How do hardcore Christian wackos decide which words deserve capitalizing? I've seen Him and Lord for a while but now Spirit too? Is there a handy guide for this sort of thing?
Last edited:
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I don't think you understand. I don't blame God for man's flaws. I don't hate God. How could I? I might as well hate Santa Clause.
That is such a pointless statement, though. All things are not equal. Humanity has not seen the same amount of war and violence throughout history. You can't just point at something like the Crusades or the inquisitions and say "oh well, they would have happened regardless, for one reason or another." It's a catch-all argument detached from history.
I am more Wesleyan practically but you'd also need a scalpel to separate me from most Calvinists on many theological issues. It's not exactly clear what a Calvinist is either because the 5 points of TULIP are not John Calvin's doing. I am certainly not a 5-point Calvinist. I accept some formulations of total depravity and I accept some formulations of unconditional election if it is clear Christ is principally the elect in whom our salvation, sanctification, etc is made secure. I don't accept any formulation of limited atonement on principle. It is a mistake to divide up the blood of Christ among those who are saved. If I was the only person on the planet who needed a saviour then Christ would have had to shed every bit of blood and die just the same. I don't outright dismiss irresistable grace but I don't believe love is forceful. I do believe God's quickening is more complex and more on an individual basis and I accept a mystery at the heart of the concept that God is sovereign and fully able to save and yet man is also responsible for his response. Essentially, I believe God is big enough to save in such a way that people do come most freely (as Calvinists believe too). I also do not believe in perseverance of the saints, I believe in the perseverance with us of the Lord.
Anything which refers to one of the persons of God. Technically Him, He etc is correct but I dispense with the capitalisation, or I use it inconsistently during protracted conversations on internet forums. Lord, Father, Son, Spirit/Holy Spirit, etc, should always be capitalised.
Speaking as an atheist… I don’t think we should judge people by their (lack of) religion. Believing in a God might not work for me, but it may work for somebody else. Live & let live I say.
What about the Second World War? Possibly the deadliest war in human history... was that because of religion? What about the slave trade, Falkland War or even what's happening in Ukraine and Russia?
Now, I'm not an ultra religious guy but I think people point and blame religion too quickly. Yes it has MANY problems but people also interpret things extremely and use religion for a reason to justify whatever agenda they have. I know a lot of religious people that actually follow in a peaceful manner and try to fully understand the transcripts rather than take a line out of context and use it as gospel.
I will not get into an online debate about religion or science because the subject really annoys me but I just wish people who are non-believers would do some research into religions and religious groups before belittling them. Otherwise all muslims might as well be terrorists, all black people might as well be thieves, all jews might as well be stingy and all white people might as well be racists.
They only allow the logic to apply one way. Anything bad that has the whiff of religion about it is another example of the monstrous evil of religion, but anything bad that has the whiff of non-religion and secular humanism about it is never an example of how wicked that is, because they rightly distinguish between what they believe in and what those committing the atrocities believe in. They never allow for religious people to make the same distinctions. As a Christian, I've been told I must take ownership of Hitler and the Nazis, it doesn't matter if I point them in the direction of Christ. They say, no that's a no true Scotsman fallacy but it never applies to them of course. Atheists don't kill in the name of atheism, is one particular defence, never mind all the ideals that go along with a worldview like that. You have to whisper about those behind your hand.
You totally missed the point. The point isn't to blame all wars on religion, it is to assess the facts and apportion blame as appropriate. You seem to want to wave your hand over it all and call it a wash. It's not like Nimic is defending fascism or militarism and their role in World War Two.
You might want to look into religion's role in the slave trade. Not exactly a point in your favor.
Finally, most non-believers who enter debates around here are quite knowledgable on religions and doing research into them has only strengthened their opposition to it.
That's demonstrably untrue. Most I've discussed the issue with on here don't show any understanding whatsoever of Christianity. If I said to somebody who studied chemistry every day that I knew more about chemistry than them because I'd read an introductory book, you'd assume me to be a right arrogant and deluded moron, but if you say the same to Christian scholars you're obviously correct.
Most of what constitutes "knowledge" to you is the superficial variety masquerading as something bullishly enlightened.
This is incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. Most of us were raised Christians. I was confirmed.
If that was possible then I think most people would be ok with that. However, all around the world, religion doesn't let other non religious and religious people live and let live.
Personally I think there's difference in claiming something works for you and claiming that you are so special that you will be awarded eternal life, simply because of the ancient fairy tale you chose to believe in. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't also think that everyone else (who doesn't share the delusion) deserves to be tortured forever in hell. They also believe that we're are the only life in over 100 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars and trillions of planets. That is the epitome of arrogance and that's my problem with it.
It's just demonstrably true that your claim about "most" being knowledgeable isn't correct. Very few are.
Nor do oppressive, atheistic states. It's man who is in the business of control and the unjust application of that power. Yes you can deal with the specifics of each situation, set of beliefs, etc, but nothing holds truer than my previous sentence.
Please let me clarify myself.
I believe that everybody should be free to choose what to believe, and that nobody should be forced in believing in or doing something they want to.
For example; if somebody wants to believe in the fact that they are superior than everybody else for whatever reason that’s fine by me. As long as it’s not at the expense of others.
I believe that everybody should be free to choose what to believe, and that nobody should be forced in believing in or doing something they want to.
For example; if somebody wants to believe in the fact that they are superior than everybody else for whatever reason that’s fine by me. As long as it’s not at the expense of others.
So you've backed off your introductory book claim I see. I suppose it is true that you are more experience prostrating yourself for an imaginary friend but people who reject a religion that their family and friends believe in do so for a reason and it's not because they read the Wikipedia page on Christianity.
There is only one side of this argument that teaches impressionable children that their teachings are infallible and that to disobey results in eternal damnation. It logically follows that atheists who reject religion are thus more knowledgable and have better reasons for their beliefs than the religious who mock atheism.
Expense can come in many forms. I certainly wouldn't want my kids believing that they'll burn in an eternal hell if they dare have their own thoughts on what they're being fed in school as education.
I haven't backed off from the claim at all. It's a very good analogy for what goes on in these sorts of debates. "I suppose it is true that you are more experience prostrating yourself for an imaginary friend..." Just can't control your fingers, can you?
That example of logic is precisely what I am referring to. Not only is the premise incorrect (it's not true that this is how children are taught in every Church up and down the country) and, secondly, even if it was true, you cannot know how many reasons such a person could then go on to find for their faith and in the process of study, come to know much more about the truth of what they've been taught or the untruth of it. Perhaps they've been taught an unscriptural version of christianity, in which case the logical outcome would not be rejection of scriptural Christianity, just the unscriptural version they'd been taught. And for many atheists, their atheism could be founded on something as simple as their opinion that they just don't think God exists because he's never spoken to them directly or performed a miracle that they can observe in their lives.
Not only is it a terrible argument for those reasons alone, it's made considerably worse when you consider many religious people are not brought up with their religion but are converts. By your logic, does that make a convert more enlightened than a non-convert?
I knew what you meant, generally is at the expense of others though unfortunately.
I was just about to answer your post upthread abot Wesleyan theology - an interesting post - but when you write stuff like that I just have to respond. 'Most I've discussed the issue with on here don't show any understanding whatsoever of Christianity' -- it's not only presumptuous and arrogant, it's blatantly false.
Since you're so keen on scripture, here's one for you --
Proverbs 16:5
Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord;
be assured, he will not go unpunished.
Arrogance here is in the context of pride. Tell me what's proud about my evaluation of the many who have proven their own level of understanding in their posts in this thread? Quoting scripture out of context is something Satan does.
Is Jesus proud because he called people fools and whitewashed tombs? You demonstrate your own lack of understanding, too.
He seems to be saying that you have to have studied it for years and know the bible inside out. Who has time for that? Why couldn't god make this whole thing a bit easier for folk?
Can you tell me more about heaven? It has no temptation...what does that mean exactly?
Can you tell me more about heaven? It has no temptation...what does that mean exactly?
Did you just compare a poster to Satan? Not on, Rumpy.
I haven't backed off from the claim at all. It's a very good analogy for what goes on in these sorts of debates. "I suppose it is true that you are more experience prostrating yourself for an imaginary friend..." Just can't control your fingers, can you?
That example of logic is precisely what I am referring to. Not only is the premise incorrect (it's not true that this is how children are taught in every Church up and down the country) and, secondly, even if it was true, you cannot know how many reasons such a person could then go on to find for their faith and in the process of study, come to know much more about the truth of what they've been taught or the untruth of it. Perhaps they've been taught an unscriptural version of christianity, in which case the logical outcome would not be rejection of scriptural Christianity, just the unscriptural version they'd been taught. And for many atheists, their atheism could be founded on something as simple as their opinion that they just don't think God exists because he's never spoken to them directly or performed a miracle that they can observe in their lives.
Not only is it a terrible argument for those reasons alone, it's made considerably worse you consider many religious people are not brought up with their religion but are converts. By your logic, does that make a convert more enlightened than a non-convert?
Actually yes, it does. A convert has made a conscious decision to adhere to a certain faith, that clearly has more meaning than someone who had a religion foisted on them from birth and never did any critical thinking on the subject.
Let's me clear on what the argument is here Dirty Schwein said that atheists should learn about religion before criticizing it. I responded by saying that most atheists on the caf who get involved in these debates have done research and have actually lived it.
At which point you interjected by comparing these cumulative experiences and research to an introductory textbook.
Which of us is it that cannot help themselves?
I can only sum my feelings on religion in this manner...
Belief in God holds no more validity in my mind than belief that the Force exists, and that people are capable of Jedi Mind tricks. Until some actual evidence is shown that their is some holy spirit or divine inhuman being that controls and belittles us with his presence, I will continue to believe logic and common sense.
Belief in God holds no more validity in my mind than belief that the Force exists, and that people are capable of Jedi Mind tricks. Until some actual evidence is shown that their is some holy spirit or divine inhuman being that controls and belittles us with his presence, I will continue to believe logic and common sense.
Satan? Satan was a manifestation of the church - a manifestation of man to keep bad little boys and girls in line. Fair enough if you believe in God and Santa and the easter bunny, but Satan is a proven fabrication. Also, you just called a person on Redcafe Satan. Thats pretty fecked.
He's just silly - his theological discourse is childish - but even so I'm nothing but proud.
Non fecking serviam.
The point I make concerning knowledge is that the proud claims usually come from particularly strident atheists when a cursory reading of their views demonstrates they haven't seriously considered the subject at all. To understand the Bible inside and out, you do indeed need to study for a long time, you also need God's Spirit to reveal the hidden gems of wisdom therein. But the gospel message itself is also so incredibly simple that a child can understand it.
Heaven as a place with no temptation simply means that there will be no desires of the flesh as we know them on earth. Moments of bad temper, unclean talk, covetousness (including sexual lusts), so on and so forth. A person's desires in heaven will be of love for Christ primarily and then the rest of the Church. A pure love undefiled by sin.
Spot on. There's a reason atheists becoming atheists. You're not told to be one, nor threatened from a young age to be one. You ask questions and try to find answers for yourself.
For eternity? Just loving god and Jesus...nothing else?
Where can I find God's Spirit to help me understand the bible? Is it on Amazon? Are the bulk discounts?
It's certainly you. You're so arrogant and stubborn that you can't see your argument is completely invalid (not the first invalid argument to be stubbornly adhered to by the so-called enlightened crowd here).
You're missing the point completely. The Second World War had nothing to do with religion, obviously. But it did have to do with a lot of complicated socio-economic and political issues, and not just "it would have happened for another reason anyway," which is a really lazy argument. Contrary to what you think, things have real life causes that can't just be substituted for one another.
As for your friends who try to "fully understand the transcripts", don't you think suicide bombers genuinely tried to fully understand the transcripts, and arrived at something different than your friends? Furthermore, I can guarantee you that your friends have wildly different takes on scripture than the original Christians from the first centuries CE. One would think the early Christians would have a better idea due to how much closer they were to Jesus in time.
Last edited:
And the Church, but an eternity with Christ in the presence of the Father, yes. It's not possible to understand what that means without knowing Christ first. So I can understand why you aren't immediately captivated by the idea.
What is my argument? I'm saying that most atheists who criticize religion on here have done research and/or lived it. Do you deny that I was raised catholic, baptized, confirmed, attended countless masses, etc etc?
Those aren't arguments, just a listing of facts.
What is unclean talk to a God? I'm sure it didn't even exist when the first humans walked the earth. It's a man made opinion, just like religion as a whole.
This argument:
"There is only one side of this argument that teaches impressionable children that their teachings are infallible and that to disobey results in eternal damnation. It logically follows that atheists who reject religion are thus more knowledgable and have better reasons for their beliefs than the religious who mock atheism."
Are you going to squirm around yet still and offer more context for why you made an invalid argument?
This sounds like an antebellum courtship. Getting to know someone in the presence of their father?
Unclean talk comes out of the intention of the heart.