|
God...
May 3, 2010 4:13:29 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 3, 2010 4:13:29 GMT -5
This is a response to Dan Brown's suggestion that God is unpleasnt because he would not let people who do not believe in Jesus through into heaven. This is a common opinion of many people, so I felt as a Christian I should explain it more throughly.
Imagine for a moment, you have someone who throughout almost their entire life they have been servicing the poor. They almost never live for themselves, they take care of the homeless, almost all the money they get that they do not need for their own survival they use for others, in short a very good person. However, there was one other person who always mocked them. Someone who made them angry and upset and fustrated them as they tried to do their work. So one day in a clinical and premeditated fashion, the first person takes a gun, finds where the mocker lived and kills them. When brought before a court, the fact that that person did all these wonderful things is not a defense. The fact is that they killed a person and as such must be punished.
This is how it is for God and non-Christians. God does not save us or condemn us on the basis of how good work we do or do not do. Ultimately, we all have sin in some part of our lives. Now it may not be as bad as killing someone, but it is still sin. As such, God, by his nature of being infinitely just, has to punish it. Now the Bible makes it clear that Hell is not a catch all system. Jesus refers to two places that will suffer more in Hell because of their crimes than other places. Thus we can infer that people like Hitler etc will be having a worse time of it than most.
So if we all have sin how do we get out of it. Well there is a third man in our story.
The third man likes the first man very much. He apreciates his work and thinks that he should not have to die. So he sneeks into the jail cell of the first man the night before he is due to be sentenced. He meets with the first man to tell him that he is a master of diguise and will take the place of the first man when it comes to the sentence. The first man then has a choice. He can either take up the offer of the third man, or he can let it pass.
Now this analogy is not perfect in many ways, since the third man makes the offer for us all. But the point I am trying to make here is that God is not unpleasnt. He does not judge us by our actions in this life, because while we might be good by one anothers standards, we are not good by God's because we are not perfect. God knew this and was sad for us, so he sent Jesus to be perfect in our place, so that we could be saved through him. That is why God is not unpleasnt. That is why God is not the way Dan Brown described him.
|
|
|
God...
May 3, 2010 16:45:13 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 3, 2010 16:45:13 GMT -5
Sorry if it works for you, but it's the same old stuff we've all heard before. It's still not giving anyone else a sense of justice other than other Christians. You're not here to convince anyone. Dan's likely heard this argument, and its not enough to sway him. I've heard this argument, and its not enough to sway me. Most non-Christians here have probably heard this argument as well, and its not enough to sway them.
It's pretty evident that the basis of this are that all crimes against God are equal, thus making a rapist on the same level as someone who swore once or twice. And, according to your beliefs, they will both burn in eternal pain for those FINITE crimes unless they repent and accept Jesus, which in that case, everything is forgiven. If you can't see the flaws in that justice system, then I hope to God that you never become involved with law as a career.
Also, as a side note, Dan never said God was unpleasant, he just said that YOUR God is an asshole.
|
|
|
God...
May 4, 2010 13:52:03 GMT -5
Post by newschooled on May 4, 2010 13:52:03 GMT -5
God can do anything. Did he really need to go about it like that?
|
|
|
God...
May 4, 2010 14:44:38 GMT -5
Post by Johncoyne on May 4, 2010 14:44:38 GMT -5
Christianity is a very wide subject not all Christians are the same. (See the Westboro Baptist Church)
|
|
|
God...
May 4, 2010 18:57:25 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 4, 2010 18:57:25 GMT -5
Sorry if it works for you, but it's the same old stuff we've all heard before. It's still not giving anyone else a sense of justice other than other Christians. You're not here to convince anyone. Dan's likely heard this argument, and its not enough to sway him. I've heard this argument, and its not enough to sway me. Most non-Christians here have probably heard this argument as well, and its not enough to sway them. Why though? What exactly is wrong with it. Dan clearly hadn't heard it before because he (like many Non-Christians) made a very common mistake. He was presuming that by beliving in God, it makes Christians somehow better people. It doesnt. Christians (if they behave according to the Bible) are well aware the only diffence between them and someone else is that they have been forgiven because they asked. Dan's tirade against God for not choosing people who have lived good lives fundimentally misunderstands the nature of God. For some reason we expect God to judge us in a way that we would never expect a court on Earth to do. No matter how many good things we do in our lives, it doesnt undo a crime, of any kind. Why should we expect God to accept that when our own justice systems will not. It's pretty evident that the basis of this are that all crimes against God are equal, thus making a rapist on the same level as someone who swore once or twice. And, according to your beliefs, they will both burn in eternal pain for those FINITE crimes unless they repent and accept Jesus, which in that case, everything is forgiven. If you can't see the flaws in that justice system, then I hope to God that you never become involved with law as a career. They are equal in so far as they are crimes/sins. The bible makes it clear if you read it, that it is perfectly aware that some have more consequences than others. The eternal pain for finite crimes argument is one I've heard before, and my answer to it would be as follows - The pain is not the "burning in fire" etc literal. It is seperation from God, and is more akin to not having heaven - If you spend your entire life wanting to have nothing to do with God, then that is what you will get. That is what hell is. Also, as a side note, Dan never said God was unpleasant, he just said that YOUR God is an asshole. He was mistaken in his reasoning
|
|
|
God...
May 4, 2010 18:59:08 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 4, 2010 18:59:08 GMT -5
God can do anything. Did he really need to go about it like that? God cannot do everything. The Bible makes it clear that God is not ominpotent in the Greco-Roman "Four sided triangles" way. He could not simply click his fingers and forgive us becuase for that to be the case there would be no value on sin, and it would mean nothing. There was a price to be paid and justice to be metered out. The system he made for saving us is not "fair" in the same way that the arrival of sin into the world was not "fair".
|
|
|
God...
May 4, 2010 20:07:04 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 4, 2010 20:07:04 GMT -5
They are equal in so far as they are crimes/sins. The bible makes it clear if you read it, that it is perfectly aware that some have more consequences than others. The eternal pain for finite crimes argument is one I've heard before, and my answer to it would be as follows - The pain is not the "burning in fire" etc literal. It is seperation from God, and is more akin to not having heaven - If you spend your entire life wanting to have nothing to do with God, then that is what you will get. That is what hell is. As if I haven't head that one before. Is that your religion's selling point? Personally, any form of eternal life is torture enough. The burning in fire aspect is used as a comparison as to how horrible hell is. Either way, I'd prefer if I just died and that was it (which, by the way, I believe that it is). Plus, your religion dictates that hell is what everyone but repentant, forgiven Christians deserve. If a Christian is forgiven, then they are given heaven. Jews, Muslims and any others who believe in God still go to hell for this awful agonizing eternity for something that took a finite amount of time to do. You're creating a false dichotomy, acting as if anyone who isn't a Christian automatically hates God and therefore deserves eternal agonizing punishment and separation from God (aka all that is good) forever. Again, if you can't see something wrong with this, then I want nothing to do with you, because, quite frankly, I consider you to be a recklessly minded and insane individual who I would keep anyone (specifically small children) away from at all costs.
|
|
|
God...
May 5, 2010 3:00:32 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 5, 2010 3:00:32 GMT -5
Plus, your religion dictates that hell is what everyone but repentant, forgiven Christians deserve. If a Christian is forgiven, then they are given heaven. Jews, Muslims and any others who believe in God still go to hell for this awful agonizing eternity for something that took a finite amount of time to do. You're creating a false dichotomy, acting as if anyone who isn't a Christian automatically hates God and therefore deserves eternal agonizing punishment and separation from God (aka all that is good) forever. Perhaps this was poorly phrased so I will explain better, as I did earlier. Anyone who has not asked for forgiveness has sinned. This is not a false dichotomy. That sin does require punishment. People who do not ask for that forgiveness are (by extention) believing that they do not need forgiveness to get to heaven. Since they do, they fail and do not get there.
|
|
|
God...
May 5, 2010 14:58:33 GMT -5
Post by sarahendipity on May 5, 2010 14:58:33 GMT -5
Thread moved to the Debate subforum. This wasn't really about YouTube or the internets. Yeah.
|
|
|
God...
May 5, 2010 15:10:17 GMT -5
Post by Jake on May 5, 2010 15:10:17 GMT -5
Sorry, but I beg to differ. You see, I didn't kill a man - I'm just not a believer. And that's not a choice I make or can make, that's just how it is whether I like it or not.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 5, 2010 15:21:37 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 5, 2010 15:21:37 GMT -5
Okay, but here's the thing.
- The argument assumes that we all broke God's law - The argument assumes that God's law was good in the first place - The argument assumes that eternal torture in hell is acceptable punishment for breaking God's law - The argument assumes that Jesus is incapable of saving you from sin if you don't believe in him
If God were truly good:
1) He would be able to forgive people for transgressions. 2) He wouldn't punish minor transgressions with an eternity in hell. 3) He wouldn't punish people for mere thoughts.
So none of the opening poster's arguments save God, in this particular hypothetical, from being cruel hearted. At best it means that Tinkerbell Jesus would like to save you from his cruel hearted father, but can only do so if you believe really hard.
|
|
|
God...
May 5, 2010 15:38:07 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on May 5, 2010 15:38:07 GMT -5
This is a response to Dan Brown's suggestion that God is unpleasnt because he would not let people who do not believe in Jesus through into heaven. This is a common opinion of many people, so I felt as a Christian I should explain it more throughly. Imagine for a moment, you have someone who throughout almost their entire life they have been servicing the poor. They almost never live for themselves, they take care of the homeless, almost all the money they get that they do not need for their own survival they use for others, in short a very good person. However, there was one other person who always mocked them. Someone who made them angry and upset and fustrated them as they tried to do their work. So one day in a clinical and premeditated fashion, the first person takes a gun, finds where the mocker lived and kills them. When brought before a court, the fact that that person did all these wonderful things is not a defense. The fact is that they killed a person and as such must be punished. This is how it is for God and non-Christians. God does not save us or condemn us on the basis of how good work we do or do not do. Ultimately, we all have sin in some part of our lives. Now it may not be as bad as killing someone, but it is still sin. As such, God, by his nature of being infinitely just, has to punish it. Now the Bible makes it clear that Hell is not a catch all system. Jesus refers to two places that will suffer more in Hell because of their crimes than other places. Thus we can infer that people like Hitler etc will be having a worse time of it than most. So if we all have sin how do we get out of it. Well there is a third man in our story. The third man likes the first man very much. He apreciates his work and thinks that he should not have to die. So he sneeks into the jail cell of the first man the night before he is due to be sentenced. He meets with the first man to tell him that he is a master of diguise and will take the place of the first man when it comes to the sentence. The first man then has a choice. He can either take up the offer of the third man, or he can let it pass. Now this analogy is not perfect in many ways, since the third man makes the offer for us all. But the point I am trying to make here is that God is not unpleasnt. He does not judge us by our actions in this life, because while we might be good by one anothers standards, we are not good by God's because we are not perfect. God knew this and was sad for us, so he sent Jesus to be perfect in our place, so that we could be saved through him. That is why God is not unpleasnt. That is why God is not the way Dan Brown described him. OMG, you got to be kidding me, and what if someone never heard of the Bible or jesus? they go straight to hell? Luther's logic was wrong in so many ways. Here is a quote I got for you: "Luther initially preached tolerance towards the Jewish people, convinced that the reason they had never converted to Christianity was that they were discriminated against, or had never heard the Gospel of Christ. However, after his overtures to Jews failed to convince Jewish people to adopt Christianity, he began preaching that the Jews were set in evil, anti-Christian ways, and needed to be expelled from German politics. In his On the Jews and Their Lies, he repeatedly quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called them "a brood of vipers and children of the devil"" Know that YOU base your believes on this man's ideologies.
|
|
|
God...
May 5, 2010 15:49:38 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 5, 2010 15:49:38 GMT -5
My God is a Universal Architect who does not intervene in human affairs. Think, logically, Earth is not the only planet with life, so why does Earth matter so much? My God does not deal out justice, nor does It have some sort of happy-realm and sad-realm that it created for an afterlife.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
God...
May 5, 2010 20:56:16 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on May 5, 2010 20:56:16 GMT -5
God killed more people in the bible than Lucifer and Satan. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 6, 2010 1:09:35 GMT -5
Post by metoyou on May 6, 2010 1:09:35 GMT -5
Reading through this thread, I think the argument is being approached in the entirely wrong way. Before the logistics of God and how he behaves should even be considered, His (or Her) existence must first be proven, or at least be shown to be likely. Since private revelation is a justification that is often used (I even used it when I was a christian) I would like to go ahead and say it is not a valid argument. The mind is funny and can easily be tricked. The suggestibility of the mind coupled with priming techniques makes it clear that any kind of private revelation that is not repeatable and testable does not have a place in an argument like this.
Further more, the argument of faith should be disregarded as well. Faith is a way to claim something based on no evidence, on no rational. To claim faith is to accept that there is no proof, no good argument for your view, and you just accept it because you want to. If you did have an argument, you would not have to use the crutch of faith, you could simply prove it. The moment you claim faith is the same moment your view looses it's right to be considered in an argument.
The last argument that I am tired of hearing is that God cannot be disproven. Even though I will disagree to degree with this claim, ok yes, I cannot hold God up in front of you and say "See here, (S)He is just a plush toy." But stating this claim as a reason to believe God is absurd. It reminds me of the floating teapot theory. If you were told to believe that there was a teapot floating in orbit around our sun, would you believe it? You cannot possibly prove the theory to be false, but it is very unreasonable to accept it.
Instead, consider what we KNOW. E=mc^2 (Energy= mass*the speed of light ^2). Without energy, nothing can exist. In order for something to have energy, that thing must have mass. The soul, as well as God are claimed to be real, however they have no physical bodies. You cannot touch them, you can not physically alter them, therefore they have no mass. No mass = No Energy, No Energy = No existence. Also, if God did have a physical body, where is He? He cannot travel faster than the speed of light because His physical matter would tear itself apart. If (S)He created the Earth, then he must have been somewhere near by at some point. If this were the case, then we would still be able to see Him moving around the universe, even if He were traveling just below the speed of light.
The Bible is probably the most trusted book known to contradict itself. Don't think it does? Search youtube. I will present a couple of my favorite examples, but there are plenty of video's up that present over 100 examples of contradictions. If the Bible is the word of God, and it is so contradictory, i.e. not perfect, then why should we believe it?
Speaking of perfection, how can you claim God is perfect? Here is my proof for my claim that there is no perfect creator God. Consider a Perfect machine. If a perfect machine is fed perfect materials to make it's product then it will produce nothing but perfection. It absolutely cannot do anything less. If the machine makes an error, then it really wasn't perfect. I cannot emphasize enough that every single item that perfect machine produces is perfect. Now, assume in the beginning there was nothing but God and (S)He was perfect. Well if God was perfect, then (S)He cannot produce anything but perfection. One small defect in any item (S)He produces would mean that God was indeed fallible. We also can conclude that if an error was made it must originate from God since we are assuming that God was the only thing in existence in the beginning. So if everything comes from God, and God is perfect, meaning God can only produce perfection, where did sin come from?
If God loves us all (john 3:16), and love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:5), then how are we to be judged (Malachi 4:1)?
Now please spare me. I know science does not have all the answers. However, at least the answers we have are repeatable and testable, and at least we are making progress. The problem with religion is that it, for the most part, is stagnant. There is a doctrine that a group follows so that it knows how to behave and think. I am not saying that religion does not have it's uses. There are many people who "need" it (people become religiholics. It is like a drug, once you are addicted it is really hard to quit and you do have to go through withdrawl). But all I want is for religion to be viewed as the form of personal validation that it is and for it to stop being used to persecute. I am not even talking about terrorism and overwhelming oppression across the world associated with it, although I do want to see that come to an end. I am tired of being silenced because of my rationale, because I do not choose to believe in a space God (as Bill Maher put it), just because others said so. Think about it. The only reason you believe, if you do, is because a group of people told you to trust them. Since a bunch of people were saying the same or almost the same thing, you were provided all the proof you needed. Although the basis for science is the same, there is one key difference. No matter who I talk to, the story stays the same. 2+2 always equals 4 and E always equals mc^2. These are testable, repeatable, and provable conclusions. And if you ask me to perform the experiment my self please stop now and spare me the insult. I am not a math major nor do I have the funding to perform the experiment. I, by my self, cannot prove it. But I can search a bunch of studies and proofs that will show you the evidence, and then I will ask you to provide me the same evidence you required, which unless you are one of a kind in this world you cannot produce. That argument will only show the flaws of your point so I would suggest you save both of us as well as anyone who reads this some time.
So if you believe, understand why. You like the reference group, you enjoy the almost unconditional acceptance of religion, and it is the only way you can validate having a life (you feel like there is a greater purpose, am I right?).
Argue if you would like, but I would encourage you to be thorough. If I can present your same argument to prove pixies and unicorns, you might want to rethink it.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 6, 2010 1:31:37 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 6, 2010 1:31:37 GMT -5
I don't know, the topic is "Do Christians believe in a god that is cruel?" Phrased that way, the question is valid regardless of whether they are right about their god's existence.
Not that whether or not any gods exist isn't a valid question; it's probably the more important one. It's been gone over a few times in a thread I believe was entitled "Religion" much earlier in this board's life. But this question can still be fielded or discussed even among a group that has no belief in any gods whatsoever.
|
|
|
God...
May 6, 2010 12:40:17 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 6, 2010 12:40:17 GMT -5
I don't know, the topic is "Do Christians believe in a god that is cruel?" Phrased that way, the question is valid regardless of whether they are right about their god's existence. And it is a good question. If a traditional Christian (one who believes in the existence of heaven and hell/judgment and eternal damnation) was to respond no, then we would have to assume that they find agonizing eternal punishment for finite crimes to be proper justice - just think, would you want to associate with someone who thinks like that? If the traditional Christian was to respond yes, then it would be a good question to ask them why they want to believe or worship that God anyway?
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 7, 2010 10:02:51 GMT -5
Post by metoyou on May 7, 2010 10:02:51 GMT -5
I agree it is a good question, but I don't think it is the first that should be asked. Once we are in agreement that God doesn't exist (with 99.99% certainty) we can then say that religion is a social construct. I am a conflict theorist who thinks that the world is structured around competition. The neat thing about religion is it provides an opportunity for everyone to compete, i.e. anyone can join. It creates an in-group where everyone will in theory be taken care of and be provided support (after all, the root of the word religion is latin meaning "to bind"). It also creates an "us vs them" mentality, where the mission is to either annihilate or convert the heathens. The group defines what the individual thinks and feels, and provides guidelines and rules for interaction inside and outside the group. This social order is vary desirable for many people because it provides an answer. They don't have to guess about interaction and belief, the answers are already there for them. They feel valid in their life and justified in their actions.
If you accept this, then the next step is to acknowledge the fact that the focus is on the individual and their involvement in the group. Since this is concern number 1, and since the world is in conflict, i.e. "us vs them", it is easy to see how the Christian God is a cruel one. (S)He was constructed for a particular group and will ultimately have their needs at the forefront of His/Her concern. Plus with an authority like that to appeal to, those in power can sway the masses to believe anything (like for example the recent problems with the priests raping boys is because the devil possessed them or in tehran the reason there were earthquakes is because some women had showed skin).
Religion is oppressive. It stifles independent though and creates an environment of simple acceptance. I love the sheep analogy. The shepherd tends to an looks after the sheep in his or her flock, he/she protects them. But the goal is not the same for both the shepherd and the sheep. The sheep's goal is to follow and love. They know who their master is and will follow blindly wherever he/she goes. The shepherd's goal is to make some money by selling the sheep's wool and meat. The trick is not to let the sheep in the flock see the slaughter for cash because the flock must continue to follow and reproduce. So, what kind of nice and loving God are they following?
As a side note, I have been using both genders, but it just occurred to me that doing this is incorrect. Since God was created in a time where men were the dominate figure, God must be man because men at that time would have never followed an all powerful woman. It would have seemed too fictitious. This is not a slight against women, it is just an observation of the time period.
Also, something to consider. The various God's around the world are engaged in a giant popularity contest. "No, the humans love me more!". If not to hear how great and amazing they are, or feel gratification through charity, why else would a God stick around a planet like ours? There is absolutely nothing else we have to offer. I would argue that there is no such thing as unconditional love, because for even love to be viable the lover must have something to gain from it.
|
|
|
God...
May 8, 2010 2:44:59 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 8, 2010 2:44:59 GMT -5
If God were truly good: 1) He would be able to forgive people for transgressions. He can, that is what Jesus's death was. He will not simply wave an omnipotent wand to forgive, because otherwise there is no cost. 2) He wouldn't punish minor transgressions with an eternity in hell. What is your definition of "minor" based upon? Because as far as I can see it, disobeying the highest authoritiy in the universe is a pretty big deal. If your definition of minor is based upon the consequences of that action, you should remember that the consequences are not just phyiscal, but are spiritual also 3) He wouldn't punish people for mere thoughts. So thoughts cannot be as spiritually harmful as actions?
|
|
|
God...
May 8, 2010 3:02:58 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on May 8, 2010 3:02:58 GMT -5
Instead, consider what we KNOW. E=mc^2 (Energy= mass*the speed of light ^2). Without energy, nothing can exist. In order for something to have energy, that thing must have mass. The soul, as well as God are claimed to be real, however they have no physical bodies. You cannot touch them, you can not physically alter them, therefore they have no mass. No mass = No Energy, No Energy = No existence. Also, if God did have a physical body, where is He? He cannot travel faster than the speed of light because His physical matter would tear itself apart. If (S)He created the Earth, then he must have been somewhere near by at some point. If this were the case, then we would still be able to see Him moving around the universe, even if He were traveling just below the speed of light. If he created this universe, it stands to reason he himself is not controled by its principles. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have no mass or energy and yet still exist. The Bible is probably the most trusted book known to contradict itself. Don't think it does? Search youtube. I will present a couple of my favorite examples, but there are plenty of video's up that present over 100 examples of contradictions. If the Bible is the word of God, and it is so contradictory, i.e. not perfect, then why should we believe it? Every example of a contradiction I've seen can be fairly easily put down to a lack of biblical understanding in the vast majority of cases. Speaking of perfection, how can you claim God is perfect? Here is my proof for my claim that there is no perfect creator God. Consider a Perfect machine. If a perfect machine is fed perfect materials to make it's product then it will produce nothing but perfection. It absolutely cannot do anything less. If the machine makes an error, then it really wasn't perfect. I cannot emphasize enough that every single item that perfect machine produces is perfect. Now, assume in the beginning there was nothing but God and (S)He was perfect. Well if God was perfect, then (S)He cannot produce anything but perfection. One small defect in any item (S)He produces would mean that God was indeed fallible. We also can conclude that if an error was made it must originate from God since we are assuming that God was the only thing in existence in the beginning. So if everything comes from God, and God is perfect, meaning God can only produce perfection, where did sin come from? It depends on what you mean by perfect. To be more specific "the perfect *what?*". To explain, if you have the perfect computer, it may be for example have all its components made of superconducting material, have plating that can resist any damage etc. A perfect chisel however will not have any superconductors becaus that is not its task. In this case, the perfection we are talking about in Human beings is their ability to love. God, in giving us the perfect ability to love, meant that we also had to possess the ability to not love. By its nature, love requires a level of choice. If God loves us all (john 3:16), and love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:5), then how are we to be judged (Malachi 4:1)? God has multiple characteristics. He loves all but also is just to all. Love and justice are not mutually exclusive. The love 1 Corinthians talks about is describing the human condition. God's love is more complex than that. It is a sorrow, in that he wants us to come to him, but we are in many cases not. The problem with religion is that it, for the most part, is stagnant. Science is also stagnent in areas where it does not know the entire truth. You only say it is stagnent because it has not changed. But if it is true, why would it? I am tired of being silenced because of my rationale, because I do not choose to believe in a space God (as Bill Maher put it), just because others said so. Where are you being silenced? Think about it. The only reason you believe, if you do, is because a group of people told you to trust them. Since a bunch of people were saying the same or almost the same thing, you were provided all the proof you needed. Actually, the proof comes to us in the form of the rather large ammount of historical evidence, which the personal experiance fits in line with. Although the basis for science is the same, there is one key difference. No matter who I talk to, the story stays the same. 2+2 always equals 4 and E always equals mc^2. These are testable, repeatable, and provable conclusions. As are the gospels verifiable history. So if you believe, understand why. You like the reference group, you enjoy the almost unconditional acceptance of religion, and it is the only way you can validate having a life (you feel like there is a greater purpose, am I right?). I would advise you to avoid patronising religious people by saying that their belief system emerges from a social phoniminon. If you are going to say that, many people would also believe that science stems from a social phonominon, that of human arrogence. The idea that everything in the universe is beneath us, can be broken down and understood, by humans. If you want to use social phonominon to patronise religious people, you should expect it back against scientists.
|
|