agapeo

Was that a statement or a question Digit? I'm trying not to assume to much but based on the graemlin it would appear to be more of a statement.

In any case you will no doubt find certain individuals who do believe that what they believe is the truth regardless of it's verifiability. And you will most likely never convince them to the contrary.

So are you saying that my statement was not a truth statement? Is there no element of truth in what I said?

wildernesse

Are you distorting my god?

I'd have to say that while you might have distorted perceptions/ideas about who/what God is, you cannot personally or corporately distort it (god) in its being.

--tibac

agapeo

That says it all! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Wyz_sub10

I agree. I stated as much.

Which contains about as much detail and information as did your answers. I would note, though, that "hot" is the real descriptor. "White" *may* add a degree to "hot", but "white" in itself is meaningless.

Quite a statement. I have changed my mind many times based on new evidence or persuasive rationale. It isn't that I didn't like your answers, per se. It's more that they did not really answer anything. Like the example of "white" - you can provide that information to someone, but I doubt it'll be much help. I was looking for the "hot" part in your response and got only the "white".

Fair question.

I was a Christian for 25 years. My answers usually resembled many answers you may encounter on this board. But over time, and with every new challenge, I realized the answers become more and more carved and chisled to suit my beliefs and to address inconsistencies with the world around me.

I suppose saying that you believe "just because you do" is fair enough. But if you are going to persuade someone that your beliefs are valid or that they are worthy of adoption, you need to have some understanding of why you believe what you believe, and how you can reconcile those beliefs to the inconsistencies presented in the world around you.

In short, you are here because you have something to say, right? It is then inconsistent to say that this "something" cannot *really* be understood or explained.

[edited to correct syntax]

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

emphryio

SirenSpeak,
Nobody responded because the logic you used wasn't so fraught with holes as that of the theists who responded. What you said seemed to more or less make actual sense.

Starboy,
Concerning feelings vs reason. I was just attempting in vain to talk to someone in the philosophy section about that. My point being that all thought is an attempt at logic. All feelings stem directly from thought. Contrary to the ideas of many theists, there is no "feelings" vs logic. There is only analyzed thought vs lazy un-analyzed thought. Lazy un-analyzed thought is more likely to have "feelings" associated with it. (And also far more likely to be illogical.)

Because theists incorrectly think "feelings" are somehow outside of logical thought, they feel no need to analyze their religious "feelings". Therefore they can continue to believe absurdities.

Sabine Grant

I apologize for taking your comments as a caricature of all christians...

((((((Defiant Heretic))))))))))

Celsus

Hi Veronique/Sabine,

Sorry about the misattribution, I seem to have accidentally plucked it out of Sirenspeak's post.

Cool. I was in Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Benin, Togo, Mali, Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire. What's Madagascar like? I think that's one of the few countries in the world that I would really like to visit.

Understandable of course. But the way you make it sound is that your god is not exclusive in his desire for people to worship him (i.e. all people can reach him through various beliefs). If you had been raised in a Hindu or a Muslim family, would you be telling me exactly the same things (but from Hindu or Muslim perspectives)? It seems strange to me that it just so happened that something you were already familiar with ended up with you deciding that it was the "sole representative of the divine".

Of course I can accept it. It would sound bizarre to someone who's never been a theist, but since I have been one, it's not all that strange. However, for someone who is Allah dependent, or Krishna dependent, how is that different from you being Christ dependent? The fact is, they could write the next paragraph exactly as you do, substituting their god(s) with Christ, and their holy books with the Bible.

When you say that your faith "is not justifiable by means of reason", there are two possibilities of what you mean here:

1) Faith contradicts reason
2) Faith is separate from reason

I'd like to show you how (1) is the actual case, but then I'd be preaching. You'll have to decide for yourself as you explain your god to me.

Anyway, if what you wrote above is the answer to my first two questions (Christ & Bible), let's see what questions I've (already) asked which you can now move on to clarifying:

Jobar posted some oft-cited verses that contradict the portrait of a loving Christ. I won't jump ahead to this, but just to let you know, this will probably be the next step once you have answered the above questions. Which means, in answering those questions, you can attempt to pre-empt the next question from arising.

Joel

Celsus

Go right ahead.

In other words, your god loves you by answering prayers. I noticed you put qualifiers in: he doesn't always give you what you ask for. However, this contradicts the Bible - your god promises to give whatever you ask. His promises about answering prayer are as follows:

There are no qualifiers but faith, and ensuring the prayers are part of the will of god. I know for a fact, that millions of Christians pray everyday that starvation, poverty, crime, and so on will end. At least some of them no doubt have faith. Your god of love either is not loving enough to desire the same things, or is lying when promising that whatever is asked for will be given. Are there any other options?

Excellent, I hope we will all learn more as well. As I have told Veronique, you may now move on to answering the next set of questions:

Joel

Starboy

Emphryio,

I disagree with your claim that feeling is a form of “lazy” thought. The most basic feelings of fear, hunger, delight and anger are primal behaviors needed for survival in a hostile environment. We share these feelings as well as others with a wide range of creatures that practice little to none of what we would call “thinking”. It is this that causes me to disagree with your claim. I cannot say for sure but I suspect that the “love” that Christians claim they feel for god is the same love that a child feels for a parent. The parent child bond of love is another instance of primal behavior that we share with other animals. It is difficult for me to see how this could be confused with thought. If there are Christians out there that think I am wrong in regards to comparing “Christian love of god” to the love of a child for its parent I would like hear from them.

Lastly, I agree with the statement: “feelings are somehow outside of logical thought”. There was a time when fear was used to trigger the flight response. In most situations in nature that would cause the feeling of fear, the last thing the animal should be doing is reasoning out the correct course of action. The unfettered immediate reaction to this emotion was for many the key to avoiding death. In the daily lives of most people today flight is the last thing you want to do when experiencing fear. The results of suppressing this one emotion alone is well documented by increased mortality caused by stress related diseases. In our daily lives we use reason to suppress many of our emotions because they are inappropriate responses. This reality of daily existence is evidence that emotions are outside of logical thought.

Starboy

agapeo

Hi Joel,
Fair enuh, but before I do I will respond briefly to your comments regarding my answer to the first question.
I would seriously question Him if He didn't.
I beg to disagree (in a bit) with what I took the liberty of putting in bold.
I see you are quite familiar with the Bible. Not surprised. But it seems that one verse which would allow my qualifier was left out of the ones you quoted.
The qualifier according to this verse is need, not greed. Sometimes we don't always need what we think we might. But I noticed you indicated somewhat of a qualifier yourself which is correct.
If one prays for something which is outside the will of God to give, their prayers can be expected to go unanswered.

Moving right along.
Yes, but the list is too detailed to give here. But I could give a shorten version if you're really interested but note that I did answer your question.
Does that not depend on what you mean by true? But so as not to be accused of being vague or skirting the question I will answer that IMO all of God's Word is true. But in stating that I also employed another qualifier.
Same as above.
Ahh, very complicated field of study – figures of speeches that is. In short whenever something fails to be true to fact it is a figure of speech of which a metaphor is but one of over 420 varieties.
Absolutely not. Everybody does interpret the Bible. The question is whether it is correctly interpreted.
Pardon me for not answering this question but I'm still not sure what the relevancy is.