Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[TD1]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all. We're not talking about a judicial system, remember.

(By the way: It's funny how the way you attack Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Protestant mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Catholic context.)

It's funny how the way you defend Christianity shows that you've been raised with a Catholic mindset. Your sort of argument does not make any sense in a Protestant context.

Plus, my family has always been rather lukewarm about religion. I have a feeling it's more tradition with them. Barring my sister, for whom I suspect it's mainly social. So my protestant upbring wasn't all encompassing, as it were, though I did believe for a while.

[Helgoland]

Heh, I'm mostly talking about cultural patterns anyway. 'Christianity' always means 'Christianity as one knows it', after all - I myself am weirded out every time I see a Protestant service, and have to keep myself from muttering about those damn heretics

But yeah, I guess you see what I mean: You vigorously go up against a certain type of Christianity, but use the word 'Christianity' to describe that type. That's what's weirding me out, basically.

I don't understand what you mean.  I try to listen to what someone says their position is, then argue against that (if I have an argument to make).  What's the alternative, to read into their position?  IE, make assumptions?

And citing the Bible in an argument doesn't require the other side to be a biblical literalist.  Most Christians believe that the bible is important, even if it isn't perfect (heck, that's why it keeps getting re-"translated" and "corrected").

Correct, but most of the time the 'listen to what someone says their position is' part of the process doesn't work all that well. We have precisely one biblical literalist around here, but go look for yourself what portion of the last twenty or so pages was devoted to arguments that pretty much boiled down to attacks on biblical literalism.

All well and dandy. I do the same. Given that all of that stems from the original source, that's what I go by. If someone has a differing belief, then I work with that. It tends to be, however, that Christians go with what is in the Bible because it's a source of authority, and respond best to arguments that come from it.

What original source? The bible was put together by the Church, so it can't be that original source you're referring to...

Is that the 24h, or another time?

Yeah, the 24h. And I guess you know why I don't think this thread is the place for going into details.

[Loud Whispers]

Lol maximum infidel blaze

[Sheb]

I dunno, it might be a good way to get the thread into another direction. Or we could hijack that atheist spiritual quest thread....

[Helgoland]

Hm, maybe you're right. Not right now though, I'm in the wrong mood... You could go ahead though - I'm guessing your experience was fairly similar to mine, if slightly more sober.

[TD1]

What original source? The bible was put together by the Church, so it can't be that original source you're referring to...

Fine, if you want to be obtuse, original sources. To be put together they had to exist pre Church, correct? No doubt there are some missing or some incorrectly added, but that doesn't matter to a believer, and so the non believer must work within those parameters in order to make a meaningful argument that will connect.

but go look for yourself what portion of the last twenty or so pages was devoted to arguments that pretty much boiled down to attacks on biblical literalism.

Or, more precisely, that boil down to attacks on the Biblical interpretation. Certainly, we could argue specifically for one specific branch of Christianity if you want. All you need do is bring up that view. Which ... for the most part ... you didn't do.

[origamiscienceguy]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.

Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.

Exactly. As long as you trust yourself to God, and accept his gift of eternal life, you get it.

[Calidovi]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

yes. Although you probably would feel terrible for the rest of your life.

Doesn't matter. Bit of regret? Meh. Eternal happiness with God in heaven? Yay.

Exactly. As long as you trust yourself to God, and accept his gift of eternal life, you get it.

I guess that leads to some questions about the strength of repentance and what is necessary. At least live sacrifice is quantifiable, to an extent.

[Graknorke]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all.

How do you know what you're meant to repent for? Do you just go for a blanket and apologise for everything about you and what you've done, or is there some way to single out what's important and what isn't?

[Calidovi]

Other way, sorry for confusion. 10 000 dead, you love Christ, you win the game.

Since becoming Christian involves repenting such acts, there's not really a problem here. It's just forgiveness, that's all.

How do you know what you're meant to repent for? Do you just go for a blanket and apologise for everything about you and what you've done, or is there some way to single out what's important and what isn't?

It's just internal specification.

"I ask that you forgive me for stabbing my uncle 15 times" seems like the way you'd do it.

[Helgoland]

It doesn't work like a computer program, guys. The logic is as follows: You start believing and accepting the various teachings and commandments --> you realize the error of your ways, because that's what belief does --> you repent
You know what to repent for on a sort of instinctual level, I guess. That's what faith is supposed to do - and I think the repenting is of a rather general nature, since you won't be able to remember all your sins anyway. It's about a change of heart, not about punishment for what you've done.

[origamiscienceguy]

Also, God has already forgiven you for every sin. You just have to trust that he has forgiven all of your sins.

[Orange Wizard]

Well, he's forgiven the elect. He hasn't forgiven the folks who don't/didn't/won't want it.

[origamiscienceguy]

Well, he's forgiven the elect. He hasn't forgiven the folks who don't/didn't/won't want it.

correct. I don't know why anybody who believes that wouldn't want it though.

[Orange Wizard]

I meant "don't want it" in context of not believing, but whatever.