Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But if you are going to take Christianity to that extent, it is said that God forgives all your sins

Not sure you understand what I mean. The threat of hell exists to reinforce belief and enforce compliance. The child is indoctrinated and their initial beliefs that have been foisted on them hardened by reference to eternal punishment. Yes, they can seek forgiveness. But as Christians, they recognise that abandoning the faith, they end up in hell.

 

Perhaps, but who said anything about a Christian God? How do you know a God does not exist? The majority of the people in the world believe a God exists. I believe a God exists. You cannot prove that one does not.

In this example, we are talking about Christians and Christians believe in hell.

Furthermore, the Christian God can be dispensed with as a crock of shit and we can say we know that he doesn't exist in the same way that we can say that monsters under the bed don't exist. Christianity is absurd, except to those who are lose their rationality in believing in it. Of course, it can't be proved, but I can't prove that Magic Sand Pixies don't exist, but I know they don't.

 

The majority do believe a God exist - because of indoctrination and because it feels comfortable, as well as poor mental processes etc., and they believe in different Gods. I feel certain they are deluded on the basis of the sheer lack of evidence and piss poor arguments for their existence. But no they can't be proved not to exist. Believers need to prove that such a thing exists though, to give others any good reason to believe as well.

 

But you say you believe a God exists, can you define this being in any way?

 

Ever listen to Tynwald on the Radio? UK Parliament? They always start with prayers.

Cambon, you have to give a better example. What significance I am to take from prayers being had?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No - I wasn't referring to the ontological argument (though I can see its' relevance). I was pointing out that to the Believer God does manifest Himself in the World.

But the believers description of such manifestation would need to be subject to scrutiny, by providing examples. How far will the theist get? If they cannot demonstrate that some manifestation is their God then nobody should believe it and it remains someones personal fantasy.

[Evil Goblin]

LDV - you really don't get the power of faith and belief, do you? You see one thing, the believer sees another. Think of how powerful a belief these Muslim suicide bombers must have.

 

And whilst I'm posting I might as well voice an opinion on the subject of the thread. The Donkeys sitting on the Bench got this one badly wrong. If you are going to forbid Christian Believers who practice their faith from adopting then who next - smokers, people who have a drink of alcohol, Muslims, etc.? And who will decide these things? Personally, I wouldn't entrust the job to any of the idiots who populate the benches of the Courts, or, for that matter, the politicians.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I completely understand the power of faith and belief. I understand that many people look at the bird and the trees and see God in that or some other connection. Or they witness something happen and put that down to God's intervention, etc. What exists is a different matter.

 

Yes, they interpret one thing and atheists interpret another.

 

But determining what exists is not simply a matter of what a person's believes and how they interpret what they see. I could be utterly convinced that there was a monster under my bed or that there were manx fairies. I might think they exist. But it is the fact that I might BELIEVE that they manifest in the world and that their manifestations appear in the real world. But it does not mean they actually do.

 

The Ancient Greeks used to think that lightning was thrown down by Zeus. He existed for them and that was a manifestation of his power. There was no good reason to believe this, as it was taken on faith. And now we know that lightning isn't thrown by some God.

 

What actually matters, especially in terms of the nature of the claims made by theists, is how exactly something manifests, which would be the way to determine existence.

[Evil Goblin]

The threat of hell exists to reinforce belief and enforce compliance. The child is indoctrinated and their initial beliefs that have been foisted on them hardened by reference to eternal punishment.

I agree that the concept of Hell as promulgated by the Church has been used to induce compliance. But some people, including me, have a very different notion of Hell as being a state of mind induced by one's behaviours and attitudes i.e. the result of the workings of Karma, if you like. I was brought up strictly within the C of E - Sunday School, Choir, Altar Boy - and was taught the traditional idea. It didn't do me any harm as with maturity I saw the inadequacy of that concept, and I think the same applies to most others with a similar background - so "lasting damage" does not occur very much at all.

 

Yes, they can seek forgiveness. But as Christians, they recognise that abandoning the faith, they end up in hell.

It is quite possible to renounce the Christ and still seek and obtain forgiveness - Mt 12.v32.

 

Furthermore, the Christian God can be dispensed with as a crock of shit

Why do you need to be so abusive?

 

and we can say we know that he doesn't exist in the same way that we can say that monsters under the bed don't exist. Christianity is absurd, except to those who are lose their rationality in believing in it. Of course, it can't be proved, but I can't prove that Magic Sand Pixies don't exist, but I know they don't.

Correction - you believe he doesn't exist on the basis of lack of "scientific" evidence. The only sensible attitude is agnosticism.

 

Believers need to prove that such a thing exists though, to give others any good reason to believe as well.

Not really, LDV - see John 6.v37. Only those given by God come to Christ. If they're not given they won't come anyway.

[Evil Goblin]

I completely understand the power of faith and belief.

Sorry, but on the basis of this post you do not really understand it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I agree that the concept of Hell as promulgated by the Church has been used to induce compliance. But some people, including me, have a very different notion of Hell as being a state of mind induced by one's behaviours and attitudes i.e. the result of the workings of Karma, if you like. I was brought up strictly within the C of E - Sunday School, Choir, Altar Boy - and was taught the traditional idea. It didn't do me any harm as with maturity I saw the inadequacy of that concept, and I think the same applies to most others with a similar background - so "lasting damage" does not occur very much at all.

The traditional Christian belief is that it IS a real place, not a state of mind. Lake of fire and all that. Or if that is not accepted by many it is certainly a 'place' of eternal torment or torture.

Now, introducing Christianity to a young child would necessarily involve an introduction to the concept of hell. A place that has real consequences for believers, as it is a place where people go if they do meet the criteria. You mention that you found the concept inadequate. Fair enough. You rejected or dismissed that aspect of Christian belief. But this does not mean that it is not cruel to introduce a child to it. To introduce a child to such a way of thinking and thus ways of doing that are influenced by the recognition of this place is mental abuse.

 

It is quite possible to renounce the Christ and still seek and obtain forgiveness - Mt 12.v32.

Then why is there such disagreement on the matter. What of the one unforgiveable sin? Is there disagreement on this?

 

Why do you need to be so abusive?

Curious as to why you ask, as I didn't think you were a theist. Would you prefer I said that it was totally bogus or just false? My choice of language is heavily influenced by my recognition of fact that such absurdities are believed by intelligent people and acted on by such people.

And in respect of Christianity, they are ugly beliefs. I have a very low opinion of Christianity.

 

Correction - you believe he doesn't exist on the basis of lack of "scientific" evidence. The only sensible attitude is agnosticism.

I have no reason to believe on the basis of a lack of any evidence. Science is the best tool we have for determining what is true and what is not. But theists have been unable to provide any good evidence.

 

The only sensible position in the absence of good evidence is atheism. Agnosticism, which is knowing with certainly that a God exists or knowing the quality of that God, is another matter. As I would be an agnostic atheist, but almost absolutely certain that the Christian God is nothing but fantasy. I could not be absolutely certain and thus a gnostic atheist.

 

Not really, LDV - see John 6.v37. Only those given by God come to Christ. If they're not given they won't come anyway.

Ah right, so you have to believe to make it true - the poor argument for faith. Right, so, he only manifests to those given by God? And what are these manifestations? If he is not a figment of their imagination then what do they witness as a manifestation of God?

It also demands the question of what reason I would have to believe on the basis of this lack of evidence.

 

Sorry, but on the basis of this post you do not really understand it.

You don't seem to think I do because you are rendering the word 'existence' to be meaningless, i.e. what's in your head. If I told you that Ye Great Smelly Spirit Pig exists and can be seen in all of his creations etc., would you accept that he must because of my belief that he does?

[Terse]

 

And whilst I'm posting I might as well voice an opinion on the subject of the thread. The Donkeys sitting on the Bench got this one badly wrong. If you are going to forbid Christian Believers who practice their faith from adopting then who next - smokers, people who have a drink of alcohol, Muslims, etc.? And who will decide these things? Personally, I wouldn't entrust the job to any of the idiots who populate the benches of the Courts, or, for that matter, the politicians.

It was god's will. Everything is. Ask Spook.

[Cambon]

Not sure you understand what I mean. The threat of hell exists to reinforce belief and enforce compliance. The child is indoctrinated and their initial beliefs that have been foisted on them hardened by reference to eternal punishment. Yes, they can seek forgiveness. But as Christians, they recognise that abandoning the faith, they end up in hell.

I understand exactly what you mean. But, whether the threat is hell, the birch, prison, or the naughty step, there have to be bounderies and deterrants.

 

In this example, we are talking about Christians and Christians believe in hell. Furthermore, the Christian God can be dispensed with as a crock of shit and we can say we know that he doesn't exist in the same way that we can say that monsters under the bed don't exist. Christianity is absurd, except to those who are lose their rationality in believing in it. Of course, it can't be proved, but I can't prove that Magic Sand Pixies don't exist, but I know they don't.

LDV, there is no Christian God. There is one God. Whether you want to call him God, Allah, Buddha, or the DSS, that is up to you. You are in the minority here. Nearly every living human being believes there is a higher being. In the Christian faith we call him God. If He does not exist for you, I feel sorry for you. That is your prerogative.

 

The majority do believe a God exist - because of indoctrination and because it feels comfortable, as well as poor mental processes etc., and they believe in different Gods. I feel certain they are deluded on the basis of the sheer lack of evidence and piss poor arguments for their existence. But no they can't be proved not to exist. Believers need to prove that such a thing exists though, to give others any good reason to believe as well.

 

But you say you believe a God exists, can you define this being in any way?

Yes, he is the original creator of life, the universe and everything. His name is 42.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And you don't mind how those boundaries and deterrents are set? It would be perfectly acceptable in your view to tell your child that you will beat them up, kick them out of the house, etc. as long as they behave?

 

Well no, Buddhists would not agree that Buddha was the same as the Christian God. Not at all. The Abrahamic God can be said to come from the same 'stem belief'.

And actually, if you ask people, people have very different ideas of their God is.

 

Yes, I am in a minority. So what? You think because there is a majority that this gives weight to truth?

It doesn't take an expert to work out why so many do believe. Account for indoctrination and proliferation of irrational religious beliefs in many aspects of society and you end up with a lot of believers.

 

No God exists for me, because I have no evidence for his existence. And nobody has provided any.

Don't feel sorry for me. If you really do, provide evidence and give me reason to believe.

 

I don't know why you believe, but if it is for irrational reasons then I feel sorry for you that you can't see that.

 

Try again in defining your God. It would be really interesting, I think.

[Terse]

I understand exactly what you mean. But, whether the threat is hell, the birch, prison, or the naughty step, there have to be bounderies and deterrants.

Do you not believe its possible to teach respect - both for people and laws - without resorting to threats of punishments for disobedience?

 

LDV, there is no Christian God. There is one God. Whether you want to call him God, Allah, Buddha, or the DSS, that is up to you. You are in the minority here. Nearly every living human being believes there is a higher being. In the Christian faith we call him God. If He does not exist for you, I feel sorry for you. That is your prerogative.

 

It may still be that a majority of the world's population still believe in the kind of god that you are talking about. It is also true, however, that agnosticism and atheism form a very substantial minority and, when you add the Hindu population who believe in a multitude of gods and the Buddhists who have very different beliefs, I think your 'nearly every living human being' finds itself on very insecure foundation.

 

Yes, he is the original creator of life, the universe and everything. His name is 42.

 

42 is the answer to life the universe and everything. Your misquotation is one that the atheistic author of the original would, I think, have been offended by.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Most people are agnostic about God or Gods.

[Cambon]

Do you not believe its possible to teach respect - both for people and laws - without resorting to threats of punishments for disobedience?

42 is the answer to life the universe and everything. Your misquotation is one that the atheistic author of the original would, I think, have been offended by.

 

Respect is a very different thing which cannot be taught. Respect can only be earned. Law and morals can be taught, but bounderies need to be established,.

 

Oh, and I was being jovial in using the "42" name.

[Cambon]

 

Try again in defining your God. It would be really interesting, I think.

 

Ok, I used to believe in the worlds within worlds theory. I still do to a degree. However, whatever made the univers come about had to be started by someone or something. If there was a big bang, someone made it happen. He is my God.

[Chinahand]

Cambon - why do you assume the universe was created by a single entity?

 

Isn't a committee just a plausible?

 

I'm not being facetious.

 

You have an image of one single powerful creator, I sometimes like to image multiple, insignificant ones - you could call them demons if you like. They jiggle around bumbing into each other not really trying to do anything, but as a result things can happen beyond their control. Avalanches and rock slides can be started by ants, why not a universe.

 

These sorts of arguments always end up with where did God, or the ants or the demons, come from in the first place. Basically they are all stuck assuming either spontaneous creation, or eternal existence - where do you decide this occurred - with the universe itself, with God (or the ants, or demons), with the creator of God (or the ants or the demons), with the creator of the creator of God (or the ants or the demons) etc.

 

All you get in the end is meaningless, unprovable theology.

 

Physics is begining to converge around predictive theories which seem to be self consistent and have a universe coming into existence spontaneously.

 

You can only ever be agnostic to such ideas, but they are just as meaningful as any ideas about Gods creating the universe.

 

Saying you simply believe in a creator is all well and good. The far more interesting question is how involved is any such being in this creation.

 

Spook thinks God knows how many hairs are on his head, how many times he's orgasmed, and how many times he's sinned in thought as well as deed. His God interacts with his creation - zapping into it, and interfers with people not only in this life, but after it too.

 

It is only when a God intervenes in this universe that it is relevent. If it doesn't it might as well be an ant, or even entirely non-existent with the universe usurping his role.

 

Cambon, you say you believe in a God - but is that God an absent irrelevence, or does it have any purpose for the universe? And how do you know?

 

If you were to attempt to answer those questions, then we'd be getting somewhere!