|
You are certain of this because of the agreement of the results of the experiment with the theoretical framework of the hypothesis in question? Perhaps you have a credible eye witness account of salvation?
Probably moreso than the "agreement of the results of the experiment with the theoretical framework of the hypothosis" that there isn't a heaven.
And I don't think that you are looking for a "credible witness". I think that you want to be that "credible witness". Because what kind of "credible witness" would you believe?
There is a lot of anger in your posts. Is there a reason for it?
|
|
I have it on good authority that god wants your girlfriend to wear an Abaya. He also does not like that you have eaten leavened bread on the Sabbath. You have angered Papa Guede because you did not spit whisky on his effigy. You allowed your mother to cast her shadow on you during her time of shame. Why did you not put unto the sword they who turn their face from your lord. Your lack of faith in the divine sancion of the prophet and his Quran is enough to bar you from paradise.
While clever and slightly entertaining, I think that your point was a little lost on me. Are you saying that it is pretty much impossible for anyone to do everything that God wants us to? Just out of curiosity, what do you think happens if we don't do everything you think he wants us to do? Maybe you are saying that since it is an impossibility that we should just give up and not try to improve ourselves.
And so far, as near as I can tell, you haven't asked any questions and you haven't provided any real answers as to why you believe the way you do. All that it appears that you have tried to do is show how silly others are for believing in any form of religion. In addition, it also appears that you are exhibiting similar hatred toward the very people that you accuse of the same behavior.
So, what are you hoping to gain here?
You are certain of this because of the agreement of the results of the experiment with the theoretical framework of the hypothesis in question?
You can't experiment on the supernatural. That doesn't make it useless; it just puts it outside the scope of science, which is by definition the study of NATURAL phenomena. This cuts both ways: you can't disprove a scientific hypothesis by invoking the supernatural. There are two SEPARATE, non-overlapping areas of applicability here.
I cannot efficiently remove screws using a rake. I cannot efficiently rake leaves using a screwdriver.
One cannot disprove God using science. One cannot realistically refute evolution using religion.
|
One cannot disprove God using science. One cannot realistically refute evolution using religion.
Yet one could refute evolution using science, but could not refute God using religion. Only science gladly allows itself to be wrong, and that's admirable. But religion does (with great gnashing of teeth) refute its tenants when science leaves it little choice. God didn't used to be invisible, unknowable and ever-distant: he just became that way when categorical observation gave him nowhere else to hide. He climbed into our hearts when the heavens were pierced, so to speak.
Religion has provided science with a long checklist of things to refute. Just because God's way down on the list, it doesn't mean he isn't there. Don't be certain he's unknowable and irrefutable. He's just not right now.
---
I hate using the word ‘science’ like a doctor in a 1950’s sci-fi movie might. “Through the power of..science!”
|
|
God didn't used to be invisible, unknowable and ever-distant: he just became that way when categorical observation gave him nowhere else to hide.
I thought that this was an interesting thing to say. So when exactly did God become invisible, unknowable and ever-distant? What do you mean by "unknowable"?
Only science gladly allows itself to be wrong, and that's admirable. But religion does (with great gnashing of teeth) refute its tenants when science leaves it little choice. God didn't used to be invisible, unknowable and ever-distant: he just became that way when categorical observation gave him nowhere else to hide. He climbed into our hearts when the heavens were pierced, so to speak.
In this case, I think science has merely refuted peripheral religious descriptions that had all along been intruding into its bailiwick. For example, the structure of the solar system is subject to observation and testing; it falls under the broad category of "natural science" (for lack of a better word), and so religion was, from the very start, an inappropriate tool for use in describing it.
An "unknowable and ever-distant God" is by definition outside of nature--supernatural, in other words. If people choose to believe in him, then no amount of observation or experimentation will ever stop them--they'll just keep pushing him further and further into the realm of the unknowable. You and I might feel that at some point it becomes silly to keep pushing him away, and would prefer to just let the poor guy go... but for people whose entire world-view requires an all-powerful father-figure in the sky, then no amount of pushing would ever be too much for them.
I thought that this was an interesting thing to say. So when exactly did God become invisible, unknowable and ever-distant? What do you mean by "unknowable"?
I took it to mean that he's "from Missouri," as the saying goes.
"Show me God. Not stuff that you claim is His handiwork--Him."And you can't do that.
"OK, show me Heaven, then."
Can't do that either.
Back in the day, people could claim that Hell was a physical location beneath the surface of the Earth; now we've seen that the Earth is a spheroid of finite size, and we've drilled into it and shown that Hell isn't there. So "Hell" must be a magic place, not a physical place. And we can't objectively study nor refute the existence of a world of make-believe, so it's safe from science in my opinion.
|
|
God didn't used to be invisible, unknowable and ever-distant: he just became that way when categorical observation gave him nowhere else to hide.I thought that this was an interesting thing to say. So when exactly did God become invisible, unknowable and ever-distant? What do you mean by "unknowable"?
I meant that as people began to perceive the works of God in a larger context, from village, to state, to country, to continent, and globally, it became harder to understand the shape of his will.
God has always been characterized as mysterious in, but how does the religious person (who believes that God still exercises power and justice in the modern world) sort the paths of his pleasure and displeasure? Who on earth is God currently punishing or favoring? What is his will and what is misfortune? In the past, he used tell us and then show us -- sometimes spectacularly. I call that knowable. Why isn't he like that now? Or is that the mystery: why he used to be fine with proof, but now not so much?
As for invisible and ever-distant, I was referring to lack of the modern religious community's recognition of modern prophets or miracles (especially in the U.S.) Why doesn't the church support and exalt declarations, visitations and investitures like they used to? I think it’s because the light of modern scrutiny is too harsh and its far easier to keep God in a place where he cannot be examined, like the heart.
And yes, more or less what Kirth said too :)
|
|
I have a lot of thoughts running around in my head based on this. I'll try and make it a little coherent.
Maybe God shows us as much as we need. If the Old Testament account is to be believed at all, it appeared like the Hebrews needed more grand-scale miracles like during the Exodus. Because the parting of the Red Sea, the water coming out of rock, the giant pillar of fire every night and the giant pillar of smoke every day didn't seem to be enough for the people to believe that God existed. But as time went on, the miracles seemed to be -- well, smaller. Even consider Jesus. He certainly didn't call fire from Heaven to destroy the evil Roman empire. He changed water into wine -- his mom and maybe ten other people knew about that one. He healed people -- ok a lot of people seemed to know about this, but it probably wasn't that spectacular except for the person(s) getting healed. He fed 5,000 people -- by just continuing to break pieces off of a few pieces of bread. He continually did things that only a handful of people got to see at a time and very little (aside from his death/resurrection) was terribly "spectacular".
Another thought has to do with culture at the time. When I read about the happenings in the Old Testament, it would say things like "all Israel did..." and things like "if you can find me even one person..." and so on. Again, if the Bible is to be believed at all, it really seems like we are really becoming more as individuals. Maybe miracles are now much more for an individual experience. I have found (because of asking people questions through this post) that many really intelligent Christians each have their own "miracle" that has shown them that God exists and is at work in the world. Also, pretty much all of them don't advertise it -- possibly because people might think that they were insane and that no one would believe them (and because of the nature of miracles, there is no 'proof').
And there are churches that support healings, laying on of hands, prophecy and so on. I don't advocate much of that mostly because it is really difficult to differentiate between Jim Baker and true prophets of God. I also don't know what else there is really to prophesy -- the New Testament says to always be ready because he may come at any moment and that no one will know the day or hour.
Sorry about the rambling. Mostly just hypothosis.
I hate using the word ‘science’ like a doctor in a 1950’s sci-fi movie might. “Through the power of..science!”
"And now it's time to ASK DOCTOR SCIENCE! Remember, he's NOT A REAL DOCTOR! He has a MASTER'S DEGREE... in SCIENCE!"
I love fake talk radio programs.
Nothing wrong with a bit of rambling; this is a philosophical thread, after all! But that brings back a question I had earlier--why does He only give SOME people "miracles" that "prove" His existence? For every Christian who says "I believe in God because He gave me a sign when I doubted Him/was looking for Him/was at the time of my greatest need/whenever," there's an atheist saying "I don't believe in God because I refuse to believe He'd only give signs to some people, and yet neglect to give me one under the exact same circumstance."
Then the Christian says, "Well, you weren't sincere enough, or possibly He gave you one and you refused to acknowledge it."
And the atheist says, "I was quite sincere, but nothing remotely like a sign came that I could tell. And now, looking back, it occurs to me that a sign that could be so easily missed wouldn't be much of a sign at all. I think you latched onto a natural coincidence and declared it a miracle because you WANTED a sign. I don't think God gave you a sign at all."
And the two of them sit down together and ask God for a sign together. The Christian says, "I hear birds singing outside. That's our sign." The atheist says, "No; it just sounds like birds singing."
The Christian says, "You'll never understand! You need faith to see His sign!"
The atheist replies, "You'll never understand! There IS no sign from God!"
They can go back and forth forever.
|
|
Nothing wrong with a bit of rambling; this is a philosophical thread, after all! But that brings back a question I had earlier--why does He only give SOME people "miracles" that "prove" His existence?
Actually, God didn't give me a sign when I was doubting/needing/greatest need/etc. And the people that I talked to in the same boat pretty much had the same experience. Also, in every circumstance, the miracle was for an entirely different purpose all together. The miracle wasn't to simply give Christians a 'sign'. That was much more of a side-effect.
Also, the people that I know would never put themselves in that position you described. Actually, they probably wouldn't mention it to an atheist at all. There wouldn't be much reason for it. And every one of them would not say that they believe because of the miracle -- the miracle just confirms what they already believe.
If my memory serves me right, Biblically speaking, there was only one miracle that God performed 'on demand' and the person in question was punished for it. God will perform miracles on his time and sitting down waiting for him to perform a sign is a definite waste of time.
I'm not sure that any of us should be "looking for a sign". I wasn't looking when I got mine.
I feel like somehow we need to be ready to receive the 'sign' assuming that one is to come. I'm not exactly sure what "ready" means.
Muslims are rather difficult to convert to Christianity (and vice versa I would imagine). From missionaries that I talk with, pretty much every convert from Islam has some form of a very real encounter with Jesus. Vision, dream, or something else usually along those lines. These converts can't really advertise their conversion or they would probably be killed. Apparently they were "ready" without being Christian.
Most of the time, when someone tells me that they want to see a sign from God, they don't really. What they want is to "prove" that there isn't a God if no "sign" actually does happen. That is actually much different than wanting a sign from God.
If you actually were to receive a visit from God, would you be "ready"? Or do you not want to believe so strongly that even if you saw God you would find some way to say that it wasn't? (This is rhetorical and I'm not really looking for an answer.)
Of course I can always pull out the "God works in mysterious ways" card. :-)
If you actually were to receive a visit from God, would you be "ready"? Or do you not want to believe so strongly that even if you saw God you would find some way to say that it wasn't?
That's exactly what I was saying in the latter part of the post; you're just a lot more succinct. The Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) claims the atheist wanted to disbelieve too strongly, and it blinded him to the reality. The atheist replies that the Christian wanted to believe too strongly, and it lead him to have fantasies.
With regards to asking for signs, I stopped when I was maybe 13 years old. I still look, though, to this day. And I still haven't seen any.
With regards to Jesus coming down out of the sky to convert a Muslim, I doubt it would help. If I understand it correctly, Muslims accept Jesus Christ as a prophet, and accept the Old and New Testaments as true accounts. But much as Christians claim the New Testament supercedes the Old in many respects, so the Muslims believe that the Quoran supercedes the New Testament, I think (I'm not any kind of Islamic scholar, so I might be off. But if I understand it correctly, it's like "Judaism 3.0," with Christianity being version 2.0).
Nothing wrong with a bit of rambling; this is a philosophical thread, after all! But that brings back a question I had earlier--why does He only give SOME people "miracles" that "prove" His existence? For every Christian who says "I believe in God because He gave me a sign when I doubted Him/was looking for Him/was at the time of my greatest need/whenever," there's an atheist saying "I don't believe in God because I refuse to believe He'd only give signs to some people, and yet neglect to give me one under the exact same circumstance."
Then the Christian says, "Well, you weren't sincere enough, or possibly He gave you one and you refused to acknowledge it."
And the atheist says, "I was quite sincere, but nothing remotely like a sign came that I could tell. And now, looking back, it occurs to me that a sign that could be so easily missed wouldn't be much of a sign at all. I think you latched onto a natural coincidence and declared it a miracle because you WANTED a sign. I don't think God gave you a sign at all."And the two of them sit down together and ask God for a sign together. The Christian says, "I hear birds singing outside. That's our sign." The atheist says, "No; it just sounds like birds singing."
The Christian says, "You'll never understand! You need faith to see His sign!"
The atheist replies, "You'll never understand! There IS no sign from God!"They can go back and forth forever.
I'm with Moff on this one too. God didn't give me a sign. For me, it was more a case of being taught from a young age that Jesus died on the cross for sins, and coming to a stage (when I was about 20 i think), where I decided that I needed to decide for myself whether I thought it was true or not. I obviously decided it was true.
I have never had an overwhelming experience of God, never had a sign from God. I am actually the most rational person I know, (by far, to the point that my thought drive my feelings / emotions, makes it terribly hard to understand my wife). My only "experience" of God is really my conviction that His word (ie the Bible) is true and right.
With regards to Jesus coming down out of the sky to convert a Muslim, I doubt it would help. If I understand it correctly, Muslims accept Jesus Christ as a prophet, and accept the Old and New Testaments as true accounts. But much as Christians claim the New Testament supercedes the Old in many respects, so the Muslims believe that the Quoran supercedes the New Testament, I think (I'm not any kind of Islamic scholar, so I might be off. But if I understand it correctly, it's like "Judaism 3.0," with Christianity being version 2.0).
Your close on Islam and the OT and NT Kirth. They do believe Jesus was a prophet (but not as great as Mohammed). And they say beleive in the Old Testament and New Testament.
But their are obvious contradictions between the Quaran and the NT. The NT says Jesus was God, the Quaran says he wasn't. Islam teaches that the NT we have today was therefore corrupted (by the early church), and so they don't give it much weight at all.
Back in the day, people could claim that Hell was a physical location beneath the surface of the Earth; now we've seen that the Earth is a spheroid of finite size, and we've drilled into it and shown that Hell isn't there. So "Hell" must be a magic place, not a physical place. And we can't objectively study nor refute the existence of a world of make-believe, so it's safe from science in my opinion.
See, I don't see this as science refuting religion. It is more that Science is helping us to better understand religion. The two go hand in hand, they aren't opposites.
I have always been surprised by Christianity's fear of Science. If Christianity is really true (as I obviously believe it is), then what have we to fear from science uncovering more truth? All Science can do is help us to better know our God, or at least the work of His hands.
|
|
That's exactly what I was saying in the latter part of the post; you're just a lot more succinct. The Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) claims the atheist wanted to disbelieve too strongly, and it blinded him to the reality. The atheist replies that the Christian wanted to believe too strongly, and it lead him to have fantasies.
With regards to asking for signs, I stopped when I was maybe 13 years old. I still look, though, to this day. And I still haven't seen any.
Again, I don't think that people were looking for a 'sign' and the 'sign' was pretty much always secondary. There was always some other purpose behind it.
I just get the feeling that if you are just looking for a sign, you will most likely be disappointed.
With regards to Jesus coming down out of the sky to convert a Muslim, I doubt it would help. If I understand it correctly, Muslims accept Jesus Christ as a prophet, and accept the Old and New Testaments as true accounts. But much as Christians claim the New Testament supercedes the Old in many respects, so the Muslims believe that the Quoran supercedes the New Testament, I think (I'm not any kind of Islamic scholar, so I might be off. But if I understand it correctly, it's like "Judaism 3.0," with Christianity being version 2.0).
I don't think that you are too far off. And it shouldn't 'help'. All I know is what I have been told.
|
|
If Christianity is really true (as I obviously believe it is), then what have we to fear from science uncovering more truth? All Science can do is help us to better know our God, or at least the work of His hands.
While I mostly agree with you about this, the truth is that faith still comes first and exists with or without science. And, unfortunately, it looks like we keep modifying what we believe to fit scientific facts. Not exactly the best way to show a never-changing God.
It's an unfortunate double-edged sword. The more we learn, the closer we get to understanding what the Bible/God is really about. The more we learn, the more it looks like we keep changing who/what the Bible/God is really about. Kind of a Catch-22.
God didn't give me a sign. For me, it was more a case of being taught from a young age that Jesus died on the cross for sins, and coming to a stage (when I was about 20 i think), where I decided that I needed to decide for myself whether I thought it was true or not. I obviously decided it was true.
Any particular reason why you decided that, other than being taught it was so at a younger age?
I know a number of people who were taught to believe as you do, but rejected those beliefs later in life. I know at least one person who was raised an atheist, and became a born-again Christian and biblical scholar. And I know a vast number of people who have never gone against what they were taught, in either direction. I'm always interested in the reasons.
Back in the day, people could claim that Hell was a physical location beneath the surface of the Earth; now we've seen that the Earth is a spheroid of finite size, and we've drilled into it and shown that Hell isn't there. So "Hell" must be a magic place, not a physical place.See, I don't see this as science refuting religion.
Nor I; I think it is an example of more rigorous science refuting what was basically a poorly-tested scientific hypothesis. The supposed location of Hell has nothing at all to do with the question of God's existence. When the Bible makes scientific claims, they can be examined scientifically, but science can't touch the non-scientific claims.
It is more that Science is helping us to better understand religion.
I don't think science brought us any closer, though, in this particular example. It just made people modify an obviously incorrect claim to one that can't be shown to be incorrect.
God didn't give me a sign. For me, it was more a case of being taught from a young age that Jesus died on the cross for sins, and coming to a stage (when I was about 20 i think), where I decided that I needed to decide for myself whether I thought it was true or not. I obviously decided it was true.Any particular reason why you decided that, other than being taught it was so at a younger age?
I know a number of people who were taught to believe as you do, but rejected those beliefs later in life. I know at least one person who was raised an atheist, and became a born-again Christian and biblical scholar. And I know a vast number of people who have never gone against what they were taught, in either direction. I'm always interested in the reasons.
Humanly speaking I can't really tell you why I thought it was true. Sorry it doesn't really help you much. Just when I thought about it, I realised that yeah, I did believe, and always had, but just didn't want to admit it to myself.
I like wise know a number of people who have gone one way or the other (it breaks my heart that my younger brother is not a Christian, while my wife converted in late high school)
If Christianity is really true (as I obviously believe it is), then what have we to fear from science uncovering more truth? All Science can do is help us to better know our God, or at least the work of His hands.While I mostly agree with you about this, the truth is that faith still comes first and exists with or without science. And, unfortunately, it looks like we keep modifying what we believe to fit scientific facts. Not exactly the best way to show a never-changing God.
It's an unfortunate double-edged sword. The more we learn, the closer we get to understanding what the Bible/God is really about. The more we learn, the more it looks like we keep changing who/what the Bible/God is really about. Kind of a Catch-22.
I know exactly what you are talking about, and it is hard to work out what is science helping us to understand God better, and what is us compromising our doctrine for the sake of the latest scientific theory. I don't know the answer, or how we should move forward, but it is something that bears serious consideration.
This is the thing that I can't stand about Christians, which is that it bothers them so much when other people aren't Christians, especially loved ones. If they could just do their thing and let other people do theirs without getting all upset when others don't share their beliefs, I would be a lot more supportive of the religion. Instead they have to go around trying to make others believe what they do (okay in fairness many don't do this, but enough do that it annoys me), supremely confident that they are right and the everyone else is wrong or misguided in some way. Big deal if your brother isn't Christian. To each their own. If that is what he chooses to believe, you should respect him for his choice. Please tell me you don't call him up and try to convince him to rejoin the faith because you fear for his soul or something like that.
God didn't give me a sign. For me, it was more a case of being taught from a young age that Jesus died on the cross for sins, and coming to a stage (when I was about 20 i think), where I decided that I needed to decide for myself whether I thought it was true or not. I obviously decided it was true.Any particular reason why you decided that, other than being taught it was so at a younger age?
I know a number of people who were taught to believe as you do, but rejected those beliefs later in life. I know at least one person who was raised an atheist, and became a born-again Christian and biblical scholar. And I know a vast number of people who have never gone against what they were taught, in either direction. I'm always interested in the reasons.
Humanly speaking I can't really tell you why I thought it was true. Sorry it doesn't really help you much. Just when I thought about it, I realised that yeah, I did believe, and always had, but just didn't want to admit it to myself.
I like wise know a number of people who have gone one way or the other (it breaks my heart that my younger brother is not a Christian, while my wife converted in late high school)
This is the thing that I can't stand about Christians, which is that it bothers them so much when other people aren't Christians, especially loved ones. If they could just do their thing and let other people do theirs without getting all upset when others don't share their beliefs, I would be a lot more supportive of the religion. Instead they have to go around trying to make others believe what they do (okay in fairness many don't do this, but enough do that it annoys me), supremely confident that they are right and the everyone else is wrong or misguided in some way. Big deal if your brother isn't Christian. To each their own. If that is what he chooses to believe, you should respect him for his choice. Please tell me you don't call him up and try to convince him to rejoin the faith because you fear for his soul or something like that.
I think you have it backwards. It makes perfect sense for Christians to be concerned that those they don't love aren't Christian. Because, if you aren't a Christian, you face an eternity of punishment and torment. If my brother was standing in the path of an oncoming train I sure as hell would do whatever it took to save him. This is even more serious. I would be worried about any Christian (or member of any religion that believes in hell), that isn't concerned about their loved ones going to hell. I can't even describe how repulsed that makes me feel.
Now, that doesn't mean I am constantly badgering my brother about it (like that would ever work any way). But it does mean I am praying for him (not nearly as much as I should be), and looking for opportunities to talk to him (and his wife) about it. But in the end it is his choice, and he will have to face the consequences for his choices. And that breaks my heart. As it should.
There is a difference though. If a train was coming at your brother his life would be in great danger, that is a fact. If he his not Christian the idea that his soul is in danger is not a fact it is your personal belief and opinion, though you might claim it to be a fact. I personally don't think that your brother has anything to worry about because I don't believe in god, and in my mind that is a fact, though I can't actually claim it as such since it seems to be impossible to prove conclusively. I feel sorry that you end up spending so much time worrying about him, and that unhappiness to me seems to be definite downside to being religious. I don't feel unhappy or concerned for people who are Christian. I just think, "well different strokes for different folks" If it works for them and provides them with a happier existence then great, just don't come along trying to tell me what to believe and trying to tell me that something that can't be proved is a fact and not an opinion. I'm glad I don't have any highly religious relatives looking for chances to "talk" with me. It would really bother me. It would be like they are saying "we are right and you are wrong and what you believe doesn't matter because we know better than you." (about something that they have no real knowledge of beyond hearsay and opinions from other people, some of which are published in a book that is really old). If your brother became Hindu or Muslim or some other religion that has a long history and millions of believers who all think they are right, would you still be upset? Do you think all those millions of Jews, Muslim and Hindus are all going to hell because they aren't Christian?
This is the thing that I can't stand about Christians, which is that it bothers them so much when other people aren't Christians, especially loved ones. If they could just do their thing and let other people do theirs without getting all upset when others don't share their beliefs, I would be a lot more supportive of the religion. Instead they have to go around trying to make others believe what they do (okay in fairness many don't do this, but enough do that it annoys me), supremely confident that they are right and the everyone else is wrong or misguided in some way. Big deal if your brother isn't Christian. To each their own. If that is what he chooses to believe, you should respect him for his choice. Please tell me you don't call him up and try to convince him to rejoin the faith because you fear for his soul or something like that.I think you have it backwards. It makes perfect sense for Christians to be concerned that those they don't love aren't Christian. Because, if you aren't a Christian, you face an eternity of punishment and torment. If my brother was standing in the path of an oncoming train I sure as hell would do whatever it took to save him. This is even more serious. I would be worried about any Christian (or member of any religion that believes in hell), that isn't concerned about their loved ones going to hell. I can't even describe how repulsed that makes me feel.
Now, that doesn't mean I am constantly badgering my brother about it (like that would ever work any way). But it does mean I am praying for him (not nearly as much as I should be), and looking for opportunities to talk to him (and his wife) about it. But in the end it is his choice, and he will have to face the consequences for his choices. And that breaks my heart. As it should.
There is a difference though. If a train was coming at your brother his life would be in great danger, that is a fact. If he his not Christian the idea that his soul is in danger is not a fact it is your personal belief and opinion, though you might claim it to be a fact. I personally don't think that your brother has anything to worry about because I don't believe in god, and in my mind that is a fact, though I can't actually claim it as such since it seems to be impossible to prove conclusively. I feel sorry that you end up spending so much time worrying about him, and that unhappiness to me seems to be definite downside to being religious. I don't feel unhappy or concerned for people who are Christian. I just think, "well different strokes for different folks" If it works for them and provides them with a happier existence then great, just don't come along trying to tell me what to believe and trying to tell me that something that can't be proved is a fact and not an opinion. I'm glad I don't have any highly religious relatives looking for chances to "talk" with me. It would really bother me. It would be like they are saying "we are right and you are wrong and what you believe doesn't matter because we know better than you." (about something that they have no real knowledge of beyond hearsay and opinions from other people, some of which are published in a book that is really old). If your brother became Hindu or Muslim or some other religion that has a long history and millions of believers who all think they are right, would you still be upset? Do you think all those millions of Jews, Muslim and Hindus are all going to hell because they aren't Christian?
There is no difference. I know it is a fact that if by brother isn't a Christian, he is going to hell. You (or him) may not believe me, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a God. It is a fact. There is only one way to be saved, through Jesus Christ, it is a fact. Whether or not i can actually prove it, doesn't make it any less true. Chrisitanity is more than just a set of beliefs, it is true. Whether people believe it or not, it is true.
And yes, I do think I am right, and everybody who isn't a Christian is wrong. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Christian. You are the same, you think you are right, and everybody else is wrong. I I think people are wrong, I will tell them, and I would like people to do the same for me. I can't think of many things worse than getting to the final Judgment day, and my best friend (or brother, or other dearly loved one), turning to me and saying "You knew abut this? Why didn't you tell me?"
If my brother became a Hindu, Muslim, whatever, if it wasn't Christian, I would be upset. I would probably be a bit less upset, as least now he was actually thinking about it, instead of being an ignorant*, materialistic, hedonist (which I reckon accounts for most of the (Australian anyway) population).
I do believe that all who don't confess the name of Jesus Christ as Lord will spend eternity in Hell. I don't relly like it, not at all, but I think that shows that I love my friends and my family more than I love God, at least to some degree.
Oh, and thanks for your concern, but it's not like my brother (or other friends and family) not being a Christian keeps me up worrying at night. Although perhaps it should, and maybe then I would pray about it more. If nothing else, these few posts have made me realise I do need to pray for my brother (and other friends and family more), so thankyou for that.
* By ignorant, I generally mean one who doesn't know, and doesn't want to know anything about any religion. Basically, unthinking as far as religion goes.
I know it is a fact that if by brother isn't a Christian, he is going to hell. You (or him) may not believe me, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a God. It is a fact. There is only one way to be saved, through Jesus Christ, it is a fact. Whether or not i can actually prove it, doesn't make it any less true. Chrisitanity is more than just a set of beliefs, it is true. Whether people believe it or not, it is true.
It's clear that you think so, but you seem to forget that you're talking to some people who believe just as strongly it is FALSE, not true, and that your assertions are fairy tales and lies, not facts. It is duly noted that you offer no argument why your opinion is "more true" than theirs, because you seem to feel there is no need. But you should maybe be aware that the mere fact you're convinced does not in any way convince anyone else, will not convince anyone else, and in fact makes those who don't already agree with you far less likely to EVER come to share your views, because it sends the message that Christians are irrational and close-minded. I am not claiming that you are either of those things. But I will say that if you care for other people's souls the way you claim to, and if you truly want them to become Christians as you claim, then you're going about it exactly the wrong way. I am comfortable with my own faith. But if I were on the fence, I find that your stance would likely push me firmly into the anti-Christian camp, as it is apparently doing with P.H. Dungeon.
Moff--maybe that is the source of all the anger in his posts?
* By ignorant, I generally mean one who doesn't know, and doesn't want to know anything about any religion. Basically, unthinking as far as religion goes.
Heh! I know this qualifier was meant to keep people from being offended by your use of the word "ignorant," and yet, I am offended! Not really, but I do have to take exception to your generalization here.
Though I do not believe, I actually spend and have spent quite a lot of time and energy in my life thinking about God and the questions posed by faith. Do not presume I came to my lack of belief through laziness, lack of exposure or lack of understanding.
Most people who know me know it's a topic I like to think about and talk about quite a bit. I have read most of the major world holy texts and wish to study them further. I have an entire section of may rather large book collection devoted to philosophy, religion and related subject. So yeah, I take exception to being called "unthinking" as far as religion goes.
* By ignorant, I generally mean one who doesn't know, and doesn't want to know anything about any religion. Basically, unthinking as far as religion goes.
Heh! I know this qualifier was meant to keep people from being offended by your use of the word "ignorant," and yet, I am offended! Not really, but I do have to take exception to your generalization here.
Though I do not believe, I actually spend and have spent quite a lot of time and energy in my life thinking about God and the questions posed by faith. Do not presume I came to my lack of belief through laziness, lack of exposure or lack of understanding.
Most people who know me know it's a topic I like to think about and talk about quite a bit. I have read most of the major world holy texts and wish to study them further. I have an entire section of may rather large book collection devoted to philosophy, religion and related subject. So yeah, I take exception to being called "unthinking" as far as religion goes.
Sorry I offended you Sean. I did not mean that all those who are "unreligious" are ignorant. I was referring to those people who have not given religion ANY thought whatsoever. Who couldn't even tell you the names of most of the major religions, or match up leading figures to their respective religion (yep, even Buddha to Buddhism). If you asked my brother any question about religion at all, you would get an answer along the lines of "I don't know. Don't care. Don't want to know or Care" These are the people I was referring to.
The very fact that you are posting on this thread rules you out of who I was referring to as "ignorant".
I hope that clears it up, and sorry if I offended any body else with my use of ignorant.
It's clear that you think so, but you seem to forget that you're talking to some people who believe just as strongly it is FALSE, not true, and that your assertions are fairy tales and lies, not facts. It is duly noted that you offer no argument why your opinion is "more true" than theirs, because you seem to feel there is no need. But you should maybe be aware that the mere fact you're convinced does not in any way convince anyone else, will not convince anyone else, and in fact makes those who don't already agree with you far less likely to EVER come to share your views, because it sends the message that Christians are irrational and close-minded. I am not claiming that you are either of those things. But I will say that if you care for other people's souls the way you claim to, and if you truly want them to become Christians as you claim, then you're going about it exactly the wrong way. I am comfortable with my own faith. But if I were on the fence, I find that your stance would likely push me firmly into the anti-Christian camp, as it is apparently doing with P.H. Dungeon.
Moff--maybe that is the source of all the anger in his posts?
I get your point Kirth. I wasn't trying to convince anyone (at least in that post) that Christianity is true. But as a general rule I tend to try shying away from "I Believe" Language, and speak more in truth statements. I really hate our current obsession with relativism, and how everyone's truth is true for them. Frankly I find it a load of rubbish. There is truth, there is error. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. It just feels like we are producing an entire generation of wimps, who can't stand to have their beliefs and values questions, or confronted in any way, shape, or form*, and so we hide behind this "Well that's true for you, this is true for me."
Christianity is true, there is a God, and He will judge all of us according to our works. That is true. You can believe it or not, that doesn't make it any less true.
I realise others will want to say as firmly (or even more so), that it isn't true, and that's cool's well. I will say they are wrong. They will say I am wrong.
I just don't want to swallow this clap trap that says truth is relative, IT'S NOT. And so I don't really like couching everything in the Language of "I believe this, you believe that." I would much prefer "This is what I think the truth is, That is what you think the truth is." I find it much more intellectually honest.
I do believe Chrisitanity is true (obviously), and I suppose my plain (possibly even provocative) truth statements are my trying to fight the insidious spread of relativism.
Let's have the courage to tell people they are wrong, and the conviction and humility to handle being told we are wrong!!
*I am not including anyone in this thread, and definently not you Kirth (although it may sound like that). I am talking here about those who can not handle any discussion at all that calls their values and beliefs into question. I think everyone on this thread has demonstrated that they can handle this sort of discussion.
But as a general rule I tend to try shying away from "I Believe" Language, and speak more in truth statements. I really hate our current obsession with relativism, and how everyone's truth is true for them. Frankly I find it a load of rubbish. There is truth, there is error. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. It just feels like we are producing an entire generation of wimps, who can't stand to have their beliefs and values questions, or confronted in any way, shape, or form*, and so we hide behind this "Well that's true for you, this is true for me."
Well, here I'll stand up for my belief with no wimpism: if I were in an ice cream parlor ordering chocolate, and you came along and told me it was wrong and that vanilla is the only "true" flavor and knocked my chocolate cone to the floor, I'd likely respond by knocking your head off. Relativism is far from "rubbish." In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are grains of truth in almost any "-ism," (some with more than others, but none with all), and that there's a whole load of bull in all of them, including yours.
Mindless refusal to find any truth in anyone else's viewpoint--even if it's there--and assuming that one somehow has divine insight into the workings of the cosmos (that all others lack), doesn't make that person noble or virtuous; it makes him unable to see past his own nose.
The 9-11 hijackers stood up for their beliefs to the point of dying for them. I personally think they were insane. But by their total rejection of relativism, of seeing their view as the only "true" one, they were absolute paragons of the "values" you're describing.
You've told me (and everyone else who might not share your exact beliefs) that you're right, we're wrong, and that our viewpoints lack any merit whatsoever. In that case you can't possibly be offended by anything I have to say. If any of the above did annoy you slightly, however, then perhaps that's evidence that it might be OK to rethink your stance a bit.
|
|
Moff--maybe that is the source of all the anger in his posts?
The angry posts that I was talking about were in reference to Taliesin's posts rather than P.H. Dungeon's.
P.H. Dungeon (and correct me if I am wrong here) is more frustrated, I feel, than angry. He feels that all Christians (and any other religious people?) are hypocrits because they can't possibly be as perfect as their holy texts tell them to be. Yet these same Christians (or other religious people) still come across as rather arrogant and haughty when they try and tell others their beliefs. This is in direct conflict to the way that he feels things should work and he is rather annoyed about the whole thing as a result.
I can understand and appreciate that point of view.
Taliesin, on the other hand, is rather eloquent in his words, yet I can't quite figure out where he is coming from or what his point is. He implies that religion will be the destruction of mankind -- I am assuming based on past wars -- yet there have been so many wars that haven't really been all that religious in nature (American Civil War, Revolutionary War, World War I & II, Viet Nam War, Korean War...) that I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion. He says that it was only a few hundred years ago that atheists were tortured and killed and the first thing that came to my mind was the Holocaust. And again I didn't really understand what his point was. He mentioned Apartheid and I knew a good number of churches were doing what they could to end it and when I looked up information on it the problem appeared to be mostly political and churches seemed to play a fairly big role in ending it. Regardless, I still didn't fully understand what his point was. He said that he was bringing up these points because they are often left out of the debate -- but I didn't even know we were having a debate. I guess that he feels that the debate is whether or not religion is right. There was a lot of passion in his posts and a lot of intensity and I was just curious what was going on in his mind.
|
|
There is a difference though. If a train was coming at your brother his life would be in great danger, that is a fact. If he his not Christian the idea that his soul is in danger is not a fact it is your personal belief and opinion, though you might claim it to be a fact.
This whole "fact" thing we can go back and forth on till we are blue in the face. P.H. Dungeon -- Please understand that almost the definition of 'faith' suggests that we treat this information as 'fact' whether or not it is provable as such. For many Christians, your 'train' example is a very real situation for them. At this point, I am asking you to look at it from their/our point of view. Many of them feel trapped -- either try and do their best to get the person off the track or do nothing and sit and watch their friend/family member get destroyed. You might think that it is a bit delusional, but even you can't prove it one way or another. And to many Christians it is very real.
The truth is that very few people get off the "track" by being told over and over again. More Christians should be more aware of this. There are better and more rewarding ways.
As far as being 'upset' -- that's a tough one. I don't tell you what emotions you should feel. Let's assume for a minute that we are right -- should we feel nothing? At the same time I feel that Christians need to be much more rational about how they present God and Christ. I think that being upset will just turn more people away.
I hope this helps some.
The angry posts that I was talking about were in reference to Taliesin's posts rather than P.H. Dungeon's. P.H. Dungeon (and correct me if I am wrong here) is more frustrated, I feel, than angry. Christians (or other religious people) still come across as rather arrogant and haughty when they try and tell others their beliefs. This is in direct conflict to the way that he feels things should work and he is rather annoyed about the whole thing as a result. I can understand and appreciate that point of view.
No; you're quite right. Sorry about that, everyone. In an internet conversation, it's hard to put a face and a voice to each comment (avatars don't help as much), and I became confused. I'm not exactly a veteran of e-communication; Paizo's is the only board I've ever posted to.
Taliesin, on the other hand, is rather eloquent in his words, yet I can't quite figure out where he is coming from or what his point is. There was a lot of passion in his posts and a lot of intensity...
In Taliesin's case (pipe in here, Tal, if I'm off on this), I think that's coming from his personal experiences, from the self-righteous "Christians" who wanted to burn his D&D books and beat the devil out of him.
I'd likely feel much the same way, in his position.|
|
In Taliesin's case (pipe in here, Tal, if I'm off on this), I think that's coming from his personal experiences, from the self-righteous "Christians" who wanted to burn his D&D books and beat the devil out of him.
I'd likely feel much the same way, in his position.
If that's the case, then so would I.
Sorry I offended you Sean. I did not mean that all those who are "unreligious" are ignorant. I was referring to those people who have not given religion ANY thought whatsoever. Who couldn't even tell you the names of most of the major religions, or match up leading figures to their respective religion (yep, even Buddha to Buddhism). If you asked my brother any question about religion at all, you would get an answer along the lines of "I don't know. Don't care. Don't want to know or Care" These are the people I was referring to.
The very fact that you are posting on this thread rules you out of who I was referring to as "ignorant".
I hope that clears it up, and sorry if I offended any body else with my use of ignorant.
As I said in my previous post, not really offended.
This thread, more than anything, has taught us all how to tread more carefully when discussing and even thinking about religion, I think. It's shown us all that there are ways to be offensive and hurtful when discussing religion, even when no offense was intended.
This thread is really amazing, and powered by some amazing and thoughtful people here on the boards. I may completely disagree with anybody else's theology, philosophy or world view, but I'm proud to know all of you.
This thread, more than anything, has taught us all how to tread more carefully when discussing and even thinking about religion, I think. It's shown us all that there are ways to be offensive and hurtful when discussing religion, even when no offense was intended.
In my opinion, that's a lot of its value. We have a chance to see how others think, even if we don't necessarily agree with any (or all) of what they're saying.
I may completely disagree with anybody else's theology, philosophy or world view, but I'm proud to know all of you.
I'll second that wholeheartedly. Even if I rankle people on occasion.
In some ways, I think it's sad that religion is usually considered a taboo subject for polite conversation these days. There's a long tradition of debate and discussion in theology, most of the time very civilized.
I like to think that what we're doing here is continuing in that tradition.
And while we may none of us change each other's minds, I do think we each come to better understanding of our own beliefs through reasoned and civilized discussion, as well as a better understanding of other beliefs. This can only be a good thing.
I think the world today would be a better place if more people could discuss this subject civilly, instead of trying to kill each other over the subject.
I live in Los Angeles, where we have a very diverse population, including people from many of the world's trouble spots these days. Universally, those people that I've talked to (including Palestinians, Isrealis, Indians and Pakistanis) have said the reason they live in the US is because people get along better here.
Case in point, I was speaking to an Indian man about the conflict between India and Pakistan, and he mentioned that here in the US, his roommate is Pakistani. If the two of them were living in that part of the world, they would be at each other's throats all the time. Here, they coexist peacfully. That makes me happy and gives me hope for the world.
One of my mantras of late has been that religion is a terrible reason for people to kill each other. It's probably the worst reason. Too bad it's such a common reason. Now, even though many many wars and atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, I am not fool enough to think that if religion went away, so would war and atrocity. All the wars and atrocities commited for reasons other than religion should put that to rest.
Kirth, I don't think that you have ever 'rankled' me.
Moff, in your favor, you're hard to rankle. I often say things that directly challenge views that people hold through simple stubbornness. You've got an uncanny knack for finding the little bitty diamonds of truth in my (or anyone's) load of gangue, and holding them up and examining them and saying, "you know, the necklace I'm making is pretty, but one of these little gems would go perfectly with it." I admire that a great deal. Your positions have always been consistent without being inflexible; you're willing to accept other ideas without feeling that doing so somehow automatically compromises yours.
Meavers wrote: I have never had an overwhelming experience of God, never had a sign from God. I am actually the most rational person I know, (by far, to the point that my thought drive my feelings / emotions, makes it terribly hard to understand my wife). My only...
This is interesting to hear from you. You say that the origins of your religous beliefs come from your upbringing, which is true of most people. You also said earlier that you are certain that faith in Jesus as the saviour is the only way to avoid an eternity of torment in hell (or something like that). By your logic that would mean that if you happened to have been born in India and raised as a Hindu you would not have likely found Jesus and would be destined for an afterlife of damnation merely because of the cirucmstances of your birth.
To me I find this idea very strange. I know it has been discussed before, but I still don't get it. If the Christian god really did exist why would he allow so many people in the world to live in ingnorance of him, and why would he punish them for not being Christian when they have never had any exposure to the religion? It is kind of like saying that you are automatically destined to go to hell just because you were born in the wrong country. Is it just me or does that seem incredibly ridiculous and unjust? If god is really out there and is really so judgemental regarding people's souls, don't you think he'd take the time to find a way help all those people who have never had access to the christian faith? If not then he must be a real prick. Based on the Christian concept of god, he certainly has the capability to do this. Why would he let these heathens continue living this way and not send them some kind of clear sign or prophet to show them the true path? I can understand why he wouldn't like people like me. I've been exposed to Christianity and of my own free will decided to turn my back on it. But if I lived somewhere in the world where such exposure just wouldn't happen I'd be real bitter if I ended up burning in hell. I realize that Christians have seen this problem and taken it upon themselves to go out into the world and convert the heathens whether they want to be converted or not, but obviously this hasn't been that successful. Christians have had 2000 or so years to get everyone on the same page and there are still billions of heathens in the world. Are you guys failing at your job or should do you think god should be stepping in?
Of course my answer to these questions is simple: The christian god that meavers claims exists as a fact does not exist. But perhaps those who disagree with me can have a rationalization for what seems to me to be very injust treatment on god's part towards a huge segment of the population of the world. Remember folks, most of the human beings on this planet are not Christian.
If the Christian god really did exist why would he allow so many people in the world to live in ingnorance of him, and why would he punish them for not being Christian when they have never had any exposure to the religion?
This was addressed earlier in the thread. Basically the predominant answer was something along the lines of, "the Bible is available all over the world, and if you're too dumb to accept it over whatever you were taught as a child, then too bad for you." (If you point out that Muslims are saying the same thing about the Quoran, then you'll get an answer along the lines of "Well, I'm right and they're wrong. So there!") Other people did chime in with somewhat more tolerant possibilities involving Purgatory or what have you, which sounded a lot more reasonable to me--but then again, I'm not a Christian.
Remember folks, most of the human beings on this planet are not Christian.
As I understand it, the Christian viewpoint is that this just goes to show how unworthy humanity is as a whole. You'll make no headway with that sort of argument!
It could go back in forth. Except that a fact is something that can be tested, proved, observed with our senses and agreed upon. The existence of god has not met this criteria, and thus in not a fact other than in the minds of Christians. Christians are free to go around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
If you are right you should feel mad. You should feel mad that your so called loving god has allowed so many people in the world to disagree with you. He could have done things different. Aren't you frustrated that you can't figure out why he has chosen to do things the way he has? Don't you feel angry that he allows people like me to go on being misguided? Doesn't it wrankle you that millions of people in the world never even get the chance to know the Christian god because of the geography of their birth?
I understand that in response you say, "Well who are we to question god. He is omnipotent and we are merely mortals". But even so it must be frustrating and keep you up a night sometimes. Christianity sounds to me like a religion of torment and agony- too many unanswered questions, too much relying on faith alone that father has a plan even if you can't figure it out.
There is a difference though. If a train was coming at your brother his life would be in great danger, that is a fact. If he his not Christian the idea that his soul is in danger is not a fact it is your personal belief and opinion, though you might claim it to be a fact.This whole "fact" thing we can go back and forth on till we are blue in the face. P.H. Dungeon -- Please understand that almost the definition of 'faith' suggests that we treat this information as 'fact' whether or not it is provable as such. For many Christians, your 'train' example is a very real situation for them. At this point, I am asking you to look at it from their/our point of view. Many of them feel trapped -- either try and do their best to get the person off the track or do nothing and sit and watch their friend/family member get destroyed. You might think that it is a bit delusional, but even you can't prove it one way or another. And to many Christians it is very real.
The truth is that very few people get off the "track" by being told over and over again. More Christians should be more aware of this. There are better and more rewarding ways.
As far as being 'upset' -- that's a tough one. I don't tell you what emotions you should feel. Let's assume for a minute that we are right -- should we feel nothing? At the same time I feel that Christians need to be much more rational about how they present God and Christ. I think that being upset will just turn more people away.
I hope this helps some.
Christians are free to go around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
I should point out that at one point the population of the world agreed that the Sun moved around the Earth. That didn't make it a "fact." As you started to point out, a "fact" should probably be defined as a verifiable observation, a "datum" if you will. (The idea of "proof" is valid in law and in mathematics, but not in science--see previous discussion in this thead).
By that definition, both your idea and Mevers' get thrown out.
That is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. The bible is not available all over the world. There isn't a priest on every street corner waiting to teach some misguided muslim or hindu kid about Jesus. There millions of people who can't even read because of the circumstances they have been born into. You can't possibly argue that these people have a had a chance to be Christian but are too stupid to see it. That argument holds zero water. If you are christian and think this way then you need to get on a fricken plane and start doing some travelling. Get your head out of your bible and go see the planet that you live on and expose yourself to all these heathens. Maybe you can help them. Or even better maybe they can help you.
If the Christian god really did exist why would he allow so many people in the world to live in ingnorance of him, and why would he punish them for not being Christian when they have never had any exposure to the religion?This was addressed earlier in the thread. Basically the predominant answer was something along the lines of, "the Bible is available all over the world, and if you're too dumb to accept it over whatever you were taught as a child, then too bad for you." (If you point out that Muslims are saying the same thing about the Quoran, then you'll get an answer along the lines of "Well, I'm right and they're wrong. So there!") Other people did chime in with somewhat more tolerant possibilities involving Purgatory or what have you, which sounded a lot more reasonable to me--but then again, I'm not a Christian.
Remember folks, most of the human beings on this planet are not Christian.As I understand it, the Christian viewpoint is that this just goes to show how unworthy humanity is as a whole.
That is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. The bible is not available all over the world. There isn't a priest on every street corner waiting to teach some misguided muslim or hindu kid about Jesus. There millions of people who can't even read because of the circumstances they have been born into. You can't possibly argue that these people have a had a chance to be Christian but are too stupid to see it. That argument holds zero water. If you are christian and think this way then you need to get on a fricken plane and start doing some travelling. Get your head out of your bible and go see the planet that you live on and expose yourself to all these heathens. Maybe you can help them. Or even better maybe they can help you.
I'm not a Christian, and I don't buy the argument, either. I'm just summarizing (possibly inadequately) what was discussed earlier that you professed to be too uninterested to read.
I was being generous with the definition to cut them some slack.
Christians are free to go
around, certain they are right and claiming to have the truth, but until the population of the world also agrees with them it won't be a "fact".
I should point out that at one point the population of the world agreed that the Sun moved around the Earth. That didn't make it a "fact." As you started to point out, a "fact" should probably be defined as a verifiable observation, a "datum" if you will. (The idea of "proof" is valid in law and in mathematics, but not in science--see previous discussion in this thead).
By that definition, both your idea and Mevers' get thrown out.
Thanks I know a lot of this is already on the thread way back there somewhere (and I have gone through some of it), and though I said I wasn't interested in reading it, I more meant that I didn't have the patience to try to go through 35 pages of posts just to see if I was repeating something someone else had said earlier everytime I have something to say. I haven't been here from the beginning and will likely to continue to rehash old arugments and allow people to respond or ignore me as they choose.
That is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. The bible is not available all over the world. There isn't a priest on every street corner waiting to teach some misguided muslim or hindu kid about Jesus. There millions of people who can't even read because of the circumstances they have been born into. You can't possibly argue that these people have a had a chance to be Christian but are too stupid to see it. That argument holds zero water. If you are christian and think this way then you need to get on a fricken plane and start doing some travelling. Get your head out of your bible and go see the planet that you live on and expose yourself to all these heathens. Maybe you can help them. Or even better maybe they can help you.I'm not a Christian, and I don't buy the argument, either. I'm just reporting what was discussed earlier.
I was being generous with the definition to cut them some slack.
That's a slippery slope--you end up with "intelligent design" (creationism) being taught in science class if you broaden technical definitions to allow for supernatural claims.