perhaps it should be worth sharing with others.

So where do we find "The Voice of God"?

An ill-defined phrase is utterly worthless.

[Divine Insight]

Every time I listen to the voice it proves to be right.

By the way, how could we determine the difference between the following testimonies:

Every time I listen to the voice of God it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Christ it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Allah it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Buddha it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Krishna it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Shiva it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Muhammad it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of Reason it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of My Inner Self it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of the Moon Goddess it proves to be right.
Every time I listen to the voice of the Flying Spaghetti Monster it proves to be right.

I mean seriously. Anyone can say these things.

In fact, I've heard many people say, "Every time I listen to the voice of Reason it proves to be right." A purely secular statement that seems quite rational.

[ElCodeMonkey]

In fact, I've heard many people say, "Every time I listen to the voice of Reason it proves to be right." A purely secular statement that seems quite rational.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. The voice of God is the voice of reason and can go by any name you wish to give it. It's not the written text, it's that stinging sharp realization you get when you receive some valuable insight that you choose to ignore or follow. And over time you can learn to discern what is "the voice" and what is "you". Even from a secular standpoint I still get "a voice" that I often ignore and regret .

[Divine Insight]

In fact, I've heard many people say, "Every time I listen to the voice of Reason it proves to be right." A purely secular statement that seems quite rational.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. The voice of God is the voice of reason and can go by any name you wish to give it. It's not the written text, it's that stinging sharp realization you get when you receive some valuable insight that you choose to ignore or follow. And over time you can learn to discern what is "the voice" and what is "you". Even from a secular standpoint I still get "a voice" that I often ignore and regret .

If it's the voice of "reason" then if there is a difference between the voice and "you" (generic you), what does this say about the generic "you"?

Obviously the generic "you" must not be very reasonable.

So wouldn't this then come down to each individual and how far each individual's personal desires and/or choices differ from what's reasonable?

And why bother invoking a "God" associated with reason? Isn't that just unnecessary poetic or artistic association?

Finally, since this always comes back to Christ and Christianity in these religious debate forums, if I was going to chose a religion that preaches "reason", Christianity would be far down on the list of candidate religions. Especially when it cannot be ignored that Christ is supposed to be the Son of Yahweh, a God I personally consider to be extremely removed from reason.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

I think we all lack reason for quite a bit of our lives (myself included) even despite believing myself far more reasonable than average. For all you and I know, the voice of reason might very well be God without any poetry. If it seems to have knowledge and wisdom beyond our own capacity (as seen by our failing to listen), it's not entirely impossible. As for Christianity, I think perhaps there is a version of it (as per the book) that is entirely reasonable despite what "Christians" by title believe. The fact is, there is no "This is what Christians believe" since there are thousands of varying perspectives. I argue that there is a "correct" Christianity, however, the one that Jesus taught, which is quite reasonable and good even to atheists.