Religion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 01:02:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Religion (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Religion  (Read 21172 times)
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« on: January 07, 2004, 06:41:03 PM »

Personally I find organised religion to be riddled with contradictions and hypocrisy.

And the point is....what?

I'm sure you can find contradictions and hypocrisy in the workplace also, but I bet that doesn't stop you from going to work.  So, why should hypocrisy keep you from going to church?

Isn't it hypocritical to go to work with hypocrits yet refuse to go to church with hypocrits?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2004, 06:48:51 PM »

Christopher Michael <<And nor do you need proof. The Definition of Faith is: "Believing without Experiencing with the senses.">>

Im not so sure that definition will pass a scriptural test.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2004, 07:04:47 PM »

While I used to be an atheist, I find agnosticism more philosophically sound at present.

Doesn't agnosticism state that "truth is unknowable"...or is it "there is no truth"?

Either way, that idea seems self-contradictory...If a person believes there is no truth, how can they believe that the statement "there is no truth" is true?

Or, if the person believes truth is unknowable, then it is not knowable whether the statement "truth is unknowable" is true or not.

Basically, it seems to me that the agnostic is really admitting that the only thing he/she knows is nothing!
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2004, 07:16:07 PM »

And as I said your choice.  But what happens someday if we ( believers) are right and you are wrong and are thrown into hell for not believing?

That's not a very Christian attitude is it?

Speaking bluntly is not contrary to Christ's attitude:

"How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (spoken by Jesus Christ, Mat 23:33)

"Whoever believes in me is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (spoken by Jesus Christ, John 3:18)

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2004, 06:37:00 PM »

Agnostic comes from the Greek word for knowledge.
Gnostic means "one with knowledge"(and was the name of an early loony cult)

"A" means without or signifies an opposite.

So A-Gnostic means "one without knowledge", ie; someone who is not sure.

compare that with my statement, "Basically, it seems to me that the agnostic is really admitting that the only thing he/she knows is nothing!"

....and it looks like you and I are on in agreement for once!!!
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2004, 06:52:57 PM »

I think your hair-raisingly literal interpretation of agnosticism is unwarranted.

Or maybe it is just hitting you that not believing in Black&White but only in ShadesOfGrey is illogical....Claiming "I take no position" is in itself a statement of position.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2004, 08:07:43 PM »

A position of neutrality. I don't see why we need have this discussion. I don't ask you to justify your religious beliefs. I accept them. I may oppose them when you inject them into matters of policy, but beyond that, I learned to live with them.

Im not saying that I can't live with you being neutral.

Im simply asking whether a "position of neutrality" is truly neutral in this case.  If neutral is taken to mean "disengaged", then how is it "logical" to disengage yourself to the concept of truth.

Doesn't the very concept of "logic and reason" dictate that some form of truth is reachable?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.