"Is Christianity Good For The World?" Debate

[Theocrat]

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 1 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 2 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 3 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 4 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 5 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 6 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 7 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 8 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 9 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 10 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 11 of 12

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 12 of 12

[MRoCkEd]

I saw one that was specifically about Catholicism, but I'll check this one out too. Thanks

[Cowlesy]

Excerpts of this were in the movie Pastor Wilson and Hitchens made together.

www.collisionmovie.com

I have the DVD, and I thought the debates they have (in several locations) were fascinating.

[Theocrat]

Excerpts of this were in the movie Pastor Wilson and Hitchens made together.

www.collisionmovie.com

I have the DVD, and I thought the debates they have (in several locations) were fascinating.

Here's a video where Wilson and Hitchens had a discussion on FOX Business Network to promote the Collision movie:

YouTube - Is Morality Innate?

I have to say that, as a member of his denomination, I am very proud of Douglas Wilson for representing true Christianity in the limelight, unlike other Christians who blow it when in the spotlight, as it were.

[Cowlesy]

Here's a video where Wilson and Hitchens had a discussion on FOX Business Network to promote the Collision movie:

YouTube - Is Morality Innate?

I have to say that, as a member of his denomination, I am very proud of Douglas Wilson for representing true Christianity in the limelight, unlike other Christians who blow it when in the spotlight, as it were.

Yeah that guy amazes me with how bright he is, and how good he is at articulating his points.

[Cowlesy]

//

[reillym]

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg.

[Theocrat]

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg.

Without the God of Christianity, it is impossible to rightly define what "good" is. That is exactly what Douglas Wilson was seeking to show in the debate, for instance.

Anytime a non-Christian calls someone or something "evil" he is borrowing a moral judgment from the Christian worldview. Otherwise, "evil" can be anything from helping an old lady across the street to murdering masses of people because they are a less evolved species.

[MelissaWV]

Spirituality, morality, and religion (not the same things) are good for the world. Zealotry is not. Unfortunately, there are too many people who forget that.

[Theocrat]

Spirituality, morality, and religion (not the same things) are good for the world. Zealotry is not. Unfortunately, there are too many people who forget that.

Zealotry is great, if the foundation of the zealotry is sound and true. If a person has no zeal in what they believe or hold to be true, good, beautiful, etc., then it makes no sense for that person to articulate the view in the first place.

[MelissaWV]

Zealotry is great, if the foundation of the zealotry is sound and true. If a person has no zeal in what they believe or hold to be true, good, beautiful, etc., then it makes no sense for that person to articulate the view in the first place.

And you will decide if it's sound and true for others, because you're a zealot Zealotry is fanaticism. Zealotry is not just being devout, it is being devout to the point of shutting out things that simply don't add up, and being a hypocrite with standards of evidence. Zealotry does not confine itself to religion. You have run up against zealous atheists and agnostics (which I always found funny) on these forums. We run into overzealous anarchists all the time. There are absolutely overzealous conspiracy theoriests and a disheartening number of zealots telling us the Government is our friend. People simply champion what they believe at the expense of common sense and logic, and attempt to force others to believe as they do... or else make fun of them.

Believing is great. It actually serves a fundamental purpose in humans, even if one doesn't think of there being an overreaching, almighty religion that is correct and perfect and true. Even vague spirituality is a boon to civilization overall. Closing one's mind to new information and opposing viewpoints, and using whatever one believes in most strongly as an excuse for violence or ridicule or simply to refuse to acknowledge something else... is the foundation of more struggles on this planet than people would like to admit.

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink. The moment, though, that the Church of the Octopus starts banging on my door, or carrying out actions that impact my life, or generally making my life miserable by constantly harping about the virtues of the Tentacled One, it crosses a line and does begin to bother me. When I'm made fun of for not believing in the One True Cephalopod, it gets only more obnoxious, and when I stupidly attempt to engage in debate with someone who responds with their faith in the Benevolent Beak being the only truth... well that one's my own fault, because the Octopoids will never see any error in their logic, nor any merit in that of others, so long as they are overzealous and blinded by their faith

[teacherone]

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink. The moment, though, that the Church of the Octopus starts banging on my door, or carrying out actions that impact my life, or generally making my life miserable by constantly harping about the virtues of the Tentacled One, it crosses a line and does begin to bother me. When I'm made fun of for not believing in the One True Cephalopod, it gets only more obnoxious, and when I stupidly attempt to engage in debate with someone who responds with their faith in the Benevolent Beak being the only truth... well that one's my own fault, because the Octopoids will never see any error in their logic, nor any merit in that of others, so long as they are overzealous and blinded by their faith

now that's funny!
who's got eight nine inch nails? there's an asia supermarket right down the street...

[Theocrat]

And you will decide if it's sound and true for others, because you're a zealot Zealotry is fanaticism. Zealotry is not just being devout, it is being devout to the point of shutting out things that simply don't add up, and being a hypocrite with standards of evidence. Zealotry does not confine itself to religion. You have run up against zealous atheists and agnostics (which I always found funny) on these forums. We run into overzealous anarchists all the time. There are absolutely overzealous conspiracy theoriests and a disheartening number of zealots telling us the Government is our friend. People simply champion what they believe at the expense of common sense and logic, and attempt to force others to believe as they do... or else make fun of them.

Believing is great. It actually serves a fundamental purpose in humans, even if one doesn't think of there being an overreaching, almighty religion that is correct and perfect and true. Even vague spirituality is a boon to civilization overall. Closing one's mind to new information and opposing viewpoints, and using whatever one believes in most strongly as an excuse for violence or ridicule or simply to refuse to acknowledge something else... is the foundation of more struggles on this planet than people would like to admit.

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink. The moment, though, that the Church of the Octopus starts banging on my door, or carrying out actions that impact my life, or generally making my life miserable by constantly harping about the virtues of the Tentacled One, it crosses a line and does begin to bother me. When I'm made fun of for not believing in the One True Cephalopod, it gets only more obnoxious, and when I stupidly attempt to engage in debate with someone who responds with their faith in the Benevolent Beak being the only truth... well that one's my own fault, because the Octopoids will never see any error in their logic, nor any merit in that of others, so long as they are overzealous and blinded by their faith

Very amusing, but simply not analogous. God is not the same as a cosmic octopus. I agree with you that there are many people who are zealous of their beliefs or theories, even to the point of ignoring common sense and logic. However, we should never forget that there are zealous people out there who are also correct about their beliefs, and they even incorporate common sense and logic to explain them. Congressman Paul is an immediate example of that.

The issue that we must always keep in mind is what is the person standing on when expressing his zealotry. In other words, what is the foundation that the person explaining the theory or sharing the belief? Zealotry without knowledge can be dangerous, but it's even more dangerous when that knowledge is based on lies. Whether you want to believe this or not, not every belief is correct or right. There are preconditions for truth, after all, because truth is absolute. I know to a relativist (which most members of this forum are) that sounds bigoted, narrow-minded, and uncaring.

So, when a person makes the claim that his religion is the only true one (whether it assumes God's existence or not), then it becomes necessary to explore why that is the case and what are we left with if it's true. That is what knowledge is all about, after all. It's why we have universities and seminaries and scholarly societies. And in the particular case of Christianity, the extraordinary claim is made that without God, all knowledge is reduced to absurdity (1 Corinthians 1). No other religion, philosophy, or theory has ever made such a claim. It then becomes incumbent upon the person making that claim to explain himself.

If someone claims that such belief is illogical or nonsensical, then that person needs to justify how logic and common sense themselves are trustworthy standards, given the foundation he or she is standing on, before explaining the illogical/nonsensical nature of the claim made against them. That is the challenge which Christianity makes to any opposing worldview. And just because a person isn't persuaded that his worldview falls at the feet of Christianity does not make Christianity false. Proof and persuasion are two different matters.

As Christian philosopher/theologian Cornelius Van Til once stated:

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.

[teacherone]

there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...there is only one truth, and theocrat is the prophet...

[Kotin]

And you will decide if it's sound and true for others, because you're a zealot Zealotry is fanaticism. Zealotry is not just being devout, it is being devout to the point of shutting out things that simply don't add up, and being a hypocrite with standards of evidence. Zealotry does not confine itself to religion. You have run up against zealous atheists and agnostics (which I always found funny) on these forums. We run into overzealous anarchists all the time. There are absolutely overzealous conspiracy theoriests and a disheartening number of zealots telling us the Government is our friend. People simply champion what they believe at the expense of common sense and logic, and attempt to force others to believe as they do... or else make fun of them.

Believing is great. It actually serves a fundamental purpose in humans, even if one doesn't think of there being an overreaching, almighty religion that is correct and perfect and true. Even vague spirituality is a boon to civilization overall. Closing one's mind to new information and opposing viewpoints, and using whatever one believes in most strongly as an excuse for violence or ridicule or simply to refuse to acknowledge something else... is the foundation of more struggles on this planet than people would like to admit.

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink. The moment, though, that the Church of the Octopus starts banging on my door, or carrying out actions that impact my life, or generally making my life miserable by constantly harping about the virtues of the Tentacled One, it crosses a line and does begin to bother me. When I'm made fun of for not believing in the One True Cephalopod, it gets only more obnoxious, and when I stupidly attempt to engage in debate with someone who responds with their faith in the Benevolent Beak being the only truth... well that one's my own fault, because the Octopoids will never see any error in their logic, nor any merit in that of others, so long as they are overzealous and blinded by their faith

Very well said.

[MelissaWV]

Of course there's one truth. Don't be silly.

I have a bone to pick with anyone who says they know what the real truth, on matters of this magnitude, is. You can't prove it, not even to yourself, beyond all doubt... unless you are blocking out all logic and common sense to the contrary. Of course, the sad part of it all is that to block out logic and common sense in favor of simply believing in a Creator... is to block out that which you are so grateful for a Creator endowing you with. The Christian God gave us free will, therefore we should act precisely as the Bible says, and attempt to be clones of one another, often ignoring the beauty and wonder of the world around us to stare at the heavens and wonder at things we cannot know in this world.

There is one truth, and it's your truth, and those who believe differently are off their rockers.

That, my dear, is what begets wars.

[KCIndy]

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink.....

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Flying Spaghetti Monster??

[MelissaWV]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Flying Spaghetti Monster??

Don't be blasphemous. Spaghetti monsters have too many noodles. What are the other noodles for?!? Are you questioning the divine and perfect design, and how there are eight planets and eight tentacles? Remember that Pluto, that rocky pretender, is no longer considered a planet. Early man could not comprehend the rapid movements of the tentacles, and hence drew the Royal Regenerator with many additional tentacles, giving rise to the spaghetti monster mythos.

[heavenlyboy34]

And you will decide if it's sound and true for others, because you're a zealot Zealotry is fanaticism. Zealotry is not just being devout, it is being devout to the point of shutting out things that simply don't add up, and being a hypocrite with standards of evidence. Zealotry does not confine itself to religion. You have run up against zealous atheists and agnostics (which I always found funny) on these forums. We run into overzealous anarchists all the time. There are absolutely overzealous conspiracy theoriests and a disheartening number of zealots telling us the Government is our friend. People simply champion what they believe at the expense of common sense and logic, and attempt to force others to believe as they do... or else make fun of them.

Believing is great. It actually serves a fundamental purpose in humans, even if one doesn't think of there being an overreaching, almighty religion that is correct and perfect and true. Even vague spirituality is a boon to civilization overall. Closing one's mind to new information and opposing viewpoints, and using whatever one believes in most strongly as an excuse for violence or ridicule or simply to refuse to acknowledge something else... is the foundation of more struggles on this planet than people would like to admit.

It wouldn't bother me, seriously, if someone believed in a giant space octopus that rotates the planets and makes the sky black with his holy ink. The moment, though, that the Church of the Octopus starts banging on my door, or carrying out actions that impact my life, or generally making my life miserable by constantly harping about the virtues of the Tentacled One, it crosses a line and does begin to bother me. When I'm made fun of for not believing in the One True Cephalopod, it gets only more obnoxious, and when I stupidly attempt to engage in debate with someone who responds with their faith in the Benevolent Beak being the only truth... well that one's my own fault, because the Octopoids will never see any error in their logic, nor any merit in that of others, so long as they are overzealous and blinded by their faith

Well done, my friend. ~hugs~

[Theocrat]

Of course there's one truth. Don't be silly.

I have a bone to pick with anyone who says they know what the real truth, on matters of this magnitude, is. You can't prove it, not even to yourself, beyond all doubt... unless you are blocking out all logic and common sense to the contrary. Of course, the sad part of it all is that to block out logic and common sense in favor of simply believing in a Creator... is to block out that which you are so grateful for a Creator endowing you with. The Christian God gave us free will, therefore we should act precisely as the Bible says, and attempt to be clones of one another, often ignoring the beauty and wonder of the world around us to stare at the heavens and wonder at things we cannot know in this world.

There is one truth, and it's your truth, and those who believe differently are off their rockers.

That, my dear, is what begets wars.

Now, if you really believe what you've stated above, then ask yourself this question: Is what I said itself absolutely true? To answer in the affirmative puts you in my camp of zealotry. To answer in the negative means that your statements are just opinions, which is not what we're discussing here.

When you say that you have a bone to pick with those people who claim their belief is the only one truth, you are really claiming that you yourself possess such absolute truth. You've stated that "You can't prove it, not even to yourself, beyond all doubt... unless you are blocking out all logic and common sense to the contrary." But how do you know that about my belief? What gives you the upper hand to judge my belief as such? Is your assessment the one truth which all other beliefs about truth ought to be beholden of?

Melissa, you're no different than I am in proclaiming solidarity of truth. It's okay for you to make your judgments against anyone who says theirs is the one truth above all else, but let someone else do it, and you simply conclude that person is "blocking out logic and common sense." Do you see the double standard you've set for yourself?

You've acknowledged that there is one truth. I'd like to know what you mean by that.

[sevin]

Anytime a non-Christian calls someone or something "evil" he is borrowing a moral judgment from the Christian worldview.

So Christians came up with the idea of "evil"?

[TinCanToNA]

Spirituality, morality, and religion (not the same things) are good for the world. Zealotry is not. Unfortunately, there are too many people who forget that.

I agree for the most part.

Can't wait until I have enough time to watch these, which may be this weekend. My take in response to the question: If Christians acted like Christ, then Christianity would be the best thing ever for the world.

[MelissaWV]

Now, if you really believe what you've stated above, then ask yourself this question: Is what I said itself absolutely true? To answer in the affirmative puts you in my camp of zealotry. To answer in the negative means that your statements are just opinions, which is not what we're discussing here.

When you say that you have a bone to pick with those people who claim their belief is the only one truth, you are really claiming that you yourself possess such absolute truth. You've stated that "You can't prove it, not even to yourself, beyond all doubt... unless you are blocking out all logic and common sense to the contrary." But how do you know that about my belief? What gives you the upper hand to judge my belief as such? Is your assessment the one truth which all other beliefs about truth ought to be beholden of?

Melissa, you're no different than I am in proclaiming solidarity of truth. It's okay for you to make your judgments against anyone who says theirs is the one truth above all else, but let someone else do it, and you simply conclude that person is "blocking out logic and common sense." Do you see the double standard you've set for yourself?

You've acknowledged that there is one truth. I'd like to know what you mean by that.

There is a massive world of difference between believing in the one truth for yourself, and taking a walk across the street to tell your neighbor your truth is better than their truth.

I am saying your truth is the best for you (obviously; I don't think of you as a masochist). I am also saying you cannot prove to me that your way is the only one possible and righteous way. Your attempts to do so are tiresome, and in the hands of many such attempts often end in wars waged to impose one set of views over an unwilling populace.

The mere fact that you don't see a difference between knowing something for yourself, and imposing it upon your neighbors, is sad.

You have gone about on these forums many, many times stating these people or those people deserve to die, and so-and-so is sinful and will be judged into eternal damnation. You hold everyone else to your moral standards. I only ask that people hold themselves to their own, and leave me to mine. You still won't see the difference, but I do.

Why can't everyone believe what they individually want to believe? What business is it of yours or mine or whomever else's... until they impose it upon others? You have focused on religious zealotry, but I have talked about other kinds. There is sexual zealotry, Theo, too. If everyone kept their sexuality to themselves and didn't try to peer into one another's bedrooms, I am fairly certain we'd know far less about one another's habits and the world would be that much more peaceful. There are those who simply MUST get you to admit that hetersexuality is the only way, and there are those who simply MUST get you to admit that homosexuality is the greatest thing ever. There is political zealotry, as we see on these boards, where some anarchists condemn those who would ever even have a homeowner's association, and where some Constitutionalists claim that anarchists will dismantle the Ron Paul movement altogether and be the downfall of us all. These viewpoints are grand and fine, but then there's the conversions that attempt to take place.

To put it most simply, I don't believe my beliefs are the end-all be-all of the universe. I'm not trying to de-Christian you. I'm wondering how you can be logical and follow the words of such a humble man and forgiving God, and go around preaching the hate you occasionally do. I'm wondering why, in your eyes, non-Christians should be Christianized or face eternal damnation/wrath.

You will likely palm this off on "It's not me; the Bible says it's so," and that's your way, and no one is going to reverse the tide of zealotry, but it isn't good for the world for its inhabitants to be constantly at odds trying to convert one another. Christianity is not, by nature, violent or confrontational. It would be great for the world to really read and understand the Bible, even as I believe it would be beneficial for people to read and understand as many ancient anthologies and religious codices as possible. If the world took the entirety of what makes us similar, and pondered on that, rather than nitpicking passages and using them as tools to divide and provoke, it really would be a good and glorious thing.

As for what I believe is the truth, why's it matter unless you're looking to convert

[Theocrat]

So Christians came up with the idea of "evil"?

No. God has revealed to His people what evil is. Simply put, evil is that which is contrary to God's character and nature (cf. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5; Matthew 22:37-39).

When a nonbeliever calls something "evil," he can't make sense of it without borrowing from the Christian understanding of good and evil. Otherwise, he is left with what society tells us it is, or raw matter in nature.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

No. God has revealed to His people what evil is. Simply put, evil is that which is contrary to God's character and nature (cf. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5; Matthew 22:37-39).

When a nonbeliever calls something "evil," he can't make sense of it without borrowing from the Christian understanding of good and evil. Otherwise, he is left with what society tells us it is, or raw matter in nature.

I know you believe that God's law came before all else. However, as far being written down, the concept of "evil" came way way way before any Jewish writing. So it seems to me that Jews and Christians borrowed from other belief systems.

[Theocrat]

There is a massive world of difference between believing in the one truth for yourself, and taking a walk across the street to tell your neighbor your truth is better than their truth.

I am saying your truth is the best for you (obviously; I don't think of you as a masochist). I am also saying you cannot prove to me that your way is the only one possible and righteous way. Your attempts to do so are tiresome, and in the hands of many such attempts often end in wars waged to impose one set of views over an unwilling populace.

The mere fact that you don't see a difference between knowing something for yourself, and imposing it upon your neighbors, is sad.

You have gone about on these forums many, many times stating these people or those people deserve to die, and so-and-so is sinful and will be judged into eternal damnation. You hold everyone else to your moral standards. I only ask that people hold themselves to their own, and leave me to mine. You still won't see the difference, but I do.

I see the difference, and, admittedly, I can see how it would be offensive to some people if they were told that their truth was no good compared to another's, without a rational explanation for why it is so.

However, here is the glaring problem in your complaint: truth is not first-person relative. In other words, truth cannot be true for the person holding it, and not true to everyone else. That is called "opinion." Even if a person is not convinced of a truth that does not mean the truth ceases to exist nor does it mean that person is not held accountable under that truth.

For example, if a person doesn't accept that gravity is true, and he still jumps out a plane without a parachute, the law of gravity still applies to him, even to his death. A person can make a claim that air doesn't exist, and still all the while continue to breathe air while he makes that statement. Truth applies even if we are against it. Unfortunately, our society has been brought up to accept neutrality of beliefs as well as the notion that all beliefs are equal. Neither of those exist, however.

Why do I bring that up? It is precisely at that point which I see the fallacy of what you've written above. You claim that I hold everyone to my standards, but you need to understand a couple of things. One, they are not my standards, although I hold to them faithfully. Two, if those standards to which I hold are not the ultimate standard for everyone else, then obviously, someone else's standards will be, whether they are Obama's, Rothbard's, Ron Paul's, etc. There is no neutrality.

No one is saying that you can't express your beliefs. However, there are always consequences to believing something, for that is the nature of anything believed. Our beliefs control our behaviors (credenda agenda). If I as a Christian am not allowed to spread my faith to the public, then the person who tells me not to do so is spreading theirs. Do you see what I'm talking about, Melissa?

I'm not sure if you see this, but non-Christians on this forum are always spreading their non-beliefs on the forums. It is seen in their discussions of ethics, politics, economics, and everything else. They have an underlying assumption to all of their discussion, and that is God is not allowed to be influenced or assumed in the discussion.

Yet, when a Christian brings up the notion that God might have something to say about a particular thing, the non-Christian is quick to reduce that to a religious enforcement of belief upon others. They never bother to see that their non-belief or exclusion of God works the other way around on Christians, too.

That is what is at stake in all of this. It's one way of looking at things versus another way. And logically speaking, it cannot be true at the same time that God has spoken about a subject and that God has not spoken about a subject. The two beliefs are contradictory to one another. All the Christians are saying is that if God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, then He is ultimately the standard for truth about morality, science, politics, economics, etc. Man cannot have such an autonomous reach into those things in our world on his own. He needs help.

[MelissaWV]

...

Yet, when a Christian brings up the notion that God might have something to say about a particular thing, the non-Christian is quick to reduce that to a religious enforcement of belief upon others. They never bother to see that their non-belief or exclusion of God works the other way around on Christians, too.

That is what is at stake in all of this. It's one way of looking at things versus another way. And logically speaking, it cannot be true at the same time that God has spoken about a subject and that God has not spoken about a subject. The two beliefs are contradictory to one another. All the Christians are saying is that if God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, then He is ultimately the standard for truth about morality, science, politics, economics, etc. Man cannot have such an autonomous reach into those things in our world on his own. He needs help.

Logically speaking, it can't be true that both things are right, correct. Is there a God, or is there no God? Both cannot be true. Which one is true? We cannot prove it beyond that gray area called "faith," therefore ridiculing someone because they do or don't have faith is pretty pointless. Going a step further and trying to impose your side of things onto the other is downright cruel. If He is the standard for truth about all of those things, then why does it take Man to impose that truth upon others via violence and intervention? It doesn't. Keep your religion between yourself, God, and those who trully want to know about it; doesn't that make a lot of sense from a strictly logical standpoint? Would you like to be bombarded with constant talk about how your religion is stupid and a bunch of fairy tale nonsense, and God is a lover of incest and chaos and murder of innocents? Would you like those beliefs actually imposed upon you? Of course not. So we're left believing what we believe, and having as civil a discourse on it as possible.

Wishing your fellow forum members executed, or telling them they will burn in eternal damnation, is not only the opposite of civil discourse... it is, as someone posted to you (and you never responded) the devil's work. It drives people from the line between spiritual and Christian, farther and farther from Christianity. You are a stereotype of the pushy Christian. You're a charicature of it. Everyone else is wrong, and if they question you, well the Bible supports you (portions of it, anyhow) therefore you are correct. You leave no room for others to be right at all. Why does it matter at all, I wonder? If I'm wrong, won't I burn in hell for it, while you hover around with your halo and angels at the Pearly Gates Bar & Grille? One has to wonder at the faith of people who, throughout history, have had to have everyone agree with them. What kind of flimsy faith is that, that can be broken through lack of membership? What real faith needs a membership of more than one? That wondering, though, doesn't make your version of Christianity (because that's what it is) any less valid for you.

It just means the rest of us don't want it imposed upon us, which is what I talked about in my original post. The question was "Is Christianity Good For The World?" and my answer was that religion and spirituality are inherently good for the world, but zealotry and imposition of it upon others is not. You dispute this. That's your perrogative, but I stand by my assertion that most wars spring from that very imposition, whether it be by religion or political group or social group or what have you. Convert the world to the faith of peace, and if they don't agree, kill them all; that's been the rallying cry for centuries.

[Theocrat]

Logically speaking, it can't be true that both things are right, correct. Is there a God, or is there no God? Both cannot be true. Which one is true? We cannot prove it beyond that gray area called "faith," therefore ridiculing someone because they do or don't have faith is pretty pointless. Going a step further and trying to impose your side of things onto the other is downright cruel. If He is the standard for truth about all of those things, then why does it take Man to impose that truth upon others via violence and intervention? It doesn't. Keep your religion between yourself, God, and those who trully want to know about it; doesn't that make a lot of sense from a strictly logical standpoint? Would you like to be bombarded with constant talk about how your religion is stupid and a bunch of fairy tale nonsense, and God is a lover of incest and chaos and murder of innocents? Would you like those beliefs actually imposed upon you? Of course not. So we're left believing what we believe, and having as civil a discourse on it as possible.

Do you see what you're doing, Melissa? Once again, you keep making these absolute assertions about God, saying we can't prove Him beyond a "gray area called 'faith.'" But where does that notion come from, Mel? From the authority of your own word just because you say so? Of course God can be proven in objective ways, and it's been shown many times in this very forum how that can be. Faith is not a mere "gray area." It is the foundation for all knowledge, whether God is assumed or not. People believe in order to understand. No one comes to knowledge from a blank slate.

You ask why does it take Man to impose truth upon others via violence and intervention, but that is not what I've advocated at all. Besides, God has been pleased to use men to spread the truth of His word, for that is what the Great Commission is all about. I've simply stated that worldviews will be imposed no matter what. You keep wanting to assume a neutral place for beliefs, but it doesn't exist, Melissa. I'm sorry, but that is just the nature of what we're up against here. Truth does not have to be imposed by physical force, and I understand the teachings of Christ enough to know that. That takes me to the next point.

Wishing your fellow forum members executed, or telling them they will burn in eternal damnation, is not only the opposite of civil discourse... it is, as someone posted to you (and you never responded) the devil's work. It drives people from the line between spiritual and Christian, farther and farther from Christianity. You are a stereotype of the pushy Christian. You're a charicature of it. Everyone else is wrong, and if they question you, well the Bible supports you (portions of it, anyhow) therefore you are correct. You leave no room for others to be right at all. Why does it matter at all, I wonder? If I'm wrong, won't I burn in hell for it, while you hover around with your halo and angels at the Pearly Gates Bar & Grille? One has to wonder at the faith of people who, throughout history, have had to have everyone agree with them. What kind of flimsy faith is that, that can be broken through lack of membership? What real faith needs a membership of more than one? That wondering, though, doesn't make your version of Christianity (because that's what it is) any less valid for you.

I think you're being very unfair to suggest that I "wish" forum members to be executed or "wishing" them to burn in eternal damnation. You make it seem as if every post I write contains those two things in it, exclusively. One only needs to view my post history to see that I rarely talk about either of those two things, anyway. I think I've explained my position on civil execution of homosexuals enough, but no one ever listens to my reasons behind it, nor do they understand the historic precedent for it in our very republic. That's a different subject, though.

As far as me being a "pushy Christian," I'd like to know how I push anyone to be a Christian. All I've stated is that without Christianity, people cannot explain the universe in an absolute and consistent manner. I've opened the debate many times on that point for people to prove my assertion wrong. Just because I don't "cry uncle" to the arguments posed does not mean I am closed to any further discussion of the matter. I spend a lot of my times on the forums for that very reason. I like having my beliefs challenged, unlike other people here. I have nothing to hide.

What kind of person would I be if I believed all people not in Christ were heading for an eternal punishment in the next life, and I kept silent about it? That is consistent with my beliefs. The reason why Christians warn nonbelievers about eternal damnation is because they care about their souls. It's not because they want to feel better than them. We all deserve hell, after all. My beliefs do not allow me to be silent about the coming judgment, so I do speak out about it, when it becomes appropriate to do so.

It just means the rest of us don't want it imposed upon us, which is what I talked about in my original post. The question was "Is Christianity Good For The World?" and my answer was that religion and spirituality are inherently good for the world, but zealotry and imposition of it upon others is not. You dispute this. That's your perrogative, but I stand by my assertion that most wars spring from that very imposition, whether it be by religion or political group or social group or what have you. Convert the world to the faith of peace, and if they don't agree, kill them all; that's been the rallying cry for centuries.

What about those of us who don't want nonbelief imposed upon us and our society? We see that all over the place in our culture. We can't pray in public out loud. We can't use the Bible to influence public policy. We can't speak out against homosexuality, abortion, and other immoral social acts without being guilty of some "hate crime." And the list goes on. Nonbelief in God has permeated our culture, so much so that secular humanism has pushed the Church within its four walls and the space between individual Christians' ears. Nonbelievers are very zealous about pushing their views on those of us who believe in God, too. But people like you, Melissa, are absolutely blind to that.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be silent about it. God is the whole reason why our republic was a success in the first place. Unfortunately, our history and heritage has been rewritten to erase any evidence of the divine influences of our nation's founding. What's worse is that many people on this very forum have drank that same Flavor-Aid which says God had nothing to do with our country. And what has become the result of such belief? It has led to an increase in State power at the federal level, where more and more the government is becoming a god to the people.

We also see the media presenting a caricature of those of us who want to have limited government by the Constitution as old-fashioned nincompoops who care nothing about minorities, poor people, and women. They have their own agenda to vilify anyone who goes against the government, and yet, many members here get angry when the media does that towards their views on liberty, capitalism, etc. Why is that? Because the media is working from a different worldview than those on this forum. Yet, no one here seems to have a problem of forcing their ideas on society by supporting candidates who will return our government towards its original intent. We call that "liberty," but the opposing side calls it "tyranny." Now, whose side is correct, and how do we decide which side to take? That is the issue we're always up against, and I don't see "our side" as being evil for wanting to get rid of 90% of the services and institutions which we presently have imposed on us under the guise of "security." And I don't see it as "evil" for wanting to save men's souls and get them to think things out in terms of that which our Creator has revealed to us, confirmed by our Founders.

[sevin]

No. God has revealed to His people what evil is. Simply put, evil is that which is contrary to God's character and nature (cf. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5; Matthew 22:37-39).

Yes, according to the Christian definition. There are other religions and philosophies, you know.

[Theocrat]

Yes, according to the Christian definition. There are other religions and philosophies, you know.

Yes, but we're not talking about those other (false) religions and philosophies, now are we? We're dealing with the issue of whether Christianity is good for the world...