Evolution...the good, the bad, and the ugly?
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
Perhaps for you, they are easily disputed. Since I am a Christian, I won't get into this, but I feel that it's nobody's business how I decide to worship...just as it's not my business to try to convert you to my beliefs. If you ask, I'll try. If you don't, then it's your decision.
RDX
Member
Thulsa Doom said:
Yes, I think that virtually any religious person would agree with the statement that everyone should be religious. Is there something wrong with that? Obviously that’s not going to happen, but now we’re talking in purely theoretical terms.
My argument about “the insurance policy” is purely existential. If I believe that Christ is who is claimed he was and I turned out to be wrong, I have lost nothing. The existential pursuit was still contentment and happiness, and I found it. The alternative offer is if you deny God, authenticate yourself, be your own person, and find our own fulfillment. The Christian counters by saying that he already found it, albeit believing in something that wasn’t so. There are no regrets.
When you say that the non-theist bases his position on what he observes and therefore his perception, you are talking about agnostics or atheists? I think that certain agnostic views can be very logical, but I have a different view on atheism.
You’re right, it’s MORE than a game, it’s MORE than a contest. If a non-theist is wrong, than that is the biggest blunder that he ever made.
You’re right, religion shouldn’t be about keeping people in check. If people really are true followers of that religion, than they will do their best to obey the statutes of that religion due to their devotion.
Again, I have said that a person does not have to be religious to have morals. He will just have a different set of morals.
Thulsa Doom
New Member
RDX said:
But it shouldn’t even enter into your thinking. It should simply be: Christ is Lord. Period. And that’s that. Nowhere along the line should you start weighing out your choices. Or you undermine the very religion you are a member of. If being Christian meant a life of torture but you BELIEVED with all you heart in Christianity then like Perpetua before you, you need to face a life of torture. Happily. Because your faith is absolute. NOT because “eh let them do what they want. Ive got my bases covered.”
both.
well before I tip my cards as to where I stand Id love to know how you percieve atheism versus agnosticism. I WILL say that I percieve one as a scientific philosophy and one as the equivelent of any other religion. Oh dear I fear Ive just tipped my cards there...
you know I could make the argument that if an atheist lives a good and honest life and truly believes with all his heart that his point of view is the correct one what kind of god would condemn him to hell for living such a life? And note that the same argument could apply to a good and honest hindu or a good and honest pagan 10,000 years before christs birth. or perhaps the TRUE religion (and the true god) will be born 10,000 years from NOW. If so we are all royally screwed by this logic.
due to their faith. Not fear. Agreed.
why make this supposition?
Thulsa Doom
New Member
Rose said:I don't have so much reasons for my beliefs other than that's how I was raised and believing it doesn't hurt me.
you know i felt the same way about the tooth fairy. But the evil culture we live in "enlightened" me. I wish I still believed otherwise. I like fairies...
Thulsa Doom
New Member
MrBishop said:
chcr said:
well let me just say you both have it right. if you split the atom of my thinking into its subatomic parts youd likely have both those reasonings. religion is fundamental. and religion is wholly human.
RDX
Member
I guess this is where we disagree. I consider both faith and reason essential to a healthy Christian life. Just because I have chosen this faith does not mean that I cannot stand back and objectively examine my beliefs. My faith might be absolute, but my reason knows no allegiance.
I know of no passage in the Bible that states that a Christian cannot realistically examine his religious belief system. A person can step blindly into religion, but I believe this is where religion fails. If people blindly follow the teachings of the religious elite, there runs a great danger that the religion will no longer function on a personal level, but rather turn into a politicized method of leading the blind masses with hidden agendas.
While I agree with you about the agnostics, I don't on the atheists. Agnostics basically just say, "I don't know". I have met people who say, “I do not find enough evidence for myself for me to positively affirm that there is a God.: This is a very logical stance. Atheism on the other hand, affirms the absence of God. It affirms a negative. Don't they teach this fallacy in even basic philosophy courses? A person cannot affirm a negative. To do so would imply infinite knowledge. If there is not infinite knowledge, then the person can really only state that there is not enough evidence to affirm the existence of a God.
(I will come at this from a Christian perspective, as I have done for most of this thread, because that is what I personally believe. I'm sure that people of other religions would have a different take on the matter.) By our reasoning we would classify certain people's lives as good and honest. What we quantify as a good life, God sees as a life short of imperfection. Although we cannot fathom why a seemingly good and honest person would be condemned to hell, can we expect to understand the mind of God? That is on the line of expecting a ground worm to understand our line of thinking (although even more so.)
A person was not doomed just because they were born in ancient times before the birth of Christ. A person's state after death was determined by his actions here on earth, much like you proposed above. Now were starting to get into some stuff that's pretty deep theologically, but I will try to explain my view. God cannot tolerate imperfection. Before Jesus came to earth, God did not commune with people on earth as Christians do now. To people in ancient times that never heard of Christ, God was only reachable through an intermediate (Christ). Christ intermediated on the behalf of the righteous, so that God would see only Christ in them instead of their real nature. After Jesus died, he no longer needs to hide the blemishes that each of us have. He rather paid the full sacrifice of offering himself as a perfect substitute to all who accept his offering. Now God sees only perfect (those who have accepted Christ's offering) and evil (those who have not accepted Christ's offering). This is why a Christian says that even very good people, who do not accept Christ are condemned.
I know that probably sounded preachy or just downright weird, but I tried as best as I could to answer your question.
Do you remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy? Do you believe that communion is important in your life? Do you tithe to the church?
You probably weren't thinking on these lines though. You were probably taking offense thinking that I was implying that non-theists had lower moral standards rather than different moral standards. Am I correct in that assumption?
Heck, since this post is already getting pretty long, I mind as well just keep on going.
Here’s some more food for thought (or perhaps rebuttal). I thought I’d list a few other reasons why I do not accept a non-theistic world view. In a non-theistic system:
Ultimately, there is no subjective moral law in the universe. Any moral pronouncement is utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive. Anything that deals with good or bad is purely the product of your environment. I will illustrate this point. At the Nuremberg trials, there was a continuous dialog that went on about how the judges in Nazi Germany were going to defend themselves. It all came down to the argument that they were operating under the law of the land. Whatever the reply was, it came back to the statement that they were operating under the law of the land. Finally in frustration, somebody said, “But gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?” For an atheist, the answer would be no.
There is a loss of meaning in life. There is no point of reference that defines what the meaning of life is all about. There simply is no over compassing meaning in life. Give your day to day activities tiny bits of meaning so that there are punctuated meanings under an arching overall meaningless. Although there is no ultimate meaning in life, people can only find tiny bits of meaning in their everyday life. How does atheism give real answers to people who experience emptiness and a loss of meaning in life?
RDX
Member
You may have meaning in life, and many other non-theists may have meaning in life. But what about those who do not?
Last summer I had a friend who hanged himself back in ND. On the note that he left, he stated that his life wasn't going anywhere. He said that nothing would change if he was gone. He did this shortly after he broke up with his girlfriend (which imo was the only thing that was giving him any meaning at the time).
After that one piece of meaning was gone, he had no meaning in life. If a person cannot find discrete things in this lifetime to provide meaning, then what is their life worth to themselves?
Last summer I had a friend who hanged himself back in ND. On the note that he left, he stated that his life wasn't going anywhere. He said that nothing would change if he was gone. He did this shortly after he broke up with his girlfriend (which imo was the only thing that was giving him any meaning at the time).
After that one piece of meaning was gone, he had no meaning in life. If a person cannot find discrete things in this lifetime to provide meaning, then what is their life worth to themselves?
Thulsa Doom
New Member
Gato_Solo said:
How is that an insult or an attack? What she stated was that she felt the earth is 15,000 years old and her only reason is that it is "how I was raised and believing it doesn't hurt me". I think thats a hell of a lot better then giving some scientifically bogus reason to justify their beliefs which is what most creationists do. Instead she was honest and said something I could actually identify with even though Im a staunch evolutionist. So I told her how I felt about faeries. Is that so bad?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
A good chunk of the bible happened before Jesus...in fact, God seems to have conversed with people more before Christ than after Christ. Think of Moses and Noah.
I don't know where you're reading all this, but Christ isn't some sort of filter through which God sees us. I also doubt that God is fickle, or vengefull. I don't think that God keeps list of who's evil and who isn't...God is not Santa Claus.
Even if I take your last sentence (quoted) in effect...then even people who have accepted Christ's offering and yet do evil things are still perfect in the eyes of God, because of the Jesus-filter effect, whilst non-Christians, despite their actions...are always evil because they lack the Jesus-filter.
You are so wrong on so many fronts that I don't knwo where to begin.
For the record (Thulsa Doom), I suppose I should mention that when I was younger I was very much into Christian Science and that weighed very heavily on my beliefs then and what beliefs I have left now as an adult. I haven't kept up in the Christian Science field of study (not to be confused with Scientology), so I cannot argue what they say now or defend much of what I learned then based on my weak memory. I do remember being quite fond of Dr. Ken Ham of Christian Science Ministries in Australia somewhere ...
Gato, thank you. And, out of curiosity if you don't mind, but about how old do you think the earth is?
Gato, thank you. And, out of curiosity if you don't mind, but about how old do you think the earth is?
RDX
Member
Correct, most of the Bible covers a time period before Christ. I'm not talking about literal conversation here. Why do you think the curtain to the inner temple was torn when Jesus was crucified? According to the Bible, for mileniums, the most holy place inside the temple was not accessable to man. He was be instantly killed if he were to go inside of it, because it housed God's presence. After Christ died, there was no longer a need for that separation between God and man. Christ, through his death removed that barrier.
From the Bible.
"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2 Corinthians 5:21
"Vengence is mine, says the Lord, I will repay." Romans 12:19
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that me may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance." Hebrews 9:14-15
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prohpets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who beleive. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory o fGod, and are justified by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:21-23
You're right, he hardly needs a list, he is God afterall. The Bible is very clear about it though. Redemption does not come from good deeds.
For the most part, what you have written is very Biblical.
Care to enlighten me with your deep understanding of the Bible?
freako104 said:
Believe what? Creationism? Yes, I think I've already stated that. And I still rather believe that the Earth is in the thousands and not the millions/billions. I guess it's just easier for my little brain to handle than all those big numbers. I never was good with numbers.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
RDX said:
Surely...but before we begin this theological discourse...let us set some ground rules re: which version of the Bible we are discussing, wether we are taking the Bible literally , figurativly, or alegorically. Are we discussing this from a Roman Catholic perspective, a Protestant perspective or an agnostic one?
Which perspective are you coming from? The Bible isn't necessarily a historical document...but was written sometimes decades after the event happened. It's also tinted with the 'times' in which it was written instead of when it happened. Often, it doesn't reflect today's mentality. I don't want to be taken out of context.
If we're talking about the spiritual aspects of the Bible...there IS truth within it...the problem is finding the truth instead of interpreting it.