Is Jesus necessary?

[mpjh]

Whatever makes you feel good nappy. I didn't realize I was in an intellectual "battle" with you. Seems a lot like clubbing baby seals when you put words in the posts of your "opponent" then claim they are idiots for saying what they didn't say. Are you having fun taking this thread away from any discussion among others?

[Aradhus]

You did make this clearly absurd claim and you made it about classical dogma despite the poll confirming everyone agrees with it, and so your "credentials" (what are they though? go on, I'd be amused) are looking to everyone here rather thin on the ground.

Since when did you speak for me and every other member of the forum that has read this topic?

Your general arrogance and obvious hatred of mpjh is really transparent, and incredibly pathetic. Its also rather telling that you would hate someone for simply disagreeing with you. I wonder where that stems from..

Edit: Oh yeah, over 50% of the members that voted believe in Heaven?! Or is that a misleading poll option? I wonder..

[Napoleon Ier]

You did make this clearly absurd claim and you made it about classical dogma despite the poll confirming everyone agrees with it, and so your "credentials" (what are they though? go on, I'd be amused) are looking to everyone here rather thin on the ground.

1/Since when did you speak for me and every other member of the forum that has read this topic?

2/Your general arrogance and obvious hatred of mpjh is really transparent, and incredibly pathetic. 3/Its also rather telling that you would hate someone for simply disagreeing with you. 4/I wonder where that stems from..

1/ Since no-one else could be arsed to step up and argue with someone suffering the debating equivalent of Tourette syndrome.

2/Is they now. Well hurrah for grammatically incorrect ad hominem which does nothing but sully the otherwise enjoyable and mind-expanding online debating experience of the good patrons of this internet forum.

3/By that comment in order for it to make any sense I'm going to have to read that you mean that it's rather telling that I'd call an obvious troll on his decision to misrepresent a data set and mislead an audience into believing that a series of obscene conclusions followed from his empirical evidence.

4/A dedicated commitment to Truth and to high standards in debating.

[got tonkaed]

number 4 is almost laughable given the way you have disregarded the other thread.

Higher standards in debating require that you are willing to seek out information, process it and make conclusions from it. You can agree or disagree with studies, methodology or the like, but the way in which you completely disregard what is more or less a clean fact hunting group is very out of line. You have a very slanted view of the world (and im not saying you dont have the right to it) but if you actually wish to rationally debate (which was part of the slant in your question - you cant force rationality as the only option) you have to actually be willing to engage in relevant information, which you have shown through these threads you do not wish to. At least in regards to this topic.

[Napoleon Ier]

number 4 is almost laughable given the way you have disregarded the other thread.

Higher standards in debating require that you are willing to seek out information, process it and make conclusions from it. You can agree or disagree with studies, methodology or the like, but the way in which you completely disregard what is more or less a clean fact hunting group is very out of line. You have a very slanted view of the world (and im not saying you dont have the right to it) but if you actually wish to rationally debate (which was part of the slant in your question - you cant force rationality as the only option) you have to actually be willing to engage in relevant information, which you have shown through these threads you do not wish to. At least in regards to this topic.

I have repeatedly outlined why the data presented is invalid, and I have even outlined why even it wasn't, mpjh's argument falls down.

Come on now Tonky... is it because you're working for Pew or something? I didn't really mean to say anything insulting to you, I just wanted to show up a pointless troll who was looking to provoke respectable people by presenting ridiculous conclusions supposedly (but not actually) based on what I anyway thought was shaky data as scientific fact.

[got tonkaed]

i dont work for pew, though itd be a good job, it leads pretty well into a fair number of university research positions youd better believe.

Its more of an appeal to you and your intellectual future really. The way in which you have continually failed to check the source i presented, make claims that are actually answered by the source but refuse to realize it and the way in which you are unable to put the trolling tone aside for two post are very worrisome. For a general troll it wouldnt really matter, but considering your big plans are going to probably involve academia in some way, you need to realize when your developing incredibly poor habits.

On an internet forum sure, beat back trolls all you want and say what you want, but realize you would actually get destroyed in any reasonable academic setting. Your taking your considerable knowledge about one area and completely overstepping what you know in a way that makes you look unimpressive to anyone who knows anything about methodolgy. Its just something ive been trying to get you to consider for a few pages now.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nice work turning on your brother there Napoleon.

Eh?

[Napoleon Ier]

.

On an internet forum sure, beat back trolls all you want and say what you want, but realize you would actually get destroyed in any reasonable academic setting. Your taking your considerable knowledge about one area and completely overstepping what you know in a way that makes you look unimpressive to anyone who knows anything about methodolgy. Its just something ive been trying to get you to consider for a few pages now.

There's no need to get all mad at me tonka... you know how upset I get when you get all cross. Then you get more upset 'cos I'm getting upset, so you go mad... it's a vicious cycle!

I'm just trying to understand how anyone can defend a poll that asks people how many religions lead to eternal life then posts the conclusions and says that Christians no longer believe Jesus in necessary for Salvation.

Clearly, Christian Concupiscence doctrine has for necessary condition the blood of Jesus for Salvation, but no one is for that saying that Jesus might not save people of other religions, however necessary He may be in the process.

To not acknowledge this is such a betrayal of obvious misunderstanding of really very basic theology that I contest the ability of these Pew people to be trusted with the reputation of Gospel truth-sayers they're currently endowed with by in-the-know statistics-wise people like you... and Pew are a bunch of people whom I frankly have nothing personal against, n'est-ce-pas, I don't care about the data either way, frankly, hein, if accurate as you say, it just shows that people agree with mainstream Catholicism, albeit probably for the wrong reasons, and the poll didn't analyze the motivations, just the positions.

[got tonkaed]

The problem with that line of analysis is clearly that the researchers are under a clear compulsion not to act on any prior understanding they have of theology. To do so will inevitably slant the results in directions before the responders can have a role. I am not saying value-free research is the only way to go, or that in all approaches is it the best way to go, but you certainly are going to have a hard time doing surveys if you are going to write them from any particular theological thrust.

The reason why they betray as you say the relatively easy to understand doctrinal stance is because they are relying entirely on self-reporting. Their job is to have the respondent give as honest and little persuaded answer as possible. If an individual is not aware of theological elements of the religion they adhere to, that has to show up in the results, the interviewer is asking questions not teaching. Its certainly well within reason to suggest the reason why we get these type of statistics in questions that people feel are vague is because doctrine (while incredibly important) is not the only thing people consider in terms of their religious life. If i were to hazard a guess your being slightly too forgiving to the greater populace in terms of their own theological literacy.

[Napoleon Ier]

AHA! But then, responding that you don't believe in Jesus being necessary for Salvation, whilst something no self-respecting Christian with a bit of Bible Study/Aquinas under his belt would dream of doing, comes across as indicating that you're an intolerant prick who wants other religions to have their members burn Hell.

In short, yet another Campaign of Hatred is being waged a so-called "scientific institute" being manipulated to pursue a hardline anti-Christian agenda to demonize anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ to further the aims of the grand Judeo-Masonic lobby on social issues. The result? Another few hundred babies mutilated beyond recognition under the butcher's tools left to die in agonizing pain over several hours if not days in soiled bin-lining bags, and anyone pointing out the barbarity if this being ostracized and witch-tried.

Pew Research: Official Supporters of the Baby-Holocaust, est.1974.

[got tonkaed]

AHA! But then, responding that you don't believe in Jesus being necessary for Salvation, whilst something no self-respecting Christian with a bit of Bible Study/Aquinas under his belt would dream of doing, comes across as indicating that you're an intolerant prick who wants other religions to have their members burn Hell.

In short, yet another attempt by a so-called "scientific institute" being manipulated to pursue a hardline anti-Catholic Campaign of Hatred.

I wouldnt go so far, as i think youve brought out your jumping to conclusions mat (office space reference). The idea is if such people are out there, they need to be quanitifed correctly. The fact that the option is offered suggests that it is true, and i think its borne out. The point is, these people are just doing the research, if their finding was that people tend to hold opinions that there is a singular path to eternal life they would report it as such. The fact that they ask people of different faiths (not just christian) regarding their opinions on eternal life similar questions should show your maybe stretching it here.

I think your also blending different questions here together. There were a number of identification questions related to individuals beliefs in how they personally are going to attain eternal life. Unlike the question in which you provided which was a bit narrow, coupling their responses together on that question with the exclusivity questions allows us to answer the following questions.

How do individuals understand God? Is God an entity with which people believe they can have a relationship? (both questions with confidence added of course) Is there a way to attain eternal life? Is the religion which you practice the only way?

The fact that all of these questions are on there suggest it is far cleaner again than you suggest. Also religion surveys and anti-catholic propaganda are thankfully not the same thing.


Also i caught you before the edit.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah, sorry about the edit. I've had an obscenely bad day.

[got tonkaed]

Yeah, sorry about the edit. I've had an obscenely bad day.

ah, well my favorite sports team of all time just lost every single game they played, making me a proud fan of the worst team in history.

Not that sports are on the same level as things of serious concern, but i suck at picking winning people to support.

[mpjh]

Well, I guess we have heard thoroughly from the "The poll is screwed up" crowd.

I was initially interested in this poll because is suggested that American Christians were are relatively tolerant, empathetic, and tolerant lot. I took some solace in that conclusion because we are so often confronted with dogmatists telling us what is spiritually wrong with the opposing faith.

Truth is, the poll results did confirm somewhat my experience with Christians. I have found in real life that they are very tolerant of other faiths, and that the rabid doctrinaire types are a small group of limited real influence. It is also consistent with my experience in seminary when we visited quite regularly with other faiths (back in the days of Pope John's ecumenicalism).

So I saw hope in a widespread quality of ecumenicalism among my fellow humans in this poll.

[Aradhus]

1/ Since no-one else could be arsed to step up and argue with someone suffering the debating equivalent of Tourette syndrome.

You couldn't just try humility for once, and you know, apologise for claiming that you speak for all.. Instead of pulling some silly little insult out of your ass.

2/Is they now. Well hurrah for grammatically incorrect ad hominem which does nothing but sully the otherwise enjoyable and mind-expanding online debating experience of the good patrons of this internet forum.

its an editing error actually. I deleted halves of two sentences and merged them, and I didn't notice. Also, my post was the first in this topic, and its subject was YOU. Which makes your ad hominem statement wrong, and a little clueless.

3/By that comment in order for it to make any sense I'm going to have to read that you mean that it's rather telling that I'd call an obvious troll on his decision to misrepresent a data set and mislead an audience into believing that a series of obscene conclusions followed from his empirical evidence.

He merely posted the poll, he didn't collect the information, and he didn't present it in a biased manner. You're the troll. So obviously trying to wind up anybody who's opinion differs even the slightest margin from your own(often nonsensical) opinion.

4/A dedicated commitment to Truth and to high standards in debating.

Lots of words, stupid little phrases, and insults does not denote high standards. Most of your posts have no substance, no linked information, no credible sources. They are nothing more than you taking your ego for a stroll through your mental dictionary. Desperately overcompensating for some mental weakness.

[luns101]

I was initially interested in this poll because is suggested that American Christians were are relatively tolerant, empathetic, and tolerant lot. I took some solace in that conclusion because we are so often confronted with dogmatists telling us what is spiritually wrong with the opposing faith.

Truth is, the poll results did confirm somewhat my experience with Christians. I have found in real life that they are very tolerant of other faiths, and that the rabid doctrinaire types are a small group of limited real influence. It is also consistent with my experience in seminary when we visited quite regularly with other faiths (back in the days of Pope John's ecumenicalism).

So I saw hope in a widespread quality of ecumenicalism among my fellow humans in this poll.

One of the things I've found hard to break through on this site is relating my own beliefs about Christ to others because of terrible experiences they've had in the past. I came across as one of the dogmatists that you spoke of towards a couple of people from the UK (Guiscard, Stopper, and Bertros Bertros come to mind right off the bat).

I think part of the frustration comes from those of us in the Christian camp being labeled as fairy tale adherents, rabid, and judgmental. Nobody likes to be thought of in that light so the natural reaction is to come back strong like Nap is doing.

Let me just say this - the reason I cannot compromise the message of the Bible is because the consequences are so tremendously eternal. The Bible is clear that you and I are sinners in need of redemption. The only way to obtain redemption is by repenting of your sin and turning to Jesus Christ for it. (I know you've probably already heard this but just in case...you know). I can't water-down that message just for the sake of having people say nice things about me, especially if I truly care about another person's soul. I've got to stand up for the truth at some point even if 99% of people in a poll say otherwise.

It's my wish that we could show the world more of what we truly believe by caring for the sick, homeless, and despondent. I like discussing things on the internet and defending the gospel message but in reality...it's more fulfilling to help those in need of a blanket or a hot meal.

[Kaplowitz]

What's a "Jesus"?

[mpjh]

I was initially interested in this poll because is suggested that American Christians were are relatively tolerant, empathetic, and tolerant lot. I took some solace in that conclusion because we are so often confronted with dogmatists telling us what is spiritually wrong with the opposing faith.

Truth is, the poll results did confirm somewhat my experience with Christians. I have found in real life that they are very tolerant of other faiths, and that the rabid doctrinaire types are a small group of limited real influence. It is also consistent with my experience in seminary when we visited quite regularly with other faiths (back in the days of Pope John's ecumenicalism).

So I saw hope in a widespread quality of ecumenicalism among my fellow humans in this poll.

One of the things I've found hard to break through on this site is relating my own beliefs about Christ to others because of terrible experiences they've had in the past. I came across as one of the dogmatists that you spoke of towards a couple of people from the UK (Guiscard, Stopper, and Bertros Bertros come to mind right off the bat).

I think part of the frustration comes from those of us in the Christian camp being labeled as fairy tale adherents, rabid, and judgmental. Nobody likes to be thought of in that light so the natural reaction is to come back strong like Nap is doing.

Let me just say this - the reason I cannot compromise the message of the Bible is because the consequences are so tremendously eternal. The Bible is clear that you and I are sinners in need of redemption. The only way to obtain redemption is by repenting of your sin and turning to Jesus Christ for it. (I know you've probably already heard this but just in case...you know). I can't water-down that message just for the sake of having people say nice things about me, especially if I truly care about another person's soul. I've got to stand up for the truth at some point even if 99% of people in a poll say otherwise.

It's my wish that we could show the world more of what we truly believe by caring for the sick, homeless, and despondent. I like discussing things on the internet and defending the gospel message but in reality...it's more fulfilling to help those in need of a blanket or a hot meal.

See this is what I don't get. I don't see the poll as creating an opportunity to proselytize. I see it as an opportunity to recognize a bit of our human condition, to see some of our commonality. So, luns, I don't think you have to talk about Jesus in discussing the poll. Rather this is an opportunity to take a look beyond the confines of your belief and see a bit of what others expect from religion. there is no requirement, in fact is is best not, to proselytize.

What's a "Jesus"?

Try google.

[luns101]

See this is what I don't get. I don't see the poll as creating an opportunity to proselytize. I see it as an opportunity to recognize a bit of our human condition, to see some of our commonality. So, luns, I don't think you have to talk about Jesus in discussing the poll. Rather this is an opportunity to take a look beyond the confines of your belief and see a bit of what others expect from religion. there is no requirement, in fact is is best not, to proselytize.

Although I don't have to talk about Jesus in discussing the poll, I think it is necessary to because the poll itself made the point that living a good life is equivalent with trusting in Christ in order to gain admission to heaven. That directly contradicts what the Biblical position is. The title of this thread also mentions Jesus. So how we don't discuss Him when He is basically the subject of both the poll and the title of this thread is a bit perplexing.

Of course we need to take a look beyond our own belief in order to understand other people. Like I said, just because someone has a different set of religious principles doesn't mean that everything within their belief system is worthless.

What you view as "confining" or "restrictive" I see as liberating and joyful. Since Jesus Christ is the focal point of that truth claim it would be almost impossible to not even mention Him in the discussion.

....going up to Lake Arrowhead now. Everyone have a Happy New Year!

[mpjh]

Actually, your views are fairly standard for many believers. There are many who find joy outside the religious context. I thought this poll was interesting because it seems many Christians are willing to accept that as reasonable and good.

[Backglass]

You may not be bleeding, but you are not even saying anything of actual worth. Every one of your posts has been the same thing over and over again. Kind of like what one can go see in Flame Wars on any given day. Actually, exactly like what anyone can go see in Flame Wars on any given day. A trough of pig slop mixed with something about fairy tales is all you actually post on the matter.

Ohhh! I am bleeding now! Unworthy only in your cult-deluded eyes. Like it not, paragraphs of endless verbage are not needed to call your (and all) religions what they are. A trough of pig-slop mixed with something about fairy tales.

....going up to Lake Arrowhead now. Everyone have a Happy New Year!

And the same to you my friend! Enjoy the lake with a cold one for me!

[Napoleon Ier]

Like it not, paragraphs of endless verbage are not needed to call your (and all) religions what they are. A trough of pig-slop mixed with something about fairy tales.

Yeah, this is what you keep saying, but have yet to produce any substantiating evidence for it.

[mpjh]

What's a "Jesus"?

A famous rock star, haven't you heard of him?

[brooksieb]

It's obvious isn't it? god actually may not be a man with magical powers, for all we know he could be a man on a computer, or for you athiests, a man that created us in a test tube, god is many different things for many different people.

[Backglass]

Yeah, this is what you keep saying, but have yet to produce any substantiating evidence for it.

And neither have those that believe in such supernatural creatures.