Die Hard Skeptics and Scoffers

[Jazer]

The Bible says you are either for God or against God. You are either a friend of God or an enemy of God. Some people like in Pascal's Wager seem to think that it would be better to error on the side of caution. If there really is a God who created this universe then He maybe powerful enough that it maybe a good idea for us to be on His good side. The issue then becomes do people actually live the life that God calls us to live.

So I wonder if this can go either way. If people can claim to believe and not live the life we are called to live. Then can people claim NOT to believe yet live the life that God calls us to live? I think that most Christians would agree that to be a Christian you have to be born again. If the power of God is not working in us then we are just not able to live a life that is well pleasing to the God that created us.

2 Tim 3 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:

 

[Nostromo]

Did you really need to start a thread for a monologue about why you think we're not good people?

Honestly I think you're so set in your way of thinking that you're not capable of understanding the skeptics, or enter into a reasonable discussion with them.

 

[Jazer]

Did you really need to start a thread for a monologue about why you think we're not good people?

I am not saying that. It is a question that I am asking. If you do not want to answer the question then I can sure understand that. From YOUR perspective are you living the life that God calls us to live? Or perhaps are people NOT living right according to Science and the Bible and they deny God because of that. This is a question that comes up here on this board again and again and again.

Science has more strict guidelines then most Christians I know. If people believe so much in Science do they follow their doctors advise? Do they live the life that Science tells us we should live to be healthy and live a long life?

 

[driewerf]

I am not saying that. It is a question that I am asking. If you do not want to answer the question then I can sure understand that. From YOUR perspective are you living the life that God calls us to live? Or perhaps are people NOT living right according to Science and the Bible and they deny God because of that. This is a question that comes up here on this board again and again and again.

No. From my perspective, there is no god, so no one to call me to live a certain life.

Science has more strict guidelines then most Christians I know. If people believe so much in Science do they follow their doctors advise? Do they live the life that Science tells us we should live to be healthy and live a long life?

Science doesn't tel us how to live our lifes. It doesn't give us guidelines. At most, it tells us the consequences of certain life styles. Everybody is "free" to get drunk every evening (which I don't!). Science will not punish you for that. You 'll have higher chances for cancer, if I do so. Reality might "punish" you for that, science wont.

But that's your choice, and it involves only you (and you direct family and friends, if you die).


The crucial difference between that attitude and a biblical literalist is this: it doesn't impose any life style.
Creationists want to impose creationism in schools, and ban evolution. Fundamentalmist christians want to keep civil marriage for straight couples, etc. That means regulating certain aspects of life upon others. And there indeed better argumenst are required than just 'the bible says so'.

 

[plindboe]

The Bible says you are either for God or against God. You are either a friend of God or an enemy of God. Some people like in Pascal's Wager seem to think that it would be better to error on the side of caution. If there really is a God who created this universe then He maybe powerful enough that it maybe a good idea for us to be on His good side.

You can't know what his good side is though. If the muslims are right, you're going to Hell. I do think though that if there is a God, taking an interest in our beliefs, he'd prefer skepticism and intellectual honesty over gullibility and blind devotion. I find it hard to imagine a perfect super being being impressed by people believing simply because someone told them a story or because of peer pressure or social conditioning.

Peter

 

[Jazer]

The crucial difference between that attitude and a biblical literalist is this: it doesn't impose any life style.
Creationists want to impose creationism in schools, and ban evolution. Fundamentalmist christians want to keep civil marriage for straight couples, etc. That means regulating certain aspects of life upon others. And there indeed better argumenst are required than just 'the bible says so'.

Evolutionists impose their attitude as much if not more. They want to force the teaching of evolution. They want to allow perverted marriage. That is a lot of why we are having this discussion here. It does end up in the court system every now and then. I am not against civil unions. People have rights. Christians have rights also. If Gay marriage is legal then people could be fired if they refused to take part in that. So as Christians we have rights that should be protected also. One of our rights is not to have to put up with what we consider to be disgusting. That is why the government limits what is on TV. Also a lot of the filth should have been eliminated off of the internet so our school age children would not be exposed to it. Our government and our court system failed us. This alone is a tragedy of immense proportions. I have heard the argument about people doing what they want in the privacy of their home. But that is not the case when they expose anyone with the ability to use a computer to that filth and debauchery.

To make a mockery out of marriage could very well cause disaster. Many Americans cities are on the brink of disaster and only one storm surge away. The East Coast just got hit a lot harder then ever and we are told that with Global Warming we can expect the storms to get even worse then they have.

 

[Jazer]

You can't know what his good side is though.

Nope a swing and a miss. I just said if Science sets the standard, because science often is even more strict then the church. So why do you reject science and the standards they set? Where does Science approve and say it is ok to live a high risk lifestyle? You condemn yourself when you approve of Science but reject the standard they set. Perhaps the standard they set is to high for you to obtain.

If the muslims are right

If they are right about what?

 

[Nick665]

If there really is Xenu who created God, you better believe in Xenu. You've just been warned.

 

[Cabal]

Some people like in Pascal's Wager seem to think that it would be better to error on the side of caution.

Another mercenary argument from you, Jazer. Where is your faith?

If there really is a God who created this universe then He maybe powerful enough that it maybe a good idea for us to be on His good side.

Since when has might made right?

The issue then becomes do people actually live the life that God calls us to live.

No, the issue still remains "why should anyone become religious for mercenary reasons or as a result of veiled threats". Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[Cabal]

Science has more strict guidelines then most Christians I know. If people believe so much in Science do they follow their doctors advise? Do they live the life that Science tells us we should live to be healthy and live a long life?

No, there are no behavioural "guidelines" in science. Epic fail.

 

[jayem]

Nope a swing and a miss. I just said if Science sets the standard, because science often is even more strict then the church. So why do you reject science and the standards they set? Where does Science approve and say it is ok to live a high risk lifestyle? You condemn yourself when you approve of Science but reject the standard they set. Perhaps the standard they set is to high for you to obtain.

Not quite sure of your point. Don't Christians espouse the idea of free will? Well, so do I (at least in a relative sense.) People have the capacity to act in ways that aren't always in their best interests. That's hardly news.

If your point concerns how we determine what is in our best interests--whether alleged divine revelation or empirically derived evidence is more valuable--then we have a discussion.

 

[Belk]

Nope a swing and a miss. I just said if Science sets the standard, because science often is even more strict then the church. So why do you reject science and the standards they set? Where does Science approve and say it is ok to live a high risk lifestyle? You condemn yourself when you approve of Science but reject the standard they set. Perhaps the standard they set is to high for you to obtain.

If they are right about what?

And we told you, science does not set a standard. You keep trying to paint science as some sort of moral or ethical system, it isn't.

 

[Greg1234]

If there really is Xenu who created God, you better believe in Xenu. You've just been warned.

Probably the most controversial, misunderstood and frequently misrepresented part of the Scientology religion has to do with a Scientology myth commonly referred to as the Legend of Xenu. While this story has now been undoubtedly proven a part of the religion (despite the fact that church representatives often deny its existence), the story's true role in Scientology is often misrepresented by its critics as proof that they "believe in alien parasites." While the story may indeed seem odd, this is simply not the case.

While the issue is still being debated, a number of former Scientologists have stated that the story of Xenu is supposed to be a metaphor and was never meant to be taken as factual truth. However the church feared that if it were revealed to nonmembers, they would not understand. The story is actually meant to be a working myth, illustrating the Scientology belief that humans were at one time spiritual beings, existing on infinite levels of intergalactic and interdimensional realities. At some point, the beings that we once were became trapped in physical reality (where we remain to this day). This is supposed to be the underlying message to the Xenu story, not that "humans are possessed by aliens." Such harsh statements are the reason many Scientologists now become passionately offended at even the mention of Xenu by nonmemebers. (Michael McDowell, Nathan Robert Brown. World Religions at Your Fingertips)​

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The Bible says you are either for God or against God. You are either a friend of God or an enemy of God. Some people like in Pascal's Wager seem to think that it would be better to error on the side of caution. If there really is a God who created this universe then He maybe powerful enough that it maybe a good idea for us to be on His good side. The issue then becomes do people actually live the life that God calls us to live.

So I wonder if this can go either way. If people can claim to believe and not live the life we are called to live. Then can people claim NOT to believe yet live the life that God calls us to live? I think that most Christians would agree that to be a Christian you have to be born again. If the power of God is not working in us then we are just not able to live a life that is well pleasing to the God that created us.

2 Tim 3 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:

At this point in my life, I have chosen to live a good and moral life, which is why I no longer consider myself to be a Christian.

 

[Greg1234]

And we told you, science does not set a standard. You keep trying to paint science as some sort of moral or ethical system, it isn't.

"Science" is mixed in with philosophy. "It" doesn't tell you how to live your life, just that you came from a primordial soup, mutated and by happenstance you're here. Adjust your life accordingly. When the methodological naturalism philosophical portion is shed and science is linked with another philosophy, it says something different.

 

[driewerf]

Evolutionists impose their attitude as much if not more. They want to force the teaching of evolution.

Chemists want to teach chemistry. Mathematicians want to teach maths. Geographers want to teach geography. etc ad nauseam.

Learn to live with it: the theory of Evolution is the big theoretical unifying pattern of biology. Open any biology textbook for university students, and evolution is mentioned in every chapter. It permeates biochemistry, genetics, ecology, taxonomy, embryology, paleontology, botany,zoology and every other subdidvision of biology. If quite some science books here, and textbooks about oceanography and geology pay a tribute to the theory of Evolution. It belongs to the core of Science. So, yes. Evolution needs to be taught in school.

They [Evolutionists] want to allow perverted marriage.

No, the do not want.
I don't know what pervertd marriage is, but "Evolutionists", as a group, or profession don't want it.

That is a lot of why we are having this discussion here. It does end up in the court system every now and then.

When fundamentalist christians want to break the law, impose their religious views under the disguise of creationist science - and now I have to wash my mouth - then yes, the case needs to be taken to the courts.

I am not against civil unions.

That's very nice of you.

People have rights.

indeed

Christians have rights also.

indeed

If Gay marriage is legal then people could be fired if they refused to take part in that.

Hu? Do you care to elaborate?

So as Christians we have rights that should be protected also. One of our rights is not to have to put up with what we consider to be disgusting.

If your gay neighbours celebrate their marriage, and you are invited, nobody forces you to go.

...

To make a mockery out of marriage could very well cause disaster. Many Americans cities are on the brink of disaster and only one storm surge away. The East Coast just got hit a lot harder then ever and we are told that with Global Warming we can expect the storms to get even worse then they have.

Disatsters such as? Hurricanes? Do you really believe hurricanes are caused by same sex marriage?


below are two schemes about how hurricanes form. But no, no same sex marriage involved.

 

[Cabal]

Disatsters such as? Hurricanes? Do you really believe hurricanes are caused by same sex marriage?

has anyone ever checked the eye of a hurricane

maybe there are teh gayz having secks in it

etc.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

"Science" is mixed in with philosophy. "It" doesn't tell you how to live your life, just that you came from a primordial soup, mutated and by happenstance you're here. Adjust your life accordingly. When the methodological naturalism philosophical portion is shed and science is linked with another philosophy, it says something different.

Kind of like the OT v. NT.

 

[Jazer]

If your point concerns how we determine what is in our best interests--whether alleged divine revelation or empirically derived evidence is more valuable--then we have a discussion.

Take the diet laws for example. People seem to think they can get away with eating whatever they want to eat. That is not what the Bible says and that is not what the American Heart Association says. Right now you maybe better off to follow science.

 

[Jazer]

And we told you, science does not set a standard. You keep trying to paint science as some sort of moral or ethical system, it isn't.

The American Heart Association does set standards. Science tells us that people with a high risk sex life are going to get more diseases. That is just a fact of life if you want to accept that knowledge or reject it.