Starboy

Kevin thanks for the clarification. Oppose perhaps is not the best way to put it. What I mean is that when you have your American hat on, (if that is ever the case), you exercise your right as a citizen and participate in the political process. That might mean letters to your representatives and to the newspapers. If you ever have the bully pulpit perhaps from time to time enjoining your fellow Christians to vote against those Christians who would subvert the constitution. Or as in the case of the recent California supreme court ruling, letting the president know through letters and vocal outcry that as president he not only represents Christians, but non-Christians as well.

Starboy

-DM-

Our government, of course, is prohibited by the Constitution from "respecting an establishment of religion"--fortunately for both you and me.

First of all, I understood what you were saying, but what I am asking you is to tell me who says "The best way to influence the society is to live as lights and influence through example" and what evidence there is to support that? The fact that Jesus may have said this doesn't necessarily make it true.

Secondly, while it is true that if you live out your relationship with your "God," whether real or imaginary, people will see what your faith is all about--just as they would even in the case of a Zoroastrian, for example--they will NOT necessarily see what "God is all about" given that the existence of your "God" is an unknown and given that what "He" is about, even if we grant "his" existence, is debatable.

If by "Christ" you mean Jesus, the "problem" that I have with your use of "Christ" is that it is a title, not a name, and it is presumptuous of you to use that title when referring to a person who could more accurately and less offensively be identified simply as "Jesus."

If I were a follower of Apollonius of Tyana, and if I believed him to be "Christ," and if I came to a Christian discussion board and typically referred to Apollonius as "Christ,"--both the Christian participants there (and even I) would think I was being presumptuous. That's the way that I see it when you use that term for Jesus here.

-Don-

spurly

Now I understand what you are saying. I have never actually done what you suggest, though I probably ought to do that more often.

As for the church I attend, we DO NOT talk about political matters from the pulpit. About as close as we get to that is encouraging people to vote, for whoever they feel is the best candidate.

I wish other churches and Christian leaders would do the same.

Kevin

spurly

I guess I get that from experience. The people that most influenced me are those who simply lived out what they believed with hypocrisy as I watched their lives. They are the ones I look up to, my heroes.

I guess my idea is that if more people were actually doing that, society as a whole could evolve and change into a better society based on higher principles.

Quote:

If by "Christ" you mean Jesus, the "problem" that I have with your use of "Christ" is that it is a title, not a name, and it is presumptuous of you to use that title when referring to a person who could more accurately and less offensively be identified simply as "Jesus." If I were a follower of Apollonius of Tyana, and if I believed him to be "Christ," and if I came to a Christian discussion board and typically referred to Apollonius as "Christ,"--both the Christian participants there (and even I) would think I was being presumptuous. That's the way that I see it when you use that term for Jesus here. -Don-

Point well taken. I will try to refer to him more by his name, than his title.

Kevin

CALDONIA

Belief in God = fervent hope in His existence. A waste of time spent in wishful thinking.

Family Man

Spurly, I doubt you really meant they believed "with hypocrisy"?!

And what if the person you admired turned out to be an atheist? Would that justify converting to atheism? Is the behavior of admirable people a legitimate means to determine what is true or not?

-DM-

You're probably right about that, but then it's probably also true that at least some of those that Kevin admired did believe "with hypocrisy." In fact, I think that even applies to the biblical Jesus.

Good question. Of course, the answer is that the example set by a person is no more reliable as a method for determining truth than is faith. Jesus is a much admired individual, yet some of what he allegedly taught is patently untrue.

-Don-

Family Man

Don, I can understand why Christians would follow the beliefs of those they admire, especially if brought up in the religion and considering what a virtue faith is considered to be in our society. But as a serious rationale for religious belief it is one of the sillier things I see on a regular basis. Somehow, I don't think I'll get an answer from Spurly on this one.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I think the problem is that people tend to think that if part of something is true, the rest must be true as well.

If someone is believed to be a 'good' or 'admirable' person, then every aspect of that person must be correct; their religious beleifs, their fashion sense, their taste in music--

--I mean, look at how celebrities are emulated. Look how famous people are used to sell cars, clothes, life insurance--even used as spokespersons for religious/charitable organizations and political parties, etc.

(Look at how often Einstein is used to promote religion, or 'left-leaning' political views. He was the smartest man who ever lived, and he believed in 'God'...)

Belief should not be a total, incontrovertible either/or. If someone does a good thing, it's OK to emulate that specific behaviour, if you also want to be 'good'. But, you don't have to dress like that person (or think like that person, or belong to the same club as that person), just to be a good person like they are.

I think most people, though, are not interested in really examining in detail every aspect of their own--let alone someone else's--behaviour and its causes.

It's easier just to follow blindly, thinking that if so-and-so likes it, it must be good, because so-and-so is so 'cool', or 'talented', or 'good looking', 'successful', 'liked by others', etc.

It's easier to think that if Einstein was so smart, he couldn't be wrong about anything, so if he believed in 'God', it'd be pretty arrogant to think he was wrong...

Ahh, the cults of personality.

Keith.

Family Man

Keith, I do think you're onto something. Cultural inertia is probably the most powerful force that props up religious belief. Most people who go to church have a positive experience and generate strong relationships with people they genuinely admire. What is never thought of is that none of that has any relevance as to whether the church doctrine is true or not.