The world without religion?

[philly2bits]

To get back to the OP. I'll paraphrase a joke I heard once. "It would be exactly the same, just with slight differences."

 

[HeartacheHURTS]

Religion isn't about controlling people. At least, from Christianity's standpoint, people are CONVERTED from their ways of sinfulness. The very essence of conversion is a freewill choice to change and go in another direction. The opposite of control. You have been given a distorted view of what a Christian life is all about. It's about living in love, and kindness towards others. Being a person who walks in the spirit of strength and leaving the world's false "hope" behind. This isn't about control, or anger, or anything of the sort. There are people who pervert Christianity, but people pervert everything.

It is with her, and alot more...maybe not everybody, but there are some, that do control with it.
I don't have a distorted view, I just know what I have been through because of people trying to control with it, I know it's not supposed to be 'abused'.
It's one thing to be born-again. Totally different when you try to make God out to be your hitman or something, threatening people with him. I know that's not what it's about, but there's alot out there that do it. That's all I was stating.

 

[Thelema]

No, God created a perfect being (man) and gave him free choice. Acting on that free choice, man decided to disobey God by consciously doing something He told them not to do. Therefore, man, by his own sinful decision, is the creator of his own demise. Just as one makes a choice to partake in drunkenness, drugs, etc. They create their own flaws and problems. This is basic Christian theology, that when debating, one should know. Otherwise, it seems like you're arrogantly promoting something you know nothing about, which comes across nonsensical.



Again, you don't understand the basics of Christian theology. Salvation is being redeemed from sin. Jesus dying on the cross, being punished in our place, is salvation. It is being freely cleared of sin -- it is payment. Now, morality is a byproduct of loving God. I'm not moral because it earns me Heaven, I am moral because I am motivated by what God has done for us. We aren't under the law from a Christian standpoint, instead, we are under Grace. Christianity is not motivated by morality (as you had purported), it is motivated by forgiveness.



No, it's not morality, it's forgiveness -- a payment of sin. Morality is acting a certain way, whereas salvation is paying for something. Very different, and obviously so. You can look at it like this; I jump out of an airplane, and the only way for me to land safely without perishing is to pull the parachute. Morality is, again, secondary because we are already in a lost state. The motivation is finding a way out of this disconnected state, and that is through Jesus.



Evolution has a very moralistic element to it. If you view human beings as mere animals, with no special disconnect from them, then you are going to have a vastly different perception of morality than those who believe they are disconnected from them. Why should the inferior live on? Why should we try to save a cancer victim if evolution is simply weeding this person out of existence? Whereas Christian doctrine (and other religions, admittedly) says we value human life as sacred and to be saved, evolutionism would say something vastly different. In essence, evolution is a philosophy that encompasses A LOT about morality. To claim it is nothing more than a scientific fact like a spherical earth is to say you haven't thought much about the real implications of evolutionary doctrine.



Scientists feel obligated to come to a conclusion about something naturalistically. They are taught to do so. If they can't find the answer, they will come up with the best explanation they have. If design is the best answer, it won't be considered because it involves God (and God isn't "scientific") But just because you remove God and design from the equation doesn't make your next theory more scientific just because God is removed. Many believe science means that human beings must have all the answers, and if they don't have them, they will fill in the gaps by their best deductions apart from God.



I don't want to attack science. In fact, I love using computers, driving cars, watching television, etc. I love what science has done to advance society. But this science was done via EMPIRICAL means, which means with experimental material to work with. Evolution is a historical science that deals with circumstantial evidence that can be easily interpreted of the past. Much of the theory is predicated on the fact that all life is organically similar -- but this makes sense through design if all life is going to live in the same organic world, with all organisms eating the same food, breathing the same air, etc.

Science is dictated by experimental, operational development, evolution is a philosophical DEDUCTION of current facts. It is not conventionally "scientific."




Evidence is the same for creation and evolutionism. It's just the way one interprets it that matters. Philosophical deduction. Scientists will never accept intelligent design, because as I said earlier, that would mean having to look to a Higher intelligence for the answer, and they believe science means that human beings must have all the answers. They are "willingly ignorant" of God's design, as the Bible would put it.



I'm not talking about how evolutionarily it would be useful, I'm talking about the mechanism that it would take for the eye to develop. The eye has so many interworking parts, and complicated sensory networks, that an evolutionary mechanism is really unattainable for this. We would NEVER be able to replicate, on a computer or otherwise, how mutations and natural selection formulated such amazing systems such as eyes. It MUST be taken on FAITH.



Didn't you even READ my last post. I told you you that it isn't about forcing your culture on them, it's about CONFORMING to their culture, and allowing them to retain it. But God doesn't require people to leave their culture to come to Him. They preach God in the CONTEXT of their culture.



No, it's about preaching God to them, in their own culture, and allowing them to hear the Gospel of Christ. No one is forcing them to do anything.



Really, where do you get your info? Missionaries do good work in the name of Christ, and they preach the Gospel. They aren't destroying anything.

A perfect being cannot act imperfectly. If a perfect being could, then that is not a perfect being. Pretty simple.

You're right, I really don't know much about the inner superstitions and dogma of Christianity. I wonder if you have spent the time to learn the religious doctrine of Shintoism. Of course you haven't

Evolution has no moralist element to it at all. We're talking science here, not a bunch of bronze age ideas distilled in an old book. You propose that these old ideas written by men living in mud huts supersede hundreds of years of scientific pursuit?

If you want to take something on faith, fine, but don't start putting forth those ideas and say that science must bend to religious will. Creationism isn't a scientific theory. You know that, right?

You want to shut your eyes to all evidence and claim that's God's will. How does that make any sense at all?

For the sake of argument, let's say evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. How would you try to show someone that this is so? With evidence, right? But what if someone refuses to consider evidence? How would YOU react? Take my place for a moment and imagine what argument YOU would use.

The definition of animal is: "a living organism characterized by voluntary movement" So...you're an animal. With this revelation, are you going to act any differently?

We already agreed that the morals that keep you from killing others and being cruel for no reason are inborn. Do you now want to take that back?

And this appeal to emotions as a way to overrule logical thinking is troubling. Obviously you know that atheists don't want to murder sick people. If you see atheism and theism as a fight for what you emotionally deem more pleasant, and that your emotional state overrules object reality, then you aren't going to be able to make rational decisions on the subject.

There are literally piles of empirical evidence that supports evolution. If you really don't want to lift a finger and find it for yourself, I'll post the link, but I know I'm wasting my time because evidence won't sway you.

The eye is a product of evolution, not God.

There isn't any empirical evidence for creationism...Man...you know, you made the claim that there is no empirical evidence of evolution (and you can only base that on ignorance) as a way to invalidate evolution ( and you propose intelligent design is a scientific theory) but you yourself know there isn't a damn shred of empirical evidence for creationism. I guess science can only be used to discredit things you don't like, but hands off your beliefs!

"Faith is believing something you know isn't true"-Mark Twain, maybe? I don't remember. What's the purpose of faith, anyway? Why faith when evidence is so much more believable?

Missionaries have destroyed many a culture. Google it. Burning religious artifacts in a bonfire isn't exactly gently persuading them through preaching.