Originally Posted By Mr X ***Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists in some locales in the United States don't have a choice on whether or not their children are taught so-called "intelligent design."*** Anyone know which states condone this, so I'll know never to move there while I have school aged kids?
Originally Posted By jdub <<Those really long posts are hard to respond to>> Impossible to RESPOND to? I'll say--especially since they're too long to even bother READING! Succint is HOT!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I look forward to you actual response. Repeatedly dismissing my responses with non-responses certainly doesn't offer much to the further discussion.<< I'm sorry you feel like I'm being dismissive; I don't really see it that way, but let me clarify. You continually use phrases like: >>But of course, a lot of people don't want to listen to what He has said.<< >>Wouldn’t such a powerful being be able to communicate and interact with us?<< >>If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out.<< >>People may appear to be the same as they both drive cars to their destinations – after all, we’re all humans – but if one car is heading over a cliff and the other a structurally sound bridge, I’d say there is quite a lot of difference.<< >>Listeners don’t get messages all of the time, because they aren’t really listening or they don’t want to listen. This happens all of the time in everyday life. People can be in situations where they know that the right or sensible thing to do is – it can be very clear - and they still fail to do it.<< These are phrases and a way of reasoning that doesn't contribute to the discussion. I'm not trying to be rude by saying that; it's just true. The reasoning you employ and the phrases you use are not the reasoning and inquiry of the seeker trying to learn the truth. They are rhetorical devices employed by believers to reassure themselves and their fellow adherents. This is the kind of reasoning someone who's already made up their mind and is working backwards from there uses, which makes the reasoning inherently flawed. You start with the assumption that there is a god, that Jesus is lord, that the Bible is the word of god, then work backwards from there. With those things already firmly planted in mind, when you ask the questions that you do or employ the rhetorical logic you do, the only answer is "Hey, yeah. He has a point; god is real and Jesus is the savior! It's so obvious!" But, of course, it's only obvious to those that have already made up their minds. In trying to present an argument to non-believers, this simply doesn't cut it. Hence my comments that it plays well in church, but fails the smell test when it comes to reason and logic. I could start with any number of assumptions (including that Xenu is real or that Jehovah is God) and employ rhetorical devices to "prove" that my way is correct. And of course, other religionists do just that, with just as much success (in their own minds) as you and other Evangelicals. Conversely, if you were to start at the front and work forward, instead of working backwards from preconceived beliefs, you'd recognize that there's numerous possibilities for all the questions you raise, including some humans can't even comprehend yet because of our limited understanding. Instead, you've conformed the world to fit your already-determined notions. My posts are already too long on this topic, but this gets into faith development theory. True believers are essentially a stage 3 out of 6 in James Fowler's system. It's the stage when "it all just makes sense." You look at a newspaper headline and what's happening in the world fits perfectly with your religious views. You read the Bible and it rings true and fits into all your understanding of God; there's no inconsistencies and it's all there for people to see if they'd "just get it." You see your friends and co-workers' behavior and the way they live their lives and you see that it's exactly what you'd expect based on your understanding of God. In short, the world is a nice, ordered place that almost always makes sense because of what we know about God. But of course, this is how *all* true believers see the world, and they have conflicting ways of seeing things. They all can't be right, and like Bill Maher said (though about a different topic), they all look a little silly waving the giant foam #1 hand saying "Oooh! It's me, it's me! Don't listen to these other people! I'm the one who really got it right!"
Originally Posted By RC Collins johnno52 >>Do we always have to prove we are right and the others are wrong?<< Of course not. However, I started this thread simply to point out that the Bible does not teach people should rely on prayer *instead* of medical care. That’s all. And what happens? People make a point of disagreeing with my faith, even though they agree that relying on prayer instead of medical care is wrong. It turned into another complaint session about God. >>>There has been all sorts of dangerous and deadly behavior I have avoided because I've followed Biblical morals, thus reducing my need for medical care.< I assume from your final statement you have never been seriously ill?<< That’s not what I was saying. >>However avoiding vices and adhering to biblical morals will not save you from many illnesses.<< Of course it won’t. Notice I said “reducing†my need for medical care, not eliminating.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc >>>We’re here. How? I dare suggest that if anything now exists, then either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing.< >>These questions are often answered by science, and quite well.<< Science deals with the material universe, with what can be observed, tested, measured, etc. It does not contain all truth. >>But not all questions have answers yet, and you've demonstrated a common tactic among religionists: no evidence *is* evidence for my point of view.<< That’s not what I said. I gave the various possibilities for the existence of the universe. You haven’t offered any more alternatives. We make decisions all of the time based on the information we have *now*. Isn’t that how science is done in a lab? Do we know of any other possibilities for the origin of the universe? >>>Finally, there’s the Bible, a collection of 66 books or letters, really. The Bible makes certain claims about itself. Either those claims are true, or they aren’t. If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out.<< >>You keep saying that I repeat myself, yet you're the one who keeps bringing up these circular arguments about the Bible and how it's some kind of evidence.<< It’s not circular. I’m not saying “Believe the Bible because the Bible says to believe the Bible.†>>You don't have consistent standards for the Bible. For something that seems to bolster your case, say, books that discuss the life of Jesus, you insist that the Bible is so great and reliable. As soon as I, or anyone else, brings up the problems with Biblical historicity, suddenly "it happened a long time ago" and "we can't be sure what the situation was." Like all religionists, you want to be absolutely certain about who god is, what Jesus is, etc., until something challenges your beliefs. Then, suddenly, things get vague and we're not really sure about this or that since "it was a long time ago" and "we don't know everything" and "the mysteries of god," etc.<< You are either confusing me with someone else or misrepresenting me. I *do* allow for miracles and the supernatural in general. I don’t recall a compelling reason from you here to deny those possibilities. I also do say that the books of the Bible should be taken in consideration of their time period, who the audience was, etc. – just like any other set of books. >>Modern scholarship has shown that there are multiple stories in the Old and the New Testament that were added by different authors years, sometimes centuries, later.<< This wouldn’t preclude them from being true, but how many? Are we talking two? Which ones? Care to cite specifics? Please, no “circular reasoning†like insisting the book must have been written after an event because it “predicts†that event so accurately. I want proof that they were written centuries later.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>>God is certainly not powerless nor aloof.<< Of course he is. God is entirely random in who he bestows his blessings on.<< Random by whose standards? Why do you think your observations are complete? >>Despite his magical powers, he's managed to tolerate genocide, death, destruction, rape, pillaging (and on occasion, encouraged some of these things) and do nothing about it.<< I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why these things are objectively wrong. You seem to think God is a “jerk†because there is evil in the world. Without God, there is no good or evil…there just is stuff you don’t like. Why should the universe be the way you like? >>So, one more time: if someone like Dan Lafferty says that God commanded him to kill, then who are you to say otherwise?<< God has told us to punish murderers. Absent any objective sign from God that he commanded Dan Lafferty to kill, we should process Dan by our laws. >>Your Bible has multiple stories of people being commanded to kill in God's name.<< Being commanded by whom? That is the key. >>You interpret the Bible a certain way just like everyone else; the difference is you insist your way is right, it's everyone else who's wrong.<< I’m open to being shown I’m wrong. But do tell – do you think you aren’t right? >>If he's really god, then living a sinless life isn't difficult.<< It is if you do it as a human being. I would think dealing with two natures simultaneously would be very difficult. >>The one thing he had, according to you, that the other victims of this process didn't have, is the knowledge that he was god and that he'd be in heaven when it was all over.<< He also had innocence in the strictest sense of the word. We all contribute to the evil in the world. He didn’t. All He did was speak the truth and heal people, and He was brutally killed for doing so.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>These are phrases and a way of reasoning that doesn't contribute to the discussion.<< I see. All of *your* statements contribute. Let’s go over some of mine: -But of course, a lot of people don't want to listen to what He has said. Could be rephrased as “Just because God says something doesn’t mean people will do it.†-Wouldn’t such a powerful being be able to communicate and interact with us? I didn’t see an answer in the negative to this. -If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out. Many non- or unorthodox Christians cite Jesus all of the time. If they really have respect for Him, they should consider His support for – and use of - Scripture. And if He did rise from the dead, perhaps He’s a better authority than other people who haven’t figured out how to do that yet. That’s why I wrote that. >>They are rhetorical devices employed by believers to reassure themselves and their fellow adherents.<< Interesting. Your device seems to be to dismiss the statements as suitable for preaching to the choir instead of actually dealing with them. >>You start with the assumption that there is a god,<< Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that I exist. If you disagree that I exist, you’re spending an awful lot of time on a figment of your imagination. >>that Jesus is lord<< Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that there are writings about Jesus. >>that the Bible is the word of god<< Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that the Bible exists. >>My posts are already too long on this topic, but this gets into faith development theory. True believers are essentially a stage 3 out of 6 in James Fowler's system. It's the stage when "it all just makes sense."<< I see. And Fowler isn’t working backwards from “I’m enlightened†and trying to make everything else seem unenlightened? I suppose you’re going to tell me that Fowler’s ideas fits with reality/experience, which is the same thing you appear to be chiding me about when it comes to my faith. Maybe, just maybe, the reason why some things in life make sense to Christians is that the Christians are actually on to something? Do you have something against a consistent, integrated worldview? Is cognitive dissonance better? And just because there are competing theistic truth claims does not necessitate that none of them are true.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Science deals with the material universe, with what can be observed, tested, measured, etc. It does not contain all truth.<< Nor has anyone said otherwise. But again, you're implying that because science doesn't yet have all the answers, that necessitates the existence of God. That science does not yet (and may never) explain all truth, does not mean there's a God. It's quite the leap to say otherwise. >>That’s not what I said. I gave the various possibilities for the existence of the universe. You haven’t offered any more alternatives. We make decisions all of the time based on the information we have *now*. Isn’t that how science is done in a lab? Do we know of any other possibilities for the origin of the universe?<< I feel no need to provide various alternatives. Your argument is like saying "There are blue fairies that live in the forest when humans aren't around. What other alternatives do you have for what happens in the forest when humans aren't around?" The fact that we don't have all the answers doesn't make your faith correct. Again, it's a common religious red herring and rhetorical device. >>It’s not circular. I’m not saying “Believe the Bible because the Bible says to believe the Bible.â€<< You're correct. I was wrong to characterize your argument as circular. Instead, what you repeatedly do is assign tremendous weight to the "evidence" that supports your point of view, while discounting and casually tossing aside that evidence that doesn't, without giving it its due. Further, you toss aside the "evidence" that other religions use to sustain themselves, insisting it doesn't cut it, while insisting yours does. Again, this is what makes you precisely like all other religious believers. While I don't believe that all evidence is of equal weight (for example, evidence for some stories of the Bible is stronger than evidence for L. Ron Hubbard's claims), it does all reach a point of interpretation and desire to believe. It's disingenuous for you to present the Bible and the writings of the early Christian fathers as if it were definitive evidence. At some level, one simply decides to pick and choose; to discount all the evidence against, and hang onto the scant evidence for. A much fairer overview is that most Biblical scholars have shown that the Bible is not what it claims. They've shown, for example, that the first five books of the Bible were written some 800 years after Moses lived, if in fact he did live. They've shown that these first books were the result of writing down oral traditions that had existed for generations. They've shown that the Gospels in the New Testament were written long after the death of Jesus, by people who used the oral traditions and myths surrounding Jesus to promote their own political agenda. They've shown that the Pharisees were not particularly active when Jesus lived, but were very active about 50-100 years later. Beyond that, there's a small group of believing "scholars" that try hard to amass evidence to the contrary. So while these questions are not 100% settled, the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars agree, while some on the margins, to support their faith and not historical scholarship, suggest otherwise. Mind you, many Biblical scholars are religious themselves. But they've done what many religious people have done and adopted a more metaphorical view of scripture, knowing that it cannot be sustained as a literal text. By comparison, it's like those historians who insist the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. By and large, they're on the margins of the historical community and the vast majority of serious scholars disagree with them, and the evidence does not support them. But they yell loud and present the evidence a different way and with a different perspective, and still garner attention and provide literature for those who agree with them. The truth is, if we were discussing a much more routine, benign question, no one would dispute what the majority of scholars believe. But since we're talking about religious faith, those who feel their world threatened, scramble and try and find contrary evidence. >>You are either confusing me with someone else or misrepresenting me. I *do* allow for miracles and the supernatural in general. I don’t recall a compelling reason from you here to deny those possibilities. I also do say that the books of the Bible should be taken in consideration of their time period, who the audience was, etc. – just like any other set of books.<< Not really. You look at what the Bible says its audience was and take it at its word. That's the problem. You assume, for example, when you read the Gospels that its audience was contemporaries of Jesus, written by contemporaries of Jesus. It wasn't; the audience was different and their purpose was different. Who exactly was the audience for the book of Exodus, since we now know that the exodus did not occur and that the Egyptians did not take Hebrews as slaves? >>This wouldn’t preclude them from being true, but how many? Are we talking two? Which ones? Care to cite specifics? Please, no “circular reasoning†like insisting the book must have been written after an event because it “predicts†that event so accurately. I want proof that they were written centuries later.<< This is the perfect example of the kind of rhetoric employed by the religious. "Well, I don't believe you, BUT if you are right, you're still wrong." I've given you examples multiple times on these boards. Your response has been "Um, it happened a long time ago," or "well, just because someone inserted the story of Jesus forgiving the woman caught in adultery years later doesn't mean it didn't happen!" As for "which ones," check out the Anchor Bible series, the writings of Bart Ehrman and Richard Elliot Freedman. These are easy things to research. The truth is, it's most of the stories. Toss out, like I mentioned, pretty much the first five books of the Bible. They were written centuries later based on oral traditions. Of course, you love to tout how there's so much evidence for Jesus! Well, exactly what backup evidence do you have for the Genesis stories? Are there a lot of letters extant from Adam written to Eve? Did Noah keep a journal? How about Job? Jonah? Of course, common sense and modern zoology make these pretty impossible. But literalists try and find their loopholes. That's fine, but again, it's disingenuous to present this kind of desperate mental gymnastics as if it's just as reasonable, bolstered by just as much evidence as the lack of evidence for Noah. Finally, why is it the ones with the outrageous claims demanding the evidence to the contrary? If I came on these boards and said "Walt Disney was a cross-dressing Nazi that secretly funneled profits from Snow White to Hitler," people would demand some evidence. Claiming that the whole earth was flooded, that a talking snake tricked the first two humans, that God came down to earth and allowed himself to be crucified? These are outrageous claims. No more or less than claims about Xenu, Nephi, Vishnu, or Mohammed. It isn't my responsibility to prove them wrong (though many people have done that over the years). Instead, it should be the believers job. And if they have nothing more than their Bible, then they shouldn't be surprised when they aren't taken seriously.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Random by whose standards? Why do you think your observations are complete?<< Again, another perfect example of religious rhetoric in place of reason and logic. When nonbelievers present inconsistencies in God's behavior, which is demonstrable by citing that behavior claimed by believers, such as who he blesses, when he interferes with free will, etc., the response is "well, we don't know everything about God. Who are you to question him or judge him!" I'm not the one claiming this is what God does. If you're going to say that god does such and such, you should be able to explain why. If you can't, then you can't say that it comes from God. It's completely untenable to say "God did this, but don't ask for proof and don't question it because it's God. You don't know everything!" >>I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why these things are objectively wrong. You seem to think God is a “jerk†because there is evil in the world. Without God, there is no good or evil…there just is stuff you don’t like. Why should the universe be the way you like?<< Ah, the old, "morality without God isn't possible" argument. Of course there can be "good and evil" without God. Again, you're starting from all of your assumptions and working backwards. Humans can determine just fine what is "good and evil." We can come to a general consensus, built around principles of not harming others. It isn't perfect, but it's worth discussing and debating, and it certainly makes more sense than picking and choosing your commandments from some unseen, unknown god. And despite the claims of the religious, God's morality changes all the time. Last time I checked, it's ok to eat a ham sandwich on a Saturday; but the Bible sure speaks out pretty clearly on that. And I hope, since we're so hardcore against homosexuality, that we advocate stoning our children to death for disobedience, since the same text that condemns homosexuality advocates infanticide. >>God has told us to punish murderers. Absent any objective sign from God that he commanded Dan Lafferty to kill, we should process Dan by our laws.<< But what if Dan wasn't a murderer? What if God commanded him to kill? And why should God give you any sign? Who are you to demand that of God? You should just have faith. In fact, God's already given you plenty of signs that what Dan Lafferty did was right. You just don't want to believe them or see them. They're right there in the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It's not God's fault that you don't believe them and reject them. Some people just don't want to see the obvious... >>Being commanded by whom? That is the key.<< Yet more rhetoric. The faithful might nod along to this reference to people being influenced by Satan, but it doesn't address the issue at all. The key seems to be that as long as it happened a long time ago, we don't have to deal with the consequences and repercussions of people who claim to talk to God. >>I’m open to being shown I’m wrong. But do tell – do you think you aren’t right?<< I think I'm skeptical. I'm more than open to the possibility of being wrong. I've never claimed to know there isn't a god. Quite the contrary, there may be one out there. But what I'm looking at is a whole bunch of different snake oil salesmen telling me that their product really is the best, even when they all look the same and sound the same and do the same thing. Don't you think if one of them really had something that worked, it'd at least manage to look a little different from the others? Of course, you're not really open to being shown you're wrong - at least not from my perspective. If you were, you'd at least recognize that you're really no different than all the other true believers out there, and you'd embrace some doubt. There's nothing wrong with hoping and having faith. But it should be based on a longing, not on a smugness that one has the truth and others don't. Anyone truly open would recognize that they're no different than other true believers, and that other religions are essentially as tenable as theirs is. But they'd say "This is my religious tradition, this is what I know, and I love it. I hope for God, I yearn for God, and I believe that this hope will keep me in his good graces." >>I see. And Fowler isn’t working backwards from “I’m enlightened†and trying to make everything else seem unenlightened? I suppose you’re going to tell me that Fowler’s ideas fits with reality/experience, which is the same thing you appear to be chiding me about when it comes to my faith. Maybe, just maybe, the reason why some things in life make sense to Christians is that the Christians are actually on to something? Do you have something against a consistent, integrated worldview? Is cognitive dissonance better? And just because there are competing theistic truth claims does not necessitate that none of them are true.<< Much to respond to here. Fowler isn't at all trying to make anyone seem unenlightened. I don't think he sees himself as a stage 6, where he classifies people like Jesus or Mother Theresa. Of course, maybe, just maybe, things make sense to Muslims is because they're on to something. Maybe, just maybe, things make sense to UtahJosh is because he's on to something. For the millionth time, Christians aren't unique in their belief in this world. Mind you, this isn't religious behavior, this is human behavior. Ironically, cognitive dissonance is exactly what Christians, like all humans behave in. We subconsciously emphasize that which re-enforces our view of the world, and minimize that which doesn't. Only arrogance and ignorance leads humans to believe that "their" way is the right way. Cognitive dissonance may not even be environmental; a recent study showed that even chimpanzees engage in it. It's part of the evolutionary process that helps us survive our world.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I see. All of *your* statements contribute.<< Not necessarily. I know how long-winded I am. But I'd like to think that I at least use reasonable and logical statements. I'm sure I engage in hyperbole and poor reasoning from time to time. But that's a far cry from employing religious rhetoric that's extremely common in churches to reassure the faithful. It just doesn't fly. >>Let’s go over some of mine: -But of course, a lot of people don't want to listen to what He has said. Could be rephrased as “Just because God says something doesn’t mean people will do it.â€<< You've got the same problem, however. This is making excuses for God without providing any evidence or analysis. It starts with an outlandish, unprovable assumption - that there is a God - and then tries to defend the assumption by saying, "Well, couldn't God do this?" It's what many of your statements do. Surely you can see just how problematic this logic is? It's no different than saying "A big green unicorn inspired Walt Disney to build the Haunted Mansion." Then, when challenged on this from multiple angles, you respond, "Well, if there was a big green unicorn, don't you think he'd be able to inspire Walt Disney? Don't you think he'd be able to talk? Do you have proof that he can't talk? Actually, inspiring people to build theme park rides is *precisely* what we expect big green unicorns to do." You can claim quite literally anything that's supernatural, then defend it by saying "well isn't that just what would happen?" We don't recognize just how absurd our logic and reasoning is when it comes to God because we're so used to the concept in our culture. But I could claim the exact same things about an imaginary friend. >>Interesting. Your device seems to be to dismiss the statements as suitable for preaching to the choir instead of actually dealing with them.<< I've dealt with them by showing how inherently flawed they are. You can be dismissive by saying I'm not dealing with them, but to use my example above, it'd be like you trying to explain why big green unicorns really can't talk, and really can't inspire people to build theme park rides. Would you really waste your time doing that, or would you rightly challenge the very concept, and further challenge my poor reasoning? >>Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that I exist. If you disagree that I exist, you’re spending an awful lot of time on a figment of your imagination.<< The fact that you exist doesn't at all address your belief in God. Again, your misdirecting the issue. >>Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that there are writings about Jesus.<< Hmmm. You seem to start with the assumption that Jesus is lord, then you work backwards and believe that the writings about Jesus in the Bible are right, because they say that Jesus is lord, and you already know that. If you started with the assumption that there are writings about Jesus, then you'd know just how problematic those writings are when viewed literally or in the historical context. >>Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that the Bible exists.<< See above. >>It is if you do it as a human being. I would think dealing with two natures simultaneously would be very difficult.<< If something is difficult for God, then he isn't much of a god. Again, you're projecting humanity on God and then working from there. You think "Man, it would be awful to voluntarily be crucified; I sure couldn't do it. It's amazing that god could." But if he's god, it's not really all that hard or amazing. You can't have it both ways; either god isn't really perfect, infallible, etc., and it was a sacrifice, or God is perfect and omnipotent and then there was no sacrifice. Further, if he's god, why is the sacrifice necessary at all? Saying that god has to do something doesn't make him much of a god - then he's constrained by outside forces. >>He also had innocence in the strictest sense of the word. We all contribute to the evil in the world. He didn’t. All He did was speak the truth and heal people, and He was brutally killed for doing so.<< I'm sure you're tired of hearing it, but this is simply more Christian rhetoric that will get the faithful to nod, but doesn't address the issues I've raised. I'm sure in church people will be moved when they hear "All He did was speak the truth and heal people, and He was brutally killed for doing so" but it doesn't speak to the theological problems I've raised.
Originally Posted By ecdc In the future, RC Collins, I hope you'll understand if I don't respond to each of your points. Please don't take it that I haven't read them or that I don't have something to say. I just can't be spending an hour and a half each time I want to respond to you I will read anything you have to say and respond to select points that I believe won't have me repeating the same arguments. By now we're probably the only two people still reading this anyway
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Again, another perfect example of religious rhetoric in place of reason and logic." I'm going to interject here. I don't intend to do anything other than make an observation, but you've fallen in love, or become infatuated, with your own points of view. The topic it seems you're discussing is faith in God, or a God at all, and you're bringing up reason and logic as if that's going to sway someone of faith, and moreover, you seem to feel that trumps all. Why? I thought the entire point of having faith in anything is that faith often trumps reason and logic, not the other way around. And the more unshakeable faith is, the more reason and logic don't matter. Not to belittle people of faith here, either, but I've always thought that's the way it worked.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And the more unshakeable faith is, the more reason and logic don't matter.*** Wow. How very true. Just reading that made me shudder. Seriously, think about it for a second. Even if ONE of those faiths actually IS correct (pick a card, any card)...how many other billions of people have been walking around blatantly dismissing reason and logic completely!? No wonder this world is the cesspool it is!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Hit submit too soon. And, you can't seem to grasp why those who are pro-faith don't see it the simple logic and reason you're espousing. When you get down to it, they've considered and discounted that some time ago. And again, not to belittle them, because I happen to believe in God as well. It's not so much rhetoric as it is, well, just what it is, period.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Just reading that made me shudder." I don't know about that. Most people of faith don't blithely arrive at their points of view, either. As someone once said about Freud, sometimes a banana is just a banana. There's a reason the root word of analysis is anal. Sometimes things just have to taken as they are, or simply, on faith.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Most people of faith don't blithely arrive at their points of view, either.*** I think most do, actually. In fact, most people get indoctrinated into whatever faith they are taught as children. You are talking about exceptions to the rule here. ***There's a reason the root word of analysis is anal.*** Okay. You really believe that? ***Sometimes things just have to taken as they are, or simply, on faith.*** Yes, I'm sure that's what they want you to believe. ***It's not so much rhetoric as it is, well, just what it is, period.*** No. It's definitely rhetoric.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think most do, actually." And herein lies the problem when you try to get into discussions about religion, and why you have problems with things like Road Trip posted and I agreed with on the other thread. You ask for answers, you get them, then dismiss them. I can only counter with the original statement, that most don't arrive at it blithely. It becomes circular at that point. Sure, some do, because there are no absolutes, but it seems you're projecting your version of of faith and God on believers, when in reality yours and theirs aren't the same thing.
