Research on Belief in God

[Maaaaaaaarten]

You don't strike me as a fundamentalist at all. If you've ever had a conversation with a N.A. protestant fundamentalist (for ex.) these days you'd know what I mean. I don't know the equivalent in the RCC, maybe Opus Dei. These people are not free (in their minds) at all, they're trapped in a childish paradigm and led this way and that by buzzwords and group think. But they're right though and if you want to be saved...

Ah well, I'm not from the RCC, I'm from a Dutch Protestant/Reformed denomination. I do think there's a bit of a difference between conservative Protestants in the US and in Europe. In Europe we've had to deal with being a minority for a bit longer already.

Also, fundamentalist is a bit of an ambiguous term. I certainly believe in only one truth and only one Truth. One Truth explicitly has to do with religion I suppose, but in my opinion believing in one truth is simply common sense. That there's only one doesn't mean that we necessarily always know (everything about) it. I'm usually happy to admit those things I'm not quite sure of regarding the truth (and even regarding the Truth).

However I think the term fundamentalism originates from a series of essays entitled 'the fundamentals' by prominent conservative Protestant theologians in the beginning of the 20th century about what tenants of faith are crucial to the Christian faith in opposition to the theological liberalism (e.g. the historical resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, inspiration of the Bible and so forth). Fundamentalists were originally people who were a part of that movement or those who believed those things to be true. Now I certainly believe most if not all of the things discussed in those essays to be true, so I guess in the classical sense I am somewhat of a fundi.

Nevertheless through the decades it became a pejorative term for narrow minded people who aren't capable of a normal discussions about some of the things they believe. In that sense I hope I am not a fundamentalist.

 

[rhubroma]

Ah well, I'm not from the RCC, I'm from a Dutch Protestant/Reformed denomination. I do think there's a bit of a difference between conservative Protestants in the US and in Europe. In Europe we've had to deal with being a minority for a bit longer already.

Also, fundamentalist is a bit of an ambiguous term. I certainly believe in only one truth and only one Truth. One Truth explicitly has to do with religion I suppose, but in my opinion believing in one truth is simply common sense. That there's only one doesn't mean that we necessarily always know (everything about) it. I'm usually happy to admit those things I'm not quite sure of regarding the truth (and even regarding the Truth).

However I think the term fundamentalism originates from a series of essays entitled 'the fundamentals' by prominent conservative Protestant theologians in the beginning of the 20th century about what tenants of faith are crucial to the Christian faith in opposition to the theological liberalism (e.g. the historical resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, inspiration of the Bible and so forth). Fundamentalists were originally people who were a part of that movement or those who believed those things to be true. Now I certainly believe most if not all of the things discussed in those essays to be true, so I guess in the classical sense I am somewhat of a fundi.

Nevertheless through the decades it became a pejorative term for narrow minded people who aren't capable of a normal discussions about some of the things they believe. In that sense I hope I am not a fundamentalist.

Oh, yes their is brother; the American ones are far more dangerous, given that the republican party has embraced them wholesale. This occured when the Bible Belt gave them infinite electoral weight in the wake of Civil Rights, for all those southern democrats in a most Christian way immediately turned republican.

Gotta love those racist Christian fundamentalists.

 

[RetroActive]

Ah well, I'm not from the RCC, I'm from a Dutch Protestant/Reformed denomination. I do think there's a bit of a difference between conservative Protestants in the US and in Europe. In Europe we've had to deal with being a minority for a bit longer already.

Also, fundamentalist is a bit of an ambiguous term. I certainly believe in only one truth and only one Truth. One Truth explicitly has to do with religion I suppose, but in my opinion believing in one truth is simply common sense. That there's only one doesn't mean that we necessarily always know (everything about) it. I'm usually happy to admit those things I'm not quite sure of regarding the truth (and even regarding the Truth).

However I think the term fundamentalism originates from a series of essays entitled 'the fundamentals' by prominent conservative Protestant theologians in the beginning of the 20th century about what tenants of faith are crucial to the Christian faith in opposition to the theological liberalism (e.g. the historical resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, inspiration of the Bible and so forth). Fundamentalists were originally people who were a part of that movement or those who believed those things to be true. Now I certainly believe most if not all of the things discussed in those essays to be true, so I guess in the classical sense I am somewhat of a fundi.

Nevertheless through the decades it became a pejorative term for narrow minded people who aren't capable of a normal discussions about some of the things they believe. In that sense I hope I am not a fundamentalist.

I somehow doubt that you believe in the whole Christian Zionist schtick or that you're going to literally fly up in the air and meet Jesus in the sky. If you do then you've fooled me but that's not how you come across.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Oh, yes their is brother; the American ones are far more dangerous, given that the republican party has embraced them wholesale. This occured when the Bible Belt gave them infinite electoral weight in the wake of Civil Rights, for all those southern democrats in a most Christian way immediately turned republican.

Gotta love those racist Christian fundamentalists.

When it comes to politics there's definitely a big difference. Conservative Protestants haven't had political influence in Europe since Calvin in Geneva.

(well maybe since Oliver Cromwell )

I somehow doubt that you believe in the whole Christian Zionist schtick or that you're going to literally fly up in the air and meet Jesus in the sky. If you do then you've fooled me but that's not how you come across.

Ehhh you're asking about two specific things I haven't studied too much.

The relationship between Christianity and the Jewish people is kind of complex and I'd need to study it more before I'd really defend a firm opinion on the matter. I do know that in the US Evangelicals tend to somehow be super pro Israel and unfortunately this tendency is growing among European Evangelicals too, if that's what you're aiming at than I definitely don't believe in the whole 'Christian Zionist schtick.' Maybe if I do more study I'd have a strong opinion about the connection between Christianity and the Jewish people; but I don't see how such theological convictions should lead to automatic support of the Jewish state. Even if I'd be persuaded to believe that the Jews are still Gods chosen people and should inherit the promised land of Israel or somethin, that still doesn't mean I have to somehow support everything the Israeli state is doing.

As for flying up into the air and meeting Jesus in the sky. Again I'm afraid I have to say eschatology - a technical term for theology concerning the end of the world - is another subject I haven't studied in depth. You know a lot of the stuff Christians believe about the second coming of Jesus and the events surrounding that come from revelations and to be honest, I really don't have a clue how to interpret that book. But yeah as for eschatology, I do believe Jesus will come again, I do believe in the resurrection and I do believe in the final judgement. As for the flying, the antichrist and the 1000 year reign of Christ before the final judgement and that sort of stuff, I need to do more studying.

By the way - sorry if I'm using to many theological terms to those who might not be familiar with them - but dispensationalism which includes this nice systematic doctrine of how everything's going to turn out at the end times with the rapture and everything, that's a silly gimmick from the 19th century that has little to do with actual traditional Christianity.......

 

[rhubroma]

When it comes to politics there's definitely a big difference. Conservative Protestants haven't had political influence in Europe since Calvin in Geneva.

(well maybe since Oliver Cromwell )



Ehhh you're asking about two specific things I haven't studied too much.

The relationship between Christianity and the Jewish people is kind of complex and I'd need to study it more before I'd really defend a firm opinion on the matter. I do know that in the US Evangelicals tend to somehow be super pro Israel and unfortunately this tendency is growing among European Evangelicals too, if that's what you're aiming at than I definitely don't believe in the whole 'Christian Zionist schtick.' Maybe if I do more study I'd have a strong opinion about the connection between Christianity and the Jewish people; but I don't see how such theological convictions should lead to automatic support of the Jewish state. Even if I'd be persuaded to believe that the Jews are still Gods chosen people and should inherit the promised land of Israel or somethin, that still doesn't mean I have to somehow support everything the Israeli state is doing.

As for flying up into the air and meeting Jesus in the sky. Again I'm afraid I have to say eschatology - a technical term for theology concerning the end of the world - is another subject I haven't studied in depth. You know a lot of the stuff Christians believe about the second coming of Jesus and the events surrounding that come from revelations and to be honest, I really don't have a clue how to interpret that book. But yeah as for eschatology, I do believe Jesus will come again, I do believe in the resurrection and I do believe in the final judgement. As for the flying, the antichrist and the 1000 year reign of Christ before the final judgement and that sort of stuff, I need to do more studying.

By the way - sorry if I'm using to many theological terms to those who might not be familiar with them - but dispensationalism which includes this nice systematic doctrine of how everything's going to turn out at the end times with the rapture and everything, that's a silly gimmick from the 19th century that has little to do with actual traditional Christianity.......

Well at least you do realize that a fundamental tenant of Christian eschatological doctrine is the Second Coming and the Apocalypse. This was calculated among millennialists since the third century, until it became an embarrassment to the early Church, and when Fathers like Augustine said it was a ridiculous waste of time to calculate a chronological date. Still with the revival of astrology in the Latin West in the 12th century, inspired by 9th century Arab astronomical/astrological writings of Abu Ma' Shar translated in Spain, then Italy, the millennialist mathematics came back into vogue. Joachim of Fiore invested heavily in it, as did subsequently his 13th century Franciscan admirers through the Renaissance. The Franciscan clergy in the court of the most Catholic King and Queen of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, backing Christopher Columbus' voyages, for example, convinced the Genovese navigator of the apocalyptic need to find the "lost Tribe of Israel" in what became Europe's eschatological New World, new-worlding, as clearly emerges in his, Columbus', Book of Prophesies. The New England Puritans, preferring to use the Greek inspired term chillialist, came to view their New World Promised Land in similar End Time terms. Thus New World America since it's discovery in 1492 and continuing among the 17th century Puritans, was viewed within the spectrum of a prophetic, millennial and typological metaphor and, as such, necessary step for heralding the End. And yet from their perspective of immanent apocalypse, the End Time that doesn't come is somewhat vexing, wouldn't your think?

Being a one Truth guy such as you are, and self-proclaimed Christian 1000 year ignoramus (in the sense of being totally ignorant about the Second Coming - though aren't we all! ), do you believe in the Apocalypse, the return of Gog and Magog, the great struggle between the elect and the forces of the Antichrist, the resurection of the bodies and so forth?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anyone else besides myself believe in the Ancient Alien series?


More serious question - Does anyone on here believe that Dinosaurs did not once roam the planet?

 

[rhubroma]

Anyone else besides myself believe in the Ancient Alien series?


More serious question - Does anyone on here believe that Dinosaurs did not once roam the planet?

Come on Glenn, you know that dinosaurs and humans coexisted right?

 

[frenchfry]

Anyone else besides myself believe in the Ancient Alien series?


More serious question - Does anyone on here believe that Dinosaurs did not once roam the planet?

Finally a post I can understand!

 

[Echoes]

Atheists on this forum, with rare exceptions, must be the most arrogant and narrow-minded people on this planet. Worst thing is that they are also cycling fans, a sport for conservatives, normally. But in the end I guess with such fans, cycling probably deserves this current lack of popularity.

Besides, it's an English speaking forum, so a forum for globalists.

If we're talking about freedom as a human right, then the freedom of an individual stops at the point where it starts impinging on the freedom of others. Hence, the "freedom" to shoot on sight has nothing to do with freedom

Hence absolute freedom does not exist, only relative freedom. You're proving my point.

Nevertheless through the decades it became a pejorative term for narrow minded people who aren't capable of a normal discussions about some of the things they believe. In that sense I hope I am not a fundamentalist.

Surely, you won't change, just because some people are unable to define a word?

Your description is very informative and clear. And this is a Catholic speaking. ] Maybe if I do more study I'd have a strong opinion about the connection between Christianity and the Jewish people; but I don't see how such theological convictions should lead to automatic support of the Jewish state. Even if I'd be persuaded to believe that the Jews are still Gods chosen people and should inherit the promised land of Israel or somethin, that still doesn't mean I have to somehow support everything the Israeli state is doing.[/QUOTE]

The current Israel state was founded by secularists. Most Orthodox Jews have always accepted exile and rejected the return to the Holy Land because it could only happen in the messianic era, and they don't believe the Messiah has come. Zionism is a modernist movement rejected the Judaist tradition. Even today, most of the Zionists Jews that are encouraging us, Euros, to support Israel are atheists.

I know for example the case of a web-journalist in France: Jonathan Moadab. He's an Orthodox Jew, French patriot and die-hard anti-Zionist, working for the web press agency Agence Info libre (which I'm a regular visitor of). Back in 2012, his car was bombed by the "Ligue de D?fense juive", an ultra-Zionist militia and in 2014, he's been assaulted by members of the same gang while attending a demonstration against Anti-Semitism.

And some would say I'm anti-Semitic, just because I'm anti-Zionist; that the two are the same. Judaism is not the problem, these days. Atheism is.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm pretty sure if anyone said the same things about Islam that the Belgian Ayn rand here is saying about atheism, he would accuse them of being "islamophobic"

Ps you get accused of being anti Semitic because you twice made racist comments about the behaviour of "Jews". The first time you were let off on the assumotion that maybe you didn't mean what you wrote, but that made the second occasion quite bizzare.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Well at least you do realize that a fundamental tenant of Christian eschatological doctrine is the Second Coming and the Apocalypse. This was calculated among millennialists since the third century, until it became an embarrassment to the early Church, and when Fathers like Augustine said it was a ridiculous waste of time to calculate a chronological date. Still with the revival of astrology in the Latin West in the 12th century, inspired by 9th century Arab astronomical/astrological writings of Abu Ma' Shar translated in Spain, then Italy, the millennialist mathematics came back into vogue. Joachim of Fiore invested heavily in it, as did subsequently his 13th century Franciscan admirers through the Renaissance. The Franciscan clergy in the court of the most Catholic King and Queen of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, backing Christopher Columbus' voyages, for example, convinced the Genovese navigator of the apocalyptic need to find the "lost Tribe of Israel" in what became Europe's eschatological New World, new-worlding, as clearly emerges in his, Columbus', Book of Prophesies. The New England Puritans, preferring to use the Greek inspired term chillialist, came to view their New World Promised Land in similar End Time terms. Thus New World America since it's discovery in 1492 and continuing among the 17th century Puritans, was viewed within the spectrum of a prophetic, millennial and typological metaphor and, as such, necessary step for heralding the End. And yet from their perspective of immanent apocalypse, the End Time that doesn't come is somewhat vexing, wouldn't your think?

Being a one Truth guy such as you are, and self-proclaimed Christian 1000 year ignoramus (in the sense of being totally ignorant about the Second Coming - though aren't we all! ), do you believe in the Apocalypse, the return of Gog and Magog, the great struggle between the elect and the forces of the Antichrist, the resurection of the bodies and so forth?

Already before Augustine I think there were some church fathers who rejected the millennial/chiliast idea, but it certainly was a widespread belief in the first centuries of the Church. However, it never made any confessions or caused any people to be branded heretics or whatever; so it seems to me that even in the early Church it wasn't really a central doctrine, even though the idea might have been widespread. They do however mention eschatology in the early confessions; they do mention the resurrection, the second coming and the final judgement.

When it comes to what I believe; I also think those are the crucial elements of Christian eschatology. As for Gog and Magog, the antichrist and the thousand year reign, those are all based on but a few verses in the most cryptic and in my opinion most difficult to interpret book in the Bible. The resurrection, the second coming and the final judgement are all taught throughout the New Testament, but these other ones are confine to a few passages in the book of Revelations.

Also, since the 19th/20th century within Evangelicalism chiliastic ideas and some other wild theories about the apocalypse seem to be growing, but originally Protestantism is definitely amillennialist.

The current Israel state was founded by secularists. Most Orthodox Jews have always accepted exile and rejected the return to the Holy Land because it could only happen in the messianic era, and they don't believe the Messiah has come. Zionism is a modernist movement rejected the Judaist tradition. Even today, most of the Zionists Jews that are encouraging us, Euros, to support Israel are atheists.

I know for example the case of a web-journalist in France: Jonathan Moadab. He's an Orthodox Jew, French patriot and die-hard anti-Zionist, working for the web press agency Agence Info libre (which I'm a regular visitor of). Back in 2012, his car was bombed by the "Ligue de D?fense juive", an ultra-Zionist militia and in 2014, he's been assaulted by members of the same gang while attending a demonstration against Anti-Semitism.

Yeah I agree, this is also why I don't understand why some Christians feel the need to automatically support Israel. If Christians are to support Jews, it's the Jewish people, not the Jewish state. The father of modern political zionism, Theodor Herzl, clearly considered himself an atheist.

 

[rhubroma]

Atheists on this forum, with rare exceptions, must be the most arrogant and narrow-minded people on this planet. Worst thing is that they are also cycling fans, a sport for conservatives, normally. But in the end I guess with such fans, cycling probably deserves this current lack of popularity.

Besides, it's an English speaking forum, so a forum for globalists.



Hence absolute freedom does not exist, only relative freedom. You're proving my point.



Surely, you won't change, just because some people are unable to define a word?

Your description is very informative and clear. And this is a Catholic speaking.



The current Israel state was founded by secularists. Most Orthodox Jews have always accepted exile and rejected the return to the Holy Land because it could only happen in the messianic era, and they don't believe the Messiah has come. Zionism is a modernist movement rejected the Judaist tradition. Even today, most of the Zionists Jews that are encouraging us, Euros, to support Israel are atheists.

I know for example the case of a web-journalist in France: Jonathan Moadab. He's an Orthodox Jew, French patriot and die-hard anti-Zionist, working for the web press agency Agence Info libre (which I'm a regular visitor of). Back in 2012, his car was bombed by the "Ligue de D?fense juive", an ultra-Zionist militia and in 2014, he's been assaulted by members of the same gang while attending a demonstration against Anti-Semitism.

And some would say I'm anti-Semitic, just because I'm anti-Zionist; that the two are the same. Judaism is not the problem, these days. Atheism is.

Oh, I get it, so because one anti-Zionist French Jew happens to be a person of faith, all anti-Zionists must be of faith. the corrolary of this, of course, is that all Zionists are atheists. Got it. You really are a brilliant chap.

Such syllogistic logic, however, is not only misguided, but doesn't take into consideration the millions of orthodox Jews who are very much "Zionist" in their support of Israel's existence on a biblical basis, and the many people of no faith who have no affinity with Zionism.

 

[rhubroma]

Already before Augustine I think there were some church fathers who rejected the millennial/chiliast idea, but it certainly was a widespread belief in the first centuries of the Church. However, it never made any confessions or caused any people to be branded heretics or whatever; so it seems to me that even in the early Church it wasn't really a central doctrine, even though the idea might have been widespread. They do however mention eschatology in the early confessions; they do mention the resurrection, the second coming and the final judgement.

When it comes to what I believe; I also think those are the crucial elements of Christian eschatology. As for Gog and Magog, the antichrist and the thousand year reign, those are all based on but a few verses in the most cryptic and in my opinion most difficult to interpret book in the Bible. The resurrection, the second coming and the final judgement are all taught throughout the New Testament, but these other ones are confine to a few passages in the book of Revelations.

Also, since the 19th/20th century within Evangelicalism chiliastic ideas and some other wild theories about the apocalypse seem to be growing, but originally Protestantism is definitely amillennialist.



Yeah I agree, this is also why I don't understand why some Christians feel the need to automatically support Israel. If Christians are to support Jews, it's the Jewish people, not the Jewish state. The father of modern political zionism, Theodor Herzl, clearly considered himself an atheist.

The millennial movement was not by any means marginal in the early Church, as Augustine lets us know (but there are other examples like Jerome, or Commodianus's fervent support of it, despite the fact the latter's writings being considered apocryphal by what came to be called orthodoxy). At any rate the tradition, as I have previously mentioned, resurfaced in the late Middle Ages and came to inform Europe's new world, new-worlding and then among the protestant Puritans. It has thus had clockwork periodic evangelical regeneration, which in its current mutated form among Evangelical Christians in the US also sees Israel as the key to heralding the End Time. Thus what was merely political has now become an enshrined theological precept.

Religion has doubtless provided comfort to man?s worst fears (thus reinforcing them), but it has also bred the most absurd inanities.

 

[hrotha]

Many ultra-orthodox Jews are indeed anti-Zionism, but many others aren't, and mainstream Judaism isn't either. Most Zionists are secular, which doesn't mean atheist.

 

[frenchfry]

...

And some would say I'm anti-Semitic, just because I'm anti-Zionist; that the two are the same. Judaism is not the problem, these days. Atheism is.

Just like I suppose you could say that religion isn't the problem, you could also say that religious zealots are, no matter what "god" they worship.

 

[deboat]

When people have such huge problems with someone who is an Atheist I think this is extremly an immature act. As an Atheist, I know that I am not narrow-minded. In fact I value truth over comfort. I am happy to accept some unpleasent results such as there is no after life, no heaven and when I do die, I will no longer exist. I value my time and love I give and receive. And I do not ask a god for forgivness when I do something wrong. I directly ask the person.
Maybe I am arrogant compared to you Echoes, but this is not my problem, it is a problem you are having with the lack of factual evidence in your blind faith.
It is not that I think I am smarter than religious nuts, but I am smart enough to know that I am stupid. It is the those who think they are smart that are in fact stupid.

 

[Jspear]

When people have such huge problems with someone who is an Atheist I think this is extremly an immature act. As an Atheist, I know that I am not narrow-minded. In fact I value truth over comfort. I am happy to accept some unpleasent results such as there is no after life, no heaven and when I do die, I will no longer exist. I value my time and love I give and receive. And I do not ask a god for forgivness when I do something wrong. I directly ask the person.
Maybe I am arrogant compared to you Echoes, but this is not my problem, it is a problem you are having with the lack of factual evidence in your blind faith.
It is not that I think I am smarter than religious nuts, but I am smart enough to know that I am stupid. It is the those who think they are smart that are in fact stupid.

1 Cor 1:

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.
30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

 

[red_flanders]

Thank god your not!

Sorry that's kinda a weak analogy...I would never believe your God for many reasons. And of course you'll disagree but my faith isn't blind...it's an informed faith.
But I do agree with you that we can use science to determine if you are human.

Interesting--I've never understood what folks mean when they say things like this. I always thought faith is belief in something without evidence or proof. Never understood why so many Christians I speak with are focused on providing evidence for what seems obviously not provable.

Seems counter to the point, but very human I guess. Any insight? Never really understood this seemingly logical...problem I guess. Thanks.

For background I was raised Catholic and later in life spent about 8 years in the Lutheran church trying to experience what it was all about. I never could quite make the leap into faith and have moved on.

 

[Tank Engine]

Hence absolute freedom does not exist, only relative freedom. You're proving my point.

a) What point is this?

b) Seeing as you were talking about the "freedom to kill" a while ago. If A makes use of his freedom to kill B, where is B's freedom then? The way others use their freedom affects how we can use our freedom.

 

[Echoes]

For what it's worth, I've been accused of anti-Semitism because of philo-semitic comments by Bobby Fischer who wished all Jews to be sent to gas chambers. If I'm not entitled to denounce that, it might mean that my reporter is himself an anti-Semite.

The other time was because I said Charlie Hebdo was a Zionist magazine. But I see that a lie might become a truth when repeated only once now. For Bernays, it should be repeated 1,000 times.

Of course, I now realise that defending BigMac was careless but at that time, I really couldn't see how heinous and violent that kid was. Now I guess he showed his true face. I made my mea culpa, my sincerity shouldn't be questioned.


I see that there's another Marxist on this forum. So arrogant, he would again explained to me what is going on in my mind better than I can do. I love it, I value comfort ??? I'm always trying to go the hard way. Pfff Coming from people who surely have everything they need... Fed with baby bottles when they were kids, etc. They would give me moral lessons on what comfort is ??? Every Catholic would say that we are not here for comfort. A little bit of culture won't be too much for some here. Their ideology is so amoral for society that they truly want to go psycho-analytic about that. They fear death so much that they accuse their opponent of the same thing. What is the problem with nothingness, really? I wouldn't lose anything except my life. So what?? Keep your problems for yourselves, baby Freud's.

 

[Echoes]

b) Seeing as you were talking about the "freedom to kill" a while ago. If A makes use of his freedom to kill B, where is B's freedom then? The way others use their freedom affects how we can use our freedom.

That's exactly the point. Absolute freedom for all does not exist.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Interesting--I've never understood what folks mean when they say things like this. I always thought faith is belief in something without evidence or proof. Never understood why so many Christians I speak with are focused on providing evidence for what seems obviously not provable.

Seems counter to the point, but very human I guess. Any insight? Never really understood this seemingly logical...problem I guess. Thanks.

For background I was raised Catholic and later in life spent about 8 years in the Lutheran church trying to experience what it was all about. I never could quite make the leap into faith and have moved on.

I think there is indeed a common misunderstanding here. The word faith is English seems to have different meanings. Somehow in discussions concerning religion people seem to have to idea that faith means something like "to believe a certain proposition to be true, despite the fact that there is no rational reason to believe it to be true." In fact, I think there are very few religious believers for whom the word 'faith' has this connotation and I think it's hardly used like that outside of religious discussions. When you say something like "I have faith in that person" it doesn't mean you believe that this person exists without having any rational reason to believe that. It means you trust him. So similarly I think when a religious believer says "I have faith in God", it shouldn't be taken, in most instances, to be that he believes that God exists despite the fact that he has no rational reason for believing such, but rather that he trusts God.

Of course, having faith in somebody may or may not be supported by any rational reasons to have this faith. So it seems to me that having faith in someone and having rational reasons for believing certain propositions are two quite separate things. You might have faith in someone and also have a good rational justification for believing that this person exists, without your faith and your reason somehow being at odds. They might very well be complementary, rather than at odds.

It might be relevant to note that the original Greek word for 'faith' or 'believing' or however it's translated is actually also related to trust. The noun πίστις is commonly translated as 'faith' in the Bible, but it can also refer to someones faithfulness/fidelity/trustworthiness. So, you see, the original Biblical concept of faith at least doesn't really carry the connotation that '(blind) faith' might have in the English language. And I think for most believers the English word 'faith' doesn't really have such a connotation either; it certainly doesn't for me.

 

[BigMac]

For what it's worth, I've been accused of anti-Semitism because of philo-semitic comments by Bobby Fischer who wished all Jews to be sent to gas chambers. If I'm not entitled to denounce that, it might mean that my reporter is himself an anti-Semite.

The other time was because I said Charlie Hebdo was a Zionist magazine. But I see that a lie might become a truth when repeated only once now. For Bernays, it should be repeated 1,000 times.

Of course, I now realise that defending BigMac was careless but at that time, I really couldn't see how heinous and violent that kid was. Now I guess he showed his true face. I made my mea culpa, my sincerity shouldn't be questioned.


I see that there's another Marxist on this forum. So arrogant, he would again explained to me what is going on in my mind better than I can do. I love it, I value comfort ??? I'm always trying to go the hard way. Pfff Coming from people who surely have everything they need... Fed with baby bottles when they were kids, etc. They would give me moral lessons on what comfort is ??? Every Catholic would say that we are not here for comfort. A little bit of culture won't be too much for some here. Their ideology is so amoral for society that they truly want to go psycho-analytic about that. They fear death so much that they accuse their opponent of the same thing. What is the problem with nothingness, really? I wouldn't lose anything except my life. So what?? Keep your problems for yourselves, baby Freud's.

Yes, I'm clearly violent. As a matter of fact, I just finished my daily spree of murders. Was checking google maps for nearest disposal site and decided to peek into CN. I think I'm hearing sirens, got to go.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Come on Glenn, you know that dinosaurs and humans coexisted right?

I actually worked with a guy who said his wife and himself did not believe that dinosaurs ever existed. I was stunned.

If yall don't watch the ancient alien series on the History channel then your missing out. Good stuff.

 

[Tank Engine]

That's exactly the point. Absolute freedom for all does not exist.

Fair enough. The comment came after a rant about atheists and I couldn't see the connection.