Christianity VS White Magic (Only for Spiritualist/WhiteMagicians & Christians)

[Pesty]

Ad hominem! Diverting from argument! bzzt bzzt!

I'm not unhappy, I'd say I'm pretty ok, it's just that God owes me money. YOU OWE ME MONEEEEY

I'll remind him next time he comes over for lunch!

[EagerMind]

Since there seems to be so much interest on this topic, I'd recommend people check out http://religionfacts.com/. I stumbled upon it myself recently, and while I wouldn't take it as the final authority, it's definitely a nice reference. Not only will it give you a sense of all the different flavors of Christianity and various other religions, it'll help explain stuff like why belief in the resurrection of Jesus, instead of being some sort of cop-out, is central to the Christian faith.

I also recently read a good review of a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. A sort of "athiest's bible," I guess it argues against religion in all its forms - extremist and moderate. The review particularly recommended it for religious people to really test and question what it is they believe in. Looks like an interesting read, and I may pick it up when I have some time.

[rmullen]

~

[Becky]

No.

[Krysis]

Yeah, I allways thought the whole "God" makes little sense. Who cares? Why search for aswers no one can ever answer. Be good, live your life, and thats it. Stop thinking about death and start living.

[TheYak]

Don't you think it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him?

I would highly recommend tossing out the pamphlet of cliched witnessing phrases.  It's a crutch you're better off without and makes the conversation far more interesting for those opposing your position.  To be specific, that particular phrase along with the simplified explanation of free will and humanity's evils seem to be used more than speaking from your personal faith and telling people about the parts that really matter to you. 

If you have a genuine relationship with your deity, then maybe you should ask it what to say instead of relying upon human intellect (as in reciting Pascal's Wager). I, for one, would fine the discussion more rewarding having learned more about a person and his experiences than hearing the SOS.

[Vince Twelve]

Don't you think it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him?

If I say yes, does that mean that I'm beating you in the faith race?

[rmullen]

~

[Nikolas]

Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

I'm afradi that I disagree (the loosing battle I mean), and further more you need to realise that not everyone thinks like you do, and believe what you do .

After that everything will be fine...

[Nacho]

sometimes things are repeated often because they are implicitly true.Ã,  You can cheapen the statement by calling it cliche, but i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.Ã,  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.Ã,  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Some centuries ago people like you was so sure about their beliefs that "people without faith" was burned in the city squares... Nowadays, churches are empty, and believers are a minority... As much the science advance, the most is religion seen as folklore. Nowadays the kids believe longer in Santa Claus than in God...

Yes... We are really loosing the battle... 

[Vince Twelve]

i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.

I'm afraid that there's no logic there to refute.  Please explain how logic can apply to such a statement about faith.  Aren't faith and logic kind of like college room mates who are both all clean and neat and looked like they'd get along well on paper, but once they move in together they can't stand to be in the presence of each other?  And furthermore, aren't I wonderful at metaphors?

Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Actually, don't bother answering my question.  This is why it's poinless to have these countless threads about Christianity.  To you, it's a foregone conclusion that what you believe is the absolute capital-T Truth.  And any argument against your beliefs must be true because it's saying that the Truth is not true, and therefore must be a flawed argument. 

I'm not saying that the people on the other side of the argument are super flexible in their beliefs either, but some of us, myself included aren't sure about this whole god thing and are willing to listen to logical arguments from both sides.  But I'm certainly not willing to be talked down to, which is what you're doing.

[TheYak]

sometimes things are repeated often because they are implicitly true.  You can cheapen the statement by calling it cliche, but i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Perhaps you read a more condescending tone into that than was intended.  I can only speak for myself, but it would be far more interesting to hear about personal experiences or reasons why you (personally) believe what you do.  Not only would it make for more diverse discourse, but we'd actually learn a little bit about how someone else thinks instead of hearing over and over how Pascal or Dawkins put things.

In any case, the phrases are cliche because they've been used to the extent that they've lost their original purpose.  Now, I continually hear references to 'Free will' without any thought behind them as to what free will consists of.  Pascal's Wager is illogical from a perspective other than a believer's, its only use is in supporting a supposition that one already believes. 

Not to beat a dead horse (another over-used phrase, many apologies), but the 'Free will' you mention consists of a choice to do one thing or another.  However, if we choose the other, then we're tortured infernally.  Take this scenario: an armed man (analogy for omnipotence) threatens a couple, saying the husband must kill his wife or they both die.  The man commits the crime.  Is he guilty of murder? Yes.  Was it of his own free will? That's at least posing a subject for debate rather than just re-stating things and wishing they were true.

It's been stated by both the religious and non that religion is a matter of faith - not intellect.  Reason and logic don't really come into play.  If there were a logical, factual argument as to why people should believe in God X, it sort of negates the need for faith, doesn't it? 

As far as discussion goes, someone could just as readily state that a religious person is merely insane, but while there've been some statements that are obviously anti-religious, none have been as patronizingly dismissive as I've heard from the other camp on multiple occasions.  I was raised in the Christian church, went to a Christian school and heard all of the same unjustified arguments and axioms then as I do now.  They still mean as much.

(Edited for punctuation:P)

[Vince Twelve]

TheYak, I'd shake your hand if it weren't so far away from my own.

[rmullen]

~

[Nikolas]

As i said my only intention is to defend truth.

Do you have any idea how impossible that is? The world is not in binary code, or maths. What truth are you talking about?

[Vince Twelve]

You have not seen the sun rise tomorrow, and yet you have no doubt in your mind that it will because it always has.

This isn't faith.  It has nothing to do with faith.  I don't believe in the sun rising tomorrow because it always has.  I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because of overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that the Earth, in orbit around the sun, is rotating around its axis and will turn to face the sun and then away from the sun at regular intervals.  This is science.  This is Truth.

Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that you put faith in anything with no reason to do so.  In fact, the Bible contains many many examples of God's power.  Not just stories of miracles, but prophecies written hundreds, even thousands of years in advance that have come true.  One example of such power is enough to demonstrate Godship, but God went ahead and demonstrated His power this way hundreds of times just for good measure.

Please relate to us one such demonstration of capital-H His power that constitutes any sort of tangible evidence.  Just because it's written in a book, even a really old book (especially a really old book) doesn't make it Truth. 

And let's suppose for a moment that, as you suggest, faith and logic aren't warring room mates, but are, in fact, in bed together.

Since you feel that the examples of God's power in the bible are reason enough to put faith in the Christian God, why don't you have an equal amount of faith in (for example) the Islamic religion?  Both of these religions have books (really old books) that relate many examples of their respective God's power.  Since the evidence supporting Islam is of the same nature of the evidence supporting yours, what makes yours the "Truth?"  Aren't you being a little hypocritical if you claim that the bible is reason enough to believe in Christianity but the Koran isn't enough reason to believe in Islam?

Could it be because faith has little to do with evidence, proof and logic?

[rmullen]

~

[Nacho]

Prophecies are the proof? Any extense book with vague predictions will sooner or later predict facts correctly, specially if it does not give dates, having, therefore, all the future to score the goal. Nostradamus also "predicts" things, and there' s nothing to see with divinity there. Moby Dick predicted the death of Lady Diana if applied to the letters the correct mathematical formulas.

Sometimes things are repeated often because they need people to believe they are true (A lie told 1,000 times becomes a thruth -Joseph Goebbes) The bible is a repetition of cliches without any sustent of logic.  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

[rmullen]

~

[TheYak]

On the subject of faith, I disagree with your interpretation of faith.  The way I remember the verse is probably from the KJV, something along the lines of "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I interpret this to say that faith is independent of observable phenomena. (edit: Forgot to mention that faith is defined by belief without evidence by several dictionaries)

Can evidence support faith? Certainly.  However, I would argue the the test of profound faith is if one is capable of believing in something despite physical evidence to the contrary.  To believe something from the bible, even a simple statement like "God is love" isn't too impressive coming from a religious middle-class person who's heir to a trust fund.  If I heard the same statement from a homeless man dying from malnutrition, it would have far more impact.  Honestly, I'd probably thing he'd gone nuts more likely than hearing him out, but it would stick with me for the rest of my life. 

I agree in principle with your paragraph about discussions of faith, but the real reason there's no resolution is because nothing's been proven.  Even if one were to check your citations and references and see that they were attributed to established sources, there are glaring holes in this 'evidence'. 

Evidence is an iron-clad and powerful thing when it supports what you want it to. 

From my perspective, I'm wondering which of the following is more likely:

1) An omnipotent being informed a person about events that were to take place 200 years in the future.  As for the reason why, nobody can comprehend the mind of the omnipotent, but one could imagine that it was for purposes of establishing his omniscience as well as establishing this man as a person who spoke the truth.
--
2) Nearly any prophecy can come to pass in an infinite timespan. 
--
3) Prophecies have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.  An outcome of an event could be affected by known prophecy.  Additionally, knowing what was said, an event could be manipulated.  As for the name Cyrus, it's difficult to ascertain whether the name was common 2500 years ago.  One could easily imagine, however, that the name became more common as enmity for Babylon grew and more people heard about the prophecy.  Additionally, any individual could choose to be called by that name, particularly since record-keeping wasn't as thorough as it tends to be now.  It wasn't uncommon for people to change their names as well; according to the Bible, God renaming people (or people renaming themselves or others) wasn't infrequent.  The reason might be prior to execution of some great work, after a life-changing event, or to give people a certain idea when hearing that name. 

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody saw a method to lead an army to topple Babylon.  Wouldn't it be a strong psychological tactic to take the name of a prophesied conquerer? 
--
4) The records are false.  Whether through mistranslation, misinterpretation or human error, there could easily have been mistakes made.  Say, for instance, the date referred to for the publication of Isaiah's words was incorrect?  Having heard about the event, one imagines that it would be a simple thing to have told others about it , especially since news didn't travel as quickly in those days - he could've heard about events and counted upon people not having heard it yet. 

I admit, that last bit sounds like stretching the evidence to wrap around my beliefs.  Back to the beginning of this point - the bible was translated and distributed much more recently than the events you describe.  It's a simple trick to claim that a past event was prophesied before it happened.  I could claim now to have had a dream when I was 8 that I would be married by the age of 19.  It's still faith that would allow people to believe me, not evidence. 
----

I'm not specifically refuting your faith, just what you interpret it to mean.  It's your faith that allows you to believe my first point about the facts presented rather than being skeptical and reverting to one of the latter.  It's your faith that allows you to see bridges across gaps when others can't see the way from point a to point b.  It's a credit to faith that this is the case; it doesn't necessarily have to be supported by tangible evidence.

I believe, however, that the problem with religious discussion lies with both parties.  The opposing side behaves in much the way you describe, however you ignore the behavior of those defending it. People of faith have embraced evidence that supports their conclusions and rejected that which contradicts it.  Archaeologists are praised when supporting faith by their determination of dates, but rejected outright when claiming that something is too old (or young) to support the Bible's claims. 

If one were to believe that this prophecy actually occurred as your evidence claims, they still wouldn't necessarily have to draw the same conclusion.  This is equally specific support for Judaism or Islam, and generic support for belief in the supernatural.  We could attribute these events to the strength of faith in a metaphysical world, or as evidence in latent psychic abilities. 

It is both its most admirable quality as well as its most infuriating that faith is blind.