The Marketing Of Christianity

quote:

---

Personally I believe that everyone knows "about" God. How they respond to that knowledge carries more weight than what they say.
  —Phat

---

Can you see Phat that what you believe tells you nothing about whether it's factually true or not?You hold a stack of beliefs that I believe to be total nonsense. I can't prove that your beliefs are wrong, all I can do point you at the evidence that has convinced me, but I can't prove you wrong about your beliefs.But I can prove you wrong about what you believe about me. There is no god. What I know about gods I've found out are man-made fabrications with no supporting evidence.So given that you're wrong about your belief about me, and what you believe your god has told me to 'know' about him, is it remotely possible that you're wrong about what you belief about your god in general?

In other words stop being rational. Which is, according to you, is a god given gift. Ok, I've become irrational, and god hasn't provided any clues, so now how do I choose the right god to believe in?

You're trying to make an equivalence that doesn't exist. Please stop doing it - I know it means you feel better about your beliefs but it's an error.It's not a matter of faith that I think evolution is the force that created empathy, it's a matter of evidence.

Ok, for whatever reason you're doing it, stop it! It's not true.People do not believe or have faith in biological processes. Yeh, that is what we call evidence. Not true. No there isn't - it's exactly the same thing. Then what on earth are you objecting too? This is utterly irrelevant. If you accept that empathy evolved exactly like every other emotion, there's nothing left to argue about - we're an evolved species like everything else around us, after that you can believe what you like about it. But you can't say that your belief in god whispering in your ear is the equivalent of science's understanding of a biological process.

No you're not, you're equating a belief in God with a belief in evolution. You know better than to do that - god knows it's been explained often enough to you - but you revert to dogma every time. There is no difference at all. Feeling sorry is the instictive, primitive, universal, human reaction. Doing something about it engages a younger part of our brain that deals in rational thinking. Some people conclude that nothing can be done, others dig wells, some bung a few quid their way to salve their concsience, others attempt to convert them in order to save their souls and buy themselves a place in heaven.Sociopaths excluded, we all feel the same but have different ways of coping with it.

What???

CS Lewis is just making shit up like everyone else in the game.I'm going to shout this bit so you hear itHE HAS NO SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GODHe's a story writer - he likes a good story. Why do you ascribe special insights to celebrity? Is it because there's nothing else? Does he have a special relationship with god that gives him knowledge you don't have? If so how and why?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

So much for the revealed truth......

So you believe in one god that will judge us - the Christian god - the resurection, heaven, holy ghosts etc, but you don't think it matters whether it's true or a bunch of myths?There's any number of ways believers can delude themselves it seems.

You can be forgiven for beliving in "a" god - at least until we know more about how our universe works - but you also believe in the rediculous idea of religion.You believe in an interventionist god that requires worship and condemns all other belief systems and their believers. You believe in heaven and, I suppose, hell and all the daft human invented biblical trappings. You could only believe those things by being born where you were born at the time you were born there. (A few hundred years earlier you would have believed in ancestor worship.)But the issue is that you believe something different to Jar and something different to Faith and something different GDR. All the same damn religion. All supposedly the revealed truth. Well if that not proof that people make up their beliefs I don't know what is.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

What you describe is just another version of liberal, pick-and-mix, 'nice', Christianity. That's fine, it's what most here believe. But it isn't what you professed to believe, which was the Nicene Creed.

So the 'truth' has been revealed to you but it's a different 'truth' from GDR's or Jar's or Faith's? That's quite a puzzle isn't it? Are there different 'truths' ?? It sure is - it's something people made up and self-evidently makes no sense.

This comment is getting a little tired don't you think? I admit that I leapt to the assumption that you believed the Catholic version which obliges you to also believe that only the one church can remit sins which excludes the majority of the world's population from a pleasant afterlife.And then there's the fussiness over the resurrection which you prefer to finesse.....

There appear to be at least 2First Council of Nicea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)Nicene Creed - WikipediaThe second is the one I assumed.

I suspect that Catholics would disagree with you - their priests profess to be able to do it and I'm not aware that Protestants make that claim. But I accept the big 'C' and little 'c' distinction in the creed.But that is not the point, Jar says he believes the creed but doesn't think it matters whether it's true or not. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like something you could get yourself burned alive for a few centuries ago.He also doesn't believe in the resurrection - which is a major part of the Christian belief system and the creed. He also says this: I don't see anywhere in the creed that says that it might not be the truth or the only path. In fact rather the opposite. Standard pick-and-mix Christianity. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.