this morning at church - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

this morning at church

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby moonhead » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:27 am

i like the way you think jose. i often feel the same way you do. i'd like to believe that there is some mystical force behind it all. and a lot of times life doesn't make sense without that belief. but what it comes down to is my personal feeling that if there is a god, i think god is much cooler than any organized religion makes god out to be. god has a sick sense of humor, and i dig it.
Image
moonhead
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 15994
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: questioning your fanhood...funk o'meter: funkalicious

Postby knapplc » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:42 am

And the guys give me a hard time for writing a lot. :-D

josebach wrote:
knapplc wrote:As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. :-b


Every time religion comes up I always have an internal struggle with myself as to whether or not I should voice my opinion.

I think had you not voiced your opinion that would have been a tragedy. I think that in the debate we are all made better, whether our belief is Christian, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic – whatever. In blind faith we are weaker. It is when we ask those questions and with an open heart and mind truly seek the answers that we are doing what it is that I believe God wants us to do. Had God desired unquestioning followers He wouldn’t have given us the ability to doubt His purposes, His methods or His goals. I hope you never stop asking these questions, JB.

josebach wrote:On one hand, I feel that religion is one of the most destructive forces on the planet. Countless wars have been started and countless lives have been lost due to people's religion. Look no further than the current situation in the Middle East as a prime example. And no, Christians are not above such zealotry. Need we forget the Salem witch trials? In my opinion even George W Bush lets faith and not reason influence his foreign policy in some cases. On the other hand, religion can be a very positive force, especially in rich countries like ours where people are for the most part happy. The joy it brings to some people's lives is undeniable. Knapp's comments above got me thinking. The investment that one makes to their religion is all encompassing in some cases. Questioning that investment when spouses and children are involved is simply too big of a risk... it's frankly too much to ask. In that, I believe I was at least partially wrong in starting this debate. This is probably why my conscience bothers me every time I get into a debate like this. It's extremely difficult for me to weigh what I consider to be the absolute truth over what harm speaking that truth might cause.

One thing I’d like to leave you with is the idea that the problems of man are not the faults of God. It is correct that “religion” is guilty of many crimes against its fellow man over the centuries. But you have to divorce yourself from the idea that what MAN does is GOD’S fault. If I walk up to Moonhead and sock him in the eye and declare “I strike you in the name of VaderFin!” does that make Vader guilty of assault? Of course not. Vader would never ask me to do that. I am the guilty party there, and no matter how much I try to shift blame to El Fin, I made the decision and I took the action.

Jesus Christ taught love. He taught compassion. He taught investment in your fellow man. He taught that we should serve others above ourselves. He taught peace in the face of aggression. He taught reason. He did not teach rape, murder and torture; he did not teach anger and hate and condemnation and theft and lying. Unfortunately many people who claim to do things in His name are guilty of just those things. Who then is to blame for the atrocities done in His name – the man who taught peace or the men who ignored that teaching and did evil instead?

It is OK to call men to task for the evil they do. But do not cast that blame on those who have not done that evil.

josebach wrote:Just because you don’t practice a particular religion doesn’t mean you have to be an atheist. There are not only two choices. In other words, all hope is not lost. With as infinitely complex as life is, I have an incredibly hard time believing we’re here simply by accident. That life is an accident. On the other hand, I have to at least consider that possibility. I have no idea if the evolution from nothing to what we currently are was possible in 5,000,000,000 years… or in 14,000,000,000 years as Knapp said. I just don’t know. Isn’t it awfully presumptuous and arrogant to say you have it figured out… to know something so incredibly complex just because a book written by men thousands of years ago says it’s so? Think of the mentality of the men back then. How much has man learned in the last 2,000 years? Does this knowledge mean nothing? Should it be ignored? I personally don’t think so.

Without getting into the science of this stuff (and I’ll gladly do so if someone questions me – I’ve got info from Biology, Astronomy, Physics, etc to back this up) I totally agree – life cannot be an accident. It is ridiculously complex. Even the simplest life forms are fiendishly intricate mechanisms. The likelihood of them evolving into the abundant and amazingly varied forms that we see on this planet are remote in the extreme. I accept the possibility of evolution, Big Bang, etc. I just doubt its likelihood immensely.

Now, whether it’s arrogant to claim to know the truth is another question entirely. The fact is that there “is” one truth out there. What “is,” is. What “is,” therefore, is truth. The trick is in knowing what that “is” is. I claim to know that truth (I have faith that I do) and I make no apologies for it. I do not claim superiority over anyone or anything because of this knowledge, although we all know people who call themselves Christians who do fit this description. The use of that knowledge is the key. I use my powers for good, never evil, as the joke goes.

josebach wrote:Anyway, I feel the author of the essay I referenced perfectly summarized in his closing arguments my feelings on why it's so important that man eventually frees himself from religious constraints. Forgive me for borrowing from him, but to be honest with you, he summarized my feelings more articulately than I ever could.

Scott Bidstrup wrote:It is the latter process, a dedication to the truth, that enables human progress. This is because humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement, spiritual or scientific. The ability to admit that you are wrong is the absolute prerequisite to gaining understanding. The presumption that the answer is revealed, and must then be supported by seeking evidence, is a sure way to lead civilization down the blind alley of arrogant egotism and the institutionalized error that prevented the Catholic church from acknowledging for three centuries that it was wrong to punish Galileo for defying the pope in publishing the Dialog, when Galileo was right about the sun being the center of the solar system and everyone who read the book knew it. That is the position in which the dogmatic Christian now finds himself. It is up to the Christian to be honest with himself as to what this means for his faith. Believe what you want to believe, because it is what you have heard all your life, or accept what is real, regardless of how painful that may be.

Jose, you put this gentleman’s essay forth as a paragon of truth. You represent it as the words of someone who has cast off the shackles of the “closed mind” and who views the world with an open mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Mr. Bidstrup approaches his argument with the preconceived notion that religion is wrong. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says, “…humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement…”, but he himself is not humble. He is “presumptuous and arrogant,” to borrow JB’s phrase. He presumes, arrogantly, that there is no god. He presumes that those who believe in a god are wrong, and inherently flawed in their reason. He does not, therefore, approach the argument from an “open mind” point of view. He castigates the Catholic Church for their Galileo blunder – where, then is the same castigation for Science’s blunders? Surely he is not proffering Science as infallible? The world is no longer flat, but this is to be forgotten?

Mr. Bidstrup is an Agnostic and sees the world through Agnostic-tinted glasses. He sees that NO truth can be revealed. He believes that the Reason of Man is the ultimate key to enlightenment. He decries the dogmatic Church and it’s errant ways. What, then, should we do? Follow our own hearts? Follow our own conscience? Is that the way to peace and harmony? Hardly. If it were then someone somewhere would have already come up with the key to Utopia. Mankind has been pondering this question for millennia. When, I ask the Agnostics, will this question be answered through their precept?

The two camps of Agnosticism and Religion are populated by men. Both are fallible and both should be called to task equally for their fallacies. Pointing the finger at religion and religion alone is not an “open mind” point of view. “It is up to the Christian to be honest with himself…” says Mr. Bidstrup. Well, I have been honest with myself. I’ve put in the work and I’ve done the research. I’ve questioned my faith and I’ve questioned science and I’ve questioned the hearts and motives of men. Nobody can accuse me of not having an open mind. Short of making a career out of this (which doesn’t pay well), I have put in about as much time on this question as I possibly could. I am hardly a blind follower of Jesus Christ. For Mr. Bidstrup to insinuate that I, because I am Christian, am not intelligent, brave or “open minded” enough to probe these questions is arrogant. It is presumptuous. And it is wrong.

josebach wrote:Thanks to knapp and to all those who listened to me ramble. It will probably be some time before I participate in a debate of this nature again. It really takes a lot out of ya. Peace, Knapp.

The fact that you’re asking these questions is, in my opinion, wonderful. Whether you take part in a discussion in the Café or elsewhere, I encourage you to continue to ask questions and seek answers.

I believe they are out there. ;-D
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby josebach » Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:30 pm

knapplc wrote:One thing I’d like to leave you with is the idea that the problems of man are not the faults of God. It is correct that “religion” is guilty of many crimes against its fellow man over the centuries. But you have to divorce yourself from the idea that what MAN does is GOD’S fault. If I walk up to Moonhead and sock him in the eye and declare “I strike you in the name of VaderFin!” does that make Vader guilty of assault? Of course not. Vader would never ask me to do that. I am the guilty party there, and no matter how much I try to shift blame to El Fin, I made the decision and I took the action.

It's human nature to value people of your own religion over those of a different religion. To feel that you're in favor with God and those practicioners of other religions aren't. Even if those people are your own countrymen. This is the problem. This is the taint that breeds into zealotry. Without that taint or seed, zealotry wouldn't exist in the first place. Of course the individual man is to blame, but if that man is taught to be that way by people using religion, isn't religion directly responsible as well? For example. Let's say I lied to Frank and told him that Joe stole his radio. If Frank goes up to Joe and murders him, of course Frank is wrong, but I am equally as wrong for planting that lie in his head. That lie is every bit as responsible as Frank is.


knapplc wrote:Unfortunately, that is not the case. Mr. Bidstrup approaches his argument with the preconceived notion that religion is wrong. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says, “…humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement…”, but he himself is not humble. He is “presumptuous and arrogant,” to borrow JB’s phrase. He presumes, arrogantly, that there is no god. He presumes that those who believe in a god are wrong, and inherently flawed in their reason. He does not, therefore, approach the argument from an “open mind” point of view. He castigates the Catholic Church for their Galileo blunder – where, then is the same castigation for Science’s blunders? Surely he is not proffering Science as infallible? The world is no longer flat, but this is to be forgotten?


See I didn't get this at all. He wasn't arguing against the existance of God, he was arguing against the Bible being infallible. Just because you don't know what the answer is, doesn't mean that you can't identify a wrong one. He never proclaims to know what the truth is, he only proclaims to know what the truth isn't... and he does so by using reason. Answer me this. Why do you not believe Judaism to be true? Or Islam? Or Buddhism? Why do you only pick one religion to believe in? Because that's what you were raised to believe. If you were born in Irag, there's almost no doubt you would be Muslim right now. All he's doing is using the same reasoning that you use when determining the fallibility of other religions and applying it to Christianity.


knapplc wrote:I’ve put in the work and I’ve done the research. I’ve questioned my faith and I’ve questioned science and I’ve questioned the hearts and motives of men. Nobody can accuse me of not having an open mind. Short of making a career out of this (which doesn’t pay well), I have put in about as much time on this question as I possibly could. I am hardly a blind follower of Jesus Christ. For Mr. Bidstrup to insinuate that I, because I am Christian, am not intelligent, brave or “open minded” enough to probe these questions is arrogant. It is presumptuous. And it is wrong.

See, I very much agree with you when his comments are applied to you, but he was speaking generally and from my vast experience in Christian circles, being closed-minded and uninformed are two characteristics shared by a very large majority of Christians. This is not meant to offend at all. I'm sure even you agree that you are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable that most Christians in matters of this nature.

I believe mankind has gotten to the point where "you have to have faith" is no longer an adequate answer to life's toughest questions. What if scientists accepted this answer? Where would we be now?
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Redskins Win » Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:37 pm

josebach wrote:
knapplc wrote:As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. :-b


Every time religion comes up I always have an internal struggle with myself as to whether or not I should voice my opinion. On one hand, I feel that religion is one of the most destructive forces on the planet. Countless wars have been started and countless lives have been lost due to people's religion. Look no further than the current situation in the Middle East as a prime example. And no, Christians are not above such zealotry. Need we forget the Salem witch trials? In my opinion even George W Bush lets faith and not reason influence his foreign policy in some cases. On the other hand, religion can be a very positive force, especially in rich countries like ours where people are for the most part happy. The joy it brings to some people's lives is undeniable. Knapp's comments above got me thinking. The investment that one makes to their religion is all encompassing in some cases. Questioning that investment when spouses and children are involved is simply too big of a risk... it's frankly too much to ask. In that, I believe I was at least partially wrong in starting this debate. This is probably why my conscience bothers me every time I get into a debate like this. It's extremely difficult for me to weigh what I consider to be the absolute truth over what harm speaking that truth might cause.

Just because you don’t practice a particular religion doesn’t mean you have to be an atheist. There are not only two choices. In other words, all hope is not lost. With as infinitely complex as life is, I have an incredibly hard time believing we’re here simply by accident. That life is an accident. On the other hand, I have to at least consider that possibility. I have no idea if the evolution from nothing to what we currently are was possible in 5,000,000,000 years… or in 14,000,000,000 years as Knapp said. I just don’t know. Isn’t it awfully presumptuous and arrogant to say you have it figured out… to know something so incredibly complex just because a book written by men thousands of years ago says it’s so? Think of the mentality of the men back then. How much has man learned in the last 2,000 years? Does this knowledge mean nothing? Should it be ignored? I personally don’t think so.

Anyway, I feel the author of the essay I referenced perfectly summarized in his closing arguments my feelings on why it's so important that man eventually frees himself from religious constraints. Forgive me for borrowing from him, but to be honest with you, he summarized my feelings more articulately than I ever could.

Scott Bidstrup wrote:It is the latter process, a dedication to the truth, that enables human progress. This is because humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement, spiritual or scientific. The ability to admit that you are wrong is the absolute prerequisite to gaining understanding. The presumption that the answer is revealed, and must then be supported by seeking evidence, is a sure way to lead civilization down the blind alley of arrogant egotism and the institutionalized error that prevented the Catholic church from acknowledging for three centuries that it was wrong to punish Galileo for defying the pope in publishing the Dialog, when Galileo was right about the sun being the center of the solar system and everyone who read the book knew it. That is the position in which the dogmatic Christian now finds himself. It is up to the Christian to be honest with himself as to what this means for his faith. Believe what you want to believe, because it is what you have heard all your life, or accept what is real, regardless of how painful that may be.


Thanks to knapp and to all those who listened to me ramble. It will probably be some time before I participate in a debate of this nature again. It really takes a lot out of ya. Peace, Knapp.

knapplc wrote:And the guys give me a hard time for writing a lot. :-D

josebach wrote:
knapplc wrote:As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. :-b


Every time religion comes up I always have an internal struggle with myself as to whether or not I should voice my opinion.

I think had you not voiced your opinion that would have been a tragedy. I think that in the debate we are all made better, whether our belief is Christian, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic – whatever. In blind faith we are weaker. It is when we ask those questions and with an open heart and mind truly seek the answers that we are doing what it is that I believe God wants us to do. Had God desired unquestioning followers He wouldn’t have given us the ability to doubt His purposes, His methods or His goals. I hope you never stop asking these questions, JB.

josebach wrote:On one hand, I feel that religion is one of the most destructive forces on the planet. Countless wars have been started and countless lives have been lost due to people's religion. Look no further than the current situation in the Middle East as a prime example. And no, Christians are not above such zealotry. Need we forget the Salem witch trials? In my opinion even George W Bush lets faith and not reason influence his foreign policy in some cases. On the other hand, religion can be a very positive force, especially in rich countries like ours where people are for the most part happy. The joy it brings to some people's lives is undeniable. Knapp's comments above got me thinking. The investment that one makes to their religion is all encompassing in some cases. Questioning that investment when spouses and children are involved is simply too big of a risk... it's frankly too much to ask. In that, I believe I was at least partially wrong in starting this debate. This is probably why my conscience bothers me every time I get into a debate like this. It's extremely difficult for me to weigh what I consider to be the absolute truth over what harm speaking that truth might cause.

One thing I’d like to leave you with is the idea that the problems of man are not the faults of God. It is correct that “religion” is guilty of many crimes against its fellow man over the centuries. But you have to divorce yourself from the idea that what MAN does is GOD’S fault. If I walk up to Moonhead and sock him in the eye and declare “I strike you in the name of VaderFin!” does that make Vader guilty of assault? Of course not. Vader would never ask me to do that. I am the guilty party there, and no matter how much I try to shift blame to El Fin, I made the decision and I took the action.

Jesus Christ taught love. He taught compassion. He taught investment in your fellow man. He taught that we should serve others above ourselves. He taught peace in the face of aggression. He taught reason. He did not teach rape, murder and torture; he did not teach anger and hate and condemnation and theft and lying. Unfortunately many people who claim to do things in His name are guilty of just those things. Who then is to blame for the atrocities done in His name – the man who taught peace or the men who ignored that teaching and did evil instead?

It is OK to call men to task for the evil they do. But do not cast that blame on those who have not done that evil.

josebach wrote:Just because you don’t practice a particular religion doesn’t mean you have to be an atheist. There are not only two choices. In other words, all hope is not lost. With as infinitely complex as life is, I have an incredibly hard time believing we’re here simply by accident. That life is an accident. On the other hand, I have to at least consider that possibility. I have no idea if the evolution from nothing to what we currently are was possible in 5,000,000,000 years… or in 14,000,000,000 years as Knapp said. I just don’t know. Isn’t it awfully presumptuous and arrogant to say you have it figured out… to know something so incredibly complex just because a book written by men thousands of years ago says it’s so? Think of the mentality of the men back then. How much has man learned in the last 2,000 years? Does this knowledge mean nothing? Should it be ignored? I personally don’t think so.

Without getting into the science of this stuff (and I’ll gladly do so if someone questions me – I’ve got info from Biology, Astronomy, Physics, etc to back this up) I totally agree – life cannot be an accident. It is ridiculously complex. Even the simplest life forms are fiendishly intricate mechanisms. The likelihood of them evolving into the abundant and amazingly varied forms that we see on this planet are remote in the extreme. I accept the possibility of evolution, Big Bang, etc. I just doubt its likelihood immensely.

Now, whether it’s arrogant to claim to know the truth is another question entirely. The fact is that there “is” one truth out there. What “is,” is. What “is,” therefore, is truth. The trick is in knowing what that “is” is. I claim to know that truth (I have faith that I do) and I make no apologies for it. I do not claim superiority over anyone or anything because of this knowledge, although we all know people who call themselves Christians who do fit this description. The use of that knowledge is the key. I use my powers for good, never evil, as the joke goes.

josebach wrote:Anyway, I feel the author of the essay I referenced perfectly summarized in his closing arguments my feelings on why it's so important that man eventually frees himself from religious constraints. Forgive me for borrowing from him, but to be honest with you, he summarized my feelings more articulately than I ever could.

Scott Bidstrup wrote:It is the latter process, a dedication to the truth, that enables human progress. This is because humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement, spiritual or scientific. The ability to admit that you are wrong is the absolute prerequisite to gaining understanding. The presumption that the answer is revealed, and must then be supported by seeking evidence, is a sure way to lead civilization down the blind alley of arrogant egotism and the institutionalized error that prevented the Catholic church from acknowledging for three centuries that it was wrong to punish Galileo for defying the pope in publishing the Dialog, when Galileo was right about the sun being the center of the solar system and everyone who read the book knew it. That is the position in which the dogmatic Christian now finds himself. It is up to the Christian to be honest with himself as to what this means for his faith. Believe what you want to believe, because it is what you have heard all your life, or accept what is real, regardless of how painful that may be.

Jose, you put this gentleman’s essay forth as a paragon of truth. You represent it as the words of someone who has cast off the shackles of the “closed mind” and who views the world with an open mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Mr. Bidstrup approaches his argument with the preconceived notion that religion is wrong. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says, “…humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement…”, but he himself is not humble. He is “presumptuous and arrogant,” to borrow JB’s phrase. He presumes, arrogantly, that there is no god. He presumes that those who believe in a god are wrong, and inherently flawed in their reason. He does not, therefore, approach the argument from an “open mind” point of view. He castigates the Catholic Church for their Galileo blunder – where, then is the same castigation for Science’s blunders? Surely he is not proffering Science as infallible? The world is no longer flat, but this is to be forgotten?

Mr. Bidstrup is an Agnostic and sees the world through Agnostic-tinted glasses. He sees that NO truth can be revealed. He believes that the Reason of Man is the ultimate key to enlightenment. He decries the dogmatic Church and it’s errant ways. What, then, should we do? Follow our own hearts? Follow our own conscience? Is that the way to peace and harmony? Hardly. If it were then someone somewhere would have already come up with the key to Utopia. Mankind has been pondering this question for millennia. When, I ask the Agnostics, will this question be answered through their precept?

The two camps of Agnosticism and Religion are populated by men. Both are fallible and both should be called to task equally for their fallacies. Pointing the finger at religion and religion alone is not an “open mind” point of view. “It is up to the Christian to be honest with himself…” says Mr. Bidstrup. Well, I have been honest with myself. I’ve put in the work and I’ve done the research. I’ve questioned my faith and I’ve questioned science and I’ve questioned the hearts and motives of men. Nobody can accuse me of not having an open mind. Short of making a career out of this (which doesn’t pay well), I have put in about as much time on this question as I possibly could. I am hardly a blind follower of Jesus Christ. For Mr. Bidstrup to insinuate that I, because I am Christian, am not intelligent, brave or “open minded” enough to probe these questions is arrogant. It is presumptuous. And it is wrong.

josebach wrote:Thanks to knapp and to all those who listened to me ramble. It will probably be some time before I participate in a debate of this nature again. It really takes a lot out of ya. Peace, Knapp.

The fact that you’re asking these questions is, in my opinion, wonderful. Whether you take part in a discussion in the Café or elsewhere, I encourage you to continue to ask questions and seek answers.

I believe they are out there. ;-D

josebach wrote:
knapplc wrote:One thing I’d like to leave you with is the idea that the problems of man are not the faults of God. It is correct that “religion” is guilty of many crimes against its fellow man over the centuries. But you have to divorce yourself from the idea that what MAN does is GOD’S fault. If I walk up to Moonhead and sock him in the eye and declare “I strike you in the name of VaderFin!” does that make Vader guilty of assault? Of course not. Vader would never ask me to do that. I am the guilty party there, and no matter how much I try to shift blame to El Fin, I made the decision and I took the action.

It's human nature to value people of your own religion over those of a different religion. To feel that you're in favor with God and those practicioners of other religions aren't. Even if those people are your own countrymen. This is the problem. This is the taint that breeds into zealotry. Without that taint or seed, zealotry wouldn't exist in the first place. Of course the individual man is to blame, but if that man is taught to be that way by people using religion, isn't religion directly responsible as well? For example. Let's say I lied to Frank and told him that Joe stole his radio. If Frank goes up to Joe and murders him, of course Frank is wrong, but I am equally as wrong for planting that lie in his head. That lie is every bit as responsible as Frank is.


knapplc wrote:Unfortunately, that is not the case. Mr. Bidstrup approaches his argument with the preconceived notion that religion is wrong. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says, “…humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement…”, but he himself is not humble. He is “presumptuous and arrogant,” to borrow JB’s phrase. He presumes, arrogantly, that there is no god. He presumes that those who believe in a god are wrong, and inherently flawed in their reason. He does not, therefore, approach the argument from an “open mind” point of view. He castigates the Catholic Church for their Galileo blunder – where, then is the same castigation for Science’s blunders? Surely he is not proffering Science as infallible? The world is no longer flat, but this is to be forgotten?


See I didn't get this at all. He wasn't arguing against the existance of God, he was arguing against the Bible being infallible. Just because you don't know what the answer is, doesn't mean that you can't identify a wrong one. He never proclaims to know what the truth is, he only proclaims to know what the truth isn't... and he does so by using reason. Answer me this. Why do you not believe Judaism to be true? Or Islam? Or Buddhism? Why do you only pick one religion to believe in? Because that's what you were raised to believe. If you were born in Irag, there's almost no doubt you would be Muslim right now. All he's doing is using the same reasoning that you use when determining the fallibility of other religions and applying it to Christianity.


knapplc wrote:I’ve put in the work and I’ve done the research. I’ve questioned my faith and I’ve questioned science and I’ve questioned the hearts and motives of men. Nobody can accuse me of not having an open mind. Short of making a career out of this (which doesn’t pay well), I have put in about as much time on this question as I possibly could. I am hardly a blind follower of Jesus Christ. For Mr. Bidstrup to insinuate that I, because I am Christian, am not intelligent, brave or “open minded” enough to probe these questions is arrogant. It is presumptuous. And it is wrong.

See, I very much agree with you when his comments are applied to you, but he was speaking generally and from my vast experience in Christian circles, being closed-minded and uninformed are two characteristics shared by a very large majority of Christians. This is not meant to offend at all. I'm sure even you agree that you are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable that most Christians in matters of this nature.

I believe mankind has gotten to the point where "you have to have faith" is no longer an adequate answer to life's toughest questions. What if scientists accepted this answer? Where would we be now?


That's just way too much reading and writing for a fantasy football forum.

And yeah, i don't have to read it nor did I.
Image[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Redskins Win
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8272
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:45 pm

moonhead wrote:
Dadd wrote:Regarding the comments on holidays having pagan origins. You can go to any encyclopedia and look at Easter and Christmas and see an explanation of how their symbols are based upon Pagan rituals.

In my opinion you have to consider what these are and why are they still a part of the holiday. Its not enough to only say that you celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ only. If that was the case then why exchange presents, or put up a tree?

Remember that Jesus himself said at Luke 22:19 that we should remember his death, and not his birth.


shhhh! i'm asking for an xbox 360 this year.


:-b nice
The Miner Part 2
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 2131
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Chicago.

Postby knapplc » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:22 pm

josebach wrote: It's human nature to value people of your own religion over those of a different religion. To feel that you're in favor with God and those practicioners of other religions aren't. Even if those people are your own countrymen. This is the problem. This is the taint that breeds into zealotry. Without that taint or seed, zealotry wouldn't exist in the first place. Of course the individual man is to blame, but if that man is taught to be that way by people using religion, isn't religion directly responsible as well? For example. Let's say I lied to Frank and told him that Joe stole his radio. If Frank goes up to Joe and murders him, of course Frank is wrong, but I am equally as wrong for planting that lie in his head. That lie is every bit as responsible as Frank is.

In your analogy you are the church, you are not God. If your analogy were accurate you would have to include Bob, who taught you to be honest, love your neighbor, and to forgive. Despite Bob’s teaching, you lied to Frank. This does not make Bob wrong. It makes you wrong. When the Church uses Jesus’ teaching to lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, pillage, etc., that doesn’t make Jesus wrong. It makes the Church wrong.


josebach wrote:See I didn't get this at all. He wasn't arguing against the existance of God, he was arguing against the Bible being infallible. Just because you don't know what the answer is, doesn't mean that you can't identify a wrong one. He never proclaims to know what the truth is, he only proclaims to know what the truth isn't... and he does so by using reason. Answer me this. Why do you not believe Judaism to be true? Or Islam? Or Buddhism? Why do you only pick one religion to believe in? Because that's what you were raised to believe. If you were born in Irag, there's almost no doubt you would be Muslim right now. All he's doing is using the same reasoning that you use when determining the fallibility of other religions and applying it to Christianity.

I completely agree that it’s likely that if I was born in the Middle East that I would likely be Muslim. I have, however, studied the Koran. I have read up on Buddhism and other religions, including Atheism and Agnosticism. My research leads me to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and lived and died to compensate for my shortcomings. It’s not simply because I was raised in the Christian faith. To imply that that’s the only reason I believe what I believe is inherently flawed. It seems to imply that you have to make a journey away from where you start to truly find the end. I don’t think so – some people are already there and simply must recognize that they are to gain “enlightenment” for lack of a better word.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that ALL possibilities of life, the universe and everything have been “discovered” by man. Right now on our planet there are people who believe every possible belief system that can be. If this is true, some people RIGHT NOW believe in what is real. Some of those people were born into that belief system. Does that make them wrong?

There are another group of people, though – a group that I am guessing you belong to. That group has been bashed over the head with religion by leaders who want to lead for leading’s sake. They want the authority and the perceived power that comes with that leadership, and they use religious teachings as a tool to gain and maintain that authority. Unfortunately this happens quite often. It is wrong, it is against the very nature of what they teach, and it is horribly destructive. However, the fact that they abuse their role does not make the message that they purport to teach wrong.


josebach wrote:See, I very much agree with you when his comments are applied to you, but he was speaking generally and from my vast experience in Christian circles, being closed-minded and uninformed are two characteristics shared by a very large majority of Christians. This is not meant to offend at all. I'm sure even you agree that you are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable that most Christians in matters of this nature.

The reality is that most people never bother to look into what they believe or why they believe it, and that includes Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, etc. They live their life looking no further than their own shoelaces and either don’t have the wit or the wisdom to wonder “Why?” They listen to what the government or their minister or the anchorman or the blogger tells them and they don’t ask questions. They have “faith” in whatever they listen to. I think that’s a tragedy no matter what they believe.

I think that as a responsible adult it is important to take a sincere look at your childhood and what happened therein to shape your beliefs. If you do that and you’re able to do it impartially you may discover that what you’re really fighting against isn’t the message but the messenger.

josebach wrote:I believe mankind has gotten to the point where "you have to have faith" is no longer an adequate answer to life's toughest questions. What if scientists accepted this answer? Where would we be now?

The reality is that those who adhere to the religion of science do accept this answer. Science tells us that if something is theorized and there is enough circumstantial evidence, then it is true. But it is not always true. Look at Einstein’s Theory of Relativity – we’ve been indoctrinated with E=MC2 for the better part of a century now – the sad thing is, much of it is turning out to not be true. Energy does not always equal Mass times the Speed of Light squared. String Theory is showing us that. But for decades scientists had faith that what Einstein said was true.

That leads us to where we are now – in a society that preaches the dismantling of “faith” but which is actually preaching another kind of faith. The arrogance of religion in claiming to know the correct answer is now being replaced by the arrogance of Secular Humanism which now claims to know the correct answer. Unfortunately, being formed by Humans with all of their flaws, Secular Humanism is not the answer to any question we should be asking.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby josebach » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:51 pm

Let me just say that it's too bad more people of faith aren't as rational and grounded as you are. Where we disagree with each other, it can't be said that we don't respect each other. ;-D


OK, Redskin... no more talkie talkie.

Knibb High Football Rules!!!
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby onnestabe » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:58 pm

josebach wrote:Knibb High Football Rules!!!


OK, josebach wins this debate after a valiant effort by knapplc ;-7 :-b :-D

Good read, guys ;-D
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

Postby knapplc » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:14 pm

josebach wrote:Let me just say that it's too bad more people of faith aren't as rational and grounded as you are. Where we disagree with each other, it can't be said that we don't respect each other. ;-D


OK, Redskin... no more talkie talkie.

Knibb High Football Rules!!!


Will you still respect me if I don't know what Knibb High is? :-b
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby onnestabe » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:29 pm

knapplc wrote:
josebach wrote:Let me just say that it's too bad more people of faith aren't as rational and grounded as you are. Where we disagree with each other, it can't be said that we don't respect each other. ;-D


OK, Redskin... no more talkie talkie.

Knibb High Football Rules!!!


Will you still respect me if I don't know what Knibb High is? :-b


It is a reference to the end of the debate in Billy Madison...
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 20:29 hours
(and 34 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact