mattmattmattmattv

People don't like to be wrong, and they SURE don't like to be wrong when being wrong would shatter their entire worldview. Thus, I don't think good can ever come from convincing someone that thier religion is entirely manmade...what would be MUCH better is to liberalize their religion to whatever degree they are able to handle. For some people, that's nothing. For some people, they could become like Bishop Spong and still feel like their being good Christians. Whatever floats their boat.

The best "argument" (although I would never "argue", since, as I said, that's pretty counter-productive) is this: The Catholic Church, and Protestants in England and many other countries use the apocrypha. Greek orthodox (or something like that...) reject revelation. Martin Luther refused to acknowledge the canonicity of many books (Revelation, Jude, II and III John, James, and others). Make Christians aware of these facts, and they will realize that, as Spong said, the Bible did not fall from heaven, leather-bound and written in Elizabethean english. It was put together by men. Men decided which books were worthy of being included in Holy Scripture. Thus, if human reason decided which books represented God's words and God's will, don't we, as humans, also have that same divinely-given ability to discern between good (God's will) and bad (Sin)? Don't we have common sense, and was not our common sense, were not our minds, given us by God? Try not to outright tell people they're foolish and wrong if you want to get anywhere with them. If you just want to vent, fine...but you WILL NOT get anywhere. If you're really interested in results, just gently and kindly show people how they have made the Bible almost an idol, and how human reason is also Divine Revelation. Show them how sinful it is to neglect this form of revelation (just as sinful as it would be to neglect any one book of the Bible in favor of the others). In fact, you can even show them how Romans 1 talks about this God-given ability to reason (or, "conscience"). Just don't tell people outright that God doesn't exist, because that not only rarely works, but it is also just plain mean. If you succeed, chances are their life will be the worse for it.

Jayhawker Soule

I consider such an approach sadly condescending and disingenuous. Shoving atheism down someone's throat is counterproductive, but if an individual wishes to honestly engage, the least I can do is respond respectfully, honestly, and thoroughly.

Human reason is not "Divine Revelation." Playing word games with people is, in my opinion, neither kind nor gentle.

No one has asked you to proselytize atheism. No one has asked you to serve as the protector of theist sensibilities. Perhaps your interactions with both theist and atheist should take full account of the absence of such mandates.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

D.H. Cross

What's wrong with using basic human psychology to ultimately prove a point you believe is correct? Give them a Spong book if it is a mid-way point between atheism and fundamentalism. Better than the person rejectin you outright. And there is no need to lie! Just say, "here is one bishops view. I agree with some points and not with others. Let me know what you think."

Or give them Russel Shorto's "Gospel Truth". That is a great book for the curious christian.

Jayhawker Soule

What is the point you're attempting to prove, and why?

mattmattmattmattv

The main thing I was trying to stress, however, was just the importance of humility when talking about such sensitive issues.

Tom Sawyer

I agree with the part about not being mean to people. However, these are people who've come to a place called the secular web site to discuss religion. Odds are that they'll be presented with a secular view of it. The main part of a secular view of the world is that God does not, in fact, exist. If they thought God did exist, they wouldn't be called secular. If I went onto a Christian web site and started posting about how there's no God while they're trying to discuss the Bible then that would be mean, doing it on this web site is not mean at all.

If you want to debate with people about the existence of God or strict interpretations of the Bible, that's fine. Back up your answers and be prepared to have those answers questioned, especially if they're backed up by nothing more than faith. But don't complain that people are being mean by saying there's no God.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: peteyh ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Eusebius the humble and sensitive infidel ...

... i.e., manipulate and lie, all for 'their own good' of course. This is crude paternalism, not humility - it's the sensitivity made so popular be the missionaries of the past. I believe what you're advocating is disingenuous, disrespectful, and disgraceful.

The "best argument" is to deal openly and honestly with the question at hand.

mattmattmattmattv

You can call my method what you will, but all I can say is that I wish nothing more in the whole world than that someone had used this method to liberalize my religion rather than destroying it utterly with atheism, no matter how politely they may have done so.

The last year of my life, I have been a miserable wreck on the inside, and it is for one reason and one reason alone: I saw a meaning in life, I had my life's work cut out for me: to please God. Now, I can't find any ultimate meaning in life that compares to what I had before, and I am very, very, very unhappy.

matt

P.S. -- Pls. call me matt

Theli

Matt.

Everyone who enters this forum knows fully well that their belief might and will be questioned. People will disagree with you, and they will try to convince you.
This is the wrong place to weep about your life lacking meaning.
And if you don't like it when people express their opinions about god you shouldn't talk to people.

Any moderator...
Certainly, this thread doesn't belong in the "Existence of God(s)" forum.

Jayhawker Soule

Your "method" is to condemn the messenger and dilute the message to the point that it becomes a parody of itself. Your "method" is: 'The truth hurts - so lie.'

Though I'm truly saddened by your emotional state, I have no interest in seeing honesty become the victim of angst.

[To the moderators: I question whether EoG is the best home for this thread.]