Posted by
paolosmythe
This is a strangely ambiguous suggestion. 'most solid' churches would…..?
So all churches which are not 'solid', plus some others which are, do not encourage their flock to search out 'truth'?
Forgive my ambiguity and allow me to clarify. By "solid", I mean those who have a good working knowledge of Scripture/doctrine and actively apply it to their own lives. I would propose that "less solid" churches typically (though not all of them) suck up all the air time on Christian TV w/ their drivel of how God wants every Christian to have a perfect life w/ no worries of money, and the way you obtain this "favor with God" is by sending them money. Please, don't misunderstand me here - I give to my local church, but it's not because I view it as some formula by which God will grant me my every desire.
Semantics aside, you will have to agree that those resources often offered up as being possessors of 'truth' are themselves things such as pastors and bibles. Whether what you say is true or not, it is nevertheless a case of preaching to the converted. Unless you are telling me that in the pews, next to the hymn books and new testaments, there are copies of 'The God Delusion' too?
You're implying that only Christians are challenged to seek truth, and that the answers for truth may only come by those from behind the pulpit. Please, correct me if I have misunderstood your assertion here. I have read MANY authors who were completely convinced of atheism and adopted many of the same views that you hold. Some of these guys, however, were cold case homicide detectives or journalists and used their skills and disciplines to search out truth by carefully examining claims and weighing evidences. What they found was so overwhelming that they could not deny their discoveries.
Okay so I am confused here….. There is not a need for faith in the religion you speak of?
Or are you utilising the charlatanical efforts behind 'marketing schemes' such as 'intelligent design' to promote the fraud that all is provable?
Again, sorry for the confusion. I would not say that God is "provable" beyond doubt. There must be faith involved, however, my case is that it is not a blind faith as many have assumed. Blind faith is a faith with absolutely zero evidence supporting it. As a hypothetical example, if I believe that you are a serial killer then I have put my faith in something that is completely unsubstantiated. Such is not the case with the Bible. The Bible has withstood several centuries of scrutiny via archaeology, history, etc. Places, people groups, and individual persons recorded in the Old & New Testament have been verified, and to deny such claims is to deny bonafide ancient artifacts, much of which was discovered by secular archaeologists with no Biblical bias. In fact, if the Bible were a fallacious concoction then archaeology would no doubt denounce its claims rather than uphold them.
Well your's is an understandably defensive way to perceive his efforts. I am not wishing to speak for him, nor condescend you, but just as scientists use terms such as 'god particle', his phrase is not meant literally, but is applied in a manner similar to how such a word is used in popular culture.
It is simply a refinement of communication, which can be deliberately misinterpreted by those so inclined.
I fear you've misunderstood what I said. I have heard Dawkins himself state in an interview that one of the driving reasons for writing his book is because he wants to see religion destroyed. This new brand of atheism is not passive.
Consider the meaning of 'substantiation'. Being told that something is true by a bloke down the pub, doesn't make it so.
You are quite correct. However, if that person began to research and investigate the claim for themselves then they now have the working knowledge to make a logical conclusion of whether said claim was true of false.
It is not for me to prove that something doesn't exists, when nothing has been found to prove that it does.
Consider the masses of money spent on finding evidence of god, and how little is published from such efforts. You think if any such evidence were found, it wouldn't be publicised the world over. The silence is deafening!
Let's say that you land on the surface of Mars and while making observations you see a set of titanium cubes. On these cubes are prime numbers and they are stacked in a pyramid formation in a numerically ascending order. What would be your first conclusion? Would it be that these cubes must have self-originated and organized themselves into a pyramid beginning w/ the lowest number and then ascend in numerical order? Logic would suggest that some form of intelligence organized such a structure even though you are the only one on the planet. Even though the structure is so simple that a child could've arranged it, it is now doubt assembled by an intelligence.
So, for me if it is not logically feasible to assume that these blocks just appeared and stacked themselves in numerical order then why would it be logically feasible for me to assume that the extreme complexities in DNA and proteins somehow appearred with no designer to the design whatsover?
You say that modern science disqualifies an intelligent designer, and I see that the more we discover the more logic suggests design. Consider some of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years - Galileo, Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Mendel - these men were all theists, and if they were able to see what we can see today they would only affirm their belief in a Designer do the overwhelming design in nature.
To say that the silence is deafening is indeed ironic. The evidence has never been louder.
Is this not your use of an 'act of charity' to enforce your POV? ie an act of selflessness being employed to ultimately, selfish ends?
What if I give up my life for a person? Would you still find charge of selfishness? In your POV, is there no such thing as a selfless act of love? If there is, then it seems quite unfair to label every act of kindness as ultimately self-serving. Thousands of Christians have been put to death (even still to this day) for their faith. To say they put their heads on the chopping block for selfish motives is ridiculous. They died for something they believed with their entire being would benefit others.
Todd, I have never suggested that the theory promoted in the bible is not sterling. It is what everyone would aspire to be in a perfect world. But this world is not perfect. And such theory fails to materialise in reality. In fact, the theory is cherry picked and skewed to perverse extents, to promote a sentiment of bigotry and exclusion. Ultimately, my POV is based upon the realities being more negative in magnitude, than the theoretical positives which might be possible.
I think you're making a generalized overstatement here. There are several national and global organizations that were spawned from the Biblical view of assisting those in need around the world. Christians stive to obey Christ's teachings - that doesn't mean they always do it perfectly.
You are no doubt about to suggest that christians know the evil in the world and the weakness of human nature but none of that ought to justify a lack of effort to change this world by good people. The problem here tho, is the presumption that only religious folk have such a capacity to be 'good'. And that is not only profoundly arrogant, but is completely bogus.
Well, I certainly wouldn't label myself as 'good', I'm a sinner just as much as the next guy. I never implied that only religious people are 'good'. In fact, I'd say that no one is 'good' - everyone that has ever told a white lie, stole a candy bar, or peeked on their buddies test sheet is a lying, cheating thief.
With pun intended, this is surprisingly 'holier than thou' in attitude. But even without baby jesus in my heart, I forgive you. I sense I have offended you and perhaps secretly I wanted to, coz…. Well…. Its when you are best motivated to put me on the defensive.
Really? You perceived that as "holier than thou"? I just made an observation based on your statements because who you've seen as Christians and who I've seen seem to be quite contrary to one another. I'm not faulting you for this, I'm just observing that it appears you've had limited interaction with genuine Christians, and based on that limited interaction you've formulated a generalized stereotype.
Afterall, a few posts back, you couldn't be bothered with me
What can I say? You talked me into it.
As ever and forever, I remain grateful to you for your time and effort. You may still convince me yet.
Ditto.
