Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
thanks for your response, but my question was assuming you knew there was no reward, no better afterlife or afterlife in general
|
You said: “usgrant7, without the promise of a reward would you still be religious? if the bible offered no compensation for your devotion to its teachings, would you still follow?”
Then you added in this next post: “no better afterlife...” and “…or afterlife in general”
My question is this: Am I to assume that you think evangelicals can’t read?
Now to address this point…
What good is a system if it doesn’t provide value? This is an insipid question geared more towards trapping the unwary than actually producing some constructive dialog. What you are really asking me, for the viewing pleasure of your audience, is “If there were absolutely no reason to follow God, would you still follow him?” And what I took great pains to say in my previous post, was, no. But even God doesn’t expect us to go that far. His plan is foolish to people who think like you seem to. And it is designed that way. Beautifully, perfectly, utterly foolish… So that only when you get over yourself, and come to an understanding that no “freak accident” could spawn both a flagellum and a pulsar, you will continue to think it’s foolish. If I were you, I would stop looking at God with a smug, “I know better.” And do a little more careful examination of the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
for that matter. playing it safe isnt really taking the position assumed in my question. plus, consider the fact that you can be a humble, benevolent atheist or agnostic as well.
|
Then you condescend by using words like “playing it safe...” and “assuming you knew…”. Please forgive me for being so shallow, for not assuming that you meant
no value at all.
Arguing with a liberal is like hitting a moving target. As soon as you zero in, then they change the definitions on you to duck and cover before you land a dose of conviction on them.
And to be honest, the only humble, benevolent, atheist, agnostic I know of is the Bishop of Canterbury. And those attributes exist only his public persona.
Now to address your next point…
If there were no God, humble, generous, benevolent, and even kind would only be currency in an economy governed by humble, generous, benevolent and kind rule makers. The fact that this is a positive list is a whole other discussion. But suffice to say you prove my point in considering them virtues, more than you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I’ve researched the bible to understand this position and found nothing to support this argument. I’ve debated this with other Christians, and all of their supporting scripture was taken out of context, meanwhile there are passages that go unmentioned, which can be seen as contradictory to this position. can you prove to me that the bible supports the antiabortionist position?
|
This I just flat out can’t believe. If you are looking for section (b) paragraph (iv) of Article 7, strictly prohibiting the evacuation of an unborn child from its mothers womb, and in the process, painfully dismembering it. Then I don’t think you would find it. However if you “researched” life and death in the Bible, you know three things: 1) God controls it. 2) A man or woman isn’t allowed to decide for them self who lives and who dies. And 3) Greater love has no man, than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.
If you want verses; Old Testament or New? How about both…
Old: Genesis; 1st and 2nd Kings; Ester; Proverbs; Isaiah; Daniel
New: John; Romans; 1st Corinthians
There, that should keep you reading for a while. Oh, wait, chances are likely you have no intension on finding the truth, you are just here to pad your ego by picking on Christians.
I have seen war, and pain, and lands near and far. I have been to places that only live in the nightmares of beasts. For every intellectual excuse you toss at me, I have a hundred reasons why you’re wrong. So keep them coming. I set my sites on that second little green dot they hold just out of my grasp.
