In response to our declining christain morality
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Dude...You just spent this whole thread asserting your indisputably certainty that Christianity is a made up fairy tale...
Whatever, I guess your going to spend eternity in heaven when you die. This notion is so ludicrous that the English language doesn't provide me with enough words to explain the absurdity of your beleifs. Just the concept of heaven is so ludicrous. Does heaven even have buildings? What form of matter is your soul made of? Will people have clothes? Is their gravity in heaven? C'mon man, the bibical versions of heaven and hell are complete fairy tale. That's a fact jack.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
the bibical versions of heaven and hell are complete fairy tale
Uhhhh...What are those, exactly? :~
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
the bibical versions of heaven and hell are complete fairy tale
Uhhhh...What are those, exactly? :~
Red Stateler wrote:
Uhhhh...What are those, exactly?
Heavenis where Christians claim to go when they die. Even if you have no concept of what it is. You get to meet your savior since he doesn't exist on Earth.
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
then where the hell was he hiding before?
In the devil.
Red Stateler wrote:
In the devil.
so 2 imaginary friends equal one omnipotent being?
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life... "God - the imaginary friend for adults..." - George Carlin If Science came from religion, then why do Christians believe Jesus is magic?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Ah...So then you admit to having no first-hand experience?
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're applying your observations of Islam to Christianity?
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
Red Stateler wrote:
Can you give some examples and demonstrate how Christians have usurped the judiciary (since they interpret laws) to exhert "control"?
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't recall him invoking the name of God for a justification of war.
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
Red Stateler wrote:
why does that matter and how is that relevant (other than the fact that it offends your sensibilities.
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
Red Stateler wrote:
As moral and spritual leaders, that is a role of every church...To offer spiritual guidance.
You say Toe-May-Toe, I say Toe-Mah-Toe!
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes, because you've basically admitted to making value judgements based on the media and by applying Islam's behavior to Christianity. You also avoided my question as to what experience you have with religion to qualify your value judgement. Experience with media isn't worth anything.
X| Complete blather! X|
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
-
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell. As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life. Much of biblical morality was needed in a society without birth control. The Bible was a great framework for creation of a stable society. But times change, and Christianity is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. I would argue that increasing "social anomie" - Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals - is a major part of our problem. Since our victory in World War II, Americans do lack purpose. No matter how money you make, you're still gonna die, so what's the point? The solution is not to find Jesus, but rather for all of us to use our god given intelligence, imagination and technology to figure out why the hell we are here in the first place. IMHO, the purpose of humanity might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity. Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
We've been here before but clearly you missed it:laugh:
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible
The problem is the 'I' right at the beggining. You speak on your own authority. Jesus speaks on the authority of his father in heaven. Neither your opinion nor your reasoning founded on your assumptions and your humanly limited understanding can ever challenge that. Nor can mine or anyone elses. You call the Bible
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life
but placing any value on that statement assumes you understand the Bible sufficiently to make such an assessment. If it is the word of God then we have no reason to believe that this should be the case. The logical bear trap of not being able to rationalise about the existence or otherwise of God without making the assumption either that he does or does not exist, beforehand, can't be escaped. I didn't just choose to use my brain. I use the brain I was given because that's what I was given it for. If the modern world is deviating more and more from the teachings of Christ then it is the world that is in trouble not the teachings of its creator.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
We've been here before but clearly you missed it:laugh:
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible
The problem is the 'I' right at the beggining. You speak on your own authority. Jesus speaks on the authority of his father in heaven. Neither your opinion nor your reasoning founded on your assumptions and your humanly limited understanding can ever challenge that. Nor can mine or anyone elses. You call the Bible
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life
but placing any value on that statement assumes you understand the Bible sufficiently to make such an assessment. If it is the word of God then we have no reason to believe that this should be the case. The logical bear trap of not being able to rationalise about the existence or otherwise of God without making the assumption either that he does or does not exist, beforehand, can't be escaped. I didn't just choose to use my brain. I use the brain I was given because that's what I was given it for. If the modern world is deviating more and more from the teachings of Christ then it is the world that is in trouble not the teachings of its creator.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man. Damn won't death be great. Christians are full shit. I've never met one that really wants to die. Even though they tell you they are going to paradise.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The problem is the 'I' right at the beggining. You speak on your own authority. Jesus speaks on the authority of his father in heaven. Neither your opinion nor your reasoning founded on your assumptions and your humanly limited understanding can ever challenge that. Nor can mine or anyone elses.
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Red Stateler wrote:
apaprently without any first-hand experience.
Wrong. I just haven't chosen to discuss my personal religious experiences with you yet.
Red Stateler wrote:
You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
No, I'm grouping Christianity and Islam (along with Judaism and others) into one group called "organized religion".
Red Stateler wrote:
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole.
I pass judgment of the whole based on the collective actions of the individual religions. Not unlike you passing judgment on atheists as a group based on the actions of the ACLU.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media)
Just because I haven't told you about my personal experience with Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Give it a rest already.
-
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell. As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life. Much of biblical morality was needed in a society without birth control. The Bible was a great framework for creation of a stable society. But times change, and Christianity is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. I would argue that increasing "social anomie" - Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals - is a major part of our problem. Since our victory in World War II, Americans do lack purpose. No matter how money you make, you're still gonna die, so what's the point? The solution is not to find Jesus, but rather for all of us to use our god given intelligence, imagination and technology to figure out why the hell we are here in the first place. IMHO, the purpose of humanity might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity. Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
Todd, First, I respect whatever you believe or don't believe when it comes to religion. However, most religions support the Golden Rule of being nice to rest of your humankind. Now, a person can certainly be nice without having religion. For some of us though, religion brings us a comfort to some of those big questions in life. I don't care what religion a person believes as long as: 1. They do not hurt other people 2. They accept the religion as a choice. Some of your statements to those who are relgious are almost mean. This is a topic that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see the other side. What we really need to do, is RESPECT a person's beliefs. We can try to persuade, but at the end we must accept what the other believes and we should not mock those people. I would personally find it odd if someone prayed to the Cookie Monster (why did someone bring up cookies????) and created a faith around that. But if it made a person happy to believe that, then I'm for it.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
Red Stateler wrote:
In the devil.
so 2 imaginary friends equal one omnipotent being?
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life... "God - the imaginary friend for adults..." - George Carlin If Science came from religion, then why do Christians believe Jesus is magic?
-
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man. Damn won't death be great. Christians are full shit. I've never met one that really wants to die. Even though they tell you they are going to paradise.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The problem is the 'I' right at the beggining. You speak on your own authority. Jesus speaks on the authority of his father in heaven. Neither your opinion nor your reasoning founded on your assumptions and your humanly limited understanding can ever challenge that. Nor can mine or anyone elses.
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man.
I am living life to the full and have no fear of death, yes. Surprised that you'd want that too, no.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
No. I speak the truth and I don't think you understand me because the truth is not in you. If you think I'm easily manipulated then you clearly know nothing about me. Don't feel sorry for me, my eternal future is secure, look to your own. Your argument is, in the end, not with me but with God. It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Mike Mullikin wrote:
g. I just haven't chosen to discuss my personal religious experiences with you yet.
In other words, you haven't had enough time to make it up yet. I asked you what experience you had, and you said from the media.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, I'm grouping Christianity and Islam (along with Judaism and others) into one group called "organized religion".
And applying the properties of Islam upwards to organized religion. I thought you were a developer. Don't you know how inheretance works?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I pass judgment of the whole based on the collective actions of the individual religions. Not unlike you passing judgment on atheists as a group based on the actions of the ACLU.
I don't pass judgement on atheists as a group because of the ACLU. I pass judgement on their flawed ideology. I have personally known probably dozens of atheists in my life and discussed and learned the foundations of their beliefs from them. I've also read various justifications for secular humanism and books on ethics, philosophy and their origins. I contend that atheism is specifically flawed and harmful and I always back up what I say with why. I don't say "atheism sucks because communism sucks and I randomly decided to lump them together".
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Just because I haven't told you about my personal experience with Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Give it a rest already.
Even though you're pretending you have some sort of valid first-hand accounts, you've failed to relay the reasons, no matter how vague you would want to make them. Your stated reason for condemning Christianity was the media. You have yet to give a reason beyond that.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Red Stateler wrote:
You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
What's lame is him letting the actions of a few be representative of the whole.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being. Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith.
Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses. If your belief system requires that historical texts be disregarded, then I'd have to say that yours is based on a lack of reason.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I grew up with some friends who came from a Muslim nation. People in that nation are indoctrinated into Islam just Christians are indoctrinated here. It's not God that is controlling these people, it is other people.
Or like atheists are indoctrinated in our school system or in Europe or in communist nations. Once again, your belief system depends on the opposite of reason as it assumes that you have a special monopoly on it and Christians simply have no access to it. That is backwards and a fundamentalist belief shared by Muslims. Also, Christians are not coerced into Christianity here as Muslims are in the Middle East, so your "reasoned" comparison is lacking. Oh yeah, and you failed to answer my question. Exactly how did you logically calculate the odds of an afterlife?
"Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses." Actually if you remember the dark ages an era with a significant lack of forward scientific and technological advancement due to the catholic church. -- Although it was never the more formal term (universities named their departments "medieval history" not "dark age history"), it was widely used, including in such classics as Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where it expressed the author's contempt for "priest-ridden," superstitious, dark times. -- Also, modern justice systems have long proven that "eye witnesses" are incredibly unreliable and prone to inserting what the witness thought happened where their memory might not serve them.
----------------------------------------------------------- Completion Deadline: two days before the day after tomorrow
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of doing and enjoying good deeds without the need of supernatural creators or self proclaimed prophets.
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture. but, believe what you will, I do.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture.
Red spends far more time on this board promoting an "anti" posture towards atheists than Mike does towards religion - doesn't that completely invalidate what you said?
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man.
I am living life to the full and have no fear of death, yes. Surprised that you'd want that too, no.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
No. I speak the truth and I don't think you understand me because the truth is not in you. If you think I'm easily manipulated then you clearly know nothing about me. Don't feel sorry for me, my eternal future is secure, look to your own. Your argument is, in the end, not with me but with God. It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom. umm, isn't this supposed to go in the jokes thread? :wtf:
----------------------------------------------------------- Completion Deadline: two days before the day after tomorrow
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
DavidCrow wrote:
What's lame is him letting the actions of a few be representative of the whole.
X| Even ignoring Islam - as organized religions Christianity and Judaism are still more interested in controlling peoples actions and taking their money than they are about providing any real help.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of doing and enjoying good deeds without the need of supernatural creators or self proclaimed prophets.
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture. but, believe what you will, I do.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture.
Spend a few hours going through old threads (with a religious tilt) and you'll most definitely find you and Red expending many, MANY times more energy promoting religion than I've spent knocking it.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Red Stateler wrote:
In other words, you haven't had enough time to make it up yet.
And that is exactly why I don't tend to argue these types of things using personal experience. It's open to all kinds of lies. Yours included...
Red Stateler wrote:
And applying the properties of Islam upwards to organized religion.
Sure, concentrate on the Islam stuff and ignore the Judaism and Christian points I made. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
I always back up what I say with why.
Really? Since when? :confused:
-
A.A. wrote:
From an Islamic perspective, you reason so that you may discern the true message from falsehood. Once you are convinced of that, you do not go on questioning every detail (especially in the matters of the unseen) because you are already convinced it is from the creator. That is not to say you do not try to understand it.
So you use your brain to make a conclusin and then never question that conclusion?
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
So you use your brain to make a conclusin and then never question that conclusion?
I don't think the point I was making came across. To put it differently if you are convinced you have found the true message that is revealed by God you do not choose what pieces to accept to suit your preference and desires. These include the matters of the unseen, such as what happens after death and the details of the afterlife. This is different from say, growing up on a particular religion than finding not only elements of truth but also element of falsehood. If one grew up on a false or corrupted religion finding the message of the religion itself to be confused and contradictory, then one has a duty to search for the truth.
Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why is it incorrect? Because you say so??
Because you have limited experience and have made a value judgement with a lack of data. I thought you condemned such things! :rolleyes: