Why would I see those people as anything but other humans. We are all entitled to our views... we are all human... I don't treat anyone any differently on what they believe.
I'm sorry. There are so many different Christians out there, and so many different view and attitudes that it is too easy to generalize.
I have seen, even here on this forum, enough Christians who discover the existence of atheists and go shouting "Monster!"
And it is not rare for unbelievers to be told how we are fools, hard-hearted, willfulling ignorant, like murderers or children of the devil.
Even you... you claim to not "treat anyone any different on what they believe"... are here and say that "atheists have more faith than Christians"... and somehow I don't think you mean that as praise of the excellence of our faith, but in the meaning of "gullible and credulous".
Well, from what I have heard, everything came from nothing and all existing organisms came from one single organism that randomly formed out of shear chance luck.
Then maybe you should listen to people other than creationist apologets. They are known to misrepresent what other say.
Maybe you have a different view you would like to share.
Would be beyond the scope of this thread. But if you are really interested, I can go and look for some older posts of mine where I details my views. Might take a while though... I'd have to dig through a number of posts.
Still... if you really want to know, just say the word.
I guess I should admit that even Richard Dawson stated that we must of came from some other intelligent designer... just not the Christian... intelligent designer.
And that is what I meant with "creationists are known to misrepresent other people".
I have no idea if Richard Dawson ever said that... though I don't know why the opinion of actors or soccer players has any relevance here.
But I guess you mean to talk about Dr. Richard DawKINS, the biologist and atheist author. In that case, this is a misrepresenation of his words. He never stated that we must have come from some sort of other intelligent designer.
In that case, this misrepresentation comes from an interview with Ben Stein from his hit-piece movie "Expelled", where Dawkins talked about the
possibility of
us being created by an "intelligent creator"... and clarified it by pointing out that in such a case, this "intelligent creator" would then have to come into existence by "...by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process..."
Even Ben Stein didn't go so far as to state that Dawkins said that "we must come from an intelligent designer". He spun it in the way of "Dawkins isn't opposed to intelligent design... he is just against God". Which is dishonest enough.
But that's the way it goes. You "hear" something, you interprete it in the way you like it, you continue to tell it in this new way... another one hears your words and repeats the same process... and in the end we get to stuff like "Dawkins believes in God but hates him!"
So, what you said there - that Dawkins stateed we must have come from an intelligent designer - is
false.
I hope now that you know that, you won't make such a statement again.
Nice to hear that you have that view. I have often heard people say that we should all be able to determine what is right and wrong for our self.
Which is again is misrepresentation of what other people say... in this case not so much in words as in meaning.
"Determining what is right and wrong for our self" is what makes us human. We all do it. We cannot not do it.
But what you "hear" when people try to tell you is "right and wrong is just a whim". And that is not what people tell you.
However, it is interesting... where did this moral standard come from? That is, if we were not created.. and just evolved... who has the right to actually say what is right and what is wrong?
Again, moral philosophy is quite beyond the scope of this thread. This discussion could go on for ages... well, it
has gone on for ages.
Let's just say for now: the idea that "morals" are some arbitrary set of rules that are enacted because someone/something has the "right" or "power" to enact them... that's a very simplistic view.
Sorry, thought I got your point here but you lost me.
Jesus paid the price for your sins, did he not?
To go back to my first statement in this post: I am aware that there is a multitude of different conflicting Christian doctrines out there, which makes it difficult for an outsider to find the correct arguments... but this one is one of the core positions of especially protestant/lutheran doctrine: what "saves" is not something you do. You cannot ever do anything to save you. What "saves" is God's grace and God's grace alone.
So, no, you don't have to "pay for your sins". That is the "Good News". Jesus has already saved you, if you just believe in him.
