Why do christians limit their reading material of extra-biblical sources?

[Photizo]

I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a science message board. If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere...

...I'm not saying that leave because you are a religious proponent or adherent. I'm saying don't post here if you cannot tolerate the scientific perspective.

I certainly can--and do--tolerate the scientific perspective...I'm afraid it's you who cannot tolerate another view put forth with equal if not greater conviction...as you say:

"If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere..."

and this:

"If the only perspective you're willing to tolerate is your own, exclusive superstition's, you have no place here."

Logically, scientifically, anyway you slice it, it's you "who cannot tolerate another view."

 

[SkinWalker]

Then, clearly, you are missing what I am saying. You are free to post your opinion and I welcome it (with regard to the given topic -metadiscussion may be moderated). However, in your post (#98), you indicated that the "discerning reader" understands that you are relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology, which you accept, blindly, as complete truth.

I use the rules of evidence as used in science since this is simply the best, most effective way to arrive at objective truth. If what you seek is confirmation for your personal beliefs and pre-conceived conclusions, then, of course, scientific methods aren't helpful. Unverified anecdote is the friend of the woo-woo and the superstitious.

Your quoting my statement: if you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere, is out of context, though perhaps not intentionally. My intent was to point out if you don't like others in this forum holding you to evidence as intended in science, then you might be comfortable elsewhere. This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.

Interestingly, you accuse me of lacking tolerance for your "view," and I agree. I have no tolerance for positive claims of nonsense. Hence, my refutations. I also have low tolerance for off-topic chit-chat in threads and metadiscussion about moderation in-thread (that belongs in PMs and the Site Feedback forum). Indeed, I have low tolerance for interfering with moderation. This, however, has no bearing on my "tolerance" for the views of others and I do not delete or moderate posts simply because I disagree with someone else's point of view. I believe that might be the implication you've made and it deserves clarification.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.

actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge - a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge - and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Christians believe in evolution per se.

 

[SkinWalker]

actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge -

Interesting. So, by that logic, the police detective should be unable to effectively investigate a rapist and murderer unless he is a practitioner? What of the astrologer? Tarot card reader? The psychic? The alien abductee? What of the man who claims he speaks with leprechauns from Atlantis every Tuesday and Thursday -does his psychologist have anything worthy to say of his condition. Your nonsense doesn't follow, my friend.

a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge -

Sure. If the "field" is a legitimate field. If, however, it is a field of make believe, superstition and magical thought, it is the psychologist, sociologist, and anthropologist that have objective authority. I don't, of course expect you to agree. The woo-woo rarely agrees with the objectivity and rationalism of the skeptic.

and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.

I wasn't aware that your membership was indentured servitude. Are you not free to leave or stay and post as you wish?

 

[Photizo]

Then, clearly, you are missing what I am saying. You are free to post your opinion and I welcome it (with regard to the given topic -metadiscussion may be moderated). However, in your post (#98), you indicated that the "discerning reader" understands that you are relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology, which you accept, blindly, as complete truth.

I never "indicated" I am "relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology"...that's you fumbling for words in an attempt to grapple with the intangible/what you don't understand but in your arrogance think that you do...learn to properly identify what it is you are refering to rather than sounding so ignorant...stooping to name calling... hoping to discredit/undermine/diminish the impact of what, in fact, was said. Such a smokescreen is easily "dismissed" by a mere breath.

I use the rules of evidence as used in science since this is simply the best, most effective way to arrive at objective truth. If what you seek is confirmation for your personal beliefs and pre-conceived conclusions, then, of course, scientific methods aren't helpful. Unverified anecdote is the friend of the woo-woo and the superstitious.

Wonderful...the rules of evidence as used in science don't work with things spiritual. If I was seeking confirmation of my personal beliefs this is the last place I'd go for that...tell me you're being facetious.

Your quoting my statement: if you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere, is out of context, though perhaps not intentionally. My intent was to point out if you don't like others in this forum holding you to evidence as intended in science, then you might be comfortable elsewhere. This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.

I told you that this is a religion thread. You can try and look at spirituality from any scientific angle you want...it won't turn up a thing...now you either want truth or you don't. To ascertain 'truth' as pertains to the tangible go ahead and test with your rube goldberg gadgets to your hearts content, but---Objective truth is first and foremost spiritual...you've been told your tools/doltish methods don't work/apply in this realm, if, in spite of that you still insist on using the wrong tool to investigate/learn (and I use those terms loosely/generously) of/about spirituality well, simply put, you are being stubborn and dishonest--and not the least bit objective. I mentioned before, you need to play by our rules if you want to really learn...what are you afraid of? That you're really not standing on top of the heap? (you actually are, but nevertheless, there happens to be a higher realm than the physical, sorry.)

Interestingly, you accuse me of lacking tolerance for your "view," and I agree. I have no tolerance for positive claims of nonsense. Hence, my refutations. I also have low tolerance for off-topic chit-chat in threads and metadiscussion about moderation in-thread (that belongs in PMs and the Site Feedback forum). Indeed, I have low tolerance for interfering with moderation. This, however, has no bearing on my "tolerance" for the views of others and I do not delete or moderate posts simply because I disagree with someone else's point of view. I believe that might be the implication you've made and it deserves clarification.

Accusations are by definition unproven. Your lack of tolerance and your prejudice is manifestly self evident and your confession is nothing more than a superfluous/gratuitous self-serving statement of the obvious.

Labeling as "nonsense" etc. what you don't understand--and this because of your self imposed ignorance--does nothing but undermine your so called "clarification."

"Refutations?" You call your smokescreen of labels, etc. "refutations?" As another moderator has said: "Hilarious". They're non-existant. You haven't the knowledge nor the wherewithal to refute the things spoken of by the Word of God.

Finally, you deleted those posts for your own reasons--you have to look yourself in the mirror every day.

 

[SkinWalker]

First, I deleted your off-topic posts. Period. They still exist for the other mods/admins of this forum to see.

Second, you said, "I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit)." This is the supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo. If it isn't, I eagerly await your evidence to the contrary.

Finally, the rest of your post seemed replete with pejoratives and general whining of the affronted believer. Was there a specific point you were attempting to make in all that?

 

[lightgigantic]

skinwalker

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge -
”
Interesting. So, by that logic, the police detective should be unable to effectively investigate a rapist and murderer unless he is a practitioner?

given that a rapist's specialization is -well- rape and a detectives specialization is investigating rapists, I don't think so

What of the astrologer?

to establish what is astrology, yes

Tarot card reader?

to establish what tarot card reading is, yes

The psychic? The alien abductee? What of the man who claims he speaks with leprechauns from Atlantis every Tuesday and Thursday

in short, to investigate the claims of a person and what of their credibility, you would have to approach them - empiricism is constantly re-adjusting itself because the idea of "I know because I already know" opens the gates for errors

-does his psychologist have anything worthy to say of his condition.

if he is a practicing psychologist, he would be able to make credible claims in the field of psychology

Your nonsense doesn't follow, my friend.

then why don't people go to car mechanics to get their head read?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge -
”
Sure. If the "field" is a legitimate field.

legitimate according to who or what (let me guess, empiricism right?)

If, however, it is a field of make believe, superstition and magical thought, it is the psychologist, sociologist, and anthropologist that have objective authority.

in theism however you have the claim of direct perception of god's nature by saintly persons, hence such "professionals" can be rejected

I don't, of course expect you to agree. The woo-woo rarely agrees with the objectivity and rationalism of the skeptic.

and you are not a woo woo 'er because your university professor told you weren't one while you were in your formative years?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.
”
I wasn't aware that your membership was indentured servitude. Are you not free to leave or stay and post as you wish?

every one has freedom, just as you are free to resign as mod

 

[Photizo]

First, I deleted your off-topic posts. Period. They still exist for the other mods/admins of this forum to see.

Threads veer off topic all the time. You deleted my replies to your posts directed at me, essentially censoring those rebuttals...

Second, you said, "I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit)." This is the supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo. If it isn't, I eagerly await your evidence to the contrary.

Again, your label "supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo" is nothing more than a pathetic groping after words...a pitiful attempt to articulate/discredit what you don't understand and have no knowledge of.

Finally, the rest of your post seemed replete with pejoratives and general whining of the affronted believer. Was there a specific point you were attempting to make in all that?

Yeah, there was a point... re-read the post...either learn about things spiritual by adopting the appropriate mindset (humility) or continue your phake phoney phraudulent phacade, posing as one possessing an inquiring mind.

 

[SkinWalker]

Again, your label "supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo" is nothing more than a pathetic groping after words...a pitiful attempt to articulate/discredit what you don't understand and have no knowledge of.

And your evidence to the contrary is....?

 

[Photizo]

And your evidence to the contrary is....?

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ... listening, observing, learning while studying the Gospel of John--with all humility...if you follow those simple instructions carefully to the letter then you will be my evidence to the contrary.

Good night now.

 

[Godless]

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ...

Little boy raises hand quickly and asks? Who is Christ? Were does he come from? how do you know he existed? have you any evidence of Christ's existence?

 

[SkinWalker]

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ... listening, observing, learning while studying the Gospel of John--with all humility...if you follow those simple instructions carefully to the letter then you will be my evidence to the contrary.

Good night now.

Yes, but my question was regarding evidence, not superstition.

 

[Godless]

Obviously, I don't think that theist can tell the difference, between evidence and their superstition. Their superstition is based on "faith"

 

[ker]

*************
M*W: Let me rephrase the question:

"Why do christians not read the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?"

Many claim they read extra-biblical materials, but they are unable to discuss or comment on any parallel research. What are they afraid of? (The truth?)!

iv made a lot of research to find out about christianity and other religions many people believe christ came to earth to bring a religion...he came to earth to bring the kingdom of god and salvation to mankind...religions are the invention of man god is not religious...please visit this website
wyattmuseum.com
if you dont believe in god can you please explain from where you come from and what is your purpose on the earth and after people die what you think happens?

 

[MetaKron]

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

I call it willful ignorance.

 

[Godless]

if you dont believe in god can you please explain from where you come from and what is your purpose on the earth and after people die what you think happens?

If you done extensive research as you claim, ever pick up a book on evolution? That pretty much explains where we come from, the earth itself, we evolved.

The purpose on earth? is to live and multiply just like any other species.

After people dies what happens? WTF does the word "death" mean to you? Does a butterfly go to heaven when it dies, a dog, a rat, a virus? Simply when you die you seize to exist. This is the only existence, you will not exist in another nether reality, your brain dies, and your consciousness goes with it! Evidence of my assertions! Is mere observation of the natural world around me, every living entity on this earth, lives, procreates, and parishes, why should we be any different? It's cause we have a consciousness and the fear of the unknown, "death" and what happens to that consciousness that created the heavens, hells, and gods. These concepts were mainly created out of fear of the unknown. Ancient men, did not accept death, they wanted to continue life.

The concept is created by the human desire to survive an ordeal that is little understood. The loss of your consciousness, after death.

 

[SkinWalker]

iv made a lot of research ...please visit this website
wyattmuseum.com

Obviously, your "research" can have many colorful adjectives, "extensive isn't one of them, however. Not if you are recommending we visit the thankfully deceased Ron Wyatt's website. For those that don't know, Ron Wyatt was a male nurse that one day called himself an archaeologist and claimed to have found all the miraculous sites of christian mythology like evidence for the parting of the Red Sea, the mountain where Moses received his tablets, Noah's ark (there are so many religious kooks that claim that one, each with a different site, its silly), etc. None of which have a shred of evidence; each of which was entirely made up.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

 

[SkinWalker]

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

Perhaps you should put your money where you mouth is and start a thread on the archaeological evidence for biblical mythology. Show me how screwed I am. Predictably, the only evidence you'll be able to show is of cultures and place names, and even many of these are out of chronological context when reality is compared with biblical myth.

Moderation Note: Off-topic and baiting banter deleted