CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JettaKnight]

So...
Are you going to open the door or not?

It's as easy as that.

More like play ding-dong-ditch.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex and I are on opposite corners of the Christian spectrum (judging by affiliations), yet we still agree on... spitballing... 80% or more (could be higher if you weighted them by importance). And those are all the key doctrine, the things that make Christianity different than every other religion.

You know, that could be an interesting exercise. Cull down a catechism to 100 or so entries and then go through it and see where there's any meaningful departure.

Wait.

I guess we'd have to count the places I didn't necessarily agree, too....

Uh.... never mind.

 

[Dead Duck]

What I still find that's fun is....

Even devil worshipers believe in God. Well... there are so many variations of satanistic followers and some don't believe there's a devil. They're all mixed up but....

The devil [STRIKE]himself[/STRIKE] herself has to believe in God.

 

[Jludo]

I've yet to see a church with a door nailed to a crucifix.


So now you've pointed out places where the Bible is not completely crystal clear and are trying to extrapolate that to mean that Christianity is ????

If reading the bible is what gets you to decide Christianity is true then those issues in the bible are very important in what conclusions you draw. I've not even pointed out the parts of the bible in which I find God acts irredeemably immoral, which to me personally is reason enough to doubt it's the book written by a perfect, loving, moral creator.

 

[Jludo]

What I still find that's fun is....

Even devil worshipers believe in God. Well... there are so many variations of satanistic followers and some don't believe there's a devil. They're all mixed up but....

The devil [STRIKE]himself[/STRIKE] herself has to believe in God.

If I know my satanist doctrine correctly most don't really believe in God nor Satan. Most of it's more trolling than anything. Obviously there are exceptions.

 

[PaulF]

Another agnostic who fancies himself an atheist without putting in the work.

yawn.

Lol.

You still trying to bait people into arguing with you about gods?

Well, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single verifiable difference between your god and an imaginary friend.

The spiritual realm doesn't exist. Magic isn't real. Life after death is nothing more than wishful thinking. Ghosts, goblins, ghouls and gods are just fictional characters. There isn't any "work" in rejecting ridiculous stories and absurd ideations of "truth", any more than there is in rejecting the myriad lies with which we are bombarded continually. Men make gods...there is no dispute about that. Without independently verifiable evidence to the contrary it is most reasonable to conclude yours was made by men, too.

You don't have that evidence.

 

[Ziggidy]

Why would anyone who is not a believer enter into a forum that is a discussion about religion? I wonder. What purpose would they possibly have? They do not believe in God (Jesus) yet they enter into a room filled with individuals who mostly love Jesus (as I see it). Enter into this thread just to disrupt it? In many ways it is like those who protest and "get in your face" when they do not agree. Pro-choice disrupting and causing trouble at a pro-life rally. Similar to the "antifa" who try to disrupt conservative rallies.

Why? Does it make you feel big? Denial of God is in fact a religion. You place your faith in yourself. In essence, you become god because of your faith in yourself. Psychology has a diagnosis for those who believe that. Of course they deny it, which in reality adds to the accuracy of that diagnosis.

Interesting.....

 

[Jludo]

Why would anyone who is not a believer enter into a forum that is a discussion about religion? I wonder. What purpose would they possibly have? They do not believe in God (Jesus) yet they enter into a room filled with individuals who mostly love Jesus (as I see it). Enter into this thread just to disrupt it? In many ways it is like those who protest and "get in your face" when they do not agree. Pro-choice disrupting and causing trouble at a pro-life rally. Similar to the "antifa" who try to disrupt conservative rallies.

Why? Does it make you feel big? Denial of God is in fact a religion. You place your faith in yourself. In essence, you become god because of your faith in yourself. Psychology has a diagnosis for those who believe that. Of course they deny it, which in reality adds to the accuracy of that diagnosis.

Interesting.....

If I were Hindu I'd have a more valid point of view?
You agree with me on the veracity of 99.9% of all religions, I'm just going one God further.

 

[PaulF]

Why would anyone who is not a believer enter into a forum that is a discussion about religion? I wonder. What purpose would they possibly have? They do not believe in God (Jesus) yet they enter into a room filled with individuals who mostly love Jesus (as I see it). Enter into this thread just to disrupt it? In many ways it is like those who protest and "get in your face" when they do not agree. Pro-choice disrupting and causing trouble at a pro-life rally. Similar to the "antifa" who try to disrupt conservative rallies.

Why? Does it make you feel big? Denial of God is in fact a religion. You place your faith in yourself. In essence, you become god because of your faith in yourself. Psychology has a diagnosis for those who believe that. Of course they deny it, which in reality adds to the accuracy of that diagnosis.

Interesting.....

I started the thread.

 

[ATM]

Lol.

You still trying to bait people into arguing with you about gods?

I don't generate much content here any more, but I still check in. You certainly knew who I was referring to.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single verifiable difference between your god and an imaginary friend.

None of my imaginary friends challenge me. How about yours?

The spiritual realm doesn't exist. Magic isn't real. Life after death is nothing more than wishful thinking. Ghosts, goblins, ghouls and gods are just fictional characters. There isn't any "work" in rejecting ridiculous stories and absurd ideations of "truth", any more than there is in rejecting the myriad lies with which we are bombarded continually. Men make gods...there is no dispute about that. Without independently verifiable evidence to the contrary it is most reasonable to conclude yours was made by men, too.

You don't have that evidence.

Your beliefs are not necessarily congruent with reality, my friend. There's far more to reality than the visible.

 

[Ziggidy]

I started the thread.

My point exactly....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Why would anyone who is not a believer enter into a forum that is a discussion about religion? I wonder. What purpose would they possibly have? They do not believe in God (Jesus) yet they enter into a room filled with individuals who mostly love Jesus (as I see it). Enter into this thread just to disrupt it? In many ways it is like those who protest and "get in your face" when they do not agree. Pro-choice disrupting and causing trouble at a pro-life rally. Similar to the "antifa" who try to disrupt conservative rallies.

Why? Does it make you feel big? Denial of God is in fact a religion. You place your faith in yourself. In essence, you become god because of your faith in yourself. Psychology has a diagnosis for those who believe that. Of course they deny it, which in reality adds to the accuracy of that diagnosis.

Interesting.....

This sounds confrontational.

Being religious isn't some exclusive club. It involves everyone, and even those that believe differently can add valuable input to the conversation. The purpose they have can be something as simple as curiosity or education.

INGO has reasonable people that are religious and non-religious. I see PaulF as a good-faith non-religious person. Sometimes he can be a bit abrasive (like a few posts ago), but historically he has offered deeper conversation on the topic.

There are also unreasonable religious and non-religious contributors here... that believe 100% the others are wrong and offer no real substance to the conversation outside of pompous holier-than-thou attitudes. But that's typically par-for-the-course for them on all topics.

 

[T.Lex]

...Without independently verifiable evidence to the contrary it is most reasonable to conclude yours was made by men, too.

You don't have that evidence.

Some of us do.

In the Catholic tradition, some miracles are believed to occur by God (<---- that's important) with the intercession of at least one saint (of course He can do them on His own, but saints can deliver the assist, so to speak). Part of the process of the church recognizing saints is ruling out worldly causes.

Historically, that was probably pretty lax. But, in relatively modern times (I'd say the last hundred years or so), there's at least pretty good evidence that there's no scientific explanation for the miracle.

 

[historian]

Historically, that was probably pretty lax. But, in relatively modern times (I'd say the last hundred years or so), there's at least pretty good evidence that there's no scientific explanation for the miracle.

Except when they need to fast track someone to sainthood....

 

[Bartman]

I read on the internet every day personal accounts from people who felt God directly intervening in their lives. I've even heard some say that they would be dead if not for that intervention.

I could point out two eyewitness accounts, as well as a couple of indirect testimonies about someone being alive after being dead for 2 days. Somehow I feel like that wouldn't meet the evidentiary standard for atheists. Then again, that's not really the point, at least to me. I'm reminded of Matthew 16:17 "...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." No doubt, some might see that as kind of a blank check; Peter is being praised for not depending on any direct physical evidence to bolster his faith. Those sorts of people might be satisfied with nothing less than a God-o-meter or finding divinity in a test tube. But then I think that those who think that God must be accountable, either by proof of existence or moral standard, to those that He created are kind of missing the point.

I don't worship physics. I have no interest in a god that is not transcendent.

 

[Jludo]

I read on the internet every day personal accounts from people who felt God directly intervening in their lives. I've even heard some say that they would be dead if not for that intervention.

I could point out two eyewitness accounts, as well as a couple of indirect testimonies about someone being alive after being dead for 2 days. Somehow I feel like that wouldn't meet the evidentiary standard for atheists. Then again, that's not really the point, at least to me. I'm reminded of Matthew 16:17 "...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." No doubt, some might see that as kind of a blank check; Peter is being praised for not depending on any direct physical evidence to bolster his faith. Those sorts of people might be satisfied with nothing less than a God-o-meter or finding divinity in a test tube. But then I think that those who think that God must be accountable, either by proof of existence or moral standard, to those that He created are kind of missing the point.

I don't worship physics. I have no interest in a god that is not transcendent.

Imagine you were seeing the exact same things but born in Pakistan, do you think the Christian God would be the conclusion you'd reach?

People of all Faith's have visions that are just as real to them as any others. The question is were those visions influenced by their prior religious state of mind? If there were a bunch of people independently having visions of vishnu despite being raised in christian rural Indiana I might be intrigued. Instead people have the visions they're already mentally primed for thus having physiological explanations.

I'd also tag on that it seems incredibly unfair that a just God put every pressure on someone born here to believe the correct religion, yet someone born in rural India has the task of stumbling into christianity on their own and against all odds.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't worship physics. I have no interest in a god that is not transcendent.

In some ways, physics is less reliable.

 

[Ziggidy]

This sounds confrontational.

Being religious isn't some exclusive club. It involves everyone, and even those that believe differently can add valuable input to the conversation. The purpose they have can be something as simple as curiosity or education.

INGO has reasonable people that are religious and non-religious. I see PaulF as a good-faith non-religious person. Sometimes he can be a bit abrasive (like a few posts ago), but historically he has offered deeper conversation on the topic.

There are also unreasonable religious and non-religious contributors here... that believe 100% the others are wrong and offer no real substance to the conversation outside of pompous holier-than-thou attitudes. But that's typically par-for-the-course for them on all topics.

My response was in reference to post #1626 (along with others that seemingly ridicule God). Do you feel that was confrontational?

"Well, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single verifiable difference between your god and an imaginary friend.

The spiritual realm doesn't exist. Magic isn't real. Life after death is nothing more than wishful thinking. Ghosts, goblins, ghouls and gods are just fictional characters. There isn't any "work" in rejecting ridiculous stories and absurd ideations of "truth", any more than there is in rejecting the myriad lies with which we are bombarded continually. Men make gods...there is no dispute about that. Without independently verifiable evidence to the contrary it is most reasonable to conclude yours was made by men, too.

You don't have that evidence."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

My response was in reference to post #1626. Do you feel that was confrontational?

I do. That's the one I was referencing with regards to "a few posts ago". It wasn't really helpful to the general health of the thread.... but the person he was responding to is one of the others I was describing.

I think meeting dickishness with dickishness is sometimes warranted

 

[Jludo]

My response was in reference to post #1626. Do you feel that was confrontational?

"Well, I'm still waiting for you to give me a single verifiable difference between your god and an imaginary friend.

The spiritual realm doesn't exist. Magic isn't real. Life after death is nothing more than wishful thinking. Ghosts, goblins, ghouls and gods are just fictional characters. There isn't any "work" in rejecting ridiculous stories and absurd ideations of "truth", any more than there is in rejecting the myriad lies with which we are bombarded continually. Men make gods...there is no dispute about that. Without independently verifiable evidence to the contrary it is most reasonable to conclude yours was made by men, too.

You don't have that evidence."

Attacking someone's beliefs is different than attacking the person, "does it make YOU feel big? "