Importance of relationship with Christ

IFX

Why is a relationship with Christ the most important issue for Christians?
Why is more important than:

1. Millions of people starving to death.
2. Global warming.
3. A just society.

No one can know Christ exists, people may think he exists and that's fair enough (even if I don't agree). But as there is no proof, beyond what goes on deep inside someone's head. It may just be a figment of people's imagination.
If anything, the evidence of kids getting cancer is proof to me that even if there is a God he is not:
all caring, all knowing, all powerful as the kid would not get cancer if he had all 3 characteristics.
So at best, he's 2 out of the above 3.
So even if God does exists with 2 out of 3 above characteristics why is a relationship with him so important?
It seems to me to be purely for self benefit as I don't see how common humanity can benefit.
Suppose we all have a relationship with God, how does that solve:

1. Millions of people starving to death.
2. Global warming.
3. A just society.

I see no difference to any of them. The only difference is a feel good factor for certain individuals.

robindch

> Why is a relationship with Christ the most important issue for Christians?

Because they're told that it is.

It's also much easier to believe that you have a relationship with a man who's been dead for almost two thousand years (and that you are a good peron for believing it, and that you will live forever), than to believe that you must take responsibility and action for any of the intractable problems with society that you list.

BTW, many US fundamentalists deny that global-warming is taking place, presumably at the behest of GWB and his supporters who are oil-men uninterested in reducing the world's consumption of oil.

Excelsior

IFX, I think the three areas you listed are amongst the most pressing concerns on Earth.

Think about it this way though- if relationship with Christ is the way we can be reconciled with God, and if Christianity is true in asserting that at the heart of what it means to be fully human is to relate to God, then once that reconciliation is in progress we are freed up to reconcile ourselves with ourselves.

A great number of the problems we experience in our lives come from the fact that we don't feel at home in our own skin. If God is restored to the centre of our life (through relationship with Christ...) then we are free to reconcile ourselves to ourselves. We are given a perspective and a freedom to evaluate our failings and our strengths.

Now imagine how a person who has been brought back into friendship with God through grace and as an outflowing of this at peace with themselves, relates to others. They are free to operate out of a radical security, to take risks, to give generously, to serve unfailingly. As we reach out to others, we can also reach out to our culture, society and environment- the circle doesn't end.

This is what you see happening in the testimonies of people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Relationship with Christ is the source of their regenerating action in the world.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

This is what you see happening in the testimonies of people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Relationship with Christ is the source of their regenerating action in the world.

The exact opposite is observed in George W Bush and Ian Paisley. There is no consistent evidence that Christianity should take precedence in order to solve major world problems. In fact, one could argue that Christianity has killed more people than it has saved. But that's going slightly off the point. The first part of your argument seems to very much focussed on the self and not on common humanity. This is a selfish, egocentric philosophy. As for the second part,
I reach out to my society and my enviroment and I have no belief in God. I can't see how if I had a belief in God, I would give more money and time to charity, than I already do.
Your argument is a false correlation, misunderstanding cause and effect.

Do you seriously think it's more important to give a starving person a Bible or food?

Excelsior

Your response is littered with the kind of infuriating misrepresentations and misunderstandings that mark most of your interactions on this board. For every Paisley and Bush there are millions of Christians who are not political power plays advancing a largely socio-economic ideology under the guise of the Gospel. Equally, Christianity killing more than it has saved is the kind of comment that should just be discarded unless we are willing to define our terms. Finally, I did not pass any comment on whether food or bibles are more pressing.

I did not advance any comments on the inherently communal understanding of society implied by the theological conviction that Christians are a pilgrimaging people bound in the church, the ekklessia. So whether Christianity is egotistical or anything like it is not something you could reasonably draw from my post.

By declaring it egotistical you manage to avoid the point I was fairly apparently trying to make. If you are reconciled with God you can be comfortable in your own skin and make a better go of actually helping people. Rugged individualism is the exact opposite criticism that I would have heard laid at the feet of Christians on this board. We can't be both rugged individualists and sheep.

As a Christian I would fully expect you, an atheist, to be trying to make a net positive contribution to society. I never asserted that charity or selfless action stems only from relationship with Christ. I instead tried to explain, in a non-comabtive manner, how relationship with Christ influences, supports and expands the desire to be gracious.

The likelihood of me taking your questions seriously has reduced massively in the face of the supreme disdain you show in your responses.

Finally, to answer your quite ridiculous question lest you think you really have us God-botherers cornered with it, I do not believe that social action can be seperated from Gospel proclamation.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Your response is littered with the kind of infuriating misrepresentations and misunderstandings that mark most of your interactions on this board.

Attacking me, as opposed to my argument.

Excelsior wrote:

For every Paisley and Bush there are millions of Christians who are not political power plays advancing a largely socio-economic ideology under the guise of the Gospel.

That's not my point, my point was to clearly point out that not all Christians are Mother T's.

Excelsior wrote:

Equally, Christianity killing more than it has saved is the kind of comment that should just be discarded unless we are willing to define our terms.

I suggest if you want to take this further we take it in a separate thread as it's going off the OP.

Excelsior wrote:

If you are reconciled with God you can be comfortable in your own skin and make a better go of actually helping people.

I disagree, what evidence is there for this?

Excelsior wrote:

Rugged individualism is the exact opposite criticism that I would have heard laid at the feet of Christians on this board. We can't be both rugged individualists and sheep.

An interesting idea, I would say it is possible to be both selfish and a blind follower. They are both based on something benefitting you. But again perhaps going off the OP.

Excelsior wrote:

As a Christian I would fully expect you, an atheist, to be trying to make a net positive contribution to society. I never asserted that charity or selfless action stems only from relationship with Christ. I instead tried to explain, in a non-comabtive manner, how relationship with Christ influences, supports and expands the desire to be gracious.

But that's not the OP, the OP is why is it more important to welcome Christ in your life than to try and solve real problems?

Excelsior wrote:

The likelihood of me taking your questions seriously has reduced massively in the face of the supreme disdain you show in your responses.

Sorry to hear, that. I am trying to focus on the logic of the argument not have a go at anyone, apologies if offense has been caused.

Excelsior wrote:

Finally, to answer your quite ridiculous question lest you think you really have us God-botherers cornered with it, I do not believe that social action can be seperated from Gospel proclamation.

That's not answering the question. And of course social action can be separated from the Gospel, many atheists are quite involved in social action.

Puck

If someone is starving I would rather give them a sandwich than a Bible. In the same way, if someone is cut badly and bleeding all over the place, they get sewn up in the hospital, not given advice about how a change in their diet can make them a healthier person.

Christians believe that we, as humans, are immortal beings and that our eternal fate is decided here on earth. After we die we will no longer have to worry about maintaining these bodies. You can see then, that if we truly believe what we say we believe that it is very important to us that people find fulfillment and salvation in a relationship with God in this lifetime.

It is a Christian's duty to love others and to make the world a better place be it on a small scale or on a worldwide scale. The problem of course is that Christians are human and being a Christian is no black and white matter. You're not some average guy one day and then suddenly turned in to Martin Luther King when you accept Christ. Knowing God will change you but we all start off from different points - some of us are naturally very nice, loving people and others are selfish, short-tempered bullies. Being changed also takes time, some people experience dramatic change, others develop slowly. Either way, the change will not be complete in this lifetime. Sorry but the world of faith and relationships and growth does not simply fit into black and white categories.

robindch

> Do you seriously think it's more important to give a starving person
> a Bible or food?

A good question, even if it's rather pointed. During the relief effort after the the New Orleans disaster, "Operation Blessing", an organization run by the fundamentalist Pat Robertson, was criticized for handing out bibles bought with federal funds provided under Bush's "faith-based" initiatives program. Elsewhere, Ratzinger recently said:

spreading the word of Jesus Christ was more important than all the emergency and development aid that rich churches like those in Germany gave to poor countries.

While even the moderate Salvation Army, which frequently does excellent relief work, still includes the following phrase in its child sponsorship program leaflet, under the heading "Is this program worthwhile?":

It is certain, however, that every one of them will hear and/or see the Gospel preached during the time they are with us, and every once in a while a true success story comes to light.

While religions do of course provide charitable services, I'm afraid that the above -- and many more instances which I haven't quoted -- clearly indicate that spreading the religion seems to be the ultimate aim of religious charity.

IFX

robindch wrote:

> Do you seriously think it's more important to give a starving person
> a Bible or food?

A good question, even if it's rather pointed. During the relief effort after the the New Orleans disaster, "Operation Blessing", an organization run by the fundamentalist Pat Robertson, was criticized for handing out bibles bought with federal funds provided under Bush's "faith-based" initiatives program. Elsewhere, Ratzinger recently said:While even the moderate Salvation Army, which frequently does excellent relief work, still includes the following phrase in its child sponsorship program leaflet, under the heading "Is this program worthwhile?": While religions do of course provide charitable services, I'm afraid that the above -- and many more instances which I haven't quoted -- clearly indicate that spreading the religion seems to be the ultimate aim of religious charity.

Well if Christianity is more important than humanity, then humanity suffers from the existence of Christianity as evident in your examples. Obviously there is some difference between Christians on this subjects, it is something they really need to clarify as there is a massive difference if you ask me.

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Well if Christianity is more important than humanity, then humanity suffers from the existence of Christianity as evident in your examples. Obviously there is some difference between Christians on this subjects, it is something they really need to clarify as there is a massive difference if you ask me.

robindch wrote:

While religions do of course provide charitable services, I'm afraid that the above -- and many more instances which I haven't quoted -- clearly indicate that spreading the religion seems to be the ultimate aim of religious charity..

Just to straighten this out and considering I fully participate in humanitarian trips to Guatemala. We go to Guatemala in order to try and raise someones standard of living just a tad. We provide education, food and housing to families who otherwise would not have easy access to what we in the western world would consider rights, they consider them a gift.

At the same time we recognize that the only way this work can be done is by the grace of God. I would never have considered doing such work if it was not for the Lord putting it on my heart to do so.

We as Christians have two concerns: immediate physical wellbeing and eternal spiritual health. The humanitarian aid that we offer takes care of the former, the Bibles and the prays take care of the latter.

After all as Jesus said, we will always have the poor. But at the same time we must feed them and care for them and sacrifice for them.

Matthew 26:11
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.


And Robin are you quoting everything the above say? or just the bits that you like that shed a pale light on the motives of Christians? And what is the context of the above quotes? Is that all they said at those times or did they say more? What is the context in which they are speaking?

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

Matthew 26:11
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Hi Brian,
You are avoiding the question?
Which takes priority, food or Bible?
Can you elaborate on the quote? What is it saying?
It is not explicit about helping poor people.
If anything I read the quote as,
you will awlays have poverty but you will not always have me, (Jesus /God) so respect me more.
i.e. I read that quote as saying the bible or faith is more important than giving someone Food as there will always be someone hungry.
It's disappointing to see common humanity come second.

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Hi Brian,
You are avoiding the question?
Which takes priority, food or Bible?
Can you elaborate on the quote? What is it saying?
It is not explicit about helping poor people.
If anything I read the quote as,
you will awlays have poverty but you will not always have me, (Jesus /God) so respect me more.
i.e. I read that quote as saying the bible or faith is more important than giving someone Food as there will always be someone hungry.
It's disappointing to see common humanity come second.

Food or the Bible: They are equal in their importance. One takes care of a current need, the other an eternal need.

The context of Christ's statement. Mary (Martha's sister) is washing Jesus' feet with some expensive oil. Judas moans that the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus then responds "the poor will always be with you". We are not going to eradicate poverty.

Another verse tells us that we must feed the hungry, give drink to the thisty and clothe the naked.

Jesus must gain all the respect, He is God. He tells us it is imperative that we care for our fellow man. Part of that care is their eternal salvation.

robindch

> And Robin are you quoting everything the above say?

No, I'm just quoting the bits where they explicitly say (or clearly imply) what their principal motivation is.

> What is the context in which they are speaking?

• The pope was in Germany, lecturing his fellow-countrymen -- the full article is here.
• The heavily-criticized Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has its list of "approved" cash recipients posted on its website -- you will note that the majority are explicitly religious organizations, explicitly dedicated to spreading religion.
• The Salvation Army's flyer says that its Sponsorship program exists to "provide financial support to enable sponsored children to receive food, clothing, shelter, education, medical needs, spiritual and loving care.". The rest of the leaflet explains the history of the program, how much money you must give, and an application form. Other than one paragraph where it says that "every one will hear and/or see the Gospel preached", there is nothing whatsoever about how else the organization will spend the money donated, nor what constitutes food, clothing, shelter, education or medical needs. Religion stands alone at the number one item.

I see from your own homepage, that your mission statement reads:

Soccer is the worlds number one sport. I believe that we can be involved in the game and be a witness to Jesus while doing so. I look to bringing the gospel to as many as God allows by playing the beautiful game.

and you say in the end of your trip-report, that "Stan told us that some of the parents were asking where their church met. That to me summed up the purpose of this particular trip. We were supporting the Goertzen’s in their church planting endeavour." ...which again, is quite clear. Your report indicates that you seem to have little interest in being nice to people, outside of what's necessary to spread your religion. Sorry to be so stark about it.

I really don't believe that any more 'context' needs to be given. The message is quite clear as it stands

.

BrianCalgary

To address my own role:

The purpose of every Christian is to bring the good news of salvation through Christ to all nations.

The concern of eternity is first and foremost.

It is also part of our duty to care for the poor.

In Guatemala we get to care for the financially poor. That is one. The second is to bring the news of Christ to them. No secret.

In Italy, our missionaries are bringing the news of Christ to a population that doesn't know Him and puts the priority on trying to fulfil their needs through material needs. Those material items only last a short time. What about eternity? Are those needs being met or even realized?

Our missionaries put on camps. Build positive relationships and the parents recognize two things; their kids are changed for the better as a result of the camps and that the missionary camps are different than the secular ones offered in the city.

What are the goals of the secular ones? It would be interesting to see what they would say.

But when you see a kid who gets beat up by his dad at home, being beligerent and rebellious, sitting quietly on the lap of a grown man who is showing unconditional love. A young boy who is craving the love of a man, is finally receiving it, what more could you want? And to be able to tell that kid that his needs can be met through Christ. Wow.

You know Robin, I don't know what you do or have experienced through any type of charitable work. But what I have seen and experienced through the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people who are not only finanacially impoverished but spiritually impoverished is nothing short of astounding. The fact that I have been able to participate in both a third world country and a first world country is a privelege.

Instaed of criticising the people who are doing the work, why not ask those who have been on th erecieving end?

The woman who is crying tears of joy because her Daughter gets a house, the mother who sheds tears because she can feed her kids for the next month. The kid who gets to school two hours early for class, because they get an education. All this in the name of Christ.

I feel to see where your criticism holds any water whatsoever.

robindch

Brian, let me be quite clear: I'm not criticitizing being good to people and helping them out. I think it's fantastic that you do: see my comment about the SA above.

> What are the goals of the secular ones?

In fact, as a humanist, it's the most important thing that people can do when alive: to help others out and contribute to human society and human culture as completely and as honestly as one can. And to encourage others to do the same. FYI, I spent five years working part-time in a local homeless shelter here in Dublin and know exactly what charity work is like -- it's very rewarding, exactly as you describe. I also note in passing that none of my christian friends have volunteered for any charitable works, while most of my humanist friends have.

What I am criticizing, though, is that the intention of most religious charities is to spread religion which is a principal motivating factor in many, if not most, of the world's present and past conflicts. Religions say that they're there for the good of people. That's patently not true. Religions simply exist for their own benefit and have engineered the social and psychological conditions so that they can. And I find that dishonest, selfish and terribly cynical.

IFX

Brian, do you point out that it is just as easy to help people if you are atheist?
And this is evident in the fact that many atheists regularly help people out.
I doubt the people you are helping give you a debate about the big bang or Darwin. They are needy and are easy prey for your agenda if you don't mind me saying.
As for the food and the Bible being equal in importance, this is ridiculous fanaticism. You can die without food, the Bible is not a necessity, it is a luxury for some people who have a spiritual need.
No matter what your spiritual need, you don't die if go without the bible, you do if you go without food, eventually.
You've got your priorities wrong.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Brian, let me be quite clear: I'm not criticitizing being good to people and helping them out. I think it's fantastic that you do: see my comment about the SA above..

This I do know, robin. I remember comments you made when we first met. I will never criticise you heart, and apologize if I came across that way.

robindch wrote:

> What are the goals of the secular ones?

In fact, as a humanist, it's the most important thing that people can do when alive: to help others out and contribute to human society and human culture as completely and as honestly as one can. And to encourage others to do the same. FYI, I spent five years working part-time in a local homeless shelter here in Dublin and know exactly what charity work is like -- it's very rewarding, exactly as you describe. I also note in passing that none of my christian friends have volunteered for any charitable works, while most of my humanist friends have..

The fact that none of your Christian friends have volunteered is rather disturbing.

robindch wrote:

What I am criticizing, though, is that the intention of most religious charities is to spread religion which is a principal motivating factor in many, if not most, of the world's present and past conflicts. Religions say that they're there for the good of people. That's patently not true. Religions simply exist for their own benefit and have engineered the social and psychological conditions so that they can. And I find that dishonest, selfish and terribly cynical.

I so disagree with you here. I see in history where churches have pushed their own agendas in certain areas. I see it happen today in Central America. It is disgusting.

When I go to a country to do some soocer camps there is certain criteria that I go by; the first and foremost is what ongoing support is there for any child and what is that support like?

So in Guatemala the missionary is all about social suuport through food, clothing, shelter, medical and education.

In having said that, the eternal must be taken care of.

You can give anybody money to provide goods that will take care of their current needs. It's easy. But you also have to take care of their mental and spiritual needs, they are intertwined, the whole person, not just half.

To not care for the whole person would be dishonest and hypocritical. To garner support based on the humanitarian work and keep secret the spiritual componenet of th eministry would be dishonest.

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Brian, do you point out that it is just as easy to help people if you are atheist?.

I have never denied the fact that people can and do help others regardless of faith system.

IFX wrote:

I doubt the people you are helping give you a debate about the big bang or Darwin. They are needy and are easy prey for your agenda if you don't mind me saying..

Are you implying that since they are poor that they are stupid?

IFX wrote:

As for the food and the Bible being equal in importance, this is ridiculous fanaticism. You can die without food, the Bible is not a necessity, it is a luxury for some people who have a spiritual need. .

The food feeds them now. The Bible leads them to being fed for eternity. Or would you rather have me put them right on the path to spiritual destruction?

IFX wrote:

No matter what your spiritual need, you don't die if go without the bible, you do if you go without food, eventually.
You've got your priorities wrong.

That is why both are given. So they never die. We feed them for their current needs and we feed them for their eternal needs. Why would you only want to address a portion of a persons well being?

robindch

> The fact that none of your Christian friends have volunteered is rather disturbing.

Yes, it's disturbing, but not all that surprising, since they've handed over much control over their responsibilities to an institution which is principally interested in keeping itself alive.

Do you not see that religions are, in many ways, 'living' things which are prepared to do anything to stay alive, including selling false stories to people?

> To garner support based on the humanitarian work and keep secret the
> spiritual component of the ministry would be dishonest.

Yes, it would be. But it still just proves my point that your principal aim is to spread your own ideology. The charity work that I have done, was done for the sake of humanity alone and not because I wanted to make all the homeless people in Dublin think like me.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have never denied the fact that people can and do help others regardless of faith system.

You are not answering the question. When you point out Jesus to these poor people do you also point out that many people live just fine without Jesus or do you just push your own agenda?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Are you implying that since they are poor that they are stupid?

That's a straw man Brian. The poor usually have lower literacy rates and lower educational rates, the evidence backs me up on this. They are not stupid, they have simply not been educated to the same levels as what we in richer countries takes for granted. If I was never educated about Science or Darwin, Logic or Probability - I'd believe in the bible in someone gave it to me.
You are essentially picking on weak prey.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The food feeds them now. The Bible leads them to being fed for eternity. Or would you rather have me put them right on the path to spiritual destruction?

Here you can't differentiate between fact and opinion. This is when dogma gets very dangerous. It is a fact that they need food. It is an opinion at best that the Bible brings them to eternity. I would prefer if you kept spirituality out of it - if you can't even distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion.

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is why both are given. So they never die. We feed them for their current needs and we feed them for their eternal needs. Why would you only want to address a portion of a persons well being?

Again you cannot differentiate between fact and opinion.
There is countless evidence of people dieing from starvation, if you go out without food you will die.
There is no evidence at all, that the bible is a necessity to help one's eternal needs. At best it is a opinion.
Scary stuff, this is why I don't give money to religious charities and only secular ones.

To put the question another way:
There are 40 starving people.
You have a choice of giving 20 starving people food and 20 starving people bibles or 40 starving people food?
Which do you pick?

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

You are not answering the question. When you point out Jesus to these poor people do you also point out that many people live just fine without Jesus or do you just push your own agenda??

No because there eternal salvation does not get addressed.

IFX wrote:

That's a straw man Brian. The poor usually have lower literacy rates and lower educational rates, the evidence backs me up on this. They are not stupid, they have simply not been educated to the same levels as what we in richer countries takes for granted. If I was never educated about Science or Darwin, Logic or Probability - I'd believe in the bible in someone gave it to me.
You are essentially picking on weak prey.??

I think maybe you should come and experience the work in a third world country and then tell me you think the people are weak. IFX you are making some pretty serious attacks and judgements on people you haver never met or on work that you have never done ina country where you have never been. Yet you talk about needing evidence?

I'm giving you first hand evidence I have been there, I have seen how Christ affects people, I have met Christ and I know that there is an eternity to be concerned about, because I have seen Heaven.

IFX wrote:

Here you can't differentiate between fact and opinion. This is when dogma gets very dangerous. It is a fact that they need food. It is an opinion at best that the Bible brings them to eternity. I would prefer if you kept spirituality out of it - if you can't even distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion..??

Sorry IFX but when you have witnessed Heaven, it is a fact. If you choose to ignore it that's fine. My daughter is a great one for looking for an item that she has misplaced, she will telll us she has searched her room. Lo and behold it is there. If you choose to ignore the testimonies of millions who have experienced the saving grace of Christ that is fine. But you are not going to keep me from proclaiming it. Or are you against freedom of speech?

IFX wrote:

Again you cannot differentiate between fact and opinion.
There is countless evidence of people dieing from starvation, if you go out without food you will die.
There is no evidence at all, that the bible is a necessity to help one's eternal needs. At best it is a opinion.
Scary stuff, this is why I don't give money to religious charities and only secular ones.

To put the question another way:
There are 40 starving people.
You have a choice of giving 20 starving people food and 20 starving people bibles or 40 starving people food?
Which do you pick?

God will provide both.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

No because there eternal salvation does not get addressed.

Ridiculous, you have no proof of external salavation, it is an opinion but you preach it as fact.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think maybe you should come and experience the work in a third world country and then tell me you think the people are weak.

Ridculous. That's a straw man Brian. The people themselves are not intrinsically weak, it's their position that makes them weak.
If you do not think they are in a weak position well then why are you over there helping them?
You are simply contradicting yourself!

BrianCalgary wrote:

IFX you are making some pretty serious attacks and judgements on people you haver never met or on work that you have never done ina country where you have never been. Yet you talk about needing evidence?

Well let's elaborate on this.
You are going to places where poverty is endemic, low literacty rates, low education levels as a healthy Westener.
Are you not?
These people see a healthy westener and simply do not have the abilty to argue with you. Of course they are going to believe what you say, if I was in the same weak position I would too. And I don't consider myself intrinsically weak either!

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'm giving you first hand evidence I have been there, I have seen how Christ affects people, I have met Christ and I know that there is an eternity to be concerned about, because I have seen Heaven.

This is a delusion. You have not seen Christ, just like I have not seen a ghoust. I dont' care it's a delusion. I don't have a problem as long as food for starving people always comes first.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry IFX but when you have witnessed Heaven, it is a fact. If you choose to ignore it that's fine. My daughter is a great one for looking for an item that she has misplaced, she will telll us she has searched her room. Lo and behold it is there. If you choose to ignore the testimonies of millions who have experienced the saving grace of Christ that is fine. But you are not going to keep me from proclaiming it. Or are you against freedom of speech?

I am pro food. I am against brainwashing.
Christianity is a good delusion if it helps people, it is a dangerous delusion if it gets in the way food going to starving people.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God will provide both.

Christianity is a dangerous dogma if it gets in the way of food going to starving people.

robindch

> If you choose to ignore the testimonies of millions who have experienced the
> saving grace of Christ that is fine.

Just because millions of people believe something doesn't mean it's right. Passion and truth are different things and it's easy to manipulate people's beliefs. Especially if they think they're not being manipulated. Muslims, Jainists, Hindus, Jews and a thousand of other religions are just as sure that their gods alone exist, as you are sure that your god does. Millions of people will tell you that chinese medicine works, or that astrology works or that their dead parents have appeared to them. None of these things are true. But that doesn't stop them saying they're true with passion and not a little bit of "well, you can ignore me if you like, but don't blame me if you ignore the truth".

A thousand years ago, people believed in Thor. A thousand years before that, it was Apollo. A thousand years before that, it was Baal. In a thousand years time, it'll probably be something else. What makes all these people wrong and you right?

hairyheretic

robindch wrote:

Muslims, Jainists, Hindus, Jews and a thousand of other religions are just as sure that their gods alone exist, as you are sure that your god does.

Actually it just seems to be more the montheists who have the problem acknowledging that other gods may be real.

robindch wrote:

Millions of people will tell you that chinese medicine works, or that astrology works or that their dead parents have appeared to them. None of these things are true.

Or at least none can produce proof which you would be willing to accept?

robindch wrote:

A thousand years ago, people believed in Thor.

And still do today.

BrianCalgary

I tell you IFX you are coming across as someone who honestly believes that only those with low intelligence and are uneducated can be duped into buying into something like Christianity.

Are you therefore smarter than all of us Christians? And only dummies become Christians?

You can poopoo all you want the experience of millions and their journey with Christ.

The bottom line is that where I go (Guatemala and Italy) there are different needs in both places and we are doing what we can to satisfy those needs. Involving the whole person, their physical, mental and spiritual health.

If all you want to do is feed them and ignore the rest of the situation that is your business.

But, what gives you the right to slam others for the obviuos good that they do in this world?

Or is it only good if it fits your agenda?

You asked me earlier if I thought it was possible for an atheist to perform humanitarian works, I responded in the positive. Robin and I can work side by side helping and working in the soup kitchen.

Why would you want me to not be concerned with someones spiritual condition and to prevent me from sharing it, just because you refuse to accept the testimonies of millions?

You are pretty narrowminded. And sound like a fundamentalist.:)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Just because millions of people believe something doesn't mean it's right. Passion and truth are different things and it's easy to manipulate people's beliefs. Especially if they think they're not being manipulated. Muslims, Jainists, Hindus, Jews and a thousand of other religions are just as sure that their gods alone exist, as you are sure that your god does. Millions of people will tell you that chinese medicine works, or that astrology works or that their dead parents have appeared to them. None of these things are true. But that doesn't stop them saying they're true with passion and not a little bit of "well, you can ignore me if you like, but don't blame me if you ignore the truth".?

I don't deny theat people have had experiences as you mention. But what is the source for those experiences and what is the fruit of them?

robindch wrote:

A thousand years ago, people believed in Thor. A thousand years before that, it was Apollo. A thousand years before that, it was Baal. In a thousand years time, it'll probably be something else. What makes all these people wrong and you right?

And so was the God of Abraham, who came to us to pay for our sin, and here we are 3500 years after Moses still worshipping the same God, who is always under attack by all the other faiths.

I am not right it is my God who is right. It is my God who came down from Heaven and died for my sins. It is my God who offered His life for me. If Thor or Apoollo or Baal would like to come and do the same I would consider them worthy of my life.

But can't see it happening.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

I tell you IFX you are coming across as someone who honestly believes that only those with low intelligence and are uneducated can be duped into buying into something like Christianity.

Are you therefore smarter than all of us Christians? And only dummies become Christians?

You can poopoo all you want the experience of millions and their journey with Christ.

That's going off the point. My point is food for a starving person should always get priority over spiritual dogma. The intelligence of Christians is a separate issue.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The bottom line is that where I go (Guatemala and Italy) there are different needs in both places and we are doing what we can to satisfy those needs. Involving the whole person, their physical, mental and spiritual health.

If all you want to do is feed them and ignore the rest of the situation that is your business.

Incorrect, another straw man, I never said "ignore the rest of situation".
I say food for a starving person takes precedence and should always, if you can help them in other ways, that's great. Teaching them to read for example or how to make something, there's an endless list on how we can help the poor before christian dogma.

BrianCalgary wrote:

But, what gives you the right to slam others for the obviuos good that they do in this world?

I congradulate you or anyone who helps a poor person in a real way, i.e. give food, money, time, help etc. However, I don't consider spreading unproven dogma good, it's just a form of manipulation of those who aren't in a position to argue with you. It's a form of passive bullying.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why would you want me to not be concerned with someones spiritual condition and to prevent me from sharing it, just because you refuse to accept the testimonies of millions? You are pretty narrowminded. And sound like a fundamentalist.:)

I am concerned about objectivity. Out of the large sample set of Christian societies, some people believe it some people don't. It is disingenious of you to present Christianity as if everybody believes it and lives better for it. You are doing this, by using rhetoric such as "testimonies of millions" - why not give a % of people who it has benefitted?
Some people believe it or not Brian live worse because of it. You are simply presenting a false and biased view of Christianity.
It is you who is narrow minded, You are focussing on a subset of Christianity that is ultra positive and avoiding an objective analysis. I accept some people live better for Christianity, but I don't shun reality - and abserve that many people live worse for Christianity and end up avoiding it, no matter how many opportunities of it are presented to them.
As for me being a fundamentalist, yes I am fundamentally against bullies be they atheist or theist. I would say the exact same as what I am saying to you, to an atheist who considered explictly telling a starving person there is no God as important as giving them food.

neuro-praxis

One Or Two Cool Christians

G. K. Chesterton (poet, writer)
Michael Faraday (discovered Benzene, electromagnetic induction, lines of force, relationship between polarized light and magnetic fields)
C. S. Lewis (writer, chair at Oxford)
J.R.R. Tolkien (you know this guy)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (wrote the definitive American novel that shaped the minds of generations)
Jerry Molen (produced Schindlers List, Rain Man, Jurassic Park)
Lord Kelvin (British Physicist, first and second laws of thermodynamics)
Martin Luther King Jnr. (you also know this guy, I presume)
Abraham Lincoln (abolished slavery)
Edith Stein (leading theologian; holocaust survivor, writer)
H.G. Heinz (Ketchup!)
Sam Walton (Walmart!)
T.S. Eliot (modernist writer)
Christopher Columbus (sailed the ocean green...)
Isaac Newton (something to do with an apple..and...do I need to explain?)
Descartes (basics of every philosophy course in the country!)
Samuel Morse (...of the code)
Wright Brothers (like flying, do ya?)
Georges Lemaître (a Roman Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory) <--I LOVE THIS ONE!
Copernicus (Discovered that the earth rotates around the sun)
Galileo (Super-scientist)
Blaise Pascal (Mathematician)
Johannes Kepler (devised the 3 laws of planetary motion)
John Adams (drafted the American Declaration of Independence)
Arthur Eddington (mathematical cosmologist)
William Phillips (1997 Nobel Prize Winner for physics)
Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project)
Jim Irwin (astronaut)

Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, Alice Cooper, MC Hammer(!), all of U2 except Adam Clayton, Sufjan Stevens, Joey Ramone, Billy Corgan, drummer in Greenday (what's his name??), Natasha Bedingfield, James Brown, Run DMC...just a few of the people who've provided us with some classy choons over the years.

I haven't mentioned all of the thousands of Christians that you enjoy watching on your favourite television programmes and in your favourite movies every day. Or the Christian doctors and nurses that care for you when you're ill (some of them attend my church!). Or the university lecturers that you gleaned from for a few of your college years. Even the fabled Mr T is a believer!

And let's not forget to add that trollop neuro-praxis to that list...who achieved the highest thesis grade in NUIM philosphy 2004 in her B.A. (Just had to get the boast in there. )

Well. What a bunch of simple-minded, uneducated, illogical buffoons.

PS Are you aware of your racism?

neuro-praxis

And a question too - what work do you do for the world's disenfranchised, IFX?

Because you seem to be arguing that the bible advocates giving tracts to the poor, when in fact, social justice is the bible's primary concern for the works in Christians' lives. There are 2,003 references in the bible to caring for the needy. I could list for you easily a hundred Christians in Dublin alone whose lives are utterly committed to caring for the poor, hungry, homeless, sick, those afflicted by HIV and AIDS, and who work full time in those areas. If you visited my church you could meet a lot of them, and you could also look over our church's policy on financial giving, care in the community and Christmas gift projects.

You might be pleasantly surprised.

IFX

neuro-praxis wrote:

And a question too - what work do you do for the world's disenfranchised, IFX?

Because you seem to be arguing that the bible advocates giving tracts to the poor, when in fact, social justice is the bible's primary concern for the works in Christians' lives. There are 2,003 references in the bible to caring for the needy. I could list for you easily a hundred Christians in Dublin alone whose lives are utterly committed to caring for the poor, hungry, homeless, sick, those afflicted by HIV and AIDS, and who work full time in those areas. If you visited my church you could meet a lot of them, and you could also look over our church's policy on financial giving, care in the community and Christmas gift projects.

You might be pleasantly surprised.

Another straw man. My point is not that Christians are evil or stupid, my point is giving food to a starving person should always take priority over spreading one's beliefs. Some Christians are highly intelligent, some have average intelligence, some are stupid, dito atheists, dito muslims dito...
WRT to this thread, I am referring to people who are in a weak position and who are starving. They need food, not bibles.
Are you trying to tell me any of the names mentioned in your list are in a weak position and are starving or something?
No I doubt it. Are you trying to tell me all these people not only were Christians but also believed giving bibles to starving people was just as important as giving them food?
No I also doubt it. Therefore this list bares absolutely no relevance to this thread. It is an effort on your part to create a straw man and go off the point. Please stick to the point.

neuro-praxis

IFX. My post of Christians whose social and cultural work has changed the course of history dramatically was intended to demonstrate to you that Christians are indeed not gullible fools as you have outlined in previous posts. Do not pretend that this was not your implication. It was. You implied that only an uneducated person would be "lured" into belief. Which is pure nonsense. I am glad that you now accept this point.

So we may move on.

Now. You did not respond to my post about the bible's primary focus being on social justice. Surely this highlights YOUR argument as a straw man? If the bible instructs Christians to care for the physical needs of those in the world, two thousand and three times in its sixty-six books, then you will agree that Christian doctrine does not advocate "spreading beliefs" but rather, whole-life care of the other.

The Christian happens to believe that whole-life care includes TELLING them about the love and redemption and forgiveness that we have received in God.

Listen up. My experience of God in the last 10 years has been transformational, and I would be a fool not to share that with others. However I believe in earning the right to speak of such things, by loving others FIRST.

St. Francis of Assisi said: "Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

I am sorry IFX, I don't know if you are a first year philo student or what, but my above post has been an utter rebuttal of your argument and I won't be returning to see any more subjective, muddy thinking on your part. Plus, reign in the aggression - it is very unbecoming.

IFX

neuro-praxis wrote:

IFX. My post of Christians whose social and cultural work has changed the course of history dramatically was intended to demonstrate to you that Christians are indeed not gullible fools as you have outlined in previous posts.
Do not pretend that this was not your implication. It was. You implied that only an uneducated person would be "lured" into belief. Which is pure nonsense.

Incorrect, I stated that an uneducated person could easily lured into Christianity. I did not say "only" an uneducated person could easily be lured into Christianity. That is another straw man.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Now. You did not respond to my post about the bible's primary focus being on social justice.

I accept that the Bible contains elements of social justice and I respect that. However, I don't agree that the primary focus of the Bible or A Christian is social justice. Note social justice has nothing to do with spirituality. Spirituality or Theism or Christianity or Atheism is personnel issue not a social issue.
The Bible for examples contains many cases of genocide - thats is most definetly not social justice.

neuro-praxis wrote:

If the bible instructs Christians to care for the physical needs of those in the world, two thousand and three times in its sixty-six books, then you will agree that Christian doctrine does not advocate "spreading beliefs" but rather, whole-life care of the other.

I would prefer the Bible just focussed on social and human needs and not spiritual beliefs, unfortunately it does not.

neuro-praxis wrote:

The Christian happens to believe that whole-life care includes TELLING them about the love and redemption and forgiveness that we have received in God.

Well speak for youself. Many Christians are quite happy to keep their dogma to themselves.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Listen up. My experience of God in the last 10 years has been transformational, and I would be a fool not to share that with others. However I believe in earning the right to speak of such things, by loving others FIRST.

St. Francis of Assisi said: "Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."

Well that's great for you. But we're not all the same. Some people find the Gospels or NT or Bible annoying, it does not inspire them.
We're not all the same. Please remember that and the fact that giving a starving person food is more important than spreading your spiritual beliefs.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I am sorry IFX, I don't know if you are a first year philo student or what, but my above post has been an utter rebuttal of your argument and I won't be returning to see any more subjective, muddy thinking on your part. Plus, reign in the aggression - it is very unbecoming.

I don't notice any rebuttal. You created a straw man. By misinterpreting my argument as Christians are stupid. A straw man is not a rebuttal.
You then made a point about references to social caring in the Bible. I agree with social caring, as I agree with giving starving people food. I am being consistent here. So there is no rebuttal.
However, I don't agree with the other parts of the bible, the genocides or the spiritual conclusions for example as they have nothing to do with social caring. Again I am being consistent, you have no rebuttal.
More to point, the crux of my argument is giving food to a starving person is more important than giving them your spiritual beliefs or your lack off. Again I am being consistent here, to atheism and all theism. Nothing should take precedence over feeding a starving person. You have no rebuttal.

Excelsior

One of these semesters, you'll get around to studying the positivists IFX. Your lectuerer will ruin it for you when he takes apart Ayer, who you will hold as a Messiah from the moment you first find him until that heart-breaking, crumbling disasterous point when the flaws in "I speak logic-osophy" you espouse come tumbling down on you.

I've been there. Or well, somewhere similar. You'll get through it.

Your total ignorance of the Bible, of historiagraphy and most crucially, what Christianity actually consists of makes conversation on a web forum impossible. Maybe over a pint we could hammer out some sense between us and speak in a language you could understand but your assumptions are so huge and so radicalised that its impossible*.

Case in point: Your assertion that many Christians don't feel the need to share "their DOGMA". Are they Christians because they follow Jesus who is the Christ who said, "Go into all the world preaching the good news, baptising and making disciples?" Or are they the Christians who like Neuro-praxis had just pointed out, wouldn't speak the good news without making it a concrete reality in the lives of their neighbours.

Go to your university's CU. Start some conversations with real people. You might be surprised at how much more coherent and complete Christianity can be than you imagine. You will certainly be better off.

*Where impossible means I'd prefer to watch a repeat of Don't Feed The Gondolas rather than go through the tedium,

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

One of these semesters, you'll get around to studying the positivists IFX. Your lectuerer will ruin it for you when he takes apart Ayer, who you will hold as a Messiah from the moment you first find him until that heart-breaking, crumbling disasterous point when the flaws in "I speak logic-osophy" you espouse come tumbling down on you.

I've been there. Or well, somewhere similar. You'll get through it.

What you are doing is simply attacking me, not logical.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic3.html
Why not just work your way through my argument and be specific about where the holes are?

Excelsior wrote:

Your total ignorance of the Bible, of historiagraphy and most crucially, what Christianity actually consists of makes conversation on a web forum impossible.

Can you be specific about where I have ignorant? Give an example perhaps?

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe over a pint we could hammer out some sense between us and speak in a language you could understand but your assumptions are so huge and so radicalised that its impossible*.
Case in point: Your assertion that many Christians don't feel the need to share "their DOGMA". Are they Christians because they follow Jesus who is the Christ who said, "Go into all the world preaching the good news, baptising and making disciples?" Or are they the Christians who like Neuro-praxis had just pointed out, wouldn't speak the good news without making it a concrete reality in the lives of their neighbours.

They are Christians because they call themselves Christians and they are consistent with the definition of the word in the English dictionary. That is not an assumption. It is a fact.

Excelsior wrote:

Go to your university's CU. Start some conversations with real people. You might be surprised at how much more coherent and complete Christianity can be than you imagine. You will certainly be better off.

This is just facile rhetoric.

Excelsior

IFX wrote:

Can you be specific about where I have ignorant? Give an example perhaps?

Your total ignorance of, just off the top of my head, any theology of hell.

Summing up myself...

Excelsior wrote:

You should meet some Christians. There'll be some at college who love talking about this stuff

You responded...

IFX wrote:

This is just facile rhetoric.

Oh Gracious God, where shall I flee from this undergrad mania?!?

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

I congradulate you or anyone who helps a poor person in a real way, i.e. give food, money, time, help etc. However, I don't consider spreading unproven dogma good, it's just a form of manipulation of those who aren't in a position to argue with you. It's a form of passive bullying.

As for me being a fundamentalist, yes I am fundamentally against bullies be they atheist or theist. I would say the exact same as what I am saying to you, to an atheist who considered explictly telling a starving person there is no God as important as giving them food.

My word. IFX, here are some things to think about:

1. Whether or not it is good to give a starving person food has not been proven. In fact in several belief systems, it would be considered BAD because you are enabling their own weaknesses, or (in another) it is considered bad that the very idea of charity as a virtue exists (some Libertarians).
2. What kind of actions are you imagining these Christian aid workers are doing that would somehow dissolve the ability of the poor to argue or disagree with what they say? Do you think that a piece of bread is being dangled in front of their mouth which they can have if only they'll convert to Christ? I hope you're not, because that's an incredibly insulting accusation. If this is what you are saying, then I demand that you provide evidence of actual cases, otherwise you are making things up.
3. If the atheist saw the starving man donate all of his food to his god, the atheist is honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways, so that he may live.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Your total ignorance of, just off the top of my head, any theology of hell.

You need to be more specific here. Point something specifically out to me I have got wrong. But perhaps in that thread. It would make more sense.

Excelsior wrote:

Oh Gracious God, where shall I flee from this undergrad mania?!?

[/QUOTE]
Why not make just points that is relevant to the thread?
Why persist at just casting facile slurs at me?

robindch

> Or at least none can produce proof which you would be willing to accept?

If the evidence is present, then I will tentatively accept it, like I tentatively accept everything else. The problem with the topics I quoted is that they are notorious for producing crap research, where they research at all. And, having read extensively on all of them, I've satisfied myself that there's nothing to any of them. Likewise, there is unlikely ever to be anything to any of them until the researchers in these areas can make some effort to get their act together.

> A thousand years ago, people believed in Thor.
> And still do today.

I always wondered if there are a few strange people out there who still worship Apollo, Zeus, or perhaps Mithra, some of the earlier gods to succumb to christianity's onslaught.

IFX

JustHalf wrote:

[*]Whether or not it is good to give a starving person food has not been proven. In fact in several belief systems, it would be considered BAD because you are enabling their own weaknesses, or (in another) it is considered bad that the very idea of charity as a virtue exists (some Libertarians).

Of course it has been proven, if you accept / belief it's good to stay alive.

JustHalf wrote:

[*]What kind of actions are you imagining these Christian aid workers are doing that would somehow dissolve the ability of the poor to argue or disagree with what they say? Do you think that a piece of bread is being dangled in front of their mouth which they can have if only they'll convert to Christ? I hope you're not, because that's an incredibly insulting accusation. If this is what you are saying, then I demand that you provide evidence of actual cases, otherwise you are making things up.

I do not generalise for all Christian workers belief it or not. I am talking about specific Christian workers who think it is just as important to give a starving person a bible as it is to give them food, this I find immoral.
My view would be that not all Christian's belief this, but a subset do.
My point is not specifc to Christians - it would be the same for a Muslim or Atheist worker who thought pushing their particular beliefs was just as important as giving a starving person food.

JustHalf wrote:

[*]If the atheist saw the starving man donate all of his food to his god, the atheist is honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways, so that he may live.

The atheist is not honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways. It is not implicit in atheism to convince anybody of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.

hairyheretic

robindch wrote:

I always wondered if there are a few strange people out there who still worship Apollo, Zeus, or perhaps Mithra, some of the earlier gods to succumb to christianity's onslaught.

Drop by the paganism forum sometime, you'll find more than a few to talk to. I couldn't say for sure who honours which deities, mind you. I can only speak for myself.

robindch

> I don't deny theat people have had experiences as you mention. But what is
> the source for those experiences and what is the fruit of them?

The source of these experiences is exactly the same for you as for them -- human brains. And you have convinced yourself that your experiences prove the existence of your god, just as surely as their experiences prove to them, the existence of their god or gods.

The common factor is the human brain and how it works. I know a guy who (when he's off his medication) is convinced that he's Jesus Christ; before that, he believed with total conviction that he was Napoleon. You share with this unfortunate man a total conviction in truth of personal beliefs. Do you think there's any chance that you could be mislead?

> I am not right it is my God who is right.

Hold on there. In between "you" and your god, there is the small matter of a belief that the god exists, and that it's the right one. It is your belief in both of these matters which mediates this truth. Again, do you think there exists the slightest chance that your brain may be misleading you, and that your belief may actually be faulty?

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

Of course it has been proven, if you accept / belief it's good to stay alive.

1. Even if I were to accept that, it would not prove that. For example, I believe I am the child of the people who claim to be my mother and father, but this is in now way a rigorous proof.
2. Why accept that it is good to stay alive? Or, given an accurate and reasonable reading of what I actually said, why accept that it is good to help others stay alive?

IFX wrote:

I do not generalise for all Christian workers belief it or not. I am talking about specific Christian workers who think it is just as important to give a starving person a bible as it is to give them food, this I find immoral.
My view would be that not all Christian's belief this, but a subset do.
My point is not specifc to Christians - it would be the same for a Muslim or Atheist worker who thought pushing their particular beliefs was just as important as giving a starving person food.

Provide examples of your very specific charge.

Also, it is incredibly insulting to these "starving people" that you say they are bereft of their faculties of reason; that they are "in no position to argue". Bullcrap. Just because you are poor doesn't make you weak, doesn't make you stupid, doesn't make you less of a person.

The only stage where these people would truly be in no position to argue, is where they are subject to forced "conversions", forced into Bible readings to get food, forced, forced, forced. Where a condition of receiving food is to undergo some sort of indoctrination. This is a serious charge and you need to back it up with something more than hearsay and loose argument, or shut up.

And if this is not the charge you are making, then what on earth is your problem?

IFX wrote:

The atheist is not honour-bound by his beliefs to convince the man the error of his ways. It is not implicit in atheism to convince anybody of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.

It is implicit in honour to do good. The atheist would be bound by his sense of honour.

Let us be clear now. In the hypothetical situation I described, the atheist has two choices:

1. Leave the starving person alone, and let him starve, or
2. Try to convince the starving person of the error of their ways, so that they may live.

There are no other real choices. I am presuming that the atheist gave the starving person the food out of the goodness of his heart. Assuming this (which is entirely reasonable), then do you honestly believe that this same atheist would stand by and watch the man starve out of what he sees as ignorance?

No, he is honour-bound to make the second choice.

It is not his atheism that drives him here, but the goodness of his heart. And the goodness of his heart would require this man to take the second option, or be a disgrace to all that is good.

IFX

JustHalf wrote:

1. Even if I were to accept that, it would not prove that. For example, I believe I am the child of the people who claim to be my mother and father, but this is in now way a rigorous proof.
2. Why accept that it is good to stay alive? Or, given an accurate and reasonable reading of what I actually said, why accept that it is good to help others stay alive?

I assume you accept food keeps you alive, so your questions becomes why is good to keep someone alive.
I think it is fundamental to most theists or atheists it is generally good to keep somone alive, and it is pointless to this thread debating that.

JustHalf wrote:

Provide examples of your very specific charge.

This thread.

JustHalf wrote:

Also, it is incredibly insulting to these "starving people" that you say they are bereft of their faculties of reason; that they are "in no position to argue".
Bullcrap. Just because you are poor doesn't make you weak, doesn't make you stupid, doesn't make you less of a person.

Straw man. I never said they were explicitly weak people, please read the thread. They are in a weak position, low education literacy rates, starving. Again there is agreement that they are in a weak position as why is Brian or whoever going to help them in the first place?
And I repeat, if I was in their position, I would fall for the Christian spin too. So I am no weaker or stronger than them.

JustHalf wrote:

The only stage where these people would truly be in no position to argue, is where they are subject to forced "conversions", forced into Bible readings to get food, forced, forced, forced. Where a condition of receiving food is to undergo some sort of indoctrination. This is a serious charge and you need to back it up with something more than hearsay and loose argument, or shut up.

Straw man 2. They are not forced conversations, there is no condition of conversion for food. I never said there was. They are simple extremely biased versions of the facts or extremly biased education they are receiving.

JustHalf wrote:

And if this is not the charge you are making, then what on earth is your problem?

You don't appear to know what I am saying.

JustHalf wrote:

It is implicit in honour to do good. The atheist would be bound by his sense of honour.

Let us be clear now. In the hypothetical situation I described, the atheist has two choices:

1. Leave the starving person alone, and let him starve, or
2. Try to convince the starving person of the error of their ways, so that they may live.

There are no other real choices. I am presuming that the atheist gave the starving person the food out of the goodness of his heart. Assuming this (which is entirely reasonable), then do you honestly believe that this same atheist would stand by and watch the man starve out of what he sees as ignorance?

No, he is honour-bound to make the second choice.

It is not his atheism that drives him here, but the goodness of his heart. And the goodness of his heart would require this man to take the second option, or be a disgrace to all that is good.

Ok, firstly we cannot generalise for atheists in the same way we cannot generalise for Christians. Some Christians would believe it is just as important to give food as it is to give the bible, some would think it always more important to give food. Note - my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

However, as there is variance amongst Christians to my food / bible question there would be variance amongst atheists to your question.


Secondly, if the atheist tells them not to give up their food, one must ask why are they doing it? To promote their belief system or to keep the person alive. It can be either or both. Three possible conclusions.
In my question, the Christian who thinks the Bible is just as important as giving a starving person food, there is no need to ask the question why are the doing it, as there is only one conclusion. This Christian believes spreading their belief system is just as important as life itself, it is implicit in the answer.
Your question, is simple a question that asks another question.
It doesn't tell us anything conclusive. It is similar to this type of logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Thirdly, your question is far reomved from the real world, does it ever happen? My question regularly happens. Missionaries all around the world, many of whom as seen in this thread, believe giving food to a starving person is just as important as giving a person a bible.

John Wine

Hello,
I would consider myself a liberal Christian and I would agree with IFX on this issue. Food for a starving person should always come before a Bible.
Interesting debate though. There are some issues the Christian world needs to make clear to the non Christian world as I feel we are alienating a lot of the middle ground. If Christianity is not embracing the middle ground, something is going wrong.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I don't deny theat people have had experiences as you mention. But what is
> the source for those experiences and what is the fruit of them?

The source of these experiences is exactly the same for you as for them -- human brains. And you have convinced yourself that your experiences prove the existence of your god, just as surely as their experiences prove to them, the existence of their god or gods.

The common factor is the human brain and how it works. I know a guy who (when he's off his medication) is convinced that he's Jesus Christ; before that, he believed with total conviction that he was Napoleon. You share with this unfortunate man a total conviction in truth of personal beliefs. Do you think there's any chance that you could be mislead?

> I am not right it is my God who is right.

Hold on there. In between "you" and your god, there is the small matter of a belief that the god exists, and that it's the right one. It is your belief in both of these matters which mediates this truth. Again, do you think there exists the slightest chance that your brain may be misleading you, and that your belief may actually be faulty?

Absolutely not. The fact that I have met Jesus Christ and the fact that He has saved me from some pretty destructive behaviour, the knowledge that I saw the second coming of Christ is as real as the 8cm of snow sitting on th eground outside. I am quite sane and have the ability to recognize that which is real and that which is not.

The dreams that I have of visiting Old Trafford for a match are just that dreams.

The vision I had of the second coming wasn't a dream. it was real and vivid.

robindch

So, what you are saying is that your total confidence in your religion is based upon (a) your total confidence that your senses are reliably reporting the world around you and (b) your total confidence that your brain is correctly interpreting what your senses are reporting?

Excelsior

Robin, on what do you base your total confidence in the non-existence of the Christian God if not the data collected by your senses and the interpretation of said data by your brain?

robindch

> on what do you base your total confidence in the non-existence of the Christian God

I believe that the deity that people who describe themselves as christians imagine they believe in, is virtually impossible because their beliefs are vague, contradictory and unsustainable. The problem is not with the deity, but with people's beliefs concerning the deity.

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist.

This, of course, is quite separate from the fact that the very few common elements of the described deity -- omniscience, infinite love, existence of free will, perfection of the bible, exists "outside of space and time" (etc, etc) -- are contradictory, in the few instances where any solid meaning can be wrung from them anyway. This leaves a belief in god resting on the strength of people's conviction alone. This is not a very solid foundation.

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

So, what you are saying is that your total confidence in your religion is based upon (a) your total confidence that your senses are reliably reporting the world around you and (b) your total confidence that your brain is correctly interpreting what your senses are reporting?

Because I can distinguish that which is real and that which is not.

When you are hit with an overwhelming gut feeling to not get off a bus to go to someones house and find out the next day the very destructive lifestyle that was awaiting, I thank God for warning me.

When teenager is holding a knife to commit suicide and has an unseen physiacl grip on her arm preventing her from doing so. That is reality.

You bet I rely on my senses and God's communication to me, just as you rely on the scientists communication to you and choose to believe a whole load of unprovable theories, because you see all this evidence that points in that direction.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist..

Actaully not. All Christian denominations are quite clear on: the deity of Christ, The Bible being God's word, Jesus' once and for all sacrifice for the atonement of our sins, we look forward to the second coming and eternal fellowship with the Lord.

If the above is not agreed upon, then they would not be a Christian denomination.

robindch wrote:

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

The resurrection of Christ, explainable by some phenomenom?
My daughters healing last spring in the hospital, a phenomenon?

I would agree with you, but that phenomenon is named God.

robindch

> Just as you rely on the scientists communication to you and choose to
> believe a whole load of unprovable theories, because you see all this
> evidence that points in that direction.

...just to remind you: I don't "believe a whole load of unprovable theories". I do tentatively accept the accuracy of various ideas about the world -- gravity, electricity etc -- but only when I've examined the evidence for myself, fully aware that none of them are provable, because the concept has no meaning in science. If I haven't examined any evidence, then I have no opinion on whatever the topic is. But even when I find them accurate, I do not "believe" them in an uncritical religious sense, as you seem to think that I do, because this concept too no meaning in science. And nobody uses it.

And, by the way, I don't quire see whats wrong about tentatively accepting the accuracy of something if the evidence points that way. Isn't that the way that the courts operate, or do you believe that the courts should work without evidence and convict people because other people think they are guilty and not bother looking at the evidence at all?

> Because I can distinguish that which is real and that which is not.

So it's absolutely impossible for anything or anybody to fool you?