Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:12:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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...
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 them.
> > You could prove the existence of God or love in a court, but not a lab.
>
> Really? On what grounds? Nonexistent eyewitness evidence?
Hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection, millions who will testify
to their own experiences - hardly nonexistent.
> 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.
Fair enough - I don't think this would be the forum for such a proof
though. As I stated in another post, we lack an impartial judge/jury.
> > 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.
Yes - I base everything upon the Word of God. If you choose not to
accept the Bible "into evidence", you can't have much of a discussion
about Christianity or Biblical morals, can you? :-)
> 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?
Because there isn't a theistic horse race. Buddha and Mohammed are
dead men - I serve the risen Lord who created everything and everyone,
including the "horses" in your "race".
SRC
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I understand your intent and accept your apology, but you must recognize that a person who does not share your views of Christianity is apt to feel insulted at being called blind. Many among us have duly considered the questions of Faith and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
