Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:46:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> That's good - many just blindly proceed along the path to destruction.
Having sucked up a whole previous debate's worth of this sort of attack,
I'm going to address this briefly. I am not blind, nor am I proceeding
along a path of destruction any more certainly than you are. I'm sure it's
possible to discuss religion rationally without either side resorting to
insulting the other, but many among us here seem unable to do so. Every few
posts the terms "ignorant," "coward," "blind," "foolish," or "childish"
creep into the rhetoric, and they are nothing more than ad hominem attacks
in the absence of any stronger persuasion. For the most part these attacks
have come from the moral religious apologists rather than the godless among
us, and more often than not they're laced with a patronizing
"for-your-own-good" assertion. I would be much more interested in hearing
an opposing view without having to be berated repeatedly for disagreement.
> You could prove the existence of God or love in a court, but not a lab.
Really? On what grounds? Nonexistent eyewitness evidence? Ambiguous
archaelogical data? The Bible? I frankly doubt it. The best you could
prove is that you can't prove one way or the other.
Before you cite other historical events that similarly wouldn't hold up in
court, I will point out that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence." That is, the evidence necessary to "prove" that Hannibal crossed
the Alps is fundamentally different from the evidence necessary to "prove"
that Jesus rose from the dead.
> Christmas and Easter are celebrations of the three most significant events
> in history - Christ's birth, death, and resurrection. (Even the very word
> history, comes from His_Story.) (I could go on at great length, but I
> don't think that's what you're after here.)
From Dictionary.com:
[Middle English histoire, from Old French from Latin historia, from Greek
from historein, to inquire, from histr, learned man; see weid- in
Indo-European Roots.]
> 3. I would say that where you spend eternity is of utmost importance.
> Christ spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. The answers
> to your questions are in the Bible.
Sure, if you assume outright that The Bible is correct. If one approaches
the question rationally, suspending judgment until convinced of an
argument's veracity, then The Bible will not conclusively answer anything.
> 4. It's the very turning away from God that is the root cause of the
> problems (and problems is a rather drastic understatement) that are
> destroying our nation from within.
This is propaganda and a falacy. The "problems" facing our nation have
preceded the very existence of our nation, and will continue to exist long
after the US is gone, and it will have nothing to do with religion. The
problems have always stemmed from human nature, and the assertion that
religion might somehow magically erase such problems is shortsighted and
unrealistic. The Bible points out, as have several in recent debates, that
"There is nothing new under the Sun" (which, as all else in The Bible, is a
metaphorical claim rather than a literal truth. Further, it's an example of
a good message found in The Bible that would remain with or without the
actual existence of God). The problems you cite are limited neither to our
nation nor to the non-religious.
> You said yourself that this fourth point is your main focus; I have a
> basic question for you - If you do not base your ethical principles on
> the Bible, upon what do you base them?
I base mine on the basic assumption that all people should be treated with
equal respect until they demonstrate otherwise. The Christian tradition is
full of great messages and ways of dealing with people, but those messages
would remain whether God exists or not.
I would return the question to you: if you base your ethical principles on
The Bible, how do you know that you're not backing the wrong theistic horse?
Why not the teachings of Buddha or Mohammed?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I apologize if you were offended - my intent was not to be insulting. If I see someone walking into a nuclear reactor, I presume that they are doing so "blindly", and try to warn them of the danger - they can't see the radiation that's killing (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) That's good - many just blindly proceed along the path to destruction. Christ Himself said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
