Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on April 10, 2007, 04:18:12 PM
-
So this study must not include the Muslims that are brain-washed by terrorist orgs, eh? I mean, the kids you know...they blow up so quickly!
Hoping to hear from Seagoon. Do you agree with these physicians findings?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409164931.htm
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/334593,CST-NWS-god10.article
-
Majority of Doctors Believe Religion Is Good for Your Health
More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason. Most wars can be attributed back to a religious dispute.
-
I'm pretty sure that the brain has a biiiig role in health. People who are happy tend to be healthier than folks who are depressed, and Religion is an easy way for lots of folks to be happy, so the results sound pretty believable.
-
Originally posted by 68valu
...
More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason. Most wars can be attributed back to a religious dispute.
Unmitigated nonsense.
ww2 -- the most deadly war in history, without doubt -- was purely political, and most of the deaths occurred at the hands , of atheist dictators. The 2nd deadliest, ww1, was fought over territory and national pride without reference to religion.
Don't spew propaganda, its not becoming.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
[
ww2 -- the most deadly war in history, without doubt -- was purely political, and most of the deaths occurred at the hands , of atheist dictators. The 2nd deadliest, ww1, was fought over territory and national pride without reference to religion.
_____________________________ ____________________________
The holocoust was political!!!!
All of the people who died during the crusades were political!!!!
The romans slaughtering the christians were political!!!!!!
Look farther back in history than the 20th century
-
Originally posted by 68valu
Originally posted by Simaril
[
ww2 -- the most deadly war in history, without doubt -- was purely political, and most of the deaths occurred at the hands , of atheist dictators. The 2nd deadliest, ww1, was fought over territory and national pride without reference to religion.
_____________________________ ____________________________
The holocoust was political!!!!
All of the people who died during the crusades were political!!!!
The romans slaughtering the christians were political!!!!!!
Look farther back in history than the 20th century [/B]
Actually you'll find most of them were, but religion was used as the motivator. But that doesn't make religion any less of a culprit. In most cases religion is simply a method of control, the closer to the heart you get the less you find true religious beliefs and other 'motivators'.
-
Originally posted by 68valu
Originally posted by Simaril
The holocoust was political!!!!
All of the people who died during the crusades were political!!!!
The romans slaughtering the christians were political!!!!!!
Look farther back in history than the 20th century [/B]
You might want to read, and think, a little more about history.
You claimed that more were killed due to religion than anything else is patently false, absolutely untrue, and is the product of anti-religious bias in modern culture.
The key is the "MORE" part, for the same reason that your advice to look past the 20th century is illogical -- because MORE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED AND DIED IN THE 20th CENTURY THAN IN ALL PREVIOUS HUMAN HISTORY -- COMBINED. For example, entire wars were fought with armies in the Crusades were that were smaller than a single WW2 DIVISION.
Now specifically:
1. the holocaust WAS political. Hitler acted based on RACIAL antisemitism, which was why he talked about the "master race" It is also why there was no question of faith, or of belief in Judaism. If you had a few drops of Jewish blood, you were taken. If you were an atheistic Jew, you were sent to the concentration camps -- so the issue was clearly not about religion at all.
2. The Crusades were as much political as religious. The rulers of Europe used religious motivators so they could achieve political goals, including the establishment of the kingdom of Jerusalem. The professional armies involved were in the 20,000- 40,000 range -- equal to a couple WW2 divisions. Civilian casualties were horrendous, but were as much due to sanitation, displacement and disease as they were to atrocities.
Atrocities happened, but those atrocities were in direct disobedience to what the religions involved TAUGHT.
That means something important -- after all, the Kansas City Bombing was done "in the name of American democracy" by some right wing nut jobs. Does that mean the bombing was representative of American culture? Of course not! So why do anti-religionists fall upon the Crusades to "prove" that Christianity is murderous?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm pretty sure that the brain has a biiiig role in health. People who are happy tend to be healthier than folks who are depressed, and Religion is an easy way for lots of folks to be happy, so the results sound pretty believable.
Right on with the analysis.
First, what doctors believe is irrelevant to what's actually true. For a long time, doctors believed that draining blood was good for you -- need I say more? That factor alone makes the survey approach essentially meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
Second, there is enormous evidence that triggering the stress systems is overall bad for health. Adrenaline is great stuff when you're running from a predator; otherwise, its pretty evil stuff. It increases strain on organ systems, and worsens survival from just about everything -- but especially from the FAR AND AWAY most common killers in western culture, vascular disease of the heart and brain.
Third, research is being done into some very "soft" areas -- that are very hard to measure. That makes for difficult study design, and problems with quality of research do not make it into the sound bites. In general, the best information comes from studies that look at broad conclusions like "people who call themselves religious (or go to services at least twice a month, or some other measureable stand in for the internal spiritual life) live an average of X years longer than those who are not religious."
Studies that look at divine intervention more directly -- for example, having spiritual people pray for specific ICU patients, with neither the doctors or the patients knowing who was being prayed for and who wasn't -- find much smaller effect, or no measurable effect at all.
Most importantly these scientific approaches to faith suffer from serious theological problems, because they have to assume that the human action controls the outcome. In essence, they have to assume that God becomes a vending machine, and that He is bound to do what we ask Him to do even if its against his better judgement (not to mention his omniscience regarding unanticipated consequences, and the motives triggering the prayer.)
And as I remind myself in my own spiritual walk, in that relationship only one of us is God -- and it's not me!!
-
Originally posted by 68valu
Majority of Doctors Believe Religion Is Good for Your Health
More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason. Most wars can be attributed back to a religious dispute.
and everything larger than a rabbit killed by a human was done so with the aid of scientific innovations.
-
You guys might want to analyze what religion really is, before you discount it for being at the root of all problems.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Atrocities happened, but those atrocities were in direct disobedience to what the religions involved TAUGHT.
... So why do anti-religionists fall upon the Crusades to "prove" that Christianity is murderous?
And here we have the classic religious fallback. If they did something bad then they obviously weren't real christians right simaril.
As for the crusades, we need not go back that far. Look at the recent serb/bosnian conflicts. A lot of muslims were executed by christians there. Strange thing is where does that conflict have its roots ;)
FWIW, I'm not anti-religion. But I do find *general* christianity quite annoying. You are a perfect example simaril, you try to be persecuted and cop out of anything bad your religion is associated with all in one clean sweep. Just like any religion christianity has its good and bad, but it seems to be a religion bent on sweeping that bad under the rug.
-
Religion is just an idea.
-
Hi Rip,
Here I was about to turn in after *finally* getting my revised bibliography done, when I thought to myself I should check the Hitech Board and see what plane won the contest (can't believe we have yet another US bomber rolling out when we only have *one* of the main bombers of the Axis nations - ah well, I guess we really needed something that could mount an airborne 75mm - but I digress)
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So this study must not include the Muslims that are brain-washed by terrorist orgs, eh? I mean, the kids you know...they blow up so quickly!
Hoping to hear from Seagoon. Do you agree with these physicians findings?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409164931.htm
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/334593,CST-NWS-god10.article
Generally speaking, I would agree with the studies. I guess I have two different lines of thought on this subject.
The first is purely pragmatic. Studies have shown that married men live up to 10 years longer than unmarried men. In trying to explain this statistic Linda Waite of the U of C's Population Research Center pointed out that marriage tends to force men to "adopt less risky behavior and more healthy lifestyles." In other words marriage and its attendant responsibilities encourages behaviors that cause men (and women) to live longer and provides disincentives for behaviors that can kill you.
In the same way, most religions (predictably, I'm going to leave Islam out of the mix because of its singularity - besides this was a US survey and very few of these doctors and their patients would be Muslims) encourage behavior that tends to promote a longer and healthier lifestyle. For instance, most forms of Christianity promote marriage (which also fosters longer life) and discourage sexual promiscuity (thus lowering the rate of STDs, etc.), drunkeness, brawling, addiction, suicide, etc.
Studies have also shown that people with a strong belief in God tend to be less succeptible to depression, and in essence give people more of reason to wake up in the morning and continue on with their lives. Consistent Materialists are more prone to fall off into functional, if not philosophical, nihilism and its attendant despair, and despair doesn't tend to foster longer lives.
The Second line of thought is the divine intervention angle, although that is much harder to quantify and admittedly no amount of evidence here is going to be sufficient for a materialist who fervently believes in a closed universe. Let me just give you the most recent "for instance" in this category that I've personally experienced.
Our congregation has been praying for a infant by the name of Jacob who was born prematurely at 24 weeks. This child has been struggling for life since birth and a little over two weeks ago it seemed like he was going to lose that particular struggle. His prognosis got grimmer and grimmer and he became more dependent upon the machines to keep him alive, until one day when his parents were hurriedly ushered in and informed that one of his lungs had collapsed, that there was no more that the doctors could do, and that he only had at most a few more hours to live. The doctors told his mother that at the end they would remove him from the life support equipment and allow her to hold him as he died. His parents who are evangelicals never stopped praying for him and his father sent out an emergency call for prayer support. I remember specifically praying that morning along these lines:
"Lord Jesus during your earthly ministry you healed the sick and raised the dead, and made plain that you are indeed Immanuel - God with Us - and I know that you are still the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. You have promised never to leave us nor forsake us, and I know that you are still with your people, and working out your will in their lives. I beg you then to intervene miraculously to save the life of this little child of yours, and ask that you would receive all the glory for his healing, that it might be abundantly clear that this was the almighty power of God and not the feeble and finite efforts of men."
Later that day, Jacob was disconnected from life support and given to his mother, his vital signs bottomed out and then... began climbing until they stabilized. His collapsed lung reinflated (sorry I'm not sure what the correct medical term is here) and he began to thrive. Their doctor, who was not particularly religious, stated this is miraculous, we aren't doing anything. And a social worker commented don't ever let anyone tell you that wasn't God at work.
Since then baby Jacob has continued to do well, is putting on weight, and will be ready to come home (god willing) in a few weeks.
I'm well aware that the crass materialist wouldn't accept this and would say something along the lines of, "ah yeah, well that was simply a coincidence of material factors we aren't yet able to accurately explain, and when we have factors beyond our ability to explain we superstitiously call it 'a miracle', when in fact its all just matter and the laws of the universe operating as they always have not some magical mumbo-jumbo." To such a darkened mind, no miracles are possible, because matter is all there is and God doesn't exist, so no actual miracle will ever prove anything to them. But I'm happy to report that in that instance on that day, in one hospital and many, many, homes God was given all the glory. Both of my prayers were answered that day.
I've been blessed to see that kind of thing happen on several occasions, and hope that as long as the Lord allows me to stay, to see it happen again.
- SEAGOON
-
And here we have the classic religious fallback. If they did something bad then they obviously weren't real christians right simaril.
That's not necessarily true. As a Christian I am taught certain things from the Bible. Things like how to treat my neighbor, not to steal, no lying etc. etc. Does that mean that I am always successful in following every guideline the Bible lays out for me? Of course not. I am human, just like you, and each and every one of us fails at times.
I think what Simaril was getting at was that you can't blame Christianity as a whole for the failings of some who didn't follow the teachings of Christ. In this particular case, some of the Crusaders.
As for the crusades, we need not go back that far. Look at the recent serb/bosnian conflicts. A lot of muslims were executed by christians there.
That sword cut both ways did it not?
In no way am I excusing Christians for executing their neighbors in those conflicts. Just pointing out that if you are bringing up one side of that mess you should probably bring up the other side as well. :aok
I'm not saying that those Bosnian Christians were *bad* or *good* Christians. They have obviously violated some of the Bible's teachings. The Bible also teaches that it is not my place to judge them for their actions, but God's place. He will Judge them for their actions on Judgement Day.
-
I would not be suprised if religion has positive health effects.
Religion = hope for those who cant help themselves. Its a straw they can hold on to when they have some sort of problem they wont/cant deal with in real life. It can also be a substitute for other addictions like drugs or alcohol.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm pretty sure that the brain has a biiiig role in health. People who are happy tend to be healthier than folks who are depressed, and Religion is an easy way for lots of folks to be happy, so the results sound pretty believable.
Happy fools.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And here we have the classic religious fallback. If they did something bad then they obviously weren't real christians right simaril.
......
Just like any religion christianity has its good and bad, but it seems to be a religion bent on sweeping that bad under the rug.
Vulcan:
I can't tell you how often someone who calls themselves a Christian has embarassed me....by not representing what Jesus taught. But I'm not sure how that is a "fallback."
Instead of "falling back" on what you've "always" seen christians do, think for a moment about the implications of my example -- the Kansas City bombing.
You're using an essentially untenable definition of the christian religion, by claiming that EVERY action performed by anyone who CALLS THEMSELVES Christian should be counted as the effect of their Christianity.
Would you claim that blowing up the Murra building refelcts american values? Or would you use the same standard in judging the nature of African Americans?
How about the US military? Do you believe that Abu Gharib proves that American soldiers are immoral brutes?
Consider say, conservatism. Do the actions of a paramilitary "militia" leader make any refelction at alll on say, John McCain?
I sincerely hope not. Those examples merely show that human beings with all degrees of morality can call themselves what ever they want as they live their lives.
And that is true for christians as well. Some are "christian" only in the sense that they are not Jewish, or not Muslim (which is generally the case in the Bosnian war -- where it was said that the difference between the Bosnian christians and the Bosnian Muslims was that the christians didnt go to church on sunday, and the muslims didnt go to mosque on friday!).
IF you are serious about making an intelligent judgement about a faith, you ought to do it the courtesy of applying the same logical standard as you would use in talking about a political viewpoint or a racial group. And that's all that I'm saying when I look at Bosnia or the crusades -- these guys weren't acting like christians at all, as measured by the objective standards that the Bible actually teaches.
How can you judge a belief system by looking at the people who don't follow it?
-
LOL.. so if a person is killed by secularists like hitler or stalin then he died because of religion?
commies killed 50 million.. they were not religious. Muslims are about the only religion that kills these days strictly in the name of religion.
lazs
-
Religion doesn't kill any more than guns do.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Religion = hope for those who cant help themselves. Its a straw they can hold on to when they have some sort of problem they wont/cant deal with in real life. It can also be a substitute for other addictions like drugs or alcohol.
Wow. What a generalzation! :lol What makes you think that people of faith, any faith, are any less capable of dealing with problems than non- believers?
-
Dunno if they're less able, but they've certainly picked the easier path. A Jeep Wrangler can stick to the highway, but that doesn't mean it's unable to tackle the rough roads.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Wow. What a generalzation! :lol What makes you think that people of faith, any faith, are any less capable of dealing with problems than non- believers?
What else is the point of religion then?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
What else is the point of religion then?
You're answering a question with a question.
-
Nilsen --
Are you assuming that religions are untrue, then using that assumption to show that they have no purpose?
Logically kinda silly, but it sounds like that's what you're doing.
-
I think all of the religions are "true" in the sense that folks believe in them, but that's hardly evidence for their veracity. A billion muslims believe that Mohammed was Allah's prophet after the Jesus, a bunch of christians feel a little different. It doesn't mean that any of it's true.
McDonalds is the most popular restaurant in the world, doesn't mean it's good food, it's just comfortable like religion. People are entitled to believe whatever they want if it helps dull the sharp edges of reality.
-
Its all humbug imo.
How someone can belive in something written in a few books without any sort of evidence whatsoever is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Its all humbug imo.
How someone can belive in something written in a few books without any sort of evidence whatsoever is beyond me.
Fair enough, thanks for the answer. :)
-
Hello Nilsen,
There are some discussions that you wish you could have in person over a good beer, because you know that there is too much ground to cover in a BB posting to ever do it justice. Trying to have a discussion here is a little like trying to communicate via alternating bumperstickers.
Anyway, you said,
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would not be suprised if religion has positive health effects.
Religion = hope for those who cant help themselves. Its a straw they can hold on to when they have some sort of problem they wont/cant deal with in real life. It can also be a substitute for other addictions like drugs or alcohol.
The argument you are using here dates back to the popularization of Freudian psychology in the late 19th century. You'll find it in the work of Marx, Russell, (and Freud of course). Basically it starts out with the assumption that there is no God, only matter, and that therefore God is a psychological projection of human ideals, wishes, and needs. He only exists in our minds as a means of calming fears and bringing a false order to what is essentially chaos. The "opiate of the masses" as Marx put it. You've extended it slightly by implying that once our stress is relieved, there may be a positive health benefit.
Several answers immediately occur to me. I wonder for instance what psychological need for God a 24 week old baby has and how projection could have had a positive health benefit in his case. But I'll move on from that. Perhaps the argument would have more weight if every Christian believer had a uniform personality, perhaps slightly flakey and unduly credulous. Obviously they don't. I pastor a church made up of a good quantity of rational, independent, highly intelligent, "tough minded" types. The SF guys are selected and trained for their ability to survive on their wits without support in deadly environments for weeks on end. These are not a group of weak-minded ninnies looking for fairy tale answers. We have men and women from across the personality spectrum some weak some strong. Actually it was my experience that the much smaller anti-theist community that I once moved in was far more homogenous in terms of personality.
Additionally, as far as projection goes, the God and religion of the bible is hardly the one we would project in order to feel better about ourselves. A religion in which we are conceived of as fallen and in need of salvation from eternal damnation through a distinctly unpopular and counter-cultural belief in a crucified savior who doesn't fit our ideal model for a king and in which we are constantly called to be about the business of examining ourselves, running the race, dying to sin, and standing firm in the faith even unto death is not the projection a weak mind would create. They'd be much more likely to come up with a tame slightly-senile grandmotherly god who accepts people as they are, condemns no one, calls for no changes and no confrontations, and dispenses hugs and cookies on a constant basis.
In fact, when it comes to projection, as a number of thinkers including C.S. Lewis in his brilliant Pilgrims Regress have pointed out, the more likely candidate for projection is the atheist who denies that there is any such thing as sin or salvation, any fallen creation, any just and omnipotent god and who projects instead a scenario where he can be autonomous and functionally act as his own god.
There are other answers that one could think of but in the end Nilsen, its about truth claims not merely psychology. If I a teacher were to say to you, "Nilsen, 2+2=4" answering "You only believe that because you are a mathematician!" doesn't actually prove anything about the statement itself. In the same way, my saying "Nilsen, there is a God" and hearing "You only believe that because you are a Christian" doesn't prove anything about the statement either. God didn't not exist merely because I didn't believe in him for 23 years and then suddenly come into existance when I began to believe. My change, indeed my belief, has no impact on God, truth, or mathematics.
- SEAGOON
-
i totally agree with the article...but one can be spiritual and still consider religion as a rather ridiculous attempt to monopolize.
-
Seagoon sir.
"I wonder for instance what psychological need for God a 24 week old baby has and how projection could have had a positive health benefit in his case"
None and none.
Show me the proof that god in whatever shape or form is out there and ill be happy to listen. For most of us the bible or any other holy scripture is stories that have been written down to try and explain things that people at the time could not yet explain with sience and to provide comfort for those in need.
I have read what you have written and I have no reason to doubt that the people you speak to are what you say they are. What kind of job they have doesnt affect whatever spiritual needs they have.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Unmitigated nonsense.
ww2 -- the most deadly war in history, without doubt -- was purely political, and most of the deaths occurred at the hands , of atheist dictators.
Don't spew propaganda, its not becoming.
The nazi's weren't atheist, nor the Italians, nor the Japanese. The attempted genocide of the Jews was purely religious masked as political.
ack-ack
-
I believe religion is what you make it. That is, it could be a bunch of mumbo jumbo from a book about some guy, or it could be faith in a higher power to guide you through life. I personally think religion is more about keeping faith in what you believe in and you don't absolutely need religious guidance to have faith in yourself or someone else.
Anyway, I concur with Chairboy.
-
There have been thousands of religions around the world since people first walked the land. Has what they belived in been wrong? Who decides what religion is the correct one? Nobody has ever provided even a hint of something even close to evidence but that doesnt matter.
Religion is faith in whatever you belive to be true. It can be a rock, a laserprinter, a book or whatever. If one needs that sort of thing then so be it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
There have been thousands of religions around the world since people first walked the land. Has what they belived in been wrong? Who decides what religion is the correct one? Nobody has ever provided even a hint of something even close to evidence but that doesnt matter.
Religion is faith in whatever you belive to be true. It can be a rock, a laserprinter, a book or whatever. If one needs that sort of thing then so be it.
I agree that religion can be faith in just about anything including the resolute disbelief in God or anything beyond the natural. The ones who are fooling themselves are the ones who believe they don't need belief in something more than themselves.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The ones who are fooling themselves are the ones who believe they don't need belief in something more than themselves.
THAT is signature material! :aok
-
"There have been thousands of religions around the world since people first walked the land. Has what they belived in been wrong?"
that very much depends on the definition of wrong. if you mean wrong as in not true, then maybe and why would it matter? if you mean wrong as in "is doing my best freinds ex girlfriend 2 days after they break up wrong ?" well...then no, what they beleived wasnt wrong.
-
Intelligent, reasonable and thoughtful people...completely duped into perpetuating the cycle.
I've no doubt faith is healthy just like I also have no doubt owning a happy housepet is healthy. They both fulfill a need.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
There have been thousands of religions around the world since people first walked the land. Has what they belived in been wrong? Who decides what religion is the correct one? Nobody has ever provided even a hint of something even close to evidence but that doesnt matter.
Religion is faith in whatever you belive to be true. It can be a rock, a laserprinter, a book or whatever. If one needs that sort of thing then so be it.
Ok so maybe god, and if I am going for a cool god, let say the sun? Yeah the sun. See the sun is cool; he made it all, but creation of the universe? We don't have time for that stuff now.
So, maybe the Sun thinks of earth as a sim type game and is amused by the interesting ways people find to worship him. Come on, who wouldn't find it interesting to watch a group of semi intelligent beings, (compared to god we must be like gnats,)come up with to make him happy. They range from worshiping a guy who was hung on a cross and then came back to life, to several different conmen, and cannibalism. Hell if that’s not good party conversation I don't know what is.
My new theory is he is ****ing with us right now, he is creating a new religion called global warming, its got all the same old tricks, blind faith, crushing opposing views and scare mongering, hell it even has its own demons and devils you know, those oil companies and SUVs.
Boy that Sun sure is a joker, the next thing you know he will cool himself down and then we are really in **** creek. But it will be frozen so it won’t be that bad.
I wonder how long it takes ants to freeze. ****! I hope the Sun doesn’t wonder that himself.
:D
P.S. Nils, since you’re in Norway, and it's not very sunny up there, The Sun prolly hates you. Be careful, in the religion of global warming, hell is a cubical, in an oil company IT department.:lol
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
P.S. Nils, since you’re in Norway, and it's not very sunny up there, The Sun prolly hates you. Be careful, in the religion of global warming, hell is a cubical, in an oil company IT department.:lol
We got plenty of sun thankyouverymuch, but that doesnt prevent it from getting cold at times during the winter. :o
-
Lukster, Seagoon, anyone else:
Religion, a faith-based construct, is not a rational idea. It cannot be proven or argued.
No rational conclusion can be made about it.
So:The ones who are fooling themselves are the ones who believe[1] they don't need belief in something more than themselves[2].
[1] Is a belief, not a certainty. A leap of faith. So they are no more fools than you are for believeing in your religion, or whatever.
[2] Is the only thing one needs no faith to be sure about.
-
Hi Nilsen,
Sorry about the delay in replying, I've been extremely busy trying to help people based on made-up commands from a persistent mass-hallucination. ;) Hopefully, sometime soon I'll start saving the world by coming to my senses and go back to doing whatever I want and simply using people for my own selfish ends like I did up to the age of 23, eh?
Originally posted by Nilsen
Seagoon sir.
"I wonder for instance what psychological need for God a 24 week old baby has and how projection could have had a positive health benefit in his case"
None and none.
Show me the proof that god in whatever shape or form is out there and ill be happy to listen. For most of us the bible or any other holy scripture is stories that have been written down to try and explain things that people at the time could not yet explain with sience and to provide comfort for those in need.
Nilsen, what kind of proof would you require? Fossilized angel wings? Photos of the resurrection? I think we both know that there is no level of evidence in this case that would be considered adequate, and in any event evidence alone isn't sufficient to overcome the natural inclination not to believe the Gospel. It certainly wasn't in my case.
And it isn't simply the modern mind that is so inclined. The New Testament accounts are literally full of people who would not believe Christ or his Apostles even when confronted by the evidence of miracles that had occurred right in front of them. Even these miracles, in and of themselves, weren't sufficient to make someone believe. Peter makes the point in his sermon to the assembly in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 2 that they saw the miracles that Christ did, and yet crucified him anyway: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know -- Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. " (Acts 2:23-24)
Had they not seen these signs and wonders, they would have greeted Peter's sermon with laughter. They didn't though, because they didn't dispute the signs themselves, but rather what the origin of the signs was or what they pointed to. Even after these miracles, opponents of the gospel called Christ a "deceiver" (Matt. 27:63) and would have continued to do so no matter how many signs and wonders (or physical evidences for the truth claims of Christ if you will) were piled up in front of them.
In the same way, even if you were to give the ample evidence a considered examination I sincerely doubt that would be sufficient to overcome an insurmountable hermeneutic of suspicion. I'll try to give you a few examples of what I mean.
You probably do not doubt for a moment that there was a great Greek Philosopher by the name of Socrates or that he was famously executed by being forced to drink hemlock. However, the hard evidence for the actual existence of Socrates is actually far weaker than the evidence for Christ and the Christian faith. What we know of Socrates is almost entirely based on the word of one man, Plato. And the manuscripts we have from that man are fewer and a far newer than the collossal number of New Testament manuscripts and writings of contemporaries (Clement, the Didache, etc.) that we have going back to the late first/early second century. And yet it is not Socrates, but Christ who is treated to almost universal skepticism despite being the far better attested of the two.
You know as well as I do that any proof I present here will not be treated in a neutral fashion, but rather disbelieved immediately. This is because the Christian faith and all its core beliefs are held to be impossible and preposterous from the outset. Your worldview cannot allow for them, therefore they must go rather than a worldview I would say is fundamentally flawed and itself unprovable.
I have read what you have written and I have no reason to doubt that the people you speak to are what you say they are. What kind of job they have doesnt affect whatever spiritual needs they have.
Two points, first I would argue that you have it the wrong way round. No one with the weak, needy, and credulous character you presuppose could do the job they do for long. Even the selection course for the Green Berets tends to chew up and weed out the spiritually weak.
Second, perhaps if the "projecting" you were speaking of was of the false "kindly granny idol" I mentioned before, it might have more weight. But as I mentioned we are talking about a religion that calls them to live the examined life and constantly be bringing themselves and their beliefs to the table. They also have to accept that believing the Christian faith as they do will make their lives here on earth, much more difficult, not easier. Certainly it would be easier not to have to undergo the kind of continuous mocking one receives for being an evangelical in our present society, and not believing would make fitting in easier as well. They follow a savior who tells them " In the world you will have tribulation."
Certainly in terms of relations with the world, I had far fewer problems before I became a Christian. In many ways, my life, my responsibilities, and that which was expected of me was easier as an unbeliever. In fact I even have to study and think more than I once did.
I won't pretend I'm not infinitely happier and more content today - but that has nothing to do with life being "easier" or more "comfortable."
Anyway, hoping this message finds you and yours well, I remain...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nilsen, what kind of proof would you require? Fossilized angel wings? Photos of the resurrection?....- SEAGOON
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I bet you would claim that any such wings would have inferior aerodynamics to what you get at Boeing, but sertainly somewhat better than what they have over at Airbus.:D
-
Seagoon...
Fork over what evidence you have, and I will study it. Angel wings would not be enough tho as those fossils can easly just be leftovers from a jurrassic McChicken feast. ;)
What job you have does not dictate your spiritual needs and what weaknesses you may have or answers you want for those things that man has yet to find scientific evidence on.
Discussing faith is hopeless Seagoon as it has to do with belives and not any facts or evidence at all. I cant proove that there is no god and you cant prove that god excists. The next time you talk to him you could ofcourse ask him to stop by and show himself to me, but we both know that wont happen. ;)
-
Originally posted by 68valu
More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason.
False. Read Os Guiness' book about evil in the 20th century. More folks slaughtered by other folks. Religion had no part.
All the Best,
hap