You haven't even TRIED to address Shoe Myth #1 yet. You seem to be focused on #2 and that's cool. Let's make that one EASY on you... >"Conservatively there are now 400 million Christian >charismatics worldwide. And where in 1906 less that >1 % of the world Christian communion was charismatic, >today at least 25 % is." Ok Shoe, I'm gonna do you a BIG favor here -- I'm gonna stipulate. Rather than collecting evangelical numbers from the evangelicals I will go with you and collect my evangelical numbers from the speach of an athiest. So, for the sake of this conversation I will stipulate that the evangelicals constitute 25% of the christian population and then we can move on. WOW!!!!!!!!! 25% OF THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION AGREES WITH EACH OTHER REGARDING CORE DOCTRINE. Well no offense, but woopie freakin' do. Next, we move on to the REST of the christian world where large segments CAN'T agree on core doctrine such as the path to salvation (and how much more core can you get then that?) Later. JB PS, notice Shoe that none of the referenced web sites are "materialist" sites. I'm keeping things as fair as I can.
Okay, I'm with you guys now. The site you listed quoted some of the top Christian researchers in that area - guys that I respect - so I'm checking it out in greater detail. Some of the numbers don't make sense to me, so I'm checking it out... And, yes, I'm sticking to one topic at a time...
I'm laughing cuzz you guys are probably going nearly catatonic with this and I'm thoroughly enjoying myself.
Recapping I see an predictable pattern arising from the shoeshine..... Step 1, ShoeshineBoy: "All I can say is that your numbers are simply leaving out the explosive growth of charismatic and evangelical Christianity. I'm afraid it is your researcher that is living in the dream world..." Step 2, ShoeshineBoy: Yeah, right! Keep dreaming guys...I'm not done yet anyway... Step 3, TADA.... ShoeshineBoy: Okay, I'm with you guys now. The site you listed quoted some of the top Christian researchers in that area - guys that I respect - so I'm checking it out in greater detail. Some of the numbers don't make sense to me, so I'm checking it out... And, yes, I'm sticking to one topic at a time... Step 4, ShoeshineBoy: I'm laughing cuzz you guys are probably going nearly catatonic with this and I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. Step 5, ummmm.... Okay, total Christians is matching within 100 million...not bad... ___________________ Going on past history, this may well be the point where shoheshine now brings up the "Incredible Lunar Event" assertion. Another in a long line of unchecked, unconnected Argument by Assertion attempts, as a counter to the evidence from Turok and axeman's commentry which dispelled his two previous Argument by Assertions. However, I have a feeling this will notdeter shoeshine from calling upon the now infamous Argument by Assertions... Shoe Myth #1 & Shoe Myth #2 , in weak support of blind insistence for something or other in the future. My question is WHY? Why would anyone want to keep hurling blind assertion around as a form of argument??
damir, I appreciate the point you make and think I understand it. I think in fairness though I was talking in regard to the Judeo Christian religionist in the context of 'Christ and dying for sin' etc. They do and must proclaim there is but one god. However a religionist by definition, would be someone who expresses devotion to a deity and if you are saying, no Jew manifests a devotion to a deity, then indeed my statement would be false in that respect. However I do not understand that to be the case. I stand corrected if I am wrong. The conclusion I think must follow. If it is nothing but allegorical and remains nothing but allegorical then it is not true. A thing is only true in any meaningful term, when it is known of and demonstrated to be so. Until then, as you say, it doesn't matter...or one can examine it for a likelihood of it becoming true or false in a meaningful way. There are probably things in the cosmos that are true and things that are false of which nothing is known. Until they are known and demonstrated as true or false, they are not meaningfully true, not meaningfully false and therefore would not matter. Well fine, millions don't believe in Christ's birthday but it wouldn't or shouldn't stop them enjoying Christmas. That was not the reason for christ's birthday though was it? The idea of writing the Bible was not so that it should be ignored, was it? I would be one of the first to wholeheartedly agree with you...but that is not what I understand religion is about. It is about being... NOT your business but It is the business of the God idea. It contains an implicit threat , which of course does not matter until it permeates through society as a way of separating those who believe the threat, and make it their business to tell others... they are not or cannot be decent (known also to them as believing) human beings because they do not fall for the threat and the God idea. However to confirm, I have no reason to hold as correct the notion that those of the Jewish faith do such a thing. If all that is required, is a respect that a Jew might hold there is G_d , then I have no problem with that, and nor should I. If I am told by a Jew ,or anyone else, there is a God, then I will not have that as a given true. I take your point and it is well made damir, but if I may say, that's not what I am doing. I am saying religionists display devotion to the idea of a (one) deity. Therefore there is an unjustified presupposition that there is a deity when none has been demonstrated to be anything other than an idea. If what you are saying is , religionists do not do that, then I respectfully suggest you are wrong. That a Jew would NOT force his idea of a deity (or religious beliefs) onto another is I think reasonable and respectful of the Jew to other Jews and to people in general. I humbly respect that standpoint. I can assure you, I would only care you were the same.
"judeo christian"??? what, now you're deliberately trying to insult me? first there is no such thing as a "judeo christian religionist" - judaism and c'ianity do not share any more core beliefs with each other than they share with any other major belief system. second, "judeo" in the context of "christ" makes no sense whatsoever. "christ", "dying for sins", etc are completely christian concepts and 100% anathema to judaism. third, if you insist on linking the two faiths like this, "christo jewish" is (ever so slightly) less inappropriate. you are confusing the general with the specific: some - many - Jews do indeed believe in "one g-d". what all Jews do NOT believe is that belief in one g-d is necessary for anybody to live a moral life or to achieve righteousness. belief in g-d is a personal choice for each Jew and not mandated by Judaism. by the definition above a Jew could be a "religionist" but Judaism is not a "religion" - and that makes no sense. oy. i wonder if you realize just how c'ian a viewpoint you yourself are arguing from? Judaism doesn't "tell others" what to believe. why should it? it is a fundamental tenet of Judaism that each of the "70 nations" (allegorical for all non-jews) have their own path and must find that path on their own. Jews do not proslytize - no need to convert because it will not bring you closer to "salvation". this is also true of hinduism and buddhism and many many other major faiths. you are de facto defining "religionist" as evangelical c'ian. what you describe as "religionist" applies only to aggressive c'ianity and no other sub-faith on earth. maybe marginally, to islam. but by your definition hinduis, buddhism, taoism, confucism, etc etc etc - none of the billions and billions of their adherents qualify as "religionists" as they do not meet any of your criteria. you are defining the subset to match your argument, rather than fitting your argument to match the broad definition. what's the point? if you have an issue with a segment of c'ianity, then why not name your concern for what it is and use more specific language than "religionist" which is bound to needlessly upset people?
Stu: :My question is WHY? Why would anyone want :to keep hurling blind assertion around as a :form of argument?? Hey, we should be giving kudos here. Shoe is digging into the numbers and actively working on conclusions. Positive reenforcement. Now, #1 I'm pretty solid on because I found those numbers in quite a number of *christian* places. The ~2% for #2 I wasn't gonna hammer on because it obviously hinges on one particular definition of "Evangelical". What I also knew is that the wildest number that could be ever thrown around for Evangelicals by ANY definition was going to be such a small % of the christian population to make my point. That is why I instantly stipulated the first number the Shoe came back with (~25%). Hell, I'd stipulate 33% because for my point a number like that STILL WORKS FINE. JB
Are you just trying to be irritating?!? The Lunar Event is legitimate. For the last time - and I have posted this before I think twice! - go to this link in space.com and read it if you don't believe me: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/early_earth_010110.html Read about half way down. You'll see that the Lunar Event is a prominent theory held by astonomers today. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. For those interested in a description of the Lunar Event, here is a link: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=348199&highlight=lunar+event#post348199 Aaarggghhh! At least if you are going to accuse me of lying, at least have the good sense and common decency of not choosing something that is widespread throughout the scientific community and the www! You guys also accused me of lying about the multiple life-extinguishing event in the early days of planet earth. Again, look at the above link and you'll see that it's not me saying that - it's secular astronomers!
You also accused me in a past thread of lying about water being so prevalent in planetary formation. I showed you that that IS the case. Water is all over the friggin galaxy and they're just now discovering how prevalent it is on Mars on well. Water was on the early earth in abundance. Please stop accusing me of lying when I'm square in the middle of mainstream science!