I don’t buy the idea that liberal Christianity provides cover for fundamentalist Christianity. I wouldn’t mind hearing some more reasoning as to how that’s happening.
Gary, I fully understand the passion you have about these issues. But I worry that you’re falling prey to some of the same radicalism that you’re accusing others of. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, but so what? The idea itself isn’t the real problem — it’s the desire to enforce their view at all costs that becomes so problematic. Some of your phrases give off the same level of dogmatism against religion. I agree that the world would likely be a better place without religion, but you can’t bully people into leaving their religion any more than Christians can bully homosexuals out of being gay. It takes time, and it takes tact.
I think unkleE is wrong in his religious beliefs, and he thinks I’m wrong in my atheism. But we can still agree on a great many things that actually matter — like how a society should function, and how all people regardless of race, gender, sexual persuasion, or creed should be treated fairly and equally. I’m not as certain that you see it that way… Maybe you do. I could be totally misreading you, and I’m sorry if that’s the case. But in your zeal to stamp out a belief system, you seem to be treading on individuals as well.
You’ve asked unkleE for specific evidence for the resurrection. I think that’s an excellent request. But if he never gives it to you, there’s no need to accuse him of anything or belittle his rationale for holding his beliefs. Objective readers will see that without you pointing it out to them. If he comes back with evidence that he thinks merits belief and you don’t think it’s substantial enough, then discuss that. But don’t accuse him of obfuscation, or ignorance, or dishonesty. Those kinds of accusations just don’t ring true, and they’ll hurt your position in the long run.
I feel like there’s a lot of “you’re either for us or against us” talk going on right now, and I don’t really understand it. I expect it from fundamentalists, but we’re not fundamentalists, are we?
Look, when I discuss this stuff with religious people, I’m after two goals. First, I’d love it if they could see that Christianity has a world of problems. I think most people would be happier and more compassionate if they left religion behind. But just as importantly, my second goal is to encourage tolerance. I’m aware that my first goal is not going to succeed most of the time. But the second one has a really good chance of succeeding if the people I’m talking to see that I’m rational, reasonable, and friendly.
Here is my frustration with a sizable number of Christians, including UnkleE: If I asked someone for evidence for their belief that Germany invaded Russia during the Second World War, that person would give me hard evidence such as German and Russian military transcripts, newspaper reports, corroborating eyewitness testimony from both German and Russian generals, field commanders, and soldiers. They would not give me speculation, assumptions, and the personal opinions of “experts” about what probably happened based on the change in behavior and attitude of the Russian people!
However, ask a Christian for evidence for their assertion of the historicity of the resurrection of their first century prophet and you will typically get nothing but assumptions, non-contemporaneous hearsay, and the assertion that the opinions of “experts”—who just so happen to share the same supernatural belief system—constitutes “strong” evidence.
That’s nonsense and should not be given a shred of respectability.
Sorry, Nate. I still disagree. The sooner that society rejects and laughs at superstition, the sooner it will disappear. Just because the superstition in question is presented in a friendlier, prettier package doesn’t change the fact that it is a superstition.
Yes, by all means, tolerate the right of people to believe stupid things, but stop giving social respectability to the stupid belief itself.
The sooner that society rejects and laughs at superstition, the sooner it will disappear. Just because the superstition in question is presented in a friendlier, prettier package doesn’t change the fact that it is a superstition.
i dont think nate is saying you should respect their nonsense as much as he’s saying it would be better to respect that they may need time to realize it’s nonsense and that if they never get there, it may be okay in the long run if they can at least be tolerant and force their theology on others as ISIL tries to do with theirs.
and I dont think nate’s issue is with you calling their position stupid or weak, but rather when you suggest that they’re only presenting such stupid and weak arguments because they’re disingenuous, or lying, or trying to muddy the waters, or some other negative motive.
I’m guessing he suggests that this is better avoided because he probably doesn’t like or find it helpful when Christians do the same with us.
so at some point I’m hoping we can understand this simple point and move on.
poke holes in point, positions and arguments, abstain from slander.
Here is my frustration with a sizable number of Christians, including UnkleE: If I asked someone for evidence for their belief that Germany invaded Russia during the Second World War, that person would give me hard evidence such as German and Russian military transcripts, newspaper reports, corroborating eyewitness testimony from both German and Russian generals, field commanders, and soldiers. They would not give me speculation, assumptions, and the personal opinions of “experts” about what probably happened based on the change in behavior and attitude of the Russian people!
However, ask a Christian for evidence for their assertion of the historicity of the resurrection of their first century prophet and you will typically get nothing but assumptions, non-contemporaneous hearsay, and the assertion that the opinions of “experts”—who just so happen to share the same supernatural belief system—constitutes “strong” evidence.
But you know that the first type of evidence doesn’t exist for Christianity. So why bother even discussing this with Christians like unkleE who aren’t bothered by that fact?
And to be fair, unkleE does not just point to Christian scholars for his points. And his statement that the consensus of experts should carry quite a bit of weight with those of us who aren’t experts is not a crazy statement. I think potential biases in scholars and other experts should always be considered, but I agree with his main point.
Answer: People do not like being viewed as ignorant and stupid. If the overwhelming majority of educated people in a society begins to view a particular belief as ignorant and stupid, very quickly more and more people will abandon that belief. If that belief is given even some measure of respectability, a sizable percentage of believers will hold onto it even if the evidence stacks up against it.
I don’t attack Christians personally and say, “You are an ignorant moron” but I do attack their belief system. What I usually say is this: “You have been brainwashed, my friend, to believe that an ancient Canaanite god, invented by goat-herding nomads, rules the cosmos and has life or death power over you. It isn’t true. Open your eyes and look at the evidence.”
The Emperor who wasn’t wearing any clothes was not convinced of his error by pleasant, amiable, philosophical discussions about the pros and cons of invisible fabric. He was convinced of his error by the blunt truth that he was being a fool.
But how do you react when someone calls you a fool? Does it make you immediately change your mind about your deeply held beliefs?
You already know that most Christians hold their beliefs because they don’t know enough information. In other words, they need education. Do you think the best way to educate people is to ridicule them? Is that how we want the school system to educate our children?
Gary, you must realise that you will NEVER get this from a Christian, and certainly not one as skilled in the theological two step as unklee.
To submit to such a request will immediately undermine their faith – or personal view of evidence.
Go read the Nazareth link on his site I posted.
You know the evidence is simply not there. In fact even the word ”evidence” when used in defense of Christianity is practically an oxymoron.
Unklee is simply a past-master at bullshit; of constructing an argument in such a way so’s he cannot lose and he has been doing it for years. That doesn’t mean he is right or that he has won ( genuinely made the argument). Far from it. Simply that his position cannot be assailed by fair means or foul.
Look at the posts on his blog. Many cover the same topic only worded slightly differently – including several about miracles – and the defense is the same. Same scholars quoted almost every time
,.
If it ain’t broke…. right?
He banned me from his blog. He knows why.
Personally I cannot fathom why he bothers with Nate. If he is so sure of his position what is his motivation? He certainly has no intention of reconsidering his view. His position has been staunch from the word go.
I find his approach sycophantic and yes, he does come across as condescending at times.
But the bloke knows his stuff and what he doesn’t know much of he makes damn sure it is not allowed to derail any argument.
I know his position is untenable – and if he were honest, so does he.
But this is religion.
It hasn’t fazed the Catholics much and it won’t faze unklee.
Honestly? I think he just likes to play, as if it were a game of chess.
He is simply a more sophisticated version of a fundamentalist.
Ok. Enough said about UnkleE. However, I hope everyone will take note of whether or not he ever gets around to presenting his “strong” evidence for the Resurrection claim. Again, if someone wants to believe in supernatural claims by faith, no problem with me. But if your going to claim you have “strong” evidence, but instead of presenting that strong evidence, you build an “inverted pyramid” argument as someone else pointed out, I think you are being disingenuous.
Put out your evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Why play a game of chess with it?
Please note I used the term “being” a fool. Very intelligent people can at some points in time behave like fools. I never said that UnkleE or anyone else IS a fool.
“Do you think the best way to educate people is to ridicule them? Is that how we want the school system to educate our children?”
Would you want your kids’ school teacher to give respectability to a belief that invisible leprechauns are everywhere and that if you misbehave they will punish you? I doubt you would. So why give respectability to a superstition that says, even in the liberal version, that “our superstition is the correct superstition and it would be best for you to accept it?
Respectability and tolerance are not synonymous. Furthermore, there’s a huge difference between belief in leprechauns and belief in Christianity, if for no other reason than the fact that Christianity is widely believed by many people. It’s the same reason why “shit” is considered foul language, but “blubzerblat” is not. Both are just sounds… but it’s the meaning we attach to them that make all the difference.
gary says he’s not slandering people, but their ideas.
I think we may as well go back to rule of the strong. I’ll just start working out a lot and practice ju jitsu and beat the royal piss out of out everyone – because power achieved is power perceived. then i’ll just tell them what to think.
i do like the golden rule. i dont always follow it although i try to always begin there. I’ve had dumb ideas before and likely still do. a tactful word reinforced with reason go much further and are much easier to digest… of course that may only be because mary poppins kept telling me medicine is easier to take with sugar, but i still find it true.
when there are people who wont listen to reason, i can get sarcastic and often rude. i try to work on that, but i do it. and i try to remember that people just may see things differently than i do… it could be because they’re jerks, or lying to themselves, or that I’m lying to myself and dont realize, or maybe it’s because they’re not as smart as me, or i am not as smart as them… I think if we consider all the possibilities, we may not be so hostile.
it doesnt cease my hostilities though.
I think unkleE makes illogical leaps in conclusions.
i think josh stops himself from seeing what’s obvious.
I try to stop myself from saying those things or further trying to explain or vocalize why i think they see it differently than me… because it really doesnt matter. if they’re doing those things then me making my assumption of that known wont likely change it, and then I stand the risk of looking like a bigger douche.
and if youre doing so that other people will see it, consider that they may see it with your pointing it out and say “that well spoken and kind fellow utterly destroyed his opponent’s points with ease,” in stead of “that douche had some really good points.”
and “I was only a douche because he was douche first” sounds childish, and mainly because it is.
but who knows, gary, you may be right. I’m kinda surprised youre spending this much time arguing for assigning negative motivations to others. I think that’s all nate was getting at.
and being blunt isnt really a good quality. it’s what people get called jerk for. it’s oklay tp be polite and gentle and tactful. isnt it?
and you’re not a jerk – which is why i am confused as to why this line of the discussion has drug out this far.
Personally I cannot fathom why he bothers with Nate. If he is so sure of his position what is his motivation?
I imagine it’s the same reason I discuss things with him. It’s not so much to change his mind as it is to make sure the audience (who may not be sold one way or the other yet) gets to understand my position.
nate, i think we;d all appreciate you not using the “B” word.
I wouldn’t be upset if a teacher held a belief in leprechauns. If my kid asked the teacher what they thought about leprechauns, i wouldn’t mind the teacher answering. I wouldn’t like if the teacher just took the initiative to start spouting said belief again and again and trying to force my kid to agree. I wouldnt like that.
maybe it’s also the practice. a re-examination of our positions and theirs. making it better. trying to find flaws in theirs and ours and correcting them, readjusting and re-evaluating.
no one else may change their mind or really care about truth or what the real evidence is or truly suggests, but i do.
I think it would be interesting if every person who participates on this blog would answer these two questions:
Do you believe that your worldview is the only correct worldview? And, if other people choose not to believe, accept, and adopt your worldview, do you believe that they will be punished in some manner for not doing so?
Any Christian who answers no to both questions can hang with me and have a beer any day.
Do you believe that your worldview is the only correct worldview? And, if other people choose not to believe, accept, and adopt your worldview, do you believe that they will be punished in some manner for not doing so?
1) Yes, that’s why I believe it. HOWEVER, I also believe that I could be wrong.
2) Nope.
Gary, unless I’m missing something, these are loaded questions.
Nevertheless, I’d have to say:
(1) Yes, I do believe my worldview is correct. It may not be the only correct one, but it works for me.
(2) The only way someone will be “punished” for not accepting or adopting my worldview is if they believe the bible. Since I don’t, then IMO, no punishment is forthcoming.
I too believe that my worldview is correct. But, I also believe that there may be other worldviews that I don’t know about that are also correct, such as that of the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, etc. I am open to there being more than one “correct” world view, and, even a better worldview than my own.
I don’t think that most conservative and even moderate Christians could say that. I don’t think that most of them would be willing to say, “It is certainly possible that the Christian god does not exist. I believe in him simply as a matter of choice.”
I have no issue with Christian universalists who believe that Jesus was a good man who taught many wonderful humanistic principles, but who also believe that there are other equally valid worldviews and that no one is going to be punished for not agreeing with them.
I would love to know how many Christians who participate in this discussion would be willing to say that though. (Hint, hint, hint).
Thank you for offering to speak to me by email but I would prefer to converse here on Nate’s blog, on your blog, or my blog. Here’s why:
I do not know your gender. I am uncomfortable caring on email conversations with women as I am a happily married man whose wife has access to my email account. Just as I would not want her carrying on online conversations with men, I know she feels the same about me carrying on online conversations with women, even if the conversation is strictly about religion.
Even if you are male, I would still prefer to discuss religion in a public forum as I spend enough time on the internet as it is…I’d rather consolidate my conversations. I hope you understand!
Finding Truth 
Sorry, I’ve been away from my computer for a bit.
I don’t buy the idea that liberal Christianity provides cover for fundamentalist Christianity. I wouldn’t mind hearing some more reasoning as to how that’s happening.
Gary, I fully understand the passion you have about these issues. But I worry that you’re falling prey to some of the same radicalism that you’re accusing others of. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, but so what? The idea itself isn’t the real problem — it’s the desire to enforce their view at all costs that becomes so problematic. Some of your phrases give off the same level of dogmatism against religion. I agree that the world would likely be a better place without religion, but you can’t bully people into leaving their religion any more than Christians can bully homosexuals out of being gay. It takes time, and it takes tact.
I think unkleE is wrong in his religious beliefs, and he thinks I’m wrong in my atheism. But we can still agree on a great many things that actually matter — like how a society should function, and how all people regardless of race, gender, sexual persuasion, or creed should be treated fairly and equally. I’m not as certain that you see it that way… Maybe you do. I could be totally misreading you, and I’m sorry if that’s the case. But in your zeal to stamp out a belief system, you seem to be treading on individuals as well.
You’ve asked unkleE for specific evidence for the resurrection. I think that’s an excellent request. But if he never gives it to you, there’s no need to accuse him of anything or belittle his rationale for holding his beliefs. Objective readers will see that without you pointing it out to them. If he comes back with evidence that he thinks merits belief and you don’t think it’s substantial enough, then discuss that. But don’t accuse him of obfuscation, or ignorance, or dishonesty. Those kinds of accusations just don’t ring true, and they’ll hurt your position in the long run.
I feel like there’s a lot of “you’re either for us or against us” talk going on right now, and I don’t really understand it. I expect it from fundamentalists, but we’re not fundamentalists, are we?
Look, when I discuss this stuff with religious people, I’m after two goals. First, I’d love it if they could see that Christianity has a world of problems. I think most people would be happier and more compassionate if they left religion behind. But just as importantly, my second goal is to encourage tolerance. I’m aware that my first goal is not going to succeed most of the time. But the second one has a really good chance of succeeding if the people I’m talking to see that I’m rational, reasonable, and friendly.
As an example, I strongly encourage everyone to take a few minutes and listen to at least the prologue of the latest episode of This American Life.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/555/the-incredible-rarity-of-changing-your-mind
LikeLike
Here is my frustration with a sizable number of Christians, including UnkleE: If I asked someone for evidence for their belief that Germany invaded Russia during the Second World War, that person would give me hard evidence such as German and Russian military transcripts, newspaper reports, corroborating eyewitness testimony from both German and Russian generals, field commanders, and soldiers. They would not give me speculation, assumptions, and the personal opinions of “experts” about what probably happened based on the change in behavior and attitude of the Russian people!
However, ask a Christian for evidence for their assertion of the historicity of the resurrection of their first century prophet and you will typically get nothing but assumptions, non-contemporaneous hearsay, and the assertion that the opinions of “experts”—who just so happen to share the same supernatural belief system—constitutes “strong” evidence.
That’s nonsense and should not be given a shred of respectability.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry, Nate. I still disagree. The sooner that society rejects and laughs at superstition, the sooner it will disappear. Just because the superstition in question is presented in a friendlier, prettier package doesn’t change the fact that it is a superstition.
Yes, by all means, tolerate the right of people to believe stupid things, but stop giving social respectability to the stupid belief itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, but how do you think society will get there?
LikeLiked by 1 person
i dont think nate is saying you should respect their nonsense as much as he’s saying it would be better to respect that they may need time to realize it’s nonsense and that if they never get there, it may be okay in the long run if they can at least be tolerant and force their theology on others as ISIL tries to do with theirs.
and I dont think nate’s issue is with you calling their position stupid or weak, but rather when you suggest that they’re only presenting such stupid and weak arguments because they’re disingenuous, or lying, or trying to muddy the waters, or some other negative motive.
I’m guessing he suggests that this is better avoided because he probably doesn’t like or find it helpful when Christians do the same with us.
so at some point I’m hoping we can understand this simple point and move on.
poke holes in point, positions and arguments, abstain from slander.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you know that the first type of evidence doesn’t exist for Christianity. So why bother even discussing this with Christians like unkleE who aren’t bothered by that fact?
And to be fair, unkleE does not just point to Christian scholars for his points. And his statement that the consensus of experts should carry quite a bit of weight with those of us who aren’t experts is not a crazy statement. I think potential biases in scholars and other experts should always be considered, but I agree with his main point.
LikeLike
Yes, William said it much better than I could. Poke holes in points, not people.
LikeLike
How will society get there?
Answer: People do not like being viewed as ignorant and stupid. If the overwhelming majority of educated people in a society begins to view a particular belief as ignorant and stupid, very quickly more and more people will abandon that belief. If that belief is given even some measure of respectability, a sizable percentage of believers will hold onto it even if the evidence stacks up against it.
I don’t attack Christians personally and say, “You are an ignorant moron” but I do attack their belief system. What I usually say is this: “You have been brainwashed, my friend, to believe that an ancient Canaanite god, invented by goat-herding nomads, rules the cosmos and has life or death power over you. It isn’t true. Open your eyes and look at the evidence.”
The Emperor who wasn’t wearing any clothes was not convinced of his error by pleasant, amiable, philosophical discussions about the pros and cons of invisible fabric. He was convinced of his error by the blunt truth that he was being a fool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But how do you react when someone calls you a fool? Does it make you immediately change your mind about your deeply held beliefs?
You already know that most Christians hold their beliefs because they don’t know enough information. In other words, they need education. Do you think the best way to educate people is to ridicule them? Is that how we want the school system to educate our children?
LikeLike
Gary, you must realise that you will NEVER get this from a Christian, and certainly not one as skilled in the theological two step as unklee.
To submit to such a request will immediately undermine their faith – or personal view of evidence.
Go read the Nazareth link on his site I posted.
You know the evidence is simply not there. In fact even the word ”evidence” when used in defense of Christianity is practically an oxymoron.
Unklee is simply a past-master at bullshit; of constructing an argument in such a way so’s he cannot lose and he has been doing it for years. That doesn’t mean he is right or that he has won ( genuinely made the argument). Far from it. Simply that his position cannot be assailed by fair means or foul.
Look at the posts on his blog. Many cover the same topic only worded slightly differently – including several about miracles – and the defense is the same. Same scholars quoted almost every time
,.
If it ain’t broke…. right?
He banned me from his blog. He knows why.
Personally I cannot fathom why he bothers with Nate. If he is so sure of his position what is his motivation? He certainly has no intention of reconsidering his view. His position has been staunch from the word go.
I find his approach sycophantic and yes, he does come across as condescending at times.
But the bloke knows his stuff and what he doesn’t know much of he makes damn sure it is not allowed to derail any argument.
I know his position is untenable – and if he were honest, so does he.
But this is religion.
It hasn’t fazed the Catholics much and it won’t faze unklee.
Honestly? I think he just likes to play, as if it were a game of chess.
He is simply a more sophisticated version of a fundamentalist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok. Enough said about UnkleE. However, I hope everyone will take note of whether or not he ever gets around to presenting his “strong” evidence for the Resurrection claim. Again, if someone wants to believe in supernatural claims by faith, no problem with me. But if your going to claim you have “strong” evidence, but instead of presenting that strong evidence, you build an “inverted pyramid” argument as someone else pointed out, I think you are being disingenuous.
Put out your evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Why play a game of chess with it?
Done.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate,
Please note I used the term “being” a fool. Very intelligent people can at some points in time behave like fools. I never said that UnkleE or anyone else IS a fool.
LikeLike
“Do you think the best way to educate people is to ridicule them? Is that how we want the school system to educate our children?”
Would you want your kids’ school teacher to give respectability to a belief that invisible leprechauns are everywhere and that if you misbehave they will punish you? I doubt you would. So why give respectability to a superstition that says, even in the liberal version, that “our superstition is the correct superstition and it would be best for you to accept it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Respectability and tolerance are not synonymous. Furthermore, there’s a huge difference between belief in leprechauns and belief in Christianity, if for no other reason than the fact that Christianity is widely believed by many people. It’s the same reason why “shit” is considered foul language, but “blubzerblat” is not. Both are just sounds… but it’s the meaning we attach to them that make all the difference.
LikeLike
well now maybe we’re back on the same page.
gary says he’s not slandering people, but their ideas.
I think we may as well go back to rule of the strong. I’ll just start working out a lot and practice ju jitsu and beat the royal piss out of out everyone – because power achieved is power perceived. then i’ll just tell them what to think.
i do like the golden rule. i dont always follow it although i try to always begin there. I’ve had dumb ideas before and likely still do. a tactful word reinforced with reason go much further and are much easier to digest… of course that may only be because mary poppins kept telling me medicine is easier to take with sugar, but i still find it true.
when there are people who wont listen to reason, i can get sarcastic and often rude. i try to work on that, but i do it. and i try to remember that people just may see things differently than i do… it could be because they’re jerks, or lying to themselves, or that I’m lying to myself and dont realize, or maybe it’s because they’re not as smart as me, or i am not as smart as them… I think if we consider all the possibilities, we may not be so hostile.
it doesnt cease my hostilities though.
I think unkleE makes illogical leaps in conclusions.
i think josh stops himself from seeing what’s obvious.
I try to stop myself from saying those things or further trying to explain or vocalize why i think they see it differently than me… because it really doesnt matter. if they’re doing those things then me making my assumption of that known wont likely change it, and then I stand the risk of looking like a bigger douche.
and if youre doing so that other people will see it, consider that they may see it with your pointing it out and say “that well spoken and kind fellow utterly destroyed his opponent’s points with ease,” in stead of “that douche had some really good points.”
and “I was only a douche because he was douche first” sounds childish, and mainly because it is.
but who knows, gary, you may be right. I’m kinda surprised youre spending this much time arguing for assigning negative motivations to others. I think that’s all nate was getting at.
and being blunt isnt really a good quality. it’s what people get called jerk for. it’s oklay tp be polite and gentle and tactful. isnt it?
and you’re not a jerk – which is why i am confused as to why this line of the discussion has drug out this far.
LikeLike
I imagine it’s the same reason I discuss things with him. It’s not so much to change his mind as it is to make sure the audience (who may not be sold one way or the other yet) gets to understand my position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nate, i think we;d all appreciate you not using the “B” word.
I wouldn’t be upset if a teacher held a belief in leprechauns. If my kid asked the teacher what they thought about leprechauns, i wouldn’t mind the teacher answering. I wouldn’t like if the teacher just took the initiative to start spouting said belief again and again and trying to force my kid to agree. I wouldnt like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
maybe it’s also the practice. a re-examination of our positions and theirs. making it better. trying to find flaws in theirs and ours and correcting them, readjusting and re-evaluating.
no one else may change their mind or really care about truth or what the real evidence is or truly suggests, but i do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you don’t have to go to Uganda to find Christians that call for killing gays.
this just came out in the news this week:
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/05/georgia-church-sign-calls-for-death-to-gays-video.html
LikeLike
scary…
LikeLike
I think it would be interesting if every person who participates on this blog would answer these two questions:
Do you believe that your worldview is the only correct worldview? And, if other people choose not to believe, accept, and adopt your worldview, do you believe that they will be punished in some manner for not doing so?
Any Christian who answers no to both questions can hang with me and have a beer any day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1) Yes, that’s why I believe it. HOWEVER, I also believe that I could be wrong.
2) Nope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, unless I’m missing something, these are loaded questions.
Nevertheless, I’d have to say:
(1) Yes, I do believe my worldview is correct. It may not be the only correct one, but it works for me.
(2) The only way someone will be “punished” for not accepting or adopting my worldview is if they believe the bible. Since I don’t, then IMO, no punishment is forthcoming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too believe that my worldview is correct. But, I also believe that there may be other worldviews that I don’t know about that are also correct, such as that of the Dalai Lama, Buddhist monks, etc. I am open to there being more than one “correct” world view, and, even a better worldview than my own.
I don’t think that most conservative and even moderate Christians could say that. I don’t think that most of them would be willing to say, “It is certainly possible that the Christian god does not exist. I believe in him simply as a matter of choice.”
I have no issue with Christian universalists who believe that Jesus was a good man who taught many wonderful humanistic principles, but who also believe that there are other equally valid worldviews and that no one is going to be punished for not agreeing with them.
I would love to know how many Christians who participate in this discussion would be willing to say that though. (Hint, hint, hint).
LikeLike
Dear Makagutu:
Thank you for offering to speak to me by email but I would prefer to converse here on Nate’s blog, on your blog, or my blog. Here’s why:
I do not know your gender. I am uncomfortable caring on email conversations with women as I am a happily married man whose wife has access to my email account. Just as I would not want her carrying on online conversations with men, I know she feels the same about me carrying on online conversations with women, even if the conversation is strictly about religion.
Even if you are male, I would still prefer to discuss religion in a public forum as I spend enough time on the internet as it is…I’d rather consolidate my conversations. I hope you understand!
🙂
Gary
LikeLiked by 1 person