1
   

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 10:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Is it your contention that anything that cannot be proved is delusional? Can you prove to me that you heard a meadowlark sing this morning or that you glimpsed a rare butterfly in your garden? Is the love, hate, fear, skepticism, etc. that you feel visible or provable? If you cannot prove to me there is no God, does it naturally follow that God exists? Or are all these things a certainty because you have experienced them?


You miss my point FoxFyre, I do not conclude that God doesn't exist, nor do I conclude that your personal experiences don't reflect something. I simply don't know. All I do know is that there is no empirical evidence which ties these "personal experiences" to reality.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 10:31 pm
husker wrote:
I don't need to play you for a fool.


Then why do it? When you make a statement like the one you did, you play every reader here for a fool. You cannot offer as evidence to a position, a supposition which is unproven. It's meaningless except as opinion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 10:55 pm
Ros wrote:
Quote:
You miss my point FoxFyre, I do not conclude that God doesn't exist, nor do I conclude that your personal experiences don't reflect something. I simply don't know. All I do know is that there is no empirical evidence which ties these "personal experiences" to reality.


My response probably appeared much more accusatory than what I intended. I do agree that in many cases, only the person having an experience can testify to it. And now I think we're both arguing the same side. Smile
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:04 pm
mesquite wrote:
If the healing works, God did it. If it fails, the persons faith was not strong enough.


it's by God's will that one is healed or not - where did you come up with the faith not strong enough?
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:05 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
husker wrote:
I don't need to play you for a fool.


Then why do it? When you make a statement like the one you did, you play every reader here for a fool. You cannot offer as evidence to a position, a supposition which is unproven. It's meaningless except as opinion.


for you meaningless - for the others not so and that's where I'll leave it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:10 pm
Like Sophia I'm reading bits and pieces of other comments here.

Do not quickly dismiss Husker's testimony of laying on of hands and the power of prayer. More and more doctors are becoming believers:
http://texnews.com/1998/religion/healing0418.html

And I cannot separate Christianity from the God of the Bible as I believe the Christ is the God of the Bible. I think God has not changed but humankind's perception of Him has and will continue to do so. I think if we were able to fully comprehend God, He wouldn't be much of a God.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:04 am
Was it a signature line or someone else's post? "Nobody is born with faith. Nobody pops out of the womb believing in god. It must be taught."


And the younger the teaching happens the more effective is the indoctrination.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 03:04 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Drug-induced, illness induced, sleep-deprivation induced, hunger/thirst induced hallucinations are indeed suspect as they are suspect to those who experience them once the cause of them has been removed.


All claims which cannot be validated are suspect. Someone who wants to have an experience will have an experience because they will interpret things that happen to them in light of their expectations. It's like the athelete who claims God won the game, or the accident victim who claims God saved their life. Funny, I could have sworn it was the TEAM and the DOCTORS. Exactly what did God do?

Quote:
But what evidence is there that personal experiences claimed by Christians have no basis in reality?


If someone claims to have an experience, then it rests solely on their shoulders to demonstrate the validity of that claim. Making a claim does not, in any way, shape or form, prove the claim is valid. How do you know it wasn't a hallucination? How do you know it wasn't wishful thinking? How do you know it wasn't a mental abberation? Why isn't a claim by an adherent to another religion that they "experienced their god" just as valid as that of the Christian? Or as invalid, as the case may be?
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 03:04 am
Wilso wrote:
Was it a signature line or someone else's post? "Nobody is born with faith. Nobody pops out of the womb believing in god. It must be taught."

And the younger the teaching happens the more effective is the indoctrination.


Well, I know I said it in a post, I don't know if it's in someone's sig.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 03:07 am
husker wrote:
Cephus wrote:
There are a whole lot of empty claims, there just isn't any evidence to support that these so-called experiences actually happen and plenty to show that they do not.


When I place my hands on someone for me to be used as an instrument for healing it's pretty hard to refute.


Then you must be trying for James Randi's million dollar reward for anyone who can demonstrate that supernatural abilities exist. Shouldn't be hard for you to prove, should it?

Let us know when you've got the check in hand, okay?

http://www.randi.org/research/
0 Replies
 
Thor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 07:01 am
Greetings,
After reading this entire thread, I hope you will indulge me in a few observations...

It seems to me that the term "Christian" needs some context:

Christian:
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

It must be pointed out that there are those who would call themselves "Christians", who are actually "Paulians" and who espouse a theology that bears little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus -- e.g. Salvation by "faith alone" vs "faith AND works", the concept of a Trinity (polytheism), etc.

"Paul rejected the authority of the Apostles (esp. James) that Jesus appointed, and the Apostles that Jesus appointed rejected Paul. Paul lacked authority to preach, and his own letters make it clear that he did not possess a letter of recommendation from the authorities that Jesus instituted. Jesus did not institute the Twelve Apostles as a means of personal amusement or to fill his idle time; he did so to protect the Church from idle, heretical, or blasphemous doctrines. He did so with the intention of creating an institution that would preserve correct teaching. Paul chose to go outside of this institution, without a letter of recommendation, and without benefiting himself from its teaching or instruction. Not only do Paul's writings lack consistency or reliability, they cannot be considered Christian."
http://www.qumran.com/Paul/apostlesrejectpaul.htm

I find it ironic that those who would point to the bible as the "word of god", oftentimes base their religious beliefs on the words of a man (Paul).

That being said, I would like to address the issue of America's founding fathers (while also responding to the original topic) thus:

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian."


(Speaking to the topic- Why is it so important to refute Christianity?):

"But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect."

~~ Thomas Jefferson


It would seem that Jefferson's fears are being realized. Crying or Very sad

====================================

"I am not [a Calvinist]. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. I am not a Jew, and therefore do not adopt their theology, which supposes the God of infinite justice to punish the sins of the fathers upon their children, unto the third and fourth generation; and the benevolent and sublime reformer of that religion (Jesus) has told us only that God is good and perfect, but has not defined him. I am, therefore, of his theology, believing that we have neither words nor ideas adequate to that definition. And if we could all, after this example, leave the subject as undefinable, we should all be of one sect, doers of good, and eschewers of evil. No doctrines of his lead to schism. It is the speculations of crazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral and sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to create differences. These religious animosities I impute to those who call themselves his ministers, and who engraft their casuiistries on the stock of his simple precepts. I am sometimes more angry with them than is authorized by the blessed charities which he preaches."

~~Thomas Jefferson

====================================

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."

~~Thomas Jefferson

====================================

See also Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, et.al.

Please forgive the excessive use of quotes... Embarrassed

Thanx.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 09:47 am
Thor wrote:
Greetings,
After reading this entire thread, I hope you will indulge me in a few observations...


Quite an intro, even for the God of Thunder. Welcome to the stage. Smile

(By the way, from Jefferson's quote: Aceldama... good word, I've never heard it before: A·cel·da·ma n. A place with dreadful associations)
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 11:43 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Like Sophia I'm reading bits and pieces of other comments here.

Do not quickly dismiss Husker's testimony of laying on of hands and the power of prayer. More and more doctors are becoming believers:
http://texnews.com/1998/religion/healing0418.html

That was an interesting article in that described the benefits of faith without limiting it to any particular faith. Christianity, judaism, Islam, and Buddhism were all mentioned. What I found most interesting though was what was omitted. Not one time in the article did the well known medical term PLACEBO show up. I suppose that if it had, that would have distracted from the drama that the author was striving for.

Another interesting article on this subject is How to make placebos work for you !

One point that I wish the faith article has stressed more strongly is the danger of not seeking medical care. The TV faith healers such as Peter Popoff besides being leaches on society never issue cautions.
0 Replies
 
Thor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 11:48 am
Thanx rosborne...

Yeah... I wasn't familiar with that one either. Wink
In the context of TJ's quote, perhaps even more relevant:

Aceldama
n.
The potter's field, said to have lain south of Jerusalem, purchased with the bribe which Judas took for betraying his Master, and therefore called the field of blood.

...pertaining to those that would betray/co-opt the religion of Jesus?

I also dug:
"engraft their casuiistries"

casuiistries
n.
1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 11:53 am
I would agree Mesquite that those who would exclusively substitute faith for medical science are inappropriately rolling the dice. Who is to say that God does not inspire people to be healers through modern medicine as well as through laying on of hands, etc. Nor do I deny that the human mind has profound influence where the human body is concerned; i.e. the mind can believe that a placebo has healing power and therefore the body is healed.

I also listen to the testimony of my own doctor who gives the power of prayer all the credit in cases he had given up as lost.

To assume that miracles can only happen in one way is short sighted I think.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:04 pm
to assume that miracles (An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God) happen is a typical example of hubris. I find that inexplicable in and of itself.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:13 pm
dys- It is so easy to ascribe something that one doesn't understand as an "act of God", or a miracle. Just think of the things that people might have thought of as "miraculous", just say, fifty years ago.

It is the stock in trade of the proponents of religion to have faith take the "credit" for anything that is at the time, beyond people's knowledge and/or scope of understanding.


Quote:
Nor do I deny that the human mind has profound influence where the human body is concerned; i.e. the mind can believe that a placebo has healing power and therefore the body is healed.


Foxfyre- Can you extend that idea to the concept that if someone believes in miracles, to that person the faith acts as a placebo?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:16 pm
But is it not hubris to dismiss all possibilities and all testimony because it does not support the belief that we hold?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:33 pm
Phoenix writes:
Quote:
Foxfyre- Can you extent that idea to the concept that if someone believes in miracles, to that person the faith acts as a placebo?


I am not sure exactly what the question is here.

I am working strictly from memory here, but I have read numerous accounts regarding effectiveness of placebos in certain cases. For instance, when it was dangerous to give a patient a pain killer, the patient was given a placebo and told it was a pain killer. And the patient's pain was relieved. Would this work in every case or for any source of pain? Probably not. But the power of suggestion has been scientifically demonstrated many times.

Does faith healing work in the same way as does a placebo? Intellectual honesty requires that I hold open that possibility, perhaps even probability. Do I believe that faith is a 'placebo effect' in every case? No I do not.

My doctor, for instance, recounted an instance in which he had already advised the parents to call the family as there was no hope that their infant son would survive the night. The parents, however, called in the prayer warriors of their church who laid hands on and prayed for the dying baby. The baby rallied, gained strength rapidly, and went home from the hospital in a few days. Would that have happened anyway? Who knows? The doctor didn't think so. It would be difficult to apply the 'placebo effect theory' in a case like this.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:45 pm
Foxfyre- Yup. You knew exactly what I meant! Very Happy

I am gratified that you are able to consider that what to many is "faith healing" is simply the body responding to the beliefs of the person. There is a lot of evidence that positive thinking can modify a person's immune response. I would certainly expect that if a person really believed that God was going to cure him, it would go a long way in enhancing that person's immune system.

As for the baby, I don't think that we have answers for that yet. Maybe the child was not as ill as the doctors believed. Or maybe there are powers that we have as humans that are not yet understood. I will keep an open mind about that, and just say, "I don't know", until someone can come up with a reasonable explanation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 6.36 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 08:39:39