Subject:
|
Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:19:28 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETstopspammers
|
Viewed:
|
1266 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> You're free to reject science, that's your choice. (and saying there are
> things higher than science, is, ultimately, to reject it. When the safe
> is falling down on your head, feel free to count on your faith to save
> you. I think I'll step aside instead of counting on faith.)
Are the two mutually exclusive?
> But if I can't use a theory to predict things, can't prove it, and can't
> disprove it, it has no meaning to me and no relevance to my life.
> Theories are useful only *because* they predict things, not as logic
> puzzles in and of themselves. What does your religion predict that
> science can't explain? Science adequately explains everything that I
> find to need explaining, and I don't take sucker bets (such as deciding
> to blow off living this life and getting ready for an afterlife just in
> case there is one).
I would never advocate that. In fact, Jesus came so that we might have more abundant
life HERE and NOW. Christianity is all about how we live NOW, and how we treat our
neighbors NOW. Being faithful to that call now is what's important; the afterlife will
take care of itself.
> As I've said before, I live a pretty moral life, and I explicitly choose
> to take whatever punishment your god decides to dish out for not
> groveling at his feet the way you do. I'm pretty sure he doesn't exist,
> so it's a safe bet. And if he does, he, if he's a just god, will be
> satisfied with my morality.
And this is where I want an answer from you. *Why* be good, *why* be moral? And also,
from where did these concepts originate?
> If he isn't a just god and decides to punish me for not groveling,
> despite my righteousness, he isn't worthy of my worship anyway. I'd
> rather suffer in hell, knowing the justness of my cause, than eat
> ambrosia at the feet of a self aggrandizing, capricious and sadistic god
> (like this one appears to be according to your own sacred texts) while
> feeling like a hypocrite.
>
> That pretty much settles it as far as I am concerned.
It *is* an academic argument, but I have to say that you bring a lot of preconceived
notions about Christianity to the table; ones to which not even I adhere. Call me a
heretic, but don't sell the Gospel short because of how screwed up you think the
Christian church is. It *is* screwed up, but that has nothing to do with the message,
only human shortcomings.
> Feel free to continue squirming out of questions about the nature of god
> and the validity of your sacred books, because the more you squirm, the
> more you prove my point. But I'm done with this debate unless I just
> can't resist the temptation to jump in again, as I'm not saying anything
> that wasn't said before, nor are you. Still I DO like to hear myself gab
> so who knows.
I turn down the sound on my monitor when I read your posts;-)
-John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
