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.
Jesus never said it is their responsibility that their converts believe in God. He didn't have that much faith in them. Jesus was angry because they were claiming to speak for God but they were really lining their own pockets and feeding their own vices. Jesus had a thing against hypocrisy.
I didn't say that it was the Pharisees responsibility that the converts believe in God. I said that Jesus chastized them for making the converts twice the sons of hell that they were themselves. Again, if they have no responsibility in leading them astray, why bring it up?
They were being hypocrites and as leaders were enticing others to follow their example.
You can't make anyone do anything. You can persuade but its not quite the same.
I don't understand how this is relevant to what I said.
All I'm interested in is the following phenomenon. Certain Christians talk about God and behave in such a way that many quite reasonable and empathetic people are inclined to think to themselves, "If this is the God of Christianity, he is not a just God, or a loving God, but a cruel and spiteful one - in short, he is not a God worthy of my worship." Other people "preach the Gospel" or talk about Christianity in such a way that it simply sounds utterly ridiculous to non-Christians (and, I would guess, non-theists in particular), claiming that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, and so on.
Now it seems to me that people like this are suggesting to non-Christians that Christianity is not the way to go for the empathetic and rational person. They seem to be following a despotic God and they seem to believe in myths that require an utterly peculiar interpretation of the facts of the world. I'm not trying to be disparaging; I'm just describing what it looks like from the outside.
Of course, there are hundreds of Christians who really do behave in a Christlike way, and who really do understand how to appreciate the true wonder of the natural world alongside their faith. I have every respect for them, and I find most of their arguments acceptable as a basis for personal faith, although I don't share their beliefs. I certainly don't find those people offputting. But unfortunately, they are usually not as vocal as the Christians preaching fire and brimstone and young earth creationism.
Now perhaps you find my arguments unconvincing, and that's your prerogative. But you must remember that from my position, it doesn't really matter, in terms of your future or mine, whether or not you come round and believe me. You may end up spending your life believing some things that aren't true, and that makes me sad, but on the other hand, that's not so bad - everyone believes some falsehoods. However, the difference is that the Christian holds a very different view about the consequences of failure to believe. Most Christians believe that your eternal salvation is at stake. And that is why they have, from their point of view, a greater responsibility than the non-theist to present their arguments convincingly, to try to empathise with the people with whom they disagree and act and speak accordingly.
I'm doing a philosophy and theology degree. My experiences here have proved highly relevant to my degree, especially the Christian ethics side of things. Not that it's any of your business. I certainly don't see what my sexuality has to do with it. What are you doing here?
You keep repeating the word "rational".
I have to laugh when someone tries to make Christianity seem "irrational".
To try and tell me that the world is billions and billions of years old, and that everything you see around you came from nothing and designed itself...hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
sorry, that just makes me laugh.
To believe in the theory of evolution is absolutely irrational. It is the epitome of delusion and irrationality!!!
Just had to throw that into the mix.
So, the Christian then has no accountability?
I'm trying to imagine how that conversation would go on Judgement Day:
"I told people that hating them was love, and God's love is not out love. See?"
"But you led people away from me, better than Satan could have."
"Oops. But I'm forgiven, right?"
"You yourself did not forgive, and yet for forgiving to only yourself."
"But I can't "make" anyone do anything, so I'm off the hook, right?"
I just don't see it.
If I lead you away from God, I have no accountability if I'm a self proclaimed Christian? Does my leading have no accountability?
"Now I'll give YOU something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day."I really don't see how this is true. Belief is not a choice. Can you choose to believe you have five legs, or that cows are green, or that Britney Spears is the president of France?
Belief is never chosen. It happens to people.
Thats like saying getting pregnant just happens to people. People have to go through a few choices before they arrive at pregnancy or belief. Sometimes those choices are merely a formality, like a teen guy waking up with an urge... , in either case but they are choices just the same.
You keep repeating the word "rational".
I have to laugh when someone tries to make Christianity seem "irrational".
To try and tell me that the world is billions and billions of years old, and that everything you see around you came from nothing and designed itself...hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
sorry, that just makes me laugh.
To believe in the theory of evolution is absolutely irrational. It is the epitome of delusion and irrationality!!!
Just had to throw that into the mix.
So you're saying that you *are* able to change your beliefs on a whim? Go on then. Believe Britney Spears is the president of France. Get back to me on how that goes.
Maybe you're trying to talk about wilful ignorance? People should be going out of their way to learn about Christianity for themselves, and if they do, they'll come to believe? Well, I'm doing a degree which is about 50% Christianity-based. I have studied both Old and New Testament texts in detail. I have studied the evidence available about the historical Jesus. I have studied the arguments for the existence of God. I have studied Christian ethics. I have also read a few populist Christian books aimed at converting people. I have gone further out of my way than most to learn about Christianity, and I remain a non-theist.
For me to change my belief about Britney Spears I would have to learn more about the situation. It would be stupid for me to believe something like you suggest so I won't do it.
You can study Christianity your whole life without believeing in it. The same is true of any subject. I guess my question to you is, why do you pursue a degree in a subject matter you don't believe in? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Gosh, you're right! It would be stupid for you to just start believing something without having adequate convincing evidence in its favour. In fact, I don't think it would be merely stupid; it would be impossible. The only way you could believe Britney Spears was the president of France would be if someone provided you with adequate convincing evidence (a photograph of Britney Spears in the Élysée Palace, for example, and an article detailing her appointment after the last French presidential election). Note that it wouldn't just be enough to receive some evidence (the photograph alone, for example, could have been Photoshopped, and so would probably not be convincing). You must find the evidence personally convincing in order for you to begin believing that Britney Spears is the president of France. Do you choose what evidence to find personally convincing? No. Either you are convinced by it, or you are not. If you are not, you will not believe that she is the president of France; if you are, you will believe that she is. It's as simple as that.
What about with regard to Christianity? It's exactly the same. No one will believe in it unless they are presented with personally convincing evidence. Do they choose whether they will find the evidence presented to be personally convincing? No. So they do not choose whether or not to believe.
Because Christians are numerous and powerful; because the history and culture of the Western world has been shaped by Christian thought; because the Bible is an interesting document. And for many other reasons. Why do people study Shakespeare when they don't believe that Romeo really stood at Juliet's balcony?
You don't think you choose what is or is not convincing evidence?
I think we do decide what is convincing evidence. For example, I know how research works so when someone says one product is better than another one according to a research study, I know enough to question how the study was conducted to see if the results are biased. Someone else might not know better so they could be more inclined to believe it based on less evidence. Yet another person who conducted the research might know for a fact that the research is biased and not believe the claim of which product is better. Our experience shapes our views of things.
Most Christians I know are poor and powerless. Some have a bit of wealth but even they fear the IRS, getting sued, and making sure they are politically correct at all times. I think the real power and wealth in the world is held by people like George Soros and the Rothschilds. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett aren't known as church people.
People study Shakespeare because its embedded in our cultural literature, the plays are interesting and well written, and the acting required to do them well challenges actors. You're right. People don't go to such a play because they believe Romeo pined over Juliet. They go because the idea that he did is romantic and touches their hearts.
You are assuming you could lead me anywhere. That is where you delude yourself.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
I believe this answers your question, Beanieboy. To push someone away from God, as a direct result of one's actions, is dire. I'm sorry you were treated so rudely. Have they (the people of that forum) ever heard of the Golden Rule? They sure don't sound like they have. Name-calling, outright hatred, gleefully anticipating someone's (potential) downfall and suffering... is unspeakably intolerable.
Beanieboy said:I appreciate your concern, but Buddhism teaches that your worst enemy is your best teacher, and I did learn, because they were allowed to be as rude as they chose, because to say anything against them condoned homosexuality to the mod, while I was not allowed to be rude in any way, because that would be speaking against Christianity. It was difficult, but I grew a lot.
But, I have to agree. It's weird to here someone laughing about the fate of George Carlin, assuming that he is in hell, but upon hearing of his death, saying, "Well, he believes in God now!"
I believe in George Bush, but I don't believe in him. He exists, but he is a terrible leader and president. So, I don't think believing in God's existence amounts for much to begin with.
They have heard of the Goldren Rule, but they argue that "my neighbor" is another Christian. When I pointed to Scripture where it says that if you only love those who love you, you are no better than the tax collectors and pagans, for even they do that. Then they would yell at me for daring to quote scripture, and claim I was using it out of context. I followed up saying that if they are Christian and refuse to listen to scripture, how can they expect someone who does not believe to listen? They didn't have much of an answer.
I can imagine. I have studied Buddhism, as I've studied a lot of things and I found much truth and wisdom there. It's hard to take a bad experience and turn it into a lesson but it's something I'm trying to do.
(Btw I was trying to be facetious when I said they didn't know what the Golden Rule was. Sorry if I didn't make that very clear)
You delude yourself if you think you haven't been led astray already.
I'm a Buddhist. I'm not going to recruit you. I do, however, question why you worship a religion, and seem to act the opposite of what is commanded.
(My emphasis.)
Yes, it does! In fact, that bears repeating: Our experience shapes our views of things. That's why you find Christianity personally convincing, and I don't. Perhaps you were brought up as a Christian; perhaps you had a personally convincing religious experience; perhaps you reviewed the evidence and you found yourself convinced by it. Any combination of these and other factors could have contributed to you now being a Christian. I was not brought up as a Christian, I have never had a personally convincing religious experience, and I have reviewed the evidence in detail and do not find myself convinced by it. The factors which shaped your and my approaches to Christianity probably happened when we were tiny children.
The examples you gave demonstrate that you do not decide what is convincing evidence. The fact that different people can completely sincerely review the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions demonstrates this. You apply the critical skills with which you have been equipped by your life experience, that's true, but nevertheless, that's not a matter of decision-making; you didn't choose the proficiency of your critical skills, or the kind of evidence that you will find personally convincing.
I will ask you quite sincerely: what process would you suggest for me to go through in order to begin believing that the Judao-Christian God exists and that Jesus that God incarnated as man, that he died for our sins and was raised from the dead three days later? Can you also explain to me why I would want to begin believing that? (I prefer not to do things for no reason at all, especially not life-changing ones.)
Can you describe to me what process you would go through in order to begin believing that Mohammad was dictated to by God and that the Qur'an is God's final testament for humankind?
Would you not say that George W Bush is a powerful Christian? Would you not say that Christians have a powerful political lobby in the US, one of the most powerful nations in the world? It's not the sole reason that I study Christianity, but it is one of them.
Yep, I'm glad you understandI study the Bible because it is embedded in our cultural literature, ethics, politics, and just about every other area of life; the stories are interesting and occasionally well-written; and studying them requires an application of my critical skills. I don't study the Bible because I believe that Jacob wrestled with an angel. I study it because I find the mythology captivating and the history interesting.[/
I find Christianity congruent with sociology and psychological research results. I find the advice in the Bible useful on a practical level. ie When my wife kicked me out I read the Bible and did what it said and she took me back so the Bible must be right. Of course I prayed too but it was following the Bible that convinced me with the results it brought.
I can't and don't assume to tell you to believe what I do. We all have different destinys. Some we choose while others God chooses. All I can say is that I believe in God. You don't have to.
Have you ever seen the movie The Stand? In it a main character says he doesn't believe in God. Then another main character laughs and she says that doesn't matter, God believes in you. God believes in you.
I see. George Bush is a politician which probably means he is also a sociopath and a liar. That doesn't make him a Christian. The man started two wars without cause which should be enough to make most people see that it is not in following Christ's example. Without getting into it I will say that I don't think George Bush is a Christian. You can youtube and google info on it if you want to see where I'm coming from. It has something to do with the tribe of Dan and the Queen of England. Odd, I know. Christians are like the slaves of the South back a few hundred years ago. They're really not that cohesive or powerful anymore, even though there are a lot of them. Their morality has been gutted and it has destroyed their power.
I read it because I believe that Jacob wrestled with an angel, and won.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?