Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 652 (694971)
03-31-2013 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:09 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Too funny.
Why should you listen to any of us?
But if you were to be honest you would not have said "The only explanation I've heard for that analysis is that God has his own morality and we can't know it." because you have been given other explanations.
So again, why should you listen to any of us?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:24 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 167 of 652 (694972)
03-31-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Tangle
03-31-2013 2:41 PM


Re: It's all about the heart
Tangle writes:
However, I don't have to assume anything on behalf of GDR because GDR has already told us that his belief is that hell is not being in heaven.
Actually I think I said that hell is being separated from God. However, that doesn’t fully explain my belief either. First off, I think that we are wrong to think of heaven and hell as places at all. The Biblical understanding is that God is active in this world and essentially omnipresent with us. I believe that we talk about the still small voice or our conscience it is God reaching out to us and as often as not, at least in my case, that voice gets ignored.
In a lot of ways I have gained my understanding of heaven and hell from elementary books on science by authors such as Brian Greene and even to people on this forum such as cavediver. My view is that science is a natural theology which is actually consistent with Paul’s thoughts in Romans. The Biblical notion of God existing with us, but with us not being able to perceive Him with our 5 senses, leaves us with nothing but an incomprehensible puzzle on its own. If however we read about theoretical science and worlds of dark matter or of other universes we gain a new perspective on it. A headline a few issues ago in SA asked the question, Is there an entire universe silently interwoven with our own.
If we stop thinking of heaven and hell as simply two different locations and start thinking of various universes or dimensions that interlock in ways that presently exceed our understanding we can get a very different picture than simply considering heaven and hell as two different locations. I agree however that is all very speculative, but as we are considering whether or not any concept of hell is immoral then maybe it is something worth considering.
Another consideration is that when people who reject Christ’s message of peace, love and forgiveness and reject a world governed by those principles are allowed to be part of God’s society, then you are forever condemning everyone to have to live in an existence that the opposite of those attributes are still part of the society.
In the end I don’t know what it would be like to live apart from God and frankly I don’t know what it would be like to live with Him either.
I do believe that He has connected with us directly through Jesus and I accept the Gospel message and with His help I hope to make it more and more a part of my everyday life.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 2:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:37 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 168 of 652 (694973)
03-31-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
03-31-2013 5:13 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Jar writes:
Too funny.
I aim to please
Why should you listen to any of us?
Because I find you funny too, why else?
But if you were to be honest you would not have said "The only explanation I've heard for that analysis is that God has his own morality and we can't know it." because you have been given other explanations.
That response was to Purple's and GDR's posts - they differ only in that Purple outrightly says it and GDR accepts that he doesn't know (the mind of God is inferred). If you have another explanation I missed it and will happily consider it.
So again, why should you listen to any of us?
Because I'm interested in what and why people believe the things they believe.
If, instead, you mean why should I believe the things you and they believe, obviously I have not yet found any, nor am I likely too given the arguments so far presented. Give it your best shot.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 03-31-2013 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 03-31-2013 5:48 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 169 of 652 (694974)
03-31-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:09 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
You all believe different things and I listen to you all. Who should I believe? is a better question.
That approach is very similar to the approach of fundamentalists. Both of you want absolute certainty. The fundamentalist claims that they have it by pointing at a specific Bible verse whereas you reject all of it because you can't be certain.
Yes the Christian faith is ambiguous, and I doubt that you could find any two Christians who would agree on everything. I believe that reason is a gift of God. You have applied your reasoning to the question and, like others, have become an atheist. I have applied my reasoning, faulty though it may be, and like others have come to the conclusion that Christianity makes sense of the world and my life.
Ambiguity makes sense IMHO, as certainty requires no choice or faith and I believe that God is asking of us that we choose goodness for its own sake, and not because we see a reward at the end of the tunnel.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 7:04 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 170 of 652 (694975)
03-31-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by GDR
03-31-2013 5:19 PM


Re: It's all about the heart
GDR writes:
Actually I think I said that hell is being separated from God. However, that doesn’t fully explain my belief either. First off, I think that we are wrong to think of heaven and hell as places at all.
That is exactly what I took you to mean and is not at all a novel idea to me, you or theology. Physical Hell is obviously a mediaeval construct, we live in more sophisticated times so we invent more sophisticated hells.
The result is the same - separation form god is the worst punishment a believer can imagine. Apparently.
Another consideration is that when people who reject Christ’s message of peace, love and forgiveness and reject a world governed by those principles are allowed to be part of God’s society, then you are forever condemning everyone to have to live in an existence that the opposite of those attributes are still part of the society.
The error here is the presumption that it's Christ's message. It's not - it's any sane and decent person's message. What is being rejected - by me at least - is the idea of Christ, not the ideal.
We don't need Christ to have those ideals and much of the world doesn't - but still has the ideals. Christ is redundant - Occam has sliced him out of existence.
The immorality of the message is that many Christian believe that because you reject Christ, you go to hell - or at least, can't get to heaven - even if you accept the values.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 03-31-2013 5:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2013 5:55 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 174 by GDR, posted 03-31-2013 5:55 PM Tangle has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 171 of 652 (694976)
03-31-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tangle
03-31-2013 9:57 AM


Heaven and Hell
IOW, no real life morality issues with the beliefs.
quote:
But, on balance, it seems to me that whatever the thing is, hell is a bad place and that God will send a person to it whether they have lead a good life or not, even if they've never heard of him.
That is defacto unjust and therefor immoral.
De facto still deals with actions, not beliefs. You don't have evidence that in practice good people are actually sent to your image of Christian hell. Sorry, back to belief and not action.
In Message 163, you provided the reason it is fruitless to try and label Christianity as morally bankrupt based on a belief.
Tangle writes:
Christians can apparently believe anything they like about it - and find a defence for it in the bible - or their imaginations and revelations.
Just as you can find defense for your vision of hell. One also can't tell if one is giving lip service or actually believes any given version.
That's why if one is going to cry immorality, it is best to show the immoral actions stemming from the belief.
If no immoral actions result from your version of the doctrine, then what's the point?
If you don't like your version, then change it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 9:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:59 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 652 (694977)
03-31-2013 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:24 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
jar writes:
But if you were to be honest you would not have said "The only explanation I've heard for that analysis is that God has his own morality and we can't know it." because you have been given other explanations.
That response was to Purple's and GDR's posts - they differ only in that Purple outrightly says it and GDR accepts that he doesn't know (the mind of God is inferred). If you have another explanation I missed it and will happily consider it.
Actually it was a reply to me and the context was as follows.
Tangle writes:
So just what IS the bible - Answer, again, the bits you've rationalised and choose to believe
Whatever - you're still left with the concept of hell, which I say is unjust because it requires a belief in Christ above all other matters, it must therefore exclude good people who don't/can't believe and punish bad people disproportionately.
The only explanation I've heard for that analysis is that God has his own morality and we can't know it.
As I and others have pointed out to you, no, we are not left with the concept of hell, which you say is unjust because it requires a belief in Christ above all other matters, it must therefore exclude good people who don't/can't believe and punish bad people disproportionately.
I am left with agreement that such a concept would be unjust; and perhaps even more, makes that God look like a picayune despot.
The exchange had absolutely nothing to do with "the mind of God" or using "the mind of God" to justify what seems as unjust behavior.
BUT, it is also certainly possible that I might be totally wrong with what I believe and in fact there is a God who is so petty, so peculiar that it does condemn all those who do not believe in that particular God to eternal torment.
If that's the case, then it will be the case and if so, then I guess you will suffer eternal torment and I will certainly agree that will be unjust but also really glad it's you and not me.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:24 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 652 (694978)
03-31-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:37 PM


Re: It's all about the heart
he result is the same - separation form god is the worst punishment a believer can imagine. Apparently.
Surely you jest. I imagine that being tied to a rock for all eternity and having poison dripped in your eyes as myths say was the punishment for Prometheus is much worse. I imagine that the tortures described in Dante's Inferno are much worse.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 6:13 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 174 of 652 (694979)
03-31-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:37 PM


Re: It's all about the heart
Tangle writes:
The immorality of the message is that many Christian believe that because you reject Christ, you go to hell - or at least, can't get to heaven - even if you accept the values.
I agree that is an immoral concept. I also believe that view of Christ's message is anti-Biblical. I also think that at least in the western world, (I only separate that out because of my own ignorance of third world Christianity), the majority of Christians would reject that notion as well. Yes, there are a number of Christians, particularly in the US and to a lesser degree in my own country that would hold to that view.
Tangle writes:
The error here is the presumption that it's Christ's message. It's not - it's any sane and decent person's message. What is being rejected - by me at least - is the idea of Christ, not the ideal.
We don't need Christ to have those ideals and much of the world doesn't - but still has the ideals. Christ is redundant - Occam has sliced him out of existence.
Of course and if God is real isn't that what we would expect? I was so taken with the Book of Buddha as I was stuck by how closely the message of the first Buddah resembled what we have in Jesus. God is a god of all or He isn't a god of all. He is for all people and I would expect that he reaches out to all people, even those heathen atheists.
Jesus wasn't just presenting us with a moral life style but was also giving us the news of God's plan for the renewal of His creation.
As far as Occam's razor goes - you tell me which is the simpler answer. That our first cause was intelligent or that our first cause came about as a result of some presently unknown chance chemical combination that resulted in the first incredibly complex cells forming.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:37 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 175 of 652 (694980)
03-31-2013 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by purpledawn
03-31-2013 5:38 PM


Re: Heaven and Hell
purpledawn writes:
Just as you can find defense for your vision of hell. One also can't tell if one is giving lip service or actually believes any given version.
Watch my lips Purple, I vill say zis only vonce (doubtful given recent history).
I am an atheist, I do not have a view of what hell is or isn't because I know it doesn't exist. I'm merely playing back what those that do believe it say it is - which is everything from non-existent oblivion, fire and brimstone, to separation from god.
That's why if one is going to cry immorality, it is best to show the immoral actions stemming from the belief.
I'm getting really bored of saying this, but it seems my role here to keep saying it anyway.
If hell exists in any form, it's an immoral act to send someone to it merely because they do not believe in [God]
Where [God] is the Christian God, but might as well be the Muslim, Zoroastrian, Diyu and arguably, less so Jainist and Buddhist Gods.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by purpledawn, posted 03-31-2013 5:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 03-31-2013 7:19 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 176 of 652 (694981)
03-31-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
03-31-2013 5:55 PM


Re: It's all about the heart
No Nukes writes:
Surely you jest. I imagine that being tied to a rock for all eternity and having poison dripped in your eyes as myths say was the punishment for Prometheus is much worse. I imagine that the tortures described in Dante's Inferno are much worse.
And yet again (why ffs) I have to say that I am an atheist and I do not hold these beliefs, I am merely reporting what (some of) those that believe these things say.
One Christian view of hell is that it is not a place but an a idea or construct where the mere knowledge that you cannot be at the side of God is the worst torture imaginable.
Not my idea, not my belief, simply what some Christians believe - and maybe GDR? Although a liberal twist is that those that believe get to enjoy God's company and those that don't simply die and know no more.
Whatever, the framing of the idea - it's immoral, because it disadvantages (for want of a better word) the unbeliever for simply not believing - regardless of how well he leads his life.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2013 5:55 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 177 of 652 (694983)
03-31-2013 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by GDR
03-31-2013 5:26 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes:
That approach is very similar to the approach of fundamentalists. Both of you want absolute certainty. The fundamentalist claims that they have it by pointing at a specific Bible verse whereas you reject all of it because you can't be certain.
No, that misrepresents my views. I do not want or expect certainty, what I require is evidence. Any evidence at all. I have no reason to believe what you believe because you have given me no reason to do so - it's pretty straight forward.
The fundamentalists at least claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god; they're obviously wrong because, as has been pointed out here, it errs regularly and often. Given that that is the only actual evidence apparent to me for a belief in a Christian God I must then reject it.
As I understand it, your belief stems from revellation. That's a personal thing which is hard for anyone else to comment on, other than to say 'why you?' (And ignoring bogus freewill and dellusion arguments.)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by GDR, posted 03-31-2013 5:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by purpledawn, posted 03-31-2013 8:02 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 03-31-2013 9:20 PM Tangle has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 178 of 652 (694984)
03-31-2013 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Tangle
03-31-2013 5:59 PM


Re: Heaven and Hell
quote:
I am an atheist, I do not have a view of what hell is or isn't because I know it doesn't exist. I'm merely playing back what those that do believe it say it is - which is everything from non-existent oblivion, fire and brimstone, to separation from god.
It also goes to just ceasing to exist.
As I've said before, this isn't about you. You chose a side of the debate. I don't care whether you have a religion or are religion free.
If you're going to take the stance that Christianity is morally bankrupt because some Christians believe in a torturous hell or that good people can go to hell, then you need to support that connection.
You keep presenting the "good people can go to hell for not believing in God" version. You aren't accepting other versions. You keep going back to that one. It's your job to support it. Just because some believe it, doesn't make Christianity as a whole morally bankrupt.
So we'll play the game.
Hell exists and they do send good people to hell for not believing in God. Now what? That's the afterlife. What has that got to do with reality now? If that belief does not cause Christians to do immoral acts right now, then it is irrelevant to the idea that Christianity is morally bankrupt today. They'll just be singing "I told you so" in the afterlife.
Now hell exists and only really really bad people go to hell and it doesn't matter if one believes in a god or not. Now what? That's the afterlife. Now Christianity is not morally bankrupt by your standard.
Both views are held within Christianity today. You're judging Christianity immoral due to one belief but disallowing the belief you would consider just. How fair is that??
Your excuse for not defending the stance you took is that you know hell doesn't exist, so that means no one is in danger of being wrongfully sent to hell, but your stance judges Christianity morally bankrupt because of an erroneous belief by some. That's fair???
That's like throwing someone in jail when you know they are innocent. Isn't that what you were basically accusing the Christian God of?
The difference is you're throwing them in jail just because they believe, not their actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 5:59 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 3:57 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 179 of 652 (694987)
03-31-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Tangle
03-31-2013 7:04 PM


Evidence
quote:
I do not want or expect certainty, what I require is evidence.
But you don't provide evidence for your stance concerning heaven and hell Message 149.
The reasons in Message 1 are the originator's reasons for claiming that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system. They aren't evidence that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system.
If you're taking the stance that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system due to the reasons provided in the OP, then you also need to provide evidence that Christianity is actually a morally bankrupt system.
Not liking some views of the doctrines or teachings doesn't make Christianity a morally bankrupt system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 7:04 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 180 of 652 (694988)
03-31-2013 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Tangle
03-31-2013 7:04 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
No, that misrepresents my views. I do not want or expect certainty, what I require is evidence. Any evidence at all. I have no reason to believe what you believe because you have given me no reason to do so - it's pretty straight forward.
If you consider evidence only that which is conclusive you are right I have none. However if you accept inconclusive evidence I do have the following.
If we look at the natural world we can see that everything that we perceive is made up of either non-dimensional or uni-dimensional, lifeless non-intelligent non-moral particles. Presumably your atheism leads you to conclude that from this there has been a chance combination of these particles that has resulted in intelligent life that has the ability to contemplate moralism. Personally I find that position unreasonable and conclude that we are the result of a pre-existing intelligence.
If we accept that we are the result of intelligence I also find it unreasonable to conclude that this pre-existing intelligence would bring the life in this world into existence and then simply abandon it here. It seems to me that an intelligence that great would be highly unlikely to abandon the whole project and so I have concluded that he/she is still involved in one way or another.
Even secular writers such as Robert Wright in his book The Evolution of God writes that mankind is evolving, (I’m paraphrasing from the memory of reading the book a couple of years ago), into more compassionate loving people. On the basis of my first two conclusions it then seems reasonable to me that this is the direction that this pre-existing intelligence would have us go. With all that together I think it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddah etc were all on the right track. Doing unto others as we would have them do unto us appears to be the perfect concept for the well being of all of us, and from that I conclude that this would also represent the characteristics of this pre-existing intelligence. You may not view any of that as evidence but it provides me with enough information to conclude that at least the social message of Jesus is consistent the aforementioned pre-existing intelligence.
Then we come specifically to Christianity. IMHO what separates Christianity from any other religion or social movement is the resurrection. Without the resurrection Jesus was another in the list of failed messiahs except that he had some rather strange ideas. I have read several books discussing both sides of the question of the resurrection. The best two books are the debates between NT Wright and Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus- Two Visions and NT Wright and Dom Crossan The Resurrection of Jesus
Wright argues in favour of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Borg concludes that it is a metaphor and Crossan argues for the resurrected Jesus appearing in the same way as people who believe they have been visited by someone close to them after their death, and is likely an illusion.The Gospels are evidence in that someone wrote them out and obviously believed them to be accurate. The question of course is — did they get it right. Frankly the arguments against the resurrection are based on the idea that it couldn’t have happened and then they go looking for an alternative answer. It does seem to me that if my first two conclusion are correct, (an involved pre-existing intelligence), then the possibility of the resurrection is very possible.
When it comes to the Bible I do believe that God uses that book to reach out to us but I don’t believe that makes it in anyway inerrant. As you pointed out there are obviously too many flaws to understand that way. Even aside from the inconsistencies and the contradictions there are too many other reasons such as personal anecdotes etc not to understand it that way.
However, just because that is true it does not mean that we reject the whole thing. If God has been reaching out to us over the span of time, and people have been recording their thoughts on God then we should read it using the gift of reason that we have been given to sort out the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Is any of that evidence? I’ll leave that up to you.
Tangle writes:
The fundamentalists at least claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god; they're obviously wrong because, as has been pointed out here, it errs regularly and often. Given that that is the only actual evidence apparent to me for a belief in a Christian God I must then reject it.
Again, because some of it is obviously off track does not mean that it all is.
Tangle writes:
As I understand it, your belief stems from revellation. That's a personal thing which is hard for anyone else to comment on, other than to say 'why you?' (And ignoring bogus freewill and dellusion arguments.)
I can’t say that there was any specific revelation that led me to my beliefs. It started out from deciding that I wanted to come to a conclusion about Christianity and reading CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity and going from there. Frankly the more I read, the more convinced I become.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 7:04 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 5:15 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024