What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[drfuzzy]

---

Rinse and repeat, regardless of what anyone says to your inane questions.  Do you really need us to hear this internal dialogue?  Why do you engage people with this nonsense and then clearly ignore every point they make only to look for an opening to repeat one of your mantras.  You're not really ready to interact with people having different ideas from your own.

---

---

...Or let's look at my answer from a 20+ year veteran's perspective. There is nothing new any of you bring to the table. There is an establish system of anti belief and none of you dare stray far from it. For instance You believe in science because you like mindless religious people have been indoctrinated/not question their Gods/science, because belief (not faith) is a self full filling system of thought control. You don't need God to be at the head of indoctrination. any system of superiority will work. Your's is simply called science. and because your science is affiliated with practical science you believe piratical science to be the same as theoretical science.

One takes little faith to believe because we reep the benfits of it everyday, while therotical science is 100% faith, but because the two are married and share a last name the lie is you can not have one without the other.

For you It's not a matter of just faith it is a matter of belief in evidences. So say the religious as well. There is no difference between the fanatical religious and the indoctrinated science, unless one can both look at his god (science) and another's god with the SAME objectivity. Meaning you must be able to break your belief down to it's primal components of faith and want or your just prepuating indoctrination, no matter which side of the argument you are on.

Can you see my arguement goes a little deep than what you have given me credit for?

Can you see that both religious and science zelot share blind obediance to their system of belief.

Do you understand that I am saying the only way to break this hold religion or "science' has on us/how we think it to admit the same ask 'god/science' no questions take what is said as gospel.

All I am pointing out is that the same if not more faith is required in science as God only requires a mustard seed's worth.

---

---

why would you approach religion as you would approach science?

would it not be more 'fair'/make more sense to approach religion as you would a trial or a court case and process evidences as you would in a legal proceeding?

---

---

I don't approach religious proselytizing with the methodology of either science or law.  I merely go on believing what I have the best reason to think is true.  Speculation is a different matter, and I have my own which at least does not conflict with what I have reason to think is true.  Why would I be interested in trading that for something as ridiculous as a biblical narrative?

---

---

Is truth limited to the mundane? Does truth always have to follow the known path? is truth always judged as 'normal?" Are you the final authority on truth? then why put limitations on what is true and simply follow where it leads?

For instance Jesus said He/God requires only a mustard seeds worth of faith and He via the Holy Spirit will remove all doubt.

Big bang requires that believe the whole universe was compressed to a size smaller than a basket ball (but larger than a volley ball) then exploded into the known universe.

Have you seen a mustard seed before? some of them are little more than a grain of sand.

Have you seen a basket ball... yeah bigger than a grain of sand... can you phathom the depths of the universe? can you at least admit the vastness of the universe exceeds a grain of sand.. can you believe it is bigger than a basket ball?

To any honest person one must want to call B/S on the basketball thing. but you know it's 'science' and who among us can ever question 'science' lest we be labled a popular science hater..

---

---

After all if there is a promise to meet God in this life and people have claimed to have done this, then shouldn't the path to God be examined through the lenses of testimony and verification? rather than try and make God bend or kneel to our scientific understanding/put God in a box.

---

---

And so you stand in your corner babbling your nonsense to yourself after ignoring everyone's points.  Boring.

---

---

awe, you don't understand the depth of my analogy and your making fun of the surface points.

How about this:
By the definition God gives of Himself in the bible (still with me?/How God defines Himself) if 'science' could summon/produce or experiment on God, then by definition He would cease being God/Alpha and Omega. Therefore not worthy of worship. Do you get it? the one method you want to 'proove' disqualifies Him as God according to his own words. In fact if Science could reach God despite his will of hiding from the wise and learned of this world, would make science God.

---

Do you get what I am saying now? Why seek God with a method doomed to fail because it circumvents what God is said to be.. Rather why not seek God using a method He PROMISED to meet us on?
[/quote]

Eh, I was going to reply to your earlier response, but the crew here has done a much better job that I would have.  And then there is your stubbornness in using the terms "faith" and "belief" with regard to science.  They simply do not apply.

But the easy response here is in reply to the question above.  
     "Why seek God with a method doomed to fail."  Well, let's see, if an omnipotent, omniscient being WANTS humans to "find" it, it will make it impossible for me NOT to find it.  If that same being places such limitations on achieving this "connection and awareness" as to make it limited to not only the information found in a hugely flawed single piece of literature, the correct interpretation of said literature, and the proper mindset while praying, then it has doomed 90 + percent of humanity to failure from the moment its plan was put into place.  Which makes it evil.  
   And even THEN, the question is irrelevant. Because there isn't enough proof that the creature exists.

You should shorten that to "why seek god?".  It's the same as "why seek the Great Pumpkin"?  It's a total waste of my time, and only up for debate because we are surrounded by people who judge us for not dedicating our lives to the Great Pumpkin.