You seem to say that like torture and murder is a bad thing.
You don't say...
It's true sweeping generalizations are, by definition, not true in every case. But it's also true that if you talk with someone that cannot discuss a topic in general terms, they are probably either lying to you or are trying to lie to you.
Non sequiter.
That doesn't seem particularly fearless.
I didn't feel like breaking down your post line by line, but not because I am afraid to do so.
And that was only addressing my inquiry in the way a politician addresses a question asked during a debate. The problem I'm nudging you to is the recognition that it isn't inherently critical thinking or reading the Bible that produces the effect you're speaking to. It was only that way for you. Now it might be that the problem is in the material or that the problem is in how you approached it. Given those minds I'd hope you might at least entertain the notion.
I concede that it is my personal experience and that other's arrive at different conclusions. Is that what you want to hear?
As far as being open to the notion of god's existence, I am in fact. I even hope that such a being would in fact exist and have the qualities of love, mercy, and justice in mind to administer. The problem is I don't see any evidence for that, no proof. All is mere conjecture based upon a hope, and this a truth does not make.
I got you think that. I think it's a hard case to make. I'd also still like an answer on the god/God business and why you chose to focus on the negative impact of a sliver of a fringe group in Islam instead of the overwhelming good done daily when addressing the impact of religion. And I'm equally curious about your response to my notes on a few secular leaders and why you don't then advance a similar line against that part.
As far as capitalization of god, I see no reason to do so unless the word begins a sentence. There is no shortage of focus being placed upon the rosy colored perceptions of religion by the religious. Pardon me while I present the other side of the equation. I promise to acknowledge the positives in all honesty, but I will do so while pointing out they could be done equally without need to invoke the supernatural. As far as your ref to secular leaders, etc, I don't recall exactly what you said, but don't find it particularly relevant to a theological discussion. Perhaps you can refresh my memory and I'll have some feedback?
I don't rear my child to believe he's a horrible being. I don't know many who do. But why are we arguing over the particulars of a religion when you're not even a theist at this point? Seems a bit like arguing over drapes when you aren't sure if there's a house.
Perhaps you don't, but that is what popular Christian culture teaches. We are all sinners destined for hell, and we deserve it cause god says so, and that's why we need a savior. Are you saying this is not what you have been taught, and teach to your children? Why debate it? I have my reasons. For one thing, I love to debate the points and discuss things. Conversation is a pass time I enjoy, and for me that is reason enough. Why theology? It's an interest, and certainly not my only one. I actually debate on several forums on a variety of topics.
Boo Hiss. First of all, those tribes were already killing their children in the name of evil spirits. It doesn't really matter because you seem to not really want to think past your thin veneers. I'm glad you are not in charge of a judges chamber, you are far too quick to toss it all out, innocent or not.
I'm not having such a hard time between these anymore. One was true, the other wasn't, as far as I can tell. You are looking more and more like the second paragraph and you just barely got here. I honestly am not seeing integrity in your assessments at this point and greatly question your disillusionment. I don't know how one gets this jaded whether you realize you are or not.
If you are done talking about me personally, perhaps we can stick stick to the subject?
My jury is out. I'm convinced that going against our created purpose is no good for individuals or society as a whole.
And who defines our purpose? I say I am the one who defines the purpose and meaning of my life, not some celestial dictator. In that respect you have no case.
Yeah, but you didn't just change denominations, you changed your view on if God exists or not :doh:
I came to the conclusion that I don't know whether or not god exists, but regardless of that I decided to reject the bible as divinely inspired. That is my opinion to which I have every right to change at my own discretion. Do you have a problem with that?
Are you crazy? Yes it is. It guarantees you freedoms and gives 'legal' precedence to hold them, pursue them, and defend them. I don't even know where this comment came from. I think you a bit bizzare.
WRONG. The Declaration of Independence was a only a letter to the king of England as a statement of intent, not a legal foundation. I am not diminishing its historical significance, only pointing out the fact that it is not in any way the law of the land and never was. The DoI in no way guarantees freedoms although it does hold philosophical precedence. I find the fact that you, like many others, do not understand this fact to be a failure of the educational system, or perhaps just a failure to think critically. Either way, the fact remains that the DoI did not in any way establish a government, and therefore is not a foundational legally binding document.
