I know, I read these statements and I absolutely reject these tactics (this "eye for an eye" and "let God sort them out" isn't quite my world). Of course, those who were responsible should be brought to justice but that's not the issue here.
You've probably heard this before but I will add that Christianity is not so much about religion as it is about knowing God personally.
The problem with this is that you can apply it to other religions as well. Others also know their god(s) personally and it is definitely not your god (and there are myriads of deities that were personally known by their worshippers). So what makes you so sure that this god-experience isn't an artifact of your brain?
Concerning the beliefs of bin Laden and the terrorists I am sure they are respectively were genuine. Fanatics are not only convinced of their beliefs (what's quite normal) but they lack doubt - the doubt that they may err. Strong held convictions are prone to turn into blinders and this is often the case with religions (but also secular ideologies) because they claim inerrancy for themselves.
What I meant when I said that religion is the problem was that the concept of religion (with its beliefs in deities, the supernatural, etc.) doesn't make sense to me. To pick a certain religion without being convinced that the concept behind religion is reasonable is doing the second step before the first.
Regards
Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.
[Oscar Wilde]
You seem to be going around in circles.You are saying basically the same thing you said in #111 to which I answered in #123.I gave you a reason why I believe what I believe,not something based on an experience.You obviously didn't see it that way hence you say the same thing again.I hope you are not arguing on atheist auto-pilot here.
" Concerning the beliefs of bin Laden and the terrorists I am sure they are respectively were genuine. Fanatics are not only convinced of their beliefs (what's quite normal) but they lack doubt - the doubt that they may err. Strong held convictions are prone to turn into blinders and this is often the case with religions (but also secular ideologies) because they claim inerrancy for themselves."
So..."they lack doubt - the doubt they may err" which would make them prone to going right past any rational statements and continue in their dogmatic viewpoint yes?
and "Strong held convictions are prone to turn into blinders and this is often the case with religions (but also secular ideologies)..."
They certainly are and to be honest I think you have just demonstrated that yourself by going straight past my reason and saying the same thing again....ie:"what makes you so sure?"
"What I meant when I said that religion is the problem was that the concept of religion (with its beliefs in deities, the supernatural, etc.) doesn't make sense to me. To pick a certain religion without being convinced that the concept behind religion is reasonable is doing the second step before the first."
You are doing it again friend..."to pick a certain religion without being convinced" is not what I am doing or have done and the fact it has come up three times already in spite of my explainations tells me that you have "Strong held convictions are prone to turn into blinders" more right than you obviously realize.
Do you believe you are immune to this?
thanks for the reply,at the least I will call you friend.
May God bless you and God bless America.
ps thanks Dan! you're a champ!