Turns out Phil Robertson is a nutball after all

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 10:53:19 GMT -5 oped said:

Math is the pure language. If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics... Not documents written by human beings hostage to hubris, social interactions, literary liscence and interpretation. 

I duly look forward to the proof of your claim that God's communicating with man could only be through a long series of mathematical theorems.

FWIW, many Christians (myself included) believe that scripture is divinely inspired. One also has to consider the vast topic of what scripture is and isn't supposed to be.

Regarding matters of interpretation, translation, and preservation of the texts over the millennia, we've had many pages worth of discussion on Biblical hermeneutics, the keys to Biblical interpretation, and Biblical manuscripts on our board over the years. Look them up at your leisure.

[Deleted]

I've never understood the claim of math being a pure language. How does math communicate concepts like love and hate or right and wrong?

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 10:04:50 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Mar 29, 2015 1:11:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Natural laws, like gravity and thermodynamics apply across the board. Spiritual laws...not so much. Do the spiritual laws of Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc., apply to you?

Or do you think YOUR spiritual laws override everyone else's?

Let's take the Law of Attraction as an example. The Law of Attraction claim that you attract what you expect (really simplified for the sake of the example). If the Law of Attraction is accurate, it happens to everyone whether they believe in it or not. You can argue that it isn't actually a spiritual law, so it applies to no one. But it can't apply to some people and not others.

The Law of Attraction? That like attracts like? That's not a natural law. In any case, the law of "Opposites attract" seems to cancel it out.

[Deleted]

No, The Law of Attraction is a new age theory. My point is that if it is true, it applies to everyone whether you believe it or not.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 12:27:36 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No, The Law of Attraction is a new age theory. My point is that if it is true, it applies to everyone whether you believe it or not.

It came about in 400 BC. That's hardly "New Age".

You said "If it is true ".   I can say the same thing about God and spiritual laws. If true. No proof either way.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 12:32:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:27:36 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No, The Law of Attraction is a new age theory. My point is that if it is true, it applies to everyone whether you believe it or not.

It came about in 400 BC. That's hardly "New Age".

You said "If it is true ".   I can say the same thing about God and spiritual laws. If true. No proof either way.

LOL I'm not that one that labelled it New Age. And the fact that, if true, spiritual laws apply to everyone has been my point all along.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 7:56:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2015 1:11:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

SLis right. Natural laws, like gravity and thermodynamics apply across the board. Spiritual laws...not so much. Do the spiritual laws of Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc., apply to you?

Or do you think YOUR spiritual laws override everyone else's?

What laterbloomer is correctly pointing out about my argument is that, supposing it is correct, the spiritual laws in question are God's Laws--immutable properties of our universe--not "mine". Analogously, James Maxwell posited a set of mathematical laws governing the behaviour of electromagnetic fields that, supposing they were correct, were immutable properties of our universe applicable to everyone regardless of belief.

You needn't point out that you reject the correctness of my argument. I'm perfectly aware of this. The observation here is the absoluteness of spiritual law. Other religions and kinds of secular spiritualism may (and often do) assert that individuals are bounded by different sets of laws based on their beliefs and circumstances, which is a relativistic doctrine. The two types--absolute and relativistic--are incompatible, and posters should understand that I'm an absolutist to properly discern my other arguments in this thread.

Again, you're referring to the Judeo-Christian God. That's not the God of the entire universe. What if the Hindus have it right? Maybe God's laws refer to multi-limbed Elephant Gods? You don't know.

Presuming the YOUR God takes precedence over all other gods is the height of arrogance.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 12:36:27 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:32:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

It came about in 400 BC. That's hardly "New Age".

You said "If it is true ".   I can say the same thing about God and spiritual laws. If true. No proof either way.

LOL I'm not that one that labelled it New Age. And the fact that, if true, spiritual laws apply to everyone has been my point all along.

Again, the spiritual laws of which divine deity/deities? Maybe the ancient Greek or Roman gods were the "real" gods. There have been over 3,000 gods since man started inventing gods. How can all the laws apply to everyone?

[Deleted]

If the Hindus have it right then those are the spiritual laws that apply to everyone. Whichever spiritual laws are true apply to everyone despite what they believe.

[Deleted]

How can all the laws apply to everyone?

The same way that gravity applies to everyone. It's either true or it isn't. Belief has nothing to do with it.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 12:46:58 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

If the Hindus have it right then those are the spiritual laws that apply to everyone. Whichever spiritual laws are true apply to everyone despite what they believe.

In that case, you're going to Hindu hell. Ever eat beef?

See how crazy it all gets?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Again, the spiritual laws of which divine deity/deities? Maybe the ancient Greek or Roman gods were the "real" gods. There have been over 3,000 gods since man started inventing gods. How can all the laws apply to everyone

And dating even farther back than the Greek or Roman gods are the deities that the Ancient Egyptians worshiped - the sun god Ra, for example.

The Polynesians worshiped the Tiki.

Those religions emerged a lot earlier than the Christian faith (or Jewish, etc).

Who decides that Ra isn't our true god? Or Orisis - or Isis, etc?

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 12:49:31 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:46:58 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

If the Hindus have it right then those are the spiritual laws that apply to everyone. Whichever spiritual laws are true apply to everyone despite what they believe.

In that case, you're going to Hindu hell. Ever eat beef?

See how crazy it all gets?

LOL no, if not eating beef is a spiritual law it's pretty straight forward.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

It is spiritual law to the Hindus. The cow is sacred to them.

[weltschmerz]

Well, actually, rather than hell, Hindus are strong believers in reincarnation.

You're coming back as a slug.

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. That spiritual law applies to everyone.

[mmhmm]

Mar 29, 2015 10:11:20 GMT -5 oped said:

Whatever makes you think the laws of science are not God's laws? 

Speaking for myself, the laws of science couldn't possibly be God's laws as I don't believe in God. The laws of science, to me, are the laws of science.

[tallguy]

Mar 29, 2015 12:46:14 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:36:27 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

LOL I'm not that one that labelled it New Age. And the fact that, if true, spiritual laws apply to everyone has been my point all along.

Again, the spiritual laws of which divine deity/deities? Maybe the ancient Greek or Roman gods were the "real" gods. There have been over 3,000 gods since man started inventing gods. How can all the laws apply to everyone?

To maybe help clarify what Virgil and laterbloomer are saying:

The argument begins on a supposition that a Spiritual Law in fact exists and is in fact true.  As I think both have said, that premise can be argued.  But if it is in fact true it would necessarily apply to everyone whether they believe or not.  Whether it is in fact true has no real bearing on the validity of the argument.  A valid argument is one that follows logically from the premises.  A sound argument is a valid one in which the premises are also true, so that the conclusion has to be true.  Virgil's argument is valid, but it may not be sound.  Soundness rests on the truth of the premises, which he has already conceded are questionable.  They are true for him in his own mind but cannot be proven absolutely.  Does that help?   

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 13:02:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Well, actually, rather than hell, Hindus are strong believers in reincarnation.

You're coming back as a slug.

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. That spiritual law applies to everyone.

Now you're getting it.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:46:14 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Again, the spiritual laws of which divine deity/deities? Maybe the ancient Greek or Roman gods were the "real" gods. There have been over 3,000 gods since man started inventing gods. How can all the laws apply to everyone?

To maybe help clarify what Virgil and laterbloomer are saying:

The argument begins on a supposition that a Spiritual Law in fact exists and is in fact true.  As I think both have said, that premise can be argued.  But if it is in fact true it would necessarily apply to everyone whether they believe or not.  Whether it is in fact true has no real bearing on the validity of the argument.  A valid argument is one that follows logically from the premises.  A sound argument is a valid one in which the premises are also true, so that the conclusion has to be true.  Virgil's argument is valid, but it may not be sound.  Soundness rests on the truth of the premises, which he has already conceded are questionable.  They are true for him in his own mind but cannot be proven absolutely.  Does that help?   

A supposition. If, in fact, it exists at all.

I'm going to need some facts or proof to back it up, other than what some people believe. Belief is subjective and doesn't respond well to scrutiny. That's why I find the idea that it applies to all pretty difficult to swallow. You can't compare it to the Laws of Gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

[tallguy]

It doesn't matter, though, in terms of the argument itself.  The argument states that IF it is true, THEN it applies to everybody.  The argument already allows for it not to be true.  That is why it is not necessarily a sound argument.  One of the premises is not necessarily true.

And they are not comparing it to the Law of Gravity or whatever in terms of BEING true.  Only in terms of it applying to everyone IF it is true.

1.  If the Law of Gravity is true, it applies to everybody.

2.  The Law of Gravity has been proven true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Law of Gravity applies to everybody.

If the two premises are true, then the conclusion is logically valid and necessarily true.  If you substitute Spiritual Law in there instead, it changes the argument.  The second premise may not be true in actuality.  That makes the argument unsound.  But the argument as stated would still be logically valid.  Validity does not equal truth.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 14:09:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It doesn't matter, though, in terms of the argument itself.  The argument states that IF it is true, THEN it applies to everybody.  The argument already allows for it not to be true.  That is why it is not necessarily a sound argument.  One of the premises is not necessarily true.

And they are not comparing it to the Law of Gravity or whatever in terms of BEING true.  Only in terms of it applying to everyone IF it is true.

1.  If the Law of Gravity is true, it applies to everybody.

2.  The Law of Gravity has been proven true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Law of Gravity applies to everybody.

If the two premises are true, then the conclusion is logically valid and necessarily true.  If you substitute Spiritual Law in there instead, it changes the argument.  The second premise may not be true in actuality.  That makes the argument unsound.  But the argument as stated would still be logically valid.  Validity does not equal truth.

Virgil compared it to the Law of Gravity.

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

[tallguy]

Mar 29, 2015 14:16:40 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 14:09:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It doesn't matter, though, in terms of the argument itself.  The argument states that IF it is true, THEN it applies to everybody.  The argument already allows for it not to be true.  That is why it is not necessarily a sound argument.  One of the premises is not necessarily true.

And they are not comparing it to the Law of Gravity or whatever in terms of BEING true.  Only in terms of it applying to everyone IF it is true.

1.  If the Law of Gravity is true, it applies to everybody.

2.  The Law of Gravity has been proven true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Law of Gravity applies to everybody.

If the two premises are true, then the conclusion is logically valid and necessarily true.  If you substitute Spiritual Law in there instead, it changes the argument.  The second premise may not be true in actuality.  That makes the argument unsound.  But the argument as stated would still be logically valid.  Validity does not equal truth.

Virgil compared it to the Law of Gravity.

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

But he also earlier stipulated that:

Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

and:

I can't speak for all theism, but using my theism in particular:

What that tells me is that he is admitting that there may not be in fact an overriding Spiritual Law, only that he believes there to be.  Does it seem different to you? 

 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Precisely - Virgil is stating his personal point of view.

Some others are expressing the same personal opinion as his, but they're declaring that their beliefs in a deity are indeed FACT. That's the difference. They have no scientific proof to back up their belief in God (but which god are we talking about - their god or other religions' gods )?

I know for FACT that dinosaurs and other plant/animal life (including amoeba) were on this earth thousands of years before mankind. It's proven scientific fact - I've seen that proof up close & personal at the museum I posted the links about in Reply #120.

Many of the exhibits also are a "walk-through" of the various Prehistoric Eras - such as the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Panerozoic, Paleozoic, Precambrian, etc Eras.

There was life on earth long before there were humans (or religions). Science has proven that to be true.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 13:49:27 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To maybe help clarify what Virgil and laterbloomer are saying:

The argument begins on a supposition that a Spiritual Law in fact exists and is in fact true.  As I think both have said, that premise can be argued.  But if it is in fact true it would necessarily apply to everyone whether they believe or not.  Whether it is in fact true has no real bearing on the validity of the argument.  A valid argument is one that follows logically from the premises.  A sound argument is a valid one in which the premises are also true, so that the conclusion has to be true.  Virgil's argument is valid, but it may not be sound.  Soundness rests on the truth of the premises, which he has already conceded are questionable.  They are true for him in his own mind but cannot be proven absolutely.  Does that help?   

A supposition. If, in fact, it exists at all.

I'm going to need some facts or proof to back it up, other than what some people believe. Belief is subjective and doesn't respond well to scrutiny. That's why I find the idea that it applies to all pretty difficult to swallow. You can't compare it to the Laws of Gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The idea that a law would only apply to some people makes less sense. Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't, it doesn't even apply to the people that believe it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 12:41:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 7:56:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What laterbloomer is correctly pointing out about my argument is that, supposing it is correct, the spiritual laws in question are God's Laws--immutable properties of our universe--not "mine". Analogously, James Maxwell posited a set of mathematical laws governing the behaviour of electromagnetic fields that, supposing they were correct, were immutable properties of our universe applicable to everyone regardless of belief.

You needn't point out that you reject the correctness of my argument. I'm perfectly aware of this. The observation here is the absoluteness of spiritual law. Other religions and kinds of secular spiritualism may (and often do) assert that individuals are bounded by different sets of laws based on their beliefs and circumstances, which is a relativistic doctrine. The two types--absolute and relativistic--are incompatible, and posters should understand that I'm an absolutist to properly discern my other arguments in this thread.

Again, you're referring to the Judeo-Christian God. That's not the God of the entire universe. What if the Hindus have it right? Maybe God's laws refer to multi-limbed Elephant Gods? You don't know.

Presuming the YOUR God takes precedence over all other gods is the height of arrogance.

If the Hindus have it right, I don't. Or possibly neither of us has it right.

In every school of thought, for every topic under the sun, a plurality of competing ideas and theories exist. All of us have sought out answers to various questions, and reached various conclusions. We sought out good universities to obtain our science degrees. We sought out news from the Internet and learned of the biases of various organizations, ideologues, and entertainers. In my case, when I reached maturity I began questioning whether what I was reading in the Bible made sense. That line of inquiry ultimately led to conclude that it is a singular work well beyond the capabilities of man, but also gravely distorted by the mainstream churches of our day.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and scripture does not make sense in the Catholic worldview. It doesn't fit together elegantly (or at all, in some cases) in the way the Catholic Church decodes it. Nor does it fit together in the Lutheran view, or the Baptist view, or in several others I looked at. Eventually I found a church whose doctrinal basis was scriptural and whose teachings on scripture made sense. Everything fit nicely into place. Seemingly contradictory passages were reconciled. A rich, meaningful underlying structure emerged. The only other place I've observed this phenomenon is when approaching the correct solution in a mathematical proof. Hence I joined this new Church and we worship in likeness of heart and mind.

I've looked at the other Abrahamic religions, and I see only bad fruits being produced where their doctrines depart from those of the Bible.

I've admittedly never looked deeply at polytheistic religions such as Hinduism, but of what I do know about the most popular varieties of Hinduism, I reject a majority of its postulates.

Having said this, Hindus could indeed be right. Or perhaps we're both wrong. What I will positively assert is that we can't both be right. It's not arrogance to assert this. Nor is it inherently arrogant to believe that one's worldview is correct, unless you stating your atheist views with conviction makes you arrogant, and oped stating her belief that "If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics." makes her arrogant. I suppose we're all just arrogant in that case.

The Bible tears down any excuse I have to be arrogant. Various scriptures tell us that Satan is the lord of this world, that he has deceived the whole world, that no man can come to the Son (Christ) without being called by the Father, that a small "firstfruits" is being called among man at this time to conduct a work, and that God chiefly calls the weak and lowly (i.e. those of no reputation) by His Grace for His purposes, not for sake of anything they've done. Hence if I believe this, and I'm being called, the only thing I have to be arrogant about is that God very likely considers me to be weak and lowly.

God has a plan for the rest of mankind, spelled out in His holy days and expounded all throughout the Bible, as I've mentioned. It's only a firstfruits being called in this age (i.e. the age of man), for a specific purpose. The Bible makes it clear that ultimately everybody--every Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist--will come to know of the Father (God) and the Son (the one who became Jesus Christ), have an opportunity to learn, have an opportunity to repent (which means to acknowledge sin, cease from sin, and continue in the right way), and then the judgment, either to eternal life or to eternal destruction in the lake of fire.

Those are my beliefs. I'm not ashamed of them. I've bet my very life that they're correct. If I'm wrong, I suppose I'll either find out or I won't.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2015 15:23:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2015 12:41:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Again, you're referring to the Judeo-Christian God. That's not the God of the entire universe. What if the Hindus have it right? Maybe God's laws refer to multi-limbed Elephant Gods? You don't know.

Presuming the YOUR God takes precedence over all other gods is the height of arrogance.

If the Hindus have it right, I don't. Or possibly neither of us has it right.

In every school of thought, for every topic under the sun, a plurality of competing ideas and theories exist. All of us have sought out answers to various questions, and reached various conclusions. We sought out good universities to obtain our science degrees. We sought out news from the Internet and learned of the biases of various organizations, ideologues, and entertainers. In my case, when I reached maturity I began questioning whether what I was reading in the Bible made sense. That line of inquiry ultimately led to conclude that it is a singular work well beyond the capabilities of man, but also gravely distorted by the mainstream churches of our day.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and scripture does not make sense in the Catholic worldview. It doesn't fit together elegantly (or at all, in some cases) in the way the Catholic Church decodes it. Nor does it fit together in the Lutheran view, or the Baptist view, or in several others I looked at. Eventually I found a church whose doctrinal basis was scriptural and whose teachings on scripture made sense. Everything fit nicely into place. Seemingly contradictory passages were reconciled. A rich, meaningful underlying structure emerged. The only other place I've observed this phenomenon is when approaching the correct solution in a mathematical proof. Hence I joined this new Church and we worship in likeness of heart and mind.

I've looked at the other Abrahamic religions, and I see only bad fruits being produced where their doctrines depart from those of the Bible.

I've admittedly never looked deeply at polytheistic religions such as Hinduism, but of what I do know about the most popular varieties of Hinduism, I reject a majority of its postulates.

Having said this, Hindus could indeed be right. Or perhaps we're both wrong. What I will positively assert is that we can't both be right. It's not arrogance to assert this. Nor is it inherently arrogant to believe that one's worldview is correct, unless you stating your atheist views with conviction makes you arrogant, and oped stating her belief that "If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics." makes her arrogant. I suppose we're all just arrogant in that case.

The Bible tears down any excuse I have to be arrogant. Various scriptures tell us that Satan is the lord of this world, that he has deceived the whole world, that no man can come to the Son (Christ) without being called by the Father, that a small "firstfruits" is being called among man at this time to conduct a work, and that God chiefly calls the weak and lowly (i.e. those of no reputation) by His Grace for His purposes, not for sake of anything they've done. Hence if I believe this, and I'm being called, the only thing I have to be arrogant about is that God very likely considers me to be weak and lowly.

God has a plan for the rest of mankind, spelled out in His holy days and expounded all throughout the Bible, as I've mentioned. It's only a firstfruits being called in this age (i.e. the age of man), for a specific purpose. The Bible makes it clear that ultimately everybody--every Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist--will come to know of the Father (God) and the Son (the one who became Jesus Christ), have an opportunity to learn, have an opportunity to repent (which means to acknowledge sin, cease from sin, and continue in the right way), and then the judgment, either to eternal life or to eternal destruction in the lake of fire.

Those are my beliefs. I'm not ashamed of them. I've bet my very life that they're correct. If I'm wrong, I suppose I'll either find out or I won't.

Religion is more a matter of geography than belief. You've been indoctrinated since birth into the Christian faith. The fact that you switched from one Christian denomination to another is irrelevant; it's like switching from Skippy peanut butter to Jif and proclaiming you've made a change in your dietary habits.

Had you been born in India to a devout Hindu family, you'd never cut your hair, you'd wear a turban, gift offerings of ghee and milk at the shrine in your home, and quote from the Vedas. You'd bet your very life that you're correct.

Had you been born in the Middle East to devout Muslim parents, you'd grow a beard, pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day, and quote from Mohammed and the Quran. You'd bet your very life that you're correct.

Had you been born in Israel to devout Hassidic parents, you'd wear a Teffilin on your forehead and arm, spend your days at the Wailing Wall, keep kosher and insist your wife shave her head. You'd quote from the Talmud and you'd bet your very life that you're correct.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 0:31:01 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2015 15:23:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If the Hindus have it right, I don't. Or possibly neither of us has it right.

In every school of thought, for every topic under the sun, a plurality of competing ideas and theories exist. All of us have sought out answers to various questions, and reached various conclusions. We sought out good universities to obtain our science degrees. We sought out news from the Internet and learned of the biases of various organizations, ideologues, and entertainers. In my case, when I reached maturity I began questioning whether what I was reading in the Bible made sense. That line of inquiry ultimately led to conclude that it is a singular work well beyond the capabilities of man, but also gravely distorted by the mainstream churches of our day.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and scripture does not make sense in the Catholic worldview. It doesn't fit together elegantly (or at all, in some cases) in the way the Catholic Church decodes it. Nor does it fit together in the Lutheran view, or the Baptist view, or in several others I looked at. Eventually I found a church whose doctrinal basis was scriptural and whose teachings on scripture made sense. Everything fit nicely into place. Seemingly contradictory passages were reconciled. A rich, meaningful underlying structure emerged. The only other place I've observed this phenomenon is when approaching the correct solution in a mathematical proof. Hence I joined this new Church and we worship in likeness of heart and mind.

I've looked at the other Abrahamic religions, and I see only bad fruits being produced where their doctrines depart from those of the Bible.

I've admittedly never looked deeply at polytheistic religions such as Hinduism, but of what I do know about the most popular varieties of Hinduism, I reject a majority of its postulates.

Having said this, Hindus could indeed be right. Or perhaps we're both wrong. What I will positively assert is that we can't both be right. It's not arrogance to assert this. Nor is it inherently arrogant to believe that one's worldview is correct, unless you stating your atheist views with conviction makes you arrogant, and oped stating her belief that "If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics." makes her arrogant. I suppose we're all just arrogant in that case.

The Bible tears down any excuse I have to be arrogant. Various scriptures tell us that Satan is the lord of this world, that he has deceived the whole world, that no man can come to the Son (Christ) without being called by the Father, that a small "firstfruits" is being called among man at this time to conduct a work, and that God chiefly calls the weak and lowly (i.e. those of no reputation) by His Grace for His purposes, not for sake of anything they've done. Hence if I believe this, and I'm being called, the only thing I have to be arrogant about is that God very likely considers me to be weak and lowly.

God has a plan for the rest of mankind, spelled out in His holy days and expounded all throughout the Bible, as I've mentioned. It's only a firstfruits being called in this age (i.e. the age of man), for a specific purpose. The Bible makes it clear that ultimately everybody--every Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist--will come to know of the Father (God) and the Son (the one who became Jesus Christ), have an opportunity to learn, have an opportunity to repent (which means to acknowledge sin, cease from sin, and continue in the right way), and then the judgment, either to eternal life or to eternal destruction in the lake of fire.

Those are my beliefs. I'm not ashamed of them. I've bet my very life that they're correct. If I'm wrong, I suppose I'll either find out or I won't.

Religion is more a matter of geography than belief. You've been indoctrinated since birth into the Christian faith. The fact that you switched from one Christian denomination to another is irrelevant; it's like switching from Skippy peanut butter to Jif and proclaiming you've made a change in your dietary habits.

Had you been born in India to a devout Hindu family, you'd never cut your hair, you'd wear a turban, gift offerings of ghee and milk at the shrine in your home, and quote from the Vedas. You'd bet your very life that you're correct.

Had you been born in the Middle East to devout Muslim parents, you'd grow a beard, pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day, and quote from Mohammed and the Quran. You'd bet your very life that you're correct.

Had you been born in Israel to devout Hassidic parents, you'd wear a Teffilin on your forehead and arm, spend your days at the Wailing Wall, keep kosher and insist your wife shave her head. You'd quote from the Talmud and you'd bet your very life that you're correct.

That's very likely.

Even so, i) the political geography of the world isn't a coincidence, ii) the doctrines of my church starkly dissemble those of any major Christian church, and iii) you were born in western society and your views are largely indistinguishable from society's; you hold western values and are an atheist like many Quebecers. But my pointing out that if you'd been born in India, you'd be Hindu, or if you'd been born in Pakistan, you'd be Muslim probably doesn't shake your confidence in atheism.

[weltschmerz]

I've been questioning religion since childhood. I was the bane of my mother's existence.

"It's in the bible, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

I imagine my Hindu parents would say "It's in the Vedas, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 1:12:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I've been questioning religion since childhood. I was the bane of my mother's existence.

"It's in the bible, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

I imagine my Hindu parents would say "It's in the Vedas, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

That's remarkable. I've never met a lapsed Christian with clueless parents before.

And in Quebec you say?

To borrow an expression from a wise old polar bear, I don't think you're quite that special a snowflake.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 30, 2015 2:04:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 30, 2015 1:12:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I've been questioning religion since childhood. I was the bane of my mother's existence.

"It's in the bible, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

I imagine my Hindu parents would say "It's in the Vedas, that's why! Now go away and stop pestering me!"

That's remarkable. I've never met a lapsed Christian with clueless parents before.

And in Quebec you say?

To borrow an expression from a wise old polar bear, I don't think you're quite that special a snowflake.

I have no idea what you mean. Clueless parents in Quebec? My parents were staunch believers, and I fail to see what Quebec has to do with it. I questioned everything religious, and they would become very exasperated with me. We went to church every Sunday and I wanted to be an altar girl. It wasn't allowed in Russian Orthodoxy. Still isn't. I found it grossly unfair. All they ever heard from me was "But why? But why?"

Your insult about "special snowflakes" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I've learned to expect that from you.