Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:04:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > I'm not sure of the relevance of your question.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> >
> > Well you stated that Lucifer (aka the Devil) has no power other than to lie.
> > Let's assume for the argument's sake that there is a devil (to stop me
> > getting in trouble from the people who don't believe there is). The lie is
> > in fact his most powerful weapon. He spreads the lie around that there is no
> > such thing as God, and does so in such a way that does not reveal his own
> > existence (he is cunning, you've got to give him that).
>
>
> Slow motion response. Sorry. An interesting scenario, but it doesn't seem to
> conflict with my supposition: i.e. he has no power other than the lie. It's
> not his most powerful weapon, it's his only weapon. Assuming of course, for
> the sake of argument, that there is a Lucifer, and that he takes that course
> of action.
I wasn't actually disagreeing with your supposition, just saying that he does
lie, and his lies are destructive (see below).
> > The destruction brought about by this lie is when people act upon it. The
> > action could be to actively seek to disprove the existence of God, or as
> > simple as to do absolutely nothing, with the existence or non-existence of
> > God having no effect whatsoever on your life. Whichever it is, in the
> > context of the Bible it's destructive.
> >
> > I'm just throwing a hypothetical up for general debate. If the Devil exists,
> > and spreads the lie that God doesn't exist, does this prove the non-existence
> > of God, or prove that He is who He is because the Devil (through spreading
> > his lies) is out to actively disprove His existence?
>
> I'm not sure where you can go with this. Maybe, maybe not, flip a coin,
> don't. I'm not saying you are wrong, or this couldn't be the case. I'm just
> not sure how this relates, that's all. Perhaps I am mistaking your comment:
>
> ">>>And if the lie is "There is no God....."?"
>
> as some kind of disagreement with my comments, and it is really an
> amplification. Or, I could simply be dense. :-)
>
> >
> > Here's another interesting thought. Out of all the religions in the world,
> > Christianity is one of the very very few (it may even be the only one) which
> > non-Christians actively try to disprove. Why is this so? If non-Christians
> > think it is such a waste of time why waste so much time trying to disprove
> > it?
> >
> >
> > Pete Callaway
>
> It only stands to reason that non-Christians are the ones trying to disprove
> Christianity. Go to India, I'm sure you will find non-Hindus trying to
> disprove Hinduism.
A couple of "non-Hindu's" were burnt alive by a group of Hindu's for doing
that very thing last year. One of them was a child. We tend to take our
religious freedom and freedom of speach laws for granted at times, and use
them as a barricade from which to lob all sorts of verbal bombs at each other.
I'm just as guilty as the next person. The fact that those "non-Hindu's" were
Christians doesn't suddenly make it right, or justified. But there are three
sides to every story.
> The more a religion tries to ingrain itself into the fabric of any culture,
> the more the non-believers are going to fight that particular religion. In
> the United States, that's Christianity. If Buddhists try to pass a law in
> this country requiring public schools to chant Buddhist mantras in class,
> just watch the non-Buddhists come out.
I actually disagree with forcing religious doctrine in the public school
system. It has been all but abolished in Australia due to our incredible
multicultural society, where public schools are comprised of more cultural
backgrounds than I knew existed. There are a number of schools in which over
90% of students are from non-english speaking backgrounds (and I'm not talking
France or Germany). But this is being debated elsewhere.
> I find myself in disagreement with your basic premise above once you take it
> out of the ethno-centric context.
There are a couple of countries in the Middle East region which would love
nothing more than to rid the world of the "Christian Evil", and they've lumped
people like Larry in there as well, because he is an "infidel". It doesn't
matter that he hates Christianity as much as they do, he's not one of them, so
he must die. I'm being general here, so I expect to be flamed.
Christianity is an evangelistic religion/belief (Oh no! I'm speaking on behalf
of all Christians again!), and different "denominations" place different
weight on the amount of evangelism which is "required" (I use this in
quotation marks because Karim used this particular word, making it sound like
we are forced against our will to evangelise, which is not the case).
I think this is why Christianity is a target, rather than just because
Christianity is the prevalent religion in America (or Australia), because it
is not. I'm not a "convert or be damned" person. When asked what I did on the
weekend I'll include "... and I went to church", to which the most common
response is "Oh, are you religious?", to which I respond "Yes, I'm a
Christian". I don't think that qualifies as getting into someone's spiritual
business. Generally the conversation stops there, but at times it has
progressed, and that is when I make my beliefs known. On a couple of occasions
this has led to a full-blown argument.
"Self Defense" is a good term, and I like it. Christianity does challenge a
lot of preconceptions and self and social determined opinions and beliefs. No-
one likes their beliefs dumped on, and that goes for Christians as much as non-
Christians, but why should we be singled out for special treatment when we
stand up and defend our beliefs? I ask that as a question and not as a
complaint.
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Slow motion response. Sorry. An interesting scenario, but it doesn't seem to conflict with my supposition: i.e. he has no power other than the lie. It's not his most powerful weapon, it's his only weapon. Assuming of course, for the sake of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
