Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:28:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1114 times
|
| |
|
|
We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy
discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers
to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > > I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs".
> > > Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one
> > > prove God's existence in a court?
> > As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony.
> > Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definition-objective.
> Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right?
> > > [Precisely] true. However, you did bring up that you held that God's
> > > existence could be proven in a court as opposed to a lab, somehow
> > > implying to me that a court is somehow not objective, but instead
> > > subjective. See above.
> > That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as
> > scientific-observable-and-repeatable-in-a-lab. I concur with the
> > definition given in my dictionary - Objective: treating or dealing
> > with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices.
>
> Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings
> or prejudices? Can you fully trust someone else's statement of their
> experiences? And personally, I will usually take physical
> evidence or highly plausible and likely logic over personal testimonial.
Certainly scientific evidence is preferable to testimonial evidence.
Both can and should be used for court proof. I think we basically
agree - we can't by definition have scientific proof or disproof of God,
while the remaining court proof is sufficient for me but not for you.
> > > > I've never said God is perfectly fair or treats everyone the same.
> > > > I will say He is perfectly just - there's a difference.
> > >
> > > Ah yes. Your real counter-point to my point is either:
> > > A. God is being fair in some way that we can't see (I.E. our
> > > definition of fair is incorrect)
> > > B. God need not be fair for reasons beyond our comprehension
> >
> > Neither A nor B. Again - I've never said God is fair.
> > Many aspects of Christianity are actually quite UNfair.
>
> Uh... isn't that just B? Or are you just arguing that we're
> capable of understanding why God need not be fair?
Hmm - I suppose we would have to define fair. If by fair you
mean God treating everybody equally, no - He doesn't.
> > ...However the Christ you are describing is not the Saviour that I know.
> > What you, Tom, etc. are saying about God doesn't line up with the Bible.
>
> Here's another phenomenal problem with Christianity, but not one of my
> real issues for not believing in it. It's FAR too inconsistent. What you say
> vs. what other Christians say can be WAY different from one another.
> I agree that I'm making assumptions about Christianity and basing my
> arguments on them, but if my assumptions are wrong, then DON'T go
> correcting the arguments. Correct the assumptions.
Quite - That's what I'm trying to do, but you don't seem to be
willing to have your assumptions corrected. :-)
> > Your premise is fundamentally flawed.
>
> Ah. So your ONLY disagreement (which is, I grant, a big one) is
> that the idea of evolution is not a logical conclusion to make.
NOT my only ;-) disagreement, just the most obvious one. The other
_primary_ one being your assumption that man is basically good.
> > Salvation is "based on" Christ's death on the cross.
> >
> > There's nothing you can DO or BE to get or earn or merit salvation. [2]
> > This is now the third time I'm quoting this passage from Ephesians - you
> > don't seem to be reading it. Salvation "is the GIFT of God; NOT as a
> > result of" 'X'. All you have to "do" is accept it.
>
> Ok, maybe it's the lingo. Or maybe you're just not getting what I'm
> asking. Or something. Communication error has happened.
> I'll attempt to ask again, hopefully more clearly.
>
> I see a man on the street. He's dying of thirst. I just happen to have:
> A. A truck full of Poland Springs(R) water (it's all owned by me) and
> B. Information on where he can go in the future to GET water if I'm not there
>
> I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that I "should", according to Christian
> morality, give him either some of A or B or both. I.E. I should "be" good.
> True? I should hope so, or else I don't know what to say about Christian
> morality, and you've got a lot of explaining to do to me so I can
> understand, cause otherwise I'll be completely confused.
lol True enough - A stereotypical act of Christian charity.
> Let's call the act of giving the man A and/or B 'good'. If it's not, then
> go back and correct me. But, assuming I'm right, WHY should I do that?
> WHY should I give him A or B or both? What happens if I don't? What
> happens if I do? WHY should I BE a good person? And keep in mind this
> is HYPOTHETICAL. You might say 'being' good is not based upon works,
> but it IS based on something (I certainly hope!). I would think (again,
> correct me if I'm wrong!) that BEING good is something not determined
> by your ACTIONS, but by your HYPOTHETICAL actions. IF you DID see
> someone in this situation, what WOULD you do, not what DID you do?
>
> Anyway, again, assuming you agree with the above, you have two recourses:
> 1. There is no reason. Good is an end in and of itself. One should be good
> because one should be good.
> 2. One should be good because ____________.
Why are you always so quick to fit things into your little definitions?
What if it's not A or B, but C or D, and what if (more likely) your original
hypothesis isn't accurate such that A, B, C, and D aren't even valid?
When you ask "Why SHOULD I be a good person" you are already including
the foundation of morality - right & wrong - good and evil. When one says
that people _should_ stop and a red light or that one _should_not_ molest
a child, right and wrong is implicit in the should/should not. This entire
line of questioning (and this is one of the two main branches) is somewhat
of a "catch-22" is it not?
<snipped birds of a feather flocking together>
> Anyway, you get the idea. So let me ask. Let's assume that feathers
> really DO come from birds. What could be done to PROVE it? How
> would my friend EVER know or even suspect the 'truth'?
Isn't it again a problem of definitions and classifications? God created
the first bird, including it's ability to reproduce. The first bird's
feathers He created (along with the bird) out of nothing, while subsequent
birds grow their own feathers, as He designed them to do. Why do you
and your friend have to be considered to be of opposing positions?
Previously, Steve wrote:
> > Again - premise - Not only do you assume that morals develop over time,
> > but more importantly, you base everything on evolution - the foundation
> > of sand I was referring to. The theory of evolution is absurd, so
> > consequently any hypothesis you base upon it will also be untrue.
and then Jennifer wrote:
> There frequently seems to be confusion between Evolution and the Theory of
> Evolution. Evolution, that is, the apparently directed or emergent change of
> species over time, without "Theory of" prefixed to it, is in a fact a process
> that has been demonstrated and is demonstrable. The evidence is all around
> you; this is why antibiotic resistant "superbugs" come into being, for example.
which David added to:
> VERY important distinction, and one that I touched on a little, I think,
> but not very much... And on that note-- Steve, could you be a little
> (a lot, really) more specific on which you meant, and what aspects you
> disagree with?
As Jennifer says - evolution, in the sense of change and development, is
quite apparent - and I would concur. The absurd part is when Darwin or
whomever claims that one species evolved into another, (a lizard grows
wings and becomes a bird, a cat becomes a dog becomes a horse, or
whatever the precise nonsense is) that all living things "just happened"
by chance, that the earth and everything else "evolved" into the amazing
universe we inhabit somehow without God having created it. That's the
theory for which I say there is no evidence, and it's the other main branch
I referred to. When I present creation as evidence of the Creator in our
hypothetical court and you? disallow it, I presume that you ascribe to
this theory. If you do, then let's make it the main branch and I'll show
you how it's rotten to the core and can't support the weight of scientific
and objective examination. If you don't, then it makes the other branches
interesting, and I shall have some rather pointed questions for you... 8-)
The choice of branch is yours, (the two I stated or another entirely)
but my male-single-tasker brain will work better if we stick to one. :-)
SRC
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Well-- I guess my issues here are that in order to stay focused on a topic, one must often branch out to its extremities, implications, and more importantly, it's roots, no matter how vast. And further, it is often helpful to examine areas (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) There is so much that is wrong in this statement I hardly know where to start. Perhaps I should say that if people feel "creationism vs evolution" is ground ploughed to desert, I'll leave my contribution at this one post. To focus the debate (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jennifer Clark writes: (...) VERY important distinction, and one that I touched on a little, I think, but not very much... And on that note-- Steve, could you be a little (a lot, really) more specific on which you (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, 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
|
|
|
|
