Theology Discussion?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by randilover

I heard a great quote today: "It is more logically possible that all the religions in the world are wrong than that all the religions are right." Meaning, there are inherently different ideas and doctines in each one that would make the other irreconcilable with itself.

Ahmen, The first thing you've said that I can agree with ;)

Originally Posted by randilover

2) Elitism. This is kind of addressed in my above comment. First, Christianity, like hypocrites, doesn’t corner the market on exclusion. There is almost no major religion that is inclusive, and by definition, there is nothing wrong with exclusion. Islam is an exclusive religion (most of the time to your physical peril). Hinduism has done more damage with its caste system than Christianity has ever been able to do when it was in it’s most deviate form. Those would be elitist.

When Jesus made his exclusive statement, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me," it is a reasonable statement. The question is, "Is it true?" Truth by definition is exclusive. When you affirm something, you exclude anything that contradicts that. In a basic way, acceptance is a moot point. If I had the cure for cancer or AIDS sitting on my desk right now, all you have to do is come here to get it. Would you say, "That’s too inclusive, it’s too narrow, there has to be another way," or, to save someone yourself or someone you love, you spent every cent you have just to get the next plane to Philly to get the cure.

Christianity asserts people have a sin problem. When you have a plumbing problem, you get a plumber. When you have an electrical problem, you get a electrician. When you have a sin problem, you get a savior. Christianity is the one that asserts Jesus (and he did so himself) to be the "cure."

I'm not making a case for other religions not being flawed, or having the same issues. As I've stated, I do not believe in ANY organized religion. They're all inherently flawed IMO.

Originally Posted by randilover

3) Hypocrisy. I like what the Undead is saying. All major religions are stock full of hypocrites, we just live in a mostly Christian society. However, it does not invalidate what is asserted by Christ himself as the crux of the religion (and in someways validates what most of the New Testament of the Bible claims, that men are sinners, and even as Christians, stuggle against what is termed the sin nature).

This is not helping your case, and IMO only reinforces my disbelief in any organized religion.

Originally Posted by randilover

Last but not least, to address your point earlier, Preds:
For my quote:
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair." -C.S. Lewis
This does really help my point. There are things that are true, meaning the opposite can not be true, these need to be pursued. All the talk on exclusivity, hypocrites vs. the religion itself, etc., can be uncomfortable, but that in no way invalidates its truth. If it is true, it must be dealt with, but if you go searching for the one that is least uncomfortable, you will be left with little else than "despair."

You assume I'm "looking" for some form of truth, I'm not. In any way. Just having fun with a debate. I have zero desire to walk in a church of any kind, or to find my "inner" spirituality. What is there to "despair" over when I'm already at peace with myself?

[Valencia]

Originally Posted by Preds

Ahmen, The first thing you've said that I can agree with ;)

Is that Ahmen Green you are talking about...ope oops :Sorry :wrongforu

Originally Posted by Preds

You assume I'm "looking" for some form of truth, I'm not. In any way. Just having fun with a debate. I have zero desire to walk in a church of any kind, or to find my "inner" spirituality. What is there to "despair" over when I'm already at peace with myself?

Except for the search for "inner" spiriuality and being at peace w/myself part... I agree with everything you said.. Soooo... I guess I agree with about 1/2 of what you said.. (in that particular paragragh).. Well, I guess if we break it down a little further...... :Sarcasm j/k There have been some very eloquent and thoughtful posts. :jealous I am enjoying all the diverse points of view.
I will try to come up with something intelligent to say, but until then I will just find things to pick on and submit posts using way to many "smilies" :wasntme :Bowtoking

[randilover]

[/size]
Ahmen, The first thing you've said that I can agree with ;)

You're losing me here. You are basically stating that the problem with religion is that, "It's (their) way or the highway," which I tried to address. Did I address that concern legitimately? Y/N?

I'm not making a case for other religions not being flawed, or having the same issues. As I've stated, I do not believe in ANY organized religion. They're all inherently flawed IMO.

[/color][/size]

No, you have a beef with religion because you don’t like their exclusivity, their hypocrisy, etc, from what I can tell. If you think they are flawed, what is the flaw? That is what I am dealing with at this point. I stated why I am a Christian and you responded. You use inherently flawed. What is in Christianity that is, at it's foundation, it's core, wrong with it?

[/color][/size]You assume I'm "looking" for some form of truth, I'm not. In any way. Just having fun with a debate. I have zero desire to walk in a church of any kind, or to find my "inner" spirituality. What is there to "despair" over when I'm already at peace with myself?[/color][/color][/size]
[/color][/size]

Well, if what I am saying is true, that peace may be unfounded, and that's a hard place to be.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by randilover

You're losing me here. You are basically stating that the problem with religion is that, "It's (their) way or the highway," which I tried to address. Did I address that concern legitimately? Y/N?

No, I agreed with the quote itself (at least the way I read it the 1st time, not your interpretation of the quote. I read the quote as saying that it is logically more possible that all religions of the world are WRONG rather than right. I wholeheartedly agree with that quote, in that context. You read it essentially saying it is unlikely they are all right (which may be what it's saying, at 1st glance I didn't see it that way though). I never said I think they're (various religions) all right, but I do pretty much think they're likely all wrong, however, I won't discount that in some form or another they're all connected, which I guess yor saying this quote disputes.

Originally Posted by randilover

No, you have a beef with religion because you don’t like their exclusivity, their hypocrisy, etc, from what I can tell. If you think they are flawed, what is the flaw? That is what I am dealing with at this point. I stated why I am a Christian and you responded. You use inherently flawed. What is in Christianity that is, at it's foundation, it's core, wrong with it?

No, I pretty much have a beef with religion in general, those are just some of the flaws I pointed out. As per the inherent flaw they all have, they all pretty much share the same origin, which is a flawed retelling of stories and parables from eons earlier. The information they use as their core foundation is flawed from the get go.

Originally Posted by randilover

Well, if what I am saying is true, that peace may be unfounded, and that's a hard place to be.

Now, that was a typical judgemental statement. Who are you to say if my peace is "unfounded" and a "hard place to be"? C'mon Mike, you can do better than falling back on the typical fear tactics used by the church.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Preds

No, I agreed with the quote itself (at least the way I read it the 1st time, not your interpretation of the quote. I read the quote as saying that it is logically more possible that all religions of the world are WRONG rather than right. I wholeheartedly agree with that quote, in that context. You read it essentially saying it is unlikely they are all right (which may be what it's saying, at 1st glance I didn't see it that way though). I never said I think they're (various religions) all right, but I do pretty much think they're likely all wrong, however, I won't discount that in some form or another they're all connected, which I guess yor saying this quote disputes..

Mike, so what do you see as them being 'all wrong?" You have stated where you are coming from a little bit above (you feel they are adapted story-telling and are all wrong), but I really feel these are 'mask' comments to what your real issue is. I also understand that you are mostly focusing on Christianity because it's what you've had the most (bad) experience with.

I just find your debate unsubstantiated. You state all religions are wrong and flawed. Your reasoning is because you feel they are warped 'stories' from the past. Please explain. I know Mike and I, even the Undead, have tried to see what you are getting at and you are keeping your walls of defense up.

I know you are simply doing this to appease Mike Page and are 'not seeking' (using your own words). Fine. But when one enters a debate, generally they rely on hard facts and details. I appreciate you telling us how you feel (but like most things in life - this is only the surface; you are skimming the top of the iceburg and avoiding what's below the water - the real meat to your beliefs and why you believe all religions are flawed). We all have done and still do it in most aspects of our life. It's easier to put on a mask when dealing with others than to be vulnerable and talk about potentially painful topics. But heck, growth requires pain - no two ways about it.

I am willing to listen to anything anyone has to say. I used to agree with you. In fact, if you had talked to me 10 years ago, I would have been right by your side. The reason I recommended the book "A case for Christ' was explained by Mike Page (sorry, I ran out of time). It was by an athiest who was trying to prove Christianity was a crock. The problem was, the most he learned in trying to prove it wrong, he realized the more he learned it's accurate. I know you'll blow that statement off, by stating there is no way through all the generations until writing was created that this could have been kept accurate - a valid concern. However, my faith (and it takes faith) tells me that the God who created the universe is strong enough to make sure what He wanted to be written would be written as He wanted it. If it is a bunch of stories, there has to be some sort of divine intervention to make it all work as perfectly as it does - different parts supporting each other as well - as well as being so applicable to what really happens in life. In fact, this is perfect example. The Bible states that thoe who are honestly seeking God will find him, but those who are not will only hear what they want to hear.

Prove to me how the core foundations are flawed. I want to see where you are getting your evidence or is it simply a feeling.

Originally Posted by Preds

No, I pretty much have a beef with religion in general, those are just some of the flaws I pointed out. As per the inherent flaw they all have, they all pretty much share the same origin, which is a flawed retelling of stories and parables from eons earlier. The information they use as their core foundation is flawed from the get go.[/color][/size][/size]

Now, that was a typical judgemental statement. Who are you to say if my peace is "unfounded" and a "hard place to be"? C'mon Mike, you can do better than falling back on the typical fear tactics used by the church.

No, I don't think Mike was using fear tactics (nice redirection, though). I think he was asking ernestly a question to you and wanted to know what you thought. If you are happy and satisfied with your life, you are blessed and don't even know it. I have no complaints with that. I'm just curious how you do that. Everyone I have come in contact with has had questions about where they came from, where am I going, and what the heck is the point of all this - most people as they are dying don't ask about how many worms they think it will take to devour them, they seek to know if there is more to life (and death) than they previously considered. These lead people to a religion (any religion). Most people somewhere inside them are drawn to seek something bigger than themselves. Why is that? If we came from single-cell species, why would we have those questions?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

Mike, so what do you see as them being 'all wrong?" You have stated where you are coming from a little bit above (you feel they are adapted story-telling and are all wrong), but I really feel these are 'mask' comments to what your real issue is. I also understand that you are mostly focusing on Christianity because it's what you've had the most (bad) experience with.

I just find your debate unsubstantiated. You state all religions are wrong and flawed. Your reasoning is because you feel they are warped 'stories' from the past. Please explain. I know Mike and I, even the Undead, have tried to see what you are getting at and you are keeping your walls of defense up.

I have no more proof that religion is wrong, than you do that it's right. IMO, there simply is no proof for either side. I just happen to lean towards the side that in general, organized religions aare on the wrong track. Simple as that.

Your culture has brainwashed a belief system into you, thus you feel a need to believe in it. Had you grown up a Pygmy Indian in Brazil, you would have a totally differnet belief system, and would feel just as earnestly that that was the one and only religion that was correct.

And while I'm talking about the poor disadvantaged Pygmies, how bout them Crusades. I'm sure God's will was totally behind them as they squashed cultures, destroyed other religions, and retold things the way the Christian church wanted them told. How many religious belief systems has Christianity stomped over and destroyed in the past 2000+ years?

I'm not swayed by our culture, and I'm most certainly not swayed by the Christian church. I've made my own descisions and opinions, I need no evidence than what I feel inside.. Aside from Jesus knocking on my door, and showing me a miracle first hand, little you could say would sway me, as at the root, I disbelieve the foundation of what your preaching.

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

I know you are simply doing this to appease Mike Page and are 'not seeking' (using your own words). Fine. But when one enters a debate, generally they rely on hard facts and details. I appreciate you telling us how you feel (but like most things in life - this is only the surface; you are skimming the top of the iceburg and avoiding what's below the water - the real meat to your beliefs and why you believe all religions are flawed). We all have done and still do it in most aspects of our life. It's easier to put on a mask when dealing with others than to be vulnerable and talk about potentially painful topics. But heck, growth requires pain - no two ways about it.

Growth? Pain? Who's in pain? Who's wearing a mask? If anything, I'm the one NOT hiding behind a mask.

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

I am willing to listen to anything anyone has to say. I used to agree with you. In fact, if you had talked to me 10 years ago, I would have been right by your side. The reason I recommended the book "A case for Christ' was explained by Mike Page (sorry, I ran out of time). It was by an athiest who was trying to prove Christianity was a crock. The problem was, the most he learned in trying to prove it wrong, he realized the more he learned it's accurate. I know you'll blow that statement off, by stating there is no way through all the generations until writing was created that this could have been kept accurate - a valid concern.

Again, send me an Amazon link and I may check it out, but I'm not really driven to read it.

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

However, my faith (and it takes faith) tells me that the God who created the universe is strong enough to make sure what He wanted to be written would be written as He wanted it. If it is a bunch of stories, there has to be some sort of divine intervention to make it all work as perfectly as it does - different parts supporting each other as well - as well as being so applicable to what really happens in life. In fact, this is perfect example. The Bible states that thoe who are honestly seeking God will find him, but those who are not will only hear what they want to hear.

That sounds like a statment your minister would give you as a lifesaver to crawl out of the hole that the foundation of Christianity is as flawed as any other religion. The explanation of "faith" means little to me. Sorry.

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

Prove to me how the core foundations are flawed. I want to see where you are getting your evidence or is it simply a feeling.

I revert back to my satement a few paragraghs above, I don't see hard evidence on either side.

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

No, I don't think Mike was using fear tactics (nice redirection, though). I think he was asking ernestly a question to you and wanted to know what you thought. If you are happy and satisfied with your life, you are blessed and don't even know it. I have no complaints with that. I'm just curious how you do that. Everyone I have come in contact with has had questions about where they came from, where am I going, and what the heck is the point of all this - most people as they are dying don't ask about how many worms they think it will take to devour them, they seek to know if there is more to life (and death) than they previously considered. These lead people to a religion (any religion). Most people somewhere inside them are drawn to seek something bigger than themselves. Why is that? If we came from single-cell species, why would we have those questions?

Mike was without a doubt using fear tactics. It was a proptypical fear statement to a non-believer. Might as well have preached hell and damnation on the spot.

As for a desire to know that there is more to life... I don't really have one. Sorry. When you die you likely do just that, die. Maybe your essence or "spirit" lives on, maybe it doesn't. The odds are more likely IMO that life ends at death. Sorry.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally Posted by Preds

Had you grown up a Pygmy Indian in Brazil, you would have a totally differnet belief system, and would feel just as earnestly that that was the one and only religion that was correct.

Pygmies come from Brazil?!? Now you're really shaking my faith!!! :wink

Originally Posted by Preds

And while I'm talking about the poor disadvantaged Pygmies, how bout them Crusades. I'm sure God's will was totally behind them as they squashed cultures, destroyed other religions, and retold things the way the Christian church wanted them told. How many religious belief systems has Christianity stomped over and destroyed in the past 2000+ years?

Whoah! Was that a sucker-punch or what, ! I'll try to follow your logic how Pygmies segue to Knights Templar, but I'm afraid I'll get whiplash. I'm not sure if you're comparing or contrasting; Pygmies, I have no doubt, have indulged in their share of raiding the villages of other peoples, squashing their cultures, destroying their religions, etc. And don't forget that the people the Crusaders invaded had themselves invaded all of northern Africa. Christians have been able to do this on a much larger scale simlpy because the continent where it flourished also happened to become the most powerful in the world. But I'm not clear whether you're saying that Christians are unique in their level of violence, or that they're no different from any other society. If the latter, then I must question whether religion is a causal or a concomminant factor in the violence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? How do you respond?

Since I won't be online again until Tuesday, I'll go ahead and show my trump card: How is the violence of a truly secular society, such as USSR or Red China, preferable to that of the Crusaders'?

And, to rephrase my point from before: I can't treat criticism of the Crusaders as a criticism of Christianity unless it includes an argument that bevavior such as the Crusades follows in principle from the beliefs of Christianity. I see them as being incompatible.

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm not swayed by our culture, and I'm most certainly not swayed by the Christian church.

I'm not sure you're giving your culture enough credit; in many respects it encourages your point of view.

-Undead
(Not trying to convert Mike)

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Once again, Undead speaks much more eloquenty than I can. I have never been an evangelist (obvious from my writing).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...367970-5166509

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel "When I first met shy and soft-spoken Leo Carter, he was a seven-year-old veteran of Chicago's grittiest neighborhood..." (more)
SIPs: legendary development, swoon theory, empty tomb story, guard story
CAPs: New Testament, Son of God, Jesus Christ, Jesus Seminar, Group Study (more)

Search inside this bookShare your own customer images	List Price: $13.99 Price: $11.19 and eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $2.80 (20%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Friday, July 1? Order it in the next 2 hours and 5 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 215 used & new available from $3.24 Edition: Paperback

not to 'hurl stones' but you slammed Mike Page for making 'judgement statements' and you threw one of the most common secular ones out there at me, stating I'm 'brainwashed.' Not offended, just want you to be aware that if you chastise someone for something, you might not want to do it yourself.

In addition to questioning what you said, you stated that the 'explanation of 'faith' means little' to you. I disagree. You have 'faith' that your beliefs are right, as I have 'faith' that my beliefs are right. You have complete conviction that religions are flawed and you simply stop existing when you die. That, my friend, is faith. Not the same faith that I have, but it is very much a faith statement. You can't prove it and neither can I - thusly it's faith. So, you do HAVE faith.

Undead's comments about cultural influence there at the end is excellent.

PS. Mike, I'm not trying to convert you either. I'm simply trying to have a spirited (ok, pun intended) yet intellectual debate. Besides, I would feel bad for the poor fool who knocks on your door to 'convert' you...hee hee, that would be fun to watch!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

Since I won't be online again until Tuesday, I'll go ahead and show my trump card: How is the violence of a truly secular society, such as USSR or Red China, preferable to that of the Crusaders'?

Trump card? That's the trump card? Ha. I can take this softball. While violence is never prefered, at least secular violence can be explained as a part of human nature. Man is by nature violent and aggressive. As Thomas Hobes said, life in a state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. When secular societies act in this manner, it is easy to understand, but of course not "preferable." On the other hand, when a country, nation, or body of people act in an aggressive, violent, prejudiced, or other ugly manner under the veil of Christianity, a religion of which some of the cornerstones are to love thy neighbor, and turn the other cheek, the ultimate unexcusable hypocrisies rear their ugly head. Obviously, violent agressive unprovoked behavior by any nation-state is not something to be prefered, but at least in a secular society, they would be acting within their defined nature.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Trump card? That's the trump card? Ha. I can take this softball. While violence is never prefered, at least secular violence can be explained as a part of human nature. Man is by nature violent and aggressive. As Thomas Hobes said, life in a state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. When secular societies act in this manner, it is easy to understand, but of course not "preferable." On the other hand, when a country, nation, or body of people act in an aggressive, violent, prejudiced, or other ugly manner under the veil of Christianity, a religion of which some of the cornerstones are to love thy neighbor, and turn the other cheek, the ultimate unexcusable hypocrisies rear their ugly head. Obviously, violent agressive unprovoked behavior by any nation-state is not something to be prefered, but at least in a secular society, they would be acting within their defined nature.

Wow... :Stupid

I only wish I was as well spoken, and probably as well educated as Brian and Jeremy are.

I can't even keep my native tribes on the right continent.

Great reply Brian. Better than anything I could have bumbled over. :jealous and an :idiot as compared to you guys when it come to making an educated well informed point.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Wow... :Stupid

I only wish I was as well spoken, and probably as well educated as Brian and Jeremy are.

I can't even keep my native tribes on the right continent.

Great reply Brian. Better than anything I could have bumbled over. :jealous and an :idiot as compared to you guys when it come to making an educated well informed point.

:GoodPost :agree I have been avoiding posting much here only because I also am not very good with words, but I'll give it a shot.

You want evidence of God's existense, I guess you just have to look in the right spots. There are numerous documented cases of miracles that can be explained as "divine", and cannot be explained by anything scientific or physical. Sure you can also explain it as something not divine, but once again I guess this is where faith comes into play. Physically, how do you know we have wind? You can't see the wind, but you can see the evidence of it. I have seen the evidence of God in peoples lives, and have seen the effects of turning from God in peoples lives. Sure people screw things up all the time, in the name of Christianity, and also in the name of plenty of other banners. The book that defines Chritianity, the bible, tells us that we will all fail in trying to emulate Christ. I believe I just have to continue to try, and learn from my failings. But to give up that attempt because of what other imperfect people have done is IMO a big mistake. That is just hanging your faith or lack of it on those same imperfect people.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

:GoodPost :agree I have been avoiding posting much here only because I also am not very good with words, but I'll give it a shot.

You want evidence of God's existense, I guess you just have to look in the right spots. There are numerous documented cases of miracles that can be explained as "divine", and cannot be explained by anything scientific or physical. Sure you can also explain it as something not divine, but once again I guess this is where faith comes into play. Physically, how do you know we have wind? You can't see the wind, but you can see the evidence of it. I have seen the evidence of God in peoples lives, and have seen the effects of turning from God in peoples lives. Sure people screw things up all the time, in the name of Christianity, and also in the name of plenty of other banners. The book that defines Chritianity, the bible, tells us that we will all fail in trying to emulate Christ. I believe I just have to continue to try, and learn from my failings. But to give up that attempt because of what other imperfect people have done is IMO a big mistake. That is just hanging your faith or lack of it on those same imperfect people.

For someone who feels who doesn't speak well, you communicated this very well (and much shorter than anything I could have written).

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Trump card? That's the trump card? Ha. I can take this softball. While violence is never prefered, at least secular violence can be explained as a part of human nature. Man is by nature violent and aggressive. As Thomas Hobes said, life in a state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. When secular societies act in this manner, it is easy to understand, but of course not "preferable." On the other hand, when a country, nation, or body of people act in an aggressive, violent, prejudiced, or other ugly manner under the veil of Christianity, a religion of which some of the cornerstones are to love thy neighbor, and turn the other cheek, the ultimate unexcusable hypocrisies rear their ugly head. Obviously, violent agressive unprovoked behavior by any nation-state is not something to be prefered, but at least in a secular society, they would be acting within their defined nature.

I think Y. Undead's point is a great one. Most of the arguements against Christianity will usually mention the crusades, but fail to mention what belief in no god has done. He also brings up the great point that most societies that used Chrisitanity for political purposes had that end in mind before Christianity was picked up. Point being, most societies were looking for trouble, Christianity was just the chosen means to an end and therefore was twisted and maligned to fit that point of view, not the other way around. You can see what true Christianity looked like by the Reformation, etc., and the birth of modern Western society (you probably did not realize that the reason literacy is so important to us [meaning Westerners in general] is the Christian Reformation, did you? The Bible was held is such high esteem, they believed the best way for it to be actualized was through teaching reading to the masses.)

I would also take contention with this above point as most of time the people arguing from this point of view make the assertion that man is natually good. I would use the above to prove just the opposite. The most violent century in existence was the 20th, and it was marked by Nietzche's (sp?) statement, "God is dead." Facism (man is my spelling a wonder to behold or what?!?) and communism produced the most violent societies the earth had ever seen, and in the case of Germany, it was the most highly educated country on the planet. Man by nature is flawed. Otherwise we would need an explanation as to why these societies are by nature the way they are.

This leads to another point. Maybe we can take a step back. To come from an atheistic/agnostic point of view, something should be dealt with right away. Most of the arguements (going both ways) seem to be referencing or appealling to something other and outer that is a standard of right ("The Crusades were wrong because..." "forcing religion is wrong...", etc). I'd like explanations at to where this is coming from. If there is no god, then what determines what is good and bad?

I would also agree with Rami, this "spirited" discussion is quite provacative (in a good way). I've never seen so much writing in thread. Quite good, all around, both sides. It's nice knowing you're not all a bunch of football jug heads.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I will preface my statements with the fact that Mike P. and I grow up in the same church and are both "born-again" Christians. While I have been busy at work I have tried to keep up with the thread but have had the time to really contribute. The above quote caught my eye for a couple of reasons:

1. Religion is meaningless. The end result is that everyone of is accountable for how we live our lives and whether or not we have accepted that we are sinners and have fallen short. If you are willing to accept that everyone falls short then the question becomes what you do about it. If you accept Jesus then the gap is bridged regardless of what religion you are.
2. With that in mind being a beliver is extremely inclusive because everyone who has heard (and has the mental capcity to understand) has the same opportunity to accept and it's free. If that is "elitist or unnaccepting" I must be missing something.
3. Personally, I don't believe that I am better than anyone else (elitist or unaccpeting). In fact I recogonize that I am as bad as anyone who has ever lived in God's eyes (and to me that is all that matters). I am not going to try and cram my way of thinking down your throat. As evidenced by the fact that I have been on this forum for years and don't think I have made any comments of this nature before.
4. Mike (preds) the fact that you are asking questions (even if it is only for kicks and giggles) means something is happening. The questions that you have are there for a reason (you would know that reason better than I).

[smsmith40]

Excellent! A Christians v (Nittany) Lions thread

I hang around a couple of other football related boards that have these kind of conversations on them. Unfortunately I have given up on religion related threads because they inevitably seem to end up a slanging match without much mutual respect or appreciation. I’m glad (and not that surprised) that we have managed to remain civil

Having said that I am worried about what I have seen and read in general over the last few months on this topic. There seems to be a split developing in society and unfortunately that fissure seems to be along religious lines. It is worrying that most powerful and influential society in the world, a country that was specifically set up a secular state, seems to having a cultural civil war over religion.

I live in the which has an established church (Church of England), my wholly unelected head of state is also the head of the church. However, over the last 50-100 years the traditional church has been declining in influence, relevance and crucially attendance. My Granny went to church every Sunday of her life, my Dad went to Sunday School every week as a boy. I had a religious service at school most weeks. The only religious activities not in decline are Evangelism and the southern and eastern religions of the immigrant communities (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism). My country is hopefully becoming a tolerant, multi-faith society.

For most of my life religion has been a complete irrelevance, I’d never really thought too deeply about it. I went to church services when required both as a kid at school and to weddings (including my own) and funerals as an adult. I even had some exposure to evangelism as a teenager. My best friend was part of a born again family, inevitably his parents decided I needed to be ‘saved’. I accepted their invitations to various events, including a Billy Graham rally, it was part of remaining friends with my mate but it really didn’t affect me at any deeper level.

However, over the last few months I have had to confront my increasingly negative view of religion and evangelism in particular. My oldest child started school last year, shortly afterwards we moved house. School places in our new home are limited but there was space in both the large primary (elementary) school in the town we live in and in a small Church of England school in a village a couple of miles away. Having visited both schools, it was clear that the best environment for Ellie was in the church school, by every objective measure it was a better school.

The religious aspect of the school is not that much greater than I experienced at my school but I was having trouble with the fact that my daughter might not end up sharing my increasingly agnostic/atheistic views. In the end Ellie is going to the church school and loves it. She even believes in Jesus………and Barbie Fairytopia, Robin Hood and the tooth fairy. Hopefully there will be minimal brainwashing and Ellie will grow up to have sufficient intelligence, information and independence to make up her own mind and not merely parrot my views, or that of the school

My problem with evangelism is that I’m not sure a typical evangelist would be able to make the same decision. Could they say to their children ‘this is what I believe’ but I might be wrong so why don’t you go and find about the alternatives and make up your own mind.

Because evangelists have faith, faith in their Lord, faith in Jesus, faith in the Bible and faith doesn’t allow for doubt, doubt is to be abhorred and expelled. The problem is I like doubt, doubt leads to questions and questions lead to new answers and that leads to progress. Religion has always been anti-progress; from Galileo to to Einstein the church has opposed new ideas and thoughts

Progress has led us form the cave to the skyscraper, from tribalism to democracy and from serfdom to freedom but whenever I see evangelism it always seems to be railing against progress, whether it be scientific progress in the form of stem cell research or artistic progress (in the UK we had a recent case where the senior management of the BBC were sent threatening letters in an effort to stop the transmission of a show that they considered heretical).

In my mind the existence of God is a possibility, I’ve just not seen any compelling evidence for it. What I cannot and will not believe is that all the answers I will need in life were written in a book 2000 years ago. I have a much greater understanding of the world than they ever did, my children will have a greater understanding than I do and their children will outstrip mine. Perhaps in a few generations people will have a definitive understanding, I suspect not.

Several people in this thread have mentioned that they are on a journey, what kind of journey has its destination already decided by somebody else.


p.s feel free to replace the word evangelist with the word fundamentalist. I’m not trying to limit by arguments to Christianity. Its just the one I have most experience of.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Excellent! A Christians v (Nittany) Lions thread

I hang around a couple of other football related boards that have these kind of conversations on them. Unfortunately I have given up on religion related threads because they inevitably seem to end up a slanging match without much mutual respect or appreciation. I’m glad (and not that surprised) that we have managed to remain civil

Having said that I am worried about what I have seen and read in general over the last few months on this topic. There seems to be a split developing in :pUS:p society and unfortunately that fissure seems to be along religious lines. It is worrying that most powerful and influential society in the world, a country that was specifically set up a secular state, seems to having a cultural civil war over religion.
:p
I live in the :pUK :pwhich has an established church (Church of England), my wholly unelected head of state is also the head of the church. However, over the last 50-100 years the traditional church has been declining in influence, relevance and crucially attendance. My Granny went to church every Sunday of her life, my Dad went to Sunday School every week as a boy. I had a religious service at school most weeks. The only religious activities not in decline are Evangelism and the southern and eastern religions of the immigrant communities (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism). My country is hopefully becoming a tolerant, multi-faith society.
:p
For most of my life religion has been a complete irrelevance, I’d never really thought too deeply about it. I went to church services when required both as a kid at school and to weddings (including my own) and funerals as an adult. I even had some exposure to evangelism as a teenager. My best friend was part of a born again family, inevitably his parents decided I needed to be ‘saved’. I accepted their invitations to various events, including a Billy Graham rally, it was part of remaining friends with my mate but it really didn’t affect me at any deeper level.
:p
However, over the last few months I have had to confront my increasingly negative view of religion and evangelism in particular. My oldest child started school last year, shortly afterwards we moved house. School places in our new home are limited but there was space in both the large primary (elementary) school in the town we live in and in a small Church of England school in a village a couple of miles away. Having visited both schools, it was clear that the best environment for Ellie was in the church school, by every objective measure it was a better school.
:p
The religious aspect of the school is not that much greater than I experienced at my school but I was having trouble with the fact that my daughter might not end up sharing my increasingly agnostic/atheistic views. In the end Ellie is going to the church school and loves it. She even believes in Jesus………and Barbie Fairytopia, Robin Hood and the tooth fairy. Hopefully there will be minimal brainwashing and Ellie will grow up to have sufficient intelligence, information and independence to make up her own mind and not merely parrot my views, or that of the school

My problem with evangelism is that I’m not sure a typical evangelist would be able to make the same decision. Could they say to their children ‘this is what I believe’ but I might be wrong so why don’t you go and find about the alternatives and make up your own mind.
:p
Because evangelists have faith, faith in their Lord, faith in Jesus, faith in the Bible and faith doesn’t allow for doubt, doubt is to be abhorred and expelled. The problem is I like doubt, doubt leads to questions and questions lead to new answers and that leads to progress. Religion has always been anti-progress; from Galileo to :pDarwin:p to Einstein the church has opposed new ideas and thoughts

Progress has led us form the cave to the skyscraper, from tribalism to democracy and from serfdom to freedom but whenever I see evangelism it always seems to be railing against progress, whether it be scientific progress in the form of stem cell research or artistic progress (in the UK we had a recent case where the senior management of the BBC were sent threatening letters in an effort to stop the transmission of a show that they considered heretical).
:p
In my mind the existence of God is a possibility, I’ve just not seen any compelling evidence for it. What I cannot and will not believe is that all the answers I will need in life were written in a book 2000 years ago. I have a much greater understanding of the world than they ever did, my children will have a greater understanding than I do and their children will outstrip mine. Perhaps in a few generations people will have a definitive understanding, I suspect not.
:p
Several people in this thread have mentioned that they are on a journey, what kind of journey has its destination already decided by somebody else.

:p
p.s feel free to replace the word evangelist with the word fundamentalist. I’m not trying to limit by arguments to Christianity. Its just the one I have most experience of.:p>:p>

Wow, I have yet another reason to respect Smitty. Well done chap, well done.

Again, I wish I could portray my thoughts with such elegance.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Interesting point of view, but can I point a few things out?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

There seems to be a split developing in society and unfortunately that fissure seems to be along religious lines. It is worrying that most powerful and influential society in the world, a country that was specifically set up a secular state, seems to having a cultural civil war over religion.

actually, read over all of the founding papers of the US (Declaration, etc) and you will see that the founding fathers believed strongly in THE GOD of Christianity. In fact, what they wanted is not to be like the Church of England - be forced and controlled by the government. In fact, it's changed over the years. For long time, to hold office you had to be a Christian and read the Bible. It's not been until 1947 Supreme Court ruling that created "separation of church and state." It's not in any of the previous writings. They made it up - it's not in the Constitution of the US. Look it up! You will no find it until 1947 ruling. Speaking of brainwashing - the secular US is trying to convince everyone (and quite well I might add) that it's in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I live in the which has an established church (Church of England), my wholly unelected head of state is also the head of the church. However, over the last 50-100 years the traditional church has been declining in influence, relevance and crucially attendance. My Granny went to church every Sunday of her life, my Dad went to Sunday School every week as a boy. I had a religious service at school most weeks. The only religious activities not in decline are Evangelism and the southern and eastern religions of the immigrant communities (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism). My country is hopefully becoming a tolerant, multi-faith society.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

For most of my life religion has been a complete irrelevance, I’d never really thought too deeply about it. I went to church services when required both as a kid at school and to weddings (including my own) and funerals as an adult. I even had some exposure to evangelism as a teenager. My best friend was part of a born again family, inevitably his parents decided I needed to be ‘saved’. I accepted their invitations to various events, including a Billy Graham rally, it was part of remaining friends with my mate but it really didn’t affect me at any deeper level.

That happens a lot. It was your choice not to believe. I am impressed you went and listened. A lot of people don't.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

However, over the last few months I have had to confront my increasingly negative view of religion and evangelism in particular. My oldest child started school last year, shortly afterwards we moved house. School places in our new home are limited but there was space in both the large primary (elementary) school in the town we live in and in a small Church of England school in a village a couple of miles away. Having visited both schools, it was clear that the best environment for Ellie was in the church school, by every objective measure it was a better school.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

The religious aspect of the school is not that much greater than I experienced at my school but I was having trouble with the fact that my daughter might not end up sharing my increasingly agnostic/atheistic views. In the end Ellie is going to the church school and loves it. She even believes in Jesus………and Barbie Fairytopia, Robin Hood and the tooth fairy. Hopefully there will be minimal brainwashing and Ellie will grow up to have sufficient intelligence, information and independence to make up her own mind and not merely parrot my views, or that of the school

My problem with evangelism is that I’m not sure a typical evangelist would be able to make the same decision. Could they say to their children ‘this is what I believe’ but I might be wrong so why don’t you go and find about the alternatives and make up your own mind.

It's funny you said that. Read your own words. You want your daughter to decide something for herself, but when it varies from your perspective (she believes in Jesus), then you think she's brainwashed. You are guilty of the same 'crime' of Christianity - you want her to be of free will and decision, but when she decides to believe you think she's being 'influenced' by the school. She knows your beliefs and she has heard the schools Christian view and maybe she did make up her own mind?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Because evangelists have faith, faith in their Lord, faith in Jesus, faith in the Bible and faith doesn’t allow for doubt, doubt is to be abhorred and expelled. The problem is I like doubt, doubt leads to questions and questions lead to new answers and that leads to progress. Religion has always been anti-progress; from Galileo to to Einstein the church has opposed new ideas and thoughts

Actually, only the closed tunnel-visioned Christians do that. I am a very strong advocate of challenging things. Seek the mystery and question why I believe. I read many things that make me seek more. Am I really seeking or not? Am I blinding following doctrine and what people are telling me - or am I looking for the answers myself? Once again, if you read the thread - I recommend the book "A Case for Christ" which is an person who did not believe in God trying to prove God does not exist. His questioning religion led him to the truth. I actually support people questions. I love to challenge others to prove me wrong about Jesus and God. I question all the time. If I didn't, it wouldn't be a journey, now would it?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Progress has led us form the cave to the skyscraper, from tribalism to democracy and from serfdom to freedom but whenever I see evangelism it always seems to be railing against progress, whether it be scientific progress in the form of stem cell research or artistic progress (in the UK we had a recent case where the senior management of the BBC were sent threatening letters in an effort to stop the transmission of a show that they considered heretical).

Originally Posted by smsmith40

In my mind the existence of God is a possibility, I’ve just not seen any compelling evidence for it. What I cannot and will not believe is that all the answers I will need in life were written in a book 2000 years ago. I have a much greater understanding of the world than they ever did, my children will have a greater understanding than I do and their children will outstrip mine. Perhaps in a few generations people will have a definitive understanding, I suspect not.

Several people in this thread have mentioned that they are on a journey, what kind of journey has its destination already decided by somebody else.


p.s feel free to replace the word evangelist with the word fundamentalist. I’m not trying to limit by arguments to Christianity. Its just the one I have most experience of.

I have a quote I'll be putting out in a second about the Bible. Read it over and thing about it. Question it...

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Interesting point of view, but can I point a few things out?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

There seems to be a split developing in society and unfortunately that fissure seems to be along religious lines. It is worrying that most powerful and influential society in the world, a country that was specifically set up a secular state, seems to having a cultural civil war over religion.

actually, read over all of the founding papers of the US (Declaration, etc) and you will see that the founding fathers believed strongly in THE GOD of Christianity. In fact, what they wanted is not to be like the Church of England - be forced and controlled by the government. In fact, it's changed over the years. For long time, to hold office you had to be a Christian and read the Bible. It's not been until 1947 Supreme Court ruling that created "separation of church and state." It's not in any of the previous writings. They made it up - it's not in the Constitution of the US. Look it up! You will no find it until 1947 ruling. Speaking of brainwashing - the secular US is trying to convince everyone (and quite well I might add) that it's in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I live in the which has an established church (Church of England), my wholly unelected head of state is also the head of the church. However, over the last 50-100 years the traditional church has been declining in influence, relevance and crucially attendance. My Granny went to church every Sunday of her life, my Dad went to Sunday School every week as a boy. I had a religious service at school most weeks. The only religious activities not in decline are Evangelism and the southern and eastern religions of the immigrant communities (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism). My country is hopefully becoming a tolerant, multi-faith society.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

For most of my life religion has been a complete irrelevance, I’d never really thought too deeply about it. I went to church services when required both as a kid at school and to weddings (including my own) and funerals as an adult. I even had some exposure to evangelism as a teenager. My best friend was part of a born again family, inevitably his parents decided I needed to be ‘saved’. I accepted their invitations to various events, including a Billy Graham rally, it was part of remaining friends with my mate but it really didn’t affect me at any deeper level.

That happens a lot. It was your choice not to believe. I am impressed you went and listened. A lot of people don't.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

However, over the last few months I have had to confront my increasingly negative view of religion and evangelism in particular. My oldest child started school last year, shortly afterwards we moved house. School places in our new home are limited but there was space in both the large primary (elementary) school in the town we live in and in a small Church of England school in a village a couple of miles away. Having visited both schools, it was clear that the best environment for Ellie was in the church school, by every objective measure it was a better school.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

The religious aspect of the school is not that much greater than I experienced at my school but I was having trouble with the fact that my daughter might not end up sharing my increasingly agnostic/atheistic views. In the end Ellie is going to the church school and loves it. She even believes in Jesus………and Barbie Fairytopia, Robin Hood and the tooth fairy. Hopefully there will be minimal brainwashing and Ellie will grow up to have sufficient intelligence, information and independence to make up her own mind and not merely parrot my views, or that of the school

My problem with evangelism is that I’m not sure a typical evangelist would be able to make the same decision. Could they say to their children ‘this is what I believe’ but I might be wrong so why don’t you go and find about the alternatives and make up your own mind.

It's funny you said that. Read your own words. You want your daughter to decide something for herself, but when it varies from your perspective (she believes in Jesus), then you think she's brainwashed. You are guilty of the same 'crime' of Christianity - you want her to be of free will and decision, but when she decides to believe you think she's being 'influenced' by the school. She knows your beliefs and she has heard the schools Christian view and maybe she did make up her own mind?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Because evangelists have faith, faith in their Lord, faith in Jesus, faith in the Bible and faith doesn’t allow for doubt, doubt is to be abhorred and expelled. The problem is I like doubt, doubt leads to questions and questions lead to new answers and that leads to progress. Religion has always been anti-progress; from Galileo to to Einstein the church has opposed new ideas and thoughts

Actually, only the closed tunnel-visioned Christians do that. I am a very strong advocate of challenging things. Seek the mystery and question why I believe. I read many things that make me seek more. Am I really seeking or not? Am I blinding following doctrine and what people are telling me - or am I looking for the answers myself? Once again, if you read the thread - I recommend the book "A Case for Christ" which is an person who did not believe in God trying to prove God does not exist. His questioning religion led him to the truth. I actually support people questions. I love to challenge others to prove me wrong about Jesus and God. I question all the time. If I didn't, it wouldn't be a journey, now would it?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Progress has led us form the cave to the skyscraper, from tribalism to democracy and from serfdom to freedom but whenever I see evangelism it always seems to be railing against progress, whether it be scientific progress in the form of stem cell research or artistic progress (in the UK we had a recent case where the senior management of the BBC were sent threatening letters in an effort to stop the transmission of a show that they considered heretical).

Originally Posted by smsmith40

In my mind the existence of God is a possibility, I’ve just not seen any compelling evidence for it. What I cannot and will not believe is that all the answers I will need in life were written in a book 2000 years ago. I have a much greater understanding of the world than they ever did, my children will have a greater understanding than I do and their children will outstrip mine. Perhaps in a few generations people will have a definitive understanding, I suspect not.

Several people in this thread have mentioned that they are on a journey, what kind of journey has its destination already decided by somebody else.


p.s feel free to replace the word evangelist with the word fundamentalist. I’m not trying to limit by arguments to Christianity. Its just the one I have most experience of.

I have a quote I'll be putting out in a second about the Bible. Read it over and thing about it. Question it...

[The Immortal Ramirez]

1st: Another quote by CS Lewis:
"If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete in simplicity with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he does not have any facts to bother about."

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Just something else to question and think about.

"The Bible was penned on two continents, written in three languages over a period of sixteen centuries. The various parts of the bible were written at different times and under the most varying circumstances. Parts of it were written in tents, deserts, cities, palaces, and dungeons. Among the writers were judges, kings, priests, prophets, patriarchs, prime ministers, herdsmen, scribes, soldiers, physicians, and fishermen, most often unaware of what the others were writing. Yet despite these varying circumstances, conditions, and workmen, the Bible is one Book; with an unmistakable organic unity that contains one system of doctrine, one code of ethics, one plan of salvation, and one rule of faith.
Now if forty different men were selected today from such varying stations and callings of life as to include clerks, rulers, politicians, judges, clergy, doctors, farm laborers, and fishermen, and each was asked to contribute a chapter for some book on theology or church government, when their various contributions were collected and bound together would there be any unity about them? Could that book truly be said to be one book, or would not their different productions vary so much in literary value, diction, and matter as to be merely a heterogenous mass, a miscellaneous collection? Yet we do not find this to be the case in connection with God's Book. Although the Bible is a volume of sixty-six books, written by forty different men, dealing with such a large variety of themes as to cover nearly the whole range of human inquiry, we find it is one Book, the Book (not the books), the Bible.
The more one really studies the Bible the more one is convinced that behind the many human mouths there is One overruling, controlling Mind.
Arthur Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, pp. 65-66

[smsmith40]

Rami

I'm going to split this up into few separate postings as I am havingesevere trouble with the baord not acceptng my posts.

Firstly on the US separation of church and state, the founding fathers believed in God because, unlike today, christianity was universal in Western Society yet the declaration of independence and the constitution makes relatively little mention of God .

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This is directly from Article VI of the constitution as published by UShistory.org. The website specifically mentions where the test has been changed by subsequent amendment and this section does not have that qualifier. Can you help me out by providing a link to the version you mentioned that had the qualifier regarding being a Christian and reading the bible?

As a practical matter though, if any presidential candidate got up and said he didn't believe in god what would his chances be? In fact, has any presidential candidate said that. Would any candidate ever be likely to say that ?

[smsmith40]

Read your own words. You want your daughter to decide something for herself, but when it varies from your perspective (she believes in Jesus), then you think she's brainwashed. You are guilty of the same 'crime' of Christianity - you want her to be of free will and decision, but when she decides to believe you think she's being 'influenced' by the school. She knows your beliefs and she has heard the schools Christian view and maybe she did make up her own mind?

Ellie believes in Jesus be cause her teacher and the Vicar who comes to her school once a week has told her a nice story. I would also never undermine her teacher by telling Ellie to accept some things she is told by the school and not others. How would a 5 year old child be able to tell the difference between believing her teacher when she says 2+2=4 but not when she says Jesus fed the 5000 with a basket of loaves and fishes? She is somewhat aware that I don't believe in Jesus but I have not made an issue about it. Its too confusing

Ellie, like most 5 year olds, will believe anything she is told by people she trusts. Hence Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Given that neither myself or my wife have told her anything about Christianity I think its a fair bet that she might have influenced by the school. I'm not condemning the school for that, we knew it would happen when we decided to send her there.

p.s I don't want to sound like I am dissing you but do you have kids?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

Interesting point of view, but can I point a few things out?actually, read over all of the founding papers of the US (Declaration, etc) and you will see that the founding fathers believed strongly in THE GOD of Christianity.

I've missed a few days and have a lot to respond to, but I wanted to respond to this first. Many of the founding fathers did not believe in the Christian God. Many of the founding fathers were Deists. Of course there were some, such as John Adams, that were very much Christians. But there were many that were not. I find it interesting that you reference the Declarations specificially, since the most notable Deist of the group was also primary author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

:GoodPost :agree I have been avoiding posting much here only because I also am not very good with words, but I'll give it a shot.

You want evidence of God's existense, I guess you just have to look in the right spots. There are numerous documented cases of miracles that can be explained as "divine", and cannot be explained by anything scientific or physical. Sure you can also explain it as something not divine, but once again I guess this is where faith comes into play. Physically, how do you know we have wind? You can't see the wind, but you can see the evidence of it. I have seen the evidence of God in peoples lives, and have seen the effects of turning from God in peoples lives. Sure people screw things up all the time, in the name of Christianity, and also in the name of plenty of other banners. The book that defines Chritianity, the bible, tells us that we will all fail in trying to emulate Christ. I believe I just have to continue to try, and learn from my failings. But to give up that attempt because of what other imperfect people have done is IMO a big mistake. That is just hanging your faith or lack of it on those same imperfect people.

I believe in wind because it can be felt, meassured, and its effects are plainly seen by the eye. Please give me one citation for a miracle that has no other logical explanation than divine intervention. Bonus points awarded if the divine intervention can be proven to be Christian.

[smsmith40]

Although the Bible is a volume of sixty-six books, written by forty different men, dealing with such a large variety of themes as to cover nearly the whole range of human inquiry, we find it is one Book, the Book (not the books), the Bible.
The more one really studies the Bible the more one is convinced that behind the many human mouths there is One overruling, controlling Mind.

I am not going to pretend I have studied the bible in any kind of depth but when on occasion I have dipped into it I have never been truck by any sense of unity.

THe problem is that bible study is self-fulfilling, the vast majority of people who study the bible come to it form a mindset of already believing it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

You can see what true Christianity looked like by the Reformation, etc., and the birth of modern Western society (you probably did not realize that the reason literacy is so important to us [meaning Westerners in general] is the Christian Reformation, did you? The Bible was held is such high esteem, they believed the best way for it to be actualized was through teaching reading to the masses.)

I think it was just a poor choice of words, but in case it wasn't, I'd have to disagree with you that the reason literacy is important to Westernerns is because of the Reformation. Yes, a key tennet's of Martin Luther's belief system was that the priest was not a necessary medium for the believer to have a relationship with God, and therefor the Bible should be available in a common language, and not solely Latin. However, this does not prove a causal relationship of the importance of literacy in the western world.

Originally Posted by randilover

I would also take contention with this above point as most of time the people arguing from this point of view make the assertion that man is natually good. I would use the above to prove just the opposite. The most violent century in existence was the 20th, and it was marked by Nietzche's (sp?) statement, "God is dead." Facism (man is my spelling a wonder to behold or what?!?) and communism produced the most violent societies the earth had ever seen, and in the case of Germany, it was the most highly educated country on the planet. Man by nature is flawed. Otherwise we would need an explanation as to why these societies are by nature the way they are.

I'm not sure if you are debating me here, or someone else, but I would wholeheartedly agree with you than man is fundamentally "not good," define that as you will. See my favorite Hobbes quote above for reference about man's nature.

Originally Posted by randilover

If there is no god, then what determines what is good and bad?

I can answer that just as soon as you can answer why Christianity, or religion in general, is the only belief system than can determine values. Are you saying a non-religous belief system has no way to determine morality for itself?

[smsmith40]

Rami

From your earlier post

The reason I recommended the book "A case for Christ' was explained by Mike Page (sorry, I ran out of time). It was by an athiest who was trying to prove Christianity was a crock. The problem was, the most he learned in trying to prove it wrong, he realized the more he learned it's accurate.

Unfortunately 10 minutes googling has told me that the author Lee Strobel was born again in 1981, 17 years prior to publishing "A Case for Christ" in 1998. He was NOT an atheist trying to prove Christianity was a crock he was in fact a teaching pastor.

THe information can be found on his (christian) publishers website, www.zondervan.com. I know this is the spin that has been put on this book, that it represents a sceptics point of view but I find no basis for that assertion, it is NOT an objective viewpoint.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Trump card? That's the trump card? Ha. I can take this softball. While violence is never prefered, at least secular violence can be explained as a part of human nature.

Is violence justified by religious rhetoric somehow not explained by human nature?

Man is by nature violent and aggressive. As Thomas Hobes said, life in a state of nature would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Like Danny DeVito! (My wife's professor's joke.)

When secular societies act in this manner, it is easy to understand, but of course not "preferable." On the other hand, when a country, nation, or body of people act in an aggressive, violent, prejudiced, or other ugly manner under the veil of Christianity, a religion of which some of the cornerstones are to love thy neighbor, and turn the other cheek, the ultimate unexcusable hypocrisies rear their ugly head.

Of course! Because they are acting contrary to Christian morals (a cornerstone of which, I repeat, is “love thy enemy”, not “love they neighbor”).

Obviously, violent agressive unprovoked behavior by any nation-state is not something to be prefered, but at least in a secular society, they would be acting within their defined nature.

And in a religious society, they are also acting according to their human nature. All [large-scale] violence is political or economic in nature; I believe that is one of Hobbes' main points. Religious rhetoric is often misapplied to attempt to justify this violence, or to motivate the masses who won't benefit politically or economically into compliance; but other kinds of rhetoric are used: and in the case of Nationalism, used to far greater and more violent effect.



What I hear you saying is that the violence executed by Christians is bad because, despite its claims, it's not Christian. This is not a criticism of Christianity but of the failure of many people to adhere to it, to veil their evilness in it. Religious hypocrisy was practically Jesus's main target; he was much kinder to the Romans than he was to the Pharisees.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

Is violence justified by religious rhetoric somehow not explained by human nature?

This debate is just getting more and more meaningless since this all started from the question of "is violence perpetrated by a secular society preferred over violence perpetrated by a Christian society?" Violence is never preferred. I rarely can be justified. It cannot be explained, but not by Christian tennets.

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

What I hear you saying is that the violence executed by Christians is bad because, despite its claims, it's not Christian. This is not a criticism of Christianity but of the failure of many people to adhere to it, to veil their evilness in it. Religious hypocrisy was practically Jesus's main target; he was much kinder to the Romans than he was to the Pharisees.

I will admit as a skeptic that I do too often not separate the Christian from the Chrsitianity, but when the hypocrisy of what the beliefs of the church actually are, are so contrary to the history of Christianity over the last 2000 years, it is difficult to do at times.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

The problem is that bible study is self-fulfilling, the vast majority of people who study the bible come to it form a mindset of already believing it.

I disagree. (Or more accurately, I must nuance your phrase "believing it".) In my case, at least, the more closely I studied the Bible, the harder it became for me to remain a fundamentalist, as I was raised. It helps to have a really good annotated Bible. Those annotations, by the way, which are so good at pointing out the inconsistencies in the scriptures, are primarily the result of seminary scholarship; and one presumes those scholars entered the seminary as believers. I further assume that the majority of them left the seminaries as believers also.

What I cannot and will not believe is that all the answers I will need in life were written in a book 2000 years ago. I have a much greater understanding of the world than they ever did, my children will have a greater understanding than I do and their children will outstrip mine.

This is a point to ponder. Part of me says: the world then and the world now are far more similar than they are different; almost all of the differences are superficial. Likewise, a lot of superficial details in the Bible have become irelevant. But the wisdom it contains is as timeless as human nature itself. (And how timeless that is, God only knows.)

Another part of me says: quantum physics and astronomy haven't changed the way we live our daily lives, but perhaps social science and economic science have? Racism and slavery to be in decline, but are they just being replaced by different systems of oppression? We seem more enlightened, yet sometimes I really wonder.

Perhaps in a few generations people will have a definitive understanding, I suspect not.

Dostoyevski had a field day making fun of that kind of optimism for human reason. If only I could remember where. "Notes From the Underground?"