Religion One of the all-time great bakes

[Monniehawk]

I can't argue Dawkins science - partly because I agree largely with what he states - but his strident anti-religion stance is over-bearing and reeks of a pathological disorder. He actually becomes the fundamentalist he so vehemently despises in religion.
He is so much better when he sticks to the facts, rather than exercising his limited and flawed philosophical musings.

 

[evo]

You missed grace and forgiveness.

This is something that you have to beg for, right?

 

[Sloth]

I can't argue Dawkins science - partly because I agree largely with what he states - but his strident anti-religion stance is over-bearing and reeks of a pathological disorder. He actually becomes the fundamentalist he so vehemently despises in religion.
He is so much better when he sticks to the facts, rather than exercising his limited and flawed philosophical musings.

There's that word again, strident. Hey you forgot to call him shrill

 

[The rabbi]

This is something that you have to beg for, right?

Wrong.

According to the book you just ask for it.

 

[evo]

Wrong.

According to the book you just ask for it.

Meh. When asking is done on the knees it's not unreasonable to call it begging.

 

[Monniehawk]

Meh. When asking is done on the knees it's not unreasonable to call it begging.

True! IF it is done on the knees.
There is a difference between supplication and and a request.
Some Christians (and I am not one!) don't beg for grace, they actually ask for it. Some do plead and some actually demand it of their god.
But it seems that the common perception is that Christians are one amorphous mass, all thinking acting and requiring the same.
There are many strong differences in Christendom but it is convenient, if lazy, to generalise them into a single unit.
Sloth - shrill and strident are synonymous in my context, i.e. "noisome".
Even so, your post is non committal. What actually are you implying?

 

[CharacterFirst]

This is something that you have to beg for, right?

Is that how you understand grace and forgiveness?

 

[CharacterFirst]

I think its important to get the cards on the table. I am new to this section of the site and can see that there are people here with plenty of knowledge and excellent minds - both "people of faith" and those who feel all religion, let alone Xianity, is rubbish.

I am sure many topics have been done over and over.

There is no denying that belief in Jesus being God, and that he rose from the dead, requires faith. We are talking about some things that are outside the norm - that's what a miracle is, and they require some faith. That is not to conceed that there is no evvidence for God, Jesus, resurrection etc; but I acknowledge that some don't want to accept that evidence, or even consider the information as evidence. Thats life and applies to almost any disputed points of view.

It is not hard to believe these things if you accept an omnipotent God. But again this will probably not be possible without some element of faith, and people will call "circular argument". I think it is more working out how the picture fits together.

Although I have read and heard of people who have reasoned their way to God, we all know there are some things we just can't understand - we are finite people trying to comprehend infinite things etc. We all know you won't prove or disprove it scientifically.

 

[Max zero]

I think its important to get the cards on the table. I am new to this section of the site and can see that there are people here with plenty of knowledge and excellent minds - both "people of faith" and those who feel all religion, let alone Xianity, is rubbish.

I am sure many topics have been done over and over.

There is no denying that belief in Jesus being God, and that he rose from the dead, requires faith. We are talking about some things that are outside the norm - that's what a miracle is, and they require some faith. That is not to conceed that there is no evvidence for God, Jesus, resurrection etc; but I acknowledge that some don't want to accept that evidence, or even consider the information as evidence. Thats life and applies to almost any disputed points of view.

It is not hard to believe these things if you accept an omnipotent God. But again this will probably not be possible without some element of faith, and people will call "circular argument". I think it is more working out how the picture fits together.

Although I have read and heard of people who have reasoned their way to God, we all know there are some things we just can't understand - we are finite people trying to comprehend infinite things etc. We all know you won't prove or disprove it scientifically.

And I have no problem with faith based beliefs. The problem is those beliefs seem to have nasty way of affecting those who do not believe or believe a different set of faith based beliefs.

If people kept their faith based beliefs to themselves there would be no issue.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I think its important to get the cards on the table. I am new to this section of the site and can see that there are people here with plenty of knowledge and excellent minds - both "people of faith" and those who feel all religion, let alone Xianity, is rubbish.

I am sure many topics have been done over and over.

There is no denying that belief in Jesus being God, and that he rose from the dead, requires faith. We are talking about some things that are outside the norm - that's what a miracle is, and they require some faith. That is not to concede that there is no evidence for God, Jesus, resurrection etc; but I acknowledge that some don't want to accept that evidence, or even consider the information as evidence. Thats life and applies to almost any disputed points of view.

It is not hard to believe these things if you accept an omnipotent God. But again this will probably not be possible without some element of faith, and people will call "circular argument". I think it is more working out how the picture fits together.

Although I have read and heard of people who have reasoned their way to God, we all know there are some things we just can't understand - we are finite people trying to comprehend infinite things etc. We all know you won't prove or disprove it scientifically.

 

[CharacterFirst]

sorry - double post.

 

[CharacterFirst]

And I have no problem with faith based beliefs. The problem is those beliefs seem to have nasty way of affecting those who do not believe or believe a different set of faith based beliefs.

If people kept their faith based beliefs to themselves there would be no issue.

That is completely fair enough Max. You absolutely have that right. I would even say God says you are free to take that path. Of course he might have something to say about it later

But when we come onto a religion site, and discuss on a tread about Xianity, you probably should be prepared to hear some Xian points of view.

Surely a Xian has a much right to state their beliefs and thoughts, even if they have a faith element, as anyone else - faith or not?

 

[Max zero]

That is completely fair enough Max. You absolutely have that right. I would even say God says you are free to take that path. Of course he might have something to say about it later

But when we come onto a religion site, and discuss on a tread about Xianity, you probably should be prepared to hear some Xian points of view.

Surely a Xian has a much right to state their beliefs and thoughts, even if they have a faith element, as anyone else - faith or not?

Or he could a reclusive God who does not like constant pestering and prefers people to take their own path.

Sure they do. But what they don't have is the right to demand their faith based beliefs on the same level as beliefs supported by physical evidence.

 

[Pie eyed]

okay, I understand that some Christians take a more modern, metaphoric view of the Bible and such so I am partially making specific reference to John Lennox here.

I constantly read (here) and hear in the wider world claims that only parts of the bible are literal but that other, usually those passages being used to back ones argument or opinion, are clear, when in fact the entire Bible is contradictory on many, many levels.

My position is that anyone who bases their beliefs on the words of the bible must accept that "all" of the bible is correct, a true representation of Gods will and that all demands must be met for redemption.

Anyone who denies one part of the bible denies it all and is in essence a non-believer. In exactly the same boat as any non-believer come end times.

Of course there will be well worn mechanisms to "philosophise" ones self out of this conundrum but they have no substance.
You can't base an entire life on just some parts of the the Bible, those which appeal to your sensibilities while disregarding those parts which do not and still maintain you are really Christian. Only partially Christian.

You can't have a faith in an omnipotent God who cannot correctly author his own set of rules.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Or he could a reclusive God who does not like constant pestering and prefers people to take their own path.

Sure they do. But what they don't have is the right to demand their faith based beliefs on the same level as beliefs supported by physical evidence.

I'm not sure who made or enforces that rule.

Anyway, I'm not demanding anything. I was just explaining what I think and believe. People are free to take or leave it. You are making the choice, which I think is what you say you want to do.

 

[Max zero]

I'm not sure who made or enforces that rule.

Anyway, I'm not demanding anything. I was just explaining what I think and believe. People are free to take or leave it. You are making the choice, which I think is what you say you want to do.

If only you represented all believers.

 

[Richo83]

CharacterFirst seems a cut above many Christian posters coming here like oh say sergio.

 

[CharacterFirst]

If only you represented all believers.

Hey Max, good on you mate. I think that is actually a very generous thing to say to someone on the "other side" of the discussion.

To be honest, and I want to be honest b/c i'm not perfect, I make as many mistakes as anyone else when it comes to expressing my faith and what I believe. If I stay around long enough, I'm sure you and others will tear me to shreds on somethings!

I do think as you get a bit older - yes I've ticked over into the 40s now - you become a little less "strident" (I see that is a word that is really well liked here.) and bit more, what i would call gracious (probably not a term that many people like, but...).

I think its good to respect people and their views, even if inside we are burning with disagreement, b/c everybody deserves that decency.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I constantly read (here) and hear in the wider world claims that only parts of the bible are literal but that other, usually those passages being used to back ones argument or opinion, are clear, when in fact the entire Bible is contradictory on many, many levels.

My position is that anyone who bases their beliefs on the words of the bible must accept that "all" of the bible is correct, a true representation of Gods will and that all demands must be met for redemption.

Anyone who denies one part of the bible denies it all and is in essence a non-believer. In exactly the same boat as any non-believer come end times.

Of course there will be well worn mechanisms to "philosophise" ones self out of this conundrum but they have no substance.
You can't base an entire life on just some parts of the the Bible, those which appeal to your sensibilities while disregarding those parts which do not and still maintain you are really Christian. Only partially Christian.

You can't have a faith in an omnipotent God who cannot correctly author his own set of rules.

Hey PE,

I am stuffed - bedtime! But I would like to discuss next time I'm around.

 

[And_ROOS]

So either Jesus died and you worship a zombie, or he didnt die and you worship a liar? Gotcha.

 

[Max zero]

So either Jesus died and you worship a zombie, or he didnt die and you worship a liar? Gotcha.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I will gladly answer your question to the best of my ability. The method I am speaking of has nothing to do with reason or logic. It involves an integration of the subconscious mind with the conscious mind. Reason does not utilise the subconscious, and the subconscious is our greatest resource in terms of knowledge. In our subconscious we find the key to religion and existence.

Shamanic traditions of the Americas use things like peyote as a means of uniting their conscious and subconscious minds.

Yogic traditions of the east use meditation for the same purpose.

The knowledge obtained by such means is called intuitive knowledge. Once again I would like to state that reason is not a suitable means of obtaining religious or existential knowledge, this is simply a fact not a criticism.

Nothing to do with reason or logic hey. Well theres your problem solved, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. Neither have I. But you sound intelligent.

 

[Sloth]

Sloth - shrill and strident are synonymous in my context, i.e. "noisome".
Even so, your post is non committal. What actually are you implying?

I am implying you are being exceedingly lazy in your criticism of Dawkins. Why not address what he actually says rather than just calling him strident?

[YOUTUBE]aVQTVDm4_i4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Monniehawk]

Surely a Xian has a much right to state their beliefs and thoughts, even if they have a faith element, as anyone else - faith or not?

I think the issue is not so much having beliefs or even expressing them, it is the proselytising, and in some cases, sanctimonious hectoring by the more extreme 'Xtian' elements that provokes such negative responses.
TBH, it was a big factor for me to reassess my previously-held Christian beliefs.

 

[Monniehawk]

I am implying you are being exceedingly lazy in your criticism of Dawkins. Why not address what he actually says rather than just calling him strident?
[youtube]aVQTVDm4_i4[/youtube]

The point is that I have - and from the science, I am in complete agreement. I even agree with his debunking much of the Christian myths, but I do not agree with his often bitter attacks on the greater part of the Christian community. He does need to moderate those views if he is to fully win me over.
Intrigued with your fixation on terminology!