I don’t decide anything for anyone. That’s impossible. We make our own decisions. All I’m saying is that personal preference is not a universal truth. I’m equally qualified with you with regard to “knowing” the answer to the origin and purpose of man. The difference is, I’m honest about it.
[/QUOTE]
Interestingly enough, I agree with you.
Let me ask you… Does God exist? Either way, can you prove this?
If you are unable to disprove the existence of God, and for the purpose of the following question must acknowledge at least the potential of his existence, I would ask: While you are equally qualified (as cosmosdan) as to “knowing” the origin and purpose of man, is there anyone else at least potentially more qualified than you?
[QUOTE=the raindog] Kalhoun
What is truth?
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, I don’t think there’s any such thing, from a religious/social/humanity aspect. I think there might be mathmatical truths, but I’m not even sure about that. “Truths” have changed in the past, and they’re likely to change in the future. Making all of it shifting and evolving all the time. There are only strings of moments, if you ask me.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Interestingly enough, I agree with you.
Let me ask you… Does God exist? Either way, can you prove this?
If you are unable to disprove the existence of God, and for the purpose of the following question must acknowledge at least the potential of his existence, I would ask: While you are equally qualified (as cosmosdan) as to “knowing” the origin and purpose of man, is there anyone else at least potentially more qualified than you?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, I can’t, at present, prove it either way. I can base my opinion on what the collective knows and my current best guess is that there probably isn’t a god, but if there is, there is even less evidence that this god substance “loves” us (evidence on earth suggests he’s either evil or doesn’t give a shit). I could be wrong, but I don’t think it matters one way or another if there’s no meaningful interaction between us and The Other Side.
No, no one is more qualified than me. If there’s a god, I’m as much a product of his whimsy as anyone else. As for potential, I think we’ve all got an equal chance of finding out. And it won’t be this secretive, “one-at-a-time” revelation. What possible sense could that make? Why would god give some an advantage over others, particularly if he “loves” us all (whatever THAT means)?
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Why not? The “mean” Christians that you describe are a minority of Christians. Moderates and liberals make up the majority. Why assume the worst? When someone says that he is an atheist, I don’t form a bad impression of that person. I think of someone reasonable like Miller or Carl Sagen, not someone filled with malice toward Christians.
As for your list of what Christians have to believe, I do know Christians who don’t believe in the Resurrection and are uncertain of life after death. They believe in the basic teachings of Jesus about how to live one’s life. Many do not believe in the Virgin birth.
Certainly in regard to the analogy, one is a pastime and one is a religion. That does not in anyway explain why the analogy is not valid. You have merely stated a difference in the two things being compared. No one claimed that they are identical. In analogies they never are.
Two groups can have something in common without one group “lending authenticity” to the other group.
Atheists believe Great Debates is a good place to post. Liberal Christians believe Great Debates is a good place to post. Atheists lend authenticity to Liberal Christians.
[/QUOTE]
Brilliant post! The name Christian can mean almost anything. The only thing I look for when someone claims to be a Christian is do they follow Jesus’ teachings. To me, that’s all that matters.
Most of the anger directed at Christians on this board is way, way out of date. They talk about the Inquisitions, Crusades, and stuff that happened hundreds of years ago and have no meaning in today’s world.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Most of the anger directed at Christians on this board is way, way out of date. They talk about the Inquisitions, Crusades, and stuff that happened hundreds of years ago and have no meaning in today’s world.
[/QUOTE]
Generally when people talk about the Inquisition, Crusades, and other such stuff they’re using it to show that Christians can be bad people. Not because they are personally angered by it, necessarily. I think you may have misread that.
My own personal definition of Christian would be “do they follow the teachings of Christ”, except there seems to be quite a bit of difference, even among those who claim to be Christian, as to what those teachings actually are and which are to have priority. My own definition of a Christian then is “anyone who self-identifies as Christian”; certainly meaning that some who are not will get in, but reduces the risk that you ignore all “true” Christians entirely.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
I’m not sure I understand either statement here, so please clarify them for me. Are you saying that liberal Christians defend their beliefs with bible quotes? (after which, presumably, fundamentalists say “so what?”) Is that what you’re saying?
The sescond statement I don’t understand at all. Please clarify.
[/QUOTE]
You must not have looked at the context. Zoe was joking about atheists lending authenticy to liberal Christians here. I’m saying exactly the opposite. Here, anyway, fundamentalist seem to quote the Bible, and then get really confused when no one is very impressed. Liberal Christians tend to have real arguments.
The second line concerned her statement that she knew Christians who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Brilliant post! The name Christian can mean almost anything. The only thing I look for when someone claims to be a Christian is do they follow Jesus’ teachings. To me, that’s all that matters.
[/QUOTE]
What percentage must they follow? I don’t think anyone follows all the teachings, and pretty much everyone follows some of them. Thus, we can either all be Christians, or none of us can be Christians.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
What percentage must they follow? I don’t think anyone follows all the teachings, and pretty much everyone follows some of them. Thus, we can either all be Christians, or none of us can be Christians.
[/QUOTE]
There’s also the part about accepting jesus as your savior. I don’t, but I’m sure I do some of the same things he did. I mean, who doesn’t? It’s not like he invented good behavior or anything. So…if I reject him as a savior or a mystical god-creature, but still do some of stuff that he did, does that make me a christian? Or does it make him a Kalhounist? (Heh-heh…that has a nice ring to it…Kalhounist…heh-heh)
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I dunno. A little over 25% of Americans self-identify as evangelical, and I suspect 99+% of them would be biblical literalists. And when you consider that 30% of all Catholics* are Young Earth Creationists even though the Church explicitly disavows that belief, and I think the number is quite believable.
*about 25% of Americans are Catholic
[/QUOTE]
I’m a week late and haven’t finished reading this thread yet, but I hope it has been pointed out that most evangelicals are not biblical literalists. Many are; but most are not. Evangelical does not equal fundamentalist. Most mainline denominations (Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc) have significant evangelical contigents but none of those denominations preach literalism. Even the conservative Baptist and non-denom churches I grew up in and which taught that the bible was historically accurate did not claim that it should all be read literally.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
There’s also the part about accepting jesus as your savior. I don’t, but I’m sure I do some of the same things he did. I mean, who doesn’t? It’s not like he invented good behavior or anything. So…if I reject him as a savior or a mystical god-creature, but still do some of stuff that he did, does that make me a christian? Or does it make him a Kalhounist? (Heh-heh…that has a nice ring to it…Kalhounist…heh-heh)
[/QUOTE]
Well, we know you exist, which puts you one up on Jesus.
Now if you could do some magic tricks, we’d be all set.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
No, I don’t think it’s true. I don’t believe your idea of truth and mine are necessarily the same; it’s simply a matter of what feels right to you or me. That’s my point. Because Fred Phelps really believes that “god hates fags” or (insert your own favorite Phelpsism) that doesn’t mean it’s a “truth.” That’s his preference, his path, and his personal, humanly constructed opinion. The same as your preference for a peaceful coexistence with your fellow man is. There’s nothing inspired about either opinion; it all boils down to preference on how to live your life.
[/QUOTE]
So everything is up for grabs, and there is no moral behavior that is consistently positive for us and our fellow man? It’s all personal preference so if we go through a phase where people are killing each other right and left and treating each other with unbelievable cruelity it’s okay because it’s personal preference?
True. Thats why the truth is about the spirit of our intent rather than the specific action.
Then this is a major point of disagreement between us. IMHO that we are connected is true beyond any effort we make to deny that connection. We are connected as the cells in our own body are connected, all playing a role in the living organism of this planet. When we act contrary to that truth we injure others and ultimately ourselves since we are all part of the same living organism.
Any of us could be wrong. I’m curious though. Are you saying that morality and ethics are all personal preference and there really aren’t choices that are consistently more positive in consequences. So from Hitler to Gandhi it doesn’t matter, it’s just preference?
Well gosh…now you’re accusing me of being dishonest? Where’s the tragic puppy dog eyes emoticon? Here’s the surprising paradox. While believing in an ultimate truth that we all share I recognize that the path to that truth is unique to each person. I may not agree with the choices and the path others take but I also know that it is not my path, and not for me to decide what is right or true for them at this moment in their lives. I react and interact knowing that it is as much my instruction as theirs.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
You must not have looked at the context. Zoe was joking about atheists lending authenticy to liberal Christians here. I’m saying exactly the opposite. Here, anyway, fundamentalist seem to quote the Bible, and then get really confused when no one is very impressed. Liberal Christians tend to have real arguments.
The second line concerned her statement that she knew Christians who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
I read the post, and understand the context. I still find the posts confusing. Is the ‘opposite’ liberal christians lending authenticity to atheists?
But no matter. Please let me know which ‘fundamentalist’ Christians post here. Better yet, please give a URL or two of some exchanges where a fundamentalist Christian posted here (w/ biblical cites!) and was subsequently confused I promise to read every thread/exchange you post.
Best as I can tell, it is a rare event that fundamentalist Christians post here, and even rarer that they time to post reasoned, researched cited arguments. So, I’d like to see handful of those exchanges if you will. It’s equally rare that a liberal Christian posts a well thought out, informed, researched, cited argument.
For the sake of ease, and continuity----given that most of those who call themselves believers here identify the Judeo-Christian God as God, we’ll use that one.
So, I’ll ask again, a bit more clearly:
Does the Judeo/Christian God, commonly called Jehovah (among other names), and desribed in the Torah/Bible, exist?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Like I said, I don’t think there’s any such thing, from a religious/social/humanity aspect. I think there might be mathmatical truths, but I’m not even sure about that. “Truths” have changed in the past, and they’re likely to change in the future. Making all of it shifting and evolving all the time. There are only strings of moments, if you ask me.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with your definition, as I see it, is that it vacates at least part of your own reasonings. In the end, a good deal of your answers must be, by definition, “I don’t know”, or more accurately, “It can’t be known.”
For example, when you say, “No, no one is more qualified than me. If there’s a god, I’m as much a product of his whimsy as anyone else”, wouldn’t be true----based on your own reasonings and definition----that the correct response can only be [some variation of]:
‘I don’t know if anyone else is more qualified than me. To the extent there are those who proclaim such an authority exists (by any name) I choose not to believe; I reject the claim. In any event, this is not a result of “objective truth”, but of a personal belief. In fact, if objective truth exists, it can’t be known.’
