|
Post by Destined on May 21, 2007 21:06:15 GMT -5
"This is a big, BIG pitfall of religion - just following a belief because your parents did, or because it's what the pastor says. Whatever you decide to do with your life, please, PLEASE don't just blindly follow. Actually know and understand why you believe what you do and why you live your life as you do."
Now, I'm not TRYING to take this out of context, nor am I trying to interpret the TONE of the thought. However, I'm trying to communicate how it looks to the average viewer who's kept along with this "debate". I know you think you're smarter than Christianity, or you're at least trying to create an image as such. I mean, why else would you be arguing? You're trying to conclude that Christianity is logically, and scientifically impossible because of facts in the scientific field, and THAT is why you're a non-believer.
Is that the ONLY reason? I've seriously forgotten over these past weeks. I can't remember if you named other reasons in old posts that got DELETED! You used to be a Christian, yadayadayada...heard that stuff before.
You gotta love the big pitfall of religion. It's a box we'll never escape. OBVIOUSLY, I'm gathering that you believe we're a majority of lemmings, following the leader into a pool and drowing ourselves. NOW, to an extent, some people DO fit, nice and tidy, into that box. I'm PRETTY sure, though, that every human being comes to that point in life where they either dump religion, pay lipservice to religion out of fear, or become authentic in their faiths.
My friend, the majority of who've responded to you, are NOT lower-level thinkers than you are. I am not. You think we just blindly follow, so much so that you have to PLEAD with us to take a CLOSER look and examine our futile lives? Then not only are you a master of sciences; you are a master of religion, theology, history, apologetics, and philosophy.
If you believe we ARE lower-lever thinkers than yourself because we lack education, or some sort of intelligence you, yourself, possess; I would tend to argue that there are dozens, if not hundreds, and MAYBE thousands of HIGER-level thinkers than yourself, who would tend to lean more towards the direction of Fan, Mishap, and myself, in terms of religion and beliefs.
It's just something to think about as you talk to your PEERS with a certain amount of disrespect in your typed "tone".
Also, for argument's sake, there is the FACT, perhaps theory, perhaps truth, that neither side knows EVERYTHING. So, until we can assertain WHO has working knowledge of all information ever to exist from both ends, we must assume, to some degree, that we are teaching and learning. Perhaps more is going on, on one side than the other, right now, but it could flip-flop.
Carnage, if you must urge US into deeper thinking, I must also urge YOU into understanding. Unless, of course, you feel you know everything in the world about all the areas of study which I mentioned above. If you do, then I got nothing, and you win.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 22, 2007 17:25:50 GMT -5
It's just something to think about as you talk to your PEERS with a certain amount of disrespect in your typed "tone". You should consider those words very carefully. The amount of disrespect towards me in your post is unbelievable. Your post came off as being extremely prideful, especially the part about "I know you think you're smarter" and "OBVIOUSLY, I'm gathering that you believe we're a majority of lemmings". Based on your comments, I dont' even know why I'm bothering to respond. What I said (that you quoted) is something that can be a problem with ANY PERSON. If you don't analyze/understand what you believe/know, then you are a fool. Plain and simple. I know why I choose to live my life as I do. I have taken the time to work through ideas and wrestle with sticky philosophical issues. Is it too much to urge others to do the same? The only reason why you wouldn't want someone to analyze their beliefs is a reason of fear. You're afraid that they'll come to a different conclusion than you did, or in the case of religion, you're afraid that they'll decide to leave said religion. I can't help it if I come off as being intelligent or a "high level thinker." You can't help what you are. I'm definitely not trying to be boastful here, but hell, I have a near genius level IQ. Other grad students have told me that at times they feel intimidated by my intellect. This happens while I'm downplaying my intellect. I don't "show off" - I'm not one that goes about trying to impress people with what I know. I don't sit in lectures and answer every question or ask deep theoretical queries. I don't study for hours and try to get a perfect score on everything. But it still comes through. I can't help what I am, sorry. I'm a non-believer because of several reasons. One is that there's no hardcore evidence supporting any religion. That's why they're religions/belief systems. I see no reason to dedicate my life to a cause that seems to have no real purpose. Two is that, based on what I've seen, christianity is not anything special/spectacular. Many (all?) of the churches I've been to don't really seem to be anything close to the "early church" of the new testament. It seems like all too often the christians in the modern churches are of the "cafeteria style" variety - they pick and choose which biblical principles to follow and when they want to follow them. In some cases, it's the "we go to church on sunday, but we're back drinking on monday" mindset (feel free to substitute your favorite vice for "drinking" in that analogy). Yet this style of christian seems to be embraced by many people in the church. What's up with that? Three is that why should I go with christianity over any of the myriad of other religions/beliefs? What makes one any better than the rest? What makes one any more correct than the rest? Even within christianity, you have the question of which denomination do you go with? If it's all so cut-and-dry, they why can't the christians even get along with each other? Finally, four is that I don't need religion. I don't need some book or some pastor or some "tradition" to tell me how to live my life. I can do that just fine on my own. In fact, I can live a fairly "moral" life on my own. I've done that pretty damn well over the past few years. I've had people ask me if I was a christian or religious person because I don't act too terribly different than many christians and religious people. And you know, I don't act the way I do because of what a holy book says. I act the way I do because I've chosen to - because I've seriously considered life as a whole and asked myself what I should be doing.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 22, 2007 21:40:52 GMT -5
Do you even understand what the word "theory" means in science? A theory is not just a guess. A theory is something that has been shown to be true time and time again, and has a good deal of evidence supporting it. It is just before a scientific law in the hierarchy. So a theory is very, very close to what (I gather) you would call a truth. And how many "theories" have proved false in the past? A very great many fit this criteria and have been since acknowledged as falsified by newer "theories". It's normal scientific progress to reject an old theory, engage in a frantic period of wild experimentation, then accept a new one. You are very smart. You attack creationism because that is the one idea I showed support for that was not in turn directly supported by the evidence I did present, which you conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 22, 2007 21:45:35 GMT -5
I've had people ask me if I was a christian or religious person because I don't act too terribly different than many christians and religious people. And you know, I don't act the way I do because of what a holy book says. I act the way I do because I've chosen to - because I've seriously considered life as a whole and asked myself what I should be doing. Perhaps you don't act the way you do because of a holy book, but one holy book certainly acknowledges people like you exist. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202 Verses 14 and 15. For some reason the direct link would not work.
|
|
|
Post by Destined on May 22, 2007 22:04:13 GMT -5
I think your objections are fair, but they HAVE been addressed before by absolutely BRILLIANT men, many times. I'm not gonna go through them INDEPTH unless you want me to.
1. This is not true about hardcore evidence. First, not to get REALLY picky, but the PURPOSE of believing has NOTHING to do with hardcore evidence supporting religion. They're not even related. You not devoting to a belief system, because you believe there lacks a purpose, is one thing. You not devoting to a belieft system based on hardcore scientific evidence is another. Religions all over the WORLD have purpose. Those purposes can be VERY real, and you can choose to ignore that purpose, however, some religions, more than others, have science ALSO going for them.
Doctor, Sir John Polkinghorne, a WELL KNOWN Cambridge professor, who was a former Professor of Mathmatical Physics took the stand in debates MANY times for a case for faith. He was a VERY pronounced Anglican, and even quit his position at Cambridge, to study for the Anglican priesthood. Another man you may have heard of, whom Dr. Polkinghorne has held debated with in the past, was a Professor Stephen Hawking. No need for his credentials, but I MUST point out, he is a professed agnostic. What does this prove? Simply, that there is intelligent information on BOTH sides. ANYone who dismisses EITHER side, in the name of intellect, has betrayed ANY sense of unbias.
2. What I'd LIKE to pontificate on, is this next thing you've brought up; but no one would read it, so I'll TRY to keep it short. One question I have for YOU is, don't you think that bugs ME too? I'm sure it bugs Fan, and Mishap as well, if they confess the Bible as God's Word. That doesn't just bug non-theists, and unbelievers. That bugs the entire community that attempts to follow Jesus Christ. We Christians are the biggest hinderance to Christianity this world has ever known. This could answer your denominational wondering, too. This is why denominations occur. However, the early church you speak of was NOT exempt from error, like you think. Paul, in his writings, wrote all the TIME to churches saying, *paraphrase* "HEY, shape up. This is not what God above intended." (You like how I stuck that Stavesacre line in there? Eh? Eh? Mark Salomon IS PAUL! Whoops *looks around for sources of lightening*). He even SPOKE on denominations, and lipservice Christians. However, we can't stop denominations from forming, and we can't help what people do.
I dunno why that type of Christian is embraced, and I can't say I'm exempt from non-Christian behavior. That would be foolish to say, but I could see that it's better to embrace the extreme, then to push away. All it could take is one phrase, and perhaps conviction would occur. Sometimes churches don't care. That's another problem going around.
3. Well, it's not so much a matter that Christianity is BETTER, but it's sure truer. What I MEAN by that is religions, as much as they may try, often end up eliminating one another. Christianity can't exist if Buddhism is true. It also can't exist if Islam is true. Same goes for Hinduism, and NEARLY all the others. ALSO, the sheer fact of practices makes it the most different. I should explain what I mean by "better," and "truer." If you followed the practices of Buddhism, you'd live a very serene life. This world WOULD be a more peaceful place, and it would be arguably "better," even though "better," is relative, per-person. Same goes for Christianity. HOWEVER, consider what Buddhism is. It's a rule-oriented religion, that teaches platitudes. It goes FAR deeper into philosophy, but it SEEMS (since I do NOT have exact knowledge, admittedly), that behavior is LARGELY emphasized, and so is meditation.
So, it follows a pattern of wisdom, and behavior. Does anything predate it? Now, Buddha, DOES predate Jesus Christ. HOWEVER, Buddha does NOT predate Solomon. By taking a quick peek, we find Buddhism surfacing around the fifth century BC (now called BCE), HOWEVER, the book of Proverbs is dated as far back as the 10th century BCE. Is it possible that the origins of Buddhism were influenced? Christianity and Buddhism are BOTH Eastern religions. That is PURE conjecture, but it's logical. If anyone knows whether the Buddha founder ever encountered a...well...I guess, Messianic Jew, or if it's proven he, specifically, did not, it would shine light, and put this to rest.
That's just ONE religion. Christianity DOES have TREMENDOUS upsides that other religions don't have. It's just that, this section is long enough. I'm already guessing that SO many have tuned out by now. It's understandable. I'll give the upsides, though, at a later date, if required.
4. It sounds like you've encountered Christianity before, obviously. You've not put ONE Christian practice into your life? You're void of ALL Christian principles, yet you lead a significantly moral life, AND people have confronted you about your "Christian," behavior? Honestly, if you can pull that off, you need to create a bible, or show me how you did it, 'cause any good thing I do, I encounter in the Bible, at SOME point. You know, morals and values, implanted in us, are one of the BIGGEST proofs apologists GIVE for Christianity's legitimacy. I'll give you a website, so you can listen to a forum by Dr. William Lane Craig, and that's how I'll respond to your last point, 'cause, AAAA, too long, too long!!! The third point, which comes at about 7:07 in the speech, is where I'm coming from in this answer.
(http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?LMPT&v=detail&id=221)
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on May 23, 2007 10:43:08 GMT -5
this will be my final post on How Be It?? if I have any sort of will power at all, my only regret is that my debate with you Carnage couldnt have been more amicable, I apologize for any part I played in that, it was not my intent, there is a fine line between passion and being emphatic and disrespect and I try to walk that line as best I can
thanks for your honesty in your latest post, your objections are quite valid and I felt those same things before I found my current church, I leave with these questions, Does your negative experience of Christianity make it impossible for others to encounter the living God? Do the "soft/hypocritical" churches youve attended mean that no churches exist that come closer to the early church? The answer is no, I am an intelligent person(though not trained in science my IQ is also high and I scored a perfect on the verbal section of the SAT) and I have experienced miraculous things in my current church on a regular basis that have changed my life and have convinced my of God's reality/power, Ive wrestled with the questions of faith/the Bible, and God has supplied the answers Ive needed, please dont insult my sincerity/introspection, you have no idea about the things Ive wrestled with and faced at college in modern America and God has proved faithful and powerful through it all and has used it to humble me and grow me
I know this is long and personal, feel free to respond/attack this post but I dont not plan on responding
|
|
|
Post by interzone on May 23, 2007 14:57:49 GMT -5
All I wanted to know was if anyone was thinking about God on the day of the Superbowl.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 23, 2007 17:10:38 GMT -5
4. It sounds like you've encountered Christianity before, obviously. You've not put ONE Christian practice into your life? You're void of ALL Christian principles, yet you lead a significantly moral life, AND people have confronted you about your "Christian," behavior? Honestly, if you can pull that off, you need to create a bible, or show me how you did it, 'cause any good thing I do, I encounter in the Bible, at SOME point. You know, morals and values, implanted in us, are one of the BIGGEST proofs apologists GIVE for Christianity's legitimacy. I'll give you a website, so you can listen to a forum by Dr. William Lane Craig, and that's how I'll respond to your last point, 'cause, AAAA, too long, too long!!! The third point, which comes at about 7:07 in the speech, is where I'm coming from in this answer. I really like how because coincidentally some action I take in my life is mentioned in the bible automatically means that I must have gotten it from said bible. What kind of logic is that? Morals and values "implanted in us" is actually only a "proof of christianity's legitimacy" because you've decided to view it as such. Here, let me make it a proof of evolution: since we all have these values "implanted in us", then that supports us coming from a common ancestor that also had these values. Furthermore, since some of these values/actions (like not killing) are found in various ape communities, this is a proof that apes and humans share a common ancestor. So inherent shared values supports both christianity and evolution. I hope this has illustrated my point.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 23, 2007 17:13:30 GMT -5
You are very smart. You attack creationism because that is the one idea I showed support for that was not in turn directly supported by the evidence I did present, which you conveniently ignored. I applaud you for your quick/frantic jump to conclusions. You truly are a god among men. Did it ever occur to you that I may just not have had the time to dissect everything you said? Oh, and nice work conveniently ignoring the myriad of other evidence that I've presented that far outweighs the few points you've brought up.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 23, 2007 17:18:15 GMT -5
Does your negative experience of Christianity make it impossible for others to encounter the living God? Oh no guys, we've chased Fan101 away! Since there is no "living god",... well, I guess that answers your question. ;D Yeah, cuz no one else has went to a college in modern america. Oh wait, except for the fact that I'm currently at one of the largest campuses in modern america. Again, prove to me that your "god has proved faithful" line is actually what happened. How do you know that it wasn't just you getting through it by yourself?
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 23, 2007 17:37:15 GMT -5
Sorry for the four posts in a row, but I just didn't feel like doing all the formatting to make it one post.
More or less this has been really fun. I mean, four or five people all posting stuff against me at once, and them all expecting immediate and thorough replies? Doesn't get much better than that. And through it all, not one person has posted any bit of substantial evidence supporting creationism/god/christianity/whatever. There's been a lot of bits posted that supposedly points to a god, but all of those bits can be explained by natural means. True, some are a bit more complex, but they're not absolutely impossible. In fact, they're no more improbable than a god actually existing and/or christianity being correct.
Bottom line: there's just no way you're gonna convince me that christianity/god is real. It's just not gonna happen. There's just no plain reason to follow that faith over any other faith or over the "lack of faith." So you're not gonna convince me. You're not gonna "make me a believer". You're not gonna "save my soul from hell". I've fully, completely rejected your faith. It's gonna have no part in my life. Now the question will come, "why then did you even participate in this 'debate'?" I did that because of the statements saying that christianity was definitely real, there's evidence for it, blah blah blah. I think I showed plenty of evidence that certain events in the bible (i.e., the flood) simply did not happen the way the bible says they did, and evidence that an awe-inspiring god is not required for, well, anything.
|
|
|
Post by texasnate1973 on May 24, 2007 10:51:47 GMT -5
This will be my only weigh in on this whole thread. I long ago gave up on debating with people about the existence of God. As you have pointed out Carnage you have made up your mind. We aren't going to change that as you have said. This may have been asked (honestly the debate portion got tiring and I skimmed.)
But what if you are wrong?
That's usually the only question I have for anyone who has a hard line stance. I have asked the same question of myself.
It seems some of the discussion should come down to who has the most to lose. I believe in a singular truth that there is one God who existed before and outside of time. He is the ultimate power and intelligence in the universe. He is the greatest creative mind ever and is responsible for the creation. Mankind, unfortunately chose to rebel against their own creator and therefore in their rebellion and sin were separated from the one responsible for their life and future. It also ushered in the corruption of the creation. We are unable, on our own to achieve a level of perfection that would reverse the effects of sin and rebellion. We are simply broken and only look forward to spiritual and physical death. Christ comes to earth, being God and Man at the same time, as the answer to this problem. In him, we come as we are, and throw ourselves on his mercy and in belief in him we are given the life we lost.
I know you have heard all this before. Just figured I should put where I am coming from to avoid an confusion with others views. I asked myself and have continued to ask at times...what if I am wrong? What if none of this is true? What if you are right, Carnage? What do I have to lose?
Nothing. If I die and none of this is true then I won't know the difference. I lived a life in anticipation of a future. Maybe it was a lie but it was one that shaped me into a person who hopefully loved others, served my fellow man, grew towards a higher ideal of goodness. I did these things, not out of fear of a God who would be angry if I didn't but because I truly believe this is the "best" way to live. The most fulfilling.
If other religions are correct (which I don't believe they are) then I am good because they are based on my own works and if I tried my best to be a "good person" then I should be ok.
For the person who rejects Christ (notice I didn't say Christianity) what happens if they are wrong? Well it seems that they have much more to lose. A future that is separated from the loving God who desired them to return to him. When he could have left them to death he provided a free way out that wasn't based on personal achievement but on God's power alone. We don't like to talk about it in this day and age (too many scars from fire and brimstone preaching) but I certainly believe there is a hell, a spiritual death/physical torment for those who reject God.
I don't know. I am sure you are as tired of the debate as I am. I have seen nothing that convinces me the other direction. I hold to the truth of Christ and even at lifes lowest my belief has been stressed but not broken. Not a testament to me. It's a testament to God. I bring nothing to the table in my faith and spiritual growth. It's all God.
I don't expect a response. Don't worry about that. Just wanted to put my thoughts down.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 24, 2007 16:19:58 GMT -5
If other religions are correct (which I don't believe they are) then I am good because they are based on my own works and if I tried my best to be a "good person" then I should be ok. Try again. According to some other religions, you're gonna burn in whatever hell is associated with that religion because you don't follow that religion. Let us assume, for a moment, that christianity is correct, there is a vengeful god, etc, etc. First thing we must address is the physical evidence in the world that does not agree with things in the bible. Two examples are the flood and a young earth. Now either two things are possible that can reconcile christianity with this evidence: 1) bible is correct, but god created the world as it is in order to trick/confuse us, or 2) bible is wrong, the earth is old, no worldwide flood, BUT possibility of god creating everything still exists. Depending on which outcome you choose, you end up with god either being a trickster (a la Loki) or a liar/misleader (or, maybe the early scribes just couldn't hear god properly?). Next we have your claim of a "loving god". IF god exists, THEN I get to use my experience regarding him, as you christians are fond of doing. Assuming god exists, my experience shows me that either 1) he is indifferent in matters pertaining to my life, or 2) he hates me/doesn't wish me to succeed/insert other negative attitude towards me. Whichever the case, considering both these points, why would I want to spend an eternity with a god that is either out to deceive us, is indifferent towards us, or just plain doesn't like us? What of those things entices me to want to dedicate my life to some cause? Again, assuming god exists, I am currently greatly enjoying my life without him. How then is an eternity apart from him torture for me? So after an analysis, it seems that I too have nothing to lose. I dont' know about you, but I can get through (and have gotten through) "life's lowest" on my own. So in my case, it's all me, and not god. Does that make me better than you, because I don't need help? Does that make me better than god, because I dont' need him? Is there a difference between you and me? Or is it just in how we view things? If you staple ears made out of pipe cleaners onto a snake, does that make the snake into a bunny that you can call Nathan Scott Phillips?
|
|
|
Post by texasnate1973 on May 24, 2007 17:40:29 GMT -5
Wow...ATHF in a theology discussion...sweet.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 26, 2007 14:35:34 GMT -5
I applaud you for your quick/frantic jump to conclusions. You truly are a god among men. Did it ever occur to you that I may just not have had the time to dissect everything you said? Oh, and nice work conveniently ignoring the myriad of other evidence that I've presented that far outweighs the few points you've brought up. There's been a lot of bits posted that supposedly points to a god, but all of those bits can be explained by natural means. True, some are a bit more complex, but they're not absolutely impossible. In fact, they're no more improbable than a god actually existing and/or christianity being correct. Ok so we've reached a truce on the evidence debate? I was hoping so. Now we can just agree that neither of us has the knowledge to talk to each other using facts. So now we turn to philosophy and bare reason.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 26, 2007 14:58:58 GMT -5
First, some responses to some things you've said through out this thread Carnage. Before I start, I want you to know that it has never been my intention to "convert" you. I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that neither of us will ever change our minds. My goal here is to remove some hostility by increasing our understanding of each other. I hope that is your goal as well.
What makes Christianity different than other religions?
Christianity is the only religion whose chief prophet was even claimed to have risen from the dead. The emergence of exceptionally charismatic people is a very common occurrence and their followers often make a kind of religion out of them. The difference between all these other instances and Christianity is that Christ died, just as all the other guys did, but then he rose from the dead. I'm assuming you don't believe that happened, but the fact remains that no other prophet has even claimed to have done this.
Christianity is alone among the religions in that it does not require you to follow a code in order to gain the promised benefit. Christianity is firmly rooted in the idea of a saving grace. The only thing a believer must do is simply believe. All the other religions that I know of require obedience to a code of sorts. Islam is the most obvious one, but Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism all demand an adherence to, if not an explicit code of law, then a way of life. The final outcome is in doubt because the outcome springs directly from what you do. With Christianity this is not so. Once you are a Christian, all you must do is remain a Christian and God has promised you salvation. There is some strange idea out there among Christians and non, that Christians are "better" than everybody else. This is an untrue claim and not supported by the Bible at all. What is said is that we have a faith that God counts as righteousness. So righteousness is important, but none can achieve it, so God has offered a different way.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 26, 2007 15:33:35 GMT -5
Two other points to address from your last post:
1. The literal truth of Genesis. I and fan101 believe that the worldwide flood actually happened, that the earth was created in 6 days and all that. However, this belief does not define Christianity. There are a great many Christians that believe exactly what you believe about these events. They believe it is a Jewish fable, meant to illustrate a moral lesson and not historical fact. Yet they are Christians regardless. We can argue about these topics, but it's really going nowhere and it doesn't have much to do with believing in Christ vs. not believing in Christ. That is the essential element of Christianity.
2. The theodicy problem. You didn't state it in so many words, but the general drift I get is the age-old argument that goes something like this: How can a loving, omnipotent God allow bad things to happen? You say that according to your experience if there is a god than he is indifferent. Why do you say that? I'm assuming that you believe he's indifferent because anyone with his kind of power would intervene in the affairs of this world if he did care at all. Which implies that you believe there is something wrong with the world that could use some fixing. Am I right or have I misunderstood you?
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 26, 2007 16:42:11 GMT -5
Ok so we've reached a truce on the evidence debate? I was hoping so. Now we can just agree that neither of us has the knowledge to talk to each other using facts. So now we turn to philosophy and bare reason. Um, come again? Where did I admit that you had any real evidence supporting your argument? There is no evidence supporting christianity. There is overwhelming evidence against many of the christian fables. This is what I admit. My goal here is to remove some hostility by increasing our understanding of each other. Being in christianity for nearly 20 years, having family members in many different denominations, attending a christian school, and attending a christian-affiliated university have all given me a pretty damn good understanding of christianity and the various tenants of the christian faith. I already know/understand just about everything you would/could say in support of your belief system. Thus, I dont' know how much/if my understanding could be increased, simply because of the amount of understanding that I already possess. You point out a way (claimed resurrection of christ) that christianity was different than other religions. Your point in doing that was what, exactly? I didn't deny that there were differences between christianity and other religions - that's why christianity is not the same as say islam or buddhism. That's common sense. Just because it's different and has a fantastic claim, doesn't mean that it has any credulity. You can't just jump to that conclusion. You say that christianity has no "code" to follow. However, you point out something you must do. Anything you must do to be a part of an organization is, more or less, a code. Besides, aren't there many commandments in the bible, such as the mosaic decalogue and "love thy neighbor" and etc. ? Sounds to me like there's many things that christians are supposed to do. It might not be listed as a numbered code, but it's still a code of behavior of sorts. Furthermore, christians are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard of living than non-christians, since the secular world is "evil" and christians are supposed to try to live "holy" lives. So, in a way, you could make the case that christians are supposed to be "better" than non-christians. ...and it doesn't have much to do with believing in Christ vs. not believing in Christ. That is the essential element of Christianity. You're still missing my point about the flood. Why is it that you're so "at ease" with allowing the creation story and the flood story to be considered fables/metaphors, but you can't do the same with much of the rest of the bible? Why is it that people can be so sure of the christ story, but can so casually blow off creation/the flood? Why can you just pick and choose what portions of the bible you'll hold as literal? Well, you've missed the general drift then. First, don't even begin to try to lecture to me about the philosophy of the "omnipotent god that does nothing" issue. I've had my fill of that in the past. The reason why I'm of the "if god exists, he doesn't care" is that there has been absolutely nothing that's happened in my life (both while I was following the christian system and while I was not following it) that has to be attributed to god. Nothing. Everything has a natural/causal explanation. God isn't needed for anything, and there's no evidence that he ever did anything at all to help me/hurt me. Thus, if he neither hurts nor helps, he must be indifferent. What's great is that you can't shoot down that reasoning, because it's my experience. If you shoot it down, then by default you and everyone else can no longer use your own experiences to back up your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by interzone on May 26, 2007 16:54:48 GMT -5
What's great is that you can't shoot down that reasoning, because it's my experience. If you shoot it down, then by default you and everyone else can no longer use your own experiences to back up your beliefs. Wow! The cat is out of the bag. The truth is on the table. This has got to be, by far, your best post yet Carnage. This says so much about what God is doing with you that it's not even funny. Now I know that there is hope for you. This is awesome dude! When God does come down and touch your corner of the world what an awesome witness you will be to people. You have studied science and looked over the 4 corners of the truth. I can't even express into words what a cool post this really is. I truly look forward to seeing you in heaven. I have no doubt in my mind that God has a plan for you after this last post of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Destined on May 27, 2007 0:14:48 GMT -5
Ok, even I have to say, "uh..." to that last post. No offense intended. I'd LIKE to talk about it privately, in any case, but interesting. Anyways, it's probably no more off the wall then the statement I'm about to make. It SOUNDS like Carnage is part of a modified, "The Secret," movement. Go look it up, and get ready...now THERE'S a faith system for ya.
|
|