[31pumpkin]

NK-
I think the other poster was saying was refusal to accept Jesus results in death after death. Not like, "I reject this..blah..blah..." Now I go out the church, and BAM! I get hit by a car & killed!

[NeedKarma]

Nope, he said refusal results in death. Please read his post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...tml#post189552

[31pumpkin]

No it doesn't. No one ever died who didn't believe what you believe.

As a matter of fact, your statement isn't true at all. :D

[NeedKarma]

As a matter of fact, your statement isn't true at all. :D

Proof? You spout out these lines like they are facts but yet offer nothing to back it up. Skip the scripture and show me real world examples.

[31pumpkin]

No it doesn't. No one ever died who didn't believe what you believe.

OK, I skipped Scripture. Now read your statement again. Ah duh - your statement doesn't make sense. That's a fact, Watson!

[ordinaryguy]

Here's the answer to the question: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father except through HIM-Jesus. It's simple.
....
The important thing to know is that you have to make the decision for yourself. No one can do it for you. The bible also says that if anyone tries to enter in by any other way but through Jesus he is a thief and a robber. He didn't die to give us a multiple choice way into Heaven. He died to be the only way.
....
Again, He is the ONLY Way.

For those of you who embrace a religion of ONLYistic absolutism, it clearly is the ONLY way. Your choice of the Bible as the ONLY true scripture, and your insistence that your interpretation of it is the ONLY correct one are valid ONLY for you, nobody else.

[Starman]

For those of you who embrace a religion of ONLYistic absolutism, it clearly is the ONLY way. Your choice of the Bible as the ONLY true scripture, and your insistence that your interpretation of it is the ONLY correct one are valid ONLY for you, nobody else.

Nobody else except those who are in agreement with the persons who hold that viewpoint.

BTW
The same can be said of any belief-be it scientific theory, hypotheses, aesthetics, morality, or ethics, etcetera. So there really isn't any distinction here at all. You have people who believe that they can trace themselves to an apelike ancestor and from there to a piglike one who just happened to have survived a mass extinction, and then top a reptile and then to a fishlike one. Right? Yet that might be true for him but there are those to whom that isn't true at all.

So your criticism has to be applied to people who do the same in all areas of knowledge, not just the religious. Which means that your logic will set you against the whole human race.


See the point?

[mrshull2002]

One thing is for certain, we all have free will. We choose what, who, and why we believe. Cal me a Bible Thumper, fanatic, ONLYistic, whatever... I choose to believe He is the ONLY way. I don't make the rules and I'm not perfect, but what if I'm right? What if there's more than just "exisitng" and then death? I look at it this way, say the Bible is right and Jesus is the only way, what do I have to lose while I'm here? Nothing, but I have so much to gain! If the rules and guidelines in the Bible are followed as closely as possible, what kind of human being will that make of someone? You would be able to trust that person, respect them, and know they will always be generous, kind, and I guarantee that person can reach Heaven when you have a need. I know a lot of people who have different religious preferences than my own and you want to know what is sad? A lot of them don't believe in divine healing, yet when they are sick or need something desperately, those same people ask for me to pray. So again, what do you have to lose by just believing?

[NeedKarma]

If the rules and guidelines in the Bible are followed as closely as possible, what kind of human being will that make of someone? You would be able to trust that person, respect them, and know they will always be generous, kind, and I guarantee that person can reach Heaven when you have a need.

There are tons of us who don't read the bible and are kind, generous, respectable people. People who are kind, generous and respectable exist all over the place regardless of religion, in the same manner as there are bible thumpers who are just plain bad people.

[DrJ]

...If the rules and guidelines in the Bible are followed as closely as possible, what kind of human being will that make of someone? You would be able to trust that person, respect them, and know they will always be generous, kind...

A nice thought and yes, one would think that is the way it would be... but as so many continue to prove over and over, that's just not the way it is.

[31pumpkin]

There are tons of us who don't read the bible and are kind, generous, respectable people. People who are kind, generous and respectable exist all over the place regardless of religion, in the same manner as there are bible thumpers who are just plain bad people.

Wow Karma, can you start talking about some of those good & generous & kind non-Christians in detail for a change?

All I recall from you is that your mother-in-law pressured you guys to Baptize your child; you have strong reactions to "Margaret" from the show Trading Spouses; & you recklessly worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (your FSM) ?

How come your always CHALLENGING Christian viewpoints ? Is your creed so weak that you need to take it out on "us"?

That's displacement of one's emotions...

[NeedKarma]

Apparently you skip over the parts where I said that the large percentage of my family and friends are indeed christians. I just mentioned that good people exist all over the place including christians.

The only part I challenge is when people say that you can only be a good person by being a christian which is, of course, utterly false.

[Starman]

NeedKarma disagrees: The same is NOT true of belief in scientific theory since they do not tell others that they are on the wrong path and are going to hell. Get it?

When they put forth that their particular view is the only correct one they are telling you that if you disagree you are wrong. All reputable astronomers say that the earth will be burnt to a cinder by the sun when the it shifts from fusing hydrogen to fusing helium.


That means that they are saying humans alive at that time living on Earth don't stand a snowball's chance if they remain here. If you contradict that belief they will consider you ignorant just as they will consider you ignorant if you contradict any other of their cherished beliefs.

In short, they are telling mankind that they are on the path to being destroyed if they don't listen to them and take measures to survive. Right?

BTW
I do not believe that nobility of character is restricted to Christians. Or that non-Christians are incapable of being honest law-abiding decent people. So if you got that idea it wasn't from me.

[NeedKarma]

Um, no. You missed the point entirely. Scientific research allows for all to see your work, attempt to reproduce it, and accepts that all things are possible until proven otherwise. I'm not sure what your story means (although it's a hypothesis and, if you can prove otherwise then your good to go) but there is no only one correct view in science.

And no it wasn't you who mentioned the other stuff. :)

[ordinaryguy]

The same can be said of any belief-be it scientific theory, hypotheses, aesthetics, morality, or ethics, etcetera. So there really isn't any distinction here at all. You have people who believe that they can trace themselves to an apelike ancestor and from there to a piglike one who just happened to have survived a mass extinction, and then top a reptile and then to a fishlike one. Right? Yet that might be true for him but there are those to whom that isn't true at all.

So your criticism has to be applied to people who do the same in all areas of knowledge, not just the religious. Which means that your logic will set you against the whole human race.

See the point?

Nice try, but no. Proponents of a scientific theory don't claim that those who doubt or question it will be condemned to hell BY GOD.

When they put forth that their particular view is the only correct one they are telling you that if you disagree you are wrong. All reputable astronomers say that the earth will be burnt to a cinder by the sun when the it shifts from fusing hydrogen to fusing helium.

That means that they are saying humans alive at that time living on Earth don't stand a snowball's chance if they remain here. If you contradict that belief they will consider you ignorant just as they will consider you ignorant if you contradict any other of their cherished beliefs.

In short, they are telling mankind that they are on the path to being destroyed if they don't listen to them and take measures to survive. Right?

No, not even close. To disagree with a person's ideas about what will happen when the sun runs out of fuel is not in any sense the same as saying that that person will be eternally damned BY GOD for believing something different about it than you do.

I do not believe that nobility of character is restricted to Christians. Or that non-Christians are incapable of being honest law-abiding decent people.

How very generous of you! Non-Christians the world over will be relieved.

[Starman]

Um, no. You missed the point entirely. Scientific research allows for all to see your work, attempt to reproduce it, and accepts that all things are possible until proven otherwise. I'm not sure what your story means (although it's a hypothesis and, if you can prove otherwise then your good to go) but there is no only one correct view in science.

And no it wasn't you who mentioned the other stuff. :)

Does science really accept that all things are possible until proven otherwise? The existence of God hasn't been proven otherwise and yet most scientists seem quite vehement in denying the possibility of a creator


bTW
If we are averse to religious dogmatism then to remain consistent we must remain averse to scientific dogmatism as well. Otherwise it really isn't dogmatism we are averse to but something else entirely.

Nice try, but no. Proponents of a scientific theory don't claim that those who doubt or question it will be condemned to hell BY GOD.



No, not even close. To disagree with a person's ideas about what will happen when the sun runs out of fuel is not in any sense the same as saying that that person will be eternally damned BY GOD for believing something different about it than you do.



How very generous of you! Non-Christians the world over will be relieved.

1. I never said they were equivalent
2. I never said that they were saying that.
3. Now you are merely heckling and jeckling.

[ordinaryguy]

1. I never said they were equivalent
2. I never said that they were saying that.
3. Now you are merely heckling and jeckling.

1. No? Then what did you mean by "So there really isn't any distinction here at all"?

2. No? Then what did you mean by "they are telling mankind that they are on the path to being destroyed if they don't listen"?

Wasn't it your point that the same criticisms being dircted at religious dogmatism apply equally to scientific theories and opinions? My point is that the offensive thing about religious bigotry is its insistence, not just that opposing views are wrong, but that God will punish those who hold these views.

3. Yes, I was heckling a little, and I apoligise for that. But I firmly deny jeckling.

[NeedKarma]

bTW
If we are averse to religious dogmatism then to remain consistent we must remain averse to scientific as well. Otherwise it really isn't dogmatism we are averse to but something else entirely.

Not at all. Religious dogmatism is based on faith, science cannot be a dogmatism by definition since it is based on observable facts and repetitive experimentation. Nice try though, points for big words. Being averse to a dogmatism and not to science is not a consistency problem, it's a strawman argument. The point we are making is that there are only a few people here that consistenly tell others that they are on the wrong path and are damned simply because they don't believe the same stuff the same way. Most here have a belief and allow others to have their own, whether it's the same or not. Is that so hard to understand?

[VBNomad]

I don't want to start a new pissing match or add to the current one, but this question of dogma is really interesting. Is the theory of the sun's frying the planet an issue of 'scientific' dogma to a christian believer? Are there other scientific theories (other than evolution) that christian believers have trouble with, and feel the world in general, the scientific community or the media are shoving down their throats? Is it a question of dogma at all?

[Starman]

1. No? Then what did you mean by "So there really isn't any distinction here at all"?

2. No? Then what did you mean by "they are telling mankind that they are on the path to being destroyed if they don't listen"?

Wasn't it your point that the same criticisms being dircted at religious dogmatism apply equally to scientific theories and opinions? My point is that the offensive thing about religious bigotry is its insistence, not just that opposing views are wrong, but that God will punish those who hold these views.

3. Yes, I was heckling a little, and I apoligise for that. But I firmly deny jeckling.

I meant that scientists are just as convinced that they and only they are right as the religious people you describe. So in their belief in being correct to the exception of all others once they conclude that they are-there is no difference between the twain.

The offensive thing I find in many atheist scientists is that they consider anyone who disagrees with their Godless views an ignoramus. How so?

This way:


They are telling mankind that the future of the earth as described in the Bible is a lie because there is no God and that anyone disagreeing with them is an undereducated fool. Obviously you choose not to see that as bigotry while choosing to see those who say they believe in God and what they consider his purpose for the Earth as true bigots.
In the realm of logic this is called the fallacy of inconsistency of policy.

Excerpt:
Dogmatic atheists refuse to accept the demands of their own positions and one need only visit the internet to see a legion of atheist apologetic sites claming that the Burden of Proof does not apply to them.

http://www.deism.com/dogmatic%20atheism.htm


BTW
Scientists are also guilty of the inconsistency of policy error in the way they choose and don't choose to interpret data.