CHRISTIAN DEBATE TACTICS AND MOTIVATIONS (an analysis) 1]Turning the Tables. Christians are inclined to mutate the debate from one demanding proof, from the one proposing a “truth”, to one demanding an equal burden from the one not being convinced of the proof given. Their “Reverse Reasoning” scheme is a result of their need to show that all forms of belief, even unbelief, require faith and therefore the choice should be decided on the grounds of which side is promising the most; a very selfish stance given their supposed selflessness. In this way they accomplish two things: 1] They avoid the burden of presenting arguments for their proposition {for which there are none that can be taken seriously by a thinking man}, by subtly admitting they cannot, and then challenging the other to present an argument against their proposition, that they obviously cannot, and in this way equating the two. 2] They attempt to show that all positions are founded on faith and blind hypothesis making them all quasi-religious{Here they are partially correct but avoid the fact that atheism is the product of scepticism and doubt and theirs has neither inclination within it} and so again they equate the theistic and atheistic positions by describing them as resting on the same bedrock of human ignorance as their own. This clever strategy completely avoids the fact that there are no absolutes but only superior and inferior positions judged by the quality and quantity of their supportive arguments based on empiricism and logic created through experiential mechanisms. Here a religious mind shows the quality of its reasoning by not being able to perceive gradations of “truth” but only absolutes {God Itself is an absolute notion}and by perceiving the universe as a “this” or “that” construct, a black or white, a good or evil reality with no coloration or shading of any kind in between. There’s a saying that goes like this: “Don’t argue with a fool because he’ll pull you down to his level and then beat you with his experience there.” Unfortunately, for them, the burden of proof rests squarely upon their shoulders and no amount of verbal acrobatics can unburden them of it. The one claiming a “truth”, in this case an absolute “truth” at that, is the one that must propose arguments and evidence in support of this “truth” and not the one denying or resisting the arguments themselves. If the other, in this case atheists, remains unconvinced or can explain away said arguments and evidence or can offer alternative explanations for supposed supporting phenomena, then it is not up to the denier to prove the opposite of the proposition proposed but only to cast doubt upon it if he can. Here I must mention that there are Atheists that hold on to their opinions in absolute dogmatic manners and arejust as guiltyof absolutism as any reigious fanatic is. The only honest atheistic position is that of one not believing in things it is unconvinced of or has not witnessed adequate proof of. I have no proof that there’s a Gargoyle in my closet so I am an unbeliever in Gargoyles but retain the possibility that there might be merely based on the fact that I cannot search all the closets in the world and cannot discount the fact that these creatures may exist in realms and dimensions out of my perceptive abilities. {Agnosticism} 2] Using Human Psychology Christians, like many religious minds, inevitably rely on human psychological weakness, existential anxiety and instinctual survival drives and egotism in support of their absolutist, dogmatic fundamentalism, masking as Theistic philosophy. The methods of offering threats and promises to entice and beguile the unsuspecting victim with their ‘Siren’ song are well known to me. It is of no surprise that religion and, more specifically, Christianity flourish and thrive in the soils of suffering, tragedy and human hopelessness. It was during the Dark-Ages that Christianity reached the peak of its power and, the relative, well-being of most in today’s western world shows why it is currently in decline, while in less fortunate geographical areas full of poverty and war religion still holds power over the populace [Islam for instance]. Suffering has always been the fertile ground for religion. It has spread during times of social and cultural strife and it still finds followers in those that have lived through a tragic circumstance or undergo a period of psychological stress and existential discontent. They promise much in the afterlife but conveniently they are proven right or wrong after consciousness has ceased and one is already dead. They threaten often, by evoking images of ‘hell’ and ‘demons’, playing upon primeval and instinctual fears and creating notions of sin and shame. The whole premise of Pascal’s wager is fraught with similar religious promise and threat and neglects to mention that there IS! a loss in believing in a God that may not exist at all, it is the loss of living life completely and fully. If we take into account the laws and rules of religious ethos and see life as an opportunity for exploration then there is a price in believing in gods that may not be there and in disciplining ones self to an authority that is absent. Living in ignorance is the most terrible price of all. Adam made his choice what's yours? Dedicating yourself to a single source and an only goal is full of unnecessary and, in my view intolerable, consequences. It sacrifices all other possibilities and all other sources and goals on the demanding alter of a single one hypothesis, and in this Christian case a hypothesis of such childishness and hypocrisy as to become ridiculous and obscene to whoever studies its premises with an open and courageous spirit. 3] Hiding behind Theism The defensive stance of running behind a legitimate philosophical proposition to disguise our dogmatic fanaticism as an equal philosophical position is also another Christian method. Recently Christians have fought to include religion in schools and in presenting their ideas of Creationism as just another scientific theory that may lack any scientific respectability due to an absence of empirical evidence but nevertheless is the equal of Evolution Theory because of Biblical accounts. Modern-day Christians and Christian apologists prefer to approach the “God” subject from a purely Theistic perspective in order to gain credibility and respect and when the initial gain has been made and they sit at the same table as other philosophical theories they unleash the tirade of mythological prejudices and fairy-tale constructs to then “prove” the superiority of their specific religion as opposed to that of others. But Christians, as other religious fundamentalists, wish to go beyond the premises of a theistic philosophical approach. They not only wish to prove the existence of God, a prejudiced starting point to begin with, but need also to paint him with humanistic and positive colorations as to make Him more palatable and commercial. It isn’t enough, for them, that there is an ultimate creator but It must also exhibit the conscious intelligence, emotional predispositions and transcending concerns they want It to, as well. “God is Love”, “God is good”, “God is compassionate”, “God is omnipotent”, and so on. Yet they can no more offer convincing arguments as to why He is so than they can offer convincing argument that He IS at all. Then they ask us to risk our entire intellectual integrity and future investigative prospects by surrendering to their primitive dictums completely as to not endanger our theoretical after-life fate at the hands of an otherwise compassionate, forgiving and loving deity. Perhaps they, due to some life tragedy or internal weakness, can accept certain characteristics as being self-evident in a being they want to believe exists as they want it to exist even though its actions show it to be the reverse of what they claim it is. How can “evil” exist in a creation constructed by absolute “good”? How can omnipotence be unable to defeat “evil” and if it tolerates it, as necessary, then is it absolute “good”? What is “evil” and “good”? Christians fail in giving definitions on this matter. If evil is allowed as a necessary environment for free-will, then why is then free-will asked to be constrained and surrendered to “good”? If I am created to be ‘free’ and I choose a path other than the one desired by a deity then why is it sinful to act according to the properties of my nature? If God is concerned for our free-will then why is there no choice in when and if we wish to exist, in the first place? It appears that, according to Christianity, I no more have the option of dying on my own terms, since suicide is a ‘sin’, than I do on living on my own terms since I have no choice as to whether I wish to live at all and once alive I have no choice but to choose the one or suffer eternally for my insolence. In the case of “first cause”, let us avoid the inherent human prejudices of cause/effect for now, and go straight to the ‘why does God not require a cause but the universe does’ question? If there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, other than experiential and reasoning, then what are they and how is it then that not everything can be deemed possible based on intuitive arguments that cannot be substantiated or analyzed? The Gargoyle in my closet is there after all. If the constructs and the motives of a “God” are incomprehensible to us, as mortal beings, then how are we to assume to know His emotions, His morality and His wants and desires? If “God” is incomprehensible then why can it not be that the absence of “God” be, likewise, incomprehensible? Why do we deserve eternal life? If “God” could have created a universe of His liking then why create one at all? Is it a test of some sorts. If it is a test, as Christians are inclined to believe, and God is omnipotent then does He not already know the outcome? If He does then why go through it at all and expose His creations to so much pain and suffering to come to conclusions He already knows? Is he a sadist? The idea of life being a testing ground and an entrance exam for Heaven implies ignorance on the part of the tester, since by giving free-will the creator loses control over the creation. Therefore omniscience is absent. But if free-will was given [the debate continues on that one] then why not use it to become autonomous and superior to the creator Himself. A father wants his children to surpass him and a child natgurally wants to be more than his father. What kind of sick, self-centered bastard gives birth or creates in order to hold dominion over that for eternity? What does that say about Him from a psychological perspective? What kind of Father/King wants his child to be forever a prince at his right hand side and does not want him to sit on the throne himself? 4]Running to the Bible This is a favourite practice for Christian minds. They appear to be convinced that a simple Biblical quotation or an assertion supposedly supported by Biblical scripture is enough to make a good point and a sufficient counterargument to be respected and answered. Scanning through this Forum and from personal experience in other debate Forums, I can attest to the frustrating practice of conversing with Christians that speak through the Bible and in continuous quotation while mistakenly believing they have landed a good blow on their ‘holier than thou’ behalf. The capacity of interpreting Biblical writings literally where interpretations could be incessantly debated over, many dedicate their entire lives to Biblical studies that resembles Nostradamean interpretations, boggles the mind and places into question the quality of mind that can take a piece of metaphorical literature, resembling Homers Iliad and the Odyssey, and then live on the grounds of its symbolism. But beyond the Christian inability to think ‘outside the box’ let us reason why and how a single book written by human hands holds dominion over all human thought. Granted it is full of age-old wisdom and interesting historical accounts, but how is it “Holy” and the first and final word on all human interests? The proof…once again….conspicuously absent. Why the Bible and not the Koran or “The Lord of the Rings” for that matter? I believe here the full effects of religiosity can be witnessed. The results of being dependant and guided by a single thought and want and the consequences of feeling, rather than thinking your way through life and basing your faith only on instinct and fear can be seen in how inflexible and intolerable these individuals are. In their every argument and opinion the full extent of their enslavement and capitulation can be observed. This is the ultimate price of Pascal’s wager he neglected to tell us about, a mind devoid of all possibility and insight and only being able to mouth the thoughts and dogmas of another minds efforts; a mind totally ensnared in social/cultural frameworks and incapable of perceiving the wonder and terror of existence in its totality; a mind with no potential and condemned to live out life in servitude and ignorance, full of hate for his own beastly desires and shame for his animalistic motivations, full of rules and laws restricting his actions and thoughts and utterly dedicated to a single source of wisdom and a single method of living. Finally It has been in my experience quit a frustrating endeavour to try to reason with religious minds or to participate in any respectable conversation with them that will lead to mutual advancement. Their thoughts are completely clouded by the dogma that infects their minds like a virus. Their self-asserted open-mindedness and intellectual exploration is limited to questioning side issues of interpretations and metaphysical details while the ‘a priori’ main premises remain untouched and indubitable. Their intent is rarely an honest exploration of possibilities but an attempt to indoctrinate and to spread the virus that has within it an imbedded program of procreation through infection. The favourite victims?: Those that exhibit some sort of anxiety, uncertainty and need for answers, as has been seen in this Forum in threads such as “On the Borders of Belief”. The Christians sensing blood swoop down at any sign of weakness and uncertainty. They pounce upon the victim trying to insert their metaphysical fangs of fear and anxiety and spread the disease of Christian morality that leads to a degradation of the human spirit and a surrendering to fear and ineptness. It is not coincidental that religion is more thoroughly subscribed to by women and older individuals nearing the twilight of their lives and is more apt to take hold of persons with some physical or spiritual ailment seeking hope and meaning for his pain and suffering. What healthy man or woman would surrender their honour and nobility to invisible hypothetical entities that require of them the dismemberment of their nature and the decapitation of their humanity? What young man would sublimate his pride in servitude and subservience to a being of questionable existence and characteristics that promises everything and demands all? What human being, of sound mind and body, would kneel to a “god” that demands his castration and dehumanization as a simpleton slave, begging for mercy and preying for leniency in the face of an indifferent universe? If we are men, if we are human beings then let us stand in the face of reality and spit into the face of that that threatens us. Let us live in dignity as thinking beings and in pride as beings that accept both the terrors and wonders of consciousness washed in the full glorious light of our entire possibility and potential and then let us die as men with majesty. Christian Burdens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to facilitate Christian argumentation I propose to offer my advice as to their options in any future debate in order for them to remain respectable and relevant in any philosophical discourse. To prove their ”truths” these questions must be dealt with in detail: 1] They are proposing an absolute "truth", therefore the existence of such a mythical construct must be argued for and then their ability to perceive and absorb such a construct must be proven. 2] They are proposing an answer to the problem of existence, therefore they must prove that we actually do exist, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Descartes “I think therefore I am” is itself a prejudiced proposition since it begins from a starting position of an “I” which remains undefined and unproven. Define “I” and you have my attention. 3] They must prove free-will. Their entire premise of a Christian God rests on the free-will concept and without it they have nothing but a nice feel-good tale of heroes and monsters. The free-will question has plagued mankind for centuries and so any elucidation on the matter by Christians will greatly benefit me and many others on this Forum. I suspect that they can adequately prove free-will, how else could they be proposing an absolute "truth" if they haven’t? 4] They propose knowledge of “truth” so I guess they have dealt with the epistemological problems with ease. In order to prove knowledge of a “truth” not only the existence of truth is necessary but the existence of knowledge, its form, nature and reliability as well. I nor anyone else, but the foolhardy, are proposing any absolute “truths” but only offer our perspectives and opinions and so we do not have to live up to the standards you impose upon yourselves with your positions. Furthermore, from my perspective, I neither care nor am motivated to impose my opinions on others but only offer my views in comparison for purely selfish reasons and if I, manage to influence or inspire through the process then so be it. I do not ask for followers or converts, I am proposing no “truth” but only my perspective as being superior to another’s and wanting to test it in debate. So the turning the tables on me so as to avoid my challenge will not work. But you are welcome to try. But beyond these philosophical problems being a necessary aspect for any proposal claiming absolute certainty and “truth” some added more basic questions plague Christian faith holders. 1] Why do religious doctrines adhere to geographical and cultural borders. I would suspect that “truth” has no restrictions and should pop-up in equal frequency all over the world. It is suspicious that every religious “truth” requires a pre-existing ideology to have infected the mind that adopts it in full. Religious spread adheres to cultural borderlines which is interesting when one claims to hold a transcending “truth” that should be prevalent throughout the universe. 2] Why your God and not another’s? The most remarkable thing about religious fanatics is that they not only believe in a Creator, as an abstract concept, but they believe in a specific Creator with name, character and moral identity, who’s opinions, needs, and thoughts have miraculously been transmitted to them and their kind through scripture, icons and so forth. 3] Why is their faith reliant on taking hostages from an early age so that they may be indoctrinated and mind-moulded into believers? I would think that true believers in an irrefutable fact would allow the power of the truth itself to dominate the minds of man and would not have to infect infants or savages so that they may spread their opinions. In posting this challenge to Christians I am not holding my breath in the hopes that they will answer at all. I understand the inherit problems with defending an indefensible position on the grounds that we feel good by believing in it. But by coming to this Forum I can only surmise that their motivations can be chosen from these options: 1] They want to debate their positions in the hopes that they may fill in any gaps in reason and to assess the quality and form of any opposition. 2] They want to spread the “word” and do their Christina duty by finding stray lambs to lead back into the dogmatic fold. 3] They are deluded enough to think that they actually believe they have a chance in making headway against individuals with the analytical prowess and intellectual fortitude, as can be found in Forums like this. 4] They actually believe that they know something or have considered this subject in far greater depth and breadth than anyone else and they come here to enlighten all us closed-minded infidels. Finally -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me describe in closing the process of becoming a “born again” Christian. During the early childhood years one is exposed to a strict religious teaching and a consistent Christian existence that becomes stifling and is resented by the child. Later on, and powered by the physical health of adolescence and the feeling of indestructibility it entails, the individual rebels against his family’s upbringing, often unleashing pent up instinctual desires and constricted sexual energies. But as is often the case, reality inevitably slaps us all in the face and humbles us in the face of a universe we can neither comprehend nor control. It is during this stressful period of life when we come to terms with our own mortality and limitations, usually in the late twenties or thirties that one is ‘born again’ and rediscovers the “truths” of his cultures historic ‘wisdom’. This rebirth is often brought on by some accident, illness and/or personal loss or it can be the consequence of a distressful life experience that lead to social disillusionment, hopelessness, humility and feelings of vulnerability. What follows is the total and complete acceptance of earlier teachings as profound and superior since they also concur with the predominate social norm and a looking back on the ‘rebellious’ period as a time of questioning and doubting that inevitably lead back to the indubitable “truths” of the past. As there are different degrees of physical strength there are different degrees of mental and psychological strength which would explain why some people need religion in order to survive while others resist the temptation of succumbing to the social and instinctual pressures that faith assuages. For the weak faith is a matter of survival not just a theory of explanation or an existential hypothesis that can be replaced when found to be inadequate. They need to believe they will be taken care of, that all is for the best, that all has meaning and purpose especially their own pain and suffering, that death is the great equalizer and final dispenser of justice and that they, after death, will be honoured and compensated for their life’s sufferings and their discipline to the laws of the eternal. This beating down of an individual from a rebellious non-conformist to a subjugated socially acceptable entity, is in fact, how all institutions exact their pressures and controls on all individuals and force a uniformity of thought and action in a social system, in which religion participates as a compelling power. In other words, these Christians are a kind of moral thought police that, unknowingly function as a pressuring mechanism of peers that keep the uniformity, conformity and peace in any social system. This controlling mechanism can be more clearly seen in more extreme cases such as paramilitary forces, made up of the most fanatical and indoctrinated individuals that enforce the rule of the silent laws of morality and normality or in cases such as the “morality” police that beat women in the streets of Afghanistan and imposed their ethical standards by nipping the bud of any divergence and rebelliousness.
You forgot to add one thing: When they are cornered and have no answers, they turn to you and say: JESUS LOVES YOU !!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You forgot one thing, we dont debate hopeless athiest retards, we dedicate on them, basically they are our intellictual slaves ! Happy ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Funny how it's you of all people saying that Poopsy.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wanderer, You're bored because Christians aren't answering you? Did you just post this to pick a fight? As far as I can tell from the limited amount of time I've spent on this forum, the atheist/agnostic method of debate is to continually insult Christians until you provoke the angry response that you can then use as proof that Christians are unreasonable. You assume our position is indefensible because you do not believe it but we do, therefore it is the atheist position that seems indefensible to us. People who raise their children to be religious are not taking hostages any more than people who raise their children to be non-religious are doing so. Most of us raise our children in the way we believe is most beneficial to them. Since many people convert to Christianity and it's adherents numbers in the billions, we believe the truth is speaking for itself. When we quote these figures, we're told by non-believers that we are simply brainwashed and that's the only reason Christianity is spreading. I have seen many people, myself included, turn to Christianity in adulthood and found it imrpoved their lives dramatically. A religious person would consider that evidence of religious truth, a non-religious person would consider it evidence of the power of myth. Why do you assume that no person who has ever been religious or become religious has ever been enlightened, educated or thought at great length about their spiritual choice? I'm not getting into all of the other things you posted about because I think that what theists are talking about in terms of existence/God/spirit do not relate to the physical world as we know it and atheists only recognize the physical world as we know it so we end up with a completely circular and hostile argument which ultimately changes nothing. "For the weak faith is a matter of survival not just a theory of explanation or an existential hypothesis that can be replaced when found to be inadequate. They need to believe they will be taken care of, that all is for the best, that all has meaning and purpose especially their own pain and suffering, that death is the great equalizer and final dispenser of justice and that they, after death, will be honoured and compensated for their life’s sufferings and their discipline to the laws of the eternal" That sentence right there is completely insulting (as I suspect it was intended) to all religious people. Since more people in this world are religious than non-religious it is fair to assume that religious people come in as many shades and hues as non-religious, including both weak and strong, literalist and non-literalist, scientists, docotrs, lawyers, teachers and janitors. My life since I have become Catholic is much more demanding than it was when I was an atheist. The easiest thing in the world is to live a life in which you believe there is no comeuppance, no real accountability. It is more demanding but more rewarding. This is something non-religious people always get wrong......many religious people are not religious because they are afraid or uneducated or really wish there were a God...many religious people actually believe in the tenets of their religion. It is not the same as pretending to believe something because we wish it were so or because we're afraid to die. It may be the case for some people, but not for most people I know or for myself. I'm sure plenty of atheists have been afraid to die but did not become religious as a result of that fear. You make many assumptions, but cannot prove any of them yet that is what you ask of us. As I've said, I think you just wanted to pick a fight. Well, you're not getting one from me.
Huh? You'd have pulled that insult off PM, if it had made sense and if you'd actually spelled intellectual correctly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bad move son. Next time say nothing unless you're sure you can pull it off. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But that's the thing though, how do you know that there is a form of purgatory or punishment after death? We live our lives in a common manner because we know that there is accountability, not in the religious context, but in the legal and social context. I've often asked people who are religious how they know that God really exists and the reply has nearly always been, 'I just do'. Not meaning to be insulting, but I don't understand that. How can possibly you know for sure that your belief in your religion or your God is right or even exists? Such blind faith always has me questioning and asking quite simply, why? Ah, but religion is not God and God is not religion. There's a difference isn't there? To believe in God or a higher being does no mean that one is religious. Religions represent the views of a certain group in society and they spread their views to other societies by way of missionaries, etc. Each religious tenet is different, therefore each of these group's interpretation of God is different. Christians believe that their God is superior to others and so on and so on. Each interpretation is different, but similar in that it has a blind following. No one knows for sure if God exists or if any of the religions were correct. No one has ever been able to show me or prove to me that God exists and until I know for sure, I would rather believe in what I can see, feel, touch and smell. If there were no religions in the world, would people still believe in God or a higher being?
Paula Like shooting fish in a barrel. You see I’ve debated Christians for years [in another Forum] so I know what you will say before you even say it. This thread was started by me after I noticed certain patterns of behaviour and I wanted to encapsulate them for all that were interested. Looking at your response I sort of predicted what you were going to say. Sad. No my argument is that they are more likely to “take hostages”. Thos believing in absolute ‘truths’ are more readily confident about them and so more willing to do ANYTHING in their defence. When you believe that you are righteous and the holder of an absolute certainty, as your kind is, then the step into violence or extremism becomes a matter of circumstance. Those unsure and sceptical posses the doubt necessary to not be too full of themselves, like you are. Exactly. Inebriating yourself using any method is the fastest road to contentment, but who said contentment is the ultimate goal of life? Only those afraid of the alternative. I’m sure believing in goblins and ghosts and afterlives offers the believer a pacifier for his anxieties and relief for his fears. That is not the issue here. Religion has been used as a ‘reliever’ of stress and ignorance needs faith to sustain itself. My position is that you are weak for needing such a pacifier at all. A child believing in Santa Claus is more happy than a child that discovers that it’s all a big lie. Deal with it. Because I have experience with it. Educated, enlightened? How, where, from what? A Muslim suicide bomber has also been “enlightened” and “educated” to be what he is. You are such a nice sheep, dear. I prefer your existence to your non-existence. As far as I’m concerned Christians should be sent off to kill Muslims and die for their beliefs. It makes for good TV. People have been killing and dieing for stupidities since the beginning of time. There is only an “accountability to self and to nature. I like how you mention you being an atheist once, as a sign that you’ve reached your faith through careful thought. You are a ‘born again’. Read what I’ve written about them. You fit the description I don’t doubt that you believe the bullshit you believe in, I doubt that you know why you do so. How the mind justifies to itself things that benefit it or are to its interests is a fascinating phenomenon. I also think that every religion that exists or has ever existed was thought of, by its followers, that it was the ONE and TRUE religion and they liked the nice feelings they got from believing in it. Is that an argument on their behalf? The courageous and those possessing intellectual integrity. I’ve seen your kind before. You eventually bore me to tears. Look how you point to popularity as a sign of veracity and how you take someone’s occupation and label as a sign of their intellectual value. I’m afraid it won’t be much of a fight. Just me having fun at your expense.
Wanderer, I'm sorry you misunderstood my post so I will explain one more time. I did not take popularity as a sign of anything. I said that the spread of Christianity could be interpreted two ways depending upon one's existing point of view. Funny how you left out the second half of that statement. I have also never said mine was the one true religion. (OK, I like to say it to PM to get him going but I don't really think it). The similarities between religions leads me to believe we get guidance all the time that is often ignored. Bells, I had personal experiences which led me to my current religious beliefs. I tried every reasonable and rational alternative to explain a few things that had happened to me, because I was an atheist at the time and was none too keen on the idea of an infinite lifespan. I don't go into the experiences because it's a very long story and took eight years of researching different explanations, as well as different religions before I finally asked for some signs as to what I should do. I got them and that led me to the Church I am at now. One of the many, many things that happened was that I had a recurring dream where if I went to a particular Church certain specific things would work out for me as a sign that it wasn't just a dream. I figured, what the heck. Within a week of joining my Church, all the things in my dream immediately worked themselves out, such as getting an unexpected call from my dream company where I had wanted to work for years but which had a three year hiring freeze on. My resume had been unearthed accidentally after two years of being on file with them. There was an immediate opening in the job I wanted on the shift I wanted and despite having no experience they took me on and agreed to train me. The first day I went in I met the man of my dreams, a co-worker and devout Christian who later told me he would never have dated anyone who wasn't a practicing Christian due to previous difficulties. Hey, he didn't need to know I'd only been at it a week! Also, a burn scar on my arm disappeared that had been there for twenty years. A check from an old account I'd forgotten about and which had languished for years showed up in my mailbox, solving many of my money problems and I found an angel medallion lying on my computer desk in my apartment in which I lived alone. It wasn't there the night before and I didn't own one since I was new to this religion business. All this was in the dream I kept having and all of this happened within a week of going to Church. I no longer have most of the difficulties I had prior to going to Church, even though the idea of living in some spiritual form was not too thrilling to me for a long time. I was very much a "You're born, you live, you die, the end" type of person. I am only talking here about normal every day difficulties. I was not driven to Church by any traumatic experience or anything like that. I also don't think God owes it to me to get me my dream job or my dream sweetie pie in exchange for believing. I think it is exactly what I was told it was...a sign that I was on the right path.
No, I think modern study as revealed that those who pray are less likely to have some diseases. Besides, in order to prove Pascal's wager is invalid you must show that this price is infinite. Your life being only a finite lifespan, must also have a finite value associated with it. Well, the atheist hypothesis that God does not exist seems to be just as restricting. I think there are quite a few absolutes such as the existence of truth.
okinrus, Good points! There is a study being done in California about health care patients who have some people praying for them and some people not. They don't know which group they're in. The patients being prayed for all needed drastically less medical intervention than the ones not being prayed for. Other studies have shown that religious people live longer, recover more quickly from disease and injury and have fewer diseases in the first place. I live my life more fully than I ever did. I say my prayers every day and attend Church two or three times a week. The whole process of ritual actually takes up less of my time than working out does, but I am much more mindful of how I treat people and how I treat myself.
Loose Cannons and a Silly Twitch Yawn. What silliness is this topic? Wanderer, did you really waste how much time making that list? For such a detailed "analysis" I don't see much accounting for trademark diversity among sects. Arguing with a Catholic is different than arguing with a Jehovah's Witness is different than arguing with a Southern Baptist is different than arguing with a Seventh-Day Adventist is different than arguing with a Lutheran (which is similar to arguing with a Catholic, but still different) is different than arguing with a Quaker ... ad nauseam. My general analysis of your topic post, Wanderer, suggests that you let the dumbest of all Christians set the terms of the general discussion, as well as the boundaries of your intellectual investigation. It is not advisable to continue making such an allowance. At some point, arguing with that particular degree of idiocy equals empowering it. The people you seem to be arguing about ... the odds are significantly improbable that they would even read this site in the first place. A note to the Christians: Topics such as this are an excellent reminder of why the smarter of y'all ought to get together and start squashing the teleministries and anonymous-evangelical litterbugs. But ... did you ever hear about the time that some southern-US state executed a mentally-retarded man who killed his parents--who were brother and sister--after he came to understand that God hates incest? Point being, the kind of Christians referred to in the topic post do exist. In older years, they were considered cannon-fodder; nice kids, but too stupid to do anything other than carry a rifle and die. Now they exist to support teleministries and other predators in the Christian food chain. They are what the rest of us fear of this country if Creationism ever gets installed in the science departments of public schools, or if the OCA ever won out in Oregon. (Can you imagine an OB/GYN, urologist, or psychiatrist educated according to "Christian" boundaries? How about all of 'em in a state? A Health Sciences University teaching the medical "fact" that "God blesses each conception and pregnancy"?) In the end, this segment of Christianity reflects a segment of any society; every bell curve has its low end. And yes, I can only imagine how irritating it is being asked to answer for these folks so much of the time. And when I read the hackneyed, amateurish attacks of third-rate muckrakers such as this topic post, well ... you have my sympathies. I'm an American; stupidity like that is Constitutionally-protected here. But like any low end of society, this low end of Christianity does cost you and I and the rest of us something. And since, being an infidel, I cannot do much to help fix the situation without being accused of persecuting Christians, I can only look to the flock and ask, When are you going to raise your brothers and sisters from the shadow of the valley of death?
Tiassa, I agree with you on the fundamentalist bit. My brother and his African-American wife are getting married this August and a church (one of the Protestant ones, can't remember which) agreed to marry them when they called but backpedaled when they showed up for the meeting. The fact that Jesus was not Aryan obviously escaped them. Apparently the "love one another" and "by the measure which you measure shall you be measured" directives also slipped past. Dating a non-Caucasian myself, I have surprisingly found the Catholic Church to be most receptive to multi-cultural families. One of my favorite things about my Church is that there are so many mixed race families. I take heat all the time for being pro-choice and a Catholic. My theory is that being a good Catholic is my problem, being a good American is everybody else's problem. I have to explain every time it comes up that while I am not running out to have an abortion, one need not be Catholic or Christian and can still be an American. Hey, I'm not committing adultery either but I don't support laws against it. Many other Christians I know agree with me and they are those who, in my opinion, use their religion to lift themselves up, not put others down. (Naturally, since they agree with me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Jesus' teachings constantly admonish people not to judge others, to look to your own behavior before someone else's and to consider everyone God's children but somehow many of my brothers and sisters in Christ remain rooted in the Old Testament. It might surprise you to know that a lot of Christians are open to the idea of reincarnation, myself included. There are supposedly some very old texts by those who knew Christ that claim He spoke about a karma-like concept and re-birth. Some claim this is what the whole "no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born again" teaching references. Literalists do not support these ideas of course, but in New England Christianity seems to be more spiritual and open-minded than in more traditional parts of the US.
Paula, you can rest assured that the belief in reincarnation is incompatible with Christian theology. It might feel good to have a back door open, but Jesus died for people's sins once and for all - there is simply no need for reincarnation. If you want to support that view you'll need more support than what "some people" say.
I wish you can speak 1% Arabic what I speak in English !! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jenyar, I said I am open to it. I did not say I hold to it as a fundamental belief. If you believe in God, all things are possible. They may not be happening, but surely if God decided that humans needed to got his way more than once, He could do so. There has been no authentification of any of these old texts so I assume they will go the way of the Gospel of Thomas. On the other hand, I do not put limits on what I believe God can and cannot do. As far as reincarnation goes, it doesn't feel good at all. I got a pretty sweet deal this time around. Why wouldn't I want to go straight on to Jesus? However, if someone were able to prove to me that authentic texts from Jesus' time showed that Jesus spoke of rebirth in the physical sense, I would not dismiss it out of hand. I realize the likelihood of this is almost zero, but for the sake of argument, I simply do not say that there are things God couldn't do. There are, I am certain, many things God wouldn't do and subjecting us to this life more than once may well be one of them. Besides, a rigid interpretation of religious texts is what puts religion into conflict with provable facts such as evolution. I say, there is no reason for religion and any other discipline of study to conflict if you truly believe God can do all.
