10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[Alex+R 0]

GG, I've answered you now 3 times over differing months/weeks, but you have yet to acknowledge me once. So. Here's the thing-- I don't think you actually want an answer, even though you asked me yourself. I don't think you will ever actually accept an answer either, and it shouldn't matter to you as you do not believe in G-d anyway. I'm not really sure why you won't accept any of the answers given; you are using some circular logic, but that in itself wouldn't really prevent you from accepting an answer.

If I ask a question about Islam and I am given an answer I find absurd, I accept it as being valid within the framework of their belief system. Being that you do not hold that G-d is really there anyway, isn't it logical to do the same?

Because you have been asking a question which presupposes a belief in G-d in the first place and also that gives authority to your assertion of what the Bible says as His words.

I would like to point out that you still ignored context and chose to do pick and choose. If I write a sentence, and I say "I think it is OK to kill someone in self-defence" and then you cut my sentance to say I said it is OK to kill someone and use it to justify murder, then how is that taking my thought in context? You are choosing to do the same thing here. That is fine if you wish to pick and choose, but you cannot say that it means what you assert then at that point.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it appears, and I could be wrong, that you are presupposing that G-d is fair. G-s is not fair and never has been and never will be. If G-d were fair, we would all go to hell.

Wow, very well written.

I agree there comes a point in threads where instead of just asking what the beliefs are, it becomes a questioning of why are those the beliefs. I could question so many things in this world, in so many religions and philosophies that I see giant holes in, but I don't do so in every thread about such a topic . If it's being discussed I might jump in with an opinion, but I don't go bringing it up myself all the time. My questions are: Why don't people believe there could be a God? Why is that opinion any more valid than believing in God? It's not. There is no proof that there is no God and there is not the kind of proof for a God existing that some people want. I believe there is proof of His existence in my life, certain things don't just happen coincidentally all the time. I have answered questions I have had about my own beliefs, which is why I have them.

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

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

A suspension of intellect, no. However, the belief in god requires one to ignore some of the realities that we experience in the physical world.

Depends on your belief in God, but I was only addressing the definition of faith. I have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. I have no proof that it will, though common sense, scientific theory and mathematical practice says it is a near certainty. None of this means I have suspended my intellect to believe in this. Having faith in something or someone does not necessarily make one stupid. IMO praying to God to save your life when you are on a plane flown by suicidal maniacs is stupid and pointless. Praying to God to help you find the strength in difficult times can be quite uplifting. To each their own. Just don't try and sell me a piece of toast with Jesus' face on it.

That doesn't make any sense. Science and knowledge support your "faith" in the sun and the rotation of the Earth. Faith in things the bible says requires you to SUSPEND what you know from science. You also must IGNORE contradictions and nonsense and approval of barbaric activities in the bible to "believe" in its teachings. You do have to suspend your disbelief to believe Jesus was some sort of mystical creature when there are plenty of reasonable explanations for why people might have thought he was a savior. You have to ignore Occam's razor and imagine that the most outlandish, ridiculous explanation is the right one. So yes, it is a suspension of intellect.

That said, faith doesn't make someone stupid. Faith is a choice. I choose to have faith my husband will never cheat on me, for example. Obviously, there's no guarantee of that, but if I thought about statistics and other things all day we'd never have trust, which a healthy relationship needs. So I get that sometimes faith is helpful and necessary. But sometimes you have to suspend what you know.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, so your argument isn't that nations can be self policing, but that Nuremburg proves that nations can come together to police other nations should the need arise?

As I said, you have dug such a huge hole, I'd step away if I were you, you risk burying yourself so deep you might never get out again.

again, reread what i wrote. jeesh.

The only thing I can say with absolute clarity about what you have written is that it does not constitute an argument for the abandonment of the Declaration of Human Rights.

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

Oh, so your argument isn't that nations can be self policing, but that Nuremburg proves that nations can come together to police other nations should the need arise?

As I said, you have dug such a huge hole, I'd step away if I were you, you risk burying yourself so deep you might never get out again.

again, reread what i wrote. jeesh.

The only thing I can say with absolute clarity about what you have written is that it does not constitute an argument for the abandonment of the Declaration of Human Rights.

it wasn't meant to

you done yet trying to put words in my mouth?

[Dr. Obvious 49]

That said, faith doesn't make someone stupid. Faith is a choice. I choose to have faith my husband will never cheat on me, for example. Obviously, there's no guarantee of that, but if I thought about statistics and other things all day we'd never have trust, which a healthy relationship needs. So I get that sometimes faith is helpful and necessary. But sometimes you have to suspend what you know.

I don't have faith that my husband won't cheat on me, I just know that it is very highly unlikely that he would. I base this on what I have been told about his past relationships by himself, his family, and friends. I know that he has told me on several occasions that he is very happy to be married, one reason because he hated dating. He has never given me any reason to suspect cheating. He is not the flirtatious type. He does not keep much female company, now or ever. He is also not the jealous type. All of these things and more lead me to believe, far more likely than not, that he will not cheat on me. Doesn't mean that it is impossible, but just very unlikely in the same way it is unlikely that god(s) exist.

I don't have faith about our marriage in general as much as I have hope about it. Like I hope I don't get cancer, not I have faith I won't.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not going over this again Charles. I tried to explain the reasoning in a thread before, but you didn't get it. I have no reason to believe you would get it now.

Rinse and repeat...

[Scott & Lai 12]

No, but his words and deeds are recorded in the Gospels, at least two of which were written by men who were with Jesus throughout his three-year ministry. But if you do not believe that those books actually record what Jesus really said, do you mean to say that if there were a "Book of Jesus," written by his hand, you would accept that as authentic? The fact is, most people in those times did not actually write down their own words directly; the normal practice was to dictate to a scribe who did the actual writing.

A book that we know was written by Jesus himself would not necessarily prove his divinity, but at least we would know from the horse's mouth, so to speak, what kind of people he envisioned his followers would be. Then we could apply the "True Christian" label more correctly. Right now, all we can really say is that we know maybe what he said filtered through his disciples who started writing the gospels a few years after he had died. Doesn't mean all they wrote was bad, just that we cannot be sure how much was correctly attributed.

Again, if you can't trust that the Gospels accurately record the words and deeds of Jesus, how could you be sure that a book purporting to be written by Jesus actually was written by him? I am not here dealing with whether such a book would "prove" Jesus' divinity.

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

But then why do we need organized religion? Can't people just love God or whatever they interpret to be The Unknowable and try to live honestly and act out of love?

My favourite point so far in this discussion. My answer is that we don't.

The Bible, to pick on Christianity as an example, is offered up as the Word of God. Yet it was written by the hand of man and man is notorious for not being truthful. So how can we trust the Bible to be an accurate representation of history? My answer is that we can't.

But the Church, and I include every denomination in that "C" word, uses the Bible as a tool of power. Power of the Church to guide, persuade and often dictate to their followers how to behave and how to act.

When the Bible was written, and especially the Old Testament, it is entirely possible that it was intended as an allegory, to guide, in a way that was understandable in those times, over 2,000 years ago, peoples' behaviour. Written as the "Word of God", to represent an absolute code of conduct and example, few would have questioned its veracity, as science was in its infancy and lines of communication were extended. As such, it may have been very useful in keeping the population in line. Judging by the way certain denominations have used the Bible since, this practice continues to this very day.

I know I have used Christianity as an example, but it is the religion I am most familiar with. I have no intention of being exclusive here. All organised religion bears the same traits, to exert power and influence over its followers.

But the root of all faith must be personal. Whatever the faith to which you belong, your beliefs come from within you. Your church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or whatever, is merely a symbolic representation that you belong somewhere. Take away the place and your faith remains, if you truly have faith.

So, I say no, we don't need organised religion.

P

Pooky,

If people are looking to religion to tell them what to do, then I would agree that organized religion has become a lost cause. An organized religion should provide support, community and direction in one's life, but it shouldn't replace one's own intellect or thought process with regard to one's relationship with God.

As for the claim that the Bible is the 'Word of God', to many Christians, that is metaphorical and not literal. To me, it means there are inspirational truths about what is right and just in this world, but interpreting just what those truths are requires discernment and the use of one's intellect as well as one's conscience.

[jundp 191]

Of course they lost the war and it would be foolhardy. But that's not what you said earlier about "civilized nations." You said they should be allowed to try for human rights violations themselves.

I don't agree. I wouldn't trust the Rwandan government to try the leaders responsible for inflicting horrific human rights violations on their people any more than the Germans should have been trusted at that time.

I think you are backtracking because you don't want to admit that the UDHR does have merit and is a worthy document and has been useful.

that begs the question then of if then nazi germany could be considered civilized, wouldn't it?

No Nazi Germany can't be considered civilized, but then when do we make that judgment (not about the Nazis)? Rwanda was not involved in a world war and they did not surrender. Same can be said about Sudan right now. But I also wouldn't call them civilized in their actions. And the UDHR is the very reason why the UN is involved and why the US and other countries have spoken out against such atrocities and tried to put a stop to them.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Again, if you can't trust that the Gospels accurately record the words and deeds of Jesus, how could you be sure that a book purporting to be written by Jesus actually was written by him? I am not here dealing with whether such a book would "prove" Jesus' divinity.

In that vein, how do you know that any writing by any ancient historical figure was actually their writing? If the evidence is sufficient enough to say that yes, this was indeed the author, then there shouldn't be any real argument. The evidence could be contemporary critique or the document dates to the correct timeframe in the correct language using the correct materials, for instance. I would not reject the document soley on the claim Jesus himself wrote it. Rather, I would just like to have sufficent proof as the situation would allow to back up the claim. It should not be too terribly difficult as I am just judging it like I would any other historical document. If the preponderance of the evidence is strongly in the favor of Jesus having written it, then good. I am willing to accept that because I don't have a time machine to go back and watch him do it.

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

I am not going over this again Charles. I tried to explain the reasoning in a thread before, but you didn't get it. I have no reason to believe you would get it now.

Rinse and repeat...

No Nazi Germany can't be considered civilized, but then when do we make that judgment (not about the Nazis)? Rwanda was not involved in a world war and they did not surrender. Same can be said about Sudan right now. But I also wouldn't call them civilized in their actions. And the UDHR is the very reason why the UN is involved and why the US and other countries have spoken out against such atrocities and tried to put a stop to them.

and still......nothing happens.

[NavarreMan 10]

GG, I've answered you now 3 times over differing months/weeks, but you have yet to acknowledge me once. So. Here's the thing-- I don't think you actually want an answer, even though you asked me yourself. I don't think you will ever actually accept an answer either, and it shouldn't matter to you as you do not believe in G-d anyway. I'm not really sure why you won't accept any of the answers given; you are using some circular logic, but that in itself wouldn't really prevent you from accepting an answer.

If I ask a question about Islam and I am given an answer I find absurd, I accept it as being valid within the framework of their belief system. Being that you do not hold that G-d is really there anyway, isn't it logical to do the same?

Because you have been asking a question which presupposes a belief in G-d in the first place and also that gives authority to your assertion of what the Bible says as His words.

I would like to point out that you still ignored context and chose to do pick and choose. If I write a sentence, and I say "I think it is OK to kill someone in self-defence" and then you cut my sentance to say I said it is OK to kill someone and use it to justify murder, then how is that taking my thought in context? You are choosing to do the same thing here. That is fine if you wish to pick and choose, but you cannot say that it means what you assert then at that point.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it appears, and I could be wrong, that you are presupposing that G-d is fair. G-s is not fair and never has been and never will be. If G-d were fair, we would all go to hell.

Wow, very well written.

I agree there comes a point in threads where instead of just asking what the beliefs are, it becomes a questioning of why are those the beliefs. I could question so many things in this world, in so many religions and philosophies that I see giant holes in, but I don't do so in every thread about such a topic . If it's being discussed I might jump in with an opinion, but I don't go bringing it up myself all the time. My questions are: Why don't people believe there could be a God? Why is that opinion any more valid than believing in God? It's not. There is no proof that there is no God and there is not the kind of proof for a God existing that some people want. I believe there is proof of His existence in my life, certain things don't just happen coincidentally all the time. I have answered questions I have had about my own beliefs, which is why I have them.

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

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

A suspension of intellect, no. However, the belief in god requires one to ignore some of the realities that we experience in the physical world.

Depends on your belief in God, but I was only addressing the definition of faith. I have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. I have no proof that it will, though common sense, scientific theory and mathematical practice says it is a near certainty. None of this means I have suspended my intellect to believe in this. Having faith in something or someone does not necessarily make one stupid. IMO praying to God to save your life when you are on a plane flown by suicidal maniacs is stupid and pointless. Praying to God to help you find the strength in difficult times can be quite uplifting. To each their own. Just don't try and sell me a piece of toast with Jesus' face on it.

That doesn't make any sense. Science and knowledge support your "faith" in the sun and the rotation of the Earth. Faith in things the bible says requires you to SUSPEND what you know from science. You also must IGNORE contradictions and nonsense and approval of barbaric activities in the bible to "believe" in its teachings. You do have to suspend your disbelief to believe Jesus was some sort of mystical creature when there are plenty of reasonable explanations for why people might have thought he was a savior. You have to ignore Occam's razor and imagine that the most outlandish, ridiculous explanation is the right one. So yes, it is a suspension of intellect.

That said, faith doesn't make someone stupid. Faith is a choice. I choose to have faith my husband will never cheat on me, for example. Obviously, there's no guarantee of that, but if I thought about statistics and other things all day we'd never have trust, which a healthy relationship needs. So I get that sometimes faith is helpful and necessary. But sometimes you have to suspend what you know.

It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to me. So who is right? You obviously have faith that everything taught to you in school was fact. Your proof of this would be to quote the same text books your learned from. So who is to say that those books were any more correct than ones teaching a different idea? We each have faith that what we have experienced and learned in our lives is true and correct from our perspective and no one person can speak definitively that one thing is correct and absolute. I am not saying that I am right nor am I saying that you are right. I am saying that a person who closes their mind to science to believe in their faith is, in their mind, as correct as a person who does the same with faith for their belief in science. They might believe that a person who shuns faith will live an eternity of damnation whereas a science scholar will certainly think that the zealot is foolish and nuts. Who is right? It is absolutely a personal choice and should be respected for what it is. The problems arrise when you try to force the other side to swallow what you are feeding them. That's when the fights start.

[SteveLaura 0]

I love the Human Rights subplot running through this thread. It's like a deliciously satisfying novella.

[✿Ice Rain✿ 0]

Everything happens for a reason and only God knows of it. People are not entitled to know everything because God is the ONLY the ONE that knows everything.

Just wondering what you think of this, does he support his beliefs.

Edited June 1, 2008 by SHAPE OF MY HEART