doodad

It's been my experience that the more moderate sects of Christianity do not offer interactive forums online. Most I have tried to participate in are very conservative and bigoted, and when provoked the poor babies get very defensive because their ego has been threatened. What happened to the principle of humbleness that Jesus advocated?

doodad

Religion is like alcohol in that if you use it in moderation it can be beneficial. It's when you overindulge that negative consequences can result.
The Goergetown Massacre, Mount Carmel in Waco, and the recent WTC bombing are extreme examples of gross overindulgence.

Remember the little gal, Andrea Yates, who killed her children. Apparently she was schizophrenic, but her nut case husband with his brand of religion didn't help matters any. The point is this, there are probably thousands of folks out there with a big spiritual hangover.

It's said to see the more bogoted sects gaining membership while the moderate ones are losing ground. Wow, are we in for a rude awakening someday.

doodad

Keith, this is an age old dispute amongst theologians that seems to be intractable. There
are some informative articles on the net. Just use a search engine to look up terms like "Holy Trinity, Modalism, and the various take offs of the trinity concept. Keep old Webster at hand, because some of the ten dollar words may throw you if you don't.

Religious glossaries may be a good place to start
your search. I would say from my experience on faith based forums that the fundamentalist or evangelical sects tend to view Jesus as God himself, which is a modalistic viewpoint, and the more moderate sects, such as the UMC, tend to view the Trinity in terms of the orthodox view.

The term orthodox, relative to the meaning of the Holy Trinity, was originally thought to be the position of the early church that existed about 325 AD, which was essentially the primitive Roman Catholic church. However, those who don't venture outside the realm of fundamentalism will try to tell you that their view is orthodox. Happy hunting.

Synaesthesia

So God sometimes says "Oops"? Hmm, not very omniscient. (Unless God's knowledge is as powerful as his folly...)

I disagree with your first sentence. Whether or not God exists is an objective matter.

Again, it doesn't matter how plausible our account of God's intentions. The basic epistemological point remains: we have absolutely no way of checking our theories about God. Thus, even assuming he exists, it is all but certain that our explanations are very far off base.

doodad

I have no quarrel with the omniscient statement, but look at it this way. There was a flaw in his plan and he took steps to correct it. Give him credit for being willing to make changes he thought were for the better.

In saying that the existence of God is an objective matter you must be assuming that God is an object, or a material entity. Granted, that is the prevailing view of many believers, but consider this. Something can exist in the conceptual sense and yet not be material in nature. For example, my design of Fort Hickok, which is a fictitious frontier fort, is on the
drawing boards, but not a brick has been laid or a board placed. Frank Lloyd Wright carried concepts of Falling Waters in his head for months before detailing it out in a few short hours.

When asked, most believers will probably insist that God really exists somewhere in a material form, but as you say, can they prove it. I doubt it. However, if someone were to say that God exists in a conceptual form or state, can you prove them wrong? I doubt it.

I think the mistake you are making is the one of others I've seen on this site. Objective tools of measurement or evaluation cannot be applied to subjective issues such as the existence of God because they don't fit. God is a concept, a mental construct, so the methods of psychology might be a better set of tools to work with. If you can work in terms of these tools then you might provoke some constructive discussion about the existence of God.

Brian63

doodad,

I think you may have misunderstood my post(s). I certainly do not think that all Christians are stupid; in fact, I explicitly stated otherwise earlier. What I did say was that in most of my experiences, the vast majority of Christians that I have encountered were fairly dumb, and that that gave me the impression that Christianity "dumbed down" a person.

As I tried to make clear later in that first post, I encountered some counterexamples to that impression, which forced me to change my views to what they are now. Now, I do believe that a Christian can be extremely intelligent. I have seen such people, but they are extremely rare (relative to the general Christian population).

I think you may misunderstand me further as well. I am not "anti-religion" like so many of the other atheists here are. Actually, I am somewhat "pro-religion" in that I think religion provides many social benefits, even if they are all false. It is true I am not a fan of the more fundamentalist varieties of religious beliefs, but the more liberal ones I am actually in support of.

Brian

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Brian! I can actualy attest to the fact that Brian always demonstrated respect towards christians in his posts.
There is a vast difference between expressing different views in a manner that does not demean the character of the opponant and expressing views with the intent to ridicule the opponant to " win the argument".
I am personaly always encouraged by your posts Brian.
I must agree with you that I face frustrating moments as I encounter fellow christians who will only quote the Bible to justify their faith as if the Bible had any validity to a non theist.

The state of "dumbness" you describe may be more of an abandonment of individuality than the absence of intelligence. If the whole group thinks that way, surely they are right.Type of thing.
I think many christians need approval from their peers to be secure in their faith. If you happen to be the one out of 100 christians who will ask them challenging questions, I guarantee you that the perception is " there is no way you are a christian unless you think as we do".
Some of my very educated and bright christian friends cannot help but require and demand full assimilation to their doctrinal beliefs to qualify as a christian. It is like the Borg..." we will assimilate you beep beep beep".
I think it is more a matter of ego and insecurity that may make some christians so unwilling to reason on inconsistencies in the Bible( especialy between the Character of Christ and the character of the OT God).
I am done... off my soap box.

Synaesthesia

You are very clearly confusing the meaning of objectivity. I just mean that either God is real or he is not real. I make no claim about how to find him because God can never be found qua God.

Any thin is objective iff when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away. That's really all there is to it. It's an assertion about existence, not the form of existence or the epistemological principles by which they can be evaluated.

gwh00

God is all there is and all duality is simply relative appearances or currents occurring between absolute being and absolute non-being (the water course way). That interaction gives rise to relative differences and the spectrum of consciousness. The classic theist concept of hierarchical divinity originates in the illusion of self and other. In god there is no recognition of self and other. We have always been one with the father but we only recognize that in stillness. (Be still and you will know God).

Brian63

Sabine,

You are a Godsend, minus the God.

Brian