Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Bob0627, Aug 8, 2021.
Only a very lazy, apathetic God would grant salvation to everyone who has ever lived.
Which is a big part of why your claim is so silly. You are the one claiming Baptism is a requirement - the only requirment you were able to support from the Bible.
I don't claim that God Grants salvation only on the Basis of Baptism either .. that doesn't mean you get to make up a bunch of stuff that you think should be included and claim it is from God ...
I told you where to find the requirements for entrance into heaven given by Jesus - why don't you just go by that instead of making up all this other stuff ?
He's not apathetic. He's a sadist. What kind of parent puts temptations in front of their kids and then drowns them all when they mess up? He's all-knowing but didn't know they would drop the ball? That's a parenting issue, not a kid problem.
By evidence I mean empirical evidence. Defined at the link below.
Personal anecdotes, claims of revelation, etc. are of course not empirical evidence and cannot be demonstrated. Many personal experiences seem to be the result of delusion, mental illness, hyperactive imagination, religious brainwashing and conditioning, split brain conversation, e.g., right hemisphere talking (revealing) to the left.
We can go our separate ways respecting each other as long as you keep your religion out of public schools and institutions.
If God talks to me I will ask why he does not heal amputees and report back to PF with the answer. But why would God talk to me (or you) and not talk to the entire human race via a personal appearance? Why does God (when making these revelations) never tell us about things like the germ theory or the cure for cancer? Can it be that revelations only reveal what is in our brain to begin with?
As far as faith goes - when your only tool is a hammer, every problem will be a nail.
Rumor has it, he's hard of hearing apparently.
Sorry, you don't get to determine what I do with my faith, How about you keep your ridiculous religion (secular humanism) out of schools and institutions. That would be a good start.
This isn't really called for. Assuming that poster is American, he has just as much right to his religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) as you do. To call them "ridiculous" is unfair and I'm sure there are people that think your religion is ridiculous.
I know this is a hot button topic, but that's no reason to be mean.
OK so why is he arrogantly demanding I keep my faith out of anywhere?
I can't speak for him. My opinion of his post is that acknowledges that you have the right to your religion and he prefers for that to separate from our children's schools and our government institutions.
I don't mean to offend you but your post (the one he responded to) did sound a little snarky with "we can go our separate ways". I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just asking for all of us to remain civil even if we disagree with one another. Does that sounds like a plan you can get behind?
It wasn’t intended to be snarky, but I’ll be more careful.
Thank you, mswan. I appreciate it and I believe others will also.
Or a matter of free will choosing evil, and God having to make the hard decision as a result.
Science: create a hypothesis and have multiple people in multiple cultures attempt to prove it wrong slowly modifying the hypothesis until it becomes a theory. Focus on how things occur, not on why they occur (ie how: stars shine because of energy released through nuclear fusion. Ie why: stars shined brightly to guide three wise men to the birthplace of Jesus)
Religion: Plant yourself like a tree that can’t be swayed and read scriptures daily making it your sole focus. Be kind, don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill. Being a good person and believing the scripture are the same thing. Not believing the scripture and being a bad person are the same thing.
For clarification, do you consider science to be part of a secular humanist religion, e.g., things like Earth Science and Biology?
The converse is also true.
One can be a good person and not believe scripture.
One can be a bad person and believe scripture.
None of the permutations are mutually exclusive.
All humans are to be tortured forever because some woman ate an apple 5000 years ago after being told not to and being tempted. But to save humans from this absurd punishment God came to earth and sacrificed himself to himself. And if I believe this happened with no evidence I will be saved. Makes perfect sense.
I don’t, no. I see science as the best method we have of studying and understanding the physical world around us. Secular humanism, to me, means the belief that this physical world is all we have, that there is no God, and the only moral understanding we have is what we determine ourselves. I see no contradiction between science and faith.
BTW the Supreme Court has defined secular humanism as a religion for legal purposes. I can’t off hand think of that court decision but I could find it.
It really should be that simple. Science for understanding the physical world, religion for guidance on how to live.
To the best of my knowledge secular humanism is not taught in public school. There is no evidence to support teaching that there is or is not a God.
Things like basic evolution should be taught in Biology class and Geology which for some, could create a contradiction between science and faith.
Your claim that SCOTUS defined secular humanism as a religion is not exactly true. Rather, it is true (possibly) only for tax purposes. See below.
Secular humanism as religion
It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black in footnote number 11 of the Court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions.
Justice Black's use of the term "secular humanism" in his footnote has been seized upon by some religious groups, such as those supporting causes such as teaching creationism in schools, as a "finding" that any secular or evolution-based activity is, in fact, religion.
I wasn’t trying to use it as a way to justify teaching creationism. I think Christianity, other religions, secular humanism, etc belong in classes of philosophy, comparative religions, and such studies.
My comments apply to public schools so the above statement is a bit of a strawman. But with respect to public schools here is the answer.
1. Because Christians want their creation myth taught in science class. Pretty sure this is currently being done in places like Texas.
2. Because I constantly hear Christians explain every natural disaster by stating "They took God out of the schools." This tells me many Christians (and other religions too) would implement a total religious indoctrination (brainwashing) program in school if they could.
I want public schools to teach science and to the extent they can, critical thinking. Not kowtow to religious demands.
I agree with that approach.
There are some denominations that have trouble with science and evolution, but I’m not part of those denominations. As Christians we are continually struggling with what are the core beliefs throughout the church, and what are the differences as to ritual, sacraments etc. Our faith is now 2000 years old, we’re gone through lots of ups and downs, lots of mistakes and a lot of getting off track. There have been some distinctly vicious and evil periods. We’ve reached the point of valuing the separation of church and state that I think is the right place to be.
One more comment on faith and public schools. People want God in the schools. Well here it is. Children in CA praying to Aztec rain Gods.
Separate names with a comma.