Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:27:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> 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.
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 The Word, and we have reached our conclusions,
whatever they be, after careful consideration. We are not blind at all; we
have looked and found something other than what Christianity would have us find.
I recognize also that this is a basic and insurmountable difference
between our world views; I will not persuade you to share my view, nor will
you persuade me to share yours.
> > > 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.
Again, I see what you're getting at, but there are hundreds of witnesses
to UFOs and millions who claim paranormal experiences, but these are not
proof, and I don't think they'd even hold up as proof in court. All one
could hope to prove is that the witnesses believe they witnessed something.
> 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.
That much is certain!
> > > 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? :-)
Interesting. It would seem to me that we could discuss Biblical morals
even if The Bible didn't exist, since these morals are often held to be
absolute and self-evident. You make a good point though--it's not fair to
ask "according to The Bible, what happens to my soul?" and then say "but
don't use The Bible to answer me."
> > 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".
Again, fair enough, but we've once more reached an impasse.
Thank you for your thoughtful and level-headed response. I know I myself
have been guilty of a few heated words, so I can especially appreciate
restraint in responses.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
