cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I sometimes fail to resist a truly tempting straight line. cn
Why should I respect your beliefs?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
fair enough
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I am sure at the time some Christians were appalled at the witch trials, that is beside the point.
You still aren't seeing the point of my criticism. In each of the cases I listed the problem can be distilled down to failure to properly question and honestly review their beliefs. Your church people do the things they do because they are good people, not because it is god's command, though I am sure they feel more righteous in thinking so. If they were really interested in carrying out god's commands, they would be willing to sacrifice their children when god gives the word, they would be okay with slaves, and okay with loving Jesus above family members, for this is the morality outlined in the bible. The reason they pick and choose the good commands, or morals, is because they are good people. These are not people who would rather not help anyone, but do so anyway out of strict adherence to scripture.
The good that comes from religion is non-proprietary and not due to dogma, yet the potential harm is demonstrably unique.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Well I think you focus too much on the potential harm rather than the good that is done around the world everyday.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's not at all worth it, not even close.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
But Christians as a whole arent going around crusading and burning alive alleged witches.. you guys are very focused on past events and you dont acknowledge the fact that most churches today acknowledge science.
Cut.Throat.
Well-Known Member
If they acknowledged science they wouldn't believe in god.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That need not be true, CT. cn
Cut.Throat.
Well-Known Member
True. But there's more evidence that there isn't a god then there is.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Most churches today acknowledge science only when they have to and a lot of people around the world suffer because of that.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Kaendar, I suggest you read up on the denominations/congregations that believe in Biblical inerrancy. The strictures that they embrace and vigorously seek to propagate are a bit scary imo. It is those that prompted my jeremiad earlier.
<ceterum censeo> Inerrancy is really the only integral approach to Biblical Christianity. Once you introduce loopholes, like believing that the Bible is a blend of literal and metaphoric bits, you're in a continuum that can only lead to either complete rejection ... or benign neglect of the inconsistencies. Ime most self-confessed Christians choose the latter. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
To some the inconsistancies are explained with the most fundamental view that is. God can do anything. God put all the rock layers there 8000 years ago to make it look like epochs of deposits. Why? Because he can.
Ok, that's silly and cultish and dangerous. But, most will just accept the old strories are just that. About days of wonder that can't be explained.
And maybe, a lot of it never happened, so what? Christians, in the main stream, these day, really just want the GOOD and the fellowship.
A way to bring up family. Western religion is 90% secular, and only 10% Crazy. Some scpetics might be suggest we see it the other way around.
Ok, that's silly and cultish and dangerous. But, most will just accept the old strories are just that. About days of wonder that can't be explained.
And maybe, a lot of it never happened, so what? Christians, in the main stream, these day, really just want the GOOD and the fellowship.
A way to bring up family. Western religion is 90% secular, and only 10% Crazy. Some scpetics might be suggest we see it the other way around.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Amazingly well written, and an extremely good question. I look forward to hearing a reply.
Scrotie Mcboogerballs... you need to write something so i can plus rep you for having such a funny ass name! lol!
Shannon Alexander
Well-Known Member
A lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack of a god...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It is, actually, if incomplete. It's suggestive but does not allow a conclusion. cn
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's not a lack of evidence. The existing evidence is in direct opposition to the idea of a god.
Every time something new is found which God was responsible for previously, the goal posts are moved and usually, what's found is rejected until the church is forced to accept it.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...seems a little biased towards scientism at the same time. Neither is better, imho. Some of the tools in the non-believers belt were initiated by church-going scientists. I can list them if you'd like, though I have a couple of times here - as recently as a few days ago.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...seems about right "...and always will be"
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What is 'scientism'?
No need if you can direct me to the post # so I understand the context clearly
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Unless (or, I hope, until) we experience a phase transition in the way we "consh", I fear you're spot-on. cn...seems about right "...and always will be"