Spiritual but not religious?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ So I can opt for Pascals Wager then? "I believe in Jesus" Alright, I'll get into heaven, just in case it exists. Now back to the sinful life.

Genuine belief in Christ leads to repentance.  That's pretty clear (and please note that I said 98%, not 100%).

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ The verse is based on the premise that Jesus was the son of God. Where's the proof for that? Don't get me wrong, of course I get the point about the verse and the emotions it can trigger. But if you look at it closely: Suppose Jesus was the son of God. He dies, returns from heaven, then dies again and returns to heaven. What's the deal?

You are seeking proof.  I never offered you proof.  You asked for the foundation of Christianity, and I gave it.

(As an aside, "Son of God" is a phrase loaded with modern Western thought too, as opposed to ancient near eastern thought.  I've debated and discussed with plenty of people- pastors, theologians, Bible students and professors- about what it means specifically, and we all have somewhat different ideas about it- for example, like Mr. Neal Morse, to whom I am listening right now, I am not a Trinitarian, which is a very orthodox belief to evangelical Christianity.  We agree that- and I think this is most important- Jesus Christ is the one for whom the world exists.  The universe is his inheritance, as it were.)

^ So I can opt for Pascals Wager then?

"I believe in Jesus"

Alright, I'll get into heaven, just in case it exists. Now back to the sinful life.

^^ The verse is based on the premise that Jesus was the son of God. Where's the proof for that? Don't get me wrong, of course I get the point about the verse and the emotions it can trigger. But if you look at it closely: Suppose Jesus was the son of God. He dies, returns from heaven, then dies again and returns to heaven. What's the deal?

I know you won't be interested in watching this, but I can't resist, since it is so spot on subject:



BTW: I'm not too much into the human sacrifice thing either. I guess it was simply much more common in the bronze age.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 16:13

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I knew you wouldn't tell. Well, if you change your mind, I'll be here to continue the discussion. Only I don't see what's smug about my attitude here. You say that what I've been refuting is peripheral, yet refuse to let me in on the big secret, and I'm not supposed to get a little bit sarcastic?

It's not a secret.  Millions of people know it and believe it.

John 3:16-21

^ I knew you wouldn't tell. Well, if you change your mind, I'll be here to continue the discussion. Only I don't see what's smug about my attitude here. You say that what I've been refuting is peripheral, yet refuse to let me in on the big secret, and I'm not supposed to get a little bit sarcastic?

^

perhaps a little simplistic of an argument but modest mouse puts it best

Epignosis wrote: It's hard to debate with you, because you seldom honestly represent your opponent.  You have so many (smug) assumptions that you cannot (or refuse to) see past them.

A few posts ago you said that I call God a delusion. Now do you go around pointing fingers at you? Come on, this is a forum. English isn't even my first language. This discussion is about the Atheistic position versus the Christian position. We can go on arguing about how to translate verses, whether alma means young girl or virgin, whether Jesus walked on water or whether that is important to you, or whether it's important to other Christians. At the end of the day you'll simply be hurling scripture at me, and I'll show you contradictions in scripture at fundamental levels. I think we should simply end the discussion - you can keep praying and studying, while I continue to read scientific books.

Epignosis wrote: The great flood is not the pillar of Christianity.  Your definition of miracles is not the pillar of  Christianity.  A list of rules is not the pillar of Christianity.  If I met a man with no biblical knowledge whatsoever, and did not teach him of the flood, or of walking on the sea, or all the things you think are of such prime importance, that man could still become a Christian.  You do not grasp this because your biases make you blind to the centerpiece of it all.  You clamor against peripheries (and peripheries of peripheries!), and consistently misrepresent what I say. I've got to get back to work now, so I cannot post anything at length for a while.

Thanks anyway for not telling me what the pillar is.

So tell me what's not peripheral about Christianity, and I'll gladly try to target that specifically.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 15:31

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ if you accept this particular definition from a psychiatric encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion To me, as someone who hasn't been indoctrinated to believe in a God as a child, religion indeed looks like a severe delusion. Fortunately most Christians don't believe in the afterlife as firmly as the Muslims do (well, the Christian heaven lacks the sex and food elements), but nevertheless their belief affects their daily lives in many ways - and often not for the best. I'll happily say it again: Give me spirituality any time, but spare me the dogma and claims of omniscience ("we know what happens when we die"). In the words of King Crimson: "Nobody knows What happens when you die Nobody knows What happens when you die Believe what you want It doesn't mean you're right" As an atheist I don't claim to know. As a theist you do. Now which one is the arrogant position?