>A religion is the cumulative result of thousands of years of culture and thought. Googling some random Biblical phrases isn’t really much of an argument...especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself.
Whether the result is derived from 10,000 hours of research or 5 minutes of googling is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the veracity of the main point.
For example if I google the statistics about the population within the united states, I receive the result in seconds, the speed in which I found the results has nothing to do with the accuracy of the results.
The method to prove sources wrong is to offer counter sources. Not to declare it invalid because it came from google.
> especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself.
When people refer to Christians they don't refer to the bible or some religious document they refer to the people representing the religion as a whole, aka "the majority of Christians." Such was what I was referring to. Thus by your own logic are you admitting that the "majority of Christians" believe god is king/dictator? If so there is no validity in calling me ignorant as you are specifically slicing the definition of christian to refer to a specific interpretation of the bible.
>And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic.
How does the etymology of a word have to do with anything? The arena for this discussion is not an anthropology or linguistics class, the arena of discussion is the internet therefore only the colloquial definition of "dictator" applies. Again I googled a source and cited it as the definition of the word "dictator" and that definition applies to my point.
>I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense.
This is an insult to an entire demographic of people with differing beliefs. Why? Because no reasonable person believes that being unable to assemble an argument in 5 minutes means that the argument is invalid. Any reasonable person knows this. Therefore, for you to declare this as true for an entire demographic is an deliberate and targeted insult. Very unchristian like.
If you can't assemble an argument using google results then that simply means you can't construct an argument given the time frame and context and that you have failed to convince me and anyone reading this about the validity of your arguments. It doesn't mean your argument is not true, nobody on earth believes this. We all know that every argument is subject to disproof at any time. There is no need do disparage an entire demographic just because you can't articulate your argument at this point in time.
>Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it.
You're obviously not an atheist. Given these statements, my guess is that you're either part of some other Judaic sect or you just believe in your own interpretation of the bible. What you are and your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant because my comment was directed at "the majority of Christians." Your argument seems to be coming from a different angle that is off topic.
Also you cite a bunch of sources from the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. I would argue that the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy is a bad source for the topic at hand. Standford is an academic institution where many researchers tend to believe in the scientific method over the faith based tenets of Christians. Such contradictory tenets make it a shaky source. When asking the question: What do the "majority of Christians" believe in? .... the academic institution of Stanford is a biased source. Instead of asking Stanford, it's better to directly ask "the majority of Christians" instead.
Additionally philosophy is sort of an objective look at the religion and trying to codify all the concepts, contradictions and connections into universal vocabulary. This is not the point of my argument. The point of my example is what people in the world actually believe. And It very much looks like "The Majority of Christians" believe god is king.
Your best bet here to convince me and other people reading is to find some document that examines the definition of the word "king" and "lord" within this proverb:
"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."
-Revelation 19:13, 16
Basically if you can prove that Christianity reinterprets the word "lord" and "king" to mean something other than the colloquial definition of the term "dictatorship" and that the "majority of Christians" believe that definition then you're right.
Religion and many human mythological beliefs are not immune to contradiction so arguing for some contradictory theological concept won't exactly prove anything if you still have millions of Christians chanting "God is king" at church every Sunday. Christians can believe god is a dictator at the same time they can also believe in freewill, such is the fallacy of human thinking. But don't all dictators grant their subjects free will anyway? "You're free to oppose me but then I'll execute you (make you burn in hell)."
If you fail to respond with anything substantial it could be because of what you said: It's not your job to do research for me or other readers of HN. Other readers of HN and I will of course consider this as a possibility, but of course we will also consider the possibility that you can't find anything substantial because you know you're wrong.