|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 1:12:31 GMT -5
ehumm.. Well, of course that is the reason that people have constructed a belief system for themselves to deny that when they will die that it will be the end. Period. Eternal death.
Still wonder what you think that "saved" place you want to be will actually be like. Flowers?, angels?, harps?, clouds? Elysian Fields? Nirvana?
Currently I conceive the eternal nature of mankind to be mankind himherself. IMO humankind has yet to come into their own. If I had to put a name and a face on the devil its be the economic expediencies we're subject to. If there's more to it than that, IDK.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 1:22:10 GMT -5
That is no answer, just making it up as you go along again?
If you hope to be "saved," what will that "place" be like after you die?
Or do you think that you will never die?
I don't think I will ever die. Do you? Yes, it has been my observation as a nurse for 50 years, that people do indeed die I've seen more people die that I can count. So, therefore, Yes, I do think that you die and I think that I will die also.
Probably not too many years left for me.
Hopefully, you have a lot more years than me.
Do I fear "eternal death?" NO!!
Why should I?
I have absolutely no desire for any "continued journey", or "continued significance."
I have lived as well as I could, made mistakes, looked at the stars, smelled the roses and all that. Haven't always lived up to my potential, but I have tried to make the small spot where I am a little more safe for equality and justice.
What would I be able to do further if I went on this "Continued journey," that you want for yourself?
What "continued significance" would I make?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 1:37:12 GMT -5
I don't think I will ever die. Do you? Yes, it has been my observation as a nurse for 50 years, that people do indeed die I've seen more people die that I can count. So, therefore, Yes, I do think that you die and I think that I will die also.
Probably not too many years left for me.
Hopefully, you have a lot more years than me.
Do I fear "eternal death?" NO!!
Why should I?
I have absolutely no desire for any "continued journey", or "continued significance."
I have lived as well as I could, made mistakes, looked at the stars, smelled the roses and all that. Haven't always lived up to my potential, but I have tried to make the small spot where I am a little more safe for equality and justice.
What would I be able to do further if I went on this "Continued journey," that you want for yourself?
What "continued significance" would I make?
Well maybe you're done. Like a flower that's bloomed you'll now be consumed.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 14:16:33 GMT -5
Yes, it has been my observation as a nurse for 50 years, that people do indeed die I've seen more people die that I can count. So, therefore, Yes, I do think that you die and I think that I will die also.
Probably not too many years left for me.
Hopefully, you have a lot more years than me.
Do I fear "eternal death?" NO!!
Why should I?
I have absolutely no desire for any "continued journey", or "continued significance."
I have lived as well as I could, made mistakes, looked at the stars, smelled the roses and all that. Haven't always lived up to my potential, but I have tried to make the small spot where I am a little more safe for equality and justice.
What would I be able to do further if I went on this "Continued journey," that you want for yourself?
What "continued significance" would I make?
Well maybe you're done. Like a flower that's bloomed you'll now be consumed. We only have one life to live.
Why spend that whole life just waiting for an unknown, hoped for after-life that only exists in the myths and minds of those who aren't satisfied with what we have in the here and now?
When you take a really good look at that idea, isn't it selfish?
Because that whole idea of "Continued journey," and a "continued significance" really is all about oneself! It is wanting to extend their own life!
All that energy expended just so they can live "forever!"
Reading the bible, praying, going to endless meetings, conventions etc.- all that time that could be better spent helping other people.
When you really think it though, it is one of most absolute selfish ideas there is!
That time could be better spent trying to better the here and now life of other people!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 15:16:10 GMT -5
I am meaning the overthrow of the royalty and installing a theocracy. Saudi is called a theo-monarchy. So it is already governed by the Wahhabi. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy founded upon Islamic tenets. The King is required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia which form the constitution. Saudi Arabia politics is not currently governed by the clerics, but by monarchs. Monarchs and laws must be approved by the Islamic council ulema (dominated by Wahhabis) but the way it works is that the monarchy gives the ulema council authority over religious matters while the ulema gives the monarchy authority over all political matters. So it is a power sharing agreement. Secular-type matters and foreign affairs are governed by the more moderate, more liberal sheiks while the ulema controls religion and religious education. Should the ulema overthrow the monarchy, then Saudi Arabia would make a huge change toward a hard lined religious agenda. As it is now, the opposition to the monarchy is not the secularists or liberals, it is the activist Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The change you would see in Saudi Arabia if the Wahhabi-dominated ulema overthrew the monarchy would be akin to the the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs regardless of the fact that they were all sh-te Muslims. It's not an exact comparison but similar as the Shah was moving toward Westernization while the sheiks have given the Ulema some actual power and they work together somewhat. The West could work with the Shah but not with the ayatollahs. There would almost certainly be a similar breakdown if the monarchy was overthrown in Saudi Arabia. It could lead to serious conflicts in the Islamic world itself in Sunni vs Shiite, but the destabilization could start Israel off shooting missiles. So we complain about the Saudis getting rich off the Americans but the truth is, the money keeps the Western-friendly monarchy in power while the Wahhabi clerics are kept busy doing domestic things and less influential on geopolitical matters. The new oil production in the US and other parts of the world with new technology will almost certainly weaken the monarchy and create a vacuum for the clerics. People who call for the impoverishment of Saudi Arabia might not like the results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 15:36:48 GMT -5
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy founded upon Islamic tenets. The King is required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia which form the constitution. Saudi Arabia politics is not currently governed by the clerics, but by monarchs. Monarchs and laws must be approved by the Islamic council ulema (dominated by Wahhabis) but the way it works is that the monarchy gives the ulema council authority over religious matters while the ulema gives the monarchy authority over all political matters. So it is a power sharing agreement. Secular-type matters and foreign affairs are governed by the more moderate, more liberal sheiks while the ulema controls religion and religious education. Should the ulema overthrow the monarchy, then Saudi Arabia would make a huge change toward a hard lined religious agenda. As it is now, the opposition to the monarchy is not the secularists or liberals, it is the activist Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The change you would see in Saudi Arabia if the Wahhabi-dominated ulema overthrew the monarchy would be akin to the the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs regardless of the fact that they were all sh-te Muslims. It's not an exact comparison but similar as the Shah was moving toward Westernization while the sheiks have given the Ulema some actual power and they work together somewhat. The West could work with the Shah but not with the ayatollahs. There would almost certainly be a similar breakdown if the monarchy was overthrown in Saudi Arabia. It could lead to serious conflicts in the Islamic world itself in Sunni vs Shiite, but the destabilization could start Israel off shooting missiles. So we complain about the Saudis getting rich off the Americans but the truth is, the money keeps the Western-friendly monarchy in power while the Wahhabi clerics are kept busy doing domestic things and less influential on geopolitical matters. The new oil production in the US and other parts of the world with new technology will almost certainly weaken the monarchy and create a vacuum for the clerics. People who call for the impoverishment of Saudi Arabia might not like the results. I guess I don't really see any difference because both are Islam and Sharia law. Here is a link that explains that. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120517140751AAFQ6AMWe had been discussing geopolitics, not whether someone gets whipped for drinking a beer. Internally, I would expect that Saudi Arabia would get more hardlined in enforcement of Sharia if the Ulema took over but the big change would be foreign policy and instability of the region.....and a more friendly home for Al Qaeda.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 3, 2014 15:51:23 GMT -5
Without reading all this discussion, all the Saudi students I have had living with me over the last few years claim their branch of Islam (the Wahhabi's) is true Islam. They claim this, as Islam started in Saudi, Mohammad was born and died in Saudi, also Mecca, where all the millions of Muslims from all sects flock to every year is in Saudi where Abraham's tomb is supposed to be. So Saudi is the centre of Islam. To pray all Muslims of all sects face Mecca no matter where the are in the world. So just like Christians like to say theirs is the original, I guess Saudi Muslims do too and seem to have the proof. Which is nearest the Quran, I don't know. Wahhabi's do appear to feel superior in that they believe that others are only sects or branches off them.
The belief is more that America needs Saudi but looking at it from the other way, yes, they need America. I wonder would America come and take the oil if Saudi refused to give it? Who is the strongest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 16:35:25 GMT -5
The belief is more that America needs Saudi but looking at it from the other way, yes, they need America. I wonder would America come and take the oil if Saudi refused to give it? Who is the strongest? We are already beginning to see the US back away from intervening in the Middle East and they will continue to do so. That is partly due to the non-interventionist style of the current President, but it is also because policy makers are seeing the waning importance of Middle East oil. Just in only 2 years we have seen a fair bit of intervention in Libya to almost nothing in Syria. That's because Middle East stability is no longer essential to American oil interests and will be important for only a few more years....perhaps 5 years. After that, it won't matter to the US who the Saudis sell their oil to because not much will be coming to the US from the Middle East....it will be almost entirely North American oil and some from South America. We are going to see some huge changes in the next decade because of the complete shift in oil politics. North America is already getting close to being self-sufficient (within 5 or 6 years) in oil and we will see oil exports actually coming out of North America. The Middle East then only becomes important for US support of Israel and for its war against terrorism, but not oil. Oil is going to make the US more powerful in world affairs and reverse the decline of the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 3, 2014 16:50:51 GMT -5
Sounds hopeful clearday. I do hope there will be enough left for the rest of the world too.
Snow, reading about what you said about the Wahhabi's (and a bit more on wiki now) it seems to be a bit like the Catholics trying to take over Christianity, making claims that it is the original. A lot of difference between Catholics role and Wahhabis role I know, but some similarities. Nothing is pure religion. The originals are gone and wiped out but the spirit of God lives on in people. Maybe that is why God allowed it, so that men get away from groups who claim they are right and into the heart of people.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 6, 2014 10:29:13 GMT -5
We only have one life to live. I don't believe that's exactly true but interestingly that's what strict evangelicals think as well. Why spend that whole life just waiting for an unknown, hoped for after-life that only exists in the myths and minds of those who aren't satisfied with what we have in the here and now? That doesn't describe the experiences of many theists. Check out John's Gospel by Lee Harmon. When you take a really good look at that idea, isn't it selfish?
Because that whole idea of "Continued journey," and a "continued significance" really is all about oneself! It is wanting to extend their own life! That's a cynical statement and denies the reality that none of us can love someone more than ourselves. All that energy expended just so they can live "forever!"
Reading the bible, praying, going to endless meetings, conventions etc.- all that time that could be better spent helping other people. There's a lot of saved people not realizing their salvation. I have good days and bad days as well. When you really think it though, it is one of most absolute se lfish ideas there is!That time could be better spent trying to better the here and now life of other people! I don't personally subscribe to the high-drama of salvation without reservation but its enabled many people to live more significant, productive lives.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 6, 2014 15:20:04 GMT -5
We only have one life to live. I don't believe that's exactly true but interestingly that's what strict evangelicals think as well. Why spend that whole life just waiting for an unknown, hoped for after-life that only exists in the myths and minds of those who aren't satisfied with what we have in the here and now? That doesn't describe the experiences of many theists. Check out John's Gospel by Lee Harmon. When you take a really good look at that idea, isn't it selfish?
Because that whole idea of "Continued journey," and a "continued significance" really is all about oneself! It is wanting to extend their own life! That's a cynical statement and denies the reality that none of us can love someone more than ourselves. All that energy expended just so they can live "forever!"
Reading the bible, praying, going to endless meetings, conventions etc.- all that time that could be better spent helping other people. There's a lot of saved people not realizing their salvation. I have good days and bad days as well. When you really think it though, it is one of most absolute se lfish ideas there is!That time could be better spent trying to better the here and now life of other people! I don't personally subscribe to the high-drama of salvation without reservation but its enabled many people to live more significant, productive lives. You mean that you don't believe that we only have one life to live? In the **TRUTH** hymn book, we even have a hymn that states that!
One life to live is the belief of most Christians.
It isn't a cynical statement, it shows the reality of why people need to believe in an after-life, -your idea of "Continued journey," and a "continued significance" really is all about oneself!
"There's a lot of saved people not realizing their salvation." ?? - What the heck is that supposed to mean in reply to my post?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 6, 2014 23:56:29 GMT -5
You mean that you don't believe that we only have one life to live? In the **TRUTH** hymn book, we even have a hymn that states that! I remember that! Do flowers only have one life to live? No, they come back again. But its interesting to me that both atheists and theists claim we only have one life. Suggests to me much like Islam is said to be a sect of Christianity, so atheism may be also. For instance if they're both fixated upon a terminal earth and terminal lives ... perhaps the apple didn't fall far from the tree? In truth, Christianity should always life-affirming. If it seems otherwise, do a sound-check. One life to live is the belief of most Christian s. Yes and no. There is talk of a resurrection after all. Exactly when does it begin? In the case of the elect does it have a beginning? ...IMO salvation is best understood as being states of being. For instance the happy tend to become happier, and the sad-unto-death tend to become sadder. I'm not being whimsical. I believe our emotional-mental states follow our thoughts, and our thoughts follow what we believe or know about theology, cosmogony, and ontology. It isn't a cynical statement, it shows the reality of why people need to believe in an after-life, -your idea of "Continued journey," and a "continued significance" really is all about oneself! How is this life not about ourselves? What do you experience in this life that is not filtered or referenced by your 'self'? Selfishness is not bad thing. Selfishness at the expense of a higher good or principle is but how is selfishness in the interest of a greater good or principle not selfish? Of course there is love. Of course there's 'the other'. How much more so if there's continuity with eternity! "There's a lot of saved people not realizing their salvation." ?? - What the heck is that supposed to mean in reply to my post?
That I agree that a lot of theists waste a lot of time and energy trying to be saved. Salvation is not a status or commodity. Salvation is about the nature of God, mankind, and saving behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 7, 2014 0:45:08 GMT -5
Saudi is called a theo-monarchy. So it is already governed by the Wahhabi. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy founded upon Islamic tenets. The King is required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia which form the constitution. Saudi Arabia politics is not currently governed by the clerics, but by monarchs. Monarchs and laws must be approved by the Islamic council ulema (dominated by Wahhabis) but the way it works is that the monarchy gives the ulema council authority over religious matters while the ulema gives the monarchy authority over all political matters. So it is a power sharing agreement. Secular-type matters and foreign affairs are governed by the more moderate, more liberal sheiks while the ulema controls religion and religious education. Should the ulema overthrow the monarchy, then Saudi Arabia would make a huge change toward a hard lined religious agenda. As it is now, the opposition to the monarchy is not the secularists or liberals, it is the activist Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The change you would see in Saudi Arabia if the Wahhabi-dominated ulema overthrew the monarchy would be akin to the the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs regardless of the fact that they were all sh-te Muslims. It's not an exact comparison but similar as the Shah was moving toward Westernization while the sheiks have given the Ulema some actual power and they work together somewhat. The West could work with the Shah but not with the ayatollahs. There would almost certainly be a similar breakdown if the monarchy was overthrown in Saudi Arabia. It could lead to serious conflicts in the Islamic world itself in Sunni vs Shiite, but the destabilization could start Israel off shooting missiles. So we complain about the Saudis getting rich off the Americans but the truth is, the money keeps the Western-friendly monarchy in power while the Wahhabi clerics are kept busy doing domestic things and less influential on geopolitical matters. The new oil production in the US and other parts of the world with new technology will almost certainly weaken the monarchy and create a vacuum for the clerics. People who call for the impoverishment of Saudi Arabia might not like the results. "Founded on Islamic tenets" and "required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia" is the definition of a theocracy -- and the present setup in Saudi Arabia is nothing like that of the Shah's Iran -- except that the US was cozy with ones who run the country. There is nothing secular about Saudi Arabia, whether they sell to the West or not. Come to think of it, the ayatollahs would have sold to the West just as eagerly if the West had not refused to purchase all they wanted to sell.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 7, 2014 1:52:05 GMT -5
"Founded on Islamic tenets" and "required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia" is the definition of a theocracy. Not quite.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 7, 2014 1:59:03 GMT -5
I remember that! Do flowers only have one life to live? No, they come back again. But its interesting to me that both atheists and theists claim we only have one life. Suggests to me much like Islam is said to be a sect of Christianity, so atheism may be also. For instance if they're both fixated upon a terminal earth and terminal lives ... perhaps the apple didn't fall far from the tree? In truth, Christianity should always life-affirming. If it seems otherwise, do a sound-check. You know something, lee? When you try to compare Islam and atheism as possibly being a "sect" of Christianity, you just continue to show your absolute ignorance of what atheism is about!
So you are saying in essence that Christianity is IT, the ONLY belief system possible and EVERYTHING else is just a section of IT?
What hubris!
Other beliefs systems are around & have been around long before Christianity was even thought of!
You won't let yourself believe that atheism is simply a belief that there isn't ANY evidence of a supernatural or paranormal "god" of any kind. Period.
NO GODS! NIL-ZILCH
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 7, 2014 2:06:56 GMT -5
So the universe just happened? No one created it, no mind behind it all, it just happened. Your arms, legs, eyes, nose, everything just happen to coordinate. Easy to believe for some I guess but we don't live in a world where things just happen. We plan, make, discover. Look up and you will see the world that all just happened by chance, no mind behind it, no mind behind the laws of nature, nothing but nothingness. All came from a big bang.
Hard to believe that something big is not behind it.
Praise God for the beauty, the universes and all the things that man have barely discovered.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 7, 2014 2:39:43 GMT -5
"Founded on Islamic tenets" and "required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia" is the definition of a theocracy. Not quite. Well blow me down. I thought the Qu'ran might have something to do with a deity.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jan 7, 2014 8:57:06 GMT -5
Do flowers only have one life to live? No, they come back again. In the case of perennial flowers, as long as the root of the plant survives there is the possibility it will produce new flowers. Plants also produce seeds, which, given the right conditions, grow into new plants with new flowers. Humans produce zygotes which, given the right conditions, emerge as new humans.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 7, 2014 14:31:14 GMT -5
Well blow me down. I thought the Qu'ran might have something to do with a deity. The Qu'ran is written into the constitution of most Muslim-majority countries.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jan 7, 2014 21:51:34 GMT -5
What is it that you are looking to be saved from? Eternal death. You are right, Lee, I cannot help you with this, except to suggest that you try re-framing it as Eternal rest.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 7, 2014 23:16:10 GMT -5
So the universe just happened? No one created it, no mind behind it all, it just happened. Your arms, legs, eyes, nose, everything just happen to coordinate. Easy to believe for some I guess bu t we don't live in a world where things just happen.
We plan, make, discover. Look up and you will see the world that all just happened by chance, no mind behind it, no mind behind the laws of nature, nothing but nothingness. All came from a big bang.
Hard to believe that something big is not behind it. Praise God for the beauty, the universes and all the things that man have barely discovered. That idea is what my daughter calls the belief in a "god" as an "intentional" entity.
As "intentional" beings ourselves, we want to believe that there is a being out there that "intentionally" made everything from the standpoint of intending this or that to happen.
No matter what we do, however it might turn out, we intend, or have certain intentions of our actions toward a certain outcome.
My idea also is the reason that we tend to want to believe that such a intentional "being" exists is because we don't like chaos, we want order. We try to make order out of the chaos that does exist.
We have been doing that ever since we didn't like the idea that anything such the top of a mountain suddenly erupting with caustic fumes & pouring hot lava down on our heads. There must have been a reason, and "intention" behind such "chaos."
We believed that it just couldn't have happened for no reason.
Not knowing the real reason, we couldn't just let it lie there. We wanted answers and being the creative people that we humans are, we created the angry god of the volcano.
We have been doing that ever since mankind created the multiple gods that we have.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 8, 2014 1:28:10 GMT -5
Well blow me down. I thought the Qu'ran might have something to do with a deity. The Qu'ran is written into the constitution of most Muslim-majority countries. Here we go again.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 8, 2014 3:02:34 GMT -5
"Founded on Islamic tenets" and "required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia" is the definition of a theocracy. Most Muslim-majority countries have the Qu'ran and Sharia in their constitution or legal system and would claim to be founded on Islamic tenets. That doesn't make them a theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 8, 2014 9:03:35 GMT -5
You are right, Lee, I cannot help you with this, except to suggest that you try re-framing it as Eternal rest. Whether or not we go to our deaths or we go to our rests hinges upon whether we will rise again. Atheists have no basis to believe we're alive right now, let alone to believe we will rise again.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 8, 2014 9:15:23 GMT -5
Do flowers only have one life to live? No, they come back again. In the case of perennial flowers, as long as the root of the plant survives there is the possibility it will produce new flowers. Plants also produce seeds, which, given the right conditions, grow into new plants with new flowers. Humans produce zygotes which, given the right conditions, emerge as new humans. IMO the 2x2 living witness doctrine was an attempt to substantiate the 2x2 position of exclusivity based upon a view that life can only be begotten from other life. IMO, the doctrine also reflected what was popularly being concluded about the origins of life in the 19th century according to Darwin's observations and theory. Of course Darwin wasn't particularly concerned about the reproduction or resurrection of a personality, or what a personality was for that matter. 2x2 individuals as constituents of a whole continue to believe their resurrected personality can only be reproduced with their presence. God is far more creative than that, however. He is co-dependent upon no other, and his salvation extends to all.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 8, 2014 10:08:58 GMT -5
I remember that! Do flowers only have one life to live? No, they come back again. But its interesting to me that both atheists and theists claim we only have one life. Suggests to me much like Islam is said to be a sect of Christianity, so atheism may be also. For instance if they're both fixated upon a terminal earth and terminal lives ... perhaps the apple didn't fall far from the tree? In truth, Christianity should always life-affirming. If it seems otherwise, do a sound-check. You know something, lee? When you try to compare Islam and atheism as possibly being a "sect" of Christianity, you just continue to show your absolute ignorance of what atheism is about!Really? I thought I had pointed out an interesting parallel between what atheists and what some or many Christians believe. Shades of the 'Stockholm syndrome' at work, or at any rate, a case of being reactionary. So you are saying in essence that Christianity is IT, the ONLY belief system possible and EVERYTHING else is just a section of IT?
What hubris! Yes. This because Christianity is interested in truth, and what isn't interested in the truth, isn't Christian. Other beliefs systems have been around long before Christianity was even thought of! Interesting how atheists can suddenly become so defensive of religion. You won't let yourself believe that atheism is simply a belief that the re isn't ANY evidence of a supernatural or paranormal "god" of any kind. Period.
NO GODS! NIL-ZILCH The evidence for God is inferential and as it would be for the existence of something dimensionally greater. Despite inferring things every day the atheist suppresses this ability as soon as the subject turns to God.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 8, 2014 11:59:18 GMT -5
"Founded on Islamic tenets" and "required to follow the Qu'ran and Sharia" is the definition of a theocracy. Most Muslim-majority countries have the Qu'ran and Sharia in their constitution or legal system and would claim to be founded on Islamic tenets. That doesn't make them a theocracy. Are you trying to tell me something here?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 8, 2014 14:16:54 GMT -5
You know something, lee? When you try to compare Islam and atheism as possibly being a "sect" of Christianity, you just continue to show your absolute ignorance of what atheism is about! Really? I thought I had pointed out an interesting parallel between what atheists and what some or many Christians believe. Shades of the 'Stockholm syndrome' at work, or at any rate, a case of being reactionary. So you are saying in essence that Christianity is IT, the ONLY belief system possible and EVERYTHING else is just a section of IT?
What hubris! Yes. This because Christianity is interested in truth, and what isn't interested in the truth, isn't Christian. Other beliefs systems have been around long before Christianity was even thought of! Interesting how atheists can suddenly become so defensive of religion. You won't let yourself believe that atheism is simply a belief that there isn't ANY evidence of a supernatural or paranormal "god" of any kind. Period.
NO GODS! NIL-ZILCH The evidence for God is inferential and as it would be for the existence of something dimensionally greater. Despite inferring things every day the atheist suppresses this ability as soon as the subject turns to God. Obviously, you aren't going to understand anything about atheism because you don't want to understand.
You have your own definition for us and you don't want to exchange your ideas for any facts about us.
|
|