Or, the def of secularist:

2 entries found for secularist.
sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
secu·lar·ist n.
secu·lar·istic adj.

No it doesn't. So it would be an individualistic thing. Okay I understand where you are coming from.

Mine is a political belief, based on my beliefs about religion. Does that make any sense?

BTW,

It is getting nice up here Mel. Spring has finally sprung. And since you are really from Michigan <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> you know what that means for us poor sods up here.

Hope you have a great holiday girl!

Thanks! You have a great holiday, too!

Hey, don't be tellin lies about me! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> If it's "spring" it must be up to around 40 degrees! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Wow, Mel - that is truly an amazing statement. Your concept of science it totally different from mine and most of the rest of the world's so I'll just drop this.


No, I don't jest. Similar to your earlier statement that you thought the Hutus and Tutsis were fighting over power and greed, those guys you mention were doing the same. Best I can tell, these men were not taking their action over "divisions of faith." You dropped the context in which my statement was made - regarding the Protestants and Catholics. No answer on that one?


Again, you're a bit out of context. I made no such argument that 100% compliance ought to exist. This is not about negating the rule. I've already agreed that any religious standard is a good thing (at least the ones mentioned)! I am questioning the relative worth of an "authoritative standard" over a "non-authoritative standard" or "no standard" when there doesn't seem to be much difference in the results. That's all.

Sure, you can have no expectation of my morals if I have no book to point to. Fair enough. I'm not trying to refute that. Stereotype me all you want. Make a generalization if you must. And I'm clearly on record here that I expect an institution like a church school to be "good." But in the end, merely possessing the gold plated "standard" seems no better than not when it comes to the outcome. I clearly don't generalize on the expectation side, whereas you do when it comes to "non-standard" folks. That was the whole point of my openning post on this thread. I think I've demonstrated my point adequately with your assistance. Thanks.

WAT

WAT, but it is an accurate generalization. No one is stereotyping you, just the opposite. We are saying you CAN'T stereotype secularists because they have no professed set of standards.


I most certainly did answer you. You claimed that you "don't see secularists fighting," which is a quite amazing statement. We not only see them fighting, as with the Hutus and the Tutsis, we see them being the greatest mass murderers in the 21st century. Seems like their lack of faith was none too healthy to their countrymen, huh?

The Irish Catholics and the Protestants are not fighting over "faith," both sides believe in Jesus Christ and have plenty of "faith." That has never been the issue. The issue is over Christian doctrine. But Christian doctrine did not CAUSE the fight, MAN did along with his distortion of doctrine, so your point falls flat. Btw, Christians are commanded to point it out when they believe someone is pushing false doctrine, it's ok to have a dispute over doctrine, there is nothing immoral about that, except in the imagination of WAT. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

from the musings of St. WAT comes the following twisting and error by omission:


WAT, you lump everything that is not "hard science" into this category you call "faith." In doing so, you attempt to Creation into that same category so it can be "dismissed," but you leave Evolution out of "faith status" and attempt to imbue it with a de facto "truth" status and label it as "science" and not "faith." That's hogwash, and you know it.

Furthermore, you specifically want to lump Christians who believe it Jesus Christ as members of that "faith," not "science" club, and label anything they might say in support of Creation as "meaningless debate."

So let's turn for minute to your latest specious argument in support of evolution: Faith requires belief; science requires evidence. In faith, certainty is necessary; in science, it is impossible.

Faith DOES require belief. So does a "belief" in evolution. Science requires evidence in addition to faith in that model of origins. So does Creation and so does the specific "Faith" of Christianity in it's belief in the reality of Jesus Christ and who He is.

"In faith, certainty is necessary; in science, it is impossible."

Don't be ridiculous, WAT, you are far too intelligent a man to do that, consciously or unconsciously.

E=mc2 MIGHT be considered by scientists to be "CERTAINTY." There are other examples I could cite that are also "certain" in science, but what's the point? The point you are trying to make is that a "faith" in science is somehow superior and 'more adjustable' than a faith in the God of Scripture.

"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed." "Certainty" in trusting God, the author and sustainer of TRUTH over the abilities of "man,"... yes, I am quite certain about God...but I am "certain" because of two big factors. First, the historicity and verifiability of the man Jesus Christ and the truth of what has been written about him in Scripture. Second, the faith that since he IS God, I CAN accept Him as Lord and Savior of my life without fear or reservation even if I don't "scientifically understand" everything. I can take a truthful God at "His Word."

WAT, though I don't understand the "mechanics" involved, I am CERTAIN that I, and others who have accepted Jesus Christ as their own personal Lord and Savior, will spend eternity with God in heaven and I am CERTAIN that a large number of other humans will spend eternity in eternal separation from God, in Hell. I am certain of that because of Jesus Christ. Period.

I am equally "certain" that though I don't know the mechanics of, nor the way that "all things are maintained" by God even today, that God CREATED all things for HIS purpose, not ours, and continues to maintain His creation until the "end times." I am certain that the "Genesis account" of origins is correct. I furthermore expect that things found nature, i.e., the fossil record, will be consistant with what is revealed in Scripture. Scripture is NOT designed to be a detailed "history book" or a "detailed science" book. It is designed to reveal God to us, inasmuch as HE chooses to reveal about himself, to point us to Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, and to validate Jesus Christ AS the Son of God, so that we might be saved.

The FACTS are there for examination. You can even accept the facts as TRUE (as in the existance of dinosaur bones, Wooly Mammoths complete with flesh and recently eaten meals, etc.). But "scientists" and "creationists" alike look to see how those "facts" fit with the "predicitions" expected from with model of origins. EVEN THEN, just like with Jesus Christ, the FACTS do NOT "speak for themselves." It REQUIRES an act of faith to "embrace" the truth. The truth CAN be rejected. That is precisely THE lie that Satan began with and has run with sin the Fall of Man. That lie is a twisting of truth, a lie of omission by leaving out ALL the truth, and a deliberate CHOICE based upon emotion and desire (not truth and obedience and a willingness to submit to God)....God didn't really mean what He said...

In the beginning.....is just as valid as "if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die."


WAT, while I won't presume to speak for Melody, I will respond to this self-serving oversimplification and attempt to put "words into someone else's mouth" because you can then twist it to support your position and attempt to "dismiss out of hand" anything that doesn't "agree" with you and your position. In short, you attempt to reduce all "arguments" from anyone daring enough to interpret data from a Creation model rather than an Evolution model to the level of "meaningless and irrelevant."

Allow me, ONE Creationist, to be quite clear in my statement so that there is no misunderstanding in your mind: Creationism is as much a SCIENTIFIC theory as is Evolution. Creation IS scientific to the same degree that faith in evolution is scientific. Both also have a large "faith" component in them and "faith" is NOT "unscientfic." Faith is a component of the "scientist," not of "science," as you seem to wish to diefy the word "Science." You speak as if only "hard science" is "science" or has any value. There might be other nonbelievers who would disagree with that view....let's say for example persons involved in the field of "Social Sciences."



In their "interpretation" of observable facts and data is the "WAY." In their preconceived faith that ONLY evolution can provide an interpretation of that data is "WHY."

It is the "scientist," not "science" who leads people astray based upon their predetermined faith that evolution, not a Creator, is how everything got here. So they search and search for things that might support their rejection of a Creator (sans any proof that a Creator does not exist). They reject out of hand ANYTHING that might contradict their evolutionary position or have a logical explanation that could be supportive of Creation. They, even go so far(on occasion) as to "manufacture" false evidence to support what they think "should be found in the fossil record (or simply to make a financial gain, the oldest reason around for fraud)," even though it hasn't been found. They manufacture lies, and when the lies are exposed for what they are, "scientists" rationanize it away and cling to the "faith" that evolution, not God, is the only answer despite the obvious frauds committed.




hmmm...with this magnanomous statement I agree. The "shoe" fits both feet.



This is simply not true, and you know it. There EXISTS tons of "evidence," that is, "observable or found THINGS."

They are FACTS because of their simple existance. They are NOT "facts (read by most evolutionists as PROOF)" for evolution or creation. Whether or not those facts support either model of origins is the OPINION of "scientists," not of "science." The principle of Occams Razor is most often the best answer to "which model does the evidence best fit." But suffice it to say that the "scientific method" of reproducability and verifiability is NOT possible either with Creation or with Evolution as to "how things began."

Evolutionists dismiss creationists "out of hand," as you have done, "That resolves a lot of meaningless debate," and any potential interpration of those facts that might support creation or be adverse to evolution. That is NOT being "science," that is being a "scientist," complete with biases and faith of their own.



Yes, WAT, there is a lot of digging to be done. Not one "dig" will address the issue of "is Jesus Christ who he says he is?"

But all aspects of "evolution" have yet to be confirmed. The ONLY way that evolution is "confirmed" in the minds of the evolutionist is the same way that Creation is confirmed in the minds of creationists, faith in the model of origins that they choose to embrace.

There ARE significant "gaps" in the fossil record. That is one of the primary reasons for the nonsense "explanation" of people like Stephen Jay Gould and the hypothesis of "punctuated evolution." Those gaps exist. Gould tries to explain the observed fact of gaps by postulating that "hopeful monsters" passed through many stages of evolution "all at once" and arrive immediately at the "next stage" in the evolutionary tree, and then settled down into a long period of stability while nature awaited the "next hopeful monster" to appear. What PROOF? None. Gould attempt to wrap himself in the "mantle" of being a "god...errr...scientist" and thereby make his musings (errr....hypotheis) acceptable and palatable to evolutionists. That is has failed in that attempt with the majority of evolutionists is interesting in itself.

Is that "science" OR is that "faith," no matter how illogical or misplaced or desirous of making observed facts "fit" a preconceived notion of how things got here?

Dimpsasawa, forgive me for this but I have to ask because you piqued my interest with this one statement that you "slipped in;" when I was preparing for a Bible study last year.

For someone who has clearly come down on the side of evolution and against the "God of Scripture," I would appreciate an explanation from you about this "Bible study" you were preparing for and a statement about your personal faith in, or rejection of, Jesus Christ. Since you brought this up, and implied that you were in a "Bible study" that would be interpreted by readers as "supportive of God and Jesus Christ," you now "owe" us further clarification of what you actually believe so we will be better able to understand "where you are coming from" when you make the sorts of statements that you make.

So, in the interest of fairness and balance, let's return to your latest attempted slam against Christians:



"Variation in divorce rates among faith groups:

Christian Non-denominational (independents) 34%
Jews 30%
Baptists 29%
Born-again Christians 27%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%"

Okay, let's paint "Christians" with the broad brush you want to use and include the following groups as "Non-Christian and the others as "Christian."

Non-Christian
Jews 30%
Mormons 24%
Atheists 21%

Combined average of Non-Christians cited: 25.0%

Christian
Baptists 29%
Born-again Christians 27%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Catholics 21%
Lutheran 21%

Combined average for Christians cited: 24.6%


I'd call that pretty much a statistical "dead heat," with the "Christian" groups holding a slight advantage over "non-Christian groups.

So what does it prove? Nothing. There are too many unknown variables in the samplings, etc. to make much more comment.

I WOULD agree, however, that an EXPECTATION of obedience to God's commands IS something that should be expected in those who profess a belief in Jesus Christ.

The "fact" that Christians do no better than society in general is a testament to "free will," if anything, and to a refusal to surrender one's life totally to God and His commands. Putting "self" first is part of the problem. Marrying because someone is "in-love" and doesn't see, or won't see, the potential long-term problems with their spouse is part of the problem. The enticing nature of SIN is a part of the problem. That ALL humans, believers and nonbelievers alike HAVE an innate fallen "sin-nature" is a BIG part of the problem.

To put it the way Dr. Willard has put it, NO one is immune from infidelity. The temptations WILL arise. Even the Bible is quite clear about that. We (Christians) are furthermore warned to "put on the full armor of God" so that we CAN stand when the onslaught attacks us. We are warned that destroying the testimony of Christians IS where Satan concentrates his attacks because he already HAS nonChristians in "his bag." What is the "favorite target" of Satan's attacks? The first institution created by God...marriage between ONE man and ONE woman, for life.




Personally, I don't think there is any "speculation." It IS disappointing. I am as "guilty" as the next for infidelity has "touched" my marriage also. It DOES take two, both a willing husband and willing wife, to overcome infidelity and recover a marriage devastated by infideltity.

Those who follow God's command ALWAYS are in the distinct minority and always have been. SIN and SATAN dominate this present world. "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength" is an admission that, on our own, we DON'T have the needed "stength" to do what is right on our own. Satan IS much more powerful that we are. Even the angels will not rebuke Satan directly. God created Satan (Lucifer) as the highest of all angels and with more power than anyone other than God himself.

Who do we think we are kidding? Our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood. Alone, without God, we have no chance. WITH Christ, we still can't do it on our own, but we CAN do it by relying totally on His power and His ability, no matter what the temptation. "There IS no temptation that is not common to man..."

Christians DO NOT yet have a "glorified body." For now, we "coexist" with a saved soul and fallen body. You'll even hear various terms to describe some of that "split personality" that we have to deal with...i.e., Yin and Yang, Taker and Giver, etc.

The "bottom line" is NOT that Christians, as well as nonChristians, fall to the temptations of sin. The bottom line is "in Christ" there IS forgiveness and restoration.

"Be ye holy..." is both a command and a warning to all Christians.

Mel, you're mimicing the deceptive practice we've come to expect from quote mining creationists - taking portions of statements out of context.

What I said: "It goes without saying that you won't find two limbs of "secularists" killing each other over some division of belief." This was in the context of the Protestants vs the Catholics in N. Ireland.

What you twisted it into: "don't see secularists fighting" while putting it in a context including Hitler and Pol Pot.

Please don't do that again.

And you still haven't answered my honest questions about the Prostetants vs Catholics.

(edited to add: I now see your reply. Either I missed it or you subsequently added it.)

Now this passage is really confusing me:


You can make a generalization about, but you can't stereotype, the same group of people. Do I have that right? Maybe I should ask Orchid in here to translate this.

OK, last time, let me try it this way:

I do generalize/stereotype, in a positive way, my expectations of the behavior of individuals of a group who profess an authoritative set of standards. I've demonstrated that over and over on this forum.

As we all can see, those expectations often fail us. But they were reasonable expectations nonetheless.

I, as an individual, do not profess to have an authoritative set of standards. I rely on my secular standard of the Golden Rule. I believe many others are similar. Just because I and these others are not organized and we have no "group think", published set of standards - which, even if we did, would not be "authoritative" - does not mean we don't posess individual standards. You've stated your agreement. I'm just one example and I believe my standard is as good as yours or any one else's.

I also believe that for the most part, secularists as a whole probably have pretty similar standards as I do. This is speculation, but reasoned speculation. Most people obey the laws and conduct themselves in society in a "normal" way. A casual observer cannot pick out a secularist vs, say, a Catholic even with routine day-to-day interaction. I've worked with many of the same people many years and I cannot tell you what their individual faith is. They all seem to pretty much follow the Golden Rule - either explicitly or by default via whatever "standard" they do follow.

Am I or these other secularists perfect? Do we implement our standards perfectly? Of course not - just like those with the pedigreed standards.

Because individual secularists can modify their standards on a whim - the usual accusation for having no professed set of authoritative standards - does this mean they do? Don't know. Doesn't appear that way. I don't. When I fail to follow my standard on occasion, does this mean I've "modified" my standard to justify my action or inaction? No. It means I failed to meet it, just like you or anyone failing to meet your authoritative standard on occasion. I can have just as much guilt and remorse as you when I fail my standard.

"But!!!", you'll respond, "that means you don't think you have to answer to God!!!! You have less motivation to follow your standard!" Don't know. He/she/it hasn't asked me any questions. But I do have to answer to myself, to my personal integrity, and to my fellow Earthlings. I have plenty of motivation to stick to my standard and when I fail, to restore it.

So, the point I've been trying to make to you unsuccessfully so far is that mere possession of authoritative standards appears to be no better a predictor of individual behavior than having non-authoritative or unrecognizable or invisible standards - based on day-to-day observations of society and a study of human history. Having "unchangable, authoritative standards", even etched in a tablet, appears no better than having changeable, human standards not written down anywhere. This conclusion does not require I single out a "few" isolated examples of individual failure and apply them to a group as a whole.

You may not expect secularists to do the right thing, but I do - no different than anyone else. These expectations often fail me. But it is my optimism in my fellow man and my positive outlook on life that permits me to have the expectations nonetheless. I have to suspect that you do not afford secularists the same expectations because either you may not have similar outlooks or you rely very much on fear of authority from your faith as the only viable motivation for doing the right things. I hope I'm wrong.

WAT

WAT, this pseudo-superiority you are radiating is getting a bit tiresome. Let me state the "Christian" position for you one more time:

"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23 emphasis added)

[color:"red"]"Why do you ask me about what is good?"[/color] Jesus replied. [color:"red"]"There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." [/color] "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, [color:"red"]"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" [/color] (Matt 19:17-19 emphasis added)

Jesus replied, [color:"red"]"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. [/color] (Matt 19:8 emphasis added)

Jesus answered, [color:"red"]"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [/color] (John 14:6-7 emphasis added)



I agree completely. It takes MORE than assenting to the "standard" to affect someone's life. It takes a willing submission of, and surrender of, one's own innate selfish will to that of God's will. It takes humble obedience of God's commands regardless of what we might be feeling or thinking that would be in opposition to our Sovereign Lord.

It takes "more than" assenting to Jesus Christ as fact, as actually being "who he said he was" and that he did, in fact, die on the cross for all of fallen humanity and then was, in fact, bodily resurrected from the dead.

It takes brokenness for our own sins and the part it played in His sacrifice. It takes confession and repentance of a sinful life and of our personal sins. It takes a willingess to open our hearts and let God sit on the throne of our our life and to put all of our wants, desires, and actions, under His control. It takes a willingness to obey God, no matter what our own sinful nature might be telling us or making us feel. It takes loving God for what He did for us while we were hopelessly lost and for His forgiving us a debt we owed Him that was larger than anything we could ever repay on our own.

It takes a humble, loving spirit that embraces what Jesus said and attempts to "do it" to the best of our ability...."If you loved me you would keep my commands."

Don't just "say" we love Christ, "show it" in action, especially in how we deal with sin, how we confront sin, and how we forgive others who have also sinned, perhaps creating an "unpayable" debt to us as well as to God.

It takes more than just acknowleding the facts as "true." It takes the faith to surrender to God and take Him at His Word.

Then I recommend you not bother yourself with me any longer.

WAT

Well, actually you will, but it is over the belief that "might makes right" and anything goes. For some strange reason, you think we should only discuss the "fighting" of religionists and ignore the fighting and mass slaughters that are committed at the hands of secularists. Why is that, WAT?


I will continue to do it, until you answer me and acknowledge the mass murders that have taken place at the hands of secularists once they get into power.


Actually, I did. The Irish Catholics and the Protestants are not fighting over "faith," both sides believe in Jesus Christ and have plenty of "faith." That has never been the issue. The issue is over Christian doctrine. But Christian doctrine did not CAUSE the fight, MAN did along with his distortion of doctrine, so your point falls flat. Btw, Christians are commanded to point it out when they believe someone is pushing false doctrine, it's ok to have a dispute over doctrine, there is nothing immoral about that, except in the imagination of WAT.



Perhaps you should ask a 5 year old to translate for you? We can make a generalization that secularists have no universal set of standards, therefore, their belief system cannot be stereotyped. I can't make it any simpler than that.



But that is only "speculation", WAT, and not even a valid generalization. You cannot ascribe your own moral standards to others in the group without any evidence. Especially in a group that feels that moral standards are nothing more than personal preferences. Everyone has different personal preferences, so common sense will tell you that it would vary from person to person. If they ascribed to a universal standard of morals, they would belong to that group, but they don't.



WHAT STANDARDS? You have no universal set of standards so saying that you don't "implement them perfectly" makes no sense. How can something be "perfect" or imperfect unless there is a standard, WAT?

Well, not QUITE like those with so-called "pedigreed" standards. We have seen what happens when secularists reach positions of power. We have seen the handiwork of butchers like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And you can't even say that they were violating some set of moral standards since secularists believe they are entitled to make up their own. This is the result of making them up on your own, the greatest mass murderers this world has seen. And you can't even criticize them, because they are simply doing what you condone, making up their own moral standards as they go along.


Yes, we know they can modify their "standards" on a whim. WE have seen the result when such folks get into positions of power. Our prisons are full of folks who modify their "standards" on a whim.

That's IT? You can't answer a single point he made?

Okay, WAT, again getting a bit tired of your misuse of examples and/or direct attempt to obfuscate the truth, let me make a brief stab at answering your latest excursion into “running to and fro” in order to avoid dealing directly with the fundamental question of “Is Jesus Christ who He says He is?”

From book review by an author who KNOWS the Irish history and problem:




Political and secular reasons appear to be far more likely causes of the fight between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, not a “religious war” over “religious beliefs.” Differences between the beliefs of Protestants and Catholics surely differentiate which “camp” an individual might identify themselves with, but the conflict was not over “religious beliefs,” it was over territory and political “control.”

You would prefer, perhaps, that your statements go unchallenged as "gospel" to all who might be reading?

I am confident that readers on this forum will make their own judgements and form their own opinions to what I or anyone else says. If you feel threatened enough that you have to refute every idea that runs counter to your beliefs or values, have at it. I am happy not to be as paranoid.

This has been entertaining, stimulating, and enlightening. I find discussions such as this to be good practice in communicating and debating, even though not everyone may walk away more knowledgeable and not every thought may be successfully shared.

To summarize my commitments, I will endeavor to be less sensitive when anyone makes perceived negative generalizations regarding any "commodity group" of people. That was the starting point of this thread and it wandered from there.

It's apparent how easy it can become for reasonably intelligent and articulate individuals to talk past each other. My guess is that heels get dug in and just about any subsequent thought or logical argument - no matter how well formulated - falls on deaf ears. We certainly do have more evolving yet to accomplish.

WAT

Riiiiiiggggght. So now everyone who disagrees with WAT is "paranoid."

Still running from the basic question that is fundamental to your positions and arguments.

Truly "enlightened," perhaps even a tad "paranoid."


WAT, in over 5 decades of "communicating and debating" I can tell you that there was precious little of either. Much more "pontificating" on both sides. IF you really are interested in "walking away more knowledgable" then start acting like someone searching for the truth instead of denigrating the beliefs of others and dismissing anything they might say simply because they believe in God and the Scriptural account of Creation. You HAVE your "truth" already and it does not include Jesus Christ or God as the Creator. With only TWO possible causes for all that IS, do you really think that those who believe the "opposite" of your chosen side will be quiet and let you spread "falsehood" or "misinterpretation" as "truth?" You are right, others will make up their own minds.

As I said way back at the beginning of the thread on evolution, the issue is NOT evolution or creation. The issue that must first be addressed is, "Is there a God and is Jesus Christ who He says He is?" If not, the Creation account is a fable, there is no life after death, and any "debate" over evolution versus creation is irrelevant and unnecessary.

I don't disagree with WAT and I'm not paranoid!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Naw, I think that WAT just thinks it's time to let the thread die. As I stated earlier, there are no "winners" in this type of debate. Nobody is going to "convert" anyones' concepts or moral code at this stage of the game.

Better to bow out, gracefully or no.

Great discussion, it just got too heated for me!! I respect opinions here too much to continue something that was obviously a super-sensitive subject.

**Bar's still open - All welcome, regardless of religion, creed or color..or gender, of course!

(Dalai Lama for Pope!!!) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh I don't know there is always metaphysics or reincarnation.

I don't know how God is going to fit all those millions of people into a place somewhere called heaven anyway.

Or maybe that is why He decided that only those who followed Christ to Him would go there, it just isn't big enough for everyone.

And if only those who have been "saved" are going then I know none of my loved ones will be there, so I am not so sure I want to spend eternity where they are not.

It's impossible to have a conversation about religion with someone who knows the absolute "truth" already FH. The conversation is just way too one sided. And there is always that not very subtle implication that the other person is damned and following the "untruth". You keep saying that the only question is if Christ is who he said he is, but even when you say that it is not a question with room for any real discussion.

Nobody wants to discuss all the possibilities out there with someone who comes armed with a barrage of scriptures spouting that this is the truth, the whole truth and everything else is false. Because we all know that it is faith which gives you your "truth".

Or maybe I just haven't been bit with the Jesus bug yet. Probably got just enough to work as an immunity. When I joined this board I was sure I was a Christian, albeit an openminded one, but now I am pretty sure I am not. Because I sure don't have this "truth" thing down the way you do.

Weaver, I understand your feelings and I understand what you are trying to say. I would suggest, however, that many who come at the "discussion" from a secular, humanistic, evolutionist, or nonbiblical position ALSO come with their own "knowledge of absolute truth" and that believers in Jesus Christ are "nuts" and following a "fable."

I DO keep asking the question about Jesus Christ because he was a real person. Unlike other religions that do not base their beliefs on a particular "man," Christianity rises and falls on the person of Jesus Christ. The veracity of what He said, and what was recorded about Him, who He is, IS the key issue.

But far too often, nonbelievers want to scoff at the "idiots" who believe in Christ and accuse them directly or by backhanded comments of having "lost their minds and their ability to reason" when they accepted Christ.


This is poppycock and you know it. Everyone keeps belittling Christians for believing God and believing in Creation rather than evolution. They delight in taunting believers with red herrings like the "fossil record." If anyone DARES to disagree with them, they trot out, like 2Long did, and insistance that the "only 'contrary to evolution' material they will even look at, let alone consider, is that which is published in an 'evolutionist approved' peer (read that as confirmed evolutionists all) reviewed publication.

Then, when someone has the temerity to acquiesce to that biased demand, they get accused of "quote mining" or "using quotes out of context" or simply ignored. They make DEMANDS as if their position is authoritative and the "Final Word," but when someone begins to take the time to actually respond and take up the "points" they are raising, they "head for the hills" and claim discussion is "pointless." VERY scientific means of inquiry if I say so myself.

Weaver, you have to understand that I accept that there are two major "truths" regarding Jesus Christ. One is that He is real and can be examined just as rigorously as any other historical figure (more actually, and has been examined more than any other historical figure), and the Second is that even with all the evidence that supports Jesus Christ, most will CHOOSE not to accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior.

I, and other Christians, are accused of "pushing or forcing" our faith on others. Not true. Certianly not anymore true than the evolutionists who claim God is NOT responsible for creating everything and want everyone else to accept their theory. They have NOTHING to point to other than scientists who reject God and that other than "Creation" there IS no other option. They "push" a Godless, or at least an impotent "god," on everyone and dismiss and denigrate those who do believe in the Triune God of Scripture.


Weaver, with all due respect, this is just another "human construct." The "truth" is that "God created" or "God did not create." This IS an "either/or" sort of situation. The same is true of Jesus Christ. The truth is either Jesus Christ IS who He says He is, or He isn't. But He CANNOT be ignored without consequence anymore than any other "truth" can be ignored without consequence. Deny the "truth" of gravity just because believers in gravity have been "mean to me," and it still won't change the reality of gravity. Step off the top of a building in defiance of, or in refusal to accept the truth of, gravity, and the "truth" will "finally sink in," but it will be "too late then.


I don't know, we don't seem to have too much trouble "fitting" millions of people into a place somewhere called "America," or "China," or several other "places somewhere in the world." And those are just tiny fractions of the entire universe.


No, it has nothing to do with "size." It has everything to do with SIN not being allowed there. NONE of us can "be there" on our own because we are ALL sinners. ONLY through the very narrow gate of acceptance of Jesus Christ and the payment of the penalty that was due us, by Jesus Christ on our behalf and in our stead, can we be there. The Way IS narrow and the protestations of sinful man notwithstanding, "God" is God and gets to set the rules, not mankind.


An understandable reaction. Yet is based upon a lack of knowledge of reality. That's one of the reasons why the Scripture includes the story about the Rich Man who died and found himself in the reality of Hell. He was begging that his relatives be warned by Jesus so that they would accept Jesus and "escape" the eternal penalty he was suffering that HE CHOSE while alive.

Weaver, we are discussing "fundamental" issues when we get into these areas. Not one person can be "forced" or "dragged" into believing in Christ or in Creation. Lord knows that there have been plenty of regimes, both past and present, who have tried their level best to destroy Christianity for their own reasons. You won't find "true believers" who will attempt to "force" their beliefs on others. Yes, they WILL explain why they believe what they believe and why it would make sense for someone else to accept Jesus Christ, but they will not try to force some. Yes, some can get very agitated and zealous at times, especially those "new to the faith" who have been hit with the overwhelming reality of what "saved versus unsaved" means. That's not to excuse "pushy" behavior, but it's not the same thing as trying to "force" someone to believe "or die" for refusing. That's the venue of other religions, like Islam today.

But, when nonbelievers begin to "push" their "worldview" as truth and to ridicule the beliefs of Christians and to dismiss them as "irrelevant" because their faith is "prima facia proof" that they have "lost their minds and their ability to reason," it is a command of God to Christians to "stand ready to give an answer for 'why you believe'."

When someone has the "temerity" to meet them on their own ground, let say, "Science," they run rather than engage. They demean and denegrate in an attempt to get others to ignore their "opponents."

Weaver, the issure really is NOT evolution or creation. The issue is, and always will be, "God" or no god. The "proof" that "God" is much more than a fable or a mental construct of mankind IS Jesus Christ.

My point, very simply, is don't waste your time trying to "prove or disprove" evolution. It can't be done with finality because the "original conditions" are not reproducable according to the scientific method.

Jesus Christ is another matter entirely. He IS "provable" and "examinable." He made certain claims that, if true, ARE the most important truths for all mankind. So why chase after red herrings of "transitional fossils" when the PERSON of Jesus Christ stands ready for close examination by anyone willing to face the reality that He existed, and that the evidence might actually prove that He IS God.

Even with all of that, there will be many who will, for whatever personal reasons, accept Jesus a real and true, but who will nonetheless refuse to accept him as their personal Lord and Savior. That's the same position that Satan and the fallen angels take. They KNOW, but they choose to reject.

God bless.

Especially when you can't get away with calling people out and denigrating their beliefs unchallenged, huh? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />