Joy to the world

[Codo]

  However, I do have enormous worries about how they come to these beliefs and especially about the rise of top down organizational hierarchies.  I think that these types of structures overly concentrate decision making, short circuit constructive criticism, and eliminate proper diligence.  Moreover, I see an enormous degree of overlap between religious affiliation and this type of centralized decision making process.

 

I dislike strong hierachies either, but I cannot see where there is the relationship between this and the named religions. You can find strong hierachies anywhere and you can find quite open systems anywhere.

 

In addition, I think that all of the Abrahamic religions have some real issues when it comes to the role of women in society, sexuality, and the like.  (There is very little difference between fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Christians on these types of issues)  As I noted earlier, I don’t really care about folks personal practices, however, when they start trying to force their morals into the public sphere I get quite ticked off.

 

As a portestant christian I really agree that the role of woman could be improved in most big religions. But unluckily the role of women is not equal in most (all?)parts of the world. As far as I know korean standards, Women do still eat in the kitchen at home- after the men finished. (my knowledge is about 20 years old, so maybe it had changed, but it had been so).

Thai ladies and ladies from the former eastern countries are not know to be the spearhead of women liberation either. And these countries are not known as great followers of the abrahamic religions. In India it was quite common practice to kill baby girls just 50 years ago- and it still happens too foten at the countryside. And this attitude was not brought by the brits or the muslims. It was part of their system.

So the role of the women had been unequal anywhere and this is not because of the abrahamic religions.

 

SActually I doubt that many other ethics had been so strong in working for the equality of men and women then the christian ethics, espacially the protestant ethics.

 

But I totally agree that anybody who wants to force others to follow their believes is wrong.

 

30 years back, some folks associated with the Scaife Foundation wrote some interesting articles suggesting that the mainline Protestant Churches were too liberal and setting out a strategy to try to neutralize them by starting internal schisms around wedge issues like ordaining women (later extended to acceptance of homosexuality).  The strategy seems to have been broadly successful

 

20 years back I had some trouble with my protestant believes and tried several other religions. But I came back, because the open mind my church has is not very common in other churches. I don´t know if this is the right way for the church, but I know it is the right way for me. So I am used to divorced priests. homosexuallity is accepted and we have female bishops. My church is very liberal and open to other churches as well. They have no problems in marrying protestants with catholics, they try to stay in touch with the other churches, it is really nice to have them.

[pbleighton]

By and large, I think that moderates are drifting away from their churches, leaving the “true believers” behind

 

This is true.

 

I found it interesting that during the Catholic Church's pedophile-protection blowup a few years back, the likelihood of people leaving the church was actually welcomed by many conservative Catholic commentators, who felt that a smaller, more conservative church would be preferable.

 

They're getting their wish. The New York City archdiocese has been closing lots of its parochial schools.

 

My father is an agnostic, my mother is an atheist, yet we all went to church (Congregationalist) for years, until my father's insurance business was well established, because it was considered somewhat disreputable to not go to church.

 

My generation has a lot of secular, non church-going people, some of whom are aheist/agnostic, but the majority of whom have some type of waffly belief, cafeteria Christian without the hell, premarital sex is OK, etc.

 

I think their children, and to an even greater extent, their grandchildren, will be atheist or agnostic. I think there will likely always be a number of believers, who will likely become as a group more and more conservative in their faith, dwindling in their numbers, and alienated from their societies.

 

Peter

[Codo]

On another point, Im surprised about the bald statements that Hitler was an atheist. Until 1935 he was a self-identified Christian and used quotes from the bible to justify many of his policies. As I undertand it, after 1935 he abandoned 'religion' because he saw it as a threat to his power but he also banned atheism (and they were imprisoned).

He was part of the catholic church till his death, but he wrote that he will destroy all churches after the "Endsieg". He and the Nazis produced some stuff which was based on the old nordic myths.

 

So I think he was no believer in anything, he just used the religion as long as he thought it was useful.

 

If you are a believer, you cannot do this, you must stay faithfully in your church.

So he was no believer. And for me a non believer is an atheist.

[Al_U_Card]

The eventual and total polarization of those involved is an inevitable conclusion to the nature of the situation. We are inured into a system (they all have this commonality) so that conflict within society is reduced. Our single problem is the clash of ideologies resulting from the greater and greater availability of discordant and opposite ideas that are easier and easier to gain access to.

 

Rather than creating a homogeneous mixture, stirring the pot is resulting in a really reactive combination of alternatives. There are only a few possible outcomes that can be envisaged.

 

1- total chaos resulting in the "tower of Babel" scenario of separation and isolation.

 

2- the imposition of an outside "force" that suppresses all dissent and difference.

 

3- the taking of sides wherein two or a few "opposing" camps slug it out to the detriment of all.

 

and then again, there might be the rapture..... :angry:

[mikeh]

Freud wrote (I am paraphrasing, not quoting) that the two most significant intellectual developments in the Western World, over the past 400 years, were the Copernican view of the place of the earth in the universe and the Darwinian view of the evolutionary descent of man. What both had in common is that these views reduced the apparent significance of humanity.

 

Before Copernicus, humanity viewed itself (and Christianity certainly taught this) as the reason the universe was created. Earth, as the unmoving centre of the universe, with everything revolving around it (and, thus, around us) reflected our central role in God's creation.

 

Before Darwin, while some theories of evolution were debated, they had little impact because they lacked the essential element of natural selection as the winnowing force that removed less-efficient mutations from the species. And the Christian churches taught that all species were 'created'... indeed, a major argument was that now resurrected as Intelligent Design. We, as humans, were created for a specific purpose: to have dominion over the earth.

 

Darwin pointed out that the evidence then available (which evidence has expanded vastly since his day) suggested that humanity was a contingent accident: merely one twig on the bush of life... and that we were descended, not from apes, but from a common ancestor of the apes.

 

This revolution in our view of ourselves has been accepted far more slowly than the Copernican revolution, perhaps because it strikes closer to home in terms of removing our ability to claim special status for ourselves.

 

I suspect, and hope, that we are at the early stages of a third revolution: the unshackling of our minds from the constraints of organized religion.

 

As with the first two revolutions, the effect will, in the short term, be to further reduce our pretense that there is anything special or pre-ordained about being human. It seems that many people, including (yes) many intelligent people are terrified of the implications that no 'God' has any particular interest in any of us.

 

That is similar to the fear that prevents creationists from understanding the splendour of the darwinian approach to evolution.

 

When I look up at a starry sky, on a clear night, I have a sense of awe, and I very much doubt that my sense of awe is the less for my belief that this sight is the result of physical processes unmediated and unorchestrated by a supernatural being that has some form of watch over us/me.

 

Atheism requires accepting that we are not special, other than in the very real sense that everything is special.

 

Does this mean that atheists don't wonder (literally) about 'how' the universe came into being? Not for this atheist.... but the fact that I don't know the answer, the fact that I suspect that the answer may be literally incomprehensible to any human intelligence, does not drive me to postulate a 'God'. Certainly, it does nothing to suggest that there is any 'god' to whom any human can or should 'pray', let alone suggest that the heirarchical structures of organized religion have ANYTHING to do with my sense of wonder.

 

If my hopes are correct, then within a couple of hundred years, organized religion will wither away and humanity can at last collectively enjoy the fact of our existence without the crutch of any god.

 

Oh, I know that most religionists will deny that they are motivated by fear.... and most will believe it. I do not mean fear of a vengeful god, altho there is a lot of that in most holy books, but I mean a fear of facing reality unshielded by the illusion of meaning afforded by religion.

 

One last point, on fear: I remember reading, as a child, a story in Reader's Digest (my parents subscribed). I have since seen this several times but cannot recall to whom the statement is originally attributed:

 

It goes sort of like this: If you do not believe in God and God exists, then you are screwed for eternity. If you do believe in God, and God does not exist, then you have lost nothing. Therefore the smart money believes in God.

 

Apart from the fact that belief based on such reasoning hardly seems genuine, the argument is based on fear. I recall, when reading it the first time, being troubled by the idea that God would punish someone merely for not believing in him, even if the person lived a morally perfect life. Nice god :angry: And yes, I appreciate that real theology operates on a higher level of sophistry than this silly story.

[BebopKid]

As a question to other posters: if you argue that it is important to follow the "Word of God", how do you know what the word of God really is? The Old Testament can hardly be taken literally. If it were, we would have to condone stoning, incest and ritual sacrifice. The Gospels of the New Testament were written years after the death of Christ and have been edited and re edited over the years. How valid are they then? Why were the Gnostic gospels exclued by the Council of Nicea? Is it because they presented views that the Church of that time did not want to consider eg that Christ and Mary Magdalene were married?

 

By the way, and argument of faith - "I believe therefore it is true", is not an argument at all.

As a Christian, my beliefs are things that are fact to me.

 

Believe is a stronger word than Know, but I'll substitute Know in this post.

 

I know that God used his Power to put only the true Word of God into the Bible.

 

I know that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law of the Old Testament. He replaced the Law with one basic concept. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

 

I know that the Old Testament is filled with rotten imperfect people who still received God's love, just as today rotten imperfect people still receive God's love. If all you had were perfect role models who never fail, how you see how to overcome your failures and succeed.

 

I don't just believe this because I heard someone tell it to me. I know all of this because I received the Holy Spirit when I was baptized. The Holy Spirit is a vessel given to us by God that allows a direct link to Him through prayer.

 

Christianity is the only religion whose followers can know for a fact that it is the truth. And that knowledge is delivered through the Holy Spirit.

 

There is no way to adequately describe to someone this experience who has not experienced the same. Describe sight to the blind, or hearing to the deaf.

 

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

 

...

George Bush, on the other hand, is, I suspect, a true believer..

 

I was not put on this earth to judge other's salvation. God does that based on each person's belief (or unbelief) that Jesus Christ is His Son and that person received Grace through Jesus Christ.

 

I would be extremely happy to see anyone when I get to heaven. And I may indeed be shocked at some of the ones who make it. Who knows? They may be shocked that I'm there.

 

God bless you and glory be to God.

[BebopKid]

Apart from the fact that belief based on such reasoning hardly seems genuine, the argument is based on fear. I recall, when reading it the first time, being troubled by the idea that God would punish someone merely for not believing in him, even if the person lived a morally perfect life. Nice god

Let me ask you this.

 

Suppose I warn you that walking into a burning building with no protection will harm you. And I offer you a fire resistant suit.

 

Suppose you still walk through a burning building without the suit.

 

Did I punish you?

 

Are we in control of our outcomes?

 

Yes, because God allowed us to have free will.

 

He gave everyone a fire resistant suit. All you have to do is take the suit to avoid being burned.

 

God has available Grace through Jesus Christ that He wants every single person to take.

 

He made it that easy. It is documented. It is preached. There are no secrets.

 

It is your choice. It is your call. I wonder if God would have a stunned look His face when people die without Grace, just as we would have stunned looks watching a fireman rejecting a fire suit and entering a burning building to perish.

 

Joy to all!

[hrothgar]

Apart from the fact that belief based on such reasoning hardly seems genuine, the argument is based on fear. I recall, when reading it the first time, being troubled by the idea that God would punish someone merely for not believing in him, even if the person lived a morally perfect life. Nice god

Let me ask you this.

 

Suppose I warn you that walking into a burning building with no protection will harm you. And I offer you a fire resistant suit.

 

Suppose you still walk through a burning building without the suit.

 

Did I punish you?

 

Are we in control of our outcomes?

 

Yes, because God allowed us to have free will.

 

He gave everyone a fire resistant suit. All you have to do is take the suit to avoid being burned.

The countervailing argument is fairly simple:

 

No everyone gets offered a fire proof suit. Up until recently, the vast majority of people on this planet never heard about the fireproof suit and never had the opportunity for salvation. Personally, I can’t accept that a divine being who is willing to condemn enormous numbers of people through no fault of their own is worthy of my respect and/or admiration.

 

Even if we restrict ourselves to the here and now: There are a LOT of different folks selling very different models of fireproof suits. (The only thing that any of them seem to agree upon is that theirs is the only suit that offers any real protection) There is nothing that we can use to distinguish between them, so, by and large nearly everyone goes shopping at the local outlet. Once again, I refuse to accept a system that is so terribly flawed.

 

In an earlier post you made the following comment

 

As a Christian, my beliefs are things that are fact to me.

 

As an agnostic, I get very worried about individuals (worse yet institutions) that are unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

[pbleighton]

Let me ask you this.

 

Suppose I warn you that walking into a burning building with no protection will harm you. And I offer you a fire resistant suit.

 

Suppose you still walk through a burning building without the suit.

 

Did I punish you?

 

Are we in control of our outcomes?

 

Yes, because God allowed us to have free will.

 

He gave everyone a fire resistant suit. All you have to do is take the suit to avoid being burned.

 

God has available Grace through Jesus Christ that He wants every single person to take.

 

He made it that easy. It is documented. It is preached. There are no secrets.

 

It is your choice. It is your call. I wonder if God would have a stunned look His face when people die without Grace, just as we would have stunned looks watching a fireman rejecting a fire suit and entering a burning building to perish.

 

Joy to all!

 

It's interesting that you describe your god as an arsonist, because who, after all, set the building on fire?

 

Peter

[akhare]

How many of you have read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

I really liked the book. I had been somewhat concerned that Dawkins' tone might be too strident (not that I have any sacred cows to protect), but found it to be quite balanced and eminently readable.

 

All in all, highly recommended...

[BebopKid]

It's interesting that you describe your god as an arsonist, because who, after all, set the building on fire?

 

Peter

Very good question.

 

Man set the building on fire. Man is the source of all sin.

 

God provided Man with a way out even though Man didn't deserve it.

 

No everyone gets offered a fire proof suit. Up until recently, the vast majority of people on this planet never heard about the fireproof suit and never had the opportunity for salvation. Personally, I can’t accept that a divine being who is willing to condemn enormous numbers of people through no fault of their own is worthy of my respect and/or admiration.

 

Even if we restrict ourselves to the here and now: There are a LOT of different folks selling very different models of fireproof suits. (The only thing that any of them seem to agree upon is that theirs is the only suit that offers any real protection) There is nothing that we can use to distinguish between them, so, by and large nearly everyone goes shopping at the local outlet. Once again, I refuse to accept a system that is so terribly flawed.

 

Proof of God's existence is around everyone. When the world started out, everyone knew about God. As Man decided that he didn't need God, he stopped telling his descendants. It is Man who pulled a vast cover-up conspiracy to keep people from knowing God. God has been here all along.

 

There is but one model. I am not telling you which church or denomination has it right. A congregation decides how they can best follow the Word of God by setting up rules. People find rules easier to follow than their conscious.

 

As long as the Church teaches that there is one way to Heaven through Jesus Christ who is God's son and died on the Cross for our salvation and that through Baptism we can receive the Holy Spirit, then it is a true Church.

 

Some congregations go astray because ALL people are flawed. To play on an old saying, "Kill the messenger, not the message." Criminals and liars drink water, correct? Does this mean you should steer clear of water?

 

As an agnostic, I get very worried about individuals (worse yet institutions) that are unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

 

I am very sorry for you, dear brother.

 

As previously stated, I do not believe something to be fact because I want to. I know what is fact because I have received the Holy Spirit.

[pbleighton]

Man set the building on fire. Man is the source of all sin.

 

So man created Hell?

 

This is creative theology indeed.

 

Peter

[BebopKid]

Peter, another good question.

 

Hell is what exists in the absence of God.

 

God didn't create Hell.

 

God didn't create Sin.

 

Man sinned bringing Evil into the mix. (And if you argue "what about the serpent?" If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, the serpent would have no power.)

 

 

God created all that is Good. God does not want to look upon Sin. So what is set apart from God and Heaven? The emptiness of what was left after God's creation.

[Al_U_Card]

God has been here all along.

 

I know what is fact because I have received the Holy Spirit.

We have all so received, it is just that some have yet to recognize it but fortunately there is no statute of limitations on consciousness or our spirit.

[pbleighton]

And if you argue "what about the serpent?" If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, the serpent would have no power.

 

And if god had not created the serpent, and if he had not created humans with weaknesses, and if he had not allowed *other religions* to distract from The One True Gospel, and if....

 

Most of the gods invented by the human imagination, including the Christian god, are selfish, vain, and cruel beyond compare.

 

They also can't accept responsibility for their own actions.

 

They are emotional teenagers.

 

We're a lot better off without them.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

 

God didn't create Sin.

 

Assuming your god exists, he created man in a way that he knew man would sin. And then he punishes man for doing what he was designed to do.

 

So either

 

* your god should take a creation course

* your god is evil, setting us up

* your god does not exist

 

I will take door #3 thanks. Especially since if door #1 or door #2 is right, that's just too horrible too imagine.

[the hog]

Beebop:

"Man set the building on fire. Man is the source of all sin. "

Beebop, I didn't set any building on fire or do anything. Why should I be punished for the sins of my forebears - Adam in this case. If your God blames people for things they didn't do, then you can keep him.

[BebopKid]

Assuming your god exists, he created man in a way that he knew man would sin. And then he punishes man for doing what he was designed to do.

God warned Man to obey the rules. Man didn't.

 

God gave man free will.

 

Man didn't have to choose the wrong path.

 

God didn't have to forgive Man and offer a way of salvation--especially one as easy as God has given us.

 

Praise God.

[Al_U_Card]

God gave man free will.

Please elaborate as my knowledge of things religious is very limited.

[pbleighton]

God warned Man to obey the rules.

 

Why?

 

Peter

[mikeh]

Assuming your god exists, he created man in a way that he knew man would sin. And then he punishes man for doing what he was designed to do.

God warned Man to obey the rules. Man didn't.

 

God gave man free will.

 

Man didn't have to choose the wrong path.

 

God didn't have to forgive Man and offer a way of salvation--especially one as easy as God has given us.

 

Praise God.

It is impossible to reason with people who have surrendered their capacity for logical thought.

 

They always, ultimately, reduce their arguments to some version of God told me... or God told my prophet/priest.

 

Descartes said: I think, therefore I am.

 

God said: I am, therefore I am.

 

There are issues with Descartes logic, but it is certainly more valid than God's. However, I suspect that most true believers would see my version of God's pronouncement as literally true :)

[luke warm]

~~Darwin pointed out that the evidence then available (which evidence has expanded vastly since his day) suggested that humanity was a contingent accident: merely one twig on the bush of life... and that we were descended, not from apes, but from a common ancestor of the apes.

 

This revolution in our view of ourselves has been accepted far more slowly than the Copernican revolution, perhaps because it strikes closer to home in terms of removing our ability to claim special status for ourselves.

is it possible that this 'revolution' has been accepted far more slowly (if at all) because it isn't true?

I suspect, and hope, that we are at the early stages of a third revolution: the unshackling of our minds from the constraints of organized religion.

i find myself in a position i don't particularly like, that of defending a concept referred to as "organized religion" ... i also have a dislike of organized religion, but not for the same reasons as you... my dislike is based more on the fact that the underlying truth(s) of some religions are not held to be sacred... for example, the practitioners of both islam and christianity speak of their religions as peaceful... maybe that's how they are supposed to be, but history shows that when men get involved, peace is one of the first things to go...

As with the first two revolutions, the effect will, in the short term, be to further reduce our pretense that there is anything special or pre-ordained about being human. It seems that many people, including (yes) many intelligent people are terrified of the implications that no 'God' has any particular interest in any of us.

 

That is similar to the fear that prevents creationists from understanding the splendour of the darwinian approach to evolution.

mike, do you think there is a fear that prevents atheists (purported - i have my own theories on the actual) from understanding the splendor of creation?

Atheism requires accepting that we are not special, other than in the very real sense that everything is special.

yes... and a sovereign God teaches us that man is indeed special... atheists (and, i've heard, some angels) sometimes get angry with the concepts of God's sovereignty (what right does he have to OWN me?!?) and the specialness of man

Does this mean that atheists don't wonder (literally) about 'how' the universe came into being? Not for this atheist.... but the fact that I don't know the answer, the fact that I suspect that the answer may be literally incomprehensible to any human intelligence, does not drive me to postulate a 'God'. Certainly, it does nothing to suggest that there is any 'god' to whom any human can or should 'pray', let alone suggest that the heirarchical structures of organized religion have ANYTHING to do with my sense of wonder.

some atheists do wonder, for the express purpose of creating reasons why God doesn't exist

Oh, I know that most religionists will deny that they are motivated by fear.... and most will believe it. I do not mean fear of a vengeful god, altho there is a lot of that in most holy books, but I mean a fear of facing reality unshielded by the illusion of meaning afforded by religion.

i can't argue that even many christians are motivated by fear... but that isn't what christianity is about... we will always have a fear of God, i suspect... even those who are "mature" in their faith... mainly because they remember that "... the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ..." but forget that ".. perfect love casts out fear .." ... God is perfect love, Jesus asks us to love (perfectly, as he did), we try but we fail, hence we fear... but there is no need for fear

Apart from the fact that belief based on such reasoning hardly seems genuine, the argument is based on fear. I recall, when reading it the first time, being troubled by the idea that God would punish someone merely for not believing in him, even if the person lived a morally perfect life. Nice god

Let me ask you this.

 

Suppose I warn you that walking into a burning building with no protection will harm you. And I offer you a fire resistant suit.

 

Suppose you still walk through a burning building without the suit.

 

Did I punish you?

 

Are we in control of our outcomes?

 

Yes, because God allowed us to have free will.

 

He gave everyone a fire resistant suit. All you have to do is take the suit to avoid being burned.

The countervailing argument is fairly simple:

 

No everyone gets offered a fire proof suit. Up until recently, the vast majority of people on this planet never heard about the fireproof suit and never had the opportunity for salvation.

that isn't true, or at least it isn't what we (i) believe... God has given man (all men, at all times) evidence that he exists... he has also stated many times that any who seek him will find him... but man hides from the truth, man deceives himself... or so the story goes :)

Personally, I can’t accept that a divine being who is willing to condemn enormous numbers of people through no fault of their own is worthy of my respect and/or admiration.

bebop answered this, i believe... where do you get this idea of "no fault?" put it this way: if there is a sovereign God who created all things, and if this God gave you more than enough in the way of evidence to cause you to seek him, and if you deceive yourself about his existence, are you innocent?

Even if we restrict ourselves to the here and now:  There are a LOT of different folks selling very different models of fireproof suits.  (The only thing that any of them seem to agree upon is that theirs is the only suit that offers any real protection)  There is nothing that we can use to distinguish between them, so, by and large nearly everyone goes shopping at the local outlet.  Once again, I refuse to accept a system that is so terribly flawed.

it's true, there are many people selling many things... and you have evidently examined them all and come to your own conclusions... btw, it isn't the case that there's nothing to distinguish them

In an earlier post you (beebop) made the following comment

 

As a Christian, my beliefs are things that are fact to me.

 

As an agnostic, I get very worried about individuals (worse yet institutions) that are unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

but what is a 'fact'? would you agree that it is a bit of knowledge? and what is knowledge? i know a man who has written books on the study of epistemology, books that have by and large been well received... he defines knowledge as 'true warranted belief' ... yes, he is a christian... and yes, he is brilliant... even his detractors give him that much

God didn't create Sin.

 

Assuming your god exists, he created man in a way that he knew man would sin. And then he punishes man for doing what he was designed to do.

 

So either

 

* your god should take a creation course

* your god is evil, setting us up

* your god does not exist

 

I will take door #3 thanks. Especially since if door #1 or door #2 is right, that's just too horrible too imagine.

it's true that God created man knowing what man's choice(s) would be... it isn't true that man was designed to sin... taking door #3 is your choice, God gave you that right... but your premise is faulty, therefore your conclusions are questionable

Assuming your god exists, he created man in a way that he knew man would sin. And then he punishes man for doing what he was designed to do.

God warned Man to obey the rules. Man didn't.

 

God gave man free will.

 

Man didn't have to choose the wrong path.

 

God didn't have to forgive Man and offer a way of salvation--especially one as easy as God has given us.

 

Praise God.

It is impossible to reason with people who have surrendered their capacity for logical thought.

that is beneath you... bebop has stated his beliefs logically, imo

Descartes said: I think, therefore I am.

 

God said: I am, therefore I am.

 

There are issues with Descartes logic, but it is certainly more valid than God's. However, I suspect that most true believers would see my version of God's pronouncement as literally true :P

yes, i see your version ("who do i say sent me?" asked moses ... "tell them I AM sent you" answered God) as true... i don't consider myself irrational or illogical, in fact quite the contrary, and i have no problem with the concept of God or faith

[hrothgar]

that isn't true, or at least it isn't what we (i) believe... God has given man (all men, at all times) evidence that he exists... he has also stated many times that any who seek him will find him... but man hides from the truth, man deceives himself... or so the story goes

Here's a hypothetical for you:

 

I'm an Aztec, born in the year 1300. What hope do I have of obtaining salvation? The "Good News" of Christ's resurrection won't hit the shores of South America for close to 200 years. Looks like I'm ***** out of Luck...

 

Please recall: You agreed with the following statement of Bebop's:

 

Since I was asked, I know that:

 

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God.

 

So whats the story:

 

1. There are actually other ways to obtain salvation other than a personal relationship with Christ?

 

2. Many people have no hope of salvation?

 

3. The Aztec's didn't exist (God "planted" the archaeological evidence in much the same manner that he created all those fake fossils)

[hrothgar]

It is impossible to reason with people who have surrendered their capacity for logical thought.

that is beneath you... bebop has stated his beliefs logically, imo

Bebop presented his beliefs in an organized manner. He may be able to address some issues in a rational manner.

 

However, he shows no evidence that his beliefs about religion are based on anything rational. His entire argument boils down to

 

1. He has had a transcendental personal experience

2. Nothing can convince him that what he has experienced is anything other than the truth

 

I think that Mike's comment is (broadly) accurate

[mikeh]

~~Darwin pointed out that the evidence then available (which evidence has expanded vastly since his day) suggested that humanity was a contingent accident: merely one twig on the bush of life... and that we were descended, not from apes, but from a common ancestor of the apes.

 

This revolution in our view of ourselves has been accepted far more slowly than the Copernican revolution, perhaps because it strikes closer to home in terms of removing our ability to claim special status for ourselves.

is it possible that this 'revolution' has been accepted far more slowly (if at all) because it isn't true?

So the Pope (the one before the present neanderthal) was wrong when (in 1996 I think, but I can readily check) he announced that the Roman Catholic Church accepted the truth of evolutionary theory? The only caveat he added was that God still infused souls into humans, but he accepted that humans were descended from non-humans by way of evolution mediated by natural selection.

 

And that guy is allegedly infallible :P