Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

KaseKlosed

Christianity's Founding Fathers Admit Similarities.

42 posts in this topic

just going to jump into this post randomly

In the same way, if a God of love does exist, the rational thing to do is to accept his love, to come to know him. Entering into that kind of a relationship will have a positive effect, but that does not make the person weaker or somehow inferior to anyone else.

no, it doesn't make sense. Simply because someone loves you doesn't mean you return the love, nor does every loving relationship necessarily have a positive effect.

In contrast to the implication that those who need God are somehow inferior specimens of the human race is the Christian belief that there is an essential equality within humanity— all humans are precious beings who have been made in the image of God. At the same time, all humans are sinful and equally in need of God.

at no point in the history of the christian or catholic church have they ever exhibited what the author describes as a "christian belief." and while I don't know your specific beliefs or the authors and don't pretend to, i do know that to this day people are being denied essential equality within humanity in the name of a christian god

Freud did not really take issue with this idea of human fallibility; in fact, he believed in the reality of shame and guilt. Yet in his closed universe, with no ultimate authority, he struggled to deal with good and evil. As a consequence, he looked to the ideal of education as the solution. People must be taught that ethical behavior is in their own best interest, he stated; once they became well educated, they would naturally behave ethically. But can we really be sure that education in and of itself necessarily produces goodness? As one scholar notes, “Freud wrote this in 1927 before the Nazi rise in educated Germany.”18

lol freud

We have seen that this argument cuts both ways as it could equally be argued that atheism is a psychological phenomenon and so it is nullified as a reasonable basis for rejecting God.

um, what?

is this really a christian apologist response to the idea that god was an evolutionary construct? "Yeah, well, atheism was a construct because you couldn't handle the idea of god! ha!" I'm sorry the contra positive doesn't really work in this case.

honestly the author's entire premise in asking whether or not belief in god is rational is flawed because she's approaching it as if a christian god exists.

and why do these kinds of articles constantly reference CS Lewis? No one takes him seriously that doesn't already slap their bible silly. These things are just incestuous hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah and the short answer for why christianity shares so much in common with old pagan roman religions and borrows from judaism is because it was well designed and they wanted to attract as many followers as possible. what better way than to incorporate almost every single thing they already do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for an honest reply. What do I believe? I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God. I believe He died on the cross so that my sins could be cleansed and that I might have eternal life. I believe everyone is eligible for that same love and grace no matter skin color, sexual preference, criminal tendencies, ect, everyone. I believe Jesus taught us to love our God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourself. I practice that because I believe thats what my Savior would want me to do. Will he love me less if I dont do it, NO. Will he love me more if I do it, NO. His love is constant and thats what I believe.

Do I agree with everything this author wrote? Not all but most. I really just wanted to give a different view than was presented and I didnt have alot of time to look for a really good response which I have done several times before the crash. And C.S. Lewis is as brilliant as Stephen Hawkins if thats all the atheist has to stand on. I have seen Ravi Zacharias eat him alive in several debates, so if its all about a peeing contest then there are several ways to look at it. The facts are none of us have total PROOF God exists or God doesnt, if you say you do then you are a liar. All Im trying to say and have always been trying to say is thats what I believe and you are free to believe what you want, I just dont find it fair or respectful to think believing in God makes you and idiot. Thats all. I dont tear done other religions and I dont tell atheists there idiots for believing in nothing, but the same shoe doesnt seem to fit the athiests and agnostics on this boards foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a few other things to chew on...

asked my friend, “Have you really thought about some of the evidences for God? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence? If I propose some observational evidence, are you even open to examining it?”

My friend asked me to go on. So, here’s my attempt at some basic scientific observations that point to God:

Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that's in it. (The alternative theory is that "nothing" exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)

Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)

Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.)

Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)

Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn’t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)

Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism -- only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)

Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

Does God Exist – A Scientific Conclusion

When it comes to the question of “Does God Exist,” there are only two scientific worldviews -- Someone/Something did it, or it did itself. Whether it’s the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it’s responsible for itself.

“Does God Exist?” Is this really a question for science at all? Actually, it seems this is a matter of forensic science, since we can’t re-create the birth of the universe or the formation of first life in a laboratory. Therefore, we collect the observable evidence in our world and apply our forensic investigation skills to analyze its collective meaning. In the end, we all need to collect and examine the evidence for ourselves. Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it’s not a matter for the laboratory. It’s a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe everyone is eligible for that same love and grace no matter skin color, sexual preference, criminal tendencies, ect, everyone.

what about the millions of people who die never having been told about the christian idea of a god through no fault of their own? what about everyone that died before monotheistic judaism left the 100 square miles it originally inhabited?

I really just wanted to give a different view than was presented and I didnt have alot of time to look for a really good response which I have done several times before the crash.

but that's not a different response. it has nothing at all to do with the original article posted. The OP goes into the historical connections (im assuming. i just skimmed it but i've read quite a few books about that subject in the past) and your reply refuted none of it. it was basically just a bunch of twee little thoughts.

And C.S. Lewis is as brilliant as Stephen Hawkins if thats all the atheist has to stand on.

um somehow i don't think CS Lewis' abilities to rationalize god for people that are desperate for constant rationalization anyway really compares to astrophysics

I have seen Ravi Zacharias eat him alive in several debates, so if its all about a peeing contest then there are several ways to look at it.

eat who alive, Stephen Hawking? wow, that must be something.

The facts are none of us have total PROOF God exists or God doesnt, if you say you do then you are a liar.

i don't have proof that there isn't an invisible purple unicorn in my room right now. of course there's no evidence that he is in my room or does exist at all, but i don't have a light that stays on as long as previous mentioned invisible mythical creature isn't in my room. however, no one would ever claim that since i didn't have that light i didn't have any proof and therefore i'd be a bigot or presumptive to say there isn't one in here. see what im saying?

let me put it another way. you have no proof that muhammad didn't ascend into heaven on a firey horse. how do you know that he wasn't god's prophet? how can you say he wasn't?

i know christians and what no like to say "well you can't proof he DOESNT exist so haha!" but it really doesn't work like that. i can't provide proof against something that was designed to not need proof. i will say that if you consider yourself a christian, than the god you worshipped used to be directly doing a lot more things than he does now. one would think that figuring out what causes disease (viruses) would be proof against god since people used to belief the black plague was just the big guy punishing people, but things like that tend to get brushed under the rug.

I just dont find it fair or respectful to think believing in God makes you and idiot.

you're believing in something with absolutely no proof that makes no logical sense.

like i said, what would you think of me if i told you the purple unicorn was watching me?

think of it this way: you're just like me, except I believe in one less god than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dammit stop posting stupid poo from horeshit creationist website that make a mockery of science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does God Exist – A Scientific Conclusion

When it comes to the question of “Does God Exist,” there are only two scientific worldviews -- Someone/Something did it, or it did itself. Whether it’s the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it’s responsible for itself.

seriously why would you post something this stupid, oversimplistic and intentionally obtuse unless you wanted to be laughed at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism -- only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)

no, this is not true at all. why why why would anyone write this when a simple intro to psychology or trip through wikipedia would disprove it?

this website where you're finding this crap is specifically designed for people who won't do any research and really think things are this simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science proves intelligent design no matter how hard you want to deny it. Is it the God I believe in? Who knows? Is it the purple unicorn you believe in possibly, but intelligent design is becoming the standard whether you like it or not. I guess all the stuff above you choose to call horse manure is relevant and is scientific fact, but it doesnt fit your unicorn belief so lets just trash it. I think its great everyone wants to try and research something away because it doesnt suit their fancy. Im ok with that believe whatever you want. In the end I have to answer for what I beleive or I go in the ground and thats it. Im ok either way. I really dont like to debate this BS anymore because it really doesnt matter either way. Im right ,your right, in your grand scheme of nonbelief what does it hurt for me to believe? I mean really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and wikipedia is then end all be all, are you serious? If you believe everything Wikipedia puts out there I have some beachfront property for you in Asheville for sale.

You are way to smart for me and I give in. You win. It really doesnt matter to me. Im just some dumd blind sheep who never opened a book in his life, and so are the rest of us who believe in a God, and Christ.

Im ok with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites