That was, as I explained, my post, Jab, and not Edlyn’s. But if you make no such presumption, why ask the question? Is your presumption that we believe God runs the world? If so, you’re mistaken.
Caiata,
What an inspiration you are! You might not call yourself Christian (and frankly, most Christians likely call me a heritic), but what is in your heart is the same as what is in mine. You remind me of Gaudere, and that is a very high compliment.
Uh, who said anything about worshipping a cross? Or is a cross-worshiper something like a cross-dresser or a transsexual? 
Like bowing down in the house of Rimmon?
Good so far…
Okay, if it has “admirable traits,” then why would its “pervasiveness” be “irksome”?
Point taken. I think you can find a rather extensive discussion of this in studies of Christian ethics. One of the more competent theologians (Aquinas IIRC) suggested that the ideal motivation was based on love of God, but that He in his mercy accepted prudential motivations such as the fear of getting caught or the fear of Hell as acceptable justifications for being virtuous.
No. I consider myself a Christian. I do not believe in the second part. (Of course, on your definition I’m not a Christian, but I’ll leave discussion of that for later.
Which means that your “furthermore” does not apply to me.
John Lennon said it much better. And it’s incumbent on all theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, UUs, etc.) to recognize how religious arguments tend to get turned into wars, and to find ways to combat that tendency.
I see. You are therefore saying that you are honorbound to like 'NSync since a majority of young people do, and differences in taste and opinion should not exist?
Pardon me. I have a great deal of respect for reasonable skeptics such as jab1 and David B., and for the debating skills of atheists such as them and Spiritus Mundi. I do not therefore buy into every proposition they present for debate.
And if some ignorant atheist or agnostic came along and began “debunking” something factual, such as the life and work of Francis of Assisi or John XXIII, as “obvious myths,” I would not therefore consider the three posters I named to be buying into that ignoramus’s arguments.
Jack Chick and the Institute for Creation Research do not speak for me, or for the vast majority of Christians. If you want to argue this stuff, I can link you to a board where there are posters who believe it. Or bring an online friend who posts here and does believe it into the thread. But do not allege that I think it because I call myself a Christian, nor all my fellow Christians whom I know do not.
If you’ll look through the archives a bit, you’ll find a number of people ranting on these types. (I presume you mean the ones who preach and pray at people who aren’t interested or buying it, not those who preach sermons in churches to provide instruction and guidance to their fellowmen who wish to hear them, or those who pray for things like world peace and human brotherhood.) And you’ll find that among the ranters are most of this board’s active Christians, who are at least as offended by Phelps, Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk as are the atheists and agnostics. It’s our God whose name those idiots are taking in vain, aftr all.
Pardon me, but I didn’t open the link. Anyone who thinks Jack Chick speaks for Christianity as a whole apparently thinks that Andrew Sullivan speaks for the gay community, too.
I don’t consider that “good news.” (D’uh! But it’s good news that people who equate “being a Christian” with being good and not disturbing the peace, sleeping through a service twice a year to keep up appearances, are no longer trying to pass themselves off as believers in a system that holds nothing of interest to them.
“Dogma”? Define what you mean by it and we may agree or disagree.
Uh, I do feel relaxed and fulfilled being a Christian – that’s promised in Paul and John’s letters: stuff about “being filled with joy” and “the peace that passes understanding” and all that rot. :rolleyes:
However, exactly where do you see me “selectively choos[ing] … areas of Christianity?”
I see the Christian belief structure as demanding the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord, and therefore in following His instructions for living. Not in turning off one’s brain and following the Bible as though it were literally true and inerrant in all its parts. Not in selective choice of which of His commands I’ll buy into and which are contrary to my personal prejudices, like most vocal evangelicals seem to be pursuing. Not in buying wholesale into Scholastic theology or Tillichian deism with no thought given to the matter.
Quite simply, and without rancor, show me a place where I’ve “selectively [chosen]” and I will repent of it. And thank you.
But not on the basis of your definition of a “true Christian.” On mine. Or Libertarian’s or Triskadecamus’s or Mangetout’s. I’ll give strong consideration to anything Jodi has to say on my errors. And if Gaudere or Spiritus Mundi or (particularly) Mars Horizon sees me as falling short of the goals I’ve set for myself, I promise to listen intently and change my behavior as indicated.
In the first place, I’m not doing a damn thing “in order to get to heaven.” In the second place, I’d be very intrigued by what you consider “a bare minimum.” And in the third place, what I do won’t get me anywhere but the grave. It’s God’s grace, shown through Jesus, that will save me if I persevere in following Him.
The first 1.2 paragraphs make sense. Churchill reports that Stalin said he much preferred Conservatives to the left-wing British – he knew where he stood with them.
Explain to me which beliefs I “only subscribe to” and which I reject, if you would. And found them on a contemporary analysis of what members of the Episcopal Church are expected to believe, not on what some fundamentalist told you are his ideas of what Christians believe.
"At least the fundamentalists have enough guts to devote their lives to an ideal. " We agree here; I respect the devout fundamentalists of my acquaintance, while disagreeing in mutual respect with some of their thinking.
But precisely how have you formed the conclusion that I have not devoted mine to an ideal? And how have you concluded that I am “silly,” “cowardly,” “afraid of going to Hell,” etc.?
Quite simply: put up or shut up.
There may be some truth here, taking the straw man you’ve made of me as symbolic of some people. But I’m not one of them.
I’m trying. I wish some of the Bible worshippers would, too.
And your bare assertion of it will convince me? I’ve spent 40 years studying my faith and a variety of disciplines ranging from philosophy to cultural anthropology. I have not yet found them to be mutually exclusive – though some silly assertions made by some Christian leaders about their faith have had to be discarded.
Thank you. But, though you’ve been asked this elsewhere, I cannot help but wonder to whom you’re praying!
Poly,
Here’s a pat on the back, a warm handshake, and a loving hug. And I think I can safely say that on behalf of 99% of the people at SDMB. God go with you always, my friend, my mentor, and my brother.
Then what do you believe? Please don’t be coy. And when I say “runs the world”, I mean the natural world; by that, any part of the world not directly affected by Man’s actions. (Does God keep the stars burning or do they burn on their own? Does God keep the planets orbiting their respective stars or is it natural law? Do you believe that God created the universe?)
Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?
blushes
Awww shucks, Lib … Gah … Um, thank you 
blushes more Gah! I’ll take your word on the Gaudere compliment as I’ve yet to see him post without wearing his Moderator Hat
Erm, and as far as that goes … I’m incredibly new here and I haven’t seen as much of Polycarp as many others have, but I have to agree with Lib. From what I have seen of him, I already know I respect his faith and his demeanor, and I think that ES’s attack of his beliefs was wholly unwarranted.
Polycarp, this atheist salutes you!
Please don’t be presumptuous, and then no one will have to start this process that you interpret as coyness, which is trying to dig out of you the fulness of whatever is your complaint du jour about people of faith. You’re the one who used the expression “runs the world”. If it is an ill-defined or nebulous phrase, you should have clarified it. So take your own advice in re being coy.
(I know that it’s one of your favorite little tricks. A quick kick to the shin, then running away yelling, “Whah’d ah do?”)
Do you think He came down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day?
You’ve lumped together three things, one of which does not belong. When you’ve explained to me how something — anything — can arise out of nothing, when nothingness itself implies the absence of any mechanism by which something may arise, or else when you prove that the universe is eternal — then, and only then, will I acknowledge that the universe could have had anything other than a supernatural origin.
No.
Caiata,
Just so you know, I made that same mistake about Gaudere when I first ran across her.
Gah again!
Okay, I have a proposal! There should be a spot under the username - kinda like the “member/administrator” tag - that says “male” or “female”, 'cause damnit, you guys don’t have icons to go with your posting names and many use such gender-unspecific names! It causes newbs like me to screw up and stuff. nods
And uh. Sorry Gaudere.
Back to your regularly scheduled Christian/atheist discussion:
Libertarian responds to the question:
Oh, and does God decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?
With
No
I would ask you to elaborate on this a little please.
Hey Poly, I think my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle, or maybe you are already over your time alotment for this thread and decided to skip me. Anywho, if ya had some time, I’d love it if ya’d scroll back and check it out. You can skip the ForceFieldWorld part if ya want by just claiming “mysterious ways”.
Thanks for the opportunity to get inside your head a bit. Feel free to question me about my beliefs if you so desire.
Sorry.
I thought it was obvious what I meant.
I’ve heard the phrase before; I don’t see how it applies.
It’s very simple. The universe has always existed, but it has a tendency to change form. It didn’t always have stars and planets and other heavenly bodies. It was once tiny and extremely massive and energetic. For some reason we haven’t discovered yet, it began expanding. As it expanded, it cooled off, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon akin to the way refrigerator compressors work. Cooling off allowed the energy within the universe to form stars and planets. Fourteeen to fifteen billion years pass and here are the two of us arguing about how it happened.
The universe could not have come from nothing because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics which says that you can’t get something from nothing. So the universe must have always existed. But since it’s obviously expanding, it must have been much, much smaller in the distant past. Application of known physical laws and data gathered from experiment conducted in particle accelerators show that particles can come from energy, but not from nothing. Read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time for more details.
There was no “before” the Big Bang; spacetime (that is, causality) was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking “What is north of the North Pole?” The question has no meaning.
So what do you believe?
Then who does?
Vile Orb and Mayor Quimby:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments; I was delayed by a sudden attack of eternal stupidity.
Now then:
“When I was a child, I thought as a child…” Seriously, I believed what I was taught in childhood, began asking questions and seeking out answers in my teens, etc., like most thoughtful people. I’d settled on a viewpoint that intellectualized the whole idea of God into a realm suitable for study but requiring no personal commitment, and attended an Episcopal church that expected no more and no less. And then, dealing with “spiritual gifts” in First Corinthians during the “evolution of the New Testament” section of a comprehensive four-year theology course for laymen (strongly recommended, available from the University of the South, Suwannee TN), I had what can only be described as an “encounter with God” in which I found him to be “real and present” – granted that this whole thing is subjective as Hell, I’m reporting my impressions – and suddenly the idea of Christianity as commitment to a Person and as a faith in which reason and emotion are equally yoked came alive to me.
I remained in a sterile, emotion-deprived, intellectual mindset nonetheless, outside a bizarre evangelicalistic legalistic commitment to God and a hunger to learn more about “what all the shouting’s about,” for another eight years. Then my foster son came into my life – I firmly believe through God’s active intervention sub rosa – and I was made whole. (That takes several paragraphs and an emotional striptease I’ve already done once and would prefer not to repeat to explain, so I’ll simply ask you to accept it as self-analysis.)
In short, I found my way to love of God and then love of fellow man through experiential means.
Yes, I’d say it can be duplicated. But for each individual on God’s time scale and not necessarily his own. (Social scientists have major problems with a subject base that is not usually amenable to structured experiment; experimental theologians have it much worse! :D)
Don’t have a clue. I just know that He won’t give up, and He’s stronger than Death.
I do not have any resolution to the Problem of Pain, other than what I’ve already had to say about it here and on other threads on this board.
I am confident in God’s goodness, and that He allows evil to exist and to harm “the innocent” for His own reasons, which are, I believe, good ones, though not known to me. (That constitutes “trust,” and “faith” in the trust equivalent.)
Well, then, don’t cry out, “Oh, God, yes!” 
I’m going to bypass the Christianity/Paganism parallels discussion. There’s plenty of meat for a new thread, if people are interested, and I don’t care to ignore it or explain it away. But unless it’s a problem for a present-day believer that those parallels exist, I don’t see it as germane to this thread. (Though I guess a lot of other stuff equally off topic has already come in.) Please don’t think I’m upset by its being brought up; I just don’t want to wade through 14 pages worth of alleged parallels (some of which I’d admit the validity of and debate others) right now.
Homebrew: Thanks for the good words and the excellent references. May I suggest Spong’s last two books (one brand new last month) as additional resources into “post-theistic theology”?
Caiata: An insightful post. Thanks for posting it.
jab: I think there’s a case of “rupture” here – you’re asking questions from a naturalist-refuting-superstition mindset, and Lib. and I are speaking from a quite different one.
Quite simply, the world operates as it does because there are natural laws, discovered and discoverable by science, underlying its operations. We see God as the source of those laws; I’m not sure you or any other philosophical Naturalist has explained their origins. (Does anyone else see a “Fenris reveals the Universe’s Origin Story” tread in the offing? ;))
And the heaven/hell thing: Quite simply, that’s not our issue. You don’t believe in a God who somewhat nepotistically and irrationally sits on a Judgment Throne and sends people to eternal bliss or eternal torment.
Neither do we.
I think I speak for Lib. in saying that human beings judge themselves by the choices they make, and ultimately cut themselves off from all future potential and all present existence and die, or opt for a richer and fuller life in communion with a God who can transcend death. And that’s the explanation behind the God-in-judgment superstition. It goes as far back as Deuteronomy: “Behold, I set before you this day two choices: death and life. Therefore, choose life.”
Got you on the “before the Big Bang” – we’re stymied by the need to express things in space/time terms. God created at the Big Bang – he was the cause of it, though not prior to it (when there was no time).
Maybe, given your temporal stance on causality, “cause” isn’t the right word, but I’m sure you take my meaning. Putting the right words around this sort of conceptualization and avoiding spatiotemporally based metaphor is kind of like answering the questions of a genius three-year-old: “How hot is truth?” “How far is up?” “What color is love?”
You are Thorizing God.
I believe that a tiny, extremely massive and energetic universe must expand. I believe that if there is a stasis, then there is no energy. And vice-versa. And therefore I believe that it did not just “sit there” and festate, since energy implies changes in state. I believe that if there was no time before the Big Bang, then there was nothing before the Big Bang, because there would have been time even as the tiny universe produced energy. And I believe that if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there is necessarily a logical demarcation, a boundary where the universe began. I believe that if it could not have come about by any natural means, then Ockham’s Razor applies: it must have come about by means that are supernatural.
That’s what I believe.
Those who “go”. They decide.
I believe I do not deserve to go to Hell. Therefore, according to Lib and Poly, I have nothing to worry about.
Right?
You’re nearly there. It isn’t what you believe you deserve, but what you desire. And it isn’t a matter of where you will go. Whatever you’ve chosen, you’re already there.
From a post I wrote over at The Pizza Parlor:
Lib, I do not believe I go anywhere upon the death of my body. I believe that I will simply cease to exist.
Once more, it is not what you believe, but what you desire. And whatever that is, you already have it.
My beliefs and my desires are the same. So I already have oblivion?
Excellent book written by an atheist who set out to prove the bible to be wrong fictional and inaccurate historically as well as philisophically:
Evidence that demands a verdict. Can’t remember the author but could get it at amazon.com
Anybody up for a book discussion?