FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-05-2002, 04:44 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 1,537
Post

Allright. Excuses! Excuses!

Why many theologians loves "ad hoc" as they also failed to realise I can use "ad hoc" to justify other religions as well?!

Or easiest, "ad hominem"...examples:

God is worthy of worship because, among many reasons, He is morally perfect. His character is the standard by which our characters are judged.

Now, you are objecting to these various passages because apparently you think that they show God doing something which is immoral, and hence He is not worthy of being worshipped as morally perfect.

But, how do you say this? By what standard are you presuming to judge God's character? You object to the idea that the Creator of all that is should dictate what it is to be good, and that He should do things which are hard for us to understand. But then you turn around and want to dictate to God what is good. Only you are not the Creator of all that is.



another:

Me; In what consequence do I say if I say I can be better than God in a way that I can be more humane than Him? What more complicated answers do you want? So, my questioning of God's morality leads to what? That if I took God's place, God's decision will still reign ultimate and that my decisions are all fallible?

How can any of us possibly be better than God? Do we have the power to create any universes or life forms just by speaking the words? If you, or anyone, took Gods place the entire world would suck, because we as humans aren’t without sin, and God is.

And to prove that, this writer has to write a friggin long essay explaining why jehovah did a much better job than Krishna or Allah (Islam).

and here's a delusional defense of salvation based on faith compared to salvation based on character:

How is it absurd that you would need something more than good deeds to get into Heaven? So then, according to Hinduism, and Islam, if you were to donate millions of dollars to help the needy every year for 20 years or so, and then you kill someone, and happen to die, where do you go? Why would a murderer deserve to go to Heaven? Why would someone that has done so much good deserve to go anywhere else but Heaven?

ME: Again, I can kill 10 people, believe in Jesus and be atoned. Isn't it so with present Protestant doctrine?

According to Romans 10:9-10 you have to believe in your heart, and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and then you will be saved. When you get saved you "become a new creature in Christ Jesus," thus all of your previous sins are forgiven, and you are given a second try, no matter what you have done in the past, because you are now a new creature. Some people hate that, but that’s the way it is. I personally think that it is great. If we were to gain entrance to heaven by our deeds, then all of us would go to hell. Since there is faith, you can mess up, and still make it to heaven.

In this case, this apologist thought salvation based on character means that a mass murderer can get away from retribution by donating sums to the charity. Isn't it similar to grace offered by jesus?

I feel sorry for them because religion drives them to be THAT .... whatever, dumb.
Corgan Sow is offline  
Old 12-05-2002, 05:39 PM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 15
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarpedon:
<strong>I used to teach sunday school. One day as I was teaching, I realized that I was teaching the children something that I had no evidence to support. I realized that the only reason that I believed was that many years before, I had sat in that same room and recieved that same lesson.
&lt;snip&gt;
It is a fact that you can make most children believe anything if you push it on them early enough and insistently enough. So when I say that christians are taught to believe, perhaps I should have said brainwashed. What I was doing to those children was presenting my unsupported belief to them as fact, not telling them what the alternatives might be, or even that there WERE alternatives. </strong>
Precisely. Religions are perpetuated by teaching them to children who are too young to think crtitically about what they are being told. Brainwashing is a pretty good name for it. IMO this should be prosecuted as child abuse. Let them grow old enough to ask questions before you start giving them the answers.
Victor Drake is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 04:00 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Racine, Wi. USA
Posts: 768
Post

Agapeo

Excuse me for shortening the context but I think it is sufficient for my purpose.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;you formulated what you believe to be true. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

I think you are mistaken. I did not formulate what I believed to be true. I rejected what I believed to be untrue.

You see Agapeo, most skeptics have no trouble using a simple 4 word phrase that True Believers abhor. I'll bet that you can guess what I'm getting at as you seem to be an intelligent person. The phrase is "I do not know".

The Admiral
The Admiral is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 04:09 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Admiral:
<strong>You see Agapeo, most skeptics have no trouble using a simple 4 word phrase that True Believers abhor. I'll bet that you can guess what I'm getting at as you seem to be an intelligent person. The phrase is "I do not know".</strong>
Weeelll...not all of them abhor it.

Here's a quote from my pastor's most recently published book:

Quote:
I don't mind saying, "I don't know," when I really don't know. When I told those parents that I didn't know why their child died, I meant it quite literally.
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 05:17 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Racine, Wi. USA
Posts: 768
Post

Helen

Consider the possibility that your pastor may not be a True Believer. I think there are many Atheists on the pulpit.

The Admiral
The Admiral is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 05:30 AM   #26
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OH
Posts: 376
Post

Hi Admiral,
Quote:
Excuse me for shortening the context but I think it is sufficient for my purpose.
Ok! (As an aside: Ordinarily I would insert one of those stupid smilies here because when reading this it brought a smile to me. Not because I wish to annoy you but because to be asked to excuse you for taking the initiative to summarize something I said I consider an attribute of being considerate. Unfortunately I've been told that my use of "stupid" smilies is annoying and so I won't. I wonder why the Board even provides them if they are stupid. Go figure. Gee, I had to say all that because someone gets annoyed when I simply insert instead. )
Quote:
I think you are mistaken.
Fair enuf. It wouldn't be the first time. I imagine it won't be the last, but let's see.
Quote:
I did not formulate what I believed to be true. I rejected what I believed to be untrue.
Hmm . . . Well, with all due respect it seems to me that you have formulated a belief here. The belief that what you were taught or what Christians teach is untrue.
Quote:
You see Agapeo, most skeptics have no trouble using a simple 4 word phrase that True Believers abhor. I'll bet that you can guess what I'm getting at as you seem to be an intelligent person. The phrase is "I do not know".
Oh . . . I don't know if that is true, see what Helen wrote. (Oops there I go again with those stupid smilies).
agapeo is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 05:38 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Admiral:
<strong>Helen

Consider the possibility that your pastor may not be a True Believer. I think there are many Atheists on the pulpit.

The Admiral</strong>
Based on his words he's definitely a True Believer.

If he's an atheist he must be lying and very good at it...since he'd be asked to step down by all the other True Believers if he were not a True Believer (of course).

In my best judgment, hearing him week after week, he totally believes what he says. Nevertheless he isn't afraid to say "I don't know". In fact that was one of the first things I noticed when I started attending my current church and it's one of the things I appreciate about it - that the senior pastor is quite willing to say "I don't know" in circumstances when other Christians would make the mistake of trying to give some answer - which wouldn't satisfy anyway and might trivialize the pain behind the question, moreover.

Helen
HelenM is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.