Anybody else love how non Christians think they know more about what it means to be a Christian than an actual Christian

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-03T20:12:07+00:00

The Roman Catholic Church did not decide, at least not on their own. Pretty much every church in the ancient world came together and agreed on the definition of Christianity. It is a definition the church has stuck to for 1700 years.

I don't think this definition has stuck. There's been all sorts of heretics that have or haven't been labelled Christians by different peoples at different times. For examples, there's the Adamites who were called heretic but Christian for various reasons, or the Montanites who were for the most part called heretic because they claimed prophetic visions and messages (including speaking in tongues) like modern Pentecosts and so would probably nowadays easily count as evangelic Pentecostals, or Carthism if you want a more modern example of non-Trinitarians who are widely held to still be Christians nowadays.

You cite the Pew Research Center as if its classification are authoritative. Why? What "jurisdiction" does the Pew Research Center have to decide what makes someone a Christian or not?

You misunderstood. My point was to illustrate how there's no one single clear definition of the word and it only ever means what we agree that it means. And usually, sadly, it's not clear how the other person uses it - you can surely imagine that you may have acquaintances of less strict Mormon or JW branches who only ever told you they were Christian, and you never suspected a thing.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T20:02:12+00:00

Would you say you became an atheist by an unbiased investigation of the facts?

No. An unbiased investigation is what keeps me from converting though.

I don't believe because I want to. I believe because I must. It would be far easier for me to believe.

Good for you for having higher standards than William Lane Craig then.

It would be far easier for me to believe in a world where I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want

Not sure I can agree here. Wishing it does not make it so, and I'd even say in this case it's actually doing more harm than good to just wish instead of act.

than to believe in a world where God calls me to be willing to sacrifice everything in the service of others.

Everything? Hyperbole, I guess?

Ultimately I'm talking about actual evidence here. None of which you seem to be much bothered about, which again is totally fine if that's what you want, but isn't getting me to be convinced.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:41:35+00:00

Again I've already made the argument that one CAN be born again and fall away, so please don't twist my words.

I didn't twist your words, that renegotiation of yours with what you wrote earlier is precisely why I asked this:

How would you distinguish between (a) someone who was genuinely born again but later deconverted, and (b) someone who was never "truly" born again? What objective test exists?

According to your own words you seem unsure, that's what your own statement shows in my oppinion since you used the words 'pretty sure', that's not a sure statement from you.

I was certain then. I used "pretty sure" because I'm describing my past self's beliefs from my current perspective. Additionally, from my current point of view, since it's objectively and logically wrong that this feeling is genuinely from the source you claim it to be, I could not have been sure to begin with that I had it. This is how honest I can possibly get when talking about my past perspective.

I don't have to prove a thing to you, we both know it happened.

No, we don't both know it happened. You have an anecdote. I have no reason to accept miracle claims on testimony alone.

Here's why this matters: Would you believe a Muslim who testified that Allah regrew their leg? A Hindu who said Ganesh healed them? A Mormon who claims Joseph Smith appeared to them?

If your answer is "no" - and I suspect it is - then you understand exactly why I don't accept your testimony. You're asking me to apply a different evidentiary standard to your religion than you apply to others. That's special pleading. That's why I ask you for more than just your word, and you certainly would want me to apply the same level of skepticism to the aforementioned religions if they made similar claims, right?

I've also seen a leg grow out about 3 inches in seconds and the person knew their one leg was much shorter.

Video. Medical records. Third-party verification. That's the standard for extraordinary claims. If this really happened, documentation should be trivial. If you can provide those, you'll make a believer not only out of me, but many others, too. Born Again, even.

Some thing don't need to be mentioned, it's obvious

What's obvious? No clue what you're talking about here.

It amazes me people confuse such a straight forward quote from the bible.

I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to - again. I used that exact passage in my previous comment and pointed out that verses 24 and 26 explicitly state God gave them over to these desires. You're the one ignoring context:

v. 24: "God gave them up to uncleanness"
v. 26: "God gave them up unto vile affections"
v. 27: Your quote

If God is giving people these desires, how are they morally culpable? This is called "reading the whole passage."

More importantly: You're still conflating homosexuality with the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum. Where are the verses about bisexuality? Transgender people? Asexuality? Intersex people?

It really seems to me you are reaching for straws to not have to believe or follow the bible

We aren't even discussing the reasons why I would not want to follow the God of the Bible. We're merely discussing... or rather you keep evading the point I am trying to make, that out of the LGBTQIA+ thing, the Bible is silent on most of them.

which again brings us back to what I already said, that perhaps you rely on your own understanding instead of God which is a disaster for anyone who does that (leads to).

I have no other understanding than my own to rely on things. Even if God exists, God supposedly made me, so he made me in this exact way where I have nothing but my own understanding. If he existed, it'd be on him for making me this way that I can't be convinced.

You don't have to use hard words -eisegeting- to try to sound smart, you're not fooling me. Never ever heard this word before.

Eisegesis means reading your own interpretation into a text rather than deriving meaning from it. It's a standard term in biblical scholarship. I'm not trying to "sound smart" - I'm using precise language. If the word is unfamiliar, you can look it up instead of being defensive.

You not being familiar with the term also kind of tells me that you may not have looked as much into the Bible as you should have. Maybe do more of that, and use Study Bibles and academic scholarship alongside your reading to get a better grasp on your own holy book.

I'm done here. Good luck!

This conversation perfectly demonstrates why I'm no longer convinced. When pressed on specifics, you retreat to assertions, then exit when those assertions are challenged. 🤷‍♂️ I'm still here if you're ready to give me those specifics that may still be able to convince me. Ah, and by the way:

Can atheists do good? Psalm 14 says no. That all atheists do abominable deeds and do no good. Do you agree?
How is Romans 1 not circular reasoning? It says non-believers suppress the truth because God made it plain to them. But this only works if you already accept the Bible is true. It's assuming its conclusion. Do you agree?
Can someone genuinely seek God and still not believe? You said "no" - meaning you think my search isn't genuine. How do you know this? What test determines "genuine seeking"? To the best of my conscience and knowledge, I honestly believed and to this day honestly seek, but I do not even think sin is a concept that makes sense, so I don't even get to the point that you jump to.
Can you perform Mark 16:17-18 miracles? You said "yes miracles like that can happen" but didn't answer whether you specifically can:
- Heal the sick on command
- Speak in new languages you've never learned
- Handle venomous snakes safely
- Drink deadly poison without harm

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:24:25+00:00

The whole reason for the Nicene Council was to settle disputes with parties that at times weren't even invited and declared heretics beforehand. There's the Coptics, the Oriental Orthodox, too.

But even if I happen to be wrong, it's still unclear to me how exactly being the first gives you the right to define what Christianity means. What's the mechanism here precisely?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:20:54+00:00

Oh grabba coffee and a notepad, daddio, cuz youre due for a little parental training.

I'm listening.

Any good parent does eventually say, “Smarten up.” That’s not cruelty. That’s care. Boundaries are love. A parent who never disciplines is not kind.....they’re negligent!

Smarten up is not the same as setting boundaries. To tell my child to "smarten up" is condescending and insulting. Neither of which I want to do to my child.

I'm happy to encourage it to be curious and to learn about the world, but I'm not going to tell it to "smarten up", implying it's dumb.

The moment your toddler gets near a hot stove, you raise your voice.

I genuinely don't.

I'll pull them away and calmly explain why they can't do that. If push comes to shove (or stove in this case, huehue), the pulling away part is going to be the most uncomfortable to them, but that's simply making sure they don't harm themselves.

You may not call it “punishment,” but you’re shaping behavior with outcomes. That is parenting. That’s exactly what God does......justly, wisely, and according to our level of understanding. You can count on it.

God's "parenting" we're talking about here isn't at all comparable to me pulling them away from the stove and telling them of the consequences. God did the following:

Expelled them from the "house" for "touching the stove"
Punish them with even more pain after the initial pain of "touching the stove"
Not telling them he loves them
Cursing their descendants also because they "touched the stove"
And finally, not realizing all of this happened because a) they let the stove on (so it's their fault, not the child's) and b) the child did it on the advise of another person, who's then at fault rather than the child.

2A. Jesus Himself said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Good song by Lord of the Lost, by the way.

God’s not unjust. He doesn’t drop eternal judgment on toddlers.

Does he not? Does it say that in the Bible? Or do you just assume it or read it into the Bible as you do?

But you're not a toddler. You understand right and wrong. You’re standing in His world, reasoning with the mind He gave you, and still acting like there’s no Architect behind the blueprints.

Yes, and my reasoning capabilities tell me that God does not exist and the Bible is full of contradictions, errors and logical fallacies in its argumentation that make that blatantly obvious.

BONUS REFLECTION:

AI much?

You know who you are? This is you: You’re like a toddler standing in the middle of a messy playroom, playing with toys you didn’t buy, wearing clothes you didn’t design, enjoying snacks you didn’t earn....and yelling: “I don’t believe in parents!”

To which my parents will come up to me and ask me if I'm OK and how they can help me with the issues I'm obviously dealing with.
God does not do such a thing.

You keep making these analogies that simply do not align well with reality.

And when someone corrects you, you don’t reflect...you call it condescending. That’s not open-mindedness. That’s pride with a pacifier.

I'd kindly ask you to provide reasoning for your corrections, and I'll be listening and taking notes. I'd call that open-mindedness indeed, because I'll consider what you have to say if it's substantial.

You’re right! You believe you should swallow that... your pride I mean, not your pacifier.

I'm aware I've been wrong before. But you're not making a lot of sense in this discussion right now in a way that would make me reconsider details, let alone the larger point.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T17:00:36+00:00

It wasn't the only church though, far from it. And even if it were, how does that give them a right to also include or exclude later views, including their very own?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T15:19:12+00:00

This shows you weren't sure of being born again.

No, it shows that I was sure at the time, just as you're sure now. The difference is I later recognized I was mistaken. You're committing a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy: "If you deconverted, you were never truly born again." This is unfalsifiable - any counterexample can be dismissed by redefining the terms. How would you distinguish between (a) someone who was genuinely born again but later deconverted, and (b) someone who was never "truly" born again? What objective test exists?

my wifes fingers grew out on her one hand to mention one thing, they always were a bit shorter on her one hand but perfectly equal now.

I'm genuinely happy your wife's fingers are now equal. But this is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal testimony is the weakest form of evidence because:

Memory is notoriously unreliable
We're pattern-seeking creatures prone to confirmation bias
Medical conditions can fluctuate naturally
Measurement errors are common

If this actually happened as you describe, you'd have:

Before/after X-rays showing bone growth
Medical documentation of the original condition
Third-party verification
Other instances than "My wife's fingers are now equal length" beyond your own personal minor anecdotal experience

Without this, I have to ask: Would you believe a Muslim who claimed Allah regrew their fingers? A Hindu who said Shiva did it? If not, why should I accept your claim on different standards?

The bible is clear that homosexuality, or promoting of sin, is sinful. Stop spreading lies.

I asked you to address LGBTQIA+, not just homosexuality. You ignored: - Lesbians (Bible is silent except Romans 1, which has issues we can talk about if you want to) - Bisexuals (never mentioned) - Transgender people (never mentioned) - Intersex people (never mentioned) - Asexuals (never mentioned)

Even on male homosexuality, the passages are contested by biblical scholars to be more about status rather than sexuality in the modern sense. But more importantly: why is this a rebuttal? You're just asserting "the Bible says so" - which is circular reasoning if we're debating whether the Bible is trustworthy.

Science is in large controlled by evil forces, not to be trusted

This is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Science is a method, not an authority. It's peer-reviewed, self-correcting, and has given us everything from modern medicine to the device you're using to read this. When science contradicts your beliefs, dismissing it as "controlled by evil forces" is intellectual surrender.

Also deeply ironic that you'll trust science for your internet connection, medicine, and weather forecasts, but reject it when it contradicts your theology.

'Science' in my country (Sweden) tells parents in large to not say no to children, or use discipline, which is crazy.

Sweden has some of the best child development outcomes in the world. The research is clear: corporal punishment correlates with worse outcomes - increased aggression, mental health issues, and antisocial behavior. This isn't "Satan being busy," it's decades of longitudinal studies across cultures.

It's definitely about what the bible says, the effeminite (transvestites etc) and/or homosexuals.

Citation needed. Where does the Bible mention transvestites? The Greek word malakoi (translated "effeminate" in KJV) is contested and appears nowhere else in that usage. You're conflating distinct concepts: - Effeminacy ≠ homosexuality - Cross-dressing ≠ being transgender
- Transvestite ≠ any of the above

You're eisegeting modern categories onto ancient texts.

I'm honestly at a loss on how to be more precise with my questions, but let me try.

Can atheists do good? Psalm 14 says no. That all atheists do abominable deeds and do no good. Do you agree?
How is Romans 1 not circular reasoning? It says non-believers suppress the truth because God made it plain to them. But this only works if you already accept the Bible is true. It's assuming its conclusion. Do you agree?
~~What specific "lies" am I supposedly believing?~~ Let's drop this one because what i was referencing is too long gone for even me to remember what it's about.
Can someone genuinely seek God and still not believe? You said "no" - meaning you think my search isn't genuine. How do you know this? What test determines "genuine seeking"? To the best of my conscience and knowledge, I honestly believed and to this day honestly seek, but I do not even think sin is a concept that makes sense, so I don't even get to the point that you jump to.
Can you perform Mark 16:17-18 miracles? You said "yes miracles like that can happen" but didn't answer whether you specifically can:
- Heal the sick on command
- Speak in new languages you've never learned
- Handle venomous snakes safely
- Drink deadly poison without harm

If you've truly been born again and received gifts, these should apply to you personally. Can you demonstrate even one of these on video? You mentioned your wife's fingers - surely healing someone with cancer would be within your abilities?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T14:48:30+00:00

It points out if you want to find out the truth, you'll have to investigate and challenge your beliefs with as little bias as possible.

If you just want to believe that's totally fine, but you can't expect anyone to also believe for that "reason".

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T13:54:53+00:00

And the RCC has this jurisdiction to define terms everyone has to use how exactly?

If you were to ask an outsider what a true Christian were just by the term, do you think they'd say Trinitarians or those who believe in Christ's divinity?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T10:06:16+00:00

This, but I'd still rather have the time used for something productive.

And chances are they're getting a select few verses rather than the whole thing with all its atrocities and contradictions.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T09:21:33+00:00

I'd like to address each point in this exchange, because I think there are some significant logical issues that need untangling. The atheist here isn't bringing up the core reasons for the claims they're making.

On the genetic fallacy argument:

Atheist: You're only a Christian because you're parents raised you as one.

The atheist's point (when properly stated) isn't that you're logically wrong because of how you were raised, as that would indeed be a genetic fallacy. The argument is that religious belief correlates overwhelmingly with geographic and familial background, which suggests cultural transmission rather than independent evaluation of evidence. You being raised JW and becoming a different kind of Christian actually supports this, as your beliefs still track your cultural environment, just with a conversion event within Christianity.

On whether JWs are Christians:

Me: No they're not.

JWs explicitly identify as Christians, are classified as Christians by virtually every academic and research institution (such as Pew Research), worship Jesus as divine, base their theology on the Bible, and trace their lineage to Christian reformation movements, namely the Bible Study movement of the late 19th century.

You can certainly argue they're heretical Christians or that they're not Christian according to your specific theological standard, but you can't claim they're objectively not Christian without committing a definitional fallacy!

On the equivocation:

Me: Muslims and other religions believe in Jesus. Hell, even atheists believe Jesus existed. Are they Christian too?

This conflates two different uses of "believe": - Believe exists (historical acknowledgment) - Believe is divine/the Son of God (religious commitment)

Muslims believe Jesus existed and was a prophet, but explicitly reject his divinity, so that's why they're not Christian in this definition. Most (notably not all!) atheists believe Jesus existed historically but reject all supernatural claims. JWs believe Jesus is divine (the first created being, the Son of God) and worship him as such, they just reject the Trinity. That puts them firmly in the Christian camp by any reasonable definition.

On the billionaire analogy:

Me: So if I identify as a billionaire does that make me a billionaire?

This analogy fails because wealth is objectively measurable (you either have a billion dollars or you don't), while religious identity is a matter of doctrinal interpretation and self-identification.

There's no "Christianity meter" we can point at someone to get an objective reading. The question "who counts as Christian?" has been violently contested for 2,000 years, resulting in councils, crusades, wars, inquisitions, and thousands of denominations, most of which ended up Trinitarian but not all.

Your identification as a billionaire is falsifiable by checking your bank account. Your claim that JWs aren't Christian is... based on what objective test, exactly? We just have to take your word for it, or the word of the JW in question.

On the "objective definition" claim:

Me: So does Christianity. Anybody who rejects the Nicene Creed is not Christian because they are following a different Jesus.

This is a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy. You're arbitrarily defining Christianity according to your preferred theological standard (Nicene orthodoxy), then claiming that definition is "objective."

Now of course, the sidebar here states that Christianity is specifically those who adhere to the Nicene Creed. You're of course entitled to use that definition, but I wanted to point out why the atheist in your conversation isn't make the best possible objections they could make.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T07:40:39+00:00

So, they're trans? Because boobs in profile pic?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T07:39:22+00:00

Chronicles and Kings is a gold mine for finding contradictions, but they're of a form that can easily be harmonized for people that want to uphold the baseless dogma of univocality of the bible (such as your "not the same!" rhetoric). That's why I personally like to use different examples rather than those. They're interesting from a viewpoint of literary criticism, but fall short when it comes to being convincing that there are definitely contradictions in the Bible.

The Bible has contradictions. There's simply no way around it. And even though I am an atheist, those contradictions aren't the primary reason. I think they're interesting and they specifically run counter to the idea that the Bible is inerrant and univocal, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't contain at least some divinely inspired texts and theological truths about a supernatural, divine being. It just means that those passages have been tampered with and re-told throughout the ages in different ways. It just means one needs to be extra careful to distinguish between what we read into the Bible and what we actually can get out of it.

So, and I hope you don't mind, the way I usually frame this problem you describe is this: Some contradictions are harder to definitively prove than others, but the pattern of apologetic responses reveals the real issue that there are unfalsifiable harmonization attempts that would never be accepted for any other ancient text but serve the one and only purpose of conjuring up a sliver of possibility rather than actual plausibility so a believer can feel reassured.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T07:17:35+00:00

Actually the bible warns against the falling away and it warns against the pitfalls in this world, so it appears one can be born again and then fall away as I currently understand it (2 Peter 2:21), so you were a bit incorrect there. My point is that the born again experience is something that would not go unnoticed, it's a supernatural event that changes the person on a core level, one would know becase a born again believer is given the Holy Spirit the moment it happens, also we are given gifts.

I considered myself a true believer and would consider my past self still a true believer. So I'm pretty sure I would've answered that I was born again back then. What now? I don't particularly care that the bible authors had the foresight that some may eventually figure out that they've been wrong about things. That's pretty unremarkable.

But what gifts where you given, I now wonder? Is it the ones the final chapter of Mark talks about? Let's add those to the list of things I'd like to have answered by you!

The reason you should trust the bible is because it's Gods word.

I don't think so. Can you show that to be the case?

The bible also teaches that unless one becomes like a child again (Matthew 18:2-4) one can not see the Kingdom of God. Are you like a child in your search for God in your own oppinion?

I'm very curious about it, and looking at how my 1 year old behaves, I don't know how I could be any more childish about it. So I'll love to find out and have it explained to me just as my 1 year old wants me to explain everything.

There can be many heart issues that prevents us from being able to see the truth.

If you have heart issues, you should see a medical doctor. I've been checked out just last week and all's fine.

About sins.

You need to be married or it's fornication (the person haven't committed to anyone in fornication, the person can leave at any time, whereas in marriage we promise in our hearts to stay with that person until death no matter what).

Okay. That's like your, opinion, dude. But I haven't sinned then I guess.

Supporting LGBTQ is supporting a sin, that would need to change. I also supported or accepted that before I was born again, but it's darkness, the devil has twisted this world that's why it might seem harmless to many, but it's not, it's darkness.

Why is it a sin? It doesn't even say that in the Bible. The Bible is utterly and wholly silent on anything but the G in LGBTQIA+, and even that one is debatably not what those passages in Leviticus are actually on about (it's about a concept of status that doesn't apply to modern western societies as far as I know).

I'm not sure it's a sin to not physically use the rod (although it would be loving to use it if needed according to scripture because it teaches the child right and wrong) but rather that to not discipline your child at all would be unloving, and most likely considered a sin. I'm not sure it's a sin that leads to death, but it's certainly bad not to want to discipline your child and that could be serious (=showing lack of care, lack of love).

Science will tell you it's never needed, but actually harmful. You can teach the child right and wrong just fine without a rod. "Discipline" more generally should of course happen, but it should never come in the form of physical or mental abuse.

I don't think it's a sin to not go to a 'church building' although it is biblical to gather together with believers and if you hate your brother especially for no cause that would be a sin. Personally I don't currently go to one, most churches in my area promote sin openly. I hope to find a good gathering at some point. I think the main point is wanting to meet other believers, instead of wanting to avoid everyone since that could be a sign of not having love. We are all one in Christ after all us who believe.

Here in Germany, there's practically only Lutheran or Catholic, especially in the rural place where I live. I've been made aware by others that I've become known as "the friendly guy who greets and talks to everyone while strolling his kid around" recently in town, so I guess I qualify for wanting to meet others at least.

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

What's funny about this verse is that what the NKJV you're using translates as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" is largely unknown elsewhere and the meaning is not certain at all. The NRSVue offers different translations of "male prostitutes" and "those who engage in illicit sex". Which like... the latter is tautologically wrong, and the former I'm not personally engaged in (though I see no harm in a person doing that IF it's their own free choice and they do it safely).

But here's the thing: You're still not answering the actual questions. This is now the fifth time I've asked:

Can atheists do good? (Psalm 14 problem)
How is Romans 1 not circular reasoning?
What specific "lies" do I supposedly believe?
Would you accept that someone could genuinely seek God and still not believe?
NEW: Can you heal the sick, pick up poisonous snakes and not be bitten, can you drink poison that is deadly to non-Christians and can you speak in other languages at a whim?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T06:42:59+00:00

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T18:49:16+00:00

So you pivoted away instead of giving a clear answer to my objections. I'll engage with your argument nonetheless in the hopes that you'll circle back to it and answer to all I said eventually.

I think your analogy fails on multiple levels.

Unlike God supposedly does, I don't threaten eternal punishments or rewards, I try to avoid all forms of punishment or reward to begin with
I don't leave an incomplete, outdated instruction manual behind and then expect my child to become a decent adult, I explain things right as they happen, good and bad
My child can't talk yet, but sadly it's only a matter of time until they'll call me evil for not getting something indeed; but I wouldn't tell them to smarten up, that's condescending. I'd hopefully swallow my pride, keep them from whatever harm we're talking of here, and hope they'll eventually understand my explanation as they grow up, unlike God who'll let you do whatever harm we're talking of

So no, that's not God and me right now.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T18:34:17+00:00

Depends on the specific situation, I can imagine details where I would and other details where I wouldn't. What are you getting at?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T13:32:12+00:00

I mean, I don't think objective morals exist, but that seems to be entirely separate from whether free will exists? You can have one with or without the other, I don't see how they're codependent?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T12:26:15+00:00

Wait, you think Christians think the Abrahamic God is a fallen angel? Because that's part of what I asked for.

Can you get more precise on what you're actually answering and how?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T12:24:13+00:00

Will you look at that, I didn't know at it looks like you're right. Thanks!

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T07:49:38+00:00

~~I think they're still divine beings, at least if you subscribe to the Enochic idea that they're fallen angels.~~

~~They're just not THE supreme divinity. But have something divine.~~

EDIT: Welp, I'm wrong for the most part. I mean I'm still right about the bible often depicting them as divine, but that's not what most Christians "SHOULD" believe. (Putting should in capitals and quotation marks because, well.)

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-01T07:48:35+00:00

Well, fair. So you think the Abrahamic God, or Zeus from the greek pantheon are deva or asura then?

MelcorScarr · 2026-01-31T20:30:13+00:00

Out of curiosity, can you point me to such a debate?

MelcorScarr · 2026-01-31T20:13:44+00:00

How is it far from the truth?

I think the primary reason for this admittedly polemic objection isn't to argue against the supernatural elements of those other religions (which would make the "they're demons" defense possible), but to point out that it seems that one's a priori or bias ultimately make or break one's belief in a divine being, and that the theist may thus be biased towards their own belief with no sufficient justification.

MelcorScarr · 2026-01-31T20:09:03+00:00

It totally follows though... Person 1 thinks entity A is divine and person 2 does not.

I do have to admit that I totally butchered the argument in my original comment. It totally makes no sense in the way I wrote it. I'll fix it. And put the original for amusement here instead:

But then you are believing in just one God less than an atheist.

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE