Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
Not really, the morals pre-date Christianity significantly in various pagan and non-Christian religions. Also, Christianity was in favour of concepts such as slavery/slave owning, amongst others and various zealous attitudes which are now unacceptable by the standards of today.Originally Posted by tibilicus
Christianity has to evolve and change itself for the time and place. If it was truly the universal truth, wouldn't it always be the same?
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
There's probably already a name for that, but I'm too lazy to Google it, so I'm going to dub it the Fundamentalist's Paradox.
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
Equally, how could you be so certain that God would be so distant from mankind if he did exist? If you do believe in a creator being, you would have to ask why he would choose not to take anything to do with what he created.
I think that's unfair. If nobody explored these things we would never make progress. Those boring theologians had a big impact on how the world came to be the way it is today. Although I agree theology for the sake of theology is a bit pointless, I much prefer when it is something practical, like with Paul's theological ideas in his Epistles. Almost every time he brings up theology it's in relation to a specific issue, usually in a specific church.
Well that's what Protestantism was all about, returning to the purity of worship seen in the New Testament, and losing all the baggage gained over the centuries. I don't see any areas where New Testament beliefs come into conflict with mainstream Protestant beliefs.
Like with the slavery issue (thinking of Philemon here), Paul was more concerned with the spiritual rather than the temporal issue. Contrary to popular conceptions nowadays, Christianity does deal primarily with the spiritual side of things, the main function of the church is not to combat social/political issues like slavery. In the face of such hardships, it simply says to accept the powers that be (Romans 13 etc). The Bible neither promotes nor condemns slavery outright (although the sort of slavery most people think of with the Atlantic slave trade would be condemned, because of the cruelty of it).
Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 09-23-2010 at 23:25.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
If atheism is true, then life is ultimately meaningless. Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Your life is inconsequential.
Last edited by Hosakawa Tito; 09-23-2010 at 23:51.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
Why does there need to be a god to validate what is meaningful?
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
For many people the belief in God is hope, and hope makes a tremendous psychlogical difference for them. Is a life without hope inconsequential ?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
That depends on what one defines as consequential. Is living one's life as if it were simply a transition to the afterlife consequential?
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
For some people it is, but there is more than one path to the top o' the mountain; who's to say any are the wrong way. Funny, I used to know a lot more when I was younger than I do today.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
Hah! Without checking previous votes, I voted 'disagree'. As did, so it turned out, the religious fundamentalist crowd.
All you silly atheists who voted 'A' are wrong and will burn in hell!!
I think all of this qualifies as the exact opposite to Banquo's (in)famous Camus quote:
\
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus, "Noces"
At any rate, lots of famous, Gauloises-puffing, sexually experimentative French left bank philosophers disagree with you etc etc
Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 09-24-2010 at 01:41.
Re: Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience
That's why the fundies are the only true christians, the ones who try to stick by the words of God and Jesus and don't elect a man in a funny hat to decide what stance they should have on condoms and other modern contraptions of the devil.
Which is also why I think people who say the church should modernize just don't get it, if there is a God you cannot ask him to modernize either since he will just throw you in hell, if the church modernizes to something else than what God's word is because some humans want it, they'd risk that all of their followers get thrown into hell, they become false prophets, not that they or many of them aren't already prophets but asking them to modernize is kinda like asking them to become false prophets.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks