An open letter to religious people

[Andy Monkey B]

Could this be the love letter?

http://www.fathersloveletter.com/flltextenglish.html

Though I'm not sure about your claim no7 being addressed in it. Certainly it does show that claims 1-6 are supported by the Biblical description of God so a good basis for discussion.

[Humphrey]

Quoting Frank from 03:16, 30th Jul 2008
Now, noting that I've little academic theology behind me, I'd question the following ideas as they came up in reading the aforementioned loveletter:
1- Omnipotence
2- Omniscience
3- Creator of Everything
4- Whatever the word is for 'always loving'
5- Infinitely perfect

Well this first one that leaps off the page at me is that if you holds that God is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good), then you have to have some kind of logical explanation for why such a being would permit the existence of evil and suffering. Otherwise the omni-benevolence is effectively cancelled out. This is one of those instances where ‘the courtiers reply’ doesn’t apply because in order to access whether the Christian responses have been adequate you would have to at least skim read 2000 years of Theodicy, or more recently Swinburne and Plantinga. Admittedly tiresome but necessary if you want to do a fair assessment.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Haunted]

Quoting Jack from 21:32, 29th Jul 2008
Are we really all that closed minded as a university? I am a Christian, but I welcome any opportunity to speak with a Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist, etc. And I don't welcome this in order to evangelize;

For the love of John why don't you try to evangelise them?! For fuck sake, they are in mortal danger of being tortured and burned and not just for a little while but for ETERNITY. Say they died tomorrow and you hadn't tried to save them, wouldn't you feel guilty? Knowing that you had the answer and could've saved them from suffering but you didn't? If a man is walking towards a cliff face you don't just talk to him about nothing, you warn him about the serious danger that he is putting himself in. It would be immoral to just let him go by.

I am wrong as a Christian but I have nothing but respect for them because they are individuals searching for truth and I am an individual searching for truth and we are both open minded enough to have a dialogue...

I usually engage such people when they make claims about reality that are categorically false. Deists get by just barely, but those who believe in walking on water and the dead coming back to life are on precisely the same level as those who believe muhammed moved the moon, mithras was born of a virgin and xenu blew us up with hydrogen bombs.

Sure, I can make untrue claims about athiests and knock them down and refute them, that's easy.

Well it's easy to refute untrue claims. However the OP's post was more of an angry vent than a systematic refutation of untrue claims, I'm not sure any of his claims are untrue but do point out any.

Honestly though, are we really so arrogant as a society that we can just dismiss religion, a staple of almost all societies for thousands and possibly millions of years,

That's probably what they said to the guy who said the Earth was spherical. Just because an idea happens to be popular does not in any way make it more plausible.

(I'm an old earther but I not a historian and can't remember how long humans have been around for)

Off the top of my head homo sapiens have been around for a few hundred thousand years. Civilisation began with the advent of agriculture between 10 and 20,000 years ago.

I can refute most (and maybe all if I have some time) of the comic and I am not stupid.

I'm not sure there is anything that can be refuted because it is a personal rant motivated (I would imagine) by frustration.

I graduated high school (a secular school) at the top of my class

Congratulations.

Who are you to say that you are smarter than me because you are an athiest?

There are certainly no shortage of foolish people who happen to be atheists. Even though the comic seems to be pretty certain that religious people are stupid (for various reasons) he doesn't win any friends for saying as much. Personally, I know more than a few people whom I would describe as rational who also claim to buy into this particular brand of supernaturalism, doesn't mean I won't argue with them of course.

People generally write of Christians as stupid

Define people. You are talking about a belief that exists in some form among over 2 billion human beings. I don't know many individuals whom would be so bold to claim that they are all stupid. Delusional certainly, but not stupid.

Just like to write us off politically because we are religous is to deny our voice. Are we not citizens? Do our voices not count? We all base our views and decisions on something, (there is nothing new under the sun) we have chosen to make a big part of that base our religion.

You are free to buy into whatever politics you want to, no one is disputing that. What did come up earlier is that it is (and should be) illegal (in the US at least) for the pulpit to be used to advance political agendas. At least while they enjoy tax exempt status.

In the end, I can write a comic about athiests that goes along the same lines as the one in the original post.

I would be geniunely interested to see such a thing.

I can ask questions that athiests can't answer logically in my opinion.

That's an important clause and I'm glad you included it.

I can claim that athiests use pathetic rationalizations and can claim that athiests are afraid of religion being true and have a lack of interest in the fundamental nature of reality.

I think you covered this further up in the "fake claim" section.

As for Christians being jerks, it was G.K. Chesterton who said...

Ah but was it not Bertrand Russell who said "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 02:26, 30th Jul 2008
If God goes out of His way to hide Himself from people, who was Jesus?

I think you need to ask yourself "who was Muhammed?"
Who was Mithras?
Who was Odin?
(let's just stick with 'b')
Who was Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brigit?

Ask yourself why don't worship them and you will know why I don't worship some dead jew from the Roman age.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Humphrey from 10:17, 30th Jul 2008
This is one of those instances where ‘the courtiers reply’ doesn’t apply

Hmm. Surely before you discuss the nature of something you must first establish it's existence? If though, for the sake of argument, you granted "if there is a god, what is his nature?" then that's fine.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 10:51, 30th Jul 2008

Quoting Humphrey from 10:17, 30th Jul 2008
This is one of those instances where ‘the courtiers reply’ doesn’t apply

Hmm. Surely before you discuss the nature of something you must first establish it's existence? If though, for the sake of argument, you granted "if there is a god, what is his nature?" then that's fine.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

Yup. The problem of evil comes in once we ask the question 'If for the sake of argument there is a God, what is its nature?' which is what the leaflet was addressing, and also the kid in the comic who was saying 'if there is a God, why is there evil?'. If you can't even establish the possibility of the existence of such a being there isn't any point discussing it as there is no point waxing lyrical about the nature of a non existent object.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[macgamer]

Quoting Haunted from 10:38, 30th Jul 2008
Ah but was it not Bertrand Russell who said "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Depends what you understand to be progress I suppose.

I doubt that if old Bertrand was alive today, he would have considered us to have progressed morally since the Sixties.

[Humphrey]

Quoting macgamer from 12:23, 30th Jul 2008

Quoting Haunted from 10:38, 30th Jul 2008
Ah but was it not Bertrand Russell who said "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Depends what you understand to be progress I suppose.

I doubt that if old Bertrand was alive today, he would have considered us to have progressed morally since the Sixties.

I happen to think old Bertrand was being inconsistent here. I quoted earlier his History of Western Philosophy in which he said

"As a result of Christian dogma, the distinction between moral and other merits has become much sharper now than it was in Greek times. It is a merit in a man to be a great poet or composer but not a moral merit; we do not consider him more virtuous for possessing such attitudes or more likely to go to heaven. .......When we come to compare Artistole’s ethical tastes with our own, we find in the first place an acceptance of inequality which is repugnant to much modern sentiment. Not only is there no objection to slavery or to the superiority of husbands and fathers over wives and children, but its is held that what is best is essentially only for the few—proud men and philosophers. Most men are mainly means for the production of a few rulers and sages. Kant maintained that every human being is an end in himself and this may be taken as an expression of the view introduced by Christianity."

So on the one hand he is saying that Christianity popularised and enshrined values that did bring about some form of moral progress and on the other hand he is suggesting in this statement that Christianity has been the principle enemy of moral progress. Maybe he was just speaking for effect, similar to the time he appeared to advocate a first strike on the Soviet Union despite being a staunch pacifist and advocating disarmament.


[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Haunted]

Ok, I shall not defend old Bert here, I was merely quoting him to show "oh look I can quote things too, huzzah".

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Guest]

Quoting Jack from 21:32, 29th Jul 2008
Sure, I can make untrue claims about athiests and knock them down and refute them, that's easy. But I have more respect.

I can refute most (and maybe all if I have some time) of the comic and I am not stupid. I graduated high school (a secular school) at the top of my class, I study philosophy in my spare time (though I'm a bio major), my parents and family are very non-religious and my life is probably harder because I call myself a Christian. I am searching for truth and my search, after following reason and logic, has led me to Christianity. Who are you to say that you are smarter than me because you are an athiest?

In the end, I can write a comic about athiests that goes along the same lines as the one in the original post. I can ask questions that athiests can't answer logically in my opinion. I can claim that athiests use pathetic rationalizations and can claim that athiests are afraid of religion being true and have a lack of interest in the fundamental nature of reality. I can claim that God's existance has major consequences on how we live and that the athiest argument of a place holder God is a huge straw-man argument. I can claim that all religions are different and some therefore are more reasonably true than others. But, that would be too easy. Much harder to actually talk with people.

All these things you could do... go on then.

[Han]

Am not even going to attempt to enter the debate. This is a reply to whoever created the 'Epicurus' poster thing. Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher (i.e. 4th/3rd centuries BC), so technically atheists have been "winning" since the 200s BC. Unless you're referring to people like Lucretius, who 'translated' his writings, in which case it's still the first century BC.

[Andy Monkey B]

Quoting Haunted from 10:45, 30th Jul 2008

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 02:26, 30th Jul 2008
If God goes out of His way to hide Himself from people, who was Jesus?

I think you need to ask yourself "who was Muhammed?"
Who was Mithras?
Who was Odin?
(let's just stick with 'b')
Who was Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brigit?

Ask yourself why don't worship them and you will know why I don't worship some dead jew from the Roman age.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

firstly, http://bethinking.org/other-religions/i ... he-zoo.htm is an interesting discussion on pluralism.

secondly, Jesus, as far as I'm aware was the only person in history to predict that he would rise from the dead, and preceded to do so. People can lie, but they cant do the impossible unless they're from God.

[Hennessy]

Naaah

Christians are dead odd, especially Christians aged 18-24, as are all people that age who've never had a period of rebellion against the status quo in fact, or questioned the veracity of some of the weakest arguments put forth in modern society.



[hr]

"What happened to Spoon?"
"There is no Spoon"
Dog Soldiers

[Frank]

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 01:54, 31st Jul 2008

Quoting Haunted from 10:45, 30th Jul 2008

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 02:26, 30th Jul 2008
If God goes out of His way to hide Himself from people, who was Jesus?

I think you need to ask yourself "who was Muhammed?"
Who was Mithras?
Who was Odin?
(let's just stick with 'b')
Who was Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brigit?

Ask yourself why don't worship them and you will know why I don't worship some dead jew from the Roman age.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

firstly, http://bethinking.org/other-religions/i ... he-zoo.htm is an interesting discussion on pluralism.

secondly, Jesus, as far as I'm aware was the only person in history to predict that he would rise from the dead, and preceded to do so. People can lie, but they cant do the impossible unless they're from God.

Right, maybe I'm missing something. How does this story relate to the discussion. People are often getting it wrong? It doesn't directly follow, but applying roughly similar extensions to the story: all of everything faith-wise that has occurred so far might well be lumped together into the realm of 'the blind man who found a camel'? Human existence could run on for quite some time, it's not difficult to imagine we haven't got the answer yet.

If I adapt the story to six blind men searching for a phoenix, dragon or, ineed, people with perfect vision and all other senses functioning who're on the lookout for the Loch Ness Monster, where would our six people be then?

I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the relevence. In terms of 'it could be this', I would assert that one must consider (or more generally apply consistent criteria to the disregarding of portions of) all possibilities of a certain level before reaching a conclusion (and then progressing or regressing to a different level and searching again) in terms of actual truth, else they risk discounting a very possible truth in favour of a less credible alternative (or a whole series of credible alternatives).

That is: one must begin to try to be exhaustive until you can't think of any more options/questions/checks to be sure you're right. These blind people are very...credulous.

Considering the pluralistic aspect makes it, to me, seem to be folly to believe or assign preference to any particular aspect without having a sound reason to do so. But then that might be the moral of the story: These six blind men aren't really conducting a proper search; they're being far to credulous.

Secondly, I don't think I'm quite able to debate on the factual discussion of Jesus' works. Teachings, perhaps, but deeds? Call me sceptical, but please, do continue! I understand why I believed as I did: I wasn't questioning things. I'd make very rash judgements that worked well in the short term and kept me happy, but, in the long term, gaping holes appeared. And by gaping, I mean ones you could fit what ought to be perfectly happy portions of your life through them.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Jack]

For the love of John why don't you try to evangelise them?! For fuck sake, they are in mortal danger of being tortured and burned and not just for a little while but for ETERNITY. Say they died tomorrow and you hadn't tried to save them, wouldn't you feel guilty? Knowing that you had the answer and could've saved them from suffering but you didn't? If a man is walking towards a cliff face you don't just talk to him about nothing, you warn him about the serious danger that he is putting himself in. It would be immoral to just let him go by.

It could be that I am a bad Christian. But honestly, I don't have the balls and really am genuinely interested in people that I don't really want to talk about myself. If we have met then I am sorry for not saving your soul. I think it has been extremely arrogant of us Christians to point out all the sins of people and sentence them to Hell. Hell is so insignificant that I wonder why we talk about it so much.

I usually engage such people when they make claims about reality that are categorically false. Deists get by just barely, but those who believe in walking on water and the dead coming back to life are on precisely the same level as those who believe muhammed moved the moon, mithras was born of a virgin and xenu blew us up with hydrogen bombs.

But it is the athiests' beliefs in reality that are categorically false. In the end we are probably both going to see each other as delusional. I started out not religious and ended up religious after following logic. Others start out religious and after following logic end up athiests. I doubt it is the logic that is messed up, but I think we as humans (all of us) hold on to things for reasons other than rationality.

Well it's easy to refute untrue claims. However the OP's post was more of an angry vent than a systematic refutation of untrue claims, I'm not sure any of his claims are untrue but do point out any.

I think the idea of God being only a placeholder God is a bit of a strawman. Sure, the idea of God has been used time and time again throughout history to justify things like the rain, floods, pregnancy, movement of the stars, etc. but that is more a reflection of people than a proof about the existance of God. Though I'll admit that it doesn't look great for Christianity .

That's probably what they said to the guy who said the Earth was spherical. Just because an idea happens to be popular does not in any way make it more plausible.

I completely agree, though I think I came across wrong. I meant two things, one is that the idea of God(s) (whether He(they) exists or not) has been a part of society as long as there have been thinking humans and it is bound to affect society in such a way that removing that idea will probably have significant ramifications. Whether those ramifications are good or bad is debatable though. The second thing is that it has been a part of society for so long that we shouldn't just dismiss it on a whim but should take the question of the existance of God seriously.

Off the top of my head homo sapiens have been around for a few hundred thousand years. Civilisation began with the advent of agriculture between 10 and 20,000 years ago.

That's what I thought, thanks.

I'm not sure there is anything that can be refuted because it is a personal rant motivated (I would imagine) by frustration.

Then he can probably understand our frustration with athiests. Maybe this mutual frustration can be a common ground for dialogue.

There are certainly no shortage of foolish people who happen to be atheists. Even though the comic seems to be pretty certain that religious people are stupid (for various reasons) he doesn't win any friends for saying as much. Personally, I know more than a few people whom I would describe as rational who also claim to buy into this particular brand of supernaturalism, doesn't mean I won't argue with them of course.

And who doesn't like a good argument? But, I think we need more respectful dialogue, especially from Christians though I'd add. It's just a little frustrating being written off because of something I have chosen to believe.

You are free to buy into whatever politics you want to, no one is disputing that. What did come up earlier is that it is (and should be) illegal (in the US at least) for the pulpit to be used to advance political agendas. At least while they enjoy tax exempt status.

I disagree. Pastors speak of life. Politics is as much a part of life as anything else. We all get indoctrinated from somewhere, whether it is pastors, celebrities, television, movies, music. I would say though, that people have an obligation to question everything. I remember attending a Bible study and the guy leading it would always say "Be like the Bereans", the Bereans were called 'more righteous' in the Bible because they didn't take what the preachers were preaching at face value but always examined it and thought about it. But, I am a fairly liberal Christian of the likes of Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis and Shane Claiborne. I believe that the Church should be heavily involved in politics, not to enforce a Judeo-Christian morality, but to protect the environment, provide social justice for the poor and marginalized of society and to promote pacifism domestically and internationally.

I would be geniunely interested to see such a thing.

I definitly would not be interested in writing such a thing.

That's an important clause and I'm glad you included it.

Hmm. I don't think logic is different for different people. If something is logical then it is universally logical. But, I don't know enough about logic to say with complete 100% conviction that God exists. I think we base our beliefs (or at least I try to), whether athiest or thiest, on as much logic as we can.

Ah but was it not Bertrand Russell who said "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Disregarding the fact that the very idea of 'progress' is obsolete in a materialistic world, I would agree that the Church has had at times a negative influence on the world. I would also argue that it has also had a positive influence. But like Chesterton said, I think the negative influence is because we as Christians have messed up so royally. I think that when you find people wholeheartedly devoted to the true Biblical Christ you see the world change for the better. Although I have noticed that athiests are generally way more compassionate than Christians, at least where I am from. But, I would argue that they are messed up, not Christianity. The truth is, is that the pre-Constantinian Church, the Church in its original form, did quite a bit for 'progress'. I have read the writings of non-Christian Romans about Christianity and two things that stand out are that the early Christians are commended for taking care of not only their own poor but also the rest of the poor in Rome and the early Church is berated for elevating women to a higher status.

The present day Western Church has for the most part failed and I think in the end you have every right to see us as morons. I am told that there are over 2000 verses in the Bible that speak about helping the poor but I don't know any of them. I do know however, the four verses that speak against homosexuality. Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality but definitly spoke out very seriously against divorce, and yet we as Christians are not out there petitioning our governments against divorce but are out there making ignorant and hateful comments about gay people. I don't think Christians should enforce their morality on people whether it be about any marriage issue. As for abortion, we as Christians have stood outside clinics condemning doctors and young women but have done very little to actually help those young women when they choose not to abort. I think that people shouldn't speak out about abortion unless they are first prepared to care for a few mothers and children. I believe that the Church should be pacifist, standing up for peace whatever the cost. We have given Christianity an imperialistic tone that wasn't there at the beginning when Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. Yes, the Church is pretty fucked up.

[macgamer]

Quoting Jack from 22:37, 30th Jul 2008
As for abortion, we as Christians have stood outside clinics condemning doctors and young women but have done very little to actually help those young women when they choose not to abort. I think that people shouldn't speak out about abortion unless they are first prepared to care for a few mothers and children.

I think that you'll find that there are at least two Christian / Catholic organisations in the UK that provide support for crisis pregnancies offering viable alternatives to abortion.

LIFE: http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/
and
The Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative:
http://cardinalwinningprolifeinitiative ... /about-us/

Just thought that you'd be interested.

[macgamer]

Quoting Jack from 22:37, 30th Jul 2008

Disregarding the fact that the very idea of 'progress' is obsolete in a materialistic world, I would agree that the Church has had at times a negative influence on the world. I would also argue that it has also had a positive influence. But like Chesterton said, I think the negative influence is because we as Christians have messed up so royally.

I agree with Chesterton yes.

The present day Western Church has for the most part failed and I think in the end you have every right to see us as morons. We have given Christianity an imperialistic tone that wasn't there at the beginning when Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. Yes, the Church is pretty fucked up.

Let me remind you that Jesus didn't write a book he founded a Church.

[Haunted]

Quoting Jack from 22:37, 30th Jul 2008
It could be that I am a bad Christian.

It is a bad person that does not warn others of danger.

I think it has been extremely arrogant of us Christians to point out all the sins of people and sentence them to Hell. Hell is so insignificant that I wonder why we talk about it so much.

Because it's real? You know this place exists and you see people marching towards it everyday and you do nothing? How much consolation will you have when you're upstairs praising god 24/7 to know that most of the human race including who knows how many friends and loved ones are being tortured instead and you could've helped them?

But it is the athiests' beliefs in reality that are categorically false.

An atheist has no faith-based beliefs, only a lack of them.

In the end we are probably both going to see each other as delusional. I started out not religious and ended up religious after following logic.

I would really like to see a map of that logic train route.

Others start out religious and after following logic end up athiests. I doubt it is the logic that is messed up, but I think we as humans (all of us) hold on to things for reasons other than rationality.

So there is reasons other than rationalism to be an atheist? Then there must also be reasons other than rationalism to doubt the existence of the celestial teapot? Why are you such an irrational a-celestialteapotist? Emotional reasons perhaps?

I think the idea of God being only a placeholder God is a bit of a strawman. Sure, the idea of God has been used time and time again throughout history to justify things like the rain, floods, pregnancy, movement of the stars, etc. but that is more a reflection of people than a proof about the existance of God.

And god has been claimed time and time again to exist! That is certainly a reflection on people.

I completely agree, though I think I came across wrong. I meant two things, one is that the idea of God(s) (whether He(they) exists or not) has been a part of society as long as there have been thinking humans and it is bound to affect society in such a way that removing that idea will probably have significant ramifications.

Arguement from negative consequences. Children have to learn about Santa Claus sooner or later, there is ramifications, but this is no arguement against telling the truth.

The second thing is that it has been a part of society for so long that we shouldn't just dismiss it on a whim but should take the question of the existance of God seriously.

We are, I have, and I dismiss it. The only arguement I should really have to use is "just look at this, it is so obviously man made bullshit", but here we are.

Then he can probably understand our frustration with athiests. Maybe this mutual frustration can be a common ground for dialogue.

You don't see people shooting abortion doctors because their lack of belief in god told them to. Anything can be justified 'in gods name' (as that recent muslim poll has showed) and for society to promote any bronze age mysticism as 'a good thing to believe in' or 'I must respect such things' is plain madness. In the UK the situation is even more insane with Bishops having a hand in law making.

And who doesn't like a good argument? But, I think we need more respectful dialogue, especially from Christians though I'd add. It's just a little frustrating being written off because of something I have chosen to believe.

Because it's clearly bullshit. I don't have to refute any and all claims of divinity you pull out. You have to prove them, you've had 2,000 years and nothing to show for it except some badly plagiarised books written by non-eye whitnesses decades after the events supposedly happened. Call me fussy, but if thats enough proof to believe in walking on water, creating food out of less food AKA magic; then you can believe anything. Why don't you believe in the divinity of Odin? He was hung for 9 days and then ressurected himself for us, people have written about it therefore it must be true!
Ra resurrected himself from the dead every day without fail! Why is that not enough for you?
Mithras died for your redemption!

I disagree. Pastors speak of life.

Except for the ones that constantly speak of death, abortion, homosexuality, masturbation etc. Maybe they are not real pastors though?

We all get indoctrinated from somewhere, whether it is pastors, celebrities, television, movies, music.

Hodl on. Is this an admission of buying into Xtianity through indoctrination? What happened to you logic train?

I would say though, that people have an obligation to question everything.

Especially bullshit.

I remember attending a Bible study and the guy leading it would always say "Be like the Bereans", the Bereans were called 'more righteous' in the Bible because they didn't take what the preachers were preaching at face value but always examined it and thought about it.

*Insert quote from Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps*

Maybe your wrong and they've got it right. That's the brilliant thing about it. It's so vague you can believe anything and still call yourself a christian. Some christians don't even believe in the miracles written about in the gospels.

I believe that the Church should be heavily involved in politics, not to enforce a Judeo-Christian morality, but to protect the environment, provide social justice for the poor and marginalized of society and to promote pacifism domestically and internationally.

What rot. You can do all those 'good' things without involving the middle ages. The church has no business in government policy making. Just because you wear a funny hat and work on sundays doesn't mean you are qualified to pass laws on enviromental protection. Consult experts not bishops.

Hmm. I don't think logic is different for different people. If something is logical then it is universally logical. But, I don't know enough about logic to say with complete 100% conviction that God exists.

Yeah it's called faith isn't it. You don't have to have any evidence for it that's the beauty.

Disregarding the fact that the very idea of 'progress' is obsolete in a materialistic world,

Is it? Progress would not be objective except from a historical point of view. But when society has tried to advance forward, the main force in the way has always been the church. Equality for women, equality for homosexuals (look at them still trying to play this down).

I think the negative influence is because we as Christians have messed up so royally.

When it goes wrong it's the fault of the people but when it goes right it's because of the system? I suppose communism is rather like this.

I think that when you find people wholeheartedly devoted to the true Biblical Christ

But you won't because you all disagree about abolsutely everything.

Although I have noticed that athiests are generally way more compassionate than Christians, at least where I am from.

That's a nice anecdote but I wouldn't be so sure about it.

I have read the writings of non-Christian Romans about Christianity and two things that stand out are that the early Christians are commended for taking care of not only their own poor but also the rest of the poor in Rome and the early Church is berated for elevating women to a higher status.

I've always said the religious want us to live in the dark ages but never quite that far back.

The present day Western Church has for the most part failed and I think in the end you have every right to see us as morons.

Deluded =/= moron. Perhaps not as deluded as christians have been in the past by for example claiming that Benjamin Franklin was violating gods will by building lightning rods to protect buildings.

Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality but definitly spoke out very seriously against divorce, and yet we as Christians are not out there petitioning our governments against divorce but are out there making ignorant and hateful comments about gay people.

Probably because the rate of divorce among christians is significantly higher than non-christians. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

I don't think Christians should enforce their morality on people whether it be about any marriage issue.

People in glass houses of course.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 01:54, 31st Jul 2008
secondly, Jesus, as far as I'm aware was the only person in history to predict that he would rise from the dead, and preceded to do so. People can lie, but they cant do the impossible unless they're from God.

Emphasis added. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that nothing can survive it's own death. Feel free to prove this wrong however.

Also, people can indeed lie. They can even right down lies in books and pass them off as truth. Lying is not the only explanation for falsehoods though.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 14:47, 31st Jul 2008

Quoting Andy Monkey B from 01:54, 31st Jul 2008
secondly, Jesus, as far as I'm aware was the only person in history to predict that he would rise from the dead, and preceded to do so. People can lie, but they cant do the impossible unless they're from God.

Emphasis added. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that nothing can survive it's own death. Feel free to prove this wrong however.

Also, people can indeed lie. They can even right down lies in books and pass them off as truth. Lying is not the only explanation for falsehoods though.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

Haunted, you'll love this. I have my suspicions about the 'objectivity' of the poll but amusing nonetheless.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/o ... /17383.htm

The best bit was...

"The opinions of atheists are especially interesting. 23% of respondents identified themselves as such, but 14% of these think Easter was about Jesus dying for the sins of the world, 12% believe he rose again from the dead, and, remarkably, 7% think he was son of God."

Remember what I said about rejecting religion but continuing with the categories of thinking.


[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/