Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
One of the things I liked about Hitchens, along with his flair for rhetoric, was the fact he was very aware of what he was rejecting and was openly an anti-theist. very few atheists would claim to be an anti-theist in the way he did, because it does allow for the religious person (and I take great delight in doing it, particularly to those who won't wear their anti-theism colours unashamedly) to claim that a person really does have a hatred of God. The bit about him existing or not isn't really here or there in relation to that charge. As you hear from Hitchens himself, he despises even the concept of endless praise (which any God must be worthy of by definition).
As much as I don't like the comparison to North Korea (I will accept Hitchens' analogies were often very clever, though), Hitchens understood what a lot of Christians who don't read their Bibles don't understand, which is that the God of the Bible is a jealous God who shares his glory with nobody and wields absolute authority over his creation. He is completely sovereign and not a thing passes without his knowledge of it, and not only that, nothing comes to pass without him decreeing it to do so.
As much as I don't like the comparison to North Korea (I will accept Hitchens' analogies were often very clever, though), Hitchens understood what a lot of Christians who don't read their Bibles don't understand, which is that the God of the Bible is a jealous God who shares his glory with nobody and wields absolute authority over his creation. He is completely sovereign and not a thing passes without his knowledge of it, and not only that, nothing comes to pass without him decreeing it to do so.
Herman have you seen the Hitchens - Blair debate on religion. Do you agree with how Blair represents the virtues of Christianity ?
I'll watch it later today after church at some point (hopefully). I'll give you my thoughts on it then.
One of the big things I try to teach my children is to make evidenced based decisions. Don't fall for all of the pseudo science crap out there like homeopathy, balance bracelets and all of those nutty fads. Part of that is religion as well. Religion falls into the same set of made up science IMHO.
One of my big problems with religion is the premise that you have to accept things on "faith". It creates a atmosphere where there is no room for questioning the authenticity of religions and allows them to operate with impunity. The right wing religious uproar over something simple like the Cosmos tv show would be comical if it wasn't so scary and sad.
One of my big problems with religion is the premise that you have to accept things on "faith". It creates a atmosphere where there is no room for questioning the authenticity of religions and allows them to operate with impunity. The right wing religious uproar over something simple like the Cosmos tv show would be comical if it wasn't so scary and sad.
This.
Then you should love thy neighbor and stop being so self-righteous.
Trying not to offend some people on here, but every religious person I have met has been a brain-washed fruit cake that believes in ludicrous fairy tales.
And I for one appreciate your efforts not to Malcolm.
Don't worry. I wasn't including you or your lovely wife.
I like the cut of your jib.
Sorry, I don't have the time right now to watch that video.
North Korea to me is just another form of religious indoctrination and abuse.
The Free Mind and Conscious is a mind removed from the shackles of "believing" in the non-existant.
Don't worry. I wasn't including you or your lovely wife.
They're super nice people, but they're also... well. You know.
Giving you the truth is part of that. I'd rather people stamped their feet and hissed at me in rejection of the gospel than go away with the impression that I was lovely but really nutty on the quiet. Loving your neighbour doesn't refer to style; it refers to intention. I don't do the gently, gently stuff unless I am talking to somebody who's heartbroken over something. If you think drugs or a woman's body or any other vice you can think of is better than Christ then go. Do that. But don't cling to the delusion you can love all that stuff more than God and be a Christian. The Church is full of people who haven't been discipled and they play at faith with no understanding of who God is. This is why Christianity is tepid in this country and I am seen as a minority. The Biblical position has always been a minority but it doesn't stop me from calling the Church (always the Church first) to repentance and faith in Christ, which we recognise by inward transformation and the fruits thereof.
Do you not agree that it's a waste of somebody's time to play at faith with one foot in it and the other in the world? As Elijah says in 1 Kings 18:21
And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word.
A man cannot serve two masters, so serve one well. The choice is very simple, do you want Christ or do you want the world? Many nominal Christians have a problem with what I have to say because they want to serve two masters.
We need more people like you. If things went your way, religion's decay, at least in the developed world, would happen much quicker. It's the moderates who are ruining this shit.
Like you, I'd much prefer 1% of extremely devout religious and 99% of free minds, than 50% of so-so, "I don't go to the church but love God", etc.
Like you, I'd much prefer 1% of extremely devout religious and 99% of free minds, than 50% of so-so, "I don't go to the church but love God", etc.
Well, I agree with not keeping religion around just for the sake of it. I don't like the world's religion. In fact, I probably hate it more than you do. It would also be easier to see what real Christianity is if all the heretical and lukewarm churches did everybody a favour and disbanded.
I have to say, this made for boring listening. The sort of thing that should be listened to on an mp3 player (or whatever the latest cool gadget is) while you're doing menial jobs around the house or at work. I was waiting for the debate to begin and all I heard for the first hour was Hitchens expounding the virtues of humanism and Tony Blair sort of whimpering along that religious people could be good humanists too. There wasn't really a debate. Hitchens gave a monologue in his usual boisterous style and Blair had nothing to offer. Hitchens won by default because he didn't have an opponent.
Needless to say, I wouldn't go about it the same way as Blair (I'd be in attack mode and I'd probably win about as much favour from the audience as a fox in a hen house) and I can't even critique Blair's apologetic because he didn't offer one. I almost wanted to sit on Hitchens' side as I was listening and mock Blair's position in similar good-spirited style.
It was also done on the subtext of Hitchens having cancer, which I'm sure made Blair less prone to going on attack - not that he has that sort of thing in his Arsenal anyway.
A question to the believers, when you go to heaven, what age is everyone?
Are there any old people or kids in heaven? What if you were 5 years old when you die, are you 5 forever? Or are you some sort of non-physical, ageless being floating about?
I asked a (born again) christian friend of mine and gave me a very wooly answer about it being different for everyone (which didn't seem right to me).
Are there any old people or kids in heaven? What if you were 5 years old when you die, are you 5 forever? Or are you some sort of non-physical, ageless being floating about?
I asked a (born again) christian friend of mine and gave me a very wooly answer about it being different for everyone (which didn't seem right to me).
So I see you are back to criticising other churches and other christians Herman.
Anyway, I'm interested in what you said about the biblical positions always being a minority so firstly I wondered whether you see your church following the biblical position and what is that? Are you saying that your church is about the reformation of the church following the Biblical ideal?
I am aware of that.
I'd have viewed it as perhaps one last opportunity to confound an old rival and to give him the gospel. Which is why I find Blair's insipid approach so offensive.
In fairness, it was futile to debate Hitchens on anything, much less Religion.
Well, he was manfully beaten by William Lane Craig but Craig is very good at winning debates, while I don't necessarily share his approach.
Lane Craig never beat Hitchens at anything. He's probably one of the most shallow and myopic proponents of Religion I've seen. Sam Harris embarrassed him at Notre Dame in their debate on Religion.
I think it should be clear at this point, oates, that I am calling for Christians to maintain the first commitment they should have made upon receiving the forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is singular devotion to being transformed to the image of the Son of God. That entails a commitment to right doctrine because you won't be righteous without being right also, and a commitment to putting off the world and putting on Christ in all things. This was the nature of Paul's encouragement to the various congregations who were falling into numerous deceptions and were demonstrating immaturity in their faith by their reluctance to render all things loss for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ.
I think that has more to do with the worldview you share with Hitchens and Harris rather than the merit of their arguments. I listened to both debates and Craig demolished the central arguments of both men. I am not saying that out of some loyalty to Craig, but out of a dispassionate consideration of the arguments proposed.
So how does your church set about doing that Herman? In what way is it different?
Do you agree or disagree with my point, oates? I am not getting into another debate about newfrontiers with you, something I have negligible interest in. I am concerned with my own walk with Christ, and it's this walk with Christ I am calling other Christians to prioritise. With me or not?
There was absolutely nothing compelling about Craig's arguments, which basically centered on the Universe being so finely tuned that it must have been made by intelligent design. He farcically tried to use the likes of Penrose and String Theory to prop up his argument, but was never able to reconcile the question of whether the Universe was not made for a purpose at all. This is the poverty of the religious mindset - everything that has happened, did so out of a purpose - which of course opens up the possibility that the creation of the Universe itself had a purpose and a designer. Its always back to the underwhelmingly reductionist - "You can't explain everything, therefore God may exist".
Well I prefer to say it with less words Herman, Christ said we must be 'Christ-Like' and St Paul preached that we should strive to be 'Christ-ones' the root of 'Christian', which is what the Anglican Church preaches amongst others.
I'm disappointed that you can't bring yourself to demonstrate why your church is superior and different over all these other 'Lukewarm' Churches. No matter.
That would be an argument from design (I don't remember Craig's design argument and I don't particularly care to watch the debate again), whereas the correct formulation is an argument to design.
Is there any valid argument for or to design that you can think of in the absence of any evidence ?
So you agree with me, oates?
Then you also agree with me in lining everything up with God's instruction? And churches that don't should be corrected out of love?
Well I think you should label these churches, these christians by name and demonstrate how your church's teachings are different.
I'd prefer that you answered the question that your own statements provoke Herman.
I don't agree with you that there is an absence of evidence for design. I think you'll find the central claims of Darwinism attempt to explain what is referred to as the "illusion of design". There's a reason Darwinian evolution is central to intellectual atheism. The reason there is an "illusion of design" as Darwinists put it is because there are characteristics of complexity, pattern and functionality that we recognise in designed things.
You believe Darwinism has solved the argument concerning biological design. I say not without a mechanism it hasn't.
Well, just butting in - I would have been happy to be with you, but evidently me and 1.2 billion others are being duped by something you called the "harlot church" and aren't actually Christians. Who'd have thought it? Nevertheless, I'll stick with them and Pope Francis because something tells me your sect has missed the whole point, really.
There are all manner of congregations out there I view to be heretical, oates. We can start with the Roman Catholic Church, we can talk about the Unitarians, we can also mention many of the charismatic revivals of the past and sections of the charismatic Church today. It is also increasingly true that the Church of England is conceding ground to secular ideas of egalitarianism and hence we see women in positions they shouldn't be Biblically.
The question of when a church becomes heretical is interesting, but rather than focussing on where the line is, I prefer to focus on staying well away from heresy in the first place and to holding fast to Christ.
I don't believe any argument has been permanently solved. Its an iterative process that continues over time. We're learning more through scientific inquiry. The main point here is you can't start your logic of inquiry from the position that just because science can't explain everything, that God must exist.
Well, just butting in - I would have been happy to be with you, but evidently me and 1.2 billion others are being duped by something you called the "harlot church" and aren't actually Christians. Who'd have thought it? Nevertheless, I'll stick with them and Pope Francis because something tells me your sect has missed the whole point, really.
I posted this for you before, Penna, but you didn't get back to me.