|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Marketing Of Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
GDR writes: Yes, I believe in a loving God. I understand His loving nature as we see it embodied in Jesus. So yes, I take on faith that the world has to be the way it is and that ultimately things will be put right. So you are forced to admit that your god made things wrong and you are hoping he'll eventually put them right. Don't you see the problem with that? He's god, he's not supposed to make mistakes. Don't you think a more obvious conclusion is that this god of your is malicious? How else can you interpret the way the world is set up - kill or be killed; a short, brutal, survival game? Isn't 4.3 billion years time enough to fix this error? (That's putting aside science's explanation which is now well understood and accepted by you.)
If I am wrong I would choose to serve a God of love and be wrong, as opposed to one that wants me to annihilate those whom I deem to be enemies and be right. In the end it is about worshiping the nature of God as we understand Him. I think you've just admitted that it's about worshipping the god you would prefer to 'understand', whilst ignoring the only evidence you have of him - his cruel creation.
Tangle writes: It's a fatal flaw in the core argument that's just shoved to one side so that the business of belief can be gone on with.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Yes, I believe in a loving God. I understand His loving nature as we see it embodied in Jesus. So yes, I take on faith that the world has to be the way it is and that ultimately things will be put right.Tangle writes: So you are forced to admit that your god made things wrong and you are hoping he'll eventually put them right. Don't you see the problem with that? He's god, he's not supposed to make mistakes. Don't you think a more obvious conclusion is that this god of your is malicious? How else can you interpret the way the world is set up - kill or be killed; a short, brutal, survival game? Isn't 4.3 billion years time enough to fix this error? I accept on faith that things have to be the way they are, which is not as brutal as you claim. In general life isn't about kill or be killed. I think that both of us live very comfortable lives. Wild life still abounds and you find altruistic behaviour in people and even in the animal world. Also we are stuck in an entropic world where time only flows in one direction. If the greater reality of all that is seen and unseen involves multiple time dimensions then 4.3 billion years is a meaningless term. Time is the only way we know of experiencing change. Maybe even science itself will find more. As for the more brutal aspects of our existence, I believe that we as humans are charged with reversing that brutality where we can, and we are to use our God given ability to love in order to do that.
Tangle writes: I think you've just admitted that it's about worshipping the god you would prefer to 'understand', whilst ignoring the only evidence you have of him - his cruel creation. No. I worship the god that I see perfectly embodied or represented by Jesus. I can't have absolute knowledge that I am right. I was only pointing out that I wouldn't worship a god that hates even if I believed that that was the true nature of whatever deity you want to name.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phat writes: All religious belief, or even the rejection of religious belief is subjective and it is all individualistic as everyone is uniquely subject to their genes, their upbringing, their culture etc. Based on that definition, belief should only be subjective. So, objectively there can be no group consensus that will lead to a group forming an objective conclusion about beliefs and particularly about religious belief. As far as I know, I'm the only one that has it completely right. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: I accept on faith that things have to be the way they are, But why would you do that when you know it's just not true? Is there any reason you can think of why we couldn't all be vegitarians? Why can't all life on earth be either photo synthesisers or plant eaters? Why create preditors? Why does all life have to comptete for survival with other life? We'd still have free will, why create a world of suffering and competition?
....which is not as brutal as you claim. In general life isn't about kill or be killed. That's simply wrong. In biology it's called the food chain.
I think that both of us live very comfortable lives.
Remind me, why did god feel the need to give me tooth ache last month? Thankfully, modern science created anti-biotics and root canal surgery. This simple infection created enormous harm in the past - it used kill people. There's no reason for this other than the fact that evolution has been set up to work that way. Yet we can all easily imagine a world that could be quite different.
Wild life still abounds
It abounds because it creates enormous quantities of redundancy. Because of competion for survival all life on earth produces vastly more offspring than would be necessary without it. Most of it dies or is killed and eaten before it can reproduce. You only have to watch a couple nature programmes to see that.
and you find altruistic behaviour in people and even in the animal world. Altruistic behaviour is found amongst members of the same family - it doesn't stop them killing and eating other species or, in human terms, killing other tribes. It's only our social institutions that have stopped us wiping each other out.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aussie Member Posts: 275 From: FL USA Joined: |
Tangle writes: I HAVE read the gospel and I conclude that it's a total fabrication. What's more I've read history and science so I know the evidence not just the propaganda. Phat writes:Then you are without excuse. Well there it is...I can't get over this, even though I was waiting for it. Phat! He is without excuse? Before your God? When will he be without excuse? I assume when he stands before the Great White Throne on the Day of Judgment? That moment when you as a sheep will be rewarded, and Tangle the goat will be herded into the Lake of Fire to burn and suffer unmitigated torture until the end of...Oh wait, IT WILL NEVER END! Tangle is having a polite, very civilized dialogue with you. Frankly, he's kicking your ass, but very politely. You have literally no answer for the point he is trying to clarify, and all you have left is to THREATEN HIM WITH ETERNAL TORTURE. This is sad and predictable. I have said this to Faith before. Behind your smiles lurk fangs. You are trying very hard to be polite, but this is nothing less than an oblique reference to his eternal suffering, and you should be horrified at this. Edited by Aussie, : No reason given."...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Aussie writes: Well there it is...I can't get over this, even though I was waiting for it. Phat! He is without excuse? Before your God? When will he be without excuse? I assume when he stands before the Great White Throne on the Day of Judgment? That moment when you as a sheep will be rewarded, and Tangle the goat will be herded into the Lake of Fire to burn and suffer unmitigated torture until the end of...Oh wait, IT WILL NEVER END! Actually if you read the Sheep & Goats parable it is Tangle who would recognized as a Sheep while Phat would be a Goat.
quote: Note that the Sheep never did anything for Jesus while it is the Goats that fall back on the "when didn't we do for YOU?" defense. The Sheep are those who didn't do for Jesus but did feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comforted the sorrowful, healed the sick; while the Goats are those who did do for Jesus but only for Jesus; the former surprised because they were not followers of Jesus and never did anything for Jesus while the later surprised because they were followers and always did for Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
You didn't ask a question. You made an assumption and I pointed out why that assumption can only lead to nonsensical conclusions.
Your answer is a cop-out and obviously doesn't answer the question I asked. GDR writes:
That isn't objectivity.
Frankly, I objectively, after reading both the pros and cons, came to the conclusion that the most reasonable conclusion was that Jesus was resurrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I'm the first one to say that you can't be objective all by yourself - i.e. objectivity requires consensus. But consensus doesn't necessarily add up to objectivity. If you add subjective beliefs, you just get a bigger pile of subjective. And in the case of Christianity, the consensus against is far bigger than the consensus for.
If a large group of individuals share a subjective belief, however, it would be under consideration as an objective (Object of our Faith=Jesus)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm the first one to say that you can't be objective all by yourself - i.e. objectivity requires consensus. Please explain. My initial impression is that objectivity is independent of how many people agree, and that even if the majority of folks hold an opinion, a single person understanding to the contrary, if he reaches that position using an appropriate means, may well be objective all by himself. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: My opinion is that, when an overwhelming majority of specialists on a subject, whether they are green or black or white or brown, whether they live in Antartica or Argentina or the USA or Germany or Zambia or Russia or Japan; whether they are Christian, Islamitic or Jewish or Buddhist or atheist or agnostic; reach similar conclusions after research on a specific subject and publish their data and findings in appropriate scientific journals. Please explain. My initial impression is that objectivity is independent of how many people agree, and that even if the majority of folks hold an opinion, a single person understanding to the contrary, if he reaches that position using an appropriate means, may well be objective all by himself. And the findings are accepted by the vast majority of specialists on the subject. Whether they are white or brown or black or green. Whether the live in Canada or Brazil or Australia or Vietnam or Poland. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or Buddhist or New Age or Zorochastrian or atheist or agnostic. That's an indication of objectivity. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pressie writes: My opinion is that, when an overwhelming majority of specialists on a subject, whether they are green or black or white or brown, whether they live in Antartica or Argentina or the USA or Germany or Zambia or Russia or Japan; whether they are Christian, Islamitic or Jewish or Buddhist or atheist or agnostic; reach similar conclusions after research on a specific subject and publish their data and findings in appropriate scientific journals. And the findings are accepted by the vast majority of specialists on the subject. Whether they are white or brown or black or green. Whether the live in Canada or Brazil or Australia or Vietnam or Poland. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or Buddhist or New Age or Zorochastrian or atheist or agnostic. That's an indication of objectivity. While that is true is it really relevant? If an individual looks at a pile of coins and then separates the coins into piles based on the features common to all the coins in each pile is that not being objective? Isn't objectivity the process itself whether done by one individual or a group? Isn't objectivity simply having an explainable rational for a set of acts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
My intention was not to judge or threaten Tangle. Perhaps what I mean to say is that he actually has an excuse. I certainly don't wish to be branded as a goat.
According to jar, goats are actually the ones without an excuse. However, why would God judge a believer so harshly and simply let an unbeliever in the door? Is there not or should there not be some standard or is God simply and hypothetically letting everyone in the door?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: ... the Goats are those who did do for Jesus but only for Jesus... Actually wouldn't the goats be doing only for themselves? It would be my contention that the goats were not putting in work out of obedience to the Spirit but, rather, were only showing off to gain worldly acclaim. Additionally, if the sheep that got let in the door were actually clueless of Gods existence,nature, and rules...they would have an excuse! Thus I stand corrected.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: Altruistic behaviour is found amongst members of the same family - it doesn't stop them killing and eating other species or, in human terms, killing other tribes. It's only our social institutions that have stopped us wiping each other out. In other words, the U.N. and modern "diplomacy"?
jar writes: The Sheep are those who didn't do for Jesus but did feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comforted the sorrowful, healed the sick... Does this mean the hungry,naked, sorrowful, and sick in our own tribe or does it emphasize helping the other tribes?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: It would be my contention that the goats were not putting in work out of obedience to the Spirit but, rather, were only showing off to gain worldly acclaim. But that is not what the story says. The story specifically says "When did we ever not do for YOU?" The story says they were specifically doing FOR Jesus with no mention of worldly gain or any gain whatsoever.
Phat writes: Additionally, if the sheep that got let in the door were actually clueless of Gods existence,nature, and rules...they would have an excuse! Again, the story covers that, the sheep are quoted as saying "Wait, we never did anything for YOU!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024