Of those who do NOT consider themselves Christians, especially those hostile to Christianity, what is it that you take issue with the most, the teachings of Jesus, or the modern-day followers(disciples) of Jesus? A quote from Mahatma Gandhi came to mind, "I like their Christ, I don't like their Christians."

It is just like the author of the new movie "Golden Compass"
He is beyond a non christian, he is a hater of Christ and any gods. He stated in interviews that his hope is to kill god and he wants to do it though his writings and movies to draw people away from organised religion. There is a direct war for those of faith, against those that wish to take all of faith from us. It is basily because unless they can control the religion, they can not control the people.

Yes. I want to kill God. That's exactly what it's "just like". Thanks for clearing that one up Chuck.

One of our former book-shelvers (i.e. pages) came in to the library last week to say hi. He is an atheist and briefly brought me up to date on his philosophy of religion.

He mentioned that what annoys him the most is that Christians have their heads in the clouds thinking about heaven when there's so much to fix in this life. I disagreed with him, that Christians don't obsess over heaven but are the ones volunteering at people and animal shelters, in nursing homes, at hospitals, in soup kitchens, etc. in an attempt to improve life for God's creatures. He disagreed. Since we were at the library, I didn't want to cause a scene if a shouting match or fist-fight broke out, so I told him we would discuss this at a future time.

His other comment was to mention all the blood that has been shed by Christians as in religious wars and in the Inquisition and as part of Manifest Destiny.

He's a faithful reader of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

Of course religion is never used to to control the people Chuck. When you folks started declaring that this is a christian nation -that the bible was right and science was wrong- that kids must pray to your god in school,you brought the fight,not us -whats so hard to get about the fact that we do not fear your gods, we fear YOU- Savage

Based on the answers I've seen so far, it sounds like the main beef is with the Christian, not the teachings of Christ.

Based on the answers I've seen so far, it sounds like the main beef is with the Christian, not the teachings of Christ.

Yes, that's what I've deduced. The non-Christians don't think the Christians really practice their religion on a day-to-day basis, don't show love to God and to their neighbors as Jesus commanded.

The teachings of Jesus are quite fine... they are similar to Buddhist teachings in a way. I base some of my ethics/morality on the teachings of Jesus.

The problem is that Christianity has become a political movement over the last 30 years, so Christianity opened itself up for criticism, just like good, decent American citizens criticize government and other social institutions.

Christians have been attacking social institutions for the last 30 years... education, science, and the Constitution... yet, they want to think they are above criticism. They are not, they are troublemakers.

They accuse their critics of what they are engaging in... they are *MAKING WAR* on our basic institutions... not the other way around.

There is no war on Christianity... we live in a secular state and all religions are guaranteed religious freedom. Christianity is not guaranteed SPECIAL PRIVILEGES as it had in the past. The hidden agenda of FundiEv Christianity is to have a theistic government replacing our Republic and Constitution.

Christianity has to be put back in its place as a religion so it gives up its dreams of a Theistic Fascist Empire.

The ChristoRepublican party is now a shell, and all kinds of interesting stuff is happening to to it. All bad.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Yes, that's what I've deduced. The non-Christians don't think the Christians really practice their religion on a day-to-day basis, don't show love to God and to their neighbors as Jesus commanded.

So as long as you don't claim an religious convictions, you're free to act in whatever way you choose. You don't ever fail at being one way or another because you never claim any particular way. But, if you do claim a religious conviction, then you are castigated for failing in comporting to that way. As for me, I'd rather have the courage to choose and accept the castigation after I fail.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a Christian-hater (though some people here seem to think I am), nor do I have any hostility toward Christianity (or any other religion). I think religion has done some wonderful things for a lot of people, but it's also caused a lot of harm. Does the harm outweigh the good? Probably not, which is why I don't wish to see an end to religion (only over the top atheists seem to feel that way).

What I DO have a problem with is individuals (and no, I don't mean anyone in particular here) who feel they must push their values and morals on the rest of the world. Their way is the "truth" the "light" the "whatever" and everyone else is flat out wong. If you aren't with them, you are against them. They are people who have no respect for others with different beliefs or no beliefs and make it clear they think they are superior. There have been a few pass though on this board before... they tend to leave.

So I guess in a way, the Gandhi quote is quite true; in general I have no problem with the teachings of Christ, but I DO have a problem with SOME of his past and present day followers.

It's important to note there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who is anti-theism. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and the like are anti-theist and too over the top for my taste. But then, I tend to shy away from anyone who is fundamentalist about most anything! :)

And Cap, Savage you both deserve a greenie, but since I can't hand them out here, please accept this golf clap. **golf clap** :)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a Christian-hater (though some people here seem to think I am), nor do I have any hostility toward Christianity (or any other religion). I think religion has done some wonderful things for a lot of people, but it's also caused a lot of harm. Does the harm outweigh the good? Probably not, which is why I don't wish to see an end to religion (only over the top atheists seem to feel that way).

What I DO have a problem with is individuals (and no, I don't mean anyone in particular here) who feel they must push their values and morals on the rest of the world. Their way is the "truth" the "light" the "whatever" and everyone else is flat out wong. If you aren't with them, you are against them. They are people who have no respect for others with different beliefs or no beliefs and make it clear they think they are superior. There have been a few pass though on this board before... they tend to leave.

So I guess in a way, the Ghandi quote is quite true; in general I have no problem with the teachings of Christ, but I DO have a problem with SOME of his past and present day followers.

It's important to note there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who is anti-theism. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and the like are anti-theist and too over the top for my taste. But then, I tend to shy away from anyone who is fundamentalist about most anything! :)


With love and respect,

But since Jesus claimed to be God, he is either a liar, a fool, or really God. To claim some of his moral teachings for oneself is fine but what about the most outrageous claim of divinity!?

It seems that with any world view there will be those that follow, those that try and fail, and those that give up. Why are Christians judged so harshly when they fail to live up to what they claim? If we're all honest, don't we all often fail to live up to what we claim?

I think you're right. Many Christians and non-christians alike tend to "push" their idelogies, both claiming to be right. I would think we give each side their turn to debate in this marketplace of ideas. There's no sense in shutting down one side and not the other. And taking a position that you don't know or neutrality is also position and can be challeged. There's no winner or loser, only a chance to gain knowledge. In addition, if someone approaches me and says they have truth, I'm all ears. After all, is it not truth that we all seek?

Felice Navidad

Even Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, as over-the-top as they may be, still give me something to think about. As veritas said, "Is it not truth that we all seek?" Being open-minded, listening, asking good questions, spending time in reading and thinking will all help one approach Truth.

I bought the recent DVD debate between Philosopher of Science, John Lennox and Biologist, Richard Dawkins. I'm convinced that Jesus is God but I delight in opposing viewpoints - challenging them, and having mine challeged... with love and respect of course. I'm perplexed by the uncommitted mind. Those that find no interest in what I would think everyone would see as the ultimate issue questions (Why is there something rather than nothing?). Just because we can't agree, let's not stop talking about it, right?

And I'm perplexed by the over-committed mind that isn't open to anything but its own truth. Since I grew up in that world, I'm now guessing there's a lot of fear--and that high fences must be built to keep out any ideas that are different.

I'm perplexed by the uncommitted mind. Those that find no interest in what I would think everyone would see as the ultimate issue Hello veritas:

I have no commitment to religion. Frankly, I'm perplexed by those that have. Indeed, the ultimate issue for ME is, I wonder how long it will take before people wake up. My guess is a few generations yet.

I'm not hostile to religion, just like I'm not hostile to Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. They're all nice stories that have their place in childhood. The problem with religion is, it doesn't stop at childhood.

excon

Fortunately, for the Christian we are encouraged to test our own beliefs as in a court of law. Any who do not have failed to understand the scriptures.

What is, "it's own truth?" If it's true, you'd better be committed to it. The concept of "your truth" and "my truth" are irrational contradictions in terms. Something that is true is objectively true whether any believes it or no one believes it.

Hello veritas:

I have no commitment to religion. Frankly, I'm perplexed by those that have. Indeed, the ultimate issue for ME is, I wonder how long it will take before people wake up. My guess is a few generations yet.

I'm not hostile to religion, just like I'm not hostile to Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. They're all nice stories that have their place in childhood. The problem with religion is, it doesn't stop at childhood.

excon

Except Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Who would say that Jesus didn't exist?

.... The problem is that Christianity has become a political movement over the last 30 years, so Christianity opened itself up for criticism, just like good, decent American citizens criticize government and other social institutions. ....

Christianity was perfectly fine with the liberals in the 60's when Father Branigan was dumping blood on the draft board files and the priests in South America were preaching liberation theology. Even today they have no problem with Christian in name, Marxist organizations such as the National and World council of Churches.

Liberals are perfectly happy to have Christians support their special interests. It is when they oppose them, that suddenly Christians are meddling in politics.

Except Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Who would say that Jesus didn't exist?Hello again, veritas:

Ok, he existed. He was a nice Jewish carpenter. Do you not get my point? If not, then I won't trouble you further.

excon

Except Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Who would say that Jesus didn't exist?
No writing of his time mentioned him,or his birth -- do you not think that all male children being killed would have been mentioned in the roman records? The romans kept good records believe it or not.
Santa and the toothfairy are just as believable in my eyes.-- Savage

Hello again, veritas:

Ok, he existed. He was a nice Jewish carpenter. Do you not get my point? If not, then I won't trouble you further.

excon

Jesus claimed to be God. He did not leave him being a nice Jewish carpenter open to us as a viable choice. If you don't accept his claim to be God then he was either a liar or a lunatic. Anyone falsely claiming to be God would not be a nice Jewish anything.

no writing of his time mentioned him,or his birth -- do you not think that all male children being killed would have been mentioned in the roman records? the romans kept good records believe it or not.
santa and the toothfairy are just as believable in my eyes.-- Savage

Are you referring to the extra-biblical references of Jesus by the Jewish Historian, Josephus or the Roman Historian, Cornelius Tacitus?

Even without the extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, the Gospels and the Apostle Paul's writings are as much an historical account as any. The Gospels were written, by conservative estimates, between AD 55-95, the earliest copy being from AD 130, only 35-70 years after the originals. In addition, over 5,200 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts have been discovered through archeology. Compare that to the writing of other figures whom we would never think to question:

Author When written Earliest copy Time span # of copies
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs 5
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Gospels 55-95 A.D. 130 A.D. 35-70 yrs 5,200

Jesus claimed to be God. Hello again, veritas:

I don't know if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death?? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death???

Actually, the gospels were written very close after his death.

And he did claim to be God. Here is one example:

John 20:28-29
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV

Thomas called Him God, and Jesus commended His belief.

John 10:28-39
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one."

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
NKJV

Here he was clear that He was saying that He was God, so clear that the Jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

John 8:57-59
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
NKJV

And once again they tried to stone Him for claiming to be God (I AM means the self-existent one, which is what YHWH (name of God) means. The Jews understand that He was calling Himself God.

There are many other examples.

It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. Rather it's been found difficult and left untried.
--G.K. Chesterton

With love and respect,

But since Jesus claimed to be God, he is either a liar, a fool, or really God.

You've just hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't god, I'm saying I don't think he was. I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed. But that's my opinion, and I fully respect that yours is different. I hope you respect mine as well. :)


To claim some of his moral teachings for oneself is fine but what about the most outrageous claim of divinity!?

What about it? Why do I need to believe in anything divine?


It seems that with any world view there will be those that follow, those that try and fail, and those that give up. Why are Christians judged so harshly when they fail to live up to what they claim? If we're all honest, don't we all often fail to live up to what we claim?

Honestly? Because Christians are the "loudest", at least in the US. Christians will proclaim they are right, they are the best, so on and so on, but many live a very hypocritical life. My mom's neighbors claim to be devout; their daugther had two children out of wedlock in her teens/early 20's (two different guys). She married daddy #2 after baby #2 was born, then had baby #3. Is this in line with the teachings of Christianity? No. Do I care? No, but I DO care when Christians like them who have pregnant unmarried daughters chastize others for having pregnant unmarried daughters. Or when people like them claim they are devout, they live their live the way god wants, so on and so on. But I'm wrong because I don't go to church. Look at the divorce rate in the US. Now look at the number of Christians in the US. It is fair to assume a majority of people getting divorced are Christian. So what gives that person the right to look down on me for something "unholy" that I did?

Lots of people fail to live up to what they claim, but may people of faith make excuses for it, using their faith. "Oh, well I killed that abortion doctor because god told me to". There is an absence of personal responsibility in many people of faith and that troubles me greatly.


I think you're right. Many Christians and non-christians alike tend to "push" their idelogies, both claiming to be right. I would think we give each side their turn to debate in this marketplace of ideas. There's no sense in shutting down one side and not the other. And taking a position that you don't know or neutrality is also position and can be challeged. There's no winner or loser, only a chance to gain knowledge. In addition, if someone approaches me and says they have truth, I'm all ears. After all, is it not truth that we all seek?

Felice Navidad

I think you have a great outlook. You appear to not be closed to other people's beliefs, which is important. It shows you have a great deal of tolerance and probably also respect for others. Of course both sides claim to be right - no one wants to be wrong, especially in the case like this. I mean, if I'm wrong, and Christians are right, chances are, I'm going to hell. That would suck, to say the least. If muslims are right, we might both be going to hell. If I'm right, we're both going to turn into worm food. The truth is, no one REALLY knows. I SAY I know, but you SAY you know as well. When it comes down to it, neither of us does, and maybe NONE of us have it right.

Debate can be interesting and create a great learning experience, but only when it doesn't get ugly. It frequently gets ugly here. You get someone who insults the other person, or someone who is unable to understand that others think differently. Instead of it being an exchange of thoughts it turns into who's right and who's wrong, and neither side will admit to being wrong.

Also, veritas you might want to check out this old thread:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirituality/atheists-do-not-believe-how-111864.html

It is very long, and there is some uglyness in it, but it will probably help give you a better understanding of the (non)beliefs of the people on this board.

Santa Claus - There are certainly some similarities between Santa and God. Both are invisible. Both are purveyors of "good things". Both figures exist in a framework that includes a story about their origins, and their existence. Both exist in a cultural context. Both are referred to as 'he' in their respective frameworks. And both oppose and ultimately punish bad behavior.

Actually I have never heard Santa is invisible, he ( according to the novels written on the made up santa) is he lives in the north pole, is married and travels by a sled. Not invisible in any story written about him.

And Of course the santa story came out of a real person

Hello again:

You could insert Popeye's name instead of Santa in DC's post, and the rest would be true.

Merry Christmas, and God rest ye merry gentlemen.

excon

The interesting thing is that no matter what a persons take is on Christianity, they are a product of that tradition; we use concepts and language inherited from tradition.

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death??? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

"Oh hi there. I'm God. Yeah I'm omnipotent. Wanna buy a chair?"

"Oh hi there. I'm God. Yeah I'm omnipotent. Wanna buy a chair?"

You crack me up!
I'd like to enjoy the debate but I'm too stuffed to think straight... Maybe later. :p

You've just hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't god, I'm saying I don't think he was. I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed. But that's my opinion, and I fully respect that yours is different. I hope you respect mine as well. :)


Your opinions have all of my respect, no doubt about it. What I'm suggesting is that this goes beyond our opinions. What I'm suggesting is that the historical evidence, not my opinion, shows not only that Jesus existed, but that his claim to divinity is more than reasonable. No New Testament scholar (Christian or non-Christian) would ever doubt that Jesus walked the earth, so please let us put that myth to rest. To have an opinion that Jesus never existed is really not an option. So the only real question is whether He was who He claimed to be and that is where we must set aside our personal preferences and deal strictly with the historical evidence.

I'm not asking anyone to become a Christian. I spent most of my adult life as an atheist and agnostic because I didn't want there to be a God. But faced with the overwhelming historical evidence of the life and resurrection of Jesus, I realized that it doesn't matter what I think or want. This was a process for me that took several years of soul-searching, challenging old assumptions, and reading through the historical evidence.

All I ask is that we use our heads as well as our hearts when dealing with the matter and not rely on personal opinions, prejudices, and assumptions. We've been convinced that when it comes to religion that we must check our brains at the door and rely only on our feelings. This assumption is false and I've been very impressed with the mass of intellectual minds (William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Peter Kreeft, Greg Koukl, etc.) that can strongly defend the Christian world view. The historical evidence is there but it seems that our will is not. Remember, absolute proof only exists in Math when we know all the rules ahead of time. What anyone ever expects is reasonable evidence that something is or is not.

Kind Regards,
Joe

The interesting thing is that no matter what a persons take is on Christianity, they are a product of that tradition; we use concepts and language inherited from tradition.

The Genetic Falacy:
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong." Or,
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."

Check out Ravi Zacharias who was brought up by Hindu priests in India but who is not a Christian apologist.

Hello again, veritas:

I dunno if he did or not. Isn't it true that the first gospel to be written about him was written long after his death??? If so, then somebody only SAID he made that claim. That's not the same thing.

I maintain that he was a nice Jewish boy practicing his religion. It's YOU people who think he's a god.

excon

Well, let's see. It's generally agreed that Christ was crucified about AD 30. The Gospel of Mark has been dated between AD 60-65. Think about it... it is absolutely reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses to the life of Christ were still living at the time of the writing of Mark's writing that could have objected to what he wrote. All they had to do was to bring forth Jesus' corpse! It's us people that consider the evidence of history! Others deny it, not based on any evidence to the contrary, but on a personal desire to reject it.

Veritas I never said he didn't exist, I was referring to the fact that there is some debate regarding his existence (I was unclear though). To be honest, I haven't read enough about it to form an opinion. Perhaps you see the historical evidence as proof of his divinity, but I don't.

It's interesting you said you were an atheist/agnostic because you didn't WANT there to be a god... then you go on to say we "must check out brains at the door and rely on our feelings" For myself, I've never thought about not wanting there to be a god; I simply don't think there is one. And if something requires me to "check my brain at the door" it's probably something I don't want a part of. But that's just me!

Good question... though I'm not sure you want to hear from me as I consider myself a Christian. Of course, I have also meditated in Buddhist temples, practiced in Hindu ashrams, and attended Jewish temples. The one truth I've found is, God is always with me. Exploring religions is the best thing anyone can do to open their hearts and minds and grow... and find the truth for them.

I do not know why people have such issues with Christianity. It's a beautiful religion. The path of Jesus Christ is one of love and truth and compassion, and I feel sad that that message has been perverted or lost to people. I feel as though many people approach Christianity from their minds (from judgement, from right and wrong), when the true path of Jesus Christ is that of love, surrender to the will of God, and the experience of an open heart, and the ability of offer forgiveness. In truth, nothing is harder.

You wonder why people have problems with Christianity? I believe it's because they do not understand it. I believe it's because they've enpowered other people to decide what it is for them instead of trying to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ on their own.

Veritas I never said he didn't exist, I was referring to the fact that there is some debate regarding his existence (I was unclear though). To be honest, I haven't read enough about it to form an opinion. Perhaps you see the historical evidence as proof of his divinity, but I don't.

It's interesting you said you were an atheist/agnostic because you didn't WANT there to be a god... then you go on to say we "must check out brains at the door and rely on our feelings" For myself, I've never thought about not wanting there to be a god; I simply don't think there is one. And if something requires me to "check my brain at the door" it's probably something I don't want a part of. But that's just me!

You said, "I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed." My apologies, I guess one could read that you weren't including yourself in that sentence. Therefore, I'm sorry for coming down hard on you for denying his existence.

I too was unclear. In addition to believe that no God existed, then that I believed one couldn't know if a God existed, I also didn't want there to be a God.

No, I'm saying that we must NOT check our brains at the door, nor should we only rely on feelings. My point was that atheists and agnostics often claim that Christians do that but that in reality, we must use our brains to seek and review the historical evidence.

Yes, that's what I've deduced. The non-Christians don't think the Christians really practice their religion on a day-to-day basis, don't show love to God and to their neighbors as Jesus commanded.Sadly, this is true ; a lot of them don't. And I think this is what causes people to take issue with Christianity.

Sadly, this is true ; a lot of them don't. And I think this is what causes people to take issue with Christianity.

Logically, one would take issue with the Christian, not the Christianity. Unless the Christianity supported a change in one's outward self and not one's inward self. But we know quite the contrary how outspoken Jesus was with the Jewish leaders who cared more about outward appearances. Jesus took issue with the Jewish leaders but he didn't conclude that since they were hypocrites that therefore their God didn't exist.

My point is, if anyone is waiting for every Christian to straighten up their act in order to accept what it is that they believe, then I'm suggesting that you might be waiting until eternity. Once I got past my own hypocrisy , I was a bit more tolerant with the hypocrisy of others.

Imagine if we all came down on the atheist for demanding equal rights for woman? If God doesn't exist, then there is no basis for equal rights. The term, "All men are created equal" is absolutely absurd unless there is some absolute, objective, and eternal moral law for equality. And if there exists a moral law, then there has to be a moral law-giver. Therefore, how hypocritical for an atheist to believe in no absolute, objective, and eternal law for equal rights while maintaining that woman should have equal rights.

Let me be clear. Just because the atheist cannot point to an objective moral law does not mean that they cannot live a moral life. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the atheist has no object point of reference for that moral law.

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do I believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way I saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But I do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and I do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when I Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and I don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do i believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way i saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But i do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and i do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when i Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and i don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

My heart aches for you. I'm so sorry you had to go through all of that, especially when you trusted these folks with your soul. The hearts of men often are very wicked. Please know that those that took advantage of young children like that will be held accountable for their actions, if not here on earth, then when they meet their Creator. So you can be certain about that. On the other hand, don't hold back on what God requires of you just because some sick priests did what they did. Remember too, "the church" is not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church. There are many different churches out there that uphold essential Christian doctrine and don't have leaders that are sexually sick. May you find peace, forgiveness, and a healthy church home someday.

the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs.

A church is not a museum for saints -- it's a hospital for sinners.

You said, "I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed." My apologies, I guess one could read that you weren't including yourself in that sentence. Therefore, I'm sorry for coming down hard on you for denying his existence.

Not a problem, I was unclear in my post. Like I said, I haven't researched enough to form a solid opinion one way or the other. Also, his existence isn't that important to me, since I don't think if he existed it means he was who he said he was (or who others said he was). But that's another topic!


I too was unclear. In addition to believe that no God existed, then that I believed one couldn't know if a God existed, I also didn't want there to be a God.

I think this is one of the things that differentiates atheists who were once believers and atheists who have always been non-believers. I'm of the latter; so replace "God" with "unicorns" and you will get my perspective! :) But it's OK, we are all unclear in our posts at one point or another.


No, I'm saying that we must NOT check our brains at the door, nor should we only rely on feelings. My point was that atheists and agnostics often claim that Christians do that but that in reality, we must use our brains to seek and review the historical evidence.

And here's proof that I need to read my own sig... you did say we should not check our brains at the door, I mis-read, sorry! I think you have a point in a way - some Christians use their brains and actively search for and pursue their religion and it's history, but there are many out there who simply say "It's in the Bible, it's true" or, "God did it" to justify anything/everything. Many forget that citing the Bible as evidence to an atheist is like citing Star Wars as historically and scientifically accurate!

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do i believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way i saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But i do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and i do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when i Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and i don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

the bible is clear that there will be the wicked mixed along with the faithful, and what others do should not be the judgement of what we believe or not believe. There always will be sinful people in all churches.
As for as the priests, of course while there is some, all of the news is priests over 30 years, few are current or new issues. And as a percentage, there are issues with boy scouts, with karate teachers, and school teachers, but I don't see you saing you have lost faith in the scouts, in public schools and so on.

And in General the Church is full of faith, and I see you have confused the lost sin of a few with the faith of millions.

Not a problem, I was unclear in my post. Like I said, I haven't researched enough to form a solid opinion one way or the other. Also, his existence isn't that important to me, since I don't think if he existed it means he was who he said he was (or who others said he was). But that's another topic!

I think this is one of the things that differentiates atheists who were once believers and atheists who have always been non-believers. I'm of the latter; so replace "God" with "unicorns" and you will get my perspective! :) But it's ok, we are all unclear in our posts at one point or another.

And here's proof that I need to read my own sig.... you did say we should not check our brains at the door, I mis-read, sorry! I think you have a point in a way - some Christians use their brains and actively search for and pursue their religion and it's history, but there are many out there who simply say "It's in the Bible, it's true" or, "God did it" to justify anything/everything. Many forget that citing the Bible as evidence to an atheist is like citing Star Wars as historically and scientifically accurate!

As Dennis Prager says, "I prefer clarity to agreement." While we may disagree, we are clear about each other's positions and that is sometimes as far as it gets.

However, if I may be so bold, I tend to think you would fall into the category of an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. An agnostic would assert that one can not know whether God exists and that seems to be more in line with what you've written so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. Correct me if I'm wrong.Hello veritas:

You're wrong. I can assert that there's no tooth fairy, and it doesn't require knowledge of the entire universe in order to do so. Asserting there's no God is no different.

excon

Firstly, it's certainly not untenable. We must assume things don't exist and then prove that they do. If we were working the other way, then we can assert that there are flying teapots around pluto, after all we haven't proved that there aren't. That isn't how discovery works.

Furthermore, an omnipresent God only needs to be disproved in the tiniest portion of the universe. If he's not there, then he's not omnipresent. You don't need knowledge of the whole universe at all.

As Dennis Prager says, "I prefer clarity to agreement." While we may disagree, we are clear about each other's positions and that is sometimes as far as it gets.

Works for me!


However, if I may be so bold, I tend to think you would fall into the category of an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. An agnostic would assert that one can not know whether God exists and that seems to be more in line with what you've written so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, the number of times we have been through this on this site... :) Due to rising tempers with others on this board, I have a tendency to make it clear my assertion there is no god is my opinion, because when I don't, people seem to get up in arms about it. I prefer to try and sidestep the argument, as saying "this is my opinion, that is your opinion" goes over better most of the time. Stating otherwise tends to get into a flamewar and I get accused of telling people there is no god and squashing their belief. So I clarify it - I think there is no god, you think whatever you want.

You don't appear to be one who will turn this into a flamewar, so I'll say it, there is no god. If you would like to believe in a god, I support your right to do so, as long as you support my right not to (which you seem to do).

We've also been through the "no one can be an atheist because no one can know with absolute certainty there is no god". Most of those people say that, but then say they know there IS a god. Some have said they don't know there is a god, but they think there is, to which I tell them they are actually agnostic, but since I say, "there is no god" I am an atheist. Also, see excon and Cap's posts above; one can make assertions without all knowledge in the universe; if we couldn't, we'd ALL be agnostic about EVERYTHING.

Hello veritas:

You're wrong. I can assert that there's no tooth fairy, and it doesn't require knowledge of the entire universe in order to do so. Asserting there's no God is no different.

excon

It certainly would require knowledge of the entire universe to assert there's no tooth fairy. To assert the non-existence of anything would require knowledge of the entire universe. That's what makes atheism so problematic.

It certainly would require knowledge of the entire universe to assert there's no tooth fairy. To assert the non-existence of anything would require knowledge of the entire universe. That's what makes atheism so problematic.

You must live in a scary scary world where everything you can imagine, and then more stuff you can't, exists, then?

Works for me!



Oh, the number of times we have been through this on this site.... :) Due to rising tempers with others on this board, I have a tendency to make it clear my assertion there is no god is my opinion, because when I don't, people seem to get up in arms about it. I prefer to try and sidestep the argument, as saying "this is my opinion, that is your opinion" goes over better most of the time. Stating otherwise tends to get into a flamewar and I get accused of telling people there is no god and squashing their belief. So I clarify it - I think there is no god, you think whatever you want.

You don't appear to be one who will turn this into a flamewar, so I'll say it, there is no god. If you would like to believe in a god, I support your right to do so, as long as you support my right not to (which you seem to do).

We've also been through the "no one can be an atheist because no one can know with absolute certainty there is no god". Most of those people say that, but then say they know there IS a god. Some have said they don't know there is a god, but they think there is, to which I tell them they are actually agnostic, but since I say, "there is no god" I am an atheist. Also, see excon and Cap's posts above; one can make assertions without all knowledge in the universe; if we couldn't, we'd ALL be agnostic about EVERYTHING.

As everyone on the board as my witness, I will never turn any argument into a flamewar. I respect the dignity of each person on this board but every idea, opinion, or argument is up for debate, including my own.

What I often hear is a miscategorization of one's "right to say or believe something" versus defending one's position with evidence or logical reasoning that could be shown as reasonable. I support anyone's right to believe or say anything... of course. I wouldn't bother if that's all we would come to agreement on. What's more important to me is to dialog with atheists and agnostics about their philosophical assertions and logical arguments that cause them to arrive at the position that there is no God.

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is a God. What I can do is to demonstrate that the evidence for the existence of God is reasonable and available if anyone is willing to discuss it.

You must live in a scary scary world where everything you can imagine, and then more stuff you can't, exists, then?

Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Well, you must surely believe that there's a doomsday squad of fighterships coming to earth to destroy us all, since we can't say for certain that there isn't? You would need all the knowledge in the universe to say there isn't, wouldn't you?

Or... How about Zeus? You can't possibly say that he doesn't exist. He'd be angry if you did.

If you follow your argument to absurdity, then pretty much anything you imagine actually exists.

Firstly, it's certainly not untenable. We must assume things don't exist and then prove that they do. If we were working the other way, then we can assert that there are flying teapots around pluto, after all we havent proved that there aren't. That isn't how discovery works.

Furthermore, an omnipresent God only needs to be disproved in the tiniest portion of the universe. If he's not there, then he's not omnipresent. You don't need knowledge of the whole universe at all.

That's as silly as assuming that things do exist and then proving that they don't. It seems that the proper methodology would be to examine the evidence available and go from there.

About an omnipresent God...

Your concept of omnipresences is not Biblical. God is aware and has knowledge of all things at all times, that's omnipresence. He is not physical and therefore does not occupy space or time. William Lane Craig does a great job of describing the attributes of God. I would highly recommend reading up on God's attributes. A lot of misunderstandings can be resolved with an accurate understanding of those attributes.

Well, you must surely believe that there's a doomsday squad of fighterships coming to earth to destroy us all, since we can't say for certain that there isnt? You would need all the knowledge in the universe to say there isn't, wouldnt you?

Or... How about Zeus? You can't possibly say that he doesn't exist. He'd be angry if you did.

If you follow your argument to absurdity, then pretty much anything you imagine actually exists.

I've never asserted that those things existed. Are you?

It's the atheist that says with absolute certainty that there is NO God. I don't recall making any negative assertions about fighterships or Zeus.

That's as silly as assuming that things do exist and then proving that they don't. It seems that the proper methodology would be to examine the evidence available and go from there.

This is my point?

An atheist never says that there is no God, he believes that there is no God, that's all. All good scientists know that the universe could have been created by a God. The reason why God isn't given in science textbooks as the creator of the universe? Because there's no evidence.

Just like there's no evidence for Zeus, or the battleships coming to destroy us, or the teapots around pluto. So we can say these things are not there, until evidence tells us otherwise.

This is the way that logical reasoning demands it must be. We cannot say "You cannot say for certain that x does not exist, therefore we must assume that x does exist". Down that road insanity lies.

As everyone on the board as my witness, I will never turn any argument into a flamewar. I respect the dignity of each person on this board but every idea, opinion, or argument is up for debate, including my own.

Well that's refreshing!


What I often hear is a miscategorization of one's "right to say or believe something" versus defending one's position with evidence or logical reasoning that could be shown as reasonable. I support anyone's right to believe or say anything... of course. I wouldn't bother if that's all we would come to agreement on. What's more important to me is to dialog with atheists and agnostics about their philosophical assertions and logical arguments that cause them to arrive at the position that there is no God.

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is a God. What I can do is to demonstrate that the evidence for the existence of God is reasonable and available if anyone is willing to discuss it.

If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic)

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"

An atheist never says that there is no God, he believes that there is no God, that's all. All good scientists know that the universe could have been created by a God. The reason why God isn't given in science textbooks as the creator of the universe? Because there's no evidence.

Just like there's no evidence for Zeus, or the battleships coming to destroy us, or the teapots around pluto. So we can say these things are not there, until evidence tells us otherwise.

This is the way that logical reasoning demands it must be. We cannot say "You cannot say for certain that x does not exist, therefore we must assume that x does exist". Down that road insanity lies.

Atheism is the affirmation of God's nonexistence. You are postulating the nonexistence of God. I will concede your weak atheistic definition that you only believe there is no God.

The reason God isn't given in science textbooks is because of science's a priori commitment to naturalism. Science outright excludes non-natural things from the outset before any scientific discovery commences. The first rule of science is, "Let's see how far we can go without invoking a non-natural thing." Notice the first rule is not, "Let us see what the evidence shows and go from there..."

Well that's refreshing!



If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic)

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"

I will concede to the weak definition of atheism, the belief in the nonexistence of God. Thanks for referring me to the link. I will check in out. For the record, when I hear about an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes "holy crap!" Then I realize that anything that all-knowing, that powerful, would have to make my head spin. What makes you think that you should have a complete understanding of the universe? No one else does ;-)

The reason God isn't given in science textbooks is because of science's a priori commitment to naturalism. Science outright excludes non-natural things from the outset before any scientific discovery commences. The first rule of science is, "Let's see how far we can go without invoking a non-natural thing." Notice the first rule is not, "Let us see what the evidence shows and go from there..."

The problem with your argument here is that "what the evidence shows" and "not invoking a non-natural thing" are the same. If the evidence were to show that there were a God, then God would be natural. As I said before, all good scientists keep their minds open to all current hypotheses (and God is certainly one of the big ones that has been tested over thousands of years of science), and see which fit the evidence better.

In fact for much of our history, God has been the only explanation for many things. Only through scientific enquiry have we determined that these things are not due to God.

Well that's refreshing!



If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic)

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"

Oh yeah... proof for the existence of God. I love audio, I hope you do.

Peter Kreeft - God's Existence (http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/18_god-existence.htm)

Also, see "The Defenders Podcast" by William Lane Craig.

Also see, "The Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments" by Alvin Plantiga
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf

The problem with your argument here is that "what the evidence shows" and "not invoking a non-natural thing" are the same. If the evidence were to show that there were a God, then God would be natural. As I said before, all good scientists keep their minds open to all current hypotheses (and God is certainly one of the big ones that has been tested over thousands of years of science), and see which fit the evidence better.

In fact for much of our history, God has been the only explanation for many things. Only through scientific enquiry have we determined that these things are not due to God.


I'm a lover of science too so I share your passion as well.

Let us rest here my English friend. Did you catch the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox? They debated Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion." Great stuff! You can probably get most of it from youtube.com.

I truly enjoy the debate and thanks for keeping things civilized. I'm sure we'll catch up soon on another string (if we haven't already).

Cheers,
Joe

Then I realize that anything that all-knowing, that powerful, would have to make my head spin. What makes you think that you should have a complete understanding of the universe? No one else does ;-)

You're making the assumption I'm looking for a complete understanding of the universe - I'm not. I'm looking for evidence of that all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being. So far, I haven't found any. Beyond that, I'm pretty darn happy without that being, I don't see how believing will make things any better than they already are.

EDIT: I'll check out the links another time, I'm not at a point where I can listen to something like that right now. But thanks, and I'll let you know what I think.

A person who can look at nature, at the ocean, at the universe and not see God just does not want to see him.

The evidence of a greater power is just everywhere,

I'm looking for evidence of that all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being.

Go for a walk in the woods. Look up at the sky on a dark night. Watch a new mother care for her offspring. Look in the mirror.

Not sure, I look in the mrror and see God has a sense of humor.

not sure, I look in the mrror and see God has a sense of humor.

Uh oh. What have you done to God's creation, FrChuck??

Well God has graced me with more skin than hair ( guess he loves to see the reflextion of his creation.

Well God has graced me with more skin than hair ( guess he loves to see the reflextion of his creation.

And you can shine forth His glory toward others...

A person who can look at nature, at the ocean, at the universe and not see God jsut does not want to see him.

The evidence of a greater power is just everywhere,


Go for a walk in the woods. Look up at the sky on a dark night. Watch a new mother care for her offspring. Look in the mirror.

I understand you both see these things and see evidence of god. I do not. Those things are not "proof" to me.

Veritas:

I listened to part of your first link, and I have to say, it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. And it offers no proof, but rather the same arguments that are always presented and have always been refuted.

To begin, I almost turned it off when Mr. Kreeft said the only important god is the Judeo-Christian god because that is self-serving and quite intolerant. Then he goes on to say god is to us like we are to a snail…. Then he goes on to say certain attributes of god can be proven, but not all the attributes of the Bible god, so I’m forced to wonder how he can possibly say the Judeo-Christian god is the only important one if he can’t prove it’s the Judeo-Christian god he’s proving, but whatever. I’ll let that go. Then he goes on to basically say you have to be open to god’s revelations in order to receive them – doesn’t that mean he’s not omnipotent? But whatever. I’ll let that go too.

Then he gets into his list of five “proofs” that god exists; the argument from first cause, argument from design, argument from morality, argument from desire and argument from existentialism. This is where I turned it off. The immediate problem with each of these arguments is they are philosophical, not a single one uses the scientific method. Kreeft admits in his lecture god cannot be proven with the scientific method. Well, sorry, but that’s what it takes for me. I posted in another thread something along the lines of… if god is all knowing, he knows what it will take for me to believe in him. If he doesn’t do it, it’s his fault I don’t believe, not mine. If he’s god, he’s got the power, right? I said it as a joke, but I’m starting to realize how accurate I might have been…

Anyway, on to the “proofs”. Argument from the first cause has been debated and argued before, and we’ve all heard the arguments (what caused the first cause, what says the first cause was god, etc) so there’s no reason to get into it. I do not consider this “proof” of god.

The argument from design has also been hotly debated, many times on this site by people far better versed than I in biology. Again, I do not consider this “proof” of god.

Next is the argument from morality which in a round about way says you can’t be moral without god or at least that getting your moral guidance from god is “better” that other ways. Again, not proof of god.

Here’s a good one, the argument from desire, which Kreeft made up on his own, as far as I can tell. I read his article on his site about it, and think it’s mostly fluff. But my favorite part (in reference to there being a hidden desire for god and I’m challenging that notion):


A second form of denial of our premise is: "I am perfectly happy now." This, we suggest, verges on idiocy or, worse, dishonesty. It requires something more like exorcism than refutation. This is Merseult in Camus's The Stranger. This is subhuman, vegetation, pop psychology. Even the hedonist utilitarian John Stuart Mill, one of the shallowest (though cleverest) minds in the history of philosophy, said that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."
This is not only wrong but also insulting. I’m an idiot or I’m lying because I’m perfectly happy now without god? Well that’s a rather bold thing for someone who doesn’t know me or my values or my life to make! And you mean a hedonist thinks you can always be happier? No way!

And finally the argument from existentialism, which, I’ll admit I should have listened to because the definition of existentialism precludes the existence of god and says we are all responsible for our own actions. From what I’ve read elsewhere about Kreeft’s opinion on Sartre is that he despises him and wrote a book in the form of a mock dialogue between Sartre and Socrates arguing against existentialism. So again, I see no proof here.

In all, the five “proofs” listed are personal proofs, not actual proofs. Kreeft admits he cannot prove god with the scientific method, but then claims he has proofs. Then he clarifies what he means by his “proofs”, differentiating between a practical proof, a theoretical proof and probable proof. Then he categorizes his five proofs as “certain proofs”. Sorry. I don’t buy it.

Is your other link like this? If so I think I might skip it…

I don't think god or well his followers are right in hating homosexuals and some other things but mainly that. Till that is resolved I won't believe in him fully

I suppose I'm the a different kind of atheist. I don't believe there is a god, I think it would nice if there was a god though. I would even say I want him to exist but want does not make reality. Wouldn't it be nice, an omnipotent god that as long as I believed nothing bad would ever happen to me. I would have no need for medical science because why would I extent any ones life if heaven waited for them. I would even be willing to go to hell if it meant most people when they die go to heaven instead of non-existence.

The problem I think is that I have always found that simplest answer is most often the right answer. Which is more likley that an all powerful being wants me to believe in him but doesn't give me anything that I would call evidence knowing full well that I won't accept the evidence that he laid out or that a group of people found out that they can get your money by telling you that if you don't do what they say the boogie man is going to get you? Seems like a simple question to me.

the bible is clear that there will be the wicked mixed along with the faithful, and what others do should not be the judgement of what we beleive or not beleive. There always will be sinful people in all churches.
As for as the priests, of course while there is some, all of the news is priests over 30 years, few are current or new issues. And as a percentage, there are issues with boy scouts, with karate teachers, and school teachers, but I don't see you saing you have lost faith in the scouts, in public schools and so on.

And in General the Church is full of faith, and I see you have confused the lost sin of a few with the faith of millions.

I never took Karate, I was never in boy scouts so I can't speak about that. Public schools are horrible, I am also a product of them. But I am have made it father in life from what I learned in there then I did at catholic school.

Please don't get it wrong the only time a priest punched me I clocked the living Sh*t out of him with a right hook. And As far as no New priest touching kids their was a priest in my parish the kids nicked named Father Feel Us cause he couldn't keep his hands to his self. And that was 5 years ago. He was named in a report in. So save it with the church is good or that was in the past cause you are lying to yourself.

The Church has gotten so far away from what it is supposed to be it is laughable. Jesus lost it cause people were changing money in the temple, but I bet you have no problem playing bingo for a small fee a few times a week.

Look the fact is until priest come slapped with parental advisory warning I'll be auditioning gods in my office on Sunday mornings.

i dont think god or well his followers are right in hating homosexuals and some other things but mainly that. Till that is resolved i wont believe in him fully

God's okay with it. It's just some of His followers who have the hate problem -- and maybe that means they aren't really His followers. Don't throw God out because of people who don't understand what it means to love one another.

Good question....though I'm not sure you want to hear from me as I consider myself a Christian. Of course, I have also meditated in Buddhist temples, practiced in Hindu ashrams, and attended Jewish temples. The one truth I've found is, God is always with me. Exploring religions is the best thing anyone can do to open their hearts and minds and grow...and find the truth for them.

I do not know why people have such issues with Christianity. It's a beautiful religion. The path of Jesus Christ is one of love and truth and compassion, and I feel sad that that message has been perverted or lost to people. I feel as though many people approach Christianity from their minds (from judgement, from right and wrong), when the true path of Jesus Christ is that of love, surrender to the will of God, and the experience of an open heart, and the ability of offer forgiveness. In truth, nothing is harder.

You wonder why people have problems with Christianity? I believe it's because they do not understand it. I believe it's because they've enpowered other people to decide what it is for them instead of trying to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ on their own.



In my opinion... excellent :)

Of those who do NOT consider themselves Christians, especially those hostile to Christianity, what is it that you take issue with the most, the teachings of Jesus, or the modern-day followers(disciples) of Jesus? A quote from Mahatma Gandhi came to mind, "I like their Christ, I don't like their Christians."


Even as a Christian, it is my pride that gets in the way.

What does the bible / Jesus say?

Surrender your will to God, believe in Him, let Him guide you, follow Him.
That is tough when most people believe in themselves first and foremost.

Who freely admits

#1] that they're not perfect, and are sinners [ no rationalizing now ]
#2] acknowledges that all sinners go to Hell
#3] that belief in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection pays for those sins



As to arguing about "scientific proof" - evidence is there to freely decide.
That is why faith is the ultimate factor.



If "science" could have definitive proof of "god" in a box, or underneath a microscope, or reproducible by some lab experiment, what kind of "god" would that be ?

Everyone who is not affiliated with Islam, or Judeo-Christianity is considered to be a pagan or a heathen. Pagan is a term used with such disdain, dog sh** gets better reviews. Heathen is even worse. How could their one God(s) be the only one? Are the rest of humanity doomed to go to their version of hell? Control! That's the problem, if you don't do as they say, you're F#@&*%. If God exists, I don't think he created us to be F#@&*% and go to hell.

The problem is the mind. When Christians, and everyone else are working out of their hearts, and not thinking things to death, life is pretty good. When we feel, we are with the Spirit. It is not possible to use language and be accurate, because each listener or reader interprets the words differently. But if we both feel Love, in it's highest form aren't we closer than if we have a conversation?

And think about it. How many people have ever existed? Of those, how many have been/are Christian? Of those, how many are REAL Christians who supposedly will go to heaven?

Now, is God doing to damn all the rest? Isn't God bigger than that?

My main beef with many Christians is their mindset. They may or may not be devout Christians but either way, they are in it for selfish reasons. Be good and believe in Christ so that you may go to Heaven. Don't do bad things so that you don't go to Hell.

Well, what if Heaven wasn't the "prize" at the end of your journey? Would you still be (or claim to be) devout Christians?

What if Jesus told us to believe in Him and that He died for our sins because that is what is True... AND, if you do that, you will certainly spend all of eternity suffering in the depths of Hell? Or you can shun Jesus and shun God and go frolic in Heaven. Show Him your ultimate love by sacrificing your soul for all of Eternity.

How many so-called "Christians" would subject themselves to Eternal Damnation for the Love of their Father?

As to arguing about "scientific proof" - evidence is there to freely decide.
That is why faith is the ultimate factor.

I wondered if you would join in on this thread. :) You're right - it comes down to faith. Earlier in this thread it was mentioned to (pretty much) look around and one can see god; but that implies having faith. The "proofs" mentioned in the link I referenced are only "proof" if you then apply faith. To believe in a god, one must have faith.


If "science" could have definitive proof of "god" in a box, or underneath a microscope, or reproducible by some lab experiment, what kind of "god" would that be ?

An omnipotent one? :D If god can do anything, why CAN'T he prove himself using the scientific method? He controls everything anyway, so why not give someone the knowledge of some experiment to "prove god" and every time that experiment is performed, you get the same result? Then god IS proven using the scientific method, but only because he's allowing himself to be proven. Or are you forgetting that god can do whatever he wants, so if he wants to be proven by the scientific method, he can be? ;)

Or perhaps god would be one who wants everyone to believe because he wants everyone to be saved, and will do what it takes for them to believe, instead of sending muddled messages?

Stay with me here; lots of people use the parent/child analogy when describing god/people, so I'm going to do the same (put on your humor hat, please!)

We tell our children things in clear terms so they know what we want of them. We don't give them round about answers or commands; we don't say, "it would be nice if the dishwasher was empty", we say, "go empty the dishwasher".

So let's say you're my parent, and I'm about to stab my brother in the eye with a hat pin. MOST people don't do such a thing, but some people do. I'm going to do it unless you tell me, in clear, uncertain terms to NOT stab my brother in the eye. Instead of saying "Don't stab your brother in the eye!" (clear, uncertain terms), you say, "It's good to be nice to people" (rather ambiguous). So I stab my brother in the eye, and you get mad. I continue to go about stabbing people in the eye, because you just won't tell me not to. You KNOW what you need to say, but for whatever reason, you won't do it. Then, you punish me for it. Is this how we teach our children?

Jillian, while your humor is not lost on me and even though I have NO idea what a hat pin is, I will get to the point...

Those types of arguments against the validity of "God" only work if we think of God as some long, gray-haired old man sitting in a chair up in the clouds pulling strings.

Our humanization of God is, I believe, one of THE biggest deterrents in the belief in God.

We tell our children things in clear terms so they know what we want of them. We don't give them round about answers or commands; we don't say, "it would be nice if the dishwasher was empty", we say, "go empty the dishwasher".

So let's say you're my parent, and I'm about to stab my brother in the eye with a hat pin. MOST people don't do such a thing, but some people do. I'm going to do it unless you tell me, in clear, uncertain terms to NOT stab my brother in the eye. So I stab my brother in the eye, and you get mad. I continue to go about stabbing people in the eye, because you just won't tell me not to. You KNOW what you need to say, but for whatever reason, you won't do it. Then, you punish me for it. Is this how we teach our children?

You've just summed up the lesson in the Old Testament, except God DID tell His people not to stab their brother in the eye. And He punished them when they did.


Instead of saying "Don't stab your brother in the eye!" (clear, uncertain terms), you say, "It's good to be nice to people" (rather ambiguous).

You've just summed up the lesson in the New Testament: love one another.

Parents teach their young children the "don't"s (and punish them when the children "don't") with the hope that, once the children mature, they will understand that "it's good to be nice to people."

And think about it. How many people have ever existed? Of those, how many have been/are Christian? Of those, how many are REAL Christians who supposedly will go to heaven?

Now, is God doing to damn all the rest? Isn't God bigger than that?

God doesn't damn anyone. Anyone going to hell wants to be there. No one says only the Christian goes to heaven. Abraham and Moses went to heaven and they never knew Jesus. Not the Jesus as flesh and blood anyway. I really encourage people to stop bashing the Christian and learn more about the Christ. Stop shooting the messenger and find out about the message. At least the Christian message offers something. The atheist message offers nothing because if there is no God, then we are all nothing and life is meaningless.

God doesn't damn anyone. Anyone going to hell wants to be there. No one says only the Christian goes to heaven.

That's not what most Christian churches teach, especially the evangelical ones.

The atheist message offers nothing because if there is no God, then we are all nothing and life is meaningless.

That demonstrates you don't know anything about atheists. I don't think life is meaningless, or that we are all nothing. I also don't think we are the most special beings in the universe. NONE of the atheists I know feel that way.

I live for this world, for the here and now. I live for making my future, the future of my family, of my loved ones a better place. It matters to me what kind of world we will have in 200 years because loved ones of mine (their descendents, rather) will be here, and I want them to enjoy it. It doesn't matter to me that I'll never know they enjoy it, I'm happy knowing that I've contributed to making the world a better place. I live for making a name for myself so I won't be forgotten once I'm dead, for leaving something of value behind. Life without god is not meaningless, not at all; it becomes MORE meaningful because it's all you have.

My main beef with many Christians is their mindset. They may or may not be devout Christians but either way, they are in it for selfish reasons. Be good and believe in Christ so that you may go to Heaven. Dont do bad things so that you dont go to Hell.

Well, what if Heaven wasnt the "prize" at the end of your journey? Would you still be (or claim to be) devout Christians?

What if Jesus told us to believe in Him and that He died for our sins because that is what is True... AND, if you do that, you will certainly spend all of eternity suffering in the depths of Hell?? Or you can shun Jesus and shun God and go frolic in Heaven. Show Him your ultimate love by sacrificing your soul for all of Eternity.

How many so-called "Christians" would subject themselves to Eternal Damnation for the Love of their Father?

That's intelligent, Dr. Just broad brush every Christian in the world as selfish. Jesus said to deny yourself and take up your cross, bare each others burdens. Think of others as better than yourself. That sounds real selfish.

Please, go down to your local church and hang out there for a while. Look around for all the volunteers that keep that church running day-in and day-out. Find the fulltime engineer who also has a talent for music who is sacrificing his free time and family time to rehearse 2x/wk and play at all three church services, one on Saturday and two on Sunday. Be sure to look for the group of guys that take the time to visit the elderly lady at the old folks home who has no family and gets no visitors outside of those at your local church.

Please guys, I love you all but please make a real effort to understand God and those who choose to follow him. For the Christian, the purpose of life is to know God. To know God and to worship Him. Jesus came to earth as God Himself to communicate a simple message to us. Love God, Love your neighbor like you love yourself. I'm just not seeing the selfish message here.

That's not what most Christian churches teach, especially the evangelical ones.


What I say is true. Go to one please and find out. I could talk until I'm blue in the face but the only way you'll really know is to go. You don't have to accept anything... just go.

jillian, while your humor is not lost on me and even tho i have NO idea what a hat pin is, I will get to the point...

Those types of arguments against the validity of "God" only work if we think of God as some long, gray-haired old man sitting in a chair up in the clouds pulling strings.

Our humanization of God is, I believe, one of THE biggest deterrents in the belief in God.

This is a hat pin: hat pin - Google Image Search (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-28,GGLR:en&q=hat+pin&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi)

I agree that argument only works if god is the biblical god; if god is the deist god, my argument fails on all levels. But we're talking (in this thread) about Christianity and the bible god.

The humanization of god is a big deterrent; I've never given much thought to deism, but if I were to believe in the existence of a god, it would probably be one of that sort. Still doesn't make my brain go, "yeah, that works" though! :)

Love God, Love your neighbor like you love yourself.

I've hung out in churches since before I was born. The Christian believes he already has heaven in his pocket. No effort or good living is required to assure it. It's a no brainer. Jesus did all the work for the heaven thing.

The Christian's only response is to thank God by loving Him and loving others.

That demonstrates you don't know anything about atheists. I don't think life is meaningless, or that we are all nothing. I also don't think we are the most special beings in the universe. NONE of the atheists I know feel that way.

I live for this world, for the here and now. I live for making my future, the future of my family, of my loved ones a better place. It matters to me what kind of world we will have in 200 years because loved ones of mine (their descendents, rather) will be here, and I want them to enjoy it. It doesn't matter to me that I'll never know they enjoy it, I'm happy knowing that I've contributed to making the world a better place. I live for making a name for myself so I won't be forgotten once I'm dead, for leaving something of value behind. Life without god is not meaningless, not at all; it becomes MORE meaningful because it's all you have.

With Love and Respect,
I wasn't talking about what you think or any particular atheist thinks. I am talking about what atheism means when you follow it to it's logical conclusion. What I want to know is what objective meaning is there if I am an atheist? I'm talking objective meaning, not your subjective feeling about what your life means. Is there any real object meaning to life, a meaning that is true regardless if anyone believes it or if no one believes it. That's object meaning.

Without God, there is no objective meaning or value.

You've just summed up the lesson in the Old Testament, except God DID tell His people not to stab their brother in the eye. And He punished them when they did.

You've just summed up the lesson in the New Testament: love one another.

Parents teach their young children the "don't"s (and punish them when the children "don't") with the hope that, once the children mature, they will understand that "it's good to be nice to people."

I think you missed the point of the analogy... Yes, those are the lessons in the Old and New Testaments, and according to the Bible, at SOME point god came down and told people, "don't stab your brother in the eye". My analogy was not intended to be taken on a mass level, but rather on a personal level. I'm doing something bad (being an atheist), and god, since he's all knowing, knows I'm doing this, and knows what it would take for me to stop. He's decided instead of telling me himself to stop, to tell me in a round about way (Christians telling me, mostly) that I should stop.

What I say is true. Go to one please and find out. I could talk until I'm blue in the face but the only way you'll really know is to go. You don't have to accept anything...just go.

Sorry, I diagree. The fundamentalist/evangelical churches teach that, if you're not a Christian and don't believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior, you are destined for hell, however that is defined.

I think you missed the point of the analogy... Yes, those are the lessons in the Old and New Testaments, and according to the Bible, at SOME point god came down and told people, "don't stab your brother in the eye". My analogy was not intended to be taken on a mass level, but rather on a personal level. I'm doing something bad (being an atheist), and god, since he's all knowing, knows I'm doing this, and knows what it would take for me to stop. He's decided instead of telling me himself to stop, to tell me in a round about way (Christians telling me, mostly) that I should stop.

I got your analogy but just found it very interesting that, in your examples, you gave the message of the two testaments.

With Love and Respect,
I wasn't talking about what you think or any particular atheist thinks. I am talking about what atheism means when you follow it to it's logical conclusion. What I want to know is what objective meaning is there if I am an atheist? I'm talking objective meaning, not your subjective feeling about what your life means. Is there any real object meaning to life, a meaning that is true regardless if anyone believes it or if no one believes it. That's object meaning.

Without God, there is no objective meaning or value.

Read my last line again:

Life without god is not meaningless, not at all; it becomes MORE meaningful because it's all you have.

I got your analogy but just found it very interesting that, in your examples, you gave the message of the two testaments.

D'OH! I should have know you'd have gotten it - sorry!

Sorry! :o

Life without god is not meaningless, not at all; it becomes MORE meaningful because it's all you have.

And I'm not so sure you are as godless as you think you are, based on the description of how you live your life in joy and love.

Read my last line again:

Life without god is not meaningless, not at all; it becomes MORE meaningful because it's all you have.

I saw that line but how can life ever have objective meaning without God?

The question stands, what is the object purpose or meaning for which you were created? If you have to create one yourself, then it is not objective, it is merely subjective and simply something that you created.

For the atheist, we arrived here by time+chance+matter, the random collocation of atoms. You cannot derive an object purpose from time+chance+matter. There is no purpose, there is no value.

And I'm not so sure you are as godless as you think you are, based on the description of how you live your life in joy and love.

See, I think that just means I'm not some evil heathen! :)

I said before that action wise, I'm not that different than a lot of Christians. I love my life, my family, I'm a good person. I obey the law, I'm passionate about certain things, I care about people. The only difference is, I do it for ME, not for "god" or "Jesus" or anyone else. I also don't obey a lot of the biblical "rules" or object to a lot of the things the bible tells us are wrong, but there are a lot of Christians who are the same way.

But by saying you think I'm not as "godless" as I think I am, to me, that sort of implies one without god cannot or does not live a life full of love and happiness. As if the presence of god is what causes such goodness and joy. I'm not sure if that's what you intended to say, or if you agree with that, but I sure don't. I don't think the presence of god is a requirement for happiness or goodness. I think that can all be found from within, from society, from common sense. Additionally, I LIKE that I answer to no one but myself; that when I foul up, I'M at fault, I don't have anyone else to blame, or to share the guilt. I LIKE that when I do well, I get to take all the credit. I get all the pride, all the good feelings, I get it all - I don't have to share it with someone else, it's all mine. That's one of the things that keeps me so grounded and so firm on personal responsibility, actually. So as far as I'm concerned, if I had god, I'd be LESS happy in some ways. So why should I believe?

I saw that line but how can life ever have objective meaning without God?

The question stands, what is the object purpose or meaning for which you were created? If you have to create one yourself, then it is not objective, it is merely subjective and simply something that you created.

For the atheist, we arrived here by time+chance+matter, the random collocation of atoms. You cannot derive an object purpose from time+chance+matter. There is no purpose, there is no value.

Explain to me what's wrong with not having an objective purpose? Why does there have to be a cosmological meaning of life, when people will, inevitably find their OWN meaning of life?

And what's the objective purpose with god? Entertainment? Worship? Working your way toward heaven?

As if the presence of god is what causes such goodness and joy.

He's there whether you acknowledge Him or not.

That's intelligent, Dr. Just broad brush every Christian in the world as selfish. Jesus said to deny yourself and take up your cross, bare each others burdens. Think of others as better than yourself. That sounds real selfish.

Please, go down to your local church and hang out there for a while. Look around for all the volunteers that keep that church running day-in and day-out. Find the fulltime engineer who also has a talent for music who is sacrificing his free time and family time to rehearse 2x/wk and play at all three church services, one on Saturday and two on Sunday. Be sure to look for the group of guys that take the time to visit the elderly lady at the old folks home who has no family and gets no visitors outside of those at your local church.

Please guys, I love you all but please make a real effort to understand God and those who choose to follow him. For the Christian, the purpose of life is to know God. To know God and to worship Him. Jesus came to earth as God Himself to communicate a simple message to us. Love God, Love your neighbor like you love yourself. I'm just not seeing the selfish message here.


OK... well, you seemed to miss the whole point of that post.

I believe what I said, which you QUOTED in your post, was, "My main beef with many Christians is their mindset." That's not broad brushing every Christian in the world.

I was born and raised Christian in a very strict Christian home and have spent my life in the Church and serving in the Church... rehearsal, playing piano, keyboard, and guitar in worship, counseling at youth camps, and more...

The direction of this thread was to explain what it is about Christianity or Christians that turn people off that religion. I explained exactly that.

I understand what the True purpose of Christianity is. I understand that there are many Christians out there that give wholeheartedly.

But I also understand that there are MANY MORE Christians that do what they are told to do in the Scripture because they want Heaven and don't want Hell.

My point was to reverse the roles... Imagine a world where Christianity taught us that by Knowing God and following His Word you would be doomed to Eternity in Hell... that would be the price that we all pay by devoted our Life to Him.

On the other hand, you could live a life of sin and spend your Eternity in Heaven. That would be for those whose Eternal Soul was worth more to them than Knowing and Loving their God.

This is a hat pin: hat pin - Google Image Search (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-28,GGLR:en&q=hat+pin&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi)

I agree that argument only works if god is the biblical god; if god is the deist god, my argument fails on all levels. But we're talking (in this thread) about Christianity and the bible god.

The humanization of god is a big deterrent; I've never given much thought to deism, but if I were to believe in the existence of a god, it would probably be one of that sort. Still doesn't make my brain go, "yeah, that works" though! :)


I, too, and speaking of the Christian God... the Lord... the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, it is by those names that were given to us that He is humanized.

I believe in the Christian God but not one that stands above the clouds and screams from the Heavens...

I suppose it all falls into ones interpretation of the Bible and of God Himself ("Himself" yes, I know... I am guilty of the pronouns, too... but that is now we we have come to understand Him and the only way one is able to speak of Him lol)


And ahha! A hat pin... you learn something new every day ;)

He's there whether you acknowledge Him or not.

I know YOU think that, but I don't. :)


I, too, and speaking of the Christian God... the Lord... the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, it is by those names that were given to us that He is humanized.

I believe in the Christian God but not one that stands above the clouds and screams from the Heavens...

I suppose it all falls into ones interpretation of the Bible and of God Himself ("Himself" yes, I know... I am guilty of the pronouns, too... but that is now we we have come to understand Him and the only way one is able to speak of Him lol)

Don't worry, I won't fault you for using gender-specifc and humanized pronouns; it's the easiest way to explain what you mean. :) You're right, it comes down to one's interpretation of the biblical god.


and ahha! A hat pin... you learn something new every day

Glad I could teach you!

I know YOU think that, but I don't.

That's okay. He's tiptoeing around right now so as not to disturb you.

ok... well, you seemed to miss the whole point of that post.

I believe what I said, which you QUOTED in your post, was, "My main beef with many Christians is their mindset." Thats not broad brushing every Christian in the world.

I was born and raised Christian in a very strict Christian home and have spent my life in the Church and serving in the Church... rehearsal, playing piano, keyboard, and guitar in worship, counseling at youth camps, and more...

The direction of this thread was to explain what it is about Christianity or Christians that turn people off of that religion. I explained exactly that.

I understand what the True purpose of Christianity is. I understand that there are many Christians out there that give wholeheartedly.

But I also understand that there are MANY MORE Christians that do what they are told to do in the Scripture because they want Heaven and dont want Hell.

My point was to reverse the roles... Imagine a world where Christianity taught us that by Knowing God and following His Word you would be doomed to Eternity in Hell... that would be the price that we all pay by devoted our Life to Him.

On the other hand, you could live a life of sin and spend your Eternity in Heaven. That would be for those whose Eternal Soul was worth more to them than Knowing and Loving their God.


Hello,


The Bible tells us that Heaven is being with God eternally and Hell is eternal separation from God, due to sin. So from my point of view, you get what you want, no matter the semantics.

How many want to be with God, out of FEAR of Hell, punishment?
How many want to be with God, for want of Heaven, pleasure?
How many people use this to manipulate others? I think a real complaint against SOME in organized religion.

Non believers can simply disregard this and go on.



How many want to love God, because He created us, loved us first?

How many want to serve or love others [ not because you'll go to Heaven if you do and Hell if you don't ] because it is the will of and pleasing to God?

:D
I wondered if you would join in on this thread. :) You're right - it comes down to faith. Earlier in this thread it was mentioned to (pretty much) look around and one can see god; but that implies having faith. The "proofs" mentioned in the link I referenced are only "proof" if you then apply faith. To believe in a god, one must have faith.



An omnipotent one? :D If god can do anything, why CAN'T he prove himself using the scientific method? He controls everything anyway, so why not give someone the knowledge of some experiment to "prove god" and every time that experiment is performed, you get the same result? Then god IS proven using the scientific method, but only because he's allowing himself to be proven. Or are you forgetting that god can do whatever he wants, so if he wants to be proven by the scientific method, he can be? ;)

Or perhaps god would be one who wants everyone to believe because he wants everyone to be saved, and will do what it takes for them to believe, instead of sending muddled messages?

Stay with me here; lots of people use the parent/child analogy when describing god/people, so I'm going to do the same (put on your humor hat, please!)

We tell our children things in clear terms so they know what we want of them. We don't give them round about answers or commands; we don't say, "it would be nice if the dishwasher was empty", we say, "go empty the dishwasher".

So let's say you're my parent, and I'm about to stab my brother in the eye with a hat pin. MOST people don't do such a thing, but some people do. I'm going to do it unless you tell me, in clear, uncertain terms to NOT stab my brother in the eye. Instead of saying "Don't stab your brother in the eye!" (clear, uncertain terms), you say, "It's good to be nice to people" (rather ambiguous). So I stab my brother in the eye, and you get mad. I continue to go about stabbing people in the eye, because you just won't tell me not to. You KNOW what you need to say, but for whatever reason, you won't do it. Then, you punish me for it. Is this how we teach our children?


Jilleanleab

I believe that God becoming flesh in Jesus, suffering, being crucified, and resurrecting all to save us from sin is a pretty clear message. He was doing what it takes to save us.

There are the Ten commandments - they are pretty clear, no nuance there.

In fact the NT raises the bar:
lust = adultery
love your enemies
don't judge
forgive
anyone who hates his brother is a murderer
there is a list in 1 corinthians 6

a bunch of politically incorrect rights and wrongs.

The more you read and study the more daunting, ala Romans 7

and if anyone takes these things seriously, it strikes at our pride that we can't be perfect. that we don't measure up. I know I can't.



getting back to the op ?

I think that may be the Christian message that people object to.



Thank God for His Grace. :D



Also I do think that Atheists can be "good" even better than Christians in the eyes of their fellow human beings, but that is the human standard not God's.

Also I think Christian hypocrites turn people away fom the true Gospel.

Also I do think that Atheists can be "good" even better than Christians in the eyes of their fellow human beings, but that is the human standard not God's.

Also I think Christian hypocrites turn people away fom the true Gospel.

I think both of these lines bear repeating. Being a Christian doesn't make you a good person, being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person (I'll qualify, like you did, in human eyes :)).

And yes, Christian hypocrites certainly turn people away. That's why I think the "beef" is with (some) Christians, not with (most of) the message.

As far as IM concerned, its true that most christians have forgotten the true roots of our beleifs. Id be lying if I say that I follow all the commadnds Jesus Christ left for humanity, but I really try to follow them, and I hope that with this post, the beleivers like me, will start to remember the roots of our beleifs. Because that baby that was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago died for our sins, taking the weight of the world on his shoulders, freeing us from the horrible second death we were supposed to have, instead, he gave us the option to accept that he IS our saviour, and doing so would give us the privilege that, when we die, go to his kingdom, the kingdom of heaven and live without worries, illnesses and evil, forever