sandlewood

As was said before, people here do not suffer from a lack of knowledge about Christianity. Most people here aren’t searching for some religion to believe in; they aren’t in need of someone to answer questions for them (although that may be the case for some lurkers). You’re free to post your views and opinions, though.
Because there is no objective evidence. I tend to believe things don’t exist when there is no evidence for them. Just like you don’t believe Santa Claus actually exists, I don’t believe the Christian god or any other god exists. You may have had some personal experience, and you may have connected that to the Christian god somehow, but I have not. You may also claim that I have not experienced god because I am not trying hard enough or not trying the correct way, but what is your criterion for determining that someone is trying the “correct way”?

I don’t think any atheist would care what you believe if it wasn’t for the fact that atheists are considered immoral, second-class citizens in this country.
I’m sure you have participated in forum discussions with atheists before. What you should have discovered is that you are not going to get anywhere with atheists by posting Bible quotes. If you want to reach atheists, you need to provide objective evidence. If there is no objective evidence, then I guess I don’t see why people are so resistant to acknowledging god’s nonexistence.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Ronin

Not worthy of an answer.

Why not?

~~ Disregard, you were right about that.

Kosh

You assume too much. I have read the book. Hell, I've seen him speak in person WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY back in college. It was his apologetics that lead me to start asking questions (due to his dubious logic) that lead me to atheism.

I think Joel just earned himself a one way ticket to RRP. Moderators?

Marduk

A few pointless points:

The word supernatural is meaningless, either something exists or it doesn’t. If there were a Santa Claus and flying Reindeer then they would be part of the Universe just like anything else and there would be some kind of definable process by which they could fly, even if it was a yet unknown one.

Confusing the “Pagan” gods like Zeus to the Christian God is somewhat faulty. Most “Pagan” gods follow the Egyptian model of the Neteru. They are not Universe creating gods. In the Egyptian model the creator god or Ammon (allgod) creates the universe, then creates the Neteru who in turn create the Earth and humans, it is they who intervene in human affairs. The Pagan creator god does not micro-manage the Earth.

DigitalDruid

Joel.

This time I have just one very basic question. Would you answer please?

First a few words about where I am coming from. You said you came to the conclusion about Christianity’s superiority based on a comparative study of religions you undertook. Only then you became a Christian. You also said the best way to learn about Christianity is to go to the source and talk to Christians . So I assume in the interest of an unbiased comparison you must have studied the sources of each of these religions during your comparative study. And since you recommend reading in the context of the entire source - you must have read these large number of religious sources in their entirety.

I can only imagine and appreciate how much of a Herculean effort it was on your part. For example, just Hinduism itself has the following essential canonical sources:

4 Vedas
The Bhagwad Gita
108 Upanishads (18 major ones)
The Puranas (18 major ones)
7 Vedangas


Each of these scriptures is a hefty tome by itself. But these constitute only the tip of the iceberg when you consider the other religions: Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. too.

I am sure you followed your own stated standard of completeness and fairness - going to the source and reading them in entirety - during your comparative study.

Now my question (which has multiple related parts):

1. Which of the religions you included and which you excluded from your comparative study? Did you study the religions which are not major?

2. Some of theses canonical sources have no English translation. For example, some of the Puranas are only available in Sanskrit. So did you learn Sanskrit, or commission an English translation?

3. Some of theses scriptures are not available in the USA. Did you mail order them, say from India?

4. How many years did this gigantic effort span?

5. Finally, do the Guinness Book of World Records people know of this unique heroic effort? You deserve a mention I think.

I understand you are handling many questions from other forum members, but theses questions only require single line answers based on the comparative study you’ve already completed.

If you did not apply the standard you recommend for learning about Christianity (go to the source and read in the context of the entire source) to other religions, then the conclusion you reached about the superiority of Christianity is flawed by your own standard of completeness and fairness.

Regards.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>

Cipher Girl

Hi Joel

I admire you trying to attempt to argue the Argument From Evil with the Free Will Argument. But you have addressed the wrong question. I asked "If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, why is there evil in the world?"

I'll simplify and give an example. Say someone claims all cats are black, and a white cat strolls into the room. A proof by contradiction has occurred, reductio ad absurdum (? college logic course 20 years ago). The proof is that because a contradiction has occurred to the original statement (all cats are black), the original statement is proved false with an example, implying the converse is true (all cats are not black).

My statment (assuming god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving) is proved false by the existance of evil in the world. An example of the evil in the world is a child that dies after an extremely painful bout with cancer. If god had all three attrributes then he would know how to cure the child, would have the power to cure the child, and would want to cure the child. Either god is not all powerful, all knowing, or all good or no such god exists.

I admire you coming here thinking that you could give answers to any questions we could think of. But my question actually answered itself.

[edited as my spelling and grammer sux]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

HoosierGuy28

daemon,

Not at all. It was suggested as an indicator, so it was a completely valid statement.

I have never offered to demonstrate the inerrancy of the Bible. Actually, I would be willing to say that even demonstrating this would be an accumulative process. If you have read through my post, you probably would have noticed that I have stated that I will be giving my responses from a Christian perspective.

True, but it is also inclusive in regards to evidence.

Thanks for the response.

Joel

Brian63

Cipher Girl

That is the first time I've seen the "agnostic atheist/Christian" distinction in that particular way before. It is interesting, but I'm not sure that it's a "better" terminology than the ones provided in the article I linked to. Your definitions seem to accentuate more the reasons why a particular person believes what they do or even how. The ones I use focus more on just what the beliefs are themselves. I think yours would be useful for elaborating further about a person's beliefs, after they have identified initially what those beliefs are.

Most of all though, thanks for being very polite in your responses. It makes these discussions much more enjoyable to be a part of. Not everyone, unfortunately, seems as interested in polite debate, as we shall now see.

Goliath

Well, this goes back to the earlier point about how words change meaning over time. Even if your definitions coincide more with the original meanings (which I do not know or really care enough about to study much), I do not think that overrides advantages in other ways of defining the terms (that I believe exist).

Also, as a general rule, I tend to respond mostly to what I feel are the strongest points in my "opponent's" posts, and ignore the ones I think will take us off track or are weaker in substance. If I did not respond to some of your particular points, well...you're a smart guy; you figure it out.

What a fascinating insight you have there.

Really, in productive dialogue, it is a bit silly to just claim that a particular piece of information is irrelevant without giving some sort of explanation why.

Well, this is probably the strongest argument you have had, so I do feel compelled to respond to this at least, and mention that I agree with you on this one.

If your next response has as bitter a tone as your previous ones, I will not bother responding to it. Yes, I realize that I have been a bit harsh myself, but I do not intend on prolonging this for the sake of getting into a flame war of any kind. I much prefer more civil debates, and if you want to continue this in that way, I would be happy to as well.

Brian

HoosierGuy28

Kosh,

Great, if you read it then you know it discussed the canonicity of the Bible and why the 66 books of the Bible are used, and why others or not. If you will look at my original post concerning McDowell's book, I'm sure you will see that I was citing it for Buffman because he had questions in regards to why these books are used in the Protestant Bible and why other writings are not.

Joel

HoosierGuy28

Digital Druid

First, I show no intentional bias when I study religion, and I willingly accept that there are some if not many good aspects of various religions. I study a lot of the major religions, along with some of the smaller religious orders, and with a special emphasis on eastern religions. Have I studied the writings of every religion in the world? No, I'm sure it would be safe to assume that no person on this planet has read all the religious writings of every religion in the world. I assure you that when I do study a religion, I do read from their religious writings and try to see where they are coming from.

Yes, I certainly do adhere to my own standards. Actually, I enjoy speaking to people of various religions and hearing their perspective on things. I also own and enjoy viewing media from the different religions. I have also spent quite a bit of time studying the incorporation of various religions in American society. Just a few months back, I did a study and a presentation on the use of Buddhism in Disney movies to give an example of how subtle the introduction of religion can be in society. When I presented this, I didn't say anything negative about Buddhism, I simply gave an overview on the most common principles of Buddhism ("Four Noble Truths", overview of the "Middle Way" and the "Eightfold Path") and then showed various clips from different Disney movies. Even in my research, I didn't use any sources that were not Buddhist, and I didn't show clips from any movies that I had not seen acknowledged by Buddhist organizations as being Buddhist.

I don't feel I am unfair about my approach to the many various religions. If you have a religion and feel that it demonstrates absolute truth, then I would be more glad to hear you out without any intentional bias.

Thanks for the questions.

Joel