Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them (4 Viewers)

[kami]

I can tell that the core of you is good Kami. Who or what corrupted you so badly?

You and the lack of your loving hand of authority.

 

[Iron]

But do you believe there are other ways in which to oppose/reject/proactively deconstruct this?
Like, aside from embracing the love of God, or whatever.
As in political/lifestyle things like embracing Green Anarchy or anti-consumerist counter-cultures?

This is what I find so liberating by the idea of purgatory. The only way to the Father is through Christ, but good individuals who spend their lives in God's friendship, who are basically good and who love their fellow man and do good works, will still be saved eventually.

This also allows me to take a much less urgent and fanatical tone. The point is that God wants everyone to be good, no matter their circumstances. Maybe he'd even have mercy on practising homosexuals who loved and did great works thruout their lives? Idk!

 

[yoddle]

This is what I find so liberating by the idea of purgatory. The only way to the Father is through Christ, but good individuals who spend their lives in God's friendship, who are basically good and who love their fellow man and do good works, will still be saved eventually.

This also allows me to take a much less urgent and fanatical tone. The point is that God wants everyone to be good, no matter their circumstances. Maybe he'd even have mercy on practising homosexuals who loved and did great works thruout their lives? Idk!

I was trying to steer the conversation outside the context of christ, but anywho. In that you have implied the answer, so, thanks

 

[jules.09]

I dont understand why you find the Vatican superfluous. The authority and structure is one of its greatest strengths. If you leave great moral questions to yourself, as the Prot will do, you will more then likely choose your self interest, justify your sin and invent a plastic Jesus who loves you and your wicked ways. The Catholic is less deluded and is set straight through the humility and release of confession.

Not sure that I have the energy to go back to our stance on contraception. I'll just say that the bible cleary gives us the authority to believe that life is sacred, willed by God and made in His image. We also view sex as a unique gift for life and monogomy as sacred as our belief in one true God. So there is ample authority to oppose the suppression and denial of life, which, I think, ties in with your first question, in that the role of today's Catholic hierarchy is to tie our doctrine to a rapidly and constantly changing world. Given the nature and speed of the change of the last 200yrs, we've probably been overwhelmed in this regard, but the Truth has always been there...

So it is your assertion that everyone beyond the immediate parameters of Catholicism, are inclined or willed by "wicked ways", myself included. Well, that really settles it. I won't resort to ad hominem attacks, but is that Margaret Thatcher that I see in your display picture? How unbecoming.

Great moral questions cannot be left to the individual? Then will you revoke one of the statements you had made in a previous post, regarding how you, and I quote, "I certainly would. I dont just 'swallow' whatever Rome says, bro" because if anything, to not be able to freely make moral decisions is to stifle free thought. In doing so, you are swallowing dubious doctrine.

You Iron, are restricted to the confines of religion, and unfortunately, people who disagree with you are necessarily evil. You believe in a world where people inherit sin, and their propensities necessarily drive them towards baseness. This world is beyond redemption, and for what? The fall of Eden? There isn't much hope for this world you live in, you live for the afterlife. I suppose there are no homosexuals in heaven. A communist utopia under God with evangelic music playing in the background. Everything is pristine white and AIDS free. Pleasant. It's too bad the present one is decaying and corrupt. Temptation ever present, people using contraception, the sex trade in Asia, famine, warfare. Oh, and atheists.

 

[Cookie182]

Lol pay attention. 'Defining God however I see fit' is the same thing as denying Him; it is the plastic Jesus that Prots build themselves. Rather, you should see it as a Truth beyond yourself, which you have a sense about, but are inclined to ignore due to your fallen nature in a sinful world... The institution is there specifically to keep individuals of all times and cultures alive to the great cosmic struggle between good and evil which is played out every day all around us. No one could possibly be expected to grasp all this alone. We need eachother, we need community - communion! As i've said, the basis of our faith is a 'personal spirituality', but to rely on yourself to steer you to truth is a course which is just begging to be corrupted.

To accept that materialism can explain all of life's mysteries is also a denial of God. Surely you see this! Science and material goods can be great things only if developed alongside an ethical boundary. I mean, the atom bomb was certainly a great invention - but how moral is it, exactly? You can never find any answers along these lines to any of life's greater problems, my frien. To believe that you can is the lie that every dictator has fallen for and used to justify utter horror, from Nero to Stalin and beyond.

The very notion that you consider the 'oldness' of the Bible valid grounds for dismissal is appauling! As if their lack of insight into certain scientific developments invalidates the wisdom of the prophets and apostles and Christ Himself! Do you really understand us that little?? It is all about a moral realm which is beyond the individual, beyond this world, beyond our reason and its good fruits and tragic weeds.

Of course I cant deny scandle and disaster from Catholics. There has been appauling failure in the past and there will be more failure in the future. It has inflicted a gaping wound on our credibility and authority, absolutely. But it is not fatal. We accept our failures, we learn from mistakes, we ask for forgiveness and mercy, but, most importantly, we put our faith in God first - not man, not an institution. When you keep your eyes upon Jesus and look forward in his wonder and grace, the things of this world will grow vague and dim in the light of his glorious face.

This is the sickening fact. We are actually very similar- we're two moralists just on opposite sides of metaphysical coin. We would probably be friends. We both want to do good- yet the major difference is that you deny me of my moral legitimiacy, whereas I not to you.

Re-write this without the presuppositionalism and we could have a discussion. Beyond that, you already know my thoughts (although I think you miss the depth of my enquiry and general openess). Two notable points of tension-

1) The use of "Him" when saying "defining god however I see him"/denying? Why is this creator a human? Can you not accept the psychological proposition I already said.

2) This statement is inherently contradictory:

"To accept that materialism can explain all of life's mysteries is also a denial of God. Surely you see this! Science and material goods can be great things only if developed alongside an ethical boundary. I mean, the atom bomb was certainly a great invention - but how moral is it, exactly? You can never find any answers along these lines to any of life's greater problems, my frien. To believe that you can is the lie that every dictator has fallen for and used to justify utter horror, from Nero to Stalin and beyond."

Depends completely on whether God could be a temprary thing- looking into semantics, from a lingusitic P.O.V., the word can simply act as an expression of what we do not know. I didn't say use science as a moral guide- it is independent of morality, that's its beauty. We can derive morality from reasoning alone- a process of what would work best to serve everybody. The "god" you speak of, is not needed to condemn the atom bomb- that can be done by simply being a rational human. Then we hit that presuppositionalism again- you assume these questions will always be somehow transcendent of our knowledge, you are assuming the existance of a permanent "God" fixture (promptly the God of the Christian Bible). Need I really go on? We have been down this path before. The problem with every dictator is the very problem of religion. They live in unchangeable absolutes- they create differences among people and abuse artificial power. Nazism was a religion by any definition of the word.

I won't even respond to the horrible points you made about me not being able to give love, to be happy etc in your previous post. These points are my real issue. Christianity is all about this terrible acceptance that basically your dreadful, piece of shit whose sorry ass will never be happy unless you pay up now- dedicate yourself to this particularl ideology and then MAYBE you can have happiness. All this future reliance, all the fear, all the pity, I'm frankly sickened by such a Hellish existance. Of course, being the only species who are conscious of their own mortality we are all going to react differently. I find peace in knowing that this present moment may be my last to make a difference. I act today, with the legitimacy of my reasoning in the strive to do good for others AND myself (there is nothing wrong with this). Have you not studied economics? Those unlimited wants are not going away- they are deep in all of us. I agree, people get too wrapped up in material pursuits and as the Buddha taught, that leads to the cycle of suffering. The way out of this though is vast. If following this msg of "christ" allieviates your spiritual worth then that is fine, but institutionalising it breeds politics and seperation- a culture of "my faith is >" blah blah and we are quickly back to ego and suffering.

Also, Clergy I have spoken with are far, far more liberal on these finer points then you. The Pope would be shot if he ever made such a public denouncement of mankind, from where do you derive your legitimacy?

 

[Iron]

So it is your assertion that everyone beyond the immediate parameters of Catholicism, are inclined or willed by "wicked ways", myself included. Well, that really settles it. I won't resort to ad hominem attacks, but is that Margaret Thatcher that I see in your display picture? How unbecoming.

Great moral questions cannot be left to the individual? Then will you revoke one of the statements you had made in a previous post, regarding how you, and I quote, "I certainly would. I dont just 'swallow' whatever Rome says, bro" because if anything, to not be able to freely make moral decisions is to stifle free thought. In doing so, you are swallowing dubious doctrine.

You Iron, are restricted to the confines of religion, and unfortunately, people who disagree with you are necessarily evil. You believe in a world where people inherit sin, and their propensities necessarily drive them towards baseness. This world is beyond redemption, and for what? The fall of Eden? There isn't much hope for this world you live in, you live for the afterlife. I suppose there are no homosexuals in heaven. A communist utopia under God with evangelic music playing in the background. Everything is pristine white and AIDS free. Pleasant. It's too bad the present one is decaying and corrupt. Temptation ever present, people using contraception, the sex trade in Asia, famine, warfare. Oh, and atheists.

Dont look at me, look at history. Point me to a perfect society, point me to a major political movement promising utopia which hasnt ended in disaster and appauling tragedy. Point me to an individual who wouldnt engage in any number of evil crimes against their fellow man if they didnt have the thin barrier of the state and judging eyes of the society just holding them back...
I'm on solid ground here, even on secular terms. Man, left to himself, without a strong state, cohesive society and belief in God, will not love his fellow man, but will seek his own benifit regardless of the cost to those around him.

 

[Cookie182]

So it is your assertion that everyone beyond the immediate parameters of Catholicism, are inclined or willed by "wicked ways", myself included. Well, that really settles it. I won't resort to ad hominem attacks, but is that Margaret Thatcher that I see in your display picture? How unbecoming.

Great moral questions cannot be left to the individual? Then will you revoke one of the statements you had made in a previous post, regarding how you, and I quote, "I certainly would. I dont just 'swallow' whatever Rome says, bro" because if anything, to not be able to freely make moral decisions is to stifle free thought. In doing so, you are swallowing dubious doctrine.

You Iron, are restricted to the confines of religion, and unfortunately, people who disagree with you are necessarily evil. You believe in a world where people inherit sin, and their propensities necessarily drive them towards baseness. This world is beyond redemption, and for what? The fall of Eden? There isn't much hope for this world you live in, you live for the afterlife. I suppose there are no homosexuals in heaven. A communist utopia under God with evangelic music playing in the background. Everything is pristine white and AIDS free. Pleasant. It's too bad the present one is decaying and corrupt. Temptation ever present, people using contraception, the sex trade in Asia, famine, warfare. Oh, and atheists.

This wraps up everything I wanted to say brilliantly.

*To add in, I love how Hitchens describes this classical Christian view of Heaven. He is not jsut an atheist, but an anti-theist. His hopes ride on the possibility that he just wants to die in peace and be left alone. If your view is correct Iron, we preside in an eternal totalitarian environment. Death is just the beginning of God's "Big Brother" torment. Why do you want to go to Heaven so much? To be watched 24/7, to obey the authoritarian rules or risk being cast out of love like Satan into a painful toture until the end of eons?

This sounds like the very defintion of my Hell- a world of no freedom. A world where God watches me when I take a shit. At least atheism gets privacy!

 

[Iron]

This is the sickening fact. We are actually very similar- we're two moralists just on opposite sides of metaphysical coin. We would probably be friends. We both want to do good- yet the major difference is that you deny me of my moral legitimiacy, whereas I not to you.

Re-write this without the presuppositionalism and we could have a discussion. Beyond that, you already know my thoughts (although I think you miss the depth of my enquiry and general openess). Two notable points of tension-

1) The use of "Him" when saying "defining god however I see him"/denying? Why is this creator a human? Can you not accept the psychological proposition I already said.

2) This statement is inherently contradictory:

"To accept that materialism can explain all of life's mysteries is also a denial of God. Surely you see this! Science and material goods can be great things only if developed alongside an ethical boundary. I mean, the atom bomb was certainly a great invention - but how moral is it, exactly? You can never find any answers along these lines to any of life's greater problems, my frien. To believe that you can is the lie that every dictator has fallen for and used to justify utter horror, from Nero to Stalin and beyond."

Depends completely on whether God could be a temprary thing- looking into semantics, from a lingusitic P.O.V., the word can simply act as an expression of what we do not know. I didn't say use science as a moral guide- it is independent of morality, that's its beauty. We can derive morality from reasoning alone- a process of what would work best to serve everybody. The "god" you speak of, is not needed to condemn the atom bomb- that can be done by simply being a rational human. Then we hit that presuppositionalism again- you assume these questions will always be somehow transcendent of our knowledge, you are assuming the existance of a permanent "God" fixture (promptly the God of the Christian Bible). Need I really go on? We have been down this path before. The problem with every dictator is the very problem of religion. They live in unchangeable absolutes- they create differences among people and abuse artificial power. Nazism was a religion by any definition of the word.

I won't even respond to the horrible points you made about me not being able to give love, to be happy etc in your previous post. These points are my real issue. Christianity is all about this terrible acceptance that basically your dreadful, piece of shit whose sorry ass will never be happy unless you pay up now- dedicate yourself to this particularl ideology and then MAYBE you can have happiness. All this future reliance, all the fear, all the pity, I'm frankly sickened by such a Hellish existance. Of course, being the only species who are conscious of their own mortality we are all going to react differently. I find peace in knowing that this present moment may be my last to make a difference. I act today, with the legitimacy of my reasoning in the strive to do good for others AND myself (there is nothing wrong with this). Have you not studied economics? Those unlimited wants are not going away- they are deep in all of us. I agree, people get too wrapped up in material pursuits and as the Buddha taught, that leads to the cycle of suffering. The way out of this though is vast. If following this msg of "christ" allieviates your spiritual worth then that is fine, but institutionalising it breeds politics and seperation- a culture of "my faith is >" blah blah and we are quickly back to ego and suffering.

Also, Clergy I have spoken with are far, far more liberal on these finer points then you. The Pope would be shot if he ever made such a public denouncement of mankind, from where do you derive your legitimacy?

Read my above comments on purgatory; I do not deny your moral legitimacy, fren, and I apologise if I gave the impression that I do. I think youre a gr8 guy and enjoy these challenging discussions.

When I refer to 'Him' I am referring to the Trinity in its totality. The uniqueness of Christianity is that it puts forward a God with a human face; a God made man to redeem us of our sins. He is someone that we can all relate to in an intensly intimate way.

Can never agree that morality can be achieved through reason alone. This is a core difference. A great line of the previous Pope's was somethign like 'faith without reason withers into superstition; reason without faith withers into relativism and nihilism'. You cannot transfer your critique of Hitler into a critique of Christianity. Yes, we put forward moral absolutes, but we also put forward Christ Himself, who grounded everything that he did in universal love. As soon as we stray from love, we stray from God because God is Love. This is why we can be friends.

Try to believe me when I say that this has nothing to do with ego. It's the opposite. All mankind has been condemned, but offered redemption by Christ. This is the good news we seek to spread!

 

[Cookie182]

Dont look at me, look at history. Point me to a perfect society, point me to a major political movement promising utopia which hasnt ended in disaster and appauling tragedy. Point me to an individual who wouldnt engage in any number of evil crimes against their fellow man if they didnt have the thin barrier of the state and judging eyes of the society just holding them back...
I'm on solid ground here, even on secular terms. Man, left to himself, without a strong state, cohesive society and belief in God, will not love his fellow man, but will seek his own benifit regardless of the cost to those around him.

This is a secular theory called "Lying for Christ" and I'll give it some credibility. It flows from Voltaires words that religion would be necessary to invent. Because even if its a load of shit, its still better and much more efficent on a productivity basis to distribute morals through the 10 commandments then anyone system. There's fuck ups, but the big "what if"? How would we be with none? It's an interesting thought, that we may one day get to test. But this theory degrades humanity. It assumes we are ravaging animals, sinners like you love to say, that the majority of the population is overwhelmingly stupid and needs spoon feeding doctrine just to survive. This I can not accept. I'm an atheist in all religious visages, and I don't feel the need to kill anybody, I think I can trustingly say that for everyone I know in my life.

Religion =/= an institution for love. As I said, the world you so strongly condemn is currently a very religious one. How do you account for this? God, if "he" exists, would logically be an atheist himself? We're created in his image right? Perhaps that is the most holly way for man to go and the most moral.

 

[Cookie182]

Read my above comments on purgatory; I do not deny your moral legitimacy, fren, and I apologise if I gave the impression that I do. I think youre a gr8 guy and enjoy these challenging discussions.

When I refer to 'Him' I am referring to the Trinity in its totality. The uniqueness of Christianity is that it puts forward a God with a human face; a God made man to redeem us of our sins. He is someone that we can all relate to in an intensly intimate way.

Can never agree that morality can be achieved through reason alone. This is a core difference. A great line of the previous Pope's was somethign like 'faith without reason withers into superstition; reason without faith withers into relativism and nihilism'. You cannot transfer your critique of Hitler into a critique of Christianity. Yes, we put forward moral absolutes, but we also put forward Christ Himself, who grounded everything that he did in universal love. As soon as we stray from love, we stray from God because God is Love. This is why we can be friends.

Try to believe me when I say that this has nothing to do with ego. It's the opposite. All mankind has been condemned, but offered redemption by Christ. This is the good news we seek to spread!

I'm tired, but this is a clearer response, I'll give it that.

I know this isn't applicable, but many of the US right do not share your view- the simplicity that it is love. They condemn Children to Hell (literal burning torture) for not adheeding to their credo- in fact, they collectively act as God. Any other idea is Satan. By your defintion, your heading into the territory of inspiring Catholics I have met. But for me, why not call 'love', love? We could save all this discussion. If God is Love, then by your defintion, Christ could not be the only way. If it is, the probelm of arrogance arises which says that any one who doesn't have faith in Christ bears false love to their neighbour (I think you would have to accept this as a tenet of Christianity, otherwise what really separates you from other religions). The love of a Buddhist to his fellow man is illegitimate, the love a muslim derives from the stories of Mohammed, the love.....................................................................................................an atheist gives to his children and the man across the road. How do you distinguish and more to the point, does it matter?

When you get a chance Iron, do youtube Fr George Coyne's interview with Richard Dawkins. This is a truly great man, a role model of such. Tell me if his words replicate yours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

 

[Iron]

This is a secular theory called "Lying for Christ" and I'll give it some credibility. It flows from Voltaires words that religion would be necessary to invent. Because even if its a load of shit, its still better and much more efficent on a productivity basis to distribute morals through the 10 commandments then anyone system. There's fuck ups, but the big "what if"? How would we be with none? It's an interesting thought, that we may one day get to test. But this theory degrades humanity. It assumes we are ravaging animals, sinners like you love to say, that the majority of the population is overwhelmingly stupid and needs spoon feeding doctrine just to survive. This I can not accept. I'm an atheist in all religious visages, and I don't feel the need to kill anybody, I think I can trustingly say that for everyone I know in my life.

Religion =/= an institution for love. As I said, the world you so strongly condemn is currently a very religious one. How do you account for this? God, if "he" exists, would logically be an atheist himself? We're created in his image right? Perhaps that is the most holly way for man to go and the most moral.

Youre slipping bro.

It's not a numbers game, we dont speak for or condemn the rest of the religious world; we cant even speak for the billion of our own people. Judge not.
Ofc, I cant verify what you would or wouldnt do without the current barriers to action today; this is why I point to history as a reliable indicator of our naturally wayward ways, particularly of the corrupting nature of power.

What we're on about is the redeeming power of love. You cant distract us from this.

 

[Tully B.]

p.s, Wilde was an amazing Catholic, fyi

He was also an amazing poof.

 

[Iron]

I'm tired, but this is a clearer response, I'll give it that.

I know this isn't applicable, but many of the US right do not share your view- the simplicity that it is love. They condemn Children to Hell (literal burning torture) for not adheeding to their credo- in fact, they collectively act as God. Any other idea is Satan. By your defintion, your heading into the territory of inspiring Catholics I have met. But for me, why not call 'love', love? We could save all this discussion. If God is Love, then by your defintion, Christ could not be the only way. If it is, the probelm of arrogance arises which says that any one who doesn't have faith in Christ bears false love to their neighbour (I think you would have to accept this as a tenet of Christianity, otherwise what really separates you from other religions). The love of a Buddhist to his fellow man is illegitimate, the love a muslim derives from the stories of Mohammed, the love.....................................................................................................an atheist gives to his children and the man across the road. How do you distinguish and more to the point, does it matter?

When you get a chance Iron, do youtube Fr George Coyne's interview with Richard Dawkins. This is a truly great man, a role model of such. Tell me if his words replicate yours.

YouTube - Father George Coyne Interview (1/7) - Richard Dawkins

No. All the love is legitimate. God is present in every instance of true love, whether between Muslims, athiests or whoever. It doesnt matter. What matters is how far they are willing to explore the love that they give and recieve and whether it leads them to a closer relationship with God (and mankind) or not.

 

[Cookie182]

No. All the love is legitimate. God is present in every instance of true love, whether between Muslims, athiests or whoever

Perhaps this is the first step. Laying down the differences for the night and moving towards similarities. We always do this, but slip back into our comforts. This may be the test, our struggle to love each other.

I think the only thing we now need to reconcile is the Kingdom of God that Christ spoke of. For me, this notion has nothing to do with anything supernatural- I'm not concerned about ressurections, Heaven etc. I interpret it as loving the now- doing good in the present, feeling this love and spreading it as truth to whom those I meet. Nothing else matters. That's why I don't picket abortion clinics, condemn teenagers having sex, condemn homosexuals, the list goes on...these are not righteous acts. Fact or fiction, Christ would not participate in any of these (I always think would he be marching on an abortion clinic with a sign or would he be by the bedside offering support to a girl making an extremely hard decision?- see for me that is the KOG right there!)

...Am I a Christian?

 

[Tully B.]

Whenever I'm reading one of these debates, I'm almost scared to interject, but one question that always comes mind is how can one consider faith a choice? As far as I can see, rejection of God merely constitutes not believing in him, right? I don't see how faith is any way different from belief, in that there is no choice in the matter.

If you tried your very hardest, Iron, could you not believe in God?

 

[Cookie182]

Whenever I'm reading one of these debates, I'm almost scared to interject, but one question that always comes mind is how can one consider faith a choice? As far as I can see, rejection of God merely constitutes not believing in him, right? I don't see how faith is any way different from belief, in that there is no choice in the matter.

If you tried your very hardest, Iron, could you not believe in God?

This is a good question. That's why my personal philosophy is we should look beyond all these words. I'm a muslim, I'm this bla bla

We are really trying to find the best moral philosophy for the propogation of humankind. We need to look for similarity. This broader concept of love that I think a small proportion of Christians and members of other faiths do understand, but they still fail to recognise IMO that all this supernatural labelling is unnecessary. We know what is good. Its just that feeling a rational person has. We need to work together, to promote this feeling and stop drawing distinctions on things which don't have moral value per see ie homosexuality, general sexuality questions etc

I read a very interesting book comparing how most of the modern religions are actually all the same thing.

 

[Iron]

Perhaps this is the first step. Laying down the differences for the night and moving towards similarities. We always do this, but slip back into our comforts. This may be the test, our struggle to love each other.

I think the only thing we now need to reconcile is the Kingdom of God that Christ spoke of. For me, this notion has nothing to do with anything supernatural- I'm not concerned about ressurections, Heaven etc. I interpret it as loving the now- doing good in the present, feeling this love and spreading it as truth to whom those I meet. Nothing else matters. That's why I don't picket abortion clinics, condemn teenagers having sex, condemn homosexuals, the list goes on...these are not righteous acts. Fact or fiction, Christ would not participate in any of these (I always think would he be marching on an abortion clinic with a sign or would he be by the bedside offering support to a girl making an extremely hard decision?- see for me that is the KOG right there!)

...Am I a Christian?

Clearly youre a good bloke and, I believe, still open to God's friendship. And sure, one of the key messages of Christ was the way he demonstrated how to live a good life in the here and now, how to take every day as it comes, embrace our own crosses, engage with and offer ourselves to the poor in spirit and poor in wealth, always defer our own comfort for that of others, always seek the advantage of the other man rather than ourselves, always respect individuality, engage with our supposed opponents with peace and respect... However, i'm not so sure about your other conclusions about Christ. He did show us a very specific instance where anger is justified, however briefly, when he drove out the salesmen from the temple because of their grave offence to God...
But ofc I agree with you that the activities of many Christian organisations are counter-productive to say the least

 

[Cookie182]

I just personally think the whole concept an afterlife is the main problem. This is a superstitious ancient belief which has creeped into modern day. It is nothing to do with the other tenets of religion- loving other people etc It only has a self-serving agenda and it is greedy to think we should have more then this precious life.

Living for the afterlife is the most irrational and dangerous thing one can do and the source of all problems. It creates two realities; one not proven. It degrades the importance of this life and spits on this notion that we can be happy and should be even grateful to be alive, given the probability. To take this life for granted and be wishful enough to think that an eternal one will be given is illogical but most of all, asking for way too much.

 

[Iron]

Whenever I'm reading one of these debates, I'm almost scared to interject, but one question that always comes mind is how can one consider faith a choice? As far as I can see, rejection of God merely constitutes not believing in him, right? I don't see how faith is any way different from belief, in that there is no choice in the matter.

If you tried your very hardest, Iron, could you not believe in God?

How is faith a choice? Because it's something that cannot be satisfied by earthly reason? Is that good enough for you? Because it's only something we vaguely feel aware of, but cant articulate by ourselves?
Ofc my faith could slip, ofc some trial may overwhelm my conviction if i'm not careful. God is immensly respectful of our freedom and would never deny me this choice. You have to work at it, you have to keep it alive and grounded in your actual life and daily activities, you have to surround yourself with good Christians who you can fall back on and they on you. It's not just a sunday thing.

 

[Cookie182]

Clearly youre a good bloke and, I believe, still open to God's friendship. And sure, one of the key messages of Christ was the way he demonstrated how to live a good life in the here and now, how to take every day as it comes, embrace our own crosses, engage with and offer ourselves to the poor in spirit and poor in wealth, always defer our own comfort for that of others, always seek the advantage of the other man rather than ourselves, always respect individuality, engage with our supposed opponents with peace and respect... However, i'm not so sure about your other conclusions about Christ. He did show us a very specific instance where anger is justified, however briefly, when he drove out the salesmen from the temple because of their grave offence to God...
But ofc I agree with you that the activities of many Christian organisations are counter-productive to say the least

Oh yes, they are all good things. But its simply the allegorical spirit for me anyway of his message. Since I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible, I know that it was written by men and accounts are not going to be perfect, nor is the character of Christ. What I'm getting at though, is that atheist or theist, there is power in the image of Christ. I don't deny this. Look up "dawkins atheism for Jesus." But this is also true of any moral figure- thats probably why I prefer the Buddha (no divine claims either) and he is basically the same as Christ and Krishna (a lot of scholars draw huge similarities, to the point where Christ may have been influenced by the Buddha). But yea, I don't think there is a whole lot more to say on the matter. I'll throw this out there though, Mohammed surprises me. I find nothing inspiring in his life/teachings, as I do in Christ/Buddha etc. It amazes me how a religion grew out of his story really, yet does not at all surprise me that his religion has become the most violent threat to modern society.

Having said it all, I do also entertain the idea that pure altruism IMO does not seem possible and I think that is the reason why Christians must of thought Christ was not human. Of course, I think he was and the stories are fallible, but you can learn a lot from fiction- true or not, when we are discussing moral theoreticals, it matters little. What kind of world would we have you must ask if everyone did act like the biblical jesus? Its easy to say perfect, but I'm weary. I think we need that spice of 'evil'- the world would become stagnant with only love. What problems would there be to help people through? Life would be reduced to a boring and ultimately meaningless bliss. And then there is the realistic implications of acting "christ" like. It did get him killed, and in a world where materialistically we know the strongest survive, I'm not sure that pure christianity would be good for the survival of the species.