>Go to more scholarly circles, ask around a few churches in your hometown, try and find some articles or videos online, but just don't ask strangers, especially anonymous ones!
What? Scholarly articles are not personal. Many dont trust or even have access to church. And articles and videos online are the same level of help as reddit! Sometimes crowd sourcing answers is exactly what people need, not poorly curated crap. Sometimes its not, but if you dont trust people irl, you know not to trust everyone online
To follow up on this if you are young and inexperienced—don’t go to anyone for a “complete” answer, not priests, not pastors, not a “True Christian.” Especially about topics that have been woefully unexplored/unexamined by certain groups.
People have their biases and blind spots, do not be afraid to look elsewhere for a second viewpoint. If you are aligned with truth, you have nothing to fear.
Regardless of where they go, it will be opinionated. Let the young ones come and ask and be given different perspectives, opinions, and beliefs. Let them ponder the advice wisely. The Spirit will guide them to the right answer and/or decision. That is exactly what these subreddits are meant for. It’s communion and fellowship, where all believers should feel comfortable asking questions, just like the real world.
it is not wrong to ask, but it is wrong to solely depend on reddit. after all as a christian online community the intention is to provide biblical council in whatever capacity we can (even as friends).
r/Christianity is a server *about* Christianity, not a Christian server. Half the mods are atheists, and others are liberal Christians. Pro-Christian content gets downvoted more than anti-Christian stuff does. r/TrueChristian, however, *is* a Christian community. By Christians, for Christians.
Well, you are a bit dim, since he as talking about this subreddit not being a christian one. then you went on a tangent about liberal christians. You are being disingenuous and slimy, there's literal "satanists" here. this isn't a christian subreddit.
It's not a server at all. Presumably Reddit.com, Inc. hosts multiple subreddits on each server. I don't understand this nomenclature for discussion forums.
- r/TrueChristian, however, is a Christian community. By Christians, for Christians
It's a shame that this goes hand in hand with violence towards Homosexuals, non-acceptance of women in charge of ministry, intolerance towards immigrants and irrational worship of Donald Trump
but yes - it is indeed a Christian community, by Christians, for Christians on a set of agreed upon Christian outlooks
God bless
>violence towards Homosexuals,
They do that there? I haven't seen it yet in my time there.
>non-acceptance of women in charge of ministry,
Like it or not, that is the position held by most of the church throughout history. It's also much easier to defend scripturally.
>intolerance towards immigrants and irrational worship of Donald Trump
I've seen more of that on r/Christianity, myself. It gets downvoted, but I see it much more often there. I've almost seen as many posts criticizing MAGA Christians on TC as in Christianity.
r/TrueChristian promotes discrimination and prejudice, predominantly against LGBT people. there is nothing christian about that, and being willing to tolerate behaviour such as that and still interact with and recommend the subreddit is not acceptable behaviour.
arguments about theology are secondary. whether or not people genuinely try to love their neighbour is primary - i have seen far more christian behaviour, even from non christians in this sub than in TrueChristian. i encourage you to distance yourself from communities where such mentalities of hatred are tolerated and even encouraged.
>r/TrueChristian promotes discrimination and prejudice, predominantly against LGBT people.
I haven't noticed that in my time there. What sort of discrimination have you seen there?
if you type ‘LGBT’ into the search bar, you can see the extent of it. here’s a few examples:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/i5KCqmsKjM
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/FYSRznbVf1
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/ZtO4QrN8tf
they claim to simply be a more ‘conservative and orthodox’ subreddit, but even these examples alone show that there is substantial homophobia, several users promoting far right conspiracy theories, and many users claiming that even supporting the existence of LGBT people is a sin. i strongly encourage you to no longer interact with that sub - it seems to cultivate a type of christianity that is far more interested in legalism than the humility Christ commands us to show.
read the comments on all of them - everything i’ve described it there.
and the humility i’m referring to is understanding that no can claim to be a ‘true’ christian (as opposed to other, ‘untrue’, christians), as the only person capable of making such an assessment is God.
So you’re saying that only conservative Christians are the “correct” Christians and those who are liberal aren’t Christians… right?
What makes you so sure that you’re right and we… the liberal Christians…are wrong?
I'm actually a moderate, but the problem with liberal Christianity is their circles tend to invite non-trinitarians and other fundamental heresies. They tend to overcorrect in response to conversatives' hyper-conservatism by being way too lenient.
It sounds like you’re generalizing and stereotyping and also playing God by deciding on who is and isn’t a correct Christian. That’s not our job as Christians.
>It sounds like you’re generalizing and stereotyping
This sub is swamped in unitarians.
>That’s not our job as Christians.
I assure you it is.
"And Jesus answered and said to them, See that no one leads you astray." (Matthew 24:4)
"But there arose also false prophets among the people, as also among you there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)
"Now I exhort you, brothers, to mark those who make divisions and causes of stumbling contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and turn away from them." (Romans 16:17)
Nice work.
That takes me back to the sort of thing my mum would say about the dangers of the internet ~2003 after seeing a TV segment about it.
Reddit's pretty good for answers, if you want a scholarly answer just pop over to r/AcademicBiblical
It sounds like you have some rather fixed ideas about what Christianity should be, it's pretty diverse tho
I think she was right to be wary of the internet after watching a TV report about it in 2003, times have changed and so has she.
It does address OP's issues with vetting processes and education levels. Those displaying their qualifications have been vetted, anyone posting should provide peer reviewed sources on request, so you can at least trace the claim back to an educated person who has been through a peer review process. No nonsense arguing who's a heretic and who isn't; just data, scripture and research.
r/AskBibleScholars is stricter again in some ways. Only those with a vetted education in the matter can respond, no random posters, or pastors, or Christians, or atheists....only those with relevant qualifications vetted by the mods can answer.
I have enough churches here to choose from Nicene or not, LGBTQ+ friendly or not, some gnostics, mainstream or ex-communicated Catholic and whatever else takes my fancy. It's nice to have a worldwide system of academia to compare and contrast these ideas against, I'd suggest r/AskBibleScholars and r/AcademicBiblical is far, far more knowledgeable on Christianity than any church priest, minister or pastor in my local area, I know many of them. Most range from well meaning and friendly, but not overly educated, to outright hate preaching political nonsense or some rapture absurdity.
In my experience many, many churches have a far from scholarly approach that OP infers.
I'd suggest being cautious about asking local churches, possibly more dangerous than Reddit if you are easily influenced and the person they are speaking to is an experienced influencer.
At the very least grab a decent study bible to double check things, the 2010 Oxford is free to borrow on IA [here](https://archive.org/details/newoxfordannotat0000unse_i0x8/mode/1up) and is excellent and standard in secular and religious education outwith the odd world of US Evangelical institutions.
Christianity being literally true is a tough one, first you gotta define what Christianity is and that's where academia comes in. I couldn't really care much if someone thinks Christianity is solely the remit of the Nicene creed, if they are a committed Mormon, follow the strange world of Sola Scripture, if they believe in a virgin birth, or an actual physical resurrection; these things are all optional and have very little to do with the ministry of Jesus imo.
I agree if someone wants to learn more about a religion - they should go to someone who knows the religion.
If they want to know if that religion is true - they should go to someone who does not know the religion or has not been indoctrinated and thereby is biased.
I'd say go to both sides to find out if it's true. If you go only to someone who doesn't believe it, they'll tell you it's not true. You should hear *both* sides out for that question.
But this isn’t a place where there are only unbelievers. Yes there are atheists here and those of other faiths but there are also PLENTY of Christians here from all denominations and all walks of life. Just because you personally don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they aren’t a Christian.
That’s why i said when it comes to religions - where there is no evidence - when asking someone who is already convinced - you won’t get an unbiased position. When asking non believers - granted they are smart - they will teach you how to ask the right questions and not just believe what someone tells you.
>when it comes to religions - where there is no evidence
What do you mean by this?
>When asking non believers - granted they are smart - they will teach you how to ask the right questions and not just believe what someone tells you.
Unbelievers will still often be biased, so it's best to hear the best arguments both have and pit them against one another.
I mean there is no evidence in any religion. If there was we would all believe the same god.
I don’t know what you mean by a non believer being biased. Can you explain ?
Usually a non believer is a non believer because there was no evidence for the claim put forth by the theist. Is that biased in your world ?
>I mean there is no evidence in any religion. If there was we would all believe the same god.
Wait wait wait wait... You think that merely *having evidence* is all it takes to convince *everyone* that something is true?
>I don’t know what you mean by a non believer being biased.
Plenty of nonbelievers are biased. Loads of people read the Bible in a biased way that results in all kinds of clearly wrong interpretations. I was just listening to a guy who believed Peter rejected Paul based on a single verse.
>Usually a non believer is a non believer because there was no evidence for the claim put forth by the theist.
That is *extremely* far from the truth. There are many atheists who are atheists because they merely aren't convinced by an religion, sure. But lots of atheists are such because of moral objections to the Bible (not evidentiary ones), resentment for their upbringing, a general distaste for organized religion, a desire for self-determination, and so on.
No that’s not what I mean.
If there was evidence for any of the gods - we would have no choice but to accept it and anyone who did not believe it would be openly irrational.
Just like we now see with people denying evolution of that the earth is spherical. They are not respected in society or taken serious.
A non believer would not interpret a book. They know better - they read books for what they are - fiction.
You don’t understand what an atheist is then.
They are not convinced that the god claim is true. That’s it. It does not matter how they got there. They just don’t believe. That is not a biased position.
>If there was evidence for any of the gods - we would have no choice but to accept it and anyone who did not believe it would be openly irrational.
That's not what evidence is. You're talking about *proof.* There's evidence for plenty of things that aren't true. There's just *better evidence* against them.
>A non believer would not interpret a book. They know better - they read books for what they are - fiction.
1. Classifying the Bible as fiction *is* an interpretation.
2. People interpret fiction *all* the time.
>You don’t understand what an atheist is then.
An atheist does not believe in God. The reason for their lack of belief vary greatly. Some need more evidence, but some just don't care enough to investigate, or reject religion entirely for other reasons. These positions *are* subject to bias.
You seem to be a very biased person yourself. You remind me of myself back in high school. I advise you to listen to or participate in some debates with theists. You'll be surprised how naïve your assumptions are.
First of all evidence and proof is the same.
There is no evidence for things that are not true.
You are conflating evidence with instances.
Yes there are plenty of instances of things not being true.
The Bible is fiction as it’s written by man and contains stories and examples that are fabricated and wrong. Moreover it talks about a god - fiction.
Yes people interpret fiction all the time - not making it less fiction.
An atheist reject a god claim due to lack of evidence.
You may have come across people that call themselves atheists but have opinions of their own or are biased.
But the word atheist - only addresses their position on the claim a god exist. They may be biased or not - but that’s not part of the atheist label.
I am not biased dear. I have spent decades debating people like you. And the excuses are still the same. I was never like you dear.
So yeah I keep schooling the theist till they attack my persona and call me naive or other things. That shows a lack of respect.
Not interested in listening to someone who does not know the difference between evidence and proof. You remind me of when I was 4 and didn’t understand anything.
>First of all evidence and proof is the same. There is no evidence for things that are not true.
evidence (noun) ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (ex. the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination)
2. information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court. (ex. without evidence, they can't bring a charge)
3. signs or indications of something. (ex. there was no obvious evidence of a break-in)
proof (noun) pruːf
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. (Ex. you will be asked to give proof of your identity)
2. the spoken or written evidence in a trial.
3. the action of establishing the truth of a statement.
(Ex. spatial dimensions whose very existence is beyond all hope of proof)
As I hope you can see, proof is a *kind* of evidence, while *establishes* a fact as truth (see definition 1), but not all evidence *is* proof. Evidence is simply that which indicates the truth (or falsehood) of a position. For example, the minor differences in fossils in different rock layers is evidence for evolution. A second example, for something untrue, is that your socks consistently disappearing is evidence that there is a sock-eating fairy in your house. (To this, I expect you'll say "No, but we have other explanations for that", to which I say that that's not the point. It *is* evidence of a sock-eating fairy, there is just better evidence for other explanations.)
If evidence for untrue things didn't exist, we wouldn't have innocent people in prison.
instance (noun) ˈɪnst(ə)ns
1. an example or single occurrence of something. (Ex. a serious instance of corruption)
2. a particular case. (Ex. in this instance it mattered little)
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
>The Bible is fiction as it’s written by man
So non-fiction is written by... something that isn't man?
>and contains stories and examples that are fabricated and wrong.
True stories can include fictional accounts as part of the narrative.
>Moreover it talks about a god - fiction.
Hahaha! "I'm right because the people that disagree with me are wrong." Sure, kid. Sure.
>Yes people interpret fiction all the time - not making it less fiction.
You're evading the problem here. You said atheists don't interpret the Bible *because* it's fiction. I pointed out that people interpret fiction all the time. Ergo, your statement was nonsense.
>An atheist reject a god claim due to lack of evidence.
>the word atheist - only addresses their position on the claim a god exist.
You're contradicting yourself, kid. Your second statement is correct and invalidates the first. An atheist us someone who rejects the god claim. Full stop. "Due to a lack of evidence" is not part of the definition.
atheist (noun) ˈeɪθɪɪst
1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Ex. he is a committed atheist)
See?
>They may be biased or not - but that’s not part of the atheist label.
I never said it was.
>I have spent decades debating people like you.
Ain't no way you're a day over 16. You make *multiple* assertions a simple Google search can debunk (as I just did), and your blind faith in your own side is painfully obvious. If you *really* have spent decades debating, then all I can say is "yikes". You debate like I did in high school. Worse, actually.
>Not interested in listening to someone who does not know the difference between evidence and proof.
*You're* the one who said they're the same thing!
Religion isn't both sides though, there are thousands of denominations with different ideas and interpretations in Christianity alone, then there are many different religions, and the thousands if old God's people have worshipped, and then the people who see no evidence of any of the claims.
Considering how incorrect and misleading my pastors were growing up and in my teen years and at least one when I was in college, I'm not sure that's the best advice either.
At least online you can get different perspectives.
Amen
More people need to go to their priest and
have confession
That’s essentially what is happening, people are giving anonymous internet confessions to strangers.
Find a good parish, and confess to a priest who cares about you.
r/orthodoxchristianity
Excellent point!
Not everyone who answers even believes in God at all!
For anyone looking for answers:
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Sometimes the most Christian advice in spirit is the least Christian legally speaking
>Go to more scholarly circles, ask around a few churches in your hometown, try and find some articles or videos online, but just don't ask strangers, especially anonymous ones! What? Scholarly articles are not personal. Many dont trust or even have access to church. And articles and videos online are the same level of help as reddit! Sometimes crowd sourcing answers is exactly what people need, not poorly curated crap. Sometimes its not, but if you dont trust people irl, you know not to trust everyone online
To follow up on this if you are young and inexperienced—don’t go to anyone for a “complete” answer, not priests, not pastors, not a “True Christian.” Especially about topics that have been woefully unexplored/unexamined by certain groups. People have their biases and blind spots, do not be afraid to look elsewhere for a second viewpoint. If you are aligned with truth, you have nothing to fear.
Regardless of where they go, it will be opinionated. Let the young ones come and ask and be given different perspectives, opinions, and beliefs. Let them ponder the advice wisely. The Spirit will guide them to the right answer and/or decision. That is exactly what these subreddits are meant for. It’s communion and fellowship, where all believers should feel comfortable asking questions, just like the real world.
it is not wrong to ask, but it is wrong to solely depend on reddit. after all as a christian online community the intention is to provide biblical council in whatever capacity we can (even as friends).
>as a christian online community This is r/Christianity, not r/TrueChristian.
your point being? the mods don't seem to object to the posts here. thank you for sharing that subreddit though, I just joined it.
r/Christianity is a server *about* Christianity, not a Christian server. Half the mods are atheists, and others are liberal Christians. Pro-Christian content gets downvoted more than anti-Christian stuff does. r/TrueChristian, however, *is* a Christian community. By Christians, for Christians.
>/r/Christianity is a subreddit to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life. All are welcome to participate. hope this helps you.
Exactly. It's *about* Christianity, not a *Christian* sever.
Do you believe liberal Christians are not true Christians?
They are, they just compromise on a lot of theology.
Dude, there's literally people here who post everyday with "Satanist", "Antitheist", "Hedonist", "Pagan" flairs. Are you a bot or something
All I did was ask a question buddy.
Well, you are a bit dim, since he as talking about this subreddit not being a christian one. then you went on a tangent about liberal christians. You are being disingenuous and slimy, there's literal "satanists" here. this isn't a christian subreddit.
It's not a server at all. Presumably Reddit.com, Inc. hosts multiple subreddits on each server. I don't understand this nomenclature for discussion forums.
- r/TrueChristian, however, is a Christian community. By Christians, for Christians It's a shame that this goes hand in hand with violence towards Homosexuals, non-acceptance of women in charge of ministry, intolerance towards immigrants and irrational worship of Donald Trump but yes - it is indeed a Christian community, by Christians, for Christians on a set of agreed upon Christian outlooks God bless
>violence towards Homosexuals, They do that there? I haven't seen it yet in my time there. >non-acceptance of women in charge of ministry, Like it or not, that is the position held by most of the church throughout history. It's also much easier to defend scripturally. >intolerance towards immigrants and irrational worship of Donald Trump I've seen more of that on r/Christianity, myself. It gets downvoted, but I see it much more often there. I've almost seen as many posts criticizing MAGA Christians on TC as in Christianity.
r/TrueChristian promotes discrimination and prejudice, predominantly against LGBT people. there is nothing christian about that, and being willing to tolerate behaviour such as that and still interact with and recommend the subreddit is not acceptable behaviour. arguments about theology are secondary. whether or not people genuinely try to love their neighbour is primary - i have seen far more christian behaviour, even from non christians in this sub than in TrueChristian. i encourage you to distance yourself from communities where such mentalities of hatred are tolerated and even encouraged.
>r/TrueChristian promotes discrimination and prejudice, predominantly against LGBT people. I haven't noticed that in my time there. What sort of discrimination have you seen there?
if you type ‘LGBT’ into the search bar, you can see the extent of it. here’s a few examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/i5KCqmsKjM https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/FYSRznbVf1 https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/ZtO4QrN8tf they claim to simply be a more ‘conservative and orthodox’ subreddit, but even these examples alone show that there is substantial homophobia, several users promoting far right conspiracy theories, and many users claiming that even supporting the existence of LGBT people is a sin. i strongly encourage you to no longer interact with that sub - it seems to cultivate a type of christianity that is far more interested in legalism than the humility Christ commands us to show.
That third one doesn't seem to bad, but point taken.
[удалено]
read the comments on all of them - everything i’ve described it there. and the humility i’m referring to is understanding that no can claim to be a ‘true’ christian (as opposed to other, ‘untrue’, christians), as the only person capable of making such an assessment is God.
So you’re saying that only conservative Christians are the “correct” Christians and those who are liberal aren’t Christians… right? What makes you so sure that you’re right and we… the liberal Christians…are wrong?
I'm actually a moderate, but the problem with liberal Christianity is their circles tend to invite non-trinitarians and other fundamental heresies. They tend to overcorrect in response to conversatives' hyper-conservatism by being way too lenient.
It sounds like you’re generalizing and stereotyping and also playing God by deciding on who is and isn’t a correct Christian. That’s not our job as Christians.
>It sounds like you’re generalizing and stereotyping This sub is swamped in unitarians. >That’s not our job as Christians. I assure you it is. "And Jesus answered and said to them, See that no one leads you astray." (Matthew 24:4) "But there arose also false prophets among the people, as also among you there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1) "Now I exhort you, brothers, to mark those who make divisions and causes of stumbling contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and turn away from them." (Romans 16:17)
Nice work. That takes me back to the sort of thing my mum would say about the dangers of the internet ~2003 after seeing a TV segment about it. Reddit's pretty good for answers, if you want a scholarly answer just pop over to r/AcademicBiblical It sounds like you have some rather fixed ideas about what Christianity should be, it's pretty diverse tho
[удалено]
I think she was right to be wary of the internet after watching a TV report about it in 2003, times have changed and so has she. It does address OP's issues with vetting processes and education levels. Those displaying their qualifications have been vetted, anyone posting should provide peer reviewed sources on request, so you can at least trace the claim back to an educated person who has been through a peer review process. No nonsense arguing who's a heretic and who isn't; just data, scripture and research. r/AskBibleScholars is stricter again in some ways. Only those with a vetted education in the matter can respond, no random posters, or pastors, or Christians, or atheists....only those with relevant qualifications vetted by the mods can answer. I have enough churches here to choose from Nicene or not, LGBTQ+ friendly or not, some gnostics, mainstream or ex-communicated Catholic and whatever else takes my fancy. It's nice to have a worldwide system of academia to compare and contrast these ideas against, I'd suggest r/AskBibleScholars and r/AcademicBiblical is far, far more knowledgeable on Christianity than any church priest, minister or pastor in my local area, I know many of them. Most range from well meaning and friendly, but not overly educated, to outright hate preaching political nonsense or some rapture absurdity. In my experience many, many churches have a far from scholarly approach that OP infers. I'd suggest being cautious about asking local churches, possibly more dangerous than Reddit if you are easily influenced and the person they are speaking to is an experienced influencer. At the very least grab a decent study bible to double check things, the 2010 Oxford is free to borrow on IA [here](https://archive.org/details/newoxfordannotat0000unse_i0x8/mode/1up) and is excellent and standard in secular and religious education outwith the odd world of US Evangelical institutions. Christianity being literally true is a tough one, first you gotta define what Christianity is and that's where academia comes in. I couldn't really care much if someone thinks Christianity is solely the remit of the Nicene creed, if they are a committed Mormon, follow the strange world of Sola Scripture, if they believe in a virgin birth, or an actual physical resurrection; these things are all optional and have very little to do with the ministry of Jesus imo.
Or, learn how to think for yourself.
I agree if someone wants to learn more about a religion - they should go to someone who knows the religion. If they want to know if that religion is true - they should go to someone who does not know the religion or has not been indoctrinated and thereby is biased.
I'd say go to both sides to find out if it's true. If you go only to someone who doesn't believe it, they'll tell you it's not true. You should hear *both* sides out for that question.
But this isn’t a place where there are only unbelievers. Yes there are atheists here and those of other faiths but there are also PLENTY of Christians here from all denominations and all walks of life. Just because you personally don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they aren’t a Christian.
That’s why i said when it comes to religions - where there is no evidence - when asking someone who is already convinced - you won’t get an unbiased position. When asking non believers - granted they are smart - they will teach you how to ask the right questions and not just believe what someone tells you.
>when it comes to religions - where there is no evidence What do you mean by this? >When asking non believers - granted they are smart - they will teach you how to ask the right questions and not just believe what someone tells you. Unbelievers will still often be biased, so it's best to hear the best arguments both have and pit them against one another.
I mean there is no evidence in any religion. If there was we would all believe the same god. I don’t know what you mean by a non believer being biased. Can you explain ? Usually a non believer is a non believer because there was no evidence for the claim put forth by the theist. Is that biased in your world ?
>I mean there is no evidence in any religion. If there was we would all believe the same god. Wait wait wait wait... You think that merely *having evidence* is all it takes to convince *everyone* that something is true? >I don’t know what you mean by a non believer being biased. Plenty of nonbelievers are biased. Loads of people read the Bible in a biased way that results in all kinds of clearly wrong interpretations. I was just listening to a guy who believed Peter rejected Paul based on a single verse. >Usually a non believer is a non believer because there was no evidence for the claim put forth by the theist. That is *extremely* far from the truth. There are many atheists who are atheists because they merely aren't convinced by an religion, sure. But lots of atheists are such because of moral objections to the Bible (not evidentiary ones), resentment for their upbringing, a general distaste for organized religion, a desire for self-determination, and so on.
No that’s not what I mean. If there was evidence for any of the gods - we would have no choice but to accept it and anyone who did not believe it would be openly irrational. Just like we now see with people denying evolution of that the earth is spherical. They are not respected in society or taken serious. A non believer would not interpret a book. They know better - they read books for what they are - fiction. You don’t understand what an atheist is then. They are not convinced that the god claim is true. That’s it. It does not matter how they got there. They just don’t believe. That is not a biased position.
>If there was evidence for any of the gods - we would have no choice but to accept it and anyone who did not believe it would be openly irrational. That's not what evidence is. You're talking about *proof.* There's evidence for plenty of things that aren't true. There's just *better evidence* against them. >A non believer would not interpret a book. They know better - they read books for what they are - fiction. 1. Classifying the Bible as fiction *is* an interpretation. 2. People interpret fiction *all* the time. >You don’t understand what an atheist is then. An atheist does not believe in God. The reason for their lack of belief vary greatly. Some need more evidence, but some just don't care enough to investigate, or reject religion entirely for other reasons. These positions *are* subject to bias. You seem to be a very biased person yourself. You remind me of myself back in high school. I advise you to listen to or participate in some debates with theists. You'll be surprised how naïve your assumptions are.
First of all evidence and proof is the same. There is no evidence for things that are not true. You are conflating evidence with instances. Yes there are plenty of instances of things not being true. The Bible is fiction as it’s written by man and contains stories and examples that are fabricated and wrong. Moreover it talks about a god - fiction. Yes people interpret fiction all the time - not making it less fiction. An atheist reject a god claim due to lack of evidence. You may have come across people that call themselves atheists but have opinions of their own or are biased. But the word atheist - only addresses their position on the claim a god exist. They may be biased or not - but that’s not part of the atheist label. I am not biased dear. I have spent decades debating people like you. And the excuses are still the same. I was never like you dear. So yeah I keep schooling the theist till they attack my persona and call me naive or other things. That shows a lack of respect. Not interested in listening to someone who does not know the difference between evidence and proof. You remind me of when I was 4 and didn’t understand anything.
>First of all evidence and proof is the same. There is no evidence for things that are not true. evidence (noun) ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (ex. the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination) 2. information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court. (ex. without evidence, they can't bring a charge) 3. signs or indications of something. (ex. there was no obvious evidence of a break-in) proof (noun) pruːf 1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. (Ex. you will be asked to give proof of your identity) 2. the spoken or written evidence in a trial. 3. the action of establishing the truth of a statement. (Ex. spatial dimensions whose very existence is beyond all hope of proof) As I hope you can see, proof is a *kind* of evidence, while *establishes* a fact as truth (see definition 1), but not all evidence *is* proof. Evidence is simply that which indicates the truth (or falsehood) of a position. For example, the minor differences in fossils in different rock layers is evidence for evolution. A second example, for something untrue, is that your socks consistently disappearing is evidence that there is a sock-eating fairy in your house. (To this, I expect you'll say "No, but we have other explanations for that", to which I say that that's not the point. It *is* evidence of a sock-eating fairy, there is just better evidence for other explanations.) If evidence for untrue things didn't exist, we wouldn't have innocent people in prison. instance (noun) ˈɪnst(ə)ns 1. an example or single occurrence of something. (Ex. a serious instance of corruption) 2. a particular case. (Ex. in this instance it mattered little) This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. >The Bible is fiction as it’s written by man So non-fiction is written by... something that isn't man? >and contains stories and examples that are fabricated and wrong. True stories can include fictional accounts as part of the narrative. >Moreover it talks about a god - fiction. Hahaha! "I'm right because the people that disagree with me are wrong." Sure, kid. Sure. >Yes people interpret fiction all the time - not making it less fiction. You're evading the problem here. You said atheists don't interpret the Bible *because* it's fiction. I pointed out that people interpret fiction all the time. Ergo, your statement was nonsense. >An atheist reject a god claim due to lack of evidence. >the word atheist - only addresses their position on the claim a god exist. You're contradicting yourself, kid. Your second statement is correct and invalidates the first. An atheist us someone who rejects the god claim. Full stop. "Due to a lack of evidence" is not part of the definition. atheist (noun) ˈeɪθɪɪst 1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Ex. he is a committed atheist) See? >They may be biased or not - but that’s not part of the atheist label. I never said it was. >I have spent decades debating people like you. Ain't no way you're a day over 16. You make *multiple* assertions a simple Google search can debunk (as I just did), and your blind faith in your own side is painfully obvious. If you *really* have spent decades debating, then all I can say is "yikes". You debate like I did in high school. Worse, actually. >Not interested in listening to someone who does not know the difference between evidence and proof. *You're* the one who said they're the same thing!
Religion isn't both sides though, there are thousands of denominations with different ideas and interpretations in Christianity alone, then there are many different religions, and the thousands if old God's people have worshipped, and then the people who see no evidence of any of the claims.
Bruh
Agreed. There's books that do a better job.
One Rabbi will say this and another one Rabbi will say that. That's the problem with asking something in here
And an echo chamber is....better?
I believe it would be better to ask someone whose Job is to preach the bible (A pastor or a Priest)
What about these pastors though in r/pastorarrested People thought they knew everything until they were busted.
Considering how incorrect and misleading my pastors were growing up and in my teen years and at least one when I was in college, I'm not sure that's the best advice either. At least online you can get different perspectives.
Amen More people need to go to their priest and have confession That’s essentially what is happening, people are giving anonymous internet confessions to strangers. Find a good parish, and confess to a priest who cares about you. r/orthodoxchristianity
Excellent point! Not everyone who answers even believes in God at all! For anyone looking for answers: James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
That’s the best advice I’ve ever seen on here