IAP Political Forum

For those of you who are common Christians, meaning that you go to church on Sundays and everything like that, but religion isn't as important as kids, work, everyday life.

Now, if I believed in God and Hell and all that - I mean truly believed - I would imagine that every waking second of mine would be devoted to Him. I notice a lot of people who claim to believe in God, and would fight for it, break a lot of the "rules" and kind of put religion on the back burner. For an eternity in Heaven, I would assume one would do everything in their power to get in.

Any thoughts on that?

'Getting in' is simple Wigs.  All you gotta do is believe. 

I think you imagine incorrectly.

I think that drunk driving can be deadly, yet I've done it.  At one restaurant, I know I should stop eating lunch well before the plate is clean, yet I always finish everything.

If you've never let your attention wander or done something you thought might be a bad idea, you are extraordinary.


Here you assume that their behaviour flows from a quid pro quo of an unbroken stream of correct action for an eternity in heaven.  In my experience, that assumption is also wide of the mark.

It's an issue that every Christian struggles with, but Zuk is right, it's not possible to meet the ideal you note.

Paul said he can't do the things he wants but keeps doing the things he doesn't.  Peter said he would never deny Christ but then did so three times in the following days.

It's the whole point of the faith.  We can't be good enough to get into Heaven.

Steve Brown had a good sermon recently that talked about this issue, it's worth a listen if only because Steve has a cool voice - LINK (http://www.perimeterfamily.com/sound_resources/2007/092307/steve_brown_092307.asx)

Still, I wouldn't even take the chance. I'd be a virgin forever, and do nothing but pray and to go church. It just seems like it would be too risky. See what I'm saying? Like, if Jesus came back, everybody would stop what they're doing and at least try to be perfect. And isn't Him coming back the same as truly believing?

What's the point?  That's not what gets you to Heaven unless that's the only thing you are relying on... then you're screwed anyway.

What does get you into heaven, and what doesn't? I probably need to brush up on my reading, but it just seems to me if I truly believed in something like that, I would be a lot different than most theists.

This is why philosophy and absolutism can not be intertwined unless you wish to become caught in a vicious cycle. 

The absolutism in what was preached to me when I was a lad mostly confused the crap out of me because I practically sinned every day.  And you find this in your peers as well however they still seem to believe in it so dearly.

As I grew apart from religion and re-learned it in a unversity setting you start to realize that Christianity for the most part was really a philosophy.  Until disciples instituted dogma and guidelines it was forever changed into absolutism. 

To flip the arguement around, how could we be so sure that hell is as bad as they say it is?  Maybe Lucifer is the righteous one, who believes in man-kinds imperfections and will not judge you for being who you were originally intended to be?  How can anyone be so sure that Heaven is the path of bliss when the only thing you have to know it exists is faith?

So while hell is a fun party, heaven is this place of reoccuring religious absolutist opression.  Sounds pretty bad to me.

Or, by juxtaposing philsophical idioms, how do we know heaven and hell are not here on earth already?   

???

To answer your question: It would drive a normal person insane. Only the crazies may follow it in the finite. 

I think it was Master P that said, "why would I want to go to Heaven wearing white robes and listening to bad music, while I can go to Hell and smoke a blunt and get my **** ******?"

An interesting read is The Devil's Apocrypha. It's a book kind of read like the Bible, where Satan is the good guy trying to save the humans.

Why bother? Same story, different labels. 

I would rather read some of that demonic Harry Potter.  :laugh:

So, you believe - really believe in the God of the Bible - but you don't spend every waking moment trying to be Jesus like, studying His word or try to become what he claims you have to be to get into Heaven - since you say its hard.

Why is it hard?  Why is belief, or Faith, difficult?

Is it, perhaps, that your brain is screaming out for you to be rational, but your emotions and fear are pleading for you to play it safe and bet on Pascal?

Then, think about the idea that you can never be good enough to get into Heaven - but your religion gives you a pass to be bad: Jesus took all your sins upon himself.  So, you don't have to worry.  Just believe in a character in a mythological story and you will be forgiven....


OK, I see why Faith is difficult.  Damn impossible, I'd say... ;)

Maybe those theists are a lot better then they were.

You want to get to Heaven?  Accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.

You should listen to the link I provided.

Again, a view into Zuk's world of "all things are equally credible so we can't take a position"

This is common from the Credulous. Often Xians use the parent analogy for God : "Suffering exists because God lets us scrape a knee to learn how to stand"  Of course, this is utterly offensive to a woman who is brutally raped, or a child molested by a Preist, or 100,000s of people killed in a Tsunami.

So, here we see Zuk's version: "I know drunk driving is bad but I did it"

So, one, we see he simply has poor judgement, but two that he equates believing there is a god with drunk driving.

Zuk, you believe that walking in front of a speeding car would kill you, have you done it?  Have you thrown a child down some stairs, do you believe it would kill them?

Zuk is trying to equate a mild belief (drunk driving happens all the time, and actually exists) to the belief in a God.  If you truly believed you would die if you drove drunk (and statistics would not support your belief), you wouldn't do it.  Just like you wouldn't jump off a 12 story building.

So, obviously, religious people who sin simply don't believe that God really exists.  They are simply dellusional, in that they then turn around and try to convince others of the "reality" of a god.




edit: btw, for all of you who say "but I really believe god exists". Either you don't really and just hang onto it for comfort, or you don't believe the retribution taught in the Bible ( or other religious texts).

Ask yourself if you really believe in god as strongly as you believe you will die if you jump off a building.  If so, then you must have ample evidence which you can produce immediately.

(Pat, perhaps you will insert your "love" evidence here? (which, I believe we have shown to be unconvincing)

*sigh*

At the root of our very being, to our cores we are all but sinners and well at times to sin is fun, it does something to us when we do something bad.  There is that voice in our heads that tells us to stop but just like any child we rebel, and try things our way.

The beauty of stepping away from God and His word is that we have an even greater appreciation of Him and His word and we actually understand it all more.

Besides if there is one thing I have learned the most about following God's mandate to go and share His word with the Nations, it's that the more relatable we are to others, the greater our impact in the world is.  Because sharing God is not what we say it's actually what we do and how we react that does the most and speaks volumes.

If you did that you'd be a Mormon.  Those guys have an unpaid clergy and work at it all the time.  No money, no compensation, only constant work. 

There are people in other churches like that too, but not to the overall degree of unpaid people doing all kinds of work.  Wife comes from a big Mormon family, but we don't feel like kicking the tires on that one.

Try not to project your own doubts on others.  You are unaware of the life experiences of some here who have experienced those things you call "offensive".  Some have had such life experiences and still feel close to god.  So your charge is really just you speaking about yourself and expounding your own doubts and hoping (dare we say you have faith) that other people think as you do.

Fortunately they do not.  Generally such terrible things as tsunamis, and even on a personal level, rape, has often been overcome though strength in a higher being, while atheists usually crumble, because for them there is nothing for them to hold on to when emergency comes.

Why, I wonder are the Jews who survived the deathcamps overwhelming stronger in their religion and their belief in god?  Based on the logic you present, they should be "offended" in god, but aren't.  Are the survivors all religious fanatics that should have been killed?  Or is it a strength of character that might make you feel uncomfortable?

The reason I ask, is because tragedies tend to strengthen belief systems not destroy them, and atheists might repent of their call towards a deity when they are in a foxhole, but the memory resides in their weakened faith.  The vast majority who experience tragedy have a stronger faith because of it.  Are they also fanatics?

You can only hope and have faith.  The reality does not fit well with your proclamations, but then they haven't in the past either.

'nuff said, I am going back up to where the air is clean and pure for this "newbie".

I don't think I made myself very clear here. I'll see if I can't think of some better words.

Maybe we believe in the Grace taught in the Bible.


Not here...I only used that to demonstrate the "existence" of something we all know to be true that is not material.

So, this Grace, does it apply no matter what or do you need to make an effort?


Anyhow, my point is that if someone truly believed something, they would act accordingly.

I believe walls are solid - I don't try to walk through them.
I believe gravity will provide the force to kill me if I step out of a plane - I don;t step out of planes.

I have reasons - evidence - for believing those things.

I believe I won't be killed in a knife fight but I have less of a belief in that, still I avoid knife fights.

On and on, we all can make a list of thngs we believe, then believe less strongly, etc. and we can test them by how we act - not how we wish we would act.


If you believe in god but dont act that way, then you don't believe in god.

Also, the claim that a god belief makes people more moral is misguided.


What is odd, is all of this doesn't even address the likelihood that there is no god in the first place.  THat is, even if you belief god exists, as you believe grvity exists, you have no method of showing it to be true.

To the original question:
I talked with a couple who are Common Christians. They go to mass once a week, they go a little farther and help with the ceremonies when there are vacancies and go to a religious support group twice a month. I knew them nearly six months before I found out they went to church. They aren't hardliners, and take a very relaxed view on a lot of issues especially where choice is involved like gays and abortion. They try to do right in this life and count on mercy and understanding for the next one. When ever they think a big decision through they think on God, but mostly they do what they feel is right in their gut. When pressed the man said "give onto ceaser what is ceaser's" and the woman said that if God wanted her to be a wild eyed fanatic He'd tell her so. What I got out of the conversation was an optimism and trust in God. I figure an absolute devotion to God at the expense to the worldly is what separates saint out from the herd.

Do you have anything besides your opinion to support your assertion?

This line of reasoning leaves no room for physiologic and psychological instinct..."fight-or-flight", passion, rage, self-defense, self-preservation, etc...


Was this directed to me?

I gave examples. If you believe jumping off a building will kill you, you won't do (if you want to live) even if you want to jump around like spiderman.

If you believe god exists and that you will go to Hell forever if you sin, you wouldn't sin.

The example of breaking the law is not valid. Many people break the law and get away with it. It would be logical to believe that you could rob a bank and get away with it. It would be unwise and unlikely, but it has been done.

Has anyone who has not found favor from God ever made it into Heaven? Got past the guard dogs?


Actually, don't answer that.  I know no one knows the answer.


My point is that the proper position of a Theist would be to say "I don't know if a god exists, but I am going to pick the religion that appeals to me, interpret it as I wish and try to feel like I have picked the right one."

There is no test that we can use to test the validity of a religion. Mythology is funny that way, it thrives on contradictions and errors, especially ones that elevate Faith over Reason.

This is not the position Paul takes in his letter to the Roman Church. In it he makes a strong case for Christianity.  He shows first that evidence for a creator God is so clear that we are all without excuse to not see it.  Then demonstrates how Christian doctrine is spot on consistent with the character of humans and the way the world operates.  Next he shows how Christ has demonstrated that he is who he claimed to be, next he provides the corroborating evidence for Christ and the eyewitness testimony.  Paul was much closer to these events than you or I.  Surely he is a superior witness.  he swears that he was visited directly by Christ on multiple occasions and his life story seems to bear that out.

Other than a just so story, what information do you poses that makes you better qualified to suggest the proper position for a Christian to take?  What do you know to show that Paul erred?

Both Paul and you are entitled to your opinions.

Btw, there is no such thing as a superior witness when that witness never witnessed Jesus.

So you've disqualified yourself.  That is wise.  But I am surprised.  You generally don't conceded anything.

Have you ever tried to argue with a religious believer? Yes, you have. Remember the Mormon guy? "Truth", I believe he called himself.

I notice you removed yourself from that discussion quickly, once you realized he wasn't going to budge on the truth of Mormonism.

I have no beef with you believing what you want to believe - you can worship Allah all you wish.

But I will also try to divide the argument into to camps:
1. The mythology, its development, the experience of meaning, and the "poetic" nature of the text as opposed to arguing over when one mythology is more true than another: e.g., there are REALLY angels in one, but there's no such thing as Valkyrie.
2. The actual claims made by religion that impact our observable, testable world. This includes calls for teaching the Flood was true, or bringing religion into politics.


So, yes, it is wise of me. You won't find me arguing the finer points of a religion with someone who has an agenda for me to accept all of it as true. I won't be arguing against Muslim Fundi's, or Mormon Fundi's or Xian Fundi's.  They are irrational.

For example, Paul never met Jesus, but you call him a witness. Modern Xians call themselves witnesses in that vein: that if you FEEL you have met Jesus, then you have "witnessed" him. They aren't the same meaning, even though you use the same word.

Plus, Paul was a well-read Jew and from the stories he had heard of Jesus he tried to find parts of the Torah that would justify Jesus being important. It was post hoc rationalization, plain and simple. And the problem between 2 Gal, 1 Gal and Cor. is insurmountable, but you have refused to address it.

So, I hope you can see that you are offering nothing but the standard Xian line that is simply a dogmatic attempt at whitewashing over what the text actually says.

Read Ehrman, he's Xian so you needed be afraid.  But at least be open to the possibility that in the past 2000 years, the church has not always been forthright in trying to make sure that RF gets his Bible as it was written, fresh from the writers hands.

Then ask yourself, why would the church need to create dogma if the text stood on its own?  Read your Bible, RF, its a fascinating insight into the human mind - especially religious extremists who are trying to establish an alternative to the other religions, and you can see them trying to craft it as the ages go by.

Actually I generally don't debate other theists because it is not my focus.  I have not and did not come to the conclusion that truth would not budge. 

As for debating with religious believers, you sir are as dogmatic to your worldview and as firm in your belief's as anyone I have spoken or written to. 


Case in point.  Your presupposition is that all religions are myths and are fictional.  This presupposition which itself follows from your primary one that materialism accounts for everything drives your approach in this debate.  It is a bias you hold and shows.


Indeed because it is in the finer points that you would be forced to consider the evidence for Christianity and confronted with the reality that your presuppositions enjoy no support from physical evidence.  They are just so stories hatched from critical analysis of the scriptural text itself based entirely on your prejudice. 


Paul claims he personally met Jesus on several occasions. I say that he claims to be a witness and it is a correct statement.   You on the other hand put false words into my mouth to discredit me.


It needs no explanation.  Only your form critics who wish to alter context to support their presupposition find an issue with it.  You have to do better.  You have to demonstrate that your convoluted interpretation is the meaning that Paul intended.  Scripture must be read according to the writer's intent.  The writer is not responsible for guessing what meaning a critic like you will take from his words 2000 years after the fact.


Modern bibles are completely consistent with the oldest manuscripts available.  I do not need to worry about the failed attempts of post early Christian scribes whether their intent was good or evil to alter the words.


Asked and answered, they don't and I don't belong to such a Church.  I do read the Bible and I know enough about it to know that it is the same as the earliest available.

Why did you stop debating Truth? He was quite adamant about the truth of his religion. You could have learned the finer points and become Mormon, thus saving your soul, and your families, from eternal damnation.

I reluctantly answered a few of your questions and a couple of his but never even began to debate the other gentleman.  Your attempt to promote yet another one of your prejudicial stereotypes about religious followers seems to be failing. 

I am not here to convert people or prescribe for others what they should believe.  My purpose is to counter inaccuracies people like you level against Christianity, to provide correct information, to show that there is a rational basis to investigate, trust and believe Christianity, and ultimately to pursue the truth wherever it leads.  As a new member indicated elsewhere, the choice to accept Christianity ultimately requires a large degree of faith because the evidence is historical and not empirically testable in realtime.  According to doctrine, this is intentional so it misses the point to complain about this reality.

So I will continue to elaborate on my viewpoints, I will correct errors and I will keep an open mind in pursuit of truth. 

But you don't know the errors or the reality. you only know some apologetics. I find that you are not a Biblical scholar at all, but a part-time apologist for your religion - one that you have chosen for yourself after you found Catholicism in error.

You don't have the original text and it is HISTORICALLY PROVEN that errors have been introduced.  All you can say is that the current Bible has been editted, in some churches, to reflect the oldest known manuscripts.  Some bibles have NOT changed their text.



However, you gloss over this and say that it was "meant to be this way". Circular reasoning: "the Bible is true, and since its true it all makes sense, since it all makes sense we can trust it, and it says its true...."

I don't recall making those claims.  Why must you make up words for your opponents that we don't say?

You stated that the Bible was meant to be written as it was to avoid later criticisms. Shall I find the quote?

That's a far cry from your false circular reasoning claim.  Thank you for the correction.