Why dont you tell me. Your the athiest.

Thanks for obviously dodging the question.

And I didnt say anybody should. What I said was that shouting 'OTHER CHRISTIANS DISAGREE' is not a valid response to any interpertation I present.

That's the logical conclusion of what you said for one. Secondly, I haven't simply shouted that other Xians disagree. To characterize it as that is to mis-characterize it.

To use an example from the other thread: If I hold an opinion on original sin that runs contrary to popular fundemlists understandings of the doctrine, that doesnt mean that my understanding is wrong.

Ah, but you did claim that their understanding was wrong or that when their understanding was described (which BTW, your understanding is not the mainstream or the historical) it was called wrong by you. Now, you change your story?

No dont understand because they make arguemnts that show a lack of knowldge on the subject.

Usually, because they don't agree with the particular theist who is complaining.

But some(not all, and if I may add generally not Ebon) are considerably less careful about implying it.

I forgot, you can (reliably) sense when someone doesn't say something that you want them to say that they really are implying it.

even if its not, its justifiable to say they're wrong.

One isn't wrong simply because they disagree with you, or are you infallible?

On some points, yes.

If we understood the way god intends and it makes sense, then why would we not believe?

Why dont you tell me. Your the athiest.

It's simply not the case that we should all agree that your interpretation is correct until it's proven wrong,

And I didnt say anybody should. What I said was that shouting 'OTHER CHRISTIANS DISAGREE' is not a valid response to any interpertation I present.

To use an example from the other thread: If I hold an opinion on original sin that runs contrary to popular fundemlists understandings of the doctrine, that doesnt mean that my understanding is wrong.

Don't understand because they disagree?

No dont understand because they make arguemnts that show a lack of knowldge on the subject. To go back to what I posted earlier: if Ebon points towards verses in the Bible and says they point against preterist beliefs, without even bothering to deal with how preterists interperate them, then he obviously doesnt have a good understanding of the preterist position(or he's dishonestly giving the apperance that we are ignoring and/or unaware of these verses).

Most atheists are pretty careful not to say this.

But some(not all, and if I may add generally not Ebon) are considerably less careful about implying it.

If it's a legitimate mistake, then yes.

even if its not, its justifiable to say they're wrong.

Parables are an excellent way to present complex ideas.

That's not what he says though, is it?

understanding =/= to believeing. As athiests frequently demonstrate.

2 things:
1. Now atheists do understand?
2. If we understood the way god intends and it makes sense, then why would we not believe?

I'v no interest in making everybody agree with me. So I have no burden.

Wrong. You are making the positive claim, so the burden is upon you. Whether you decide to meet your burden of proof or not is up to you. It's simply not the case that we should all agree that your interpretation is correct until it's proven wrong, because then we would have to hold that all interpretations are correct until proven wrong, which we simply can't do (cognitive dissonance). Actually, this is a good example that I should have used on the other thread.

A. They criticize a belief they dont understand(As per my above example.

Don't understand because they disagree? That's not the same thing. Also, pointing out the logical conclusions of a belief is often met with the same charge, simple because the logical conclusion is one that the theist doesn't believe in (even though it follows logically) or simply doesn't want to accept.

B. They say(or imply) that all Christains believe something, when they dont.

Most atheists are pretty careful not to say this.

In Either of these its perfectly justifiable to call them out on the mistake.

If it's a legitimate mistake, then yes.

Parables are an excellent way to present complex ideas. Do you really think its that hard to grasp the point of the good Samaritan tale?

and why does he state that most humanity will go to hell?

understanding =/= to believeing. As athiests frequently demonstrate.

You've got the burden of proof wrong again. If you put forth an interpretation, it is up to you to support it.

I'v no interest in making everybody agree with me. So I have no burden.

I'm not going to argue that here, although most times what the theist means is that the atheist doesn't understand because the atheist isn't addressing that particular theist's interpretation, so therefore it means the atheist is stupid, uninformed, flogging a strawman, etc, instead of the theist recognizing that not everyone agrees with her.

I can actually agree here. Although I'v seen cases where either

A. They criticize a belief they dont understand(As per my above example.

B. They say(or imply) that all Christains believe something, when they dont.

In Either of these its perfectly justifiable to call them out on the mistake.

It is clear enouogh to get the basics and achieve salvation.

If that were true, then why does Jesus say he speaks in parables, and why does he state that most humanity will go to hell?

Thats partly because The Bible was written by a particular group of people living at a particular time and place to a particular group of people living at a particular time and place.

Well, we are not those people and not in that time in place, so I'll continue to disregard the Bible with your blessing.

Because it's consistant with what we know of history, science(yes science), literture, and what the Bible says.

So, your interpretation of what the Bible says is consistent with what the Bible says? And, how do you show that your interpretations are consistent with history, science, and literature?

That said I'm willing to discuss an issue if somebody things an interpertation I hold is problomatic, but simply shouting 'OTHER CHRISTIANS DISAGREE' at the top of your lungs isnt gonna cut it, show me WHY their interpertations are valid, or mine are in error.

You've got the burden of proof wrong again. If you put forth an interpretation, it is up to you to support it.

However there are cases of athiests critiquing a belief when they clearly dont understand it.

I'm not going to argue that here, although most times what the theist means is that the atheist doesn't understand because the atheist isn't addressing that particular theist's interpretation, so therefore it means the atheist is stupid, uninformed, flogging a strawman, etc, instead of the theist recognizing that not everyone agrees with her.

Maybe thats because its patently absurd to expect us to write out every facet of our beliefs.

What's even more patently absurd is the theist to make pronouncement or arguments, not define their terms, and then attack the atheist for not being able to mind-read and know what the theist personally believes. This is especially so if it would take 20 pages to outline your beliefs and that would still not catch every nuance. It's also absurd to argue that without arguing against every single little nuance that the meta belief can not be criticized or argued against, which is the other part of the Courtier's Reply fallacy.

That might be in part because it is athiests who claim to have 'examined the evidence' or say they are 'educated'(the implication being that theists are ignorant).

What you personally believe about what color the emperor's new clothes are has very little to do with the evidence as to whether the emperor is actually wearing clothes at all.

It is clear enouogh to get the basics and achieve salvation. Its not as clear on the specifics. Thats partly because The Bible was written by a particular group of people living at a particular time and place to a particular group of people living at a particular time and place. And partly because I dont believe God ever planed to give us a COMPLETE revelation.

Also why is your interpretation the right one:

Because it's consistant with what we know of history, science(yes science), literture, and what the Bible says.

That said I'm willing to discuss an issue if somebody things an interpertation I hold is problomatic, but simply shouting 'OTHER CHRISTIANS DISAGREE' at the top of your lungs isnt gonna cut it, show me WHY their interpertations are valid, or mine are in error.

why are you a true christian and the fundementalist not?

I wouldnt say fundimentlists arent 'true Christians' I have little doubt most of them are saved(assuming they actually believe, which I have no good reason to doubt). That doesnt mean some of their beliefs arent in error.

Additionally, the Courtier's Reply fallacy is a method of telling atheists to shut up unless they know every nuance of every possible interpretation, which is obviously unnecessary when critiquing a specific ideology.

A fair enough point, if you are critiquing a particular belief, its not necessary to have comprehensive knowldge of alternitive interpertations/beliefs. However there are cases of athiests critiquing a belief when they clearly dont understand it. We'll use an example from Ebon's site:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/2000years.html

However, preterism cannot stand: the events of the Olivet Discourse unmistakably are meant to precede the end of the world. Mark and Luke's versions of this episode do not state this explicitly, but Matthew's does:

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" --Matthew 24:1-3 (KJV)
Jesus then goes on to list the same signs as he does in the other gospels. The clear message of this text is that these signs are meant to precede the end of the world and not simply some local event. But for the reasons given above, these events have necessarily either happened already or not at all, and yet the world has not ended. Either way, the prophetic claims of the Olivet Discourse are false.

Ebon notes later one that word 'world' here is better translated as 'age'(which changes the meaning of the verse considerably and fits with Jewish expectations of a future 'Age of the Messiah') but dismisses it as 'imporbible'(never mind thats what the Greek word aion ACTUALLY means).

Further confirmation is supplied by additional verses from Matthew. First, Matthew 24:22 states that God has mercifully shortened the tribulation period, and if he had not, "there should no flesh be saved". Obviously, there would be no danger of a local conflict killing everyone on the planet no matter how long it lasted. Matthew 24:30 likewise states that "all the tribes of the earth" will be able to see the Son of Man's coming in the clouds when it occurs, which only makes sense if what is being described is a global event.

Preterists have their own interpertations of these verses. But Ebon fails to even make a note of this. Much less attempt to deal with what we believe these verses are talking about.

That's why it is incumbent upon the theist to outline his/her beliefs, yet we rarely ever get a theist that is willing to do that,

Maybe thats because its patently absurd to expect us to write out every facet of our beliefs. It would take at least 20 pages to do so. And even then I gurantee I wont catch every nuience of what I believe.

That said, I do present my own beliefs on a subject when I hear an athiest critiquing a belief I dont hold(or more often I'll just step out of the way and let them go). But I keep it to the subject at hand.

instead wanting only to complain that we atheists can't ever get their personal, specific beliefs right.

That might be in part because it is athiests who claim to have 'examined the evidence' or say they are 'educated'(the implication being that theists are ignorant). Both which imply tey have at least a fairly comprehensive understanding of theistic beliefs.

I disagree. Most athiests are familar with FUNDIMENTLIST Christian theology. But when it comes to alternitive interpertaions or understandings of the Christian faith, they come up lost, often not even aware there are other ways of reading the Bible.

Pretty much everyone here recognises there are many ways to interpret the Bible. Personally I understand why that should be when any god worthy of the name should be capable of being clear enough. Also why is your interpretation the right one:why are you a true christian and the fundementalist not?

I disagree. Most athiests are familar with FUNDIMENTLIST Christian theology. But when it comes to alternitive interpertaions or understandings of the Christian faith, they come up lost, often not even aware there are other ways of reading the Bible.

I cant count the number of times I'v listened to an athiest critique some fundimilist belief and I'v responed with either 'I agree' or 'Thats nice, I dont believe that.'

I could cite a few examples of Ebons site, where he either ignores my views or attempts to deal with them in a way that makes it clear he doesnt understand them.