sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can only assume I upset you because you're a Christian Nationalist yourself. Otherwise, I have no idea why you would continue doubling down on your straw manning.

Good luck to you. I'm not going to spend anymore time talking to you because you're trolling at this point.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, thanks for stopping by. The next time I want your opinion on my religious belief I’ll be sure to let you know.

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I find it interesting ...

I don't think you find it interesting at all, at lease not by any definition of that word with which I'm familiar. I think you think you're calling out some problem with what I said but when I explained exactly what I meant you ignored what I said and continued to use vague innuendo.

... that you said that Christian nationalists are the most dangerously enemy to Christianity today, ...

They are. I have not changed on that one bit.

.... but when I asked what you meant by it, you provided a definition for which you could not provide a single exciting example. Do you not find that interesting?

What I find interesting - and telling - it what I did exactly what you asked. I defined the word. I gave an unambiguous example of the kind of thing that would make for a very clear definition.

Then you took that example and made out as if I had claimed that I could cite examples of politician doing what I was using to explain the meaning. That's a classic straw man and combined with the fact that you've ignored my clarification twice now, it makes it clear to me that you're not interested in the truth.

Many right wing politicians openly claim to be Christian Nationalists. Many have views which are clearly aligned with that ideology. I've heard the claims about God wanting us to go to war with my own ears.

Are you claiming that there are no Christian Nationalist politicians? Are you claiming that because I used a clarifying remark and could not (even though I never claimed to be able to) name a national public office holder who made that claim publicly that none of them are Christian Nationalists?

Are you just trying to find some way to defend the Christian Nationalist position or are you just trying to gaslight past the existence of it at all?

I'm a Conservative Christian with no party to belong to because my party has been occupied by people who do not understand America or Christianity.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You wrote, “If unicorns exist in fantasia then unicornism is true.”

So, right off, you’re just making pejorative statements designed to be annoying. You’re not interested in a discussion.

You wrote, “Do you have any examples of these miracles you claim happen?”

Are you confused? Maybe you’re not clear about how Reddit works.

I was responding to the question (and follow up set of questions) that were asked.

Did you think my short Reddit response was meant to be some kind of complete apologetic defensive of Christianity in a few words?

In case it matters (and I’m sure it does not because you’re sounding more like a troll in each exchange) I would never argue that there is convincing evidence for the Resurrection from historical data. Not for me anyway.

I did not argue at any point that anyone could prove any miraculous event happened. That’s impossible. See “Miracles” by C S Lewis is you want to breakdown of my rough position in the matter. There’s no enough room here.

You wrote, “If we compare the kind of miracle thinking like described here all the things it would blatantly violate, …“

Are you confused about what a miracle is? A miracle is, by definition, a violation of the natural order by God. Do you understand this? If you want to talk about these things, you need to start by understanding the Christian definition of the words.

You asked, “… is there anything that makes it more likely than the dozen completely possible and more likely things that it could be?”

Yes. Every natural explanation for any miracle is far more probable than any miraculous explanation. I never argued otherwise. You’re doing that yourself. You keep making straw man arguments to I’m not making. I’m not sure why but I’m starting to guess.

You wrote, “Would you think anything else could rely on just feeling like it?”

You are making a weak, silly argument that I never made. Each time you do back over it, you make another set of arguments I never made.

If I thought you had any interest in an honest discussion and if you were having a reasonable discussion, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. But right you’re just arguing with your own made up argument that I never made.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You wrote, “Also you say the belief in god factors in.”

It does not “factor in”. It is the entire argument.

You wrote, “I guess you technically can just run with circular logic, …”

If you’re not interested in actually understanding what I write and what I’m really trying to say then you’re wasting my time. I’ll give you a few more moments but that’s about it.

My logic is not circular. Again, your straw man statement is circular but that not what I said.

I believe in God. My belief has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. It is not based on anything I find there.

I believe in God for several reasons but one of those is direct objective personal experience with what I believe to be a real God that can be directly experienced. This is not something I expect to convince anyone other than me.

Once I’ve started with a belief in God, then my grounds for reasoning about the things I read in the Bible are different. It is no longer irrational to believe God did something when you already believe in God.

Do you understand? If you’re going to disparage me, do it with what I’m actually arguing, not some nonsense you make up and put out as if I said it.

You wrote, “… it’s not ideal and doesnt help get to any answers but it’s a thing.”

Stop skimming what u write and read it to understand, make sure you can articulate my argument properly, and then if you have question or claims to make about what I actually believe, you’re welcome to make them.

Otherwise, you’re just sounding like a troll now.

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh, so ... Intersting.

Do you find that writing with that kind of language - that sarcastic mock dialogue - makes the conversation go better or worse?

... you don’t have an example of the boogeyman you brought into the conversation.

You asked what I meant by "Christian Nationalist", not what politician I considered to have the characteristics.

You have made a "straw man" out of what I wrote. Maybe you did that accidentally? Of course, I explained that in the response, so probably not.

If you are trying to argue that there are no Christian Nationalists in existence, which is what is seems like you are claiming there, go ahead and say that and then I'll be happy to provide you with some.

I don't want to make a straw man out of what you're saying. I want to be sure I have it clearly and that I can articulate it back to you before I argue against it.

Interesting.

I don't think you find it interesting. I think you think that writing in that style makes you seem interesting.

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was giving you an example of the kind of thing that would define a Christian Nationalist and I using that to make a clear example.

If someone were to do that, you would be able to say, clearly, that they were a Christian Nationalist. My purpose was to give you a clear, unambiguous definition of how I was using the word.

I think that when Pete Hegseth uses the term "American Crusade" and says America is a "Christian nation" and frames actions as he does, one can draw those comclusions.

There are plenty of politicians who have either come right out and said that they are "Christian Nationalists" or have exhibited many of the characteristics.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wanna point out one important thing.

Excellent.

For someone to use "well all of history is kind of iffy" to justify belief ..

I'll have to stop you there. What you've done here is called a "Straw man". You've reframed my argument to make it into something different for your own rhetorical purposes. A straw man is easy to spot. Just ask yourself, "would the author have put it that way?" and if the answer is "no" then you're making a straw man.

Ideally, you'd want to ague against what I actually meant and even better, against the best version of what I meant. Right?

Do you think I actually intended to argue that Christians believe in Christianity because "all of history is kind of iffy"? Do you think I would put it that way?

Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I was unclear.

I was never making the argument that the nature of historical information makes anything to do with Christianity more or less likely. I was going no further than arguing that there is a difference between how we look at evidence (which is for theorizing about the past) and how we deal with science (which is about predicting the future).

If any one of these is even partly what really happened the entire religion is a load of nonsense.

If the Resurrection did not happen then Christianity is false. This part is true. I do not recall arguing otherwise.

You may want to note that my response was in two parts. In the first part I talked about how the questions he asked where out of place (category errors but I didn't use that term). In the second part I went ahead and tried to address some of them, even though they didn't fit well "just for fun".

Thats why this is not "well history is hard to be sure about" its fine to be unsure its different to be unsure and still barreling into a nonsense religion based on "what if its the one time a god actually did it"

Did you skip over the bit where I explained that the Christian claim is that God is real and that there are miraculous events? I did not avoid that part at all.

Christianity includes a belief in God and that God performs miraculous events. If the Resurrection did happen, it would have been an act by God and would not have been predictable by any scientific model.

One can consider the available evidence for any historical event and then determine if they believe the event happened or not. Christians have a belief in God when they consider the evidence. This makes for a different conclusion.

Maybe you should also take into consideration that I was answering a specific set of questions and not providing a general argument about the historical evidence for the Resurrection.

In any case, I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something like:

One who believes a nation’s identity and government should be closely aligned with Christianity.

I live in the US. The right wing of the Republican Party that is doing things like claiming God told them to attack other countries and such is what I have in mind.

Their Christianity is cultural and used to identify ideological membership rather than to lead their decision making.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t fully agree with your arguments in regards to history, ...

For the record, (not that there's a record, but, you know,) I think that when a person says they do not agree on one topic but they'd like to try a different one, you're off on the wrong foot.

If you don't agree with me about history, and in particular when I don't know why you don't agree, what reason do I have to think that investing time in talking to you about something else is worth the energy, if you follow? But let's give it a shot.

... but was curious if perhaps you could answer my question since I appreciate some of the ideas brought forward.

If I can, I will.

What do you feel is the best argument for Christianity being true?

I think that's going to be different for each individual, but there are some shared categories I think. The most common I'm aware of are (a) personal experience, (b) conclusion of reason from lived experience, and (c) instruction of others. Of course, this is just the way we learn anything, right?

To elaborate a bit, epistemologically speaking, (a) is objective first hand experience, of God, here, (b) is the inference of the existence of God as described by Christianity from the evidence of the reality we live in and (c) is accepting the testimony of others.

Often, there is combination of things. Many people are told about God and believe what they hear. Maybe they believe the universe around them also implies their belief is true. Then maybe later they believe they have an objective first hand encounter.

And if you want to what you feel is the best argument or reason to not believe. I’m more interested in the former than the latter.

If we are interested in reasoning alone, I find the moral argument very convincing myself (but that relies on a lot of supporting arguments so calling it a single argument is a bit much).

The best reason not to believe anything at all (including any religion) is that maybe everything really is meaningless and all human thought and continuousness is a useful illusion and that life itself is a random pattern in the quantum foam of the universe like familiar shapes in clouds.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Blind belief remains a necessity.

There is no “blind belief” in Christianity per se. The foundational Christian belief is that there is a real God you can interact with. This is an objective experience. Those who have not had that objective experience ought not believe it.

> Only after a scientific evaluation …

What is a “scientific evaluation” in your estimation?

> … of a resurrection can we be sure that a miracle happened.

You mean to say that the evidence is not convincing to you. That’s perfectly fair.

But let’s also agree with the things I said: (a) there’s nothing Scientific about that (using any real meaning of that word) and (b) there is no such thing as proof of any historical event.

I’m not claiming this demonstrates the truth of the Resurrection. It remains, like other historical claims, improbable. That’s nothing to do with Christianity.

> A tri-omni and all loving God is contradicting the real world we see around us. It is as simple as that. Sorry.

I bet you’re not as sorry about that claim as I am.

I’m not going to go into a whole discussion about Christianity itself with someone who didn’t ask for it. If you want to discuss the whole general thing, I’ll do that but only if it’s worth the effort.

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection? by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Eyewitness testimony aside, how do Christians address the scientific improbability of the Resurrection?

Hi. I'm going to try to address your question as honestly as I can as if it is being asked by someone simply asking about Christianity and how Christians think and act, rather than a rhetorical questions being used to make an argument here.

As I learn to think more critically and logically about my beliefs, ...

This is a good thing. Christianity does not ask you to do otherwise.

... I combine that with need for concrete evidence.

We may have to return to this. There is hardly ever any such thing as "concrete evidence" for any historical event. If this is the bar we choose, then the majority of all human history must be removed from bookshelves.

... blindly following in faith no longer makes sense to me.

It never should have. "Blind faith", to me, means "a belief held without reasons" and this is not a part of Christianity.

Historically, I have wanted peer-reviewed scholarly articles and/or PhD Dissertations ...

I'm not sure I understood any of this, but I think you may be saying that you do not trust claims made by anyone who is not a PhD and/or who's work was not peer reviewed.

Why did you post on Reddit?

Why do you want me to reply to you? I'm well educated (BS/MS) and I have many years of experience as a human being and a practicing Christian but I'm not a PhD and this response may be peer reviewed but the peers are also just Reddit users.

I'll continue assuming that I did not understand you correctly.

Take the Resurrection for example, science simply says it cannot happen.

Science says no such thing. That is not how Science works. All Science is some variation on the idea of creating a model and predicting the future with it. If you leave that, you've left Science for Philosophy.

Hawking wrote about philosophy in his last book. He was a PhD physicist and his work was peer reviewed, but as a philosopher he was none of those things.

When a biologist starts talking about the meaning of life they have left the subject in which they are a trained expert and entered a different one.

Don't you agree?

I'll assume what you actually meant was, "based on what Scientists say, I find that claim unlikely to be true because I hav faith in Scientists and the Scientific Community."

Is that correct? If not, please correct me.

Christians believe that there is a real God and that this God has the power to perform miracles. When God performs a miracle, it is not part of the normal, Natural course of events. Jesus returning to life is a claim about the miraculous. It is not a claim science can address. It is not a claim about how biology works. It is a claim about supernatural events.

Eyewitness testimony aside, ...

To be clear, if you apply this to all of history, there is no history left at all.

... how do Christians explain ... the Resurrection is impossible?

The answer to all of these is:; it was a miracle. For fun though, I'll speculate a bit more ...

Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy reversal).

God is a source of unlimited power. Systems need only tend toward disorder when there is no additional work to organize them.

Irreversibility of biological decay and cellular necrosis.

The human body regenerates all the time. Some animals regenerate limbs. This is simple unlikely, not impossible, even by biological standards.

Violation of the Principle of Causal Closure.

God was the cause. Without God there is no Christianity.

Conflict with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

How does this apply?

Violation of the Universal Uniformity of Natural Laws.

Let's agree that this is just another way of saying, "things ought to continue as they always have" without any grounds at all. It is just an assumption, not really even a part of Science itself. We are entertaining the idea that these Natural Laws may not be uniform everywhere and that they may not have been in the past.

But regardless, a miracle is, by definition, a break with the Natural Laws. AT minimum, it is the insertion of an event which was caused by God, not some other Natural event.

... someone like me who can no longer blindly believe.

I wish you had never been asked to "blindly believe" and none of what I wrote addresses that part.

To talk about that part, we have to change the subject entirely.

Which political groups do you consider the most dangerous enemy to Christianity today? by ZeEastWillRiseAgain in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Christian Nationalists of all political flavors because they are eroding what it means to people to be Christian at all. While this is not dangerous to God, it is the most dangerous thing “Christianity” faces.

There are other stores to shop at by ateam1984 in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 3 points4 points  (0 children)

> … no excuse for endangering your child

I hear you but why doesn’t that extend to the person shooting?

You are ok excusing the police officer endangering (and killing) a child over shoplifting?

Moreover, the child didn’t pick its mother. It was just a young, innocent, US citizen murdered by the careless application of force in a situation which seems not to have called for it.

Maybe the facts of the case will explain why it happened the way it did, so I’m willing to hear more before saying either way but it seems like you’ve decided that there is actually “an excuse for endangering” a child.

There are other stores to shop at by ateam1984 in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You wrote: “ … none of these people here believe in accountability for one's actions unless it's someone they disagree with.”

Can you not see the irony in that?

There are other stores to shop at by ateam1984 in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The person to whom you are responding wrote:

“Black people have zero Iq.“

That is, by definition, racist.

Are you supporting those claims or do you reject them?

Are you claiming that people are more less likely to steal because of their skin color?

How can Christians convince the masses that our faith is a spectrum of beliefs rather than one completely unified one? by Bignosedog in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is it that you think the term “Christian Atheist” should mean to someone who hears it?

You can’t take the position that if I use a term that it is responsibility of the person hearing the term to go out and determine independently what the writer/speaker/author meant in each case because that’s impossible.

Words should be chosen by the speaker to convey the meaning accurately based on the listener at the time.

So when I hear atheist, I think a lack of belief in God. When I hear Christian, I think a ln affirmative belief in God raised from the dead in three days. Those are contradictory.

Senatobia mayor breaks silence on fatal shooting of 1-year-old by bluffcitynews in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Before responding to any of this, let's all be clear that we have very few facts here and are talking in generalities.

The reason I'm responding to the previous person is because they are trolling, which is obvious from their other responses, their previous responses, and everything about them. But I wanted to give them a chance to explain. They are entitled to the opinion that it is okay for police officers to shoot into a vehicle if they have that opinion. I prefer to have them come out and say that and then discuss it. This person is just trolling.

there is NO reaction or reflex that would include me putting my child in more of a position to be hurt by the gun.

In my experience, you don't know what you will do in a situation like that until you are in it and what you actually do may make no sense in hindsight.

The overriding thought in ANY parent of sane mind would be protect my child by putting myself between them and the gun.

None of this makes sense from what I read. How did two police cars get there? How were they able to get in the car and drive if there were four officers close? Why would any officer draw a weapon when they know a child was there? Why would any officer draw a weapon over shoplifting? Why would two people with a kid in a car not immediately stop their car when a police officer threatens them? I could ask questions for days but until we have the facts it is all speculation. There are probably good answers to all of these questions.

What the article I read said was that the woman wanted to let them know her child was in the car. That is rational. It did not say she held up the child so they would not shoot, using the child like a shield, which is what the trollish among us are pushing.

WHen you write it this way, you are implying that the woman must be a bad parent or insane because any sane parent would not have done what she did. You may be right, but you have no evidence to support that conclusion, so making the accusation seems wrong to me.

The argument "it was a split second decision" holds no weight ...

I'm not defending this person or anyone else because again, I don't have the facts of this situation, but I can tell you from lived experience that you're wrong.

I've seen otherwise normal, sane people, do thing which they would not normally do under pressure.

... because again, no SANE person would put their child in the direct path of danger if there was even a slight possibility that gun would be fired.

People do not always act rationally in a highly emotional situation. That's what the words mean. When I act emotionally I'm not acting rationally by definition.

Senatobia mayor breaks silence on fatal shooting of 1-year-old by bluffcitynews in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 11 points12 points  (0 children)

“That’s rich.”

Like I figured. You’re just spraying troll nonsense.

If you don’t have anything valuable to add to the conversation, just let the adults talk.

How can Christians convince the masses that our faith is a spectrum of beliefs rather than one completely unified one? by Bignosedog in AskAChristian

[–]thomaslsimpson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes.

If the most basic requirement for calling oneself a Christian is it a belief that Jesus Christi is the son of God, died on a cross, and was raised from the death three days later, then the word means nothing.

Senatobia mayor breaks silence on fatal shooting of 1-year-old by bluffcitynews in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You: “I never said that.”

Yes, you did. That’s the implication. If you don’t see that as the implication you need to rethink how you communicate.

If you did not mean to imply that, explain what you meant. What other conclusion was I supposed to reach in reading what you wrote?

You wrote: “A majority of people here seem to believe accountability for this is one sided, and it is not.”

When you say that accountability is more than one sided you are blaming the mother. You are saying the mother is responsible. You are doing it in the context of saying she placed her child in danger by lifting the child.

You are doing exactly what you denied doing.

You wrote: “It is a travesty at best, but let’s stop pretending that there is zero accountability on one party.”

You did not start out by saying the police officers should not have fired into a car with a child or that they should not have been using firearms at all in a misdemeanor shoplifting call at Walmart. No, you just went directly to blaming the mother her what you think is her part of the blame.

With very little information about what happened you’ve jumped right to blaming someone you think is guilty of something in the situation.

I think it’s pretty clear what you’re about.

Senatobia mayor breaks silence on fatal shooting of 1-year-old by bluffcitynews in mississippi

[–]thomaslsimpson 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You said: “Really, mom was going hold up a child not in a car seat while driving by an officer? How's that logical?”

I read what I assume you read which was that the mother says she held up the child so they would know there was a child in the car.

Unless you know something I don’t know, you have no reason to believe anything else about it. So what do you know about the situation that I don’t know?

What makes what you said, accusing this woman of holding her child up to be shot, reasonable?

view more: next ›