ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
Resting in Him,
Clete
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all.
Upon what do you base your belief in God if not the Bible?
This is not so. On the contrary, it is you who have a blind faith. Again I ask you, upon what do you base your belief in God if not the Bible? Your 5 senses, is that it? In your opening paragraph you said, "I do know what I see with my own eyes." Do you see this God of yours with your own eyes? If not then you contradict yourself and again I ask you, upon what do you base your belief in God? Nothing, I'd wager.
Your venom only serves to poison your own position! You use terms like 'foolishness', 'madness', 'sick', and 'twisted' terms that speak about soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly. Things which you cannot account for outside a Biblical worldview.
Resting in Him,
Clete
It's amazing how quickly people respond to this stuff.
Aimiel, your religion has been founded on inquisitions, witch burnings and alienations. It is founded upon the premise that we are worms, nasty little creatures in dire need for saving from eternal punishment, and ourselves by a divine being that never shows itself to us. You live your life according to an outdated book that cannot be proven to speak truth, and you scoff at me for living my life based on what I can demonstrate.
You are a madman.
As Granite said, it's self inflicted. You don't need god, you need answers, you need a system, you need to be self-righteous. Christianity is nothing more than an excuse for you to feel better than the rest of us worms. You disregard what you can prove for yourself, you substitute your perception of reality for a fairy tale and call those who do not believe fools. You don't need god, you need religion, you need a system that caters to your apparent and inherent need to be both self-righteous and holier than all of us "thou's". Like I said before, the only time I felt born again was when I became objective and stepped back from the whole thing to view it as a whole, and in the light of other religions. Again, as Granite said, the "holy spirit" apparently speaks to all christians, but is telling them all something completely different, hence the numerous sects and denominations. Looking in from the outside while taking into account the myriad denominations and the claim that the HS speaks to all christians leads me to believe that christianity does not exist but is a figment of a collectively weak mass imagination. You can't agree that the HS speaks to all christians and then have all christians disagree with each other. It doesn't make sense.
Logic. Logic. Logic.
The holy spirit speaks to all christians of all denominations, but the denominations do not agree on the interpretation of the scriptures of other denominations, hence the holy spirit is either playing all sides, or the people aren't hearing it correctly, or it's not speaking at all.
If the holy spirit is playing all sides than it's probably not as great as it's cracked up to be. If christians aren't hearing it correctly than it's probably because they've been blinded by sin, in which case the work of the HS is negated because christians are still slaves to sin and they haven't been saved by anything. The most plausible explanation is that there is no HS and nothing has been said.
Christianity has had 2,000 years to get it right. It hasn't. I'm not saying that christianity isn't true, or there isn't truth to be found in it, but please don't insult my intelligence. I refuse to fear some supposedly "supreme being" when it won't manifest itself and it's followers are ignorant, insulting, unobjective (not sure if that's a real word, but y'all know what I mean), stubborn and arrogant.
Aimiel, step back from christianity, look at it from the outside, consider other religions, consider their claims to validity, study the world, see what's out there. Don't close your mind before you study all of the facts. Facts are facts because they can be proven and demonstrated. They're worth paying attention to.
Aimiel, your religion has been founded on inquisitions, witch burnings and alienations. It is founded upon the premise that we are worms, nasty little creatures in dire need for saving from eternal punishment, and ourselves by a divine being that never shows itself to us. You live your life according to an outdated book that cannot be proven to speak truth, and you scoff at me for living my life based on what I can demonstrate.
You are a madman.
As Granite said, it's self inflicted. You don't need god, you need answers, you need a system, you need to be self-righteous. Christianity is nothing more than an excuse for you to feel better than the rest of us worms. You disregard what you can prove for yourself, you substitute your perception of reality for a fairy tale and call those who do not believe fools. You don't need god, you need religion, you need a system that caters to your apparent and inherent need to be both self-righteous and holier than all of us "thou's". Like I said before, the only time I felt born again was when I became objective and stepped back from the whole thing to view it as a whole, and in the light of other religions. Again, as Granite said, the "holy spirit" apparently speaks to all christians, but is telling them all something completely different, hence the numerous sects and denominations. Looking in from the outside while taking into account the myriad denominations and the claim that the HS speaks to all christians leads me to believe that christianity does not exist but is a figment of a collectively weak mass imagination. You can't agree that the HS speaks to all christians and then have all christians disagree with each other. It doesn't make sense.
Logic. Logic. Logic.
The holy spirit speaks to all christians of all denominations, but the denominations do not agree on the interpretation of the scriptures of other denominations, hence the holy spirit is either playing all sides, or the people aren't hearing it correctly, or it's not speaking at all.
If the holy spirit is playing all sides than it's probably not as great as it's cracked up to be. If christians aren't hearing it correctly than it's probably because they've been blinded by sin, in which case the work of the HS is negated because christians are still slaves to sin and they haven't been saved by anything. The most plausible explanation is that there is no HS and nothing has been said.
Christianity has had 2,000 years to get it right. It hasn't. I'm not saying that christianity isn't true, or there isn't truth to be found in it, but please don't insult my intelligence. I refuse to fear some supposedly "supreme being" when it won't manifest itself and it's followers are ignorant, insulting, unobjective (not sure if that's a real word, but y'all know what I mean), stubborn and arrogant.
Aimiel, step back from christianity, look at it from the outside, consider other religions, consider their claims to validity, study the world, see what's out there. Don't close your mind before you study all of the facts. Facts are facts because they can be proven and demonstrated. They're worth paying attention to.
"If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all."
Billions around the world who aren't Christians would disagree.
Billions around the world who aren't Christians would disagree.
clete, I already said a coupla posts ago that I believe god exists because evolution doesn't make sense. God, no matter how far fetched isn't as far fetched as evolution, therefore is the obvious choice between the two. Frankly, I don't really care, but for the sake of finding any common ground I will admit that I believe in god. If that contradicts my empiricism, I will agree. It's kinda confusing.
(If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all.)
I have my own instincts. I don't need a book to teach me what is right and what is wrong. I can figure that out on my own. You act as though people are genuinely lost without the bible. I know exactly what I'm doing and why I do it.
(Your venom only serves to poison your own position! You use terms like 'foolishness', 'madness', 'sick', and 'twisted' terms that speak about soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly. Things which you cannot account for outside a Biblical worldview.)
Again, a biblical worldview can be nice, but it's wholly unnecessary. You don't have to be a christian to be a good person, and even christians sin. I don't really understand this last point you made, but I think that soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly are not dependant upon your outdated religion. Your outdated religion discourages independant thinking, it does not foster soundness of mind or intelligence. It does foster dependance on church authority and it does foster blind faith. Again, my belief in god does somewhat contradict my empiricism, I'm quite confused at times, but god as an explanation just makes more sense than evolution, so it really does fit in with my over all philosophy. I just disagree with your description of god.
Oh, and you worship zombies and demons.
(If the Bible itself is obsolete so are the moral truths which it teaches. The moral truth in the Bible is the whole point of the Bible. You can't take one and leave the other. Without the Bible you have nothing upon which to base any moral truth at all.)
I have my own instincts. I don't need a book to teach me what is right and what is wrong. I can figure that out on my own. You act as though people are genuinely lost without the bible. I know exactly what I'm doing and why I do it.
(Your venom only serves to poison your own position! You use terms like 'foolishness', 'madness', 'sick', and 'twisted' terms that speak about soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly. Things which you cannot account for outside a Biblical worldview.)
Again, a biblical worldview can be nice, but it's wholly unnecessary. You don't have to be a christian to be a good person, and even christians sin. I don't really understand this last point you made, but I think that soundness of mind, intelligence and the ability to think clearly are not dependant upon your outdated religion. Your outdated religion discourages independant thinking, it does not foster soundness of mind or intelligence. It does foster dependance on church authority and it does foster blind faith. Again, my belief in god does somewhat contradict my empiricism, I'm quite confused at times, but god as an explanation just makes more sense than evolution, so it really does fit in with my over all philosophy. I just disagree with your description of god.
Oh, and you worship zombies and demons.
Aimiel
Well-known member
It's amazing how quickly one can respond when the faith and knowledge of The Lord reside with you.
No, that's been the result of demonic reaction to The Presence of The Lord. Those with 'religious authority' who knew not God, reacting to those who knew Him, or to their own imagined enemies.
When He reveals Himself, you'll be exposed, and naked; and those of us who are properly dressed won't be able to give you the clothing that we're offering you now: The Righteousness of The Lord.
As I said, the things that Christians do are foolishness to those who are perishing.
Thank you.
I'm no better than you, but God decided to grant grace (His forgiveness) to those who follow His Son. I'm no better because of that, the only difference is the way that God looks at me. I don't think of myself as 'holier-than-thou.' Do you feel 'un-holier-than-me,' is that why you're accusing me of this type of thinking?
At that point your 'flesh' was 'born-again' into pre-eminence in your life. You elevated yourself back to the throne of your life.
Been there, done that, and all I got was a 'T' shirt, which now has holes. I'd much rather have everlasting garments, that moths don't eat.
The wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) has studied all the facts. He came to the same conclusion that I do: "The Lord is God, and I will serve Him."
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
:troll:
Re: I believe religion to be obsolete
I remember that day. That was the day my strong suspicions that you were not a Christian were confirmed, granite1010. I'm glad you've dropped the facade since then.
:troll:
You are wrong. Morality has always been derived from what we now call a Biblical worldview. If God does not exist at all then morality makes no sense. If God is not moral Himself then one cannot logically account for the existence of morality. Everyone, including non-believers tacitly borrow from a Biblical worldview when they admit the existence of morality.
Resting in Him,
Clete
One could look at, say, Jungian psychology to make this point: that the subconscious minds of men all draw from the same archtypes. Murder's wrong, for example. A pretty universal law among mankind. This is not uniquely "biblical." Christian morality happens to be called "biblical" because that's where Christians, naturally, draw their law code. Same stuff, just different clothes.
Lovejoy
Active member
This is interesting. It was not directed at me, but I would like an opportunity to respond, as it refers to "Christians" as a group.
Are sure you are not just referring to yourself? To espouse the "needs" of others is to assign both motive and identity. That is a lot for one guy to pull off.
The word "fool" gets tossed around a lot, by both sides. I don't know why.
Even if you have every bit of empirical data at your finger tips, you still have to handle people using your "perceptions." No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently. As such, empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people. My beliefs tell my to reach out in love, and try to be both forgiving and humble with how I handle people. Most people here will agree that I try very hard, and often succeed.
And, in this case, why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid. You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions.
And, just because your experience does not line up with that of others, why is it a "weak" imagining? Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove? Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values? This is what so many attack Christians over, and yet no one seems above it.
And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.
Are sure you are not just referring to yourself? To espouse the "needs" of others is to assign both motive and identity. That is a lot for one guy to pull off.
The word "fool" gets tossed around a lot, by both sides. I don't know why.
Even if you have every bit of empirical data at your finger tips, you still have to handle people using your "perceptions." No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently. As such, empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people. My beliefs tell my to reach out in love, and try to be both forgiving and humble with how I handle people. Most people here will agree that I try very hard, and often succeed.
And, in this case, why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid. You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions.
And, just because your experience does not line up with that of others, why is it a "weak" imagining? Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove? Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values? This is what so many attack Christians over, and yet no one seems above it.
And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.
wickwoman
New member
Dear prodigal:
I'm with you. Let's look at it this way. The proof of a mindset's benefits to me can be found in the lives of those who claim to hold a particular mindset. Such benefits cannot be found. I look to my former bro's and sis's in Christ and find the same alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, disatisfaction, sickness and death I find in everyone's life. Therefore, there seems to be no real measurable benefit to being a Christian other than the idea that you can lord your "betterness" and "savedness" over the rest of mankind. This is a shallow satisfaction. I know, I've experienced it myself.
True satisfaction is to be found in inclusion, not exclusion. Separation from our brothers and sisters brings grief. To know you're going to Heaven is to know your sister is going to Hell. So, if you're selfish enough, this will be enough to keep you hanging on. But, it's the beginning of the end when you think to yourself, "Hey, I want my sister with me in Heaven. What about God, he/she should love my sister at least as much as I do."
Christianity is nothing more than a special club which only certain initiates will be invited to join. Sure, the selling point is that everyone is included. The fine print is, "except the gays, except the Hindus, except the Buddhists." God is bigger than any religion. And traditional Christianity is a lame attempt to nail him/her down.
Now, I will give my caveat that certain Christians can be excluded from my diatribe. Dave Miller is one, Chileice is one as well. There are others whom I know personally. But, they could just as easily be Buddhists. It starts with the person, not the religion.
So, anyway, I'll make the remark I think I once made to Granite, you sound like you need to read Ecclesiastes (again?). It sums up alot of the searching for meaning where meaning can't be found arguments. And, if you are looking for meaning in religion, it will be difficult to find it there.
"When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine myriad things with a confused body and mind you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self."
-"Actualizing the Fundamental Point" by Zen Master Dogen
I'm with you. Let's look at it this way. The proof of a mindset's benefits to me can be found in the lives of those who claim to hold a particular mindset. Such benefits cannot be found. I look to my former bro's and sis's in Christ and find the same alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, disatisfaction, sickness and death I find in everyone's life. Therefore, there seems to be no real measurable benefit to being a Christian other than the idea that you can lord your "betterness" and "savedness" over the rest of mankind. This is a shallow satisfaction. I know, I've experienced it myself.
True satisfaction is to be found in inclusion, not exclusion. Separation from our brothers and sisters brings grief. To know you're going to Heaven is to know your sister is going to Hell. So, if you're selfish enough, this will be enough to keep you hanging on. But, it's the beginning of the end when you think to yourself, "Hey, I want my sister with me in Heaven. What about God, he/she should love my sister at least as much as I do."
Christianity is nothing more than a special club which only certain initiates will be invited to join. Sure, the selling point is that everyone is included. The fine print is, "except the gays, except the Hindus, except the Buddhists." God is bigger than any religion. And traditional Christianity is a lame attempt to nail him/her down.
Now, I will give my caveat that certain Christians can be excluded from my diatribe. Dave Miller is one, Chileice is one as well. There are others whom I know personally. But, they could just as easily be Buddhists. It starts with the person, not the religion.
So, anyway, I'll make the remark I think I once made to Granite, you sound like you need to read Ecclesiastes (again?). It sums up alot of the searching for meaning where meaning can't be found arguments. And, if you are looking for meaning in religion, it will be difficult to find it there.
"When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine myriad things with a confused body and mind you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self."
-"Actualizing the Fundamental Point" by Zen Master Dogen
You are missing the point. You can't even account for the existence of psychology of any kind without borrowing from a Christian worldview. You can't account for the fact that human being can think about abstract ideas like logic for example. You can't account for the existence of language, or even intelligence without tacitly borrowing from a Christian (Biblical) worldview. You can't explain why it is wrong to murder without logical incoherence. You cannot do it. If you don't believe me, try it. You will fail.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lovejoy
(No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently)
Speak for yourself, LJ.
(empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people.)
This is how empirical data works for me in regards to perceptions:
If I can't feel it, hear it, see it, taste it or touch it, it doesn't exist. If you can't demonstrate something to me, it isn't there. I can't perceive something that cannot be proven to exist, therefore how I handle people, how people handle themselves and whether or not it is in a fashion that corresponds is irrelevant.
Christians have an argument that they cannot prove (i.e. you can't prove the existence of supernatural forces, you can't prove the existence of heaven or hell, you don't have an original copy of the bible, etc.)
I can prove that there are no demons, there are no angels, there is no hell, simply because there is no evidence to support that there are. Like I said before, y'all can believe whatever you want, my problem is when Christians pass off unprovable beliefs as truth. It's like they're selling something they don't have. It's like playing poker against someone who constantly claims the plot but won't show their cards.
(why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid)
No, it means that I felt something that requires no more proof than to just look at things and demonstrate them for myself. Christians can't do anything like that, therefore their experiences aren't valid. You can't prove that god talks to anyone. You can't take an experience for which there are no demonstrable systems for proving it's validty and pass it off as truth. You can take what exists (empirical data), examine it, do some research and have a better look at the whole of the idea you're scrutinizing. That's empirical versus the fairy tale. I can do research and demonstrate it to someone else and then tell them to make up their own minds. Christians don't, and can't do that.
(You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions)
Exactly, but no exactly. The first part, beliefs are not objective I agree, but I have ben viewing them from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship I suppose, but I'm challenging the existence of a relationship at all. And yes, when you want an objective opinion you do have to distance yourself emotionally so you don't become biased. I've read the bible and much christian literature. I've also read much literature challenging the bible and christian apologists. Then I evaluated it with my own perceptions. I took arguments from both sides, and without emotion, I evaluated what I had learned.
But if you're christian I doubt you'd understand this process.
(Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove?)
No kidding sherlock. Like I ALREADY SAID BEFORE: I am both an observer and an agitator. When I observe something that bothers me, I agitate. That's my thing, that's what I do. I don't have to prove anything. Christians do a fine job disproving themselves through the absense of evidence, so my work is done for me. Like I said, I'm an observer. I'm an empiricist. If you can't prove it, it don't exist. Talking to god does not mean it listens. Believing in heaven doesn't mean it's there. Having a book that says there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow doesn't mean it's there, and pardon me if I find something wrong with people passing off the unprovable as indisputable.
(And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.)
I'll be the judge of that. Oh, and what kind of background do I have to have in order to possess a valid opinion?
(Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values?)
As I ALREADY SAID: I don't have a problem with christianity when taken as a discipline to live YOUR life by, but as a standard by which to judge those who aren't convinced? Poppycock. When it's shoved in my face by Aimiel as though it's rock solid and I'm going to go to hell, yeah, I attack. Granted, I picked the fight, but he didn't have to take the bait. Christians love a challenge, and after twenty years of christianity, I love challenges also. Christianity is where I got my hostility, my intolerance and my love of a fight.
As for forgiveness, I'm glad you've got some Lovejoy, 'cuz I'm plain plum outta the stuff.
And Wickwoman....
right on.
(No one uses logic in human relations, at least not consistently)
Speak for yourself, LJ.
(empirical data versus fairy tales is only relevant if they directly impact your perceptions, and in a fashion that corresponds with how you handle people.)
This is how empirical data works for me in regards to perceptions:
If I can't feel it, hear it, see it, taste it or touch it, it doesn't exist. If you can't demonstrate something to me, it isn't there. I can't perceive something that cannot be proven to exist, therefore how I handle people, how people handle themselves and whether or not it is in a fashion that corresponds is irrelevant.
Christians have an argument that they cannot prove (i.e. you can't prove the existence of supernatural forces, you can't prove the existence of heaven or hell, you don't have an original copy of the bible, etc.)
I can prove that there are no demons, there are no angels, there is no hell, simply because there is no evidence to support that there are. Like I said before, y'all can believe whatever you want, my problem is when Christians pass off unprovable beliefs as truth. It's like they're selling something they don't have. It's like playing poker against someone who constantly claims the plot but won't show their cards.
(why is your testimony more (or less) valid than someone that claims differently? The only time you "felt" born again? That is not logic, it is purely experiential. Which means that all testimony on that level is valid)
No, it means that I felt something that requires no more proof than to just look at things and demonstrate them for myself. Christians can't do anything like that, therefore their experiences aren't valid. You can't prove that god talks to anyone. You can't take an experience for which there are no demonstrable systems for proving it's validty and pass it off as truth. You can take what exists (empirical data), examine it, do some research and have a better look at the whole of the idea you're scrutinizing. That's empirical versus the fairy tale. I can do research and demonstrate it to someone else and then tell them to make up their own minds. Christians don't, and can't do that.
(You are incapable of stepping back and objectively viewing beliefs as a whole, because they are not objective, and cannot be viewed from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship. All you can do is emotionally distance yourself from something until it is easy to pass judgement on it, mostly by evaluating with your own perceptions)
Exactly, but no exactly. The first part, beliefs are not objective I agree, but I have ben viewing them from the outside. Each one is a personal relationship I suppose, but I'm challenging the existence of a relationship at all. And yes, when you want an objective opinion you do have to distance yourself emotionally so you don't become biased. I've read the bible and much christian literature. I've also read much literature challenging the bible and christian apologists. Then I evaluated it with my own perceptions. I took arguments from both sides, and without emotion, I evaluated what I had learned.
But if you're christian I doubt you'd understand this process.
(Your language, while occasionally trying to be friendly, comes across with quite an air of superiority and can be very provocative at times. Why is this? What are you trying to prove?)
No kidding sherlock. Like I ALREADY SAID BEFORE: I am both an observer and an agitator. When I observe something that bothers me, I agitate. That's my thing, that's what I do. I don't have to prove anything. Christians do a fine job disproving themselves through the absense of evidence, so my work is done for me. Like I said, I'm an observer. I'm an empiricist. If you can't prove it, it don't exist. Talking to god does not mean it listens. Believing in heaven doesn't mean it's there. Having a book that says there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow doesn't mean it's there, and pardon me if I find something wrong with people passing off the unprovable as indisputable.
(And please, attacking a supernatural belief system with the evidence of nature my seem like a good idea, but it will get you nowhere. Particularly when you don't seem to have the background to do it well.)
I'll be the judge of that. Oh, and what kind of background do I have to have in order to possess a valid opinion?
(Do you claim (as some do) that there is an inherent danger to people holding Christian beliefs? Are you going to attack every group that holds a different set of beliefs or values?)
As I ALREADY SAID: I don't have a problem with christianity when taken as a discipline to live YOUR life by, but as a standard by which to judge those who aren't convinced? Poppycock. When it's shoved in my face by Aimiel as though it's rock solid and I'm going to go to hell, yeah, I attack. Granted, I picked the fight, but he didn't have to take the bait. Christians love a challenge, and after twenty years of christianity, I love challenges also. Christianity is where I got my hostility, my intolerance and my love of a fight.
As for forgiveness, I'm glad you've got some Lovejoy, 'cuz I'm plain plum outta the stuff.
And Wickwoman....
right on.
Lovejoy
Active member
I was just testing the waters, prodigal. It is tough to see the logical technique in your interpersonal relations when you show up with, and frankly admit to, a predisposed hostility to a group of people. Be that as it may, I would rather have peace. And as I am already having this (almost) exact conversation on another site, and am even having a much more reasonably toned version of it on this site (with PureX), I will leave you with those that have already engaged you on the topic. Good luck, and God bless.