What irks me though, is you say there is no reason to believe in God, how so? We don't know how life got here. We also don't know how the universe began. So then why discard the possibility of God? How many scientists are even looking for the possibility of a creator? The universe is massive with infinite amounts of knowledge. What if one day, somewhere out there, someone finds God or more evidence of God? Of course, we haven't found life on any other planet or even signs of it so it's entirely possible that God created humans only on Earth.
Last edited by RD2191; 07-28-2014 at 07:12 PM.
I know people that can't even construct a proper sentence and got accepted to Tech. Yet he acts as if it's something special. Probably some grammatical errors in my sentence but oh well. At least I'll never be as dumb as Blake.texas tech rump raiders!
If I hate guns should I send my child to various NRA events? Just a question.
No God? Your move spurraider.
dno if this was directed towards me or not
the day we have actual evidence of the existence of a god (judeo-christian or otherwise) is the day i'll hop on the god bandwagon tbh. but i dont consider our lack of understanding, or "gaps" as such evidence. for instance, "we dont know definitely exactly how life on earth originated, therefore god is the answer." imo that is a dangerous method of thinking that led to no real scientific advancement for 1,000 years. instead we need to continue to study what we can, make new discoveries that DO answer those questions. maybe one day, one of those discoveries will be a direct piece of evidence to the existence of a deity.... but until then, there is no actual evidence for god, only gaps in knowledge, which btw we continue to slowly fill
I enjoyed your points too.
If the day ever comes that we find irrefutable proof of God, it will be solely because He wants us to.
Why He wants us to accept Him solely due to our faith in Him, escapes me.
That has nothing to do with free will IMHO.
I can only speak for myself but the way that I see itp religions in general and Christianity in particular proselytize and politicize their beliefs.
Good stuff. I am a part time researcher myself. I don't understand the ridicule between both sides. It is what it is and for people to spend a considerable amount of their day arguing against what somebody believes in is hilarious if you actually think about it. For all this time when society became more secular there have been atheists being born just to toy with somebody else's beliefs. It's pretty intolerant if you ask me.
Ministry is a central tenant to the Christians as Jesus talked about it consistently throughout the gospels. The church has a longstanding tradition from Constantine on down in influencing policy. Christianity at least through saul gave credence to the notion of separation of church and state even if most American christians have no idea what I am talking about. Others such as Islam are political through doctrine.
Social control can be used for good or ill certainly but when it is used for ill, it is important in my view to point out that the basis of the stupid decisions being made have no truth.
If people want to give alms or attribute magic sky man when they get a raise at work then great. OTOH, when they use it to curtail human rights, stifle verifiable truth, or to induce people into cruel and malicious acts then not so great.
Excellent points, but I feel you are "generalizing" quite a bit, especially when you consider the time spans involved in comparing theistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, etc. for example) views to atheistic views.
It is fine for you to focus in on those particular religions, yet you neglect to mention the "fanatics" among them with their fanatical agendas of persuading, evangelizing, and proselytizing.
It is important for you and others to realize that you are "generalizing", lumping the vast majority of the believers together, with the few fanatics and their pursuit of the agendas which you claim, and that is clearly a false generalization.
You need to differentiate between the vast majority of believers, and the minority few fanatics among them in order to be accurate in your assertion and description, because there are fanatics in every walk of life, theists do not have a monopoly on fanaticism, be it religious, political, or otherwise.
Saul (Paul) was teaching those WITHIN his faith, he was not out and about evangelizing, thus it's true, "ministry" is a central mechanism used in his teaching, but NOT for those "outside" the faith.
Those that were NOT part of his faith, who came into contact with, and happened to hear him as he taught those who were, were under no compulsion at all to become involved, or join his faith.
Islamism is another story and IMHO much more radical and politically motivated, so you may have a case there.
Are you glossing over the ~1300 year stranglehold of social control Christianity had on Western Europe, full of oppression, including but not limited to the Inquisition, the Crusades, actively keeping people mired in the Dark ages, and all those other minor events?
No, I am not glossing over it.
I am acknowledging it, but I am also putting it in proper perspective, the Inquisition, and the Crusades, were for the most part theist against theist and controlled by a select few fanatics.
Plus considering the overall age of civilization, it was a tiny fragment of humanity.
And you forget that within that period of time, the embryonic era of the Christian church, the Christians themselves were persecuted for their beliefs.
I actually am a Catholic (not a very good one) and believe in God but reluctantly...I generally stay out of these conversations because I feel like I have very little to offer on the subject and frankly I think it's a pointless discussion and debate. Having said that, since I've been posting on this forum, this subject has been brought up hundreds of times and it goes the same way every single time so I'm not sure why it's discussed so much. Furthermore, if I were someone on the fence about religion and I looked here for something to sway me one way or another, I'd just log off and never return again because neither side makes very compelling arguments.
Who were they and what made them fanatics?
I was raised Catholic, I understand why you would assume all Christians believe we are judged by our acts. The vast majority of protestants, however, do NOT believe that AT ALL. We are saved by Grace, not by acts; we are sinful creatures, and cannot possibly live good enough lives to "earn" heaven, therefore Jesus sacrifice is the ultimate gift. HE died for OUR sins.
John 3:16 is the verse that that particular hat is hung, and Martin Luther specifically broke with the Catholic church over this disagreement.
It is preached in MANY protestant churches that the worst person who "Accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior" goes to Heaven, and the best person who does not, goes to .
Go to any evangelical church next Sunday (Baptist, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, or monst non-denominationals), and I am reasonably confident you will hear that message.
BTW: Many think Catholics are more of a cult than a religion, and the Pope is probably going to .
I hope I have made it clear that these are not MY beliefs; but they are prevalent among Christians in this country; and they are based on their reading of the Bible.
I'd rather waste time here pointing out the ridiculousness of believing in the Bible than waste time and money sitting in a catholic pew on Sunday morning.
I see and understand what you are saying, and was not aware of the Protestant viewpoint of Catholicism as being that radical.
But I think it is besides the point.
Many Protestants are more guilty of translating the bible literally than Catholics do IMHO.
As long as they keep it to themselves and do not PUSH that agenda down our throats, then I am fine with it.
Most of my friends are Protestant, and they never do or profess the things you are accusing them of, we all get along just fine.
And for the most part Protestants differ from Catholics on minor theological issues like the Virgin Mary, and the Pope being the ular head of all Christian religions.
Then they promptly turned around and put those people to the screws as soon as they were able. The "select few fanatics" excuse doesn't hold water when everyone else blindly follows them.
I fully understand how johnsmith feels about it. But to come here to this forum and think you might get even a glimmer of insight one way or the other is the epitome of folly IMHO, because the discussion or debates are for the most part dominated by trolls like blake who has no earthly idea of what is being said, or the other trolls who just want to ridicule no matter who says what.
They have no real and valid opinions, on anything whatsoever.
But even said, it is not totally out of the realm of possibility that a sliver of truth and insight might be gleaned from here, because I have experienced both on here when I least expected to, and from those I least expected it from.
Again, I think that is a very short sighted view of the situation when you consider WHO (how many) held the power, and the level of power held, during those tiny time spans when it was abused.
Hey genius, if you believe in Jesus, you're "guilty" of taking the Bible as literally true.
^ I rest my case concerning blake and his LACK of knowledge on religious matters in general.! ^
nah, it's just what people tend to do. follow.
that doesn't make any sense per par etc^ I rest my case concerning blake and his LACK of knowledge on religious matters in general.! ^
The Hebrew word 'Yom' is used for a lot of different things in the Bible. And this likely wasn't an important detail.
No surprises there.
You NEVER understand anything no matter much sense it makes to everyone else.
Tell that to the Mexicans,
Your "everyone else" is ~5 people on this board.No surprises there.
You NEVER understand anything no matter much sense it makes to everyone else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
JK