I’m aware of that; it’s not at all responsive to the argument I was making.
I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Christians would understand, or agree with, your version of ‘’‘Christianity’‘’.
It’s quite possible to believe that there’s more than one right way to live.
It is therefore quite possible to believe that one’s living the right way for oneself, and somebody else is living the right way for them.
No nonsense about it.
Well, speaking personally, I find that my religion is the right one for me. Whether it is for anyone else is not my business. I know plenty of people who feel the same way about their own religion. I have no idea if the tenets of my religion are “right” or “correct”. I actually don’t pay them much mind. My concern is to do what I believe God is asking of me. So far, God has not asked me to believe that Christianity is the one true way. God is not a Christian, to my knowledge.
You’d be surprised what Christians believe or don’t believe. It is not nearly as orthodox as you might imagine.
No, I wouldn’t. That there is no singular ‘Christianity’ is one of the evidences that Christianity can not be true, because it is not coherent.
They can’t all be right but they can all be wrong.
That’s not how belief works. That’s how science works. They are different. Religion is not just shitty science. It is wholly different way to encounter the world. But you know what? I’m going to bed. And I’m not coming back to this thread.
Promises, promises…
“If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he is all good, then he cannot be all-powerful.” An observation made in the 4th century BCE, long before children were considered little sunbeams for Jesus who could be bounced back into space via flood, famine, Gilles de Rais, etc.
If Spinoza, Liebniz and Hegel weren’t atheists and never addressed the topic, I won’t attempt it. I don’t adequately understand Hegel because I’m not that smart; and also because Hegel was a shitty writer. Perhaps both these are true vis-a-vis me and God as well.
The Church infamously suppressed Galileo, but they couldn’t deny his 1610 discovery of the Rings of Saturn. There they were: visible through his lens. So they made them useful.
The Church had long endured an embarrassment of foreskins. It needed an answer: had Jesus’ ascended to Heaven right then at his bris? Had it floated up from wherever it had been left at the same time as the rest of his corporeal body? Numerous little forsekins dotted the pilgrimage map, causing trouble. So De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (Discourse on the Prepuse of Our Lord Jesus Christ ) was written, claiming that Jesus’ foreskin was placed into the heavens in the form of the Rings of Saturn.
Religion is good like that at solving its own problems. If the problems of the religious are solved to their satisfaction by it, who am I to question? Better to focus on the actual problems it causes than the specious solutions it offers.
So, would you say that the Christian sects that do believe that God is a Christian are… incorrect?
I wonder when this idea that science and religion are two fundamentally different things was first conceived. Like, did the Greeks have this idea that there were two different systems for discerning truth, one spiritual and one material? Would Isaac Newton have held this viewpoint? How’d the Popes of his day feel about it?
Obviously, I personally reject it. The scientific method is the best tool humans have ever come up with to tell if something is true or not. If the scientific method is regularly telling you a thing isn’t true, it seems like the mostly likely explanation is that the thing is not, in fact, true. “Actually, this thing is different from ‘science’” just comes across as post-hoc rationalization.
How about “Religion is not even shitty science”?
Which is why faith is the enemy of humanity. It demands we treat falsehood as truth, regardless of the cost to people or the world. Faith is insane.
Simply put, when you can construct a chicken shack with faith alone there may be a reason to discuss a possible equivalence between it and science. One should never confuse responding with words spewed without reason with actual reason itself.
Remember, only you can prevent strawman fires.
No, I’m refuting the idea that you can’t look at religious claims with scientific rigor, and rejecting the idea that, if a religious claim fails when looked at with scientific rigor, it’s probably because the claim is false, and not because “faith is different.”
To see which is more important, just ask yourself:
Is it possible to survive without faith in a deity?
Is it possible to survive without science?
Tragedies like this aren’t consistent with the God as described in Christianity, but they are consistent with the God as described in Judaism and Islam. Christianity describes God as all loving and wanting His people to be happy, but that’s not really consistent with the real world. The God of Judaism and Islam seems more like a God over the real world. That version of God is spiteful and swift with harsh retribution for non compliance. For instance, when He thought humans had become too evil, he flooded the whole world. I’m sure those people back then were similarly distraught with grief as their loved ones were drowned. Flooding a Christian children’s camp is not out of character for that version of God. So it could certainly be God’s will, but it could also be that the Christian version of God is incorrect. What they think are His motivations may be totally incorrect because they are incorrect about what His desires and motivations are.
Nice selfie! Have you lost weight?
I completely get, and share, your disgust with idiots who are responsible for their children’s needless deaths and then justify it as God’s will. Or any other excuse making.
And you clearly are knee jerk reflexively posting about it having read nothing of the thread.
THIS thread had some phantom OP Pit something that to the best of our knowledge NO ONE HAS SAID. (Oh I suspect that there is some fool in Bumfuck that has said it at the kitchen table, but no parent of the children who died in this flood, no one using that as an excuse for any decisions made.
This thread used the deaths of little kids “at a Christian camp, clearly a setting with a powerful religious ethic” as an opportunity to gloat with a “Nice God you have there.” Because “how do these oh, so religious people explain such a catastrophe?”
And of course the usual militant atheists, really not a-theists, anti-theists, a real hatred to those who have faith beliefs, especially Christians, knee jerk chime in on what “right bastard” god is, because god doesn’t prevent bad things from happening. Because little Christian kids dying is the exact right time to gets your rocks off “ “jeering at all people that believe that everything happens according to God’s plan” (again no examples given of anyone saying that about this, but some here DO remember idiots from their childhood saying stuff like that, and you have your completely on point example!)
Who didn’t see this phrase coming? 
Why does this thread have so many sermons?
I feel like I was forced to go to church.