Hey Christians, how can you believe in this???

Post Reply New Topic

If I may...science has never made me question my faith. I mean, atomically, we are dust bound together by energy in a configuration on par with the universe itself. More space than weight, if you will; we'd tear apart the universe if we were full, as that would result in a black hole due to all that concentrated mass. And all energy is bound to return to zero at some point, so, "From Dust, Unto Dust." And, well, how we're a grain of sand adrift amongst the universe...it's quite humbling that the Bible, as much as it a product by and for men, called these absolutes of our reality.

The biggest problem I have with all these arguments about how horrible religion can be is that you keep blaming the men behind it. And yes, humans can be malicious, spiteful creatures. There have been horrible men acting under the guise of God's will, just as there are horrible people in every corner of the world; it's unfair to assume that Christians or any one group is responsible for all the evil on our rock. Furthermore, you blame history just as much as you blame the radicals of one sect of society. How is that constructive? How is that going to solve the problems we possess today? Can't you see how the bitterness and hatred we carry is what inspires those that come after us to be horrible people, just as the people who came before you left you bitter and spiteful? Answer me this:

Why are you insisting on blaming the Breath that Be, which left this world breathing to this day, for the choices that were clearly allotted to man?

Yes, Genesis isn't necessarily fact. The universe is far older than we are, and I respect that, but the Word made it clear that He spoke through parable. Ergo, like a book of Aesop's Fables, there are truths to be garnered from the Bible. And what I understand is this: after Adam and Eve were brought into being, the Breath showed them a tree from which they were not to eat. In the middle of physical paradise. Naked, and debatably endowed. And then The Breath gave them autonomy, and left them to do as they saw fit.

Seriously, I think you all are incredibly biased if you think that the Breath didn't know that these two adrift souls weren't going to be a wee bit frisky with each other. Or that he didn't want these two to experience all this coil he wrought. But these two ended up damaging each other, and from Grace they fell; this is a subject for a whole other essay (as this has turned out to be o.o), but is off the current topic. The capacity for apathy has always existed in us; from this apathy, evil can spawn and damage those around us. But these were the choices allotted to we, each individual, to make. The actions of men have wrought the way the world has come to be today, and I think it's silly to be so determined to snuff out this 'sky-wizard' image you all are obsessed with.

I realize that I'll be posting this to plenty of hearts of stone, and I'm tired. Coming up with the Logos that might stay some of this spite is draining on my mental well-being. So I'm bugging out for the evening. Breathe, and Peace be with all ye.

I disagree with this line of thought. It treats religious theology as being devoid of reason. In truth religious theology is simply a philosophy that attempts to reason human existence. It entertains such ideas as, why am I here, by what reason should I strive to be moral, and what is the nature of my being. Granted however, there are those who blindly follow religion, just as there are those who follow scientific theory blindly. Both are devoid of the faculty of reason and let others dictate the direction of their mind and uncontrolled emotions.

The trouple with theological reasoning is that it starts with an inviolate axiom, every bit of philosophy must be shoehorned to fit the existence of God. Science on the other hand has no such axiom, and providing the researcher is prepared to go where ever the evidence leads, the scientific method has proven itself over and over again. To equate blind religious faith to an acceptance that the scientific method is at present the best way of attaining knowledge and understanding of the natural world, is simply absurd and bordering upon the infantile.

I am confused, do you accept the sciences of astronomy, geology, cosmology, particle physics etc and yet denounce biology and evolution??

BTW I take umbrage at the inference that my heart is made of stone, just because I use evidence and reason to come to my understanding of life does not make me heartless, if anything I unlike many religionists have a love for life, as this is, whether you can cope with the concept or not, the only one you are ever going to get. I do not wish for death in this life so that I can enter paradise

I disagree with this line of thought. It treats religious theology as being devoid of reason. In truth religious theology is simply a philosophy that attempts to reason human existence. It entertains such ideas as, why am I here, by what reason should I strive to be moral, and what is the nature of my being. Granted however, there are those who blindly follow religion, just as there are those who follow scientific theory blindly. Both are devoid of the faculty of reason and let others dictate the direction of their mind and uncontrolled emotions.

I disagree, it is unreasonable to use science as your guiding principle since science itself is, by its nature, probability and therefore is constantly revising or discarding its findings. This does not mean that science does not have a purpose. However, to treat science as infallible is not in keeping with the scientific method itself, nor is it in accordance with human reason.

As has what people take from the bible. More and more modern believers ignore the primitive myths and the ignorant criminal justice aspects and just pull out feel good quotes. It's a build your own religion construction kit.

You say:
" I disagree with this line of thought. It treats religious theology as being devoid of reason."

Not really. The poster is saying since many people believe in the truth of what the
Bible says and since this is recognized as "TRUTH" (or facts) then use these "facts"
as the basis for "EVERYONE'S" laws and school curriculum. Everyone has seen this
to be sometimes the case.

You never answer the poster, who is talking about the reality around us everyday,
and instead you attempt to defend "religious theology" instead of answering the
posters real and immediate concern. Try again?

As has what people take from the bible. More and more modern believers ignore the primitive myths and the ignorant criminal justice aspects and just pull out feel good quotes. It's a build your own religion construction kit.

I did not infer any of the points you mentioned from the original poster. If he feels like I went off topic or did not address his question appropriately, then I am perfectly happy to correct any mistake that has been made if he feels I was misconstruing his question.
As to you first point it is a logical fallacy to assume that a belief is fact simply because it is believed by a large group of people. I hope you did not interpret that I was in agreement with such a policy.

Again, it was not deliberate if it mas a mistake. You seem concerned with the here and now on how religion affects you. Well, I will tell you what I believe if you wish. I believe that church and state should be separate. I believe government has no purpose in marriage and should refrain from siding against or for any one religion. In doing so the government should relinquish it's control over who can an cannot get married since it interferes with religious freedom. The government should stop issuing marriage certificates and instead only offer legal property and right contracts that are irrespective of marriage. As for schools I believe that children should be allowed to reason and question religion and science. After all, we want to encourage children to learn not how to follow orders.

Then let me ask YOU:
Since many people believe in the truth of what the
Bible says and since this is recognized as "TRUTH" (or facts) then use these "facts"
as the basis for "EVERYONE'S" laws and school curriculum. Everyone has seen this
to be sometimes the case.
The question is whether you believe and defend these actions, happening today in many states,
based on the above.

"You seem concerned with the here and now on how religion affects you."
Actually no. But I am interested in spirituality that doesn't depend on a
proxy father behind the curtain to tell me what to do.

I agree with many things you say but find myself, as others do, in the middle
of an everyday world where people slaughter other people for religious
reasons, so while it's nice to debate pluses and minuses of a hypothetical
future, reality swirls around us and a nasty aspect is created by committed
religious people who could kill you for not believing the way they do.

If all religions were "sweetness and light" this would be a better world, but
even in the U.S. where we consider ourselves morally superior religious
bias is ever present, even if "YOU" choose not to recognize the fact.

I didn't mention biology or evolution, ergo I must be denouncing them? That is a silly progression of logic .

Pretty sure Jesus is also revered in Islam, just not as prominently as Muhammad is, and is not seen as the literal son of God. He still died for humanity's sins, and was still a messianic figure, though.

I disagree, it is unreasonable to use science as your guiding principle since science itself is, by its nature, probability and therefore is constantly revising or discarding its findings. This does not mean that science does not have a purpose. However, to treat science as infallible is not in keeping with the scientific method itself, nor is it in accordance with human reason.

Also, I disagree with the notion that philosophy must prove the existence of God in order to be valid. If there were proof of God philosophy and theology would not exist as schools of thought. Instead, one should ask three questions whenever you encounter the unknown. First, what is my nature at the present moment. Second, what is the reason for my nature as it exists at the present moment. And finally, what is the truth of this reason as it appears before me.

Also, this might be valid to the discussion. I have tried Atheism but found that I did not have enough faith for it.