Rick Reuben wrote:Sellout liberals love to fight battles that can never be decided. Their endless supply of hot air must be directed somewhere.

The irony of this quote is astonishing.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote: Can a theist be an agnostic?

No. A theist expresses full belief in a deity.

Your definition.

Both Christians and Muslims are commanded to express full belief in their God.

Non sequitur.

God does not permit doubt. The command to believe fully always applies.

You know what God commands?

Mark Van Deel wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:They have attempted to create a hybrid third position of agnostic-atheism, which is for scared people who, because of peer pressure, are afraid to say they believe in God, and also, because of fear of God, they refuse to deny God outright, like an atheist is supposed to do.

They haven't attempted to create a hybrid. They've acknowledged what the word agnostic actually fucking means. Atheism is a position regarding belief. Agnosticism is a position regarding knowledge. There is no clear distinction, because the words refer to separate (but related) concepts. Knowledge is not a synonym for belief. You've fastened yourself onto a popular misconception of what the word 'agnostic' means, and you're clinging on for dear life, in spite of all the actual, factual, indisputable evidence that it doesn't mean what you think it means, because your belligerent and deliberate misunderstanding of the word makes it easier to argue for your ridiculously oversimplified position.

Couldn't have said it better myself

If the bible shows "travelling through periods of doubt" as one of the key ways to arrive at true belief, how can it be forbidden?

Before the crucifixian, everyone involved had a symbolic moment of doubt and Jesus himself doubted three times.

Assuming that the Bible is a good document for what God might find faithful, we can see that theism allows for doubt, whereas religiosity doesn't. As Jesus himself illustrated with the parables of the Pharisees.

As far as the Torah goes, the following figures had a symbolic moment of doubt:

-Abraham
-Adam
-Moses
-Aaron
-Job
-Saul
-David
-Ezekial
-Solomon
-Isaiah (crucially, because his work is almost a first draft of the Gospel)

I could go on. In fact, as I list them, it is hard for me to think of a great figure of Jewish religion who didn't have a symbolic moment of doubt. It seems to me that the zero-tolerance approach was inserted by organisation, not the religious text itself. If you have a case of elitism here, you should make it, if only to add a second leg to the trembling stool that you're pirouetting on.

Oh and:

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:I think I see where you are failing to understand here.

You are talking about whether or not someone knows.

Nope. Many others are inserting the word 'know' where it does not belong, but not me. The three categories of atheist, theist, and agnostic are all decided solely on what one believes, not on what one knows.

You miss the point like Ray Charles on Bullseye.

How can anyone ever know how much they know? How can they classify their own ideology as either "belief" or "knowledge"? Based on knowledge that they can never have.

big_dave wrote:Before the crucifixian, everyone involved had a symbolic moment of doubt and Jesus himself doubted three times.
.

I believe it was Peter who de-neighed Jesus three times, but I might be wrong as I am not up on my bible study.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:You know what God commands?

I know what is written about him, which is all that anyone knows about God.

A theist expresses full belief in a deity.

Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

What does "full belief" mean that there is no room for doubt? If that's what you mean I don't see that contained in the above definition, you can be a theist and still be agnostic the word means without knowledge jesus christ just go look it up. I've met brick walls that were less dense than you.

I guess we can add theology to the list of things Rick is an expert in alongside economics, sociology, psychology, etc... jesus dude where did you find the time to get all these degrees are you a professor with tenure? Is this why you have so much free time on your hands?

yaledelay wrote:

big_dave wrote:Before the crucifixian, everyone involved had a symbolic moment of doubt and Jesus himself doubted three times.
.

I believe it was Peter who de-neighed Jesus three times, but I might be wrong as I am not up on my bible study.

Jesus doubted at least three times, maybe more depending on how you read the text. Peter's denial isn't doubt. Peter is the rock, he believed in Jesus and denied deliberately so he would not be arrested. His single mindedness earned his name, which is why he is shown to be denying Jesus to save his own skin. Considering that he considered the first Pope, this passage makes a good 1500 years of human history seem like a sick satirical gag.

Jesus himself is also "tempted" during his forty days of fasting in the wilderness. Whether or not this is actual doubt is down to whatever religion we are discussing. The Catholic and Puritan readings are both very clear in that he didn't doubt at all.

First there is the transfiguration. I don't know about Prots, but in the Catholic canon Jesus is said to be asking his father if he is indeed to die.

Next there is the "agony", in Gethsemane he directly asks God if he has to die and plans to refuse. That he doubted here is perhaps one of the most important things for Christianity, his doubt officially begins the suffering of the passion as the previous chapters describe the conspiracy and the fulfullment of the old testament.

While on the cross he doubts and cries "Why have you forsaken me?" and is only convinced of his righteousness by forgiving the criminal who is crucified next to him, when he is mocked by another executed man.

That is three times, but you could read the numerous accounts of temptation and other weirdness (Jesus having his feet washed by the women's hair, Jesus washing the feet of his followers) of being symbolic moments of doubt. Also worth noting that he denies his divinity whenever asked outright, and twice relies on others to say it on his behalf (Judas' kiss, and the reply to Pilate).

Rick Reuben wrote:

eva03 wrote:What does "full belief" mean

Being an agnostic theist is like cheating on your wife. "Oh, I love you, honey, but I need a little something on the side."

[/freud]

Either say, "I believe in God, period." or say, "I choose not to express a belief in God, period."

And it's the atheists who are fascists?

:bloodfart: