Hello. Name's Stephen. I saw what you wrote in Rachael-Dawn's journal, and felt that it would be inappropriate to respond in her journal. I hope you will allow me a few comments in response to what you had to say.
Faith has always amazed me in that people will believe what they will, regardless of the fact that there is no absolute proof either way.It really goes to show how irrational we can be about following how we feel.
Not everyone who follows religious faith go with feeling. The very fact that a person who prides himself in being logical should continue in a belief-system that goes against some philosophically intuitive and widely held points of view is a testament to the rational irrationality of some forms of religion - Christianity, for me.
because Christianity, as a religious movement, bases itself in fear and contradiction.
This depends on what you mean by "contradiction." Since I do not think you are using this in a Kierkegaardian sense, I feel inclined to disagree. Many, for instance, will pick apart the Bible, but Christians do not need to feel obligated to give critics the benefit of the doubt. (And here's why.
a basic doctrine of Christianity, "believe in me or burn in hell."
This is not a doctrine of Christianity. It is a consequence of a doctrine of Christianity.
Existence is only made up of senses and a reality that isn't 100%.
What is meant by this curious statement?
Hedging bets seems a little (no offense...) weak.
Trying to appear macho and strong and self-sufficient is even weaker. After all, "the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Co. 1:25).
You know logically (i hope) that there really is no way to prove an existence of much, let alone a god... or a spirit.
What you can "prove" depends on your underlying presuppositions. I hold that God is the ground of being, and that all the contingent beings that the universe consist of require a Sustaining Being for their continued existence. Can others find fault with this reasoning? Some can, especially the philosophical types, but even those who are compelled by such a view can just say "Whatever" and go with their emotions (as you said above). But people follow their emotions only to a certain extent. Reason is not completely divorced from what religion a person follows - not for everyone, anyways.
*sigh* while i'd love to have this debate with you, i have very little time to type out huge responses to your comments AND i like debating face to face instead of over the internet.
BUT
i will say this..... thank you for the post and the link. they are quite interesting as i always love differng points of view. i can see your faith is very strong and while i don't have a faith, i'm really respectful of the people that can hold on to that......
Faith has always amazed me in that people will believe what they will, regardless of the fact that there is no absolute proof either way.It really goes to show how irrational we can be about following how we feel.
Not everyone who follows religious faith go with feeling. The very fact that a person who prides himself in being logical should continue in a belief-system that goes against some philosophically intuitive and widely held points of view is a testament to the rational irrationality of some forms of religion - Christianity, for me.
because Christianity, as a religious movement, bases itself in fear and contradiction.
This depends on what you mean by "contradiction." Since I do not think you are using this in a Kierkegaardian sense, I feel inclined to disagree. Many, for instance, will pick apart the Bible, but Christians do not need to feel obligated to give critics the benefit of the doubt. (And here's why.
a basic doctrine of Christianity, "believe in me or burn in hell."
This is not a doctrine of Christianity. It is a consequence of a doctrine of Christianity.
Existence is only made up of senses and a reality that isn't 100%.
What is meant by this curious statement?
Hedging bets seems a little (no offense...) weak.
Trying to appear macho and strong and self-sufficient is even weaker. After all, "the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Co. 1:25).
You know logically (i hope) that there really is no way to prove an existence of much, let alone a god... or a spirit.
What you can "prove" depends on your underlying presuppositions. I hold that God is the ground of being, and that all the contingent beings that the universe consist of require a Sustaining Being for their continued existence. Can others find fault with this reasoning? Some can, especially the philosophical types, but even those who are compelled by such a view can just say "Whatever" and go with their emotions (as you said above). But people follow their emotions only to a certain extent. Reason is not completely divorced from what religion a person follows - not for everyone, anyways.
Thanks for being patient. Ta-ta and good night.
Reply
while i'd love to have this debate with you, i have very little time to type out huge responses to your comments AND i like debating face to face instead of over the internet.
BUT
i will say this.....
thank you for the post and the link. they are quite interesting as i always love differng points of view. i can see your faith is very strong and while i don't have a faith, i'm really respectful of the people that can hold on to that......
peace.
Reply
Leave a comment