Theology IV

[Mari]

Fourth thread, and the debate can continue.

The topic, as before, is religion.

Original thread starter was Ruinel.

The previous threads were Real debate thread for religion, Theological opinions, part II and Theology III.

Let us enjoy some more polite exchanging of thoughts on religion here

[Nurvingiel]

Don't forget Rian's "Why you believe what you believe" thread, which does not appear to exist anymore.

I've closed the old thread. Let me know if you want any posts from that thread moved over here.

[Azrael]

so Chap you wanted a few verse here yeah go....theres a verity.

mat. 12:46-50
and if i knew where to look I'd give you more but i usually just stuble on things. The reason Jesus is not stated in the "for all have sinned..." is because it says over and over in the bible that He has not sinned so why would they need to say it again. You keep on coming back to Adam and eve but they were not born they were created from the dirt and breath of life they were the first to sin so of course they did not have original sin as you call it for they were where it started. Mary I really don't know how to explain this anymore I've been clear with this and you must open your eyes Bro she was great yes, Mother of Jesus yes mother of the God head itself no because the God head was allready made and if Jesus did not have to be born to be human then she wouldn't have been in the picture...maybe not sure...but He was told to be born to a virgin of the david blood line so Mary fit both and found favor in the eyes of God and was chosen to have our savior. She was not sinless bro she was human and I don't mean both human and God like Jesus and she had a birth unlike Adam and eve that had sin in the birth....theres no more I can say bro you ether believe it or not thus not making it any less true..... as for prying to Mary why? the only way to God is through Jesus not Mary and that is said many times in the bible over and over.The ghosts (can't spell the other word) you are showing us, how do you know its real? Did you see close up how do you know it was not a illusion made by human or Satan for that matter.....sorry Bro I see no reason in Mary to come and walk around and float....do you honestly see a reason for God to have that happen? God does not do things to show off and thats what I think that was so I do not think that is the work of God.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

so Chap you wanted a few verse here yeah go....theres a verity.

mat. 12:46-50

I actually already talked about that one in my previous post. I pointed out that other believers being his mother and brothers in a spiritual sense doesn't make him have no mother in a biological sense.

Originally Posted by Azrael

and if i knew where to look I'd give you more but i usually just stuble on things. The reason Jesus is not stated in the "for all have sinned..." is because it says over and over in the bible that He has not sinned so why would they need to say it again.

The point is that He was an exception that wasn't mentioned. If there's one exception, there could be two.

The idea that He isn't mentioned only because his sinlessness is referred to in other parts of the Bible is one possibility, but there could be plenty of other reasons. For instance, it could be (similarly) that His perfection was broadly accepted by the early Christians, so they didn't bother mentioning it. And it's possible Mary's perfection was likewise broadly accepted and so not mentioned for the same reason. Or maybe they just purposely were making a generally true statement and weren't bothering with exceptions to the rule. For instance, Jesus said sometimes, "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Does that mean that no one who isn't baptized will be saved? No . . . there are exceptions. There are many other passages where it makes broad statements, but there are exceptions it doesn't mention, because it's just talking about the general truth, not every single detail.

Originally Posted by Azrael

You keep on coming back to Adam and eve but they were not born they were created from the dirt and breath of life they were the first to sin so of course they did not have original sin as you call it for they were where it started.

Yes, and they were human, even while they were sinless. Weren't they?

Originally Posted by Azrael

Mary I really don't know how to explain this anymore I've been clear with this and you must open your eyes Bro she was great yes, Mother of Jesus yes mother of the God head itself no because the God head was allready made

All we Catholics mean when we call her "Mother of God" is that she's Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, so she's Mother of God.

Originally Posted by Azrael

and if Jesus did not have to be born to be human then she wouldn't have been in the picture...maybe not sure...but He was told to be born to a virgin of the david blood line so Mary fit both and found favor in the eyes of God and was chosen to have our savior.

You were saying he couldn't have had any of Mary's flesh because nothing can be added to God, but why, if nothing can be added to God and this impossibility of addition includes Mary, did Jesus eat food while he was on Earth? That added to his body, by your definition of how that works.

Originally Posted by Azrael

She was not sinless bro she was human and I don't mean both human and God like Jesus and she had a birth unlike Adam and eve that had sin in the birth....

I agree she wasn't both human and God like Jesus. She was both human and pure like Adam and Eve, IMO.

Originally Posted by Azrael

theres no more I can say bro you ether believe it or not thus not making it any less true.....

How can you possibly know that? Nothing you're saying is from the Bible! It's all human conjecture. In your personal opinion, she was conceived with sin, in your opinion, Jesus didn't take any of her flesh, in your opinion, she wasn't his mother, in your opinion, "all have sinned," means "all have sinned except Jesus" but doesn't mean, "all have sinned except Jesus and Mary." That's all one interpretation. It's not the Bible. Only underlining this because it's such an important point, not because I'm mad . I'm truly finding this a very useful discussion, though I'm willing to stop any time you are.

The entire Protestant belief system on Mary being sinful is one interpretation of the Bible, but interpretations coming to the opposite conclusion make just as much sense in view of what the Bible says on the matter. The Protestant perspective here is really personal opinion and tradition dating back five hundred years or so.

Since the Bible doesn't have much to say on the matter, and we are in the realm of human traditions, why go with the tradition dating back only 500 or so years rather than the one dating 2,000 years back, to the very dawn of Christianity?

If the early Christians, those who knew the apostles and were their friends and companions, and their successors, all the original teachers of Christianity, if they believed that Mary was sinless, doesn't it make sense to pay more attention to their view than to views invented over a thousand years later? Because they were closer to the events that had happened. They knew more about Mary, because she had passed away more recently.

Originally Posted by Azrael

as for prying to Mary why? the only way to God is through Jesus not Mary and that is said many times in the bible over and over.

I agree that the only way to God is through Jesus. So we pray to Jesus, and we sometimes ask other Christians to pray with us to Jesus for various things. Praying to Mary is asking for her to pray to Jesus with us. It's the same as asking Christians on Earth to pray for us on various issues.

Originally Posted by Azrael

The ghosts (can't spell the other word) you are showing us, how do you know its real? Did you see close up how do you know it was not a illusion made by human

I already talked about that in previous posts. The Egyptian police did a thorough investigation because they thought it was probably an elaborate hoax, and they came up with nothing after searching the area in a five mile radius. Also, it couldn't really be a hoax because it would be so, so hard to fabricate with 1960s technology, even if the police weren't thoroughly investigating for such a possibility.

Originally Posted by Azrael

or Satan for that matter.....

Unlikely. The apparition resulted in vast numbers of people converting to Christianity. That doesn't seem like something the Devil would find useful.

Originally Posted by Azrael

sorry Bro I see no reason in Mary to come and walk around and float....do you honestly see a reason for God to have that happen? God does not do things to show off and thats what I think that was so I do not think that is the work of God.

There can be all kinds of possible reasons. Bringing a multitude of people to Christ is one good reason. Healing the sick and blind is another good reason (that also happened). Encouraging the Church in Egypt, which was about to go into an intensified period of persecution from Muslims, would be another good reason.

The Copts have given an explanation too- I don't know exactly what it is, as I haven't researched that point.

And if it doesn't seem like God because it's too big a display of power, I can mention all kinds of incidents in the Bible where God unleashed power in a public display. This falls right in line with those.


I think I'll add at this point that the Early Church really did see Mary as sinless. Their writings call her the "second Eve," repeatedly, and in the 4th century there are writings calling her completely pure and "spotless," "immaculate." That dates from very, very early in Church history.

Not to mention that the glorious image of Mary in Revelation 12 comes straight from the Bible. As Gwaimir pointed out, if the child who was snatched up to be with God and who would rule the nations with an iron scepter was Jesus (and virtually all Protestants agree that that's true), then the one who gave birth to the Christ-child in the vision would logically be his mother. The Messianic community or the Church are alternate explanations that also work, but interpreted literally, it would refer to his physical mother, Mary.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I actually already talked about that one in my previous post. I pointed out that other believers being his mother and brothers in a spiritual sense doesn't make him have no mother in a biological sense.

What's more, who are those who are his mother and brothers? Those who hear the Word of God and obey it. Sounds like, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." By that definition, sure SOUNDS like she's his mother....

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What's more, who are those who are his mother and brothers? Those who hear the Word of God and obey it. Sounds like, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." By that definition, sure SOUNDS like she's his mother....

Though one could argue only in a spiritual sense .


Guys, you might like this article about the Early Church's claims about Mary. You'd like it anyway, Gwaimir . And you might at least find it interesting, Azrael! It has several interesting sections of available information from the beliefs of the first two centuries of Christians about the Virgin Mary.

Here's how it begins (I didn't know this part, so I found it particularly interesting:

As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

Here's another good part I didn't know about:

As already referred to, the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):

We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all dangers.
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

Note that by the third century, our early Christian brothers and sisters already accepted Mary under the title of "Mother of God," even though this title would not be solemnly defined for another two hundred years. Further, the early Church realized that direct prayer to Mary did not consist of forms of idolatry or adoration, as is sometimes mistakenly interpreted in our day, but rather as a spiritual communication of love and petition to the Mother of Jesus, who continues to care for the Mystical Body of her Son by her intercession.

Reading that article was wonderfully illuminating for me . I already knew about many of the statements of the Early Church Fathers on the matter, but these were things I wasn't aware of. And so early!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Indeed. The very earliest Fathers, really, who made any attempt at a whole account of Christianity, proclaim the glorious mystery of the Virgin. I think perhaps an even better argument for Marian devotion is the effects it has on a civilization, as mentioned in your article.
Also, there is this: We have a Father in God, but without the Virgin, where is a mother? What family is complete lacking that?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Azrael

The reason I agree with and disagree is you are saying that Mary is the Mother of God but she was just the mother of Jesus so he could become human (yes God) but she knew she was not His mother she says it a few times (if i remember right) Back to elijah is John the Baptist.

I don't believe she says that she is not his mother, but Elizabeth says that she is, while filled with the Holy Spirit:

And it came about that Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed among women are you, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:41-43; NASB]

I am assuming that "my Lord" in this context refers to Christ; if it does, then the Holy Spirit has spoken, the case is closed.

John was the fore told one of elijah not elijah himself...that would say there was recreation and you should know thats not true once in Heaven your there...

Do you mean reincarnation? That would be one possibility. Another would be resurrection.

why would you want to leave its super sweet up there.

I don't think you have to leave. In fact, you can't. Heaven is not a place, it is a spiritual state.

The woman in revelations is not a human woman but Israel, when it says the dragon is the Anti-christ and when it says he tries to eat the womans child it means the people fleeing Israel because of the mark of the beast

She gives birth to a man-child who rules with an iron rod. If the man-child is Christ (which I think few Christians would deny), then it would make most sense to say that the woman is the one who gives birth to Christ, would it not?

[The last sane person]

All this fuss ... because he kept a cookie?

Okay, this is just plain stupid. I get the whole symbolism thing to some degree (Without it religion is pointless)... But it's a cookie he stuffed in his mouth. WTF does it matter what he does with it? He wanted to show it to his friend. Who are all these grabby people who kept waylaying him? And what's more, I don't care what religion you are, but if yer getting publicly funded, you sure as hell shouldnt be so fussy on the public dime.

Fund your own self thank you very much.

It's a cookie. It's kinda sad, but I laughed so hard at the end with the whole 'God will punish us if we don't return the cookie! Quick! We must pray!' Hehehe he is hold a cookie "Hostage" Oh this is great.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Actually, it was because of Bill Donohue's response to it. That arrogant, self-righteous, belligerent twat is always just looking to pick a fight, and now he got one with consequences he would never have expected. I know that I'm going to write to Bill Donohue and make it very clear that it's because of his puffed-up and aggressive attitudes that this whole thing happened. If he's a decent Catholic, instead of just a complacent conservative who uses Catholicism as a background for his own self-assurance (like so many frickin' people are), he'll care about that.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

All this fuss ... because he kept a cookie?

Okay, this is just plain stupid. I get the whole symbolism thing to some degree (Without it religion is pointless)... But it's a cookie he stuffed in his mouth. WTF does it matter what he does with it? He wanted to show it to his friend. Who are all these grabby people who kept waylaying him? And what's more, I don't care what religion you are, but if yer getting publicly funded, you sure as hell shouldnt be so fussy on the public dime.

Fund your own self thank you very much.

It's a cookie. It's kinda sad, but I laughed so hard at the end with the whole 'God will punish us if we don't return the cookie! Quick! We must pray!' Hehehe he is hold a cookie "Hostage" Oh this is great.

Try to keep in mind, Catholics don't believe in symbolism. We believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. To a Catholic, he didn't take a symbol with him, he took our God. It's not some dull Protestant memorialist concept. Catholics believe in the Eucharist as a mystic sacrifice, a consecration, God becoming bread and offering himself under that aspect to us for our salvation. And the boy just had a temper tantrum and walked out with him. That is just wrong.

Now, that said, I think a lot of people did over-react. People threw words like desecration a lot, which as far as I can tell doesn't bear on this situation. What the college student did was wrong, but people got too hysterical about it.

But since you don't object at all to the University of Minnesota professors seething hatred of Catholicism, and out and out statements that he will publically "with much pomp and circumstance" desecrate the single most sacred object in the Catholic religion, I take it you think there is nothing objectionable to him wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally performing the action which is the single most offensive and blasphemous , for NO REASON other than to wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally perform the single , you find no problem with that. Nope; desecration, absolute mean-spirited spite, and incredible insult all for no reason other than their own sake is all perfectly okay. It's just getting offended at some undergrad brat's pouting theft of your God that's problematic.

I'm surprised at you, though, Nurv. Being a Christian, I would think this would mean more to you than a mild and empty "I don't think people should purposefully disrespect each others' religions". I would think it would matter to you the absolute disrespect for the Christian faith exhibited here. I would think you would object more to this man's absolute hatred, contempt, and intentional baiting of Christians than to people getting mad about it. I seem to recall you being a good deal more upset about the Danish cartoons than a lip service "I don't think people should purposely disrespect each others' religions".

If anyone's interested, here's the guy's blog. There should be juicy pictures of Eucharistic desecration tomorrow.

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But since you don't object at all to the University of Minnesota professors seething hatred of Catholicism, and out and out statements that he will publically "with much pomp and circumstance" desecrate the single most sacred object in the Catholic religion, I take it you think there is nothing objectionable to him wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally performing the action which is the single most offensive and blasphemous , for NO REASON other than to wilfully, maliciously, and intentionally perform the single , you find no problem with that. Nope; desecration, absolute mean-spirited spite, and incredible insult all for no reason other than their own sake is all perfectly okay. It's just getting offended at some undergrad brat's pouting theft of your God that's problematic.

When did I say that? I only read about the cookie abduction; I didn't go to the other link. Personally, I'm not really one for the catholic religion, but I'll tolerate it like I do every other religion. I'm not one for spouting seething hate though. So, what did this other fellow do?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

But is the Eucharist sacred to everyone because it's sacred to some?

I know people who worship trees...is it a matter of religious tolerance so now no one makes a pencil out of one?

It looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, but we're low church from waaaaaay back.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He posted an advertisement on his blog, asking for people to send or bring consecrated hosts to him, in order that he might "treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web". Someone sent him the hosts, and apparently a Koran, as well, and today he wrote, "Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone."

So, he deliberately desecrated a consecrated Host (to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and most Anglicans the Body of Christ), and a Koran (the Word of God to Muslims), along with a third unidentified object, presumably of religious significance.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

He posted an advertisement on his blog, asking for people to send or bring consecrated hosts to him, in order that he might "treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web". Someone sent him the hosts, and apparently a Koran, as well, and today he wrote, "Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone."

So, he deliberately desecrated a consecrated Host (to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and most Anglicans the Body of Christ), and a Koran (the Word of God to Muslims), along with a third unidentified object, presumably of religious significance.

Right, which makes him a "slang term for men's private parts" of the first water. I just can't be convinced God did anything but laugh.

[Curufin]

If you believe in God (or whatever particular diety you like) and the principles of the Bible (or whatever particular holy book you like), then I see very little 'illogical' about theism. It fits nicely into its little world, once that faith exists. Unless I'm misunderstanding totally (which is completely possible), I think Gwaimir is referring to this faith, to the acceptance of the core principles of the religion.

And I think, in that case, that he's right.

He's also right that everyone, religious or not, makes presuppositions. Nobody bases everything on empirical knowledge and experience. Just isn't possible.

And I also think that writing off all of 'theism' as social control is a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are some religions I like more than others (and I'm not going to give details on which ones), but there are certainly some that are very individualistic and have nothing to do with social control at all.

I consider myself to be very spiritual, but I haven't been to 'church' or practiced my religion with others in nearly ten years. How exactly is that 'social control'? My religion is a very personal thing between myself and my dieties, and what I get out of it is a very personal thing as well. Nobody's controlling me except myself.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Curufin

If you believe in God (or whatever particular diety you like) and the principles of the Bible (or whatever particular holy book you like), then I see very little 'illogical' about theism. It fits nicely into its little world, once that faith exists. Unless I'm misunderstanding totally (which is completely possible), I think Gwaimir is referring to this faith, to the acceptance of the core principles of the religion.

This is quite simple; And why I would shake in fear if ever the principles of morality and right were founded on a particular religious faith:
Core principles, or should we say, the moral principles, that are supposed to lay a foundation for the Christian faith, contradict one another. They have shown themselves to not be absolute, but subject to wide variations in understanding and priority. And if moral principles are contradictory they are of little use. Likewise, they provide little truth.
If you base your moral principles on your faith, and that your moral principles require that you do have that particular faith, then moral principles will be defined, viewed and practiced differently according to different faiths. What you get is a myriad of moral principles, often in variation with one another; the New Testament Ten Commandments versus Sharia Law.

And then we have the principles defined under the United Nations' Human Rights Charter.
They require no faith. They only require that you exist.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And then we have the principles defined under the United Nations' Human Rights Charter.
They require no faith. They only require that you exist.

Of course they require faith . If you believe those principles are just, that's your faith. Any opinion is faith. Name me one opinion you can have that is not faith based!

Do you believe you exist? You can't know you even exist. You can't know that you have hands and eyes and a brain- you might live in the Matrix . You live in faith that you aren't in the Matrix, but you don't know you don't. You don't know you aren't insane or wandering in a hallucinatory dream. You don't think you are and the evidence around you may strongly suggest you're not insane.

How do you know you're sitting in front of a computer right now? Your eyes might be playing tricks on you. You have faith in your eyes.

You have faith in your eyes, in the functionality of your brain, in your hands and arms, in your legs. You don't have faith that they'll always work the way they do now, but you trust that they work pretty well at the moment, that you aren't completely deluded as to their capacity. You don't believe you're in a bank handing out thousand dollar check notes right now, and your mind is playing tricks on you. Why don't you think that? Faith, based on evidence, probably.

Everything is faith, when it comes down to it. The world is built on faith. Your 21st century Western civilization ethical opinions of the Human Rights Charter are opinions, faith. They're beliefs about justice and right or wrong, beliefs other people in the world disagree with.

It's impossible to avoid living without faith. Everything is faith outside of mathematics. Not BLIND faith, hopefully. Seeing faith. Faith that is an opinion based upon available evidence. Come to think of it, even math can be based upon "postulates," and those are all about faith.


Don't delude yourself into thinking you've escaped faith. Everyone lives in a world consumed by faith. Everyone, including you, is engulfed in it. Religion is one facet of the faith that fills the world, a belief system that in the case of several major religions is supported by evidence.

Atheism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest blind faith outlook I've ever seen, because all its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no God, and not the tiniest shred of evidence that there is no God. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

You were saying earlier, Coffeehouse, that we assume something is not true unless it's proven to be true. And thus, since God is not proven to be real (in your opinion), we can validly assume He's not real.

That isn't how science functions. It does not declare something to exist without evidence, but neither does it declare something to not exist without evidence. If a hypothesis extends beyond the realm of available evidence, scientists don't reject it automatically. They accept it as a possibility until it's shown by evidence to be an impossibility. Otherwise they would in a small minded fashion reject out of hand all new hypotheses that came up, rather than seeking more evidence to test them and find out if they are in fact real.

The scientists try not to assume either a negative or a positive. They collect data and find out what the data show. Does it indicate that something exists? Then they'll say it looks like it exists. Does it indicate that that thing does not exist? Then they'll say it looks like it does not exist. If they have no evidence for or against the existence of something, they'll say, "we don't have any way of knowing." They won't jump beyond their available evidence to say, "it does not exist." That would be absurdly small minded.

For this reason, they won't say God does not exist, if they don't have any evidence for His existence. They'll say that in the absence of affirmative or negative evidence, "We don't have any way of knowing." To jump to a conclusion that He exists or does not exist without evidence would be a blind faith jump, something out of accord with science and based on pure conjecture.

That's the absurdity of atheism. Just like the religious convictions of some people, it's 100% blind faith. No evidence whatsoever supports it. Any religion with any evidence at all, no matter how feeble, has more than Atheism has or ever can have. Anything makes more sense, because Atheism is pure irrationality, pure conjecture. Agnosticism, with its statement, "I don't know," makes a great deal more sense than Atheism.

The Human Rights Charter is one more faith-based opinion set. It has a lot of evidence and reason to support the legitimacy of each of its precepts. Your belief in its legitimacy is faith with evidence, though. Not evidence alone, for evidence alone contains no opinions. Opinions are faith. They are positions that come from human perceptions of the evidence, faith that a certain answer works well and best explains the data.

Everything rests on faith.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The reason I give examples in history where Europeans of Christendom so often make a great deal of their faith and kill in the name of it, is to show to Lief that more often than not, it was not the Europeans who were merciful, but unprovokedly mass-murdered 'heathens' whom were supposed to represent the opposite of Christianity's right and good.

This was one of the things that caused me to stop responding earlier. You were saying all these things and often repeating them, but not citing any sources for your statements. So I had to dig up the facts for each of your assertions and prove them false, which I was doing frequently, and you'd make in response even more assertions without evidence. I was getting tired of doing tons of research without the debate seeming to get anywhere. It was a bother.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Nobody's controlling me except myself.

But doesn't that scare you at all? Because, you know, you define what causes "harm", which you avoid doing, yourself, if no one legitimately controls you. And many other people in the world define it differently. So many people feel they're not doing real harm when they are, like (and I know this analogy has been beaten into the ground a billion times for a billion purposes) the Nazis killing the Jews, feeling they were simply getting rid of nasty parisites "feeding on the body of the people." People define harm so differently, from one person to the next. How do you know what's good or bad?

You only wind up with your own opinion, which could easily be wrong. It's one opinion in a sea of billions, and there have been billions before you and there will be billions after you, and vast numbers of them will differ from you. So how can you possibly know you're right?

You can't- it's just your opinion. It's not an absolute. But that's scary, because it means it hasn't gotten a solid foundation and you might be the good guy or the bad guy. You just don't know. Ignorance about such important matters as evil is terrifying, for it is one of the key causes of evil.

To escape evil, its opposite must be revealed to us from a source outside of humanity. Because ideas about good that come from within humanity might well be wrong, and so might themselves be evil or in some way corrupt.

This outside source has to control our lives because we cannot save ourselves, as we are locked in our own relativistic ideas (on our own) of what's right and wrong, and thus risk sinking into evil and have no way of knowing if we're doing right or wrong in a real sense. We only have our own beliefs.

That's why the outside source, God, has to control our lives to bring us back from the lethal pit of relativism. We can't do it for ourselves. The absolute is the only thing that can really save humans from evil, because they don't know what it is when it's their own brains that rule. This is part of the reason why Jesus said we must completely give up ourselves and all our possessions, everything of meaning to us coming second to Him, so that He is first in our lives. Otherwise, we continue to rule and our relativistic, subjective thinking can lead us into becoming the world's evil rather than its good. Humans desperately need the absolute. And it must be revealed to them and come to control them from outside of themselves.

[Lief Erikson]

I don't know that I'll be here long. I'm getting less interested in debating, at least of late. There are happier things to do .

I probably will vanish soon.

[Coffeehouse]

"Opium for the people". So true.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Atheism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest blind faith outlook I've ever seen, because all its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no God, and not the tiniest shred of evidence that there is no God. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

OTOH, brownjenkins, you may have a point there.

AToothFairyism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest faith outlook I've ever seen, because all of its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no Tooth Fairy, and not the the tiniest shred of evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy, because it's impossible to prove a negative.

Hey, this is fun- anyone want to do the Great Pumpkin? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus, Father of Gods and Men?


[/QUOTE]