In another thread someone said that it's philosophy (rather then knowledge) that is moving people away from Christianity. Do you agree? If so what is this philosophy and why does it move people away from Christianity?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Anti-Christian philosophy
- Thread starter DarkProphet
- Start date
- Status
Yardstick
Episcopalian
It depends.
Their are certain philosophies that are antithetical to Christianity, systems of thought such as Nihilism come to mind.
The philosophy of religion concerns itself with whether it is reasonable i.e. logical to believe in a deity. Depending on where your at studying the philosophy of religion could help confirm your beliefs, or lead you to disbelieve. Questioning your beliefs isn't necessarily going to lead you to disbelieve though.
So yeah, it depends
Their are certain philosophies that are antithetical to Christianity, systems of thought such as Nihilism come to mind.
The philosophy of religion concerns itself with whether it is reasonable i.e. logical to believe in a deity. Depending on where your at studying the philosophy of religion could help confirm your beliefs, or lead you to disbelieve. Questioning your beliefs isn't necessarily going to lead you to disbelieve though.
So yeah, it depends
Upvote
0
I doubt many nihilists actually exist as they wouldn't function very well in our society.
The philosophy of religion concerns itself with whether it is reasonable i.e. logical to believe in a deity. Depending on where your at studying the philosophy of religion could help confirm your beliefs, or lead you to disbelieve. Questioning your beliefs isn't necessarily going to lead you to disbelieve though.
So yeah, it depends
This question was directed at Christianity not religion in general. There are philosophies that have a deity but do not conform to a Christian framework. So it is possible for someone to have a philosophy that finds it reasonable to suppose a deity but at the same time to move people away from Christianity.
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Our philosophies provide the lens through which we make sense of everything else - our experience, our stories, the world around us, etc. So yes, they are more influential than knowledge in driving our religious convictions. Added to that very few people are aware of what philosophies they hold to - they are subtly learned from the surrounding culture and rarely made explicit, which makes them even more powerful (and dangerous?)
Upvote
0
Well OK but specifically what philosophy or set of philosophies would get people to leave Christianity?
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Belief in the philosophy of the one meaning of life, espoused by Jesus and the prophets of God, is rather easily shown to be antithetical to modern divided Christianity of sinners [taught by sinners]
Christianity is divided in 'doctrines' of 'faith' right down to individual beliefs, one cannot even conceivably turn many mutually inconsistent tales of sinners into one truth of God ... it gets even more apparent as one compares the diverse tales of modern , prophesiedly apostate, religion to the whole of the one truth they all purport to come from
but the saints and prophets of scripture present only one truth about life, that one never gets 'out' from the limitations of physicality [time, decay, irreversibility, corruption, evil, injustice, inequality, unsharing ...] until one accepts love as the way, the only way.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
That modern religion, unlike the saints following Jesus, is dominated by sinners teaching sinners diverse doctrines of how staying a sinner all through life is OK so long as one has 'faith' in this or that arbitrary belief package ... Jesus showed mankind what perfect love, no unlovingness remaining , is like - and said it is the way to be one with God, it is very different than accepting the words of sinners to accept the words of one without sin, and it just aint that hard to find the differences just by looking at what Jesus, and the saints who followed him, really said ...
It is thus a mistake , albeita common one, to mix up Christ's teachings with the modern mixed bag of 'doctrines' labeled 'Christianity' [despite that it just isn't one thing at all, it is divided all the way down to individual doctrines and these not reproved to the whole scripture or even a few key parts of it e.g. the new covenant Heb 8:8-12, Jer 31:31-34]
One example then , a counter-exampleto almost all modern Christianity by a single word in scripture about who receives grace [and who thus does not] :-
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
That one word 'their' shows incontravertably that the new covenant of grace is only with those whose ancestors broke the old covenant , that the descendants of the two divided nations of Israel under both Houses [dynasties, lines] of kings , not just the House of Judah ['Jews'?] but the lost house of Israel to whom alone Jesus was sent [Matthew 15:24] were rejected, but now some later descendants are wholly forgiven and taken as the people of God ...
The point is then that no-one else has an agreement with God for unmerited forgiveness [grace] , the actual agreement says so very clearly ... only those whose 'fathers' [ancestors] broke te old covenant , only the descendants of the House of Israel [disappeared nation, ceased to be a people] and the House of Judah [apparent Israel , the 'Jews']
Now Jesus says that countless many sinners will eventually be saved [Rev 7:9-10] but that those first saved are sealed by the spirit by God Himself directly by his spirit [Rev 7:3-8] and these first few [Mat 7:14] are all of the tribes of Isarel, that is , descended from the sons of Jacob by name ...Jesus takes but tens of thousands first out of over twelve billion that ever lived [Jude 1:14, Rev 7:3-8] ... and gives the reason, the few are first because they are the kings and priests [Ex 19:6, Rev 5:10, 1Pet 2:9-10, etc] needed at the beginning to minister to the many saved later [Rev 7:9-10]
Modern Christian religion of sinners mostly claims these many are lost, even punished endlessly for being no greater sinners than the sinners who made that up to scare people into 'faith' in sinners...
But Jesus says that hell gives up its dead and uncountably many of all nations are saved by works [not grace] , not in this life, but after death as sinners [whether they had 'faith' in diverse religious sinners in this life or not] [Rev 7:9-10]
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Thus it is death, the wages of sin, that frees most from sin, not grace to the few, although the many would not be saved without the ministry of the few saved by grace ...
One little word 'their' gives the proof of the falsehood of the 'doctrine of salvation of the many by grace under the new covenant', the central doctrine of almost all modern sinner Christian belief .
explicitly the foundation of God n scripture is to depart from iniquity , yet the doctrine of most modern christianity is that one can sin all the way to death and still Jesus will take one ... Jesus however says otherwise than modern religion of sinners :-
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
So there it is, scripture of saints and Jesus rather easily disproves the very key beliefs of modern sinner christians ... it would be strange were scripture not to prophesy this massive event , and indeed it does, indeed it could be considered one of the major proofs of the scripture that it disproves all major religions that supposedly rely upon it or give it token credibiliy... that is pretty distinctive and convincing evidence...
Jesus predicts that all religion and secular power will be in Satans hands , not his , just before his return [bar only the few saints from the 144,000 still alive by then, perhaps about two thousand] ... that is an awesome prophecy that says where apostate religion of the many [sinners] is headed in this world , unity under a false god who presents a false Christ figure ['antichristos'] -Rev 13:3-10
equally the scripture says that this simply must happen before Jesus can return :-
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
The 'Philosophy of religion' barely touches these crucial points about Christianity of sinners and the validity of scripture, surprisingly because it never gets down to studying the scripture, but instead only discusses the rather obvious contradictions in religious teachings of sinners...
Bizarrely one can disprove central tenets of modern christianity from just a few points made by the saints and Jesus, it is remarkable that Philosophy does not do so and reprove religion to teh scripture, one of its functions :-
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It is interesting [to me anyway] to consider what would happen if Philosophy and religion both took account of all that Jesus, the saints, and the prophets of God are recorded as saying . the amount of time and words wasted by not getting back to the source is quite enormous , there has to be some reason for Philosophers not doing what is basic technique to their 'trade' , getting as close to source info as possible and debunking the myths that don't fit it but are claimed to be based upon it...
Christianity is divided in 'doctrines' of 'faith' right down to individual beliefs, one cannot even conceivably turn many mutually inconsistent tales of sinners into one truth of God ... it gets even more apparent as one compares the diverse tales of modern , prophesiedly apostate, religion to the whole of the one truth they all purport to come from
but the saints and prophets of scripture present only one truth about life, that one never gets 'out' from the limitations of physicality [time, decay, irreversibility, corruption, evil, injustice, inequality, unsharing ...] until one accepts love as the way, the only way.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
That modern religion, unlike the saints following Jesus, is dominated by sinners teaching sinners diverse doctrines of how staying a sinner all through life is OK so long as one has 'faith' in this or that arbitrary belief package ... Jesus showed mankind what perfect love, no unlovingness remaining , is like - and said it is the way to be one with God, it is very different than accepting the words of sinners to accept the words of one without sin, and it just aint that hard to find the differences just by looking at what Jesus, and the saints who followed him, really said ...
It is thus a mistake , albeita common one, to mix up Christ's teachings with the modern mixed bag of 'doctrines' labeled 'Christianity' [despite that it just isn't one thing at all, it is divided all the way down to individual doctrines and these not reproved to the whole scripture or even a few key parts of it e.g. the new covenant Heb 8:8-12, Jer 31:31-34]
One example then , a counter-exampleto almost all modern Christianity by a single word in scripture about who receives grace [and who thus does not] :-
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
That one word 'their' shows incontravertably that the new covenant of grace is only with those whose ancestors broke the old covenant , that the descendants of the two divided nations of Israel under both Houses [dynasties, lines] of kings , not just the House of Judah ['Jews'?] but the lost house of Israel to whom alone Jesus was sent [Matthew 15:24] were rejected, but now some later descendants are wholly forgiven and taken as the people of God ...
The point is then that no-one else has an agreement with God for unmerited forgiveness [grace] , the actual agreement says so very clearly ... only those whose 'fathers' [ancestors] broke te old covenant , only the descendants of the House of Israel [disappeared nation, ceased to be a people] and the House of Judah [apparent Israel , the 'Jews']
Now Jesus says that countless many sinners will eventually be saved [Rev 7:9-10] but that those first saved are sealed by the spirit by God Himself directly by his spirit [Rev 7:3-8] and these first few [Mat 7:14] are all of the tribes of Isarel, that is , descended from the sons of Jacob by name ...Jesus takes but tens of thousands first out of over twelve billion that ever lived [Jude 1:14, Rev 7:3-8] ... and gives the reason, the few are first because they are the kings and priests [Ex 19:6, Rev 5:10, 1Pet 2:9-10, etc] needed at the beginning to minister to the many saved later [Rev 7:9-10]
Modern Christian religion of sinners mostly claims these many are lost, even punished endlessly for being no greater sinners than the sinners who made that up to scare people into 'faith' in sinners...
But Jesus says that hell gives up its dead and uncountably many of all nations are saved by works [not grace] , not in this life, but after death as sinners [whether they had 'faith' in diverse religious sinners in this life or not] [Rev 7:9-10]
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Thus it is death, the wages of sin, that frees most from sin, not grace to the few, although the many would not be saved without the ministry of the few saved by grace ...
One little word 'their' gives the proof of the falsehood of the 'doctrine of salvation of the many by grace under the new covenant', the central doctrine of almost all modern sinner Christian belief .
explicitly the foundation of God n scripture is to depart from iniquity , yet the doctrine of most modern christianity is that one can sin all the way to death and still Jesus will take one ... Jesus however says otherwise than modern religion of sinners :-
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
So there it is, scripture of saints and Jesus rather easily disproves the very key beliefs of modern sinner christians ... it would be strange were scripture not to prophesy this massive event , and indeed it does, indeed it could be considered one of the major proofs of the scripture that it disproves all major religions that supposedly rely upon it or give it token credibiliy... that is pretty distinctive and convincing evidence...
Jesus predicts that all religion and secular power will be in Satans hands , not his , just before his return [bar only the few saints from the 144,000 still alive by then, perhaps about two thousand] ... that is an awesome prophecy that says where apostate religion of the many [sinners] is headed in this world , unity under a false god who presents a false Christ figure ['antichristos'] -Rev 13:3-10
equally the scripture says that this simply must happen before Jesus can return :-
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
The 'Philosophy of religion' barely touches these crucial points about Christianity of sinners and the validity of scripture, surprisingly because it never gets down to studying the scripture, but instead only discusses the rather obvious contradictions in religious teachings of sinners...
Bizarrely one can disprove central tenets of modern christianity from just a few points made by the saints and Jesus, it is remarkable that Philosophy does not do so and reprove religion to teh scripture, one of its functions :-
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It is interesting [to me anyway] to consider what would happen if Philosophy and religion both took account of all that Jesus, the saints, and the prophets of God are recorded as saying . the amount of time and words wasted by not getting back to the source is quite enormous , there has to be some reason for Philosophers not doing what is basic technique to their 'trade' , getting as close to source info as possible and debunking the myths that don't fit it but are claimed to be based upon it...
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
sin is the opposite of love,
not hate.
e.g.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] [/FONT]
not hate.
e.g.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] [/FONT]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's interesting how you feel that certain Christian sects preach a false philosophy (liberal?) but I would contend that they do so to attract more people to the fold. Whether they are "true Christians" is another matter but that's not what the OP was about, I was thinking more along the lines of a secular philosophy keeping people from becoming Christian.
Upvote
0
Mind if I ask where that other thread is, or what specific knowledge was claimed to be moving people away from Christianity?
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Phiosophy is neither secular or not secular, there can be no such boundary in loving to know the truth...
I don't think that 'certain' Christian sects preach a false philosophy , I know from comparison to scripture that all who preach do :-
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
- Feb 16, 2007
- 10,874
- 4,352
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
At present, postmodernism seems to hold sway in European and North American cultures. People tend to have a mish-mash of philosophies picked up from the culture rather like one picks up a cold: a little bit of nihilism, a dash of relativism, a peck or two of naturalism, etc. The result is a patchwork philosophy called postmodernism that denies absolute truth, is highly subjective in nature, without ultimate meaning in life, and typically rife with contradiction. Logic and proof take a back seat to personal feeling and opinion with post-modernism. Essentially, all viewpoints are equal even though they may be directly in contradiction to one another. The Bible describes this kind of philosophy simply and well: "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
It is this philosophy, birthed out of the aftermath of naturalism, atheism, nihilism, existentialism and the like that has gripped the minds of people nowadays. And it is this philosophy which has supplanted much of the Judeo-Christian thinking of the recent past.
Peace to you.
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
But there is no 'Judeo-Christian' thinking of the past... Judaism and Christianity are both divided in doctrine right down to individual's own doctrines , J focuses on the OT and C focuses on the NT and even when they meet partially the result still doesn't correspond with every word of God...
The only place where the absolute truth resides is in the saints [Joh 16:13] and they are few and have no control of the beliefs of sinners , unlike modern religion.
The only place where the absolute truth resides is in the saints [Joh 16:13] and they are few and have no control of the beliefs of sinners , unlike modern religion.
Upvote
0
- Jan 21, 2007
- 20,385
- 7,476
- 46
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I think the most prevalent one at the moment is the way anti-Christians have misappropriated the term "reason", and now use it as something of a weapon. Inasmuch as, the pervasive claim is that Christianity is anti-reason. It's patently ridiculous, but because high profile anti-Christians like Dawkins and Hitchens say it, and because their saying it was the genesis of this anti-God zeitgeist (I hate that word... it's so pretentious, am sorry. But it's really the only one that fits) their followers and their followers followers have taken it to heart and spread that message, even though it's profoundly incorrect.
The different branches of anti-Christianity have very little common ground. It just seems to be a seething mass of folk desperately trying to deny Him. Some do it by retroactively altering history to claim He never even existed. Others yet do it by acknowedging His existence but claiming He was just a man, and a revolutionary. Others still become evangelical about their anti-Christianity, for whatever reason.
People want to belong, and anti-Christianity became a huge movement largely because people needed and wanted a cause to feel passionate about. I can sort of understand American anti-Christians because right-wing Christianity seems to exist only in the States. That need to legislate others into behaving the way you want them to... it makes me shudder and, literally thank God, we don't have that here. But in the UK, we have the Dawkins and Hitchens who loathe Christianity for their own personal reasons. That's entirely their right.
But their rage created an upswell - one which eschewed intellectual integrity when the vitriol and rhetoric usurped their reason - that pulled lots of people in. And it's got to the point where to label yourself atheist is to be a rational, reasonable thinking person even if you're a million miles from that, whereas to be a Christian is to be a window-licking loon, even if your faith is rational and reason-based. It's clearly nonsense, and yet that's the philosophy of today. I can see how it's persuasive, and am a Christian. But God is much, much bigger than polemics and ad hominems, and all of this will work out as He wanted.
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Perhaps it is more unreasonable to expect anyone to believe that Christanity has any credibility at all when it is divided right down to individual subjective doctrines of belief yet claims to be guided by the holy spirit into ONE truth of God ...
Quite frankly it is amazing that so many do NOT notice how self-contradictory that is ...
The picture gets even worse when one considers what Jesus said must happen, the whole earth united against a few saints with the whole earth claiming that the saints are wrong [Rev 13:3-10] ...
That Christianity does not believe the scriptures is easy to demonstrate simply by reading the actual new covenant of grace [Heb 8:8-13, Jer 31:31-34] and comparing it to any so-called 'Christian doctrine' of any denomination ... the problem with modern religion of sinners is not only that Jesus said he will not take any sinners when he returns, but that it turns off many people from seeking God because they see how obvious it is that divided beliefs cannot be one truth... as Jesus says, when Christian belief unites , it will be unism against the saints, belief in the false image of a christ figure already existing today at the figurehead of Christianity. [Rev 13:3-10]
The new covenant, the gospel of grace to Israel, states that it is only with those whose fathers broke the old covenant !
The many saved [Rev 7:9-10] are saved by the ministry of this remnant of Israel , but we know the many go by the broad way to this salvation , that religion has not worked out the way its sinners are redeemed ,through Israel ministering to the gentiles ,as promised to Moses by God and handed down generation by generation ... Jesus confirms in rev 7;3-8 that those few [Matt 7:14] first saved are all of tribal Israel, descended from Jacob's sons by name.
Christian religion cannot accept this because it has created a massive force of priesthoods of all kinds , yet God says Israel's descendants will be His priests of the new covenant with Israel...
Upvote
0
I think people who are often interested in philosophy are also the kind of people more likely to question their beliefs.
As to what you mean be "knowledge," I'm not sure; do you mean science (certainly not synonymous with "knowledge")? If so, I do not think so; rather, it is the movement away from religion that has allowed science to flourish.
As to what you mean be "knowledge," I'm not sure; do you mean science (certainly not synonymous with "knowledge")? If so, I do not think so; rather, it is the movement away from religion that has allowed science to flourish.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
- Feb 16, 2007
- 10,874
- 4,352
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Stranger:
You seem to be using this forum to push a particular doctrinal agenda. This is not the appropriate place to do so. You should be confining your posts to answering the question of the OP'er, not directly debating the responses others give to the OP'er. For further clarification see the forum rules.
Peace.
You seem to be using this forum to push a particular doctrinal agenda. This is not the appropriate place to do so. You should be confining your posts to answering the question of the OP'er, not directly debating the responses others give to the OP'er. For further clarification see the forum rules.
Peace.
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Hi, I like the name you chose, there;s something cheeky and inquisitive and lively about mongooses, that I love about them
Some philosophers inded get dogmatic , others get so cynical that they seem to pretend that they believe nothing [yet as Bertrand Russel pointed out amusingly, they would still leave the building when the fire alarm sounds]
The apparent difference is then illusory , some beliefs we become fond of can become dogmatic ad cause cynicism toward all other beliefs , one has to believe sufficiently in something else one would cease to act [and so eventually die after a few days of dehydration because one did not drink]
As to what you mean be "knowledge," I'm not sure; do you mean science (certainly not synonymous with "knowledge")?
As to 'knowledge' ,the thing that I am most certain of is the love deepest in folks' hearts , it has always been there and is the only thing that did not desert me in deepest depression from disillusionment with this world ...
Concidentally [or not] Jesus claims that love is the way 'out' of mortal life to another 'sort' of life beyond time , God's 'life' of the spirit... it seems a more than plausible thing to believe in then, to me.
Well I certainly don't equate modern religion with God's truth about love , quite the opposite [since the opposite of love is 'sin' , unlovingness, breaking of Jesus' command to the saints to love]
But in fact most modern science is based upon the work of the religious, and many of todays scientists are religious [but curiously few of them use scripture to question the connection between apostate divided religion and God's truth even though logically many divided beliefs cannot even possibly be one truth.
I would argue that science isn't flourishing either, the direction of science is dominated by money these days and almost all money lost all value some several decades ago back [starting three centuries ago] ...the set of values governing most science is that of a few private individuals who run international banking and dictate through credit control to governments not just the direction of science ,but the lives and jobs of most people on earth [just 227 families wielding power over the whole earth through aquiring half the wealth of the world and controlling its resources]
Thus science is directed and diverted for private interests , including even its publication and public profile ... an example [of great importance] , the report of the IPCC on the severe oncoming disasters consequent on global warming caused primarily by highly biased scientific justification of our modern mechanised lifestyle generating more CO2 than the earth can handle naturally.
Those who do not want to hear that the world is in imminent danger according to a mass of scientific data have the power to prevent the necessary widespread publication of the message of the chairman and reccomend to get him changed as soon as possible because they don't like the implications of the scientific conclusion .
e.g.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri Discusses How Climate Change Could Affect 21st Century Society : TreeHugger
It is not science as such that is at fault, but the way it is controlled and distorted before reaching any mass audience... it is equally true that divided religion does not reflect the truth about Jesus in scripture but has been distorted because religion is extremely useful for controlling many people [and so inevitably is manipuated for that purpose, not to reflect the scripture about the God of love and the Messiah ,Jesus]
Upvote
0
- Oct 12, 2003
- 5,927
- 143
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
[ Well, friend, ideas relevant to the thread still need discussion , if their implications impinge on the theme(s) of the OP ...
But I would agree that the structure of the forums is not ideal for discussion ,because it favours linear ,rather than branching structure ,and makes reference access diifficult throughout long threads ...
Of course your own comment [and my reply here] are subject to your uderstandable point , and more so even that the post you refer to... such are the ironies of life ... if one ties people up with enough rules then eventually the communication breaks down that way too...
I suggest {gently) that perhaps your best line of approach would be to campaign for restructuring the site [in which case I will happily join you ]
]
peace friend...
Upvote
0
reason (definr - reason)
n 1: a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that
war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
[syn: ground]
2: an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason
a steady state was never reached was that the back
pressure built up too slowly"
3: the capacity for rational thought or inference or
discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with
reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil" [syn:
understanding, intellect]
4: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his
rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less
on reason than on rousing their emotions" [syn: rationality,
reasonableness]
5: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had
no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
[syn: cause, grounds]
6: a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion;
"there is reason to believe he is lying"
There are a lot of ways to use the word "reason" and I'm not clear on what way you are referring to here.
I can assure you that I've never read Dawkins or Hitchens. I doubt that they have as much influence as you give them credit for.
There are a lot of unanswered questions
If you were not blinded to the dangers of religion then you might feel the same way.
I would hardly call it a "movement".
I've asked before if it was possible to reach Christianity through reason, the general answer was no, so to say that your faith is "reason-based" is quite a claim.
In anycase the jist of what you feel is causing anti-Christian sentiment is this general perception of atheists as having reason and Christians being "window-licking loons"? How unfortunate that there are so many fringe Christian sects to point at then when trying to shy away from that perception.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
