10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[Scott & Lai 12]

Steven, faith IS a suspension of intellect. That's the definition of faith. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If you believe in a god because you got there rationally, through scientific method, then you don't have faith. That's why it's called "faith."

Whose definition? It certainly isn't mine.

[Alex+R 0]

Steven, faith IS a suspension of intellect. That's the definition of faith. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If you believe in a god because you got there rationally, through scientific method, then you don't have faith. That's why it's called "faith."

Whose definition? It certainly isn't mine.

So your religion is because you believe it is all literally true and that substantial proof supports that?

If so, how do you explain, for example, the bible's support of slavery?

There is no "I believe it because I know in my heart that it's true, and I don't need evidence"?

Because that's faith. Faith is belief, not empirical proof.

[NavarreMan 10]

FAITH

Pronunciation: \'fāth\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \'fāths, sometimes 'fāthz\

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

Date: 13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

[Alex+R 0]

"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust"

That's what I'm talking about

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Alex, do you have faith in yourself?

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

No, the UN will not and should not declare war on those countries who are currently not signed up to the Declaration. Again, again, again, that does not make the Declaration invalid or worthless or 'toothless' it simply means more work needs to be done to educate these people of the value of human life and the importance of a declaration of what is the value of human life in order to protect it.

Also, and you seem to have missed this somewhere, where the declaration has been adopted (which is a significant portion of countries globally) human rights abuses are reported and dealt with in courts of law. Again, this is not possible without the Declaration.

I am glad to see however, that you think that to value human life is a hilarious concept. Enlightenment - a long way off.

wrong there - it's due to the adoption of laws that allow a country's courts to try someone - not the declaration of rights that you so carry on about. the declaration of rights isn't a charge that will stick, only the laws of the country can a case be tried.

eta: the declaration of rights by the un remains toothless.

Edited May 28, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[jundp 191]

For the love of whatever god you choose to throw in your lot with, lay off the declaration of human rights. Too much stupid all at once.

Why?

Because the UDHR is not worthy of being upheld or because one can't be Christian and also believe the UDHR is worthy of being upheld?

[sj5 4]

hmmmmm My GOD doesn't kill people who aren't virgin when they marry, homosexual, disobedient teenagers, and who work in Sabbath day... WHO THE FUCKKING idiot made up it? anyway, none of his fuckingg business if i believed in GOD.

I believed that hurting others Physically/emotional/feelings, cheating, killing, rape, and stealing are bad things.

Edited May 28, 2008 by SJ

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I will say this, I know that some who claim christianity are the most compassionate people on earth. However, they didn't espouse political ideology that puts the individual above all else. I guess that is something that I have had to learn the "American way", the individual is prized above all else but I just can't square that with the tenets of christianity. Quite a puzzle.

A second post in a row that I agree with, particularly what I bolded. It is one of the things that I don't understand either.

I thought it was because of the phrase 'God only helps those who help themselves.'.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, faith IS a suspension of intellect. That's the definition of faith. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If you believe in a god because you got there rationally, through scientific method, then you don't have faith. That's why it's called "faith."

Whose definition? It certainly isn't mine.

Alex, does putting trust in someone or something require a suspension of your intellect? (I'm talking outside of any belief in God). We put a lot of trust (faith) in things that we may personally not fully understand or know...we do it everyday. Having a similar faith in a God isn't that different in that it is the same mental process.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steven, faith IS a suspension of intellect. That's the definition of faith. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If you believe in a god because you got there rationally, through scientific method, then you don't have faith. That's why it's called "faith."

Whose definition? It certainly isn't mine.

Alex, does putting trust in someone or something require a suspension of your intellect? (I'm talking outside of any belief in God). We put a lot of trust (faith) in things that we may personally not fully understand or know...we do it everyday. Having a similar faith in a God isn't that different in that it is the same mental process.

Very nice Steve

[youtube 0]

http://www.kgov.com

knowing the truth will set you free.......

Edited May 28, 2008 by n@W

[Cassie 8]

I will say this, I know that some who claim christianity are the most compassionate people on earth. However, they didn't espouse political ideology that puts the individual above all else. I guess that is something that I have had to learn the "American way", the individual is prized above all else but I just can't square that with the tenets of christianity. Quite a puzzle.

A second post in a row that I agree with, particularly what I bolded. It is one of the things that I don't understand either.

I thought it was because of the phrase 'God only helps those who help themselves.'.

A phrase that comes from Ben Franklin, and not the Bible. It's pretty clear in the New Testament that we are to put others before ourselves.

[Nasturtium 500]

#1. That man clearly does not understand what science is. He is mixing science and religion like a person ignorant of science would do. Clearly, he has an axe to grind and is trying to grab at any straws to do it.

#2. He states that any answer to the question would be an excuse, so logically, he will not accept any answer. he has made up his mind that there are no answers to his questions which could possibly be logical.

#3. He is obviously unfamiliar with the code of law in the Bible and its purposes.

#4. How can he logically assert that Yeshua has appeared to no one? interesting that this man is omnipotent. No real scientist would make such a claim or even touch the subjuect. it is not of science and is not easily measurable unless you interview every person in the wrld from all time periods.

#5. He is an interesting picker-and-chooser about verses and what prayer is. He clearly failed reading comprehension because he forgot about context.

#6. He clearly knows nothing of passover or else he wouldn't ask that question about communion. Does he claim to have read the Bible in its entirety? Becuase if so, he really missed a lot of parts.

#7. he doesn't understand free will or the consequences of sin. He also does not understand what the New testament is or talks about, and he doesn't understand the Old testament and what it talks about and its correlation to the new.

#8. it is pointless and a waste of time for someone to spend this much of their energy on some kind of personal vendetta against an entire belief system of billions of people, especially if as he stated before, he will not accept any answers.

[Nasturtium 500]

#1. That man clearly does not understand what science is. He is mixing science and religion like a person ignorant of science would do. Clearly, he has an axe to grind and is trying to grab at any straws to do it.

#2. He states that any answer to the question would be an excuse, so logically, he will not accept any answer. he has made up his mind that there are no answers to his questions which could possibly be logical.

#3. He is obviously unfamiliar with the code of law in the Bible and its purposes.

#4. How can he logically assert that Yeshua has appeared to no one? interesting that this man is omnipotent. No real scientist would make such a claim or even touch the subjuect. it is not of science and is not easily measurable unless you interview every person in the wrld from all time periods.

#5. He is an interesting picker-and-chooser about verses and what prayer is. He clearly failed reading comprehension because he forgot about context.

#6. He clearly knows nothing of passover or else he wouldn't ask that question about communion. Does he claim to have read the Bible in its entirety? Becuase if so, he really missed a lot of parts.

#7. he doesn't understand free will or the consequences of sin. He also does not understand what the New testament is or talks about, and he doesn't understand the Old testament and what it talks about and its correlation to the new.

#8. it is pointless and a waste of time for someone to spend this much of their energy on some kind of personal vendetta against an entire belief system of billions of people, especially if as he stated before, he will not accept any answers.

Oh! And what kind of evidence for miracles does he want? Does he even know what the miracles are? If he did, what kind of evidence would he require? There are no ways to preserve a miracle and definately no way to preserve evidence of what was said to have happened. That was by far the funniest question he asked.