Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I think a deeper look would reveal things aren’t as crazy as they seem on the surface. A lot of times it’s more about what the account is saying rather than what the words on the page literally say. That’s not to say that all of scripture is metaphorical or symbolic or it’s all literal. There are variations based on audience, context, purpose.
I am not saying you should do one thing or another, I am mere saying that things aren’t always what they appear on the surface.
After all trying to explain divine reality to a species that has limited capacity to understand it is difficult. It’s like trying to become a dog and explain what football is. It makes sense to us, it’s foreign to a dog.
[/quote]

I understand that the Bible is worth a hell of a lot more than the miracles. And I do find wisdom in it when I read it. That said, natural skepticism precludes me from accepting it as anything more than the accumulated fables–some of them elegant and some of them “true” in the same way that Hamlet is “true” but not by any means in the same way that a peer-reviewed scientific study is “true”–of men just like you and I. I have literally no reason to think that the Judeo-Christian creation myth is any more credible than those concocted by the American Indians or the Chinese. I will not believe that any man or woman has ever experienced a miracle until I’m presented with detailed and logical evidence to the contrary. I–just like every sane man and woman who has ever lived on this planet–have observed that the human body is denser than water and consequently cannot walk atop its surface. That a man claimed to have seen otherwise in a text written thousands of years ago will never be sufficient evidence to overcome the intense skepticism with which I approach such claims. From there and in hundreds or thousands of similar instances the credibility of the Bible as an authoritative source of information deteriorates and collapses.
[/quote]
I have experienced miracles before. I have seen it. And it’s definitely something to see. But here’s the thing, it’s not really about that. Miracles don’t carry the weight a lot of people think they do. It’s definitely got the “Wow” factor, but in the end, it doesn’t improve faith. This is actually bared out in the scriptures. How many people did Jesus cure and yet they turned their back on him?
More compelling is people moved by the spirit to do great acts of compassion and mercy. Demonstrations of faith beyond what is called for move people more towards faith than miracles do.
I look at Mother Teresa or the afor mentioned Gandhi, two people dedicated their lives to God. Simple, small soft spoken and humble to a fault, commanded the authority and respect of the highest leaders in the world.
When Mother Teresa came to America under the Clinton administration, Clinton went to meet her, not the other way around. All she did was take care of the poor and as a result had the power to command the greatest leaders in the world.
Gandhi kicked one of the biggest empires in the world out of his country without ever lifting a finger to strike, but acted with great love towards the people and his enemies.
Acting with great love is far more powerful than any miracle. Actually, I would consider both miracles. No way that should have ever happened.

It shouldn’t be the foundation for a world view, it should be the foundation of faith. That’s the point.

[quote]
That said, I understand and respect your point of view. I don’t believe Christians are “crazy” (well, some of them. But not nearly all) and I don’t look down on people who believe the things I highlighted in my post. My Godfather was the smartest man I’ve ever known–I mean smart as in Rhodes scholar, President of a college, composer, professor of neuroanatomy, spoke like 9 languages including Latin and Menominee, appointed by G.W. Bush to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts–and he became a devout believer toward the end of his life.[/quote]

When you get touched, you know it.

62

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not a believer (agnostic technically leaning towards agnostic-atheist), but excited to see where the conversation goes (for reals). [/quote]

Why is this better?
I don’t think you should sit on the sidelines and wait to level criticism on others, you obviously think this is the way to go, why?[/quote]

Pat, I think you are one of the nicest posters here (I have never once wondered if you have dead prostitutes chained in your basement or thought that i better be well armed were I to meet you in a dark ally) but just because someone is interested in the discussion doesn’t mean they have a dog (or in this case, god) in the fight.

And it also doesn’t mean they are leveling criticism at those who do.

I know nothing about many subjects, it doesn’t mean that I’m not interested to learn.[/quote]

Thanks Christine.
My admonition was based on other posts in another thread, so I was suspect of the intentions. That being said, H has since mellowed out and made thoughtful posts and engaged in reasonable discussion, hence proving my original suspicions incorrect. And I am thankful for that.

I think it’s funny how people think I am nice… I don’t perceive myself that way. Most certainly I am not afraid to go for the throat. It really depends on the topic and what accusations have been made. If it’s something near and dear to my heart, I am not afraid to go for the throat… In other words, I am not always nice. Don’t hate me when I am not… :slight_smile:

63

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat: I think you’re making this a little more convenient. You make some good points, but kind of lose me when you say stuff like this HAS to be the answer. No other way could be possible. We all must come to THIS conclusion.
[/quote]
For that argument, no other answer is possible. It’s been looked at and pulled apart every which way, there is no other conclusion that can be drawn for that argument. Feel free to bring up the counter points and I will tell you why they are wrong.

Well, I don’t know what you mean here, it’s not my argument. It’s been around for 2000+ years. What has evolved is the understanding of causation. When Aristotle first presented it, he only understood causation as a cause with a resulting effect, in time. Contingency and dependency eliminates time from the equation and thus makes it much stronger. It is stronger because things true by definition are absolute, versus things believed by observation.

[quote]
Did some reading and hope you would respond to this which is hopefully an argument you’re making similar to Craig’s (if not well disregard then).

"Aside from the fact that an actual infinite trajectory is possible, there are other obvious problems with Craig’s argument for god’s existence. Craig, in defiance of the Occam’s Razor principle which states that the simplest logical explanation for a phenomenon is the most probable, postulates an infinite, extratemporal god as his solution to the “impossibility” of an infinite universe. The same “problem” exists with the postulation of a god with an infinite lifespan as exists with the postulation of a universe with an absolute lifespan, the only difference is that there is empirical evidence that suggests that the universal series of causes and effects is infinite, while there is no empirical evidence that a god even exists. Throughout human history, every entity ever detected has had a physical cause; therefore, it is logical to assume that all events have a physical cause, and illogical to assume that there could be an uncaused entity. Therefore, it is more logical to believe that the universe is comprised of an infinite series of physical causes and effects than to believe that it is the finite creation of an infinite creator.

Indeed, the postulation of god as the creator of the universe creates more uncertainty than it eliminates. If god exists, who created god? God could not have created itself; it is logically impossible for a being to create itself, because creation of the nonevolutionary sort requires intellect and intentionality, and if god evolved, then it is not really god as humans define the concept: the infinite, omnipotent, creator of all existence. It would be impossible for god to create its intellect or intentionality ex nihilo. If god were created by another entity, Super-God perhaps, then not only does god cease to meet our definition of “god,” but we need an explanation for the origins of Super-God, and the origins of his creator, and so on ad infinitum."

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article726.html

I haven’t read enough others to say, but it seems quite convenient to just come up with it HAS to be God, nothing else makes sense. This idea that there CAN’T be any other explanation is what stops me from going along. Forgive me if I’m twisting your position as it is not my intention.

Another site worth reading: http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-againstcosmological.shtml

Again this is just from quick google searching, I’m learning as I go…but wouldn’t you say at least some pretty significant points are made to at least bring up the idea of questioning this obvious and most necessary belief. [/quote]

The problem with this counter argument is that it’s arguing against claims the cosmological argument does not make. Problem 1: “The Universe”, we don’t actually care about the universe or whether or not it has always existed. It’s irrelevant to the problem. We cannot actually deductively prove the universe exists. What we can prove is that ‘something’ exists. You have to remove the fallibility of human perception because we can not prove anything physical exists deductively. The cosmological argument deals with ‘existence’, it doesn’t matter what that is.

Problem 2: He mentions empirical evidence. Applying empirical evidence to a deductive argument weakens the argument and makes it an inductive argument. This is bad on many levels. But again, he simply either doesn’t actually understand the argument at all, or he is deliberately trying manipulate those who haven’t studied it into thinking it’s something it’s not.

Bottom line, whatever he’s arguing against, it ain’t the cosmological argument. I can only assume he is resorting to tactics for the purpose of manipulation. This is what I have seen most atheists do. But I have to question why they are afraid to take on the actual argument, rather than augment it into something it’s not and then attack that. It’s a classic Red Herring fallacy.
The argument is far more simple than that.

Here is a good link on what the cosmological argument is not…

P.S. Please don’t post anymore atheist propaganda links and I promise not to post any Christian ones.

64

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat: I think you’re making this a little more convenient. You make some good points, but kind of lose me when you say stuff like this HAS to be the answer. No other way could be possible. We all must come to THIS conclusion.
[/quote]
For that argument, no other answer is possible. It’s been looked at and pulled apart every which way, there is no other conclusion that can be drawn for that argument. Feel free to bring up the counter points and I will tell you why they are wrong.

Well, I don’t know what you mean here, it’s not my argument. It’s been around for 2000+ years. What has evolved is the understanding of causation. When Aristotle first presented it, he only understood causation as a cause with a resulting effect, in time. Contingency and dependency eliminates time from the equation and thus makes it much stronger. It is stronger because things true by definition are absolute, versus things believed by observation.

The problem with this counter argument is that it’s arguing against claims the cosmological argument does not make. Problem 1: “The Universe”, we don’t actually care about the universe or whether or not it has always existed. It’s irrelevant to the problem. We cannot actually deductively prove the universe exists. What we can prove is that ‘something’ exists. You have to remove the fallibility of human perception because we can not prove anything physical exists deductively. The cosmological argument deals with ‘existence’, it doesn’t matter what that is.

Problem 2: He mentions empirical evidence. Applying empirical evidence to a deductive argument weakens the argument and makes it an inductive argument. This is bad on many levels. But again, he simply either doesn’t actually understand the argument at all, or he is deliberately trying manipulate those who haven’t studied it into thinking it’s something it’s not.

Bottom line, whatever he’s arguing against, it ain’t the cosmological argument. I can only assume he is resorting to tactics for the purpose of manipulation. This is what I have seen most atheists do. But I have to question why they are afraid to take on the actual argument, rather than augment it into something it’s not and then attack that. It’s a classic Red Herring fallacy.
The argument is far more simple than that.

Here is a good link on what the cosmological argument is not…

P.S. Please don’t post anymore atheist propaganda links and I promise not to post any Christian ones.
[/quote]

These were the first two things that popped up on google that I read. I haven’t read anything else on any of the sites nor do I care to. I was just looking for arguments. If it is atheist propaganda it certainly wasn’t by intent. I could care less about converting anyone to or away from their beliefs. As someone who essentially doesn’t have a concrete one I don’t have any need to get someone to my way of thinking!

65

[quote]H factor wrote:

These were the first two things that popped up on google that I read. I haven’t read anything else on any of the sites nor do I care to. I was just looking for arguments. If it is atheist propaganda it certainly wasn’t by intent. I could care less about converting anyone to or away from their beliefs. As someone who essentially doesn’t have a concrete one I don’t have any need to get someone to my way of thinking! [/quote]

I am glad you asking the questions though, because it’s important to know the difference between what people think and what it is. These are common misconceptions and they need to be cleared up to understand the argument.

66

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

These were the first two things that popped up on google that I read. I haven’t read anything else on any of the sites nor do I care to. I was just looking for arguments. If it is atheist propaganda it certainly wasn’t by intent. I could care less about converting anyone to or away from their beliefs. As someone who essentially doesn’t have a concrete one I don’t have any need to get someone to my way of thinking! [/quote]

I am glad you asking the questions though, because it’s important to know the difference between what people think and what it is. These are common misconceptions and they need to be cleared up to understand the argument.[/quote]

Yeah, trying to hammer home what exactly you believe. I will get to your post at some point after I do some more reading on both sides! Thanks.

67

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You were taught some strange stuff. As a Christian you are to love your cousin and treat him with all the love and respect you could muster as a cousin, a brother. Further you are not to judge or condemn him.
People who commit atrocities in the name of God are blaspheming Him in the most profound way. You are not being a Christian, but violating the word and the heart of the word by doing so.

Why in the world would Gandhi be in hell? As a pious man who sacrificed everything to God in full humility, I don’t see how that’s possible, we certainly have no right to judge. There are fundamentalist nut-jobs who put forth such judgments. They also tend to be the kooks who incorrectly predict the end of the world every year. Don’t judge the religion by the lunatic fringe.
[/quote]

The thing is I don’t view it as a lunatic fringe. If this was one or two people I’d dismiss it, but it’s not fringe. If more people did the things you talk of I’d get on board with religion much quicker.
[/quote]
Well, you could always be the one to do the right thing. Christians don’t always act Christian…It’s not an easy road and people screw it up often, myself included.

Well those people don’t read scripture as well as they think. Yes, homosexuality is condemned, but so are a lot of things, but the homosexual is not. It’s not the Christian’s job to judge the fate of another person. The scripture explicitly tell us not to do that.
The act is a sin, but there are many sins and we are all sinners. We are not to judge someone like that but to straiten ourselves out rather. Those are the commands of the scripture. Often people will get caught up on one part of scripture to the detriment of others.
So homosexuality is a sin, but I commit sins. How can I say his sin will damn him, while I will be saved even though I have sinned too?
Jesus commands us to “remove the plank from our own eyes” before we worry about the speck in our brother’s eyes.
Your cousin’s fate is between him and God and no one else.

They are though. What I said previously is the case. We can’t judge your cousin’s fate, or your fate any better than you can judge mine.
Further the scriptures say that the measure you give is the measure you get. So anybody leveling judgement on your cousin better be damn pious, because what you do not want to do is be measured with a short stick. It’s very clear scripturally that we control our own judgement. It’s way better to show mercy than to pass judgement.
If Gandhi is in hell, I got no shot.

[quote]
My cousin, Gandhi, ANYONE who doesn’t come to the same conclusion as these people or does something against what this God said will be punished for ALL ETERNITY in a lake of fire. This is not a fringe view. These brothers you speak of are coming to this conclusion saying they are the same as you and it doesn’t bother you at all?

I may not be able to square exactly WHAT I believe, but I can figure out what I DON’T believe real easy. And while one day I may come to the conclusion that we had to have a creator to come to existence I can’t ever see myself being ok with “worshipping” one if it’s the one so many on here in other places say WILL do these things. [/quote]

And see, I don’t look at faith this way. Yes, there is an element of fear of punishment, there obviously must be a line in the sand. But to act out of merely fear of punishment, or trying to get the big prize misses the point. It’s about your relationship with God. I don’t want to do the right thing because I am afraid of going to hell, I want to do the right thing because I love God and have a good working relationship with him.

It’s much like any other relationship. You don’t do nice things for your mother, siblings, friends, wife, etc. because you are afraid they will punish you if you don’t. You do it because you love them. That’s the best and main reason to do anything.
Now that doesn’t mean you don’t, for instance, have rules for your children but the acts are about love.

68

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

These were the first two things that popped up on google that I read. I haven’t read anything else on any of the sites nor do I care to. I was just looking for arguments. If it is atheist propaganda it certainly wasn’t by intent. I could care less about converting anyone to or away from their beliefs. As someone who essentially doesn’t have a concrete one I don’t have any need to get someone to my way of thinking! [/quote]

I am glad you asking the questions though, because it’s important to know the difference between what people think and what it is. These are common misconceptions and they need to be cleared up to understand the argument.[/quote]

Yeah, trying to hammer home what exactly you believe. I will get to your post at some point after I do some more reading on both sides! Thanks. [/quote]

Thanks… That like I posted is a quick read, and it’s information dense. So I think it will help you understand the argument better.

69

Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it.

70

[quote]pat wrote:
I have experienced miracles before. I have seen it. And it’s definitely something to see. But here’s the thing, it’s not really about that. Miracles don’t carry the weight a lot of people think they do. It’s definitely got the “Wow” factor, but in the end, it doesn’t improve faith. This is actually bared out in the scriptures. How many people did Jesus cure and yet they turned their back on him?
More compelling is people moved by the spirit to do great acts of compassion and mercy. Demonstrations of faith beyond what is called for move people more towards faith than miracles do.
I look at Mother Teresa or the afor mentioned Gandhi, two people dedicated their lives to God. Simple, small soft spoken and humble to a fault, commanded the authority and respect of the highest leaders in the world.
When Mother Teresa came to America under the Clinton administration, Clinton went to meet her, not the other way around. All she did was take care of the poor and as a result had the power to command the greatest leaders in the world.
Gandhi kicked one of the biggest empires in the world out of his country without ever lifting a finger to strike, but acted with great love towards the people and his enemies.
Acting with great love is far more powerful than any miracle. Actually, I would consider both miracles. No way that should have ever happened.
[/quote]

While this doesn’t displace my skepticism of the Bible’s essential teachings, it’s an eloquent defense of Christianity’s merits. I would never try to deny that religion, Christianity in particular, has borne great fruits.

Edited, double-negative made the second sentence an attack on Chrstianity

71

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]
You are putting the cart before the horse. People already have their conclusions and their world view. They make their religion fit this. People’s religions can come and go however their intrinsic view of the world doesn’t change.

Christianity is not homogenous btw. Its only a relatively recent idea to try to make the denominations a monolithic block.

72

[quote]Further the scriptures say that the measure you give is the measure you get. So anybody leveling judgement on your cousin better be damn pious, because what you do not want to do is be measured with a short stick. It’s very clear scripturally that we control our own judgement. It’s way better to show mercy than to pass judgement.
If Gandhi is in hell, I got no shot.
[/quote]

How do you pick which scripture you think is applicable and which is not? This verse is not telling us that we cannot know what God hates, or that we can not call out someone for living in sin. Look at the account of David when he had murdered and slept with another man’s wife…the bible makes it clear that Nathan’s reproof when he told him “You are the man!” was key in his repentance. Should Nathan have said “Who am I to Judge?”

The “do not judge passage” has been used to water down the God of the bible into some passive easy going God who really does not care about his law. The point of the text is that, yes we cannot judge people in a way that elevates us or our performance above them. It is meant to highlight how sinful we ALL our, and that if ANY of us would be fairly judged we would land in hell.

73

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]Further the scriptures say that the measure you give is the measure you get. So anybody leveling judgement on your cousin better be damn pious, because what you do not want to do is be measured with a short stick. It’s very clear scripturally that we control our own judgement. It’s way better to show mercy than to pass judgement.
If Gandhi is in hell, I got no shot.
[/quote]

How do you pick which scripture you think is applicable and which is not? This verse is not telling us that we cannot know what God hates, or that we can not call out someone for living in sin. Look at the account of David when he had murdered and slept with another man’s wife…the bible makes it clear that Nathan’s reproof when he told him “You are the man!” was key in his repentance. Should Nathan have said “Who am I to Judge?”

The “do not judge passage” has been used to water down the God of the bible into some passive easy going God who really does not care about his law. The point of the text is that, yes we cannot judge people in a way that elevates us or our performance above them. It is meant to highlight how sinful we ALL our, and that if ANY of us would be fairly judged we would land in hell. [/quote]You n I just may get along. =] You are precisely right here. I wrote a big piece about this very thing in the other thread which I’m pretty sure you read which would then make me pretty sure that you knew I would agree. This is one of the most effective modern lies of the enemy. Unbelievers who couldn’t tell you if Luke was an old or new testament book will certainly know this passage wrenched from all biblical context. You’ll get to know Pat if you stick around BTW. He is consistently in my prayers.

74

Trib, ya I saw your post there and agreed with you. My goal was not to try and prove to Pat he is wrong, as you have done a better job arguing that than I ever could. All I am trying to do is let other people who may be reading Pat’s theology that while he may identify with christianity in some very loose ways, he misses the entire point of why christ needed to die for us.

75

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]

You know I don’t think this is really a problem with the reading of the Bible. Those who read and study know this stuff too. It’s not like this deeply hidden stuff.

The problem, I think, is larger than fundi Christians, it’s an American problem. Everybody is too concerned with what everybody else is doing and not enough with what they themselves are doing. Our society loves to cast stones. When that mentality bleeds into religion, people use the Bible as a stone. Everybody is a critic and nobody looks at themselves in the mirror. You spend enough honest time in front of that mirror, you are more likely to drop your stones.

76

[quote]butler244 wrote:Trib, ya I saw your post there and agreed with you. My goal was not to try and prove to Pat he is wrong, as you have done a better job arguing that than I ever could. All I am trying to do is let other people who may be reading Pat’s theology that while he may identify with Christianity in some very loose ways, he misses the entire point of why Christ needed to die for us.[/quote]It’s becoming a near certainty that you n I are gonna get along. You have fired a HALLELUJAH worthy bullseye right here. Please forgive my reticence, but my background in polemics and the number of people who come strolling through here talkin about Jesus and quickly show themselves to be rank modernist liberals and or utterly immoral has my radar tweaked real tight. Faithfulness to the actual gospel once for all delivered to the saints will make you about as popular as the flu around here. Make sure you stay armored up while keeping the love of the Lord at the front of your heart.

77

[quote]butler244 wrote:
Trib, ya I saw your post there and agreed with you. My goal was not to try and prove to Pat he is wrong, as you have done a better job arguing that than I ever could. All I am trying to do is let other people who may be reading Pat’s theology that while he may identify with christianity in some very loose ways, he misses the entire point of why christ needed to die for us.
[/quote]

Excuse me? Where do you get off, seriously? Sorry, I don’t read from a script. Show me where in the discussion where it was brought up why Christ needed to die for us? If you got something to say, say it to me. Tirib is on permanent ignore for good reason and I don’t read his heretical, barely Christian garbage anymore.

78

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]Further the scriptures say that the measure you give is the measure you get. So anybody leveling judgement on your cousin better be damn pious, because what you do not want to do is be measured with a short stick. It’s very clear scripturally that we control our own judgement. It’s way better to show mercy than to pass judgement.
If Gandhi is in hell, I got no shot.
[/quote]

How do you pick which scripture you think is applicable and which is not? This verse is not telling us that we cannot know what God hates, or that we can not call out someone for living in sin. Look at the account of David when he had murdered and slept with another man’s wife…the bible makes it clear that Nathan’s reproof when he told him “You are the man!” was key in his repentance. Should Nathan have said “Who am I to Judge?”
[/quote]
All of the scripture is applicable. What should Nathan have done? Well what did God say about David? That he was a man after his own heart.
You can call out sin, but know when to stop too. If that’s all you do, your the problem not the other sinner.

[quote]
The “do not judge passage” has been used to water down the God of the bible into some passive easy going God who really does not care about his law. The point of the text is that, yes we cannot judge people in a way that elevates us or our performance above them. It is meant to highlight how sinful we ALL our, and that if ANY of us would be fairly judged we would land in hell. [/quote]

Bullshit, it’s been going the other way. All kinds of people have been trying to find scriptures to weasel their way out of not judging because they cannot wait to point out that somebody is a worse sinner than they are.

You can call out sin after your perfect. When your perfect, then judge away.

79

Pat you are simply wrong. About both the scriptures and me. Which is who is this about with you. I am pretty sure you will not convince my new friend butler244 of either your erroneous misuse of scripture OR your JUDGEMENT of me. I met him yesterday, but I’m pretty sure he is indwelt by the same Spirit I am. Please email me. I’m not lookin to beat you up my old friend.

@ butler244: There is a function in these forums called “ignore” whereby you can check a box and never see what somebody says. Pat has me on ignore for the past year so he doesn’t have to see anything I say. Just thought you should know that. If you already knew about the ignore function, kindly disregard.

80

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]

You know I don’t think this is really a problem with the reading of the Bible. Those who read and study know this stuff too. It’s not like this deeply hidden stuff.

The problem, I think, is larger than fundi Christians, it’s an American problem. Everybody is too concerned with what everybody else is doing and not enough with what they themselves are doing. Our society loves to cast stones. When that mentality bleeds into religion, people use the Bible as a stone. Everybody is a critic and nobody looks at themselves in the mirror. You spend enough honest time in front of that mirror, you are more likely to drop your stones.[/quote]

I’m trying to remember what verses Jesus said that stuff about logs and eyes. Do you know what I mean and which ones those are?