Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For Christians,non-Christians & Atheists

My point is based solely on the fact that they, as antagonists to Marcion, would not quote from Paul if they believed Marcion was the author of Paul. Additionally, Tertullian completed most of his writings before joining the Montanists. Many in the church still cited his writings and appreciated them.

I never heard of an indication of Irenaeus being considered a heretic by the church.

As noted before, Christianity is defined by Christ and His teachings. He never performed such acts and therefore anyone doing those things were departing from the example of Christ and not following it.

Like I predicted, "True Scotsman" Fallacy.

So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.

Do you reject these statements?
... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.

The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.

All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.

Religion is the opium of the people.

Yes. It's so predicable that you don't even need to be a prophet to see it coming. To think that those who cling to faith make mention critical thinking....

Sir it is what the Bible says--not my merely my position.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Marxism goes well beyond question faith. Its manifesto is political and social ideology. It is a mistake to conflate the two. You are making a category error.

True faith and solid evidence walk hand in hand.
Faith is the substance of things of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

Yet you deny what it says in the bible. You deny the presence of two opposing descriptions of its god, even in the face of evidence.

I am aware of the differences between you guys and Marxists on economics, politics, and socialism. Because of those difference you will never be true Marxists. I get that.

I'm speaking only about the philosophy of Marxism and its views on faith and religion.

A number here have been generous with their time in explaining why your propositions are not sustainable or credible.

As I reflect on some of my recent posts I can see that my tone was not as courteous as it should have been. For this I must apologize--especially to DBT and Antelope Sniper.

I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't continue your attempts to paint us with the Marxist brush. That's the purpose of your Cherry Picking from a commentary on the Communist Manifesto.

Regardless of your dishonest tactic, let me try to answer you in the general.

I take issue with politicians who make overly sweeping statements such as "All Religions......", There are many religions, each of which must stand or fall on the merits of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence. Unlike Marx, I don't limit the definition of religions to only those who make supernatural claims. The philosophies of Marxism and "Global Climate Change" are effectively religions, both with many claims not sufficiently in evidence.

Like wise, there are "Philosophical Christians" who don't believe in any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, but see it entirely as allegory which is just one example for which I don't feel the above statement adequately takes into account.

Like wise, I extend the same standard to the various philosophical schools. Each must stand on the merit of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence, and it's not the proper place of government to dictate the belief system, be it religious or philosophical, of the governed.

As for your assertion that your Cherry Picked out of context quote regarding religion as the opiote of the masses being the conerstone of Marxism, considering how the work it appeared in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, wasn't published until after Marx death, it's absurd on it's face.

Of course you've probably never read the quote in context, and have no idea what Marx was really saying.



In other words, as suffering declines, we should expect a natural decline in religion. I'm not sure that claims holding up to the test of time. Although the old religions maybe in decline, other, such as the religion of Global Climate Change as ascending.

The goal of the modern skeptic is to believe as many things that are true, and as few things that are untrue as possible, and each proposition must meet it's own burden of proof.

Consequently, for the majority of modern skeptics, they are not skeptics because they are atheist, they become atheist because they are skeptics, due to theistic claims failing to meet their burden of proof.

To me, the propositions of Marxism and Theism are separate and distinct, and one does not depend upon the other.

When you attempt to tie my position on Theism to Marxism, I see it as the moral and philosophical and tactical equivalent of the political left calling everyone who voted for Trump a Racist.

I haven't attempted to pin the sins of White Supremacist, the KKK and the Nazi's (yes, Hitler was Catholic) on you, so please stop pinning the sins of Stalin and Mao on me.

Which shows a flawed understanding of the nature of faith and what the verse is telling us.

I'll try to help.

''Faith is the substance of things of things hoped for'' - describes faith the substance or essence of things hoped for.

''the evidence of things not seen'' - tells us that faith is own 'evidence,' therefore its own justification

The verse does not speak of independent verifiable evidence, just faith as its own justification.

Which is in line with the given definition of faith and accepted meaning of the word;

ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return)

That's a welcome surprise, I must say.

Then there peer reviewed scientific studies of near death experiences and terminal lucidity you have to deal with.

No, not that th Greeks had all the answers, but since the ancient Greeks formed the basis of Western thought you have to do battle with them first.

There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries.

What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in desires for:

Perfect and unconditional Truth
Perfect and unconditional Love
Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness)
Perfect and unconditional Beauty
Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)

How can we have transcendent desires without some sort of transcendent nature?

These statements are more or less true.

Now you tell us how you have mixed up Marxism with Deism.

So I guess you're applying that to all of Philosophy. If it's difficult to deal with simply dismiss it all as a fraud. Nice.

Of course logic is one of those freaky Greeky ideas - nothing but misleading. Dismiss logic out of hand. Things are the way they are because I say it is so.

The Red Herring fallacy does not mean something is Fraud, it means it's irrelevant.

Greek philosophy regarding perfect beauty is irrelevant to medical prefrontal lesions.