Posted on 06/22/2007 9:07:12 AM PDT by Caleb1411
Well, I don't consider myself responsible for what they think, say, or do. We don't all sit down together at atheist conferences (yes, I know a few do) to decide what we collectively believe in, or don't believe in.
I don't support the inclusion of anything in science classes that doesn't have empirical evidence behind it. If you can prove God exists, then great. Use the scientific method, put your findings up for peer review, then teach it in school.
I am bothered by the apparent ease with which your mind holds so many contradictions:
You have no idea what my mind holds, so you shouldn't presume to be bothered by it. I have never supported the suppression of anyone's religion and the support the free exercise thereof. If you had ever read Hitchens, I think you would find that everyone believing exactly as he does is the last thing he would advocate.
How about everyone thinking for themselves? I have no problem with it, do you?
You say: “If condemning 3 billion people in Asia to eternal damnation because they haven’t converted to your religion makes sense to you, then I’m sure you never will get it.”
Excellent point.
God’s message to mankind is NOT the peculiar theologies of the various creeds. It is the guidance on how we treat our fellow humans.
Those eager to announce that persons following different theologies are going to Hell want to believe they are members of a select club. Such a belief contradicts the concept of a wise and compassionate God.
I don't support the inclusion of anything in science classes that doesn't have empirical evidence behind it. If you can prove God exists, then great. Use the scientific method, put your findings up for peer review, then teach it in school.
So then, G-d used evolution to create the world, but he didn't "guide" it? If this is how your mind operates, then it is full of contradictions. I can understand G-d being behind evolution, or not being behind evolution, but to insist that he "used evolution" to create the universe while attacking those who teach this in the classroom as "creationists" is illogical. If He did He did, and if He didn't He didn't. Or is that too simplistic for your "advanced" eighteenth century enlightenment rationalist mind?
The invocation of the definition of science is flawed. First, definitions can change over time (Newton certainly considered theology to be science), and to say that science is defined by scientists is to engage in tautology.
Reality is reality. Who ever said that only that which can be confirmed by the scientific method can exist? Have you ever tested "thou shalt not kill" by the scientific method? Or even whether or not George Washington ever existed? If there is a G-d who has communicated with man via Revelation, what He has so communicated is certainly just as true as anything confirmable by the scientific method.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that entire history of the world only ONE religion was founded publicly by the Invisible, Unincarnate G-d speaking directly to perhaps over three million people at once? Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that no other religion in the history of the world has ever even had the audacity to make this claim?
Don't tell me . . . you can't believe in a historical event because "that isn't science!" I bet you accept a great deal of non-supernatural historical facts on faith, however.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you. It's enough that you people's belief that all human thought is merely biochemical reactions in the brain while knowing full well that this makes "free thought" impossible!
But so they would consider themselves a "unique wonder". How would that limit the influence of God?
Del Tackett amazes me. He cuts through all the PC baloney with such precise logic. Folks, this is a wonderful course to introduce to your neighbors, families or churches.
“A point that often gets overlooked in a world full of Benny Hinns and Jan Crouches. Most churches and most Pastors are hard working and frugal”
Thank you.
The materialistic pastors stand out because they are unusual. Most live modest home lives.
I've never tested "love" either, but I believe in it. However, love cannot be proven scientifically, which is why they don't teach love and relationships in science class.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you.
Are you being serious? Who's ridicluing who here? You've insulted me 2 or 3 times in one post; I'm supposedly stuck in an 18th century mindset because I don't believe in bronze age deities and creation myths. You seem to think that I have some sort of stake in your opinions and spiritual beliefs, which I don't. Please, keep believing in your publicly founded, unincarnate, God, and quit pretending that I care that you do.
Christians believe we have all, to some extent, rebelled against God. The consequence is eternal separation from God, in a place void of God's goodness, which would indeed be Hell. God loves us, but being perfect, he must also be just. Our perfect God must also set a high standard, namely perfection. And none of us are perfect.
Yet, God found a way to balance both his love and need for justice. He sent his own perfect Son to die in our place. We deserved eternal death, but Jesus stood in our place and paid that sin debt for us. We need only to ask forgiveness and accept Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf to be able to enter God’s perfect heaven.
You say “Jesus appear(s) as a narcissist and sadist of the first order,” even though Jesus' main purpose here on earth was dedicated to saving sinners.
That’s like a drowning man accusing a life ring of being unreasonable for being the only floating object around.
Nicely stated. After all, it's "God so loved the world that He sent His only Son. . ." He wasn't obligated to save us from the consequences of our rebellion, but He paid the supreme price to do so.
Not quite. It's not theology; it's the acceptance of a Person who's God's appointed means of salvation, freely offered to anyone who's willing to accept Him.
Keats5 (post 89) has summed up God's offer succintly and ably.
I'm not an atheist, but you never win someone over to your point of view by insulting them and being hostile. It's better to be kind and lead by example, especially in instances like this. You can't argue someone into believing the way you believe.
“Nothing turns me off from religion more than the behavior of Christians in threads about Atheism.”
Bump to that. A Christ whose most basic commandments they so obviously ignore cannot have possibly been much of an influence, based on the statements of so many of them here.
...I’m not a Christian...
Um....I’m not a Jew either....
No - Not a Muslim - guess again (and stop stereotyping me please.)
Bogus threats from an idiot don’t mean much to me and I doubt they mean much to the mods.
My understanding of not believing in Jesus is that you will not be with Jesus in the afterlife. This is considered Hell. But since you don’t believe in anything, that’s what you will get when you die. Nothing.
Its highly possible that this is true, that we will get what we really want in our afterlife. And with the scientific evidence pointing more and more to design, I’m very comfortable with my belief in God.
Its the constant attacks by the God-haters, calling us stupid and so forth, despite the overwhelming evidence for design in nature (and the complete scientific failure of darwinism and the copernican principle) that provoke this backlash. You do know its perfectly OK to smear feces on statues of Jesus, and other Christian symbols, but how dare you say anything negative toward a transvestite marching in the gay pride parade with its pants down.
Hitchens agrees that Deism is reasonable. IMO Theism is also reasonable.
It’s religion he’s railing about...or maybe the human flaw expressed through religion.
That flaw being people turning their faith into fact, and their belief into certainty.
Another fallacy born of lumping all faiths together.
Virtually none of them ever intended to merge into the rest. Most of them contain explicit imperatives to try to convince others of their views, just like even this atheist Hitchens feels he must concerning his views. When Hitchens points his finger he forgets to notice the other four pointed back at himself.
Are you sure that's wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.