3 reasons for Christians to start questionng their faith

[Tonus]

I beat my religious neighbors if I see them working.

[Tex]

1. If you assume a God who can poof matter into existence simply by willing it, I'm pretty sure that same God can manipulate matter that already exists. However, I'm of the opinion that many of the miracles are only miracles because of timing. One of the most known miracles is when Moses parts the waters.

Exodus 14:21 "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back..."

Everyone forgets the rest of the verse...

Exodus 14:21 "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."

We weren't told what angle the wind blew at or the force of the wind or anything. We're told the waters split. The only article I've read on the subject was some guy saying he did it, but I don't know if there was 6 inches of water or 6 feet (and the difference matters).

Continuing, how were they supposed to validate everything? They don't have that ability. They don't use the scientific method. They barely have stuff to write on. Even if they did want to keep detailed records like the Romans back then, it would bankrupt some city to have so many people recording stuff. On top of that, all these cities were at war with each other. They didn't have time to write everything down.

Finally, the miracles you mention. Did you want pictures? Or measurements made with equipment from 2013? Come on, they wrote it down. That's as good as it got then. A little more leeway needs to be given since measurements were in lengths of forearms and paper hadn't been invented.

2. I somewhat agree. Your definition of morality is, "the pursuit of accomplishing a logical and beneficial objective", so without a God you can have Utilitarianism, but you've lost all reason to hold to Altruism, and Altruism is the basis of Christian morality. Utilitarianism also doesn't always hold to what is beneficial for all. Instead, it wants what is beneficial for most. Therefore, if there are too many old people eating up resources, we should just kill them (THIS ISN'T TROLLING! PHILOSOPHERS ACTUALLY CONSIDER THIS!). Same applies to babies, even after birth (Austrialian Philosophers this time...)

To say the least, I prefer Altruism.

3. Alright, first, Revelation is not a history book. Everyone uses it like that though, so I don't blame you. Anyway, "worship" is a very broad term. All non-sinful acts can be acts of worship. For biblical proof:

Colossians 3:17 "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

Therefore, I can worship by taking my sister to work, I can worship while spending time with friends, and I can worship while I write that blasted paper that's taking me forever. The only things that can't be worship is sin, by definition, but I'm sure that didn't need to be said.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. If you assume a God who can poof matter into existence simply by willing it, I'm pretty sure that same God can manipulate matter that already exists. However, I'm of the opinion that many of the miracles are only miracles because of timing. One of the most known miracles is when Moses parts the waters.

Exodus 14:21 "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back..."

Everyone forgets the rest of the verse...

Exodus 14:21 "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."

We weren't told what angle the wind blew at or the force of the wind or anything. We're told the waters split. The only article I've read on the subject was some guy saying he did it, but I don't know if there was 6 inches of water or 6 feet (and the difference matters).

No, it doesn't. Because it never happened.

Continuing, how were they supposed to validate everything? They don't have that ability. They don't use the scientific method. They barely have stuff to write on. Even if they did want to keep detailed records like the Romans back then, it would bankrupt some city to have so many people recording stuff. On top of that, all these cities were at war with each other. They didn't have time to write everything down.

Excuses are like assholes.

Finally, the miracles you mention. Did you want pictures?

That would be excellent, yes, I do.

Or measurements made with equipment from 2013?

Uh, yes please.

[smax]

I'm happy, filled with a sense of liberty, and not constantly struggling with social and personal dilemmas. Paul writes about the liberty we have in Christ ya know.

I see. Well, one of two things explains your position here. Either:

1. You, like many of the friends I mentioned, do not actually care or understand much about what the bible has, in fact, called you to think, be, and do.

or

2. You do understand, and are just evil and deluded enough to still feel good about it.

That doesn't answer my question. You made claims about yourself, then speak of friends in answer.

Did you really miss the rather obvious point I was making about my friends?

If so, I just illustrated it in the first part of my response. The Christian life is not that perplexing if you don't take it all that seriously, which describes the vast majority of today's Christians.

Like I said, that wasn't me. I saw no point in professing to be a Christian if it wasn't real enough to practice with zeal and conviction.

Give some specific things you do now that you thought you couldn't as a Christian.

It's not just what I couldn't do, it's also what the religion calls it's followers to think, feel, and practice.

The bible encourages men to view and treat women as inferior, promoting the idea that their primary purpose in the church is to simply bear children.

The bible discourages many types of associations that are fairly common in today's progressive society. As a believer, your association with non-believers is to be very limited.

The bible encourages hate and bigotry against various different life-styles, namely that of homosexuals.

Further more, a Christian is called to carefully consider what they watch, read, and participate in.

Single Christians are not to masterbate or have sex outside of marriage.

Oh, I almost forgot the most important part of being a Christian: donating your money!

Now, I have provided a number of examples, and yet they are only a few of many.

The biggest problem for me, however, was the blatant lack of regard for human life and well being that is promoted.

This shouldn't be so hard, unless you're just making stuff up.

I'm not sure which phase of the delusion your at, but this kind of paranoid/conspiracy theory reaction is not a good sign.

I'm close to suggesting that you go seek help. But not quite. We'll see where the rest of the conversation goes.

[Esquilax]

2. I somewhat agree. Your definition of morality is, "the pursuit of accomplishing a logical and beneficial objective", so without a God you can have Utilitarianism, but you've lost all reason to hold to Altruism, and Altruism is the basis of Christian morality. Utilitarianism also doesn't always hold to what is beneficial for all. Instead, it wants what is beneficial for most. Therefore, if there are too many old people eating up resources, we should just kill them (THIS ISN'T TROLLING! PHILOSOPHERS ACTUALLY CONSIDER THIS!). Same applies to babies, even after birth (Austrialian Philosophers this time...)

To say the least, I prefer Altruism.

Dude, it kinda feels like trolling. You've taken an extreme position and tried to link it to atheism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Who says we need to conform to the standard of utilitarianism? There's no atheist rulebook, you know. We each develop our own moral standards, but before we get to the accusations of subjective morality, I'll mention that there are some objective standards that we all tend to conform to, developed through empathy and such. One of those is that life is preferable to death, because as far as we know there's only one life available and death provides nothing.

... So, no killing old people and babies, no.

[Tex]

Dude, it kinda feels like trolling. You've taken an extreme position and tried to link it to atheism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Who says we need to conform to the standard of utilitarianism? There's no atheist rulebook, you know. We each develop our own moral standards, but before we get to the accusations of subjective morality, I'll mention that there are some objective standards that we all tend to conform to, developed through empathy and such. One of those is that life is preferable to death, because as far as we know there's only one life available and death provides nothing.

... So, no killing old people and babies, no.

Sorry for the wording, ya, I was just looking at one example. There are other non-theistic philosophies (hedonism, Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness", etc.), but Utilitarianism is popular right now, even with theists.

However, if there is some less extreme form of Utilitarianism that is coherent, I don't know it. You'd have to add dignity of human beings to keep from just killing people when it is good for the others, but if you were still to do "the most benefit for the most people" it's now its no longer Utilitarianism as much as it is a decent form of communism.

[The Grand Nudger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering."

You do realize that utilitarianism doesn't actually allow for the killing of anyone.....right? This objection was raised in 1850-fucking 2, and easily dismissed.....enjoy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/

---

To sum it up for those who don't want to wade thru..

"In “Whewell on Moral Philosophy” (1852), Mill rejects an objection raised by one of his most competent philosophical adversaries. Whewell claimed that utilitarianism permits murder and other crimes in particular circumstances and is therefore incompatible with our considered moral judgments."

yada yada yada

"Thus, a general rule that would allow to “remove men who are a cause of no good” would be worse than a general rule that does not allow such acts. People should follow the rule not to kill other humans because the general observance of this rule tends to promote the happiness of all."

Of course, utilitarianism has been moving on since then...changing here and there - but this particular objection and response has not had to be changed or re-iterated........

---

[FallentoReason]

Utilitarianism does allow for killing... as long as the net utility has been raised. E.g. a minority group is killed for the "greater good" of the majority.

[The Grand Nudger]

.................A society in which a person can be killed because some other person feels they were in the wrong (or that it would be good for others) is not a society that serves the greatest good for all (chiefly, because anyone could become that person). It is a state in which the mechanism of government can be used to bully, silence, and ultimately exterminate - even engaged in honestly and sincerely this apparatus will still make mistakes. The society that prevents this killing eliminates this potentiality, while allowing us to remedy the situation presented in other ways, such as by removing people from the gp -incarceration-. The argument from utilitarianism is that killing does not raise net utility. The whole "killing is allowed in utilitarianism" is an objection raised by detractors.

[jstrodel]

Utilitarianism is a philosophy fit for factory owners.