Not for the conservative Christian..

[j2k4]

Man needs to adapt to environment, or die. He is not a good example.

Exactly.

Like a caveman, huh?

Perhaps you should tell us what's really on your mind, rather than obscuring your purpose by dismissing religion and Socrates as mere mouse-farts in your view of larger and more important subjects.

Provocation for it's own sake is frowned upon here, so, as the "well-educated" person you are, enlighten us, please.

[Biggles]

While I can see that one could argue that belief/faith is something of a take it or leave sort of argument in favour of any religion I think equally one might say that "belief bullcrap" lacks the Socratean dialectic touch with regards debate

The word "belief" has been used as a weak answer and shield for too many things. To the point of blind stupidity. "That poisonous snake may bite you" "No it won't, i believe in God." What they really mean is "i'm brainwashed/scared/don't know". Either one, not a good promotion of religion.

It's like someone saying "HI, what's your name?", and you answer 'yes". It's non-sensical.

Granted, religion brings relief. Kinda like having an invisible friend with you. The thing is, if you admit to having an invisble buddy for too long, you'd be given medication and labeled mental.

Don't get me started on the whole Mohammed falicy. What? So you want me to believe not in the bastard child, but in someone i can't even see a picture of? So no evidence he even existed, ever. I mean, come on, every religion needs a icon to focus their mutterings towards. Good for marketing purposes also. Think of all the merchandise you've missed out on. A better business plan was needed. If it was nowadays, HSBC would have laughed at you and we'd all be wearing Bhuddha slippers.

and the "belief bullcrap" remark was me just "keeping it street". I'm well-educated and i don't smell.

And Biggles, why bring Socrates into this? Should the world listen to philosophers from a country who's main export has become kebab vendors? And that's the educated ones.

And Socrates probably never existed. None of his work exists, his ideas were only passed on by his "pupils" (Plato and such). Kinda like god. Made up. As a focus point.

And living by your principles, as Socrates apparetly did, is one thing. Dying because of them is another . Man needs to adapt to environment, or die. He is not a good example.

I mentioned Socrates because of his sophisticated debating techinque - or if you prefer, Plato's sophisticated debating technique which he selflessly ascribed to his teacher Socrates. Socrates was just a man with no claim to divinity I see no reason to doubt Plato's claim to have been taught by him. There were many Greek philosophers - some with a written body of work others with none or at least none surviving.

Socrates died not because he refused to evolve but rather because he refused to submit to irrational religious belief (he stood accused of blasphemy) - unless you are arguing that submitting to irrational religious belief is an evolutionary step forward ..... which I am guessing seems unlikely.

[Bucktoof]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

[j2k4]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Well stated.

Some people must denigrate others in order that they may "coexist".

Oddly enough those who are not at all religious (those on this board, at least), seem to be the ones disposed to do this, instead of the other way around.

Curious, eh?

[Biggles]

Bucktoof

I appreciate that the point of view that there are no such things as luck and coincidence is an accepted one in some Christian circles but to have all of destiny micro managed to such a degree begs questions regarding as to why the fall occurred at all, why angels rebelled and why some are saved and others damned. There is a degree of Calvinistic pre-determiniation about such an understanding which leaves one wondering what is the point of it all. We are but bit players in a script we haven't seen.

On a separate point, quotations may be taken out of context but it may be argued that that has never stopped Christians. The reason why there are so many denominations is because somebody somewhere placed a different emphasis on certain texts over others.

That said I would not take the extreme position of say a Dawkins that all religion is harmful. I think some do find strength and comfort from religion (of whatever flavour) and that it is beneficial to them. My only concern is when they are convinced that their God(s) are wrathful and feel compelled to give him/her/them a helping hand.

[bigboab]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Well stated.

Some people must denigrate others in order that they may "coexist".

Oddly enough those who are not at all religious (those on this board, at least), seem to be the ones disposed to do this, instead of the other way around.

Curious, eh?

Sorry I dont know what you are implying here. Are you classing all non religious members in the same category as the one you are dispute with? There are probably more decent non religious members than there are decent religious members on this board.

[jimbo12345]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Good post, and, like i said originally, no insult was meant, nor was it reflecting my opinion.

I would contst that your point on miracles and wrath could be also, just as my belief is, long-odds and bad luck.

Also, i will ask this question to you. Do you still feel in the 21st century, in a time of gay marriages, homosexual foster parents, female priests, test tube/designer babes and a political correctness craze, that refering to god as "Him" "the Lord" "the Father" or "the son"is outdated?

Granted, the alternatives of "person", "Chairperson", The "biological parent of all who choose to be", or the " holy child of non-descript sex".

I would also go as far as to say to ban nativity plays, as i blame this for my countries massive teenage birth rate and ever-burdeoned social fund. Letting kids see us condone a woman who brought a kid into a world, getting free furnished housing and a free ride thrown into the deal (granted, it was only a donkey....most workng parents only get a ox to move on) seems to be the wrong message to send.

What we should promote is Mary working until the last minute, Joseph actually did what wood workers do, and make his son a cot....were there no trees/bushes on the long walk to Bethlehem? Then, have the kid, get a job in motels that were full, as they'll need more staff since thre so busy and the plagues and Herod have been screwing things up. Then. Christianity stepped in, filled out a few forms, now Mary is a nursery nurse, Joseph is on a retraining scheme to become a ice-cream engineer ang Jesus has his loin cloth and flint paid for Bethlehem University Fund, not roaming the streets, in the burning sun, harrassing people and evntually getting nailed one of Josephs attempted curtain rail he screwed up making.

[Biggles]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line?

[jimbo12345]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line?

Depends. If you read the post as offering a few diffrent angles on a tired subject from a person interested in other opinions of his own, then it didn't.

Focus. You may believe you are Biggles, and your role here is to shoot down threads as they dont follow the usual theme you have had installed in you somwhere along your (slightly OCD) 4,258 posts, ut theres more opinion out there, be it below a level you deem acceptable.

[Biggles]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line?

Depends. If you read the post as offering a few diffrent angles on a tired subject from a person interested in other opinions of his own, then it didn't.

Fair enough - must have been me.

I'm not of the Christian persuasion so I was trying to put myself into that frame of mind and thought it perhaps a trifle edgy to go from "no offence" to dodgy "curtain rails". However, as I said, it is probably just me