Question For Christians

[crowTrobot 2]

lol. I'm not, and you know I'm not.

you could care less about the fact that you might be wrong about christianity, but you're certain you're right? if someone said that about anything else you'd call them delusional.

[Balloon guy 158]

you could care less about the fact that you might be wrong about christianity, but you're certain you're right? if someone said that about anything else you'd call them delusional.

How about does gravity always work?Or the belief the sun will rise tomorrow?Or whether his wife loves him?Or ice cream is yummy?He would be delusional to believe any of these things?

[brvheart 1,751]

you could care less about the fact that you might be wrong about christianity, but you're certain you're right? if someone said that about anything else you'd call them delusional.

Are you an agnostic?

[crowTrobot 2]

You again draw a connection that isn't there. many more people that attend AA do not go to church. so you're conclusion is pointless.

i wasn't drawing any conclusions, just suggesting the possibilty since you were making the point that you had limited religious influences growing up.

What if someone were to show you why you're beliefs were completely false, would you be willing to drop them? What a loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife? If my beliefs were that shallow, than I suppose it would not be a big deal to discard them.

i was responding to what you wrote about maintaining your belief based on past experiences. obviously what people experience doesn't always equate to objective truth.

Why are you hot on the idea that people that think different than you MUST be hardheaded boobs who won't listen to your reason?

it's a little overly sensitive to keep reading stuff that isn't there like "hardheaded boobs" into my posts. i haven't said anything about intelligence. very intelligent people think they have good reason to believe things that are false all the time.

The fact you are spending so much time in a religoius forum to tell everyone why they are so wrong makes me think you are the one with the shaky faith.

i'm not telling you you're wrong. i'm trying to get you (or any other religious person who's confident about their beliefs) to think critically about why you're so certain you're right. not gonna work in your case because you're taking everything personally.

Sorry, you don't get to drag me down into your paranoia. I don't think hindu's are delusional, just wrong. I see the difference.I find many people to be wrong all the time and I don't attribute it to mental deficiancies or psychological problems.

you're using an extreme definition of delusional that most don't use, trying to deflect from the point with semantics. obviously you have to consider the millions of people who believe modern hindu gurus are demigods and can work miracles something beyond just "wrong". they don't believe what they believe because of simple mistaken reasoning - they believe it because cultural influences play mental games with them.

If I did I would have the entire democrat party committed

political "beliefs" are subjective opinions, not claims of objective fact. huge difference.

No, the one less arguement is a passive way to try to make the case that all religions are false.

no, in this case it's a response to overly sensitive christians who act like atheists are unjustifiably picking on them, as you have done several times in this thread.

About metaphysical subjects?

the value of a particular worldview is not a metaphysical subject.

Did your lawyer require you to add that?

i don't think i needed it, at least not recently. unlike you and hollywood i've been refraining as much as possible from making things personal.

you can have a great relationship while still having issues. Look at Hinkley's parents.

i don't have religious issues with my parents. we understand where each other is coming from.

[crowTrobot 2]

Are you an agnostic?

not strictly, no. i'm not a strict atheist either by the definitions you're probably using.

[PMJackson21 0]

I own a Dairy Queen

If you owned a Foster's Freeze, you'd be my hero. As it stands, only a partial hero now. Do they even have Foster's Freezes outside of Cali? Very much like a Dairy Queen...

[crowTrobot 2]

How about does gravity always work?Or the belief the sun will rise tomorrow?Or whether his wife loves him?Or ice cream is yummy?He would be delusional to believe any of these things?

those things are all provable based on objective evidence, at least to a very high level of probability. religious belief can make no such claim.

[brvheart 1,751]

not strictly, no. i'm not a strict atheist either by the definitions you're probably using.

The point being that you strongly believe that you are correct on these matters... but if you're intelligent you will always have to claim that it's possible that you're wrong... no matter how small you assume the possibility is.

If you owned a Foster's Freeze, you'd be my hero. As it stands, only a partial hero now. Do they even have Foster's Freezes outside of Cali? Very much like a Dairy Queen...

I've never heard of them, so I doubt it. DQ's are awesome. If you ever come to Des Moines to play the Prairie Meadows $200,000 poker spectacular I'll hook you up with a Blizzard. Maybe even an extra shot of fudge. FOR FREE!It looks to be California only... http://66.221.2.57/Locations.html

[crowTrobot 2]

The point being that you strongly believe that you are correct on these matters... but if you're intelligent you will always have to claim that it's possible that you're wrong... no matter how small you assume the possibility is.

so basically you're saying (in you other post) that you don't care if you're wrong because you're covered by pascal's wager. what if islam is right and you're going to hell?

[Sal Paradise 57]

whoa whoa whoa, brvhrt, you own a dairy queen? is it a brazier? I WANT ICE CREAM CAKE NOW PLZTHNX.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I've never heard of them, so I doubt it. DQ's are awesome.

yeah, nothing better than soft serve ice cream. No offense, btw.. how a man earns his living is his own business. However, DQ's are the McDonalds of ice cream shops, just saying.

[Sal Paradise 57]

bigd, I'd like to chastise you there, but to be honest I haven't been to a dq in years. I'm going on vacation next week though, and the plan is to eat as much crap food as my body can handle, so I may very well try to find one and get me a blizzard. any suggestions from anybody as to what type?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

bigd, I'd like to chastise you there, but to be honest I haven't been to a dq in years. I'm going on vacation next week though, and the plan is to eat as much crap food as my body can handle, so I may very well try to find one and get me a blizzard. any suggestions from anybody as to what type?

I'd go with the one that is made with soft serve, is filled with preservatives and uses crappy american candy..

[CaneBrain 95]

crappy american candy..

bigD's a commie!

[Southern Buddhist 1]

respectfully, i think bringing up buddhist ideas in these situations just muddles the conversation, since christians are talking about faith in the sense of what is absolute truth and you are just talking about someones useful personal philosophy. christian faith isn't about accepting ideas that sound good or make sense to you on a personal level - it's about believing claims of what is actual universal truth, many of which are empirical. the fact that somebody might not personally conclude it's moral (or whatever the OP is talking about) to accept jesus' sacrifice doesn't mean christianity isn't the faith for them. christianity is either true or it's not. it's either the faith for everybody, or nobody.also the fact that you find the religious idea of karma attractive or useful in making you a better person doesn't make it in the least bit actually true, or the least bit necessary to formulate and impliment the moral ideology you're talking about. if we want to make social progress humanity really needs to grow up and start divorcing the converstion on sensibility and morality from ancient superstitious metaphysical beliefs. i think when someone talks about religious ideas like karma even if they don't actually believe they are true in the metaphysical sense it just adds to the confusion.

Well, excuse me for offering a third perspective. I'll just be quiet now so you and BG can go back to hammering (and yammering) away endlessly at an argument neither of you is winning."It's either the faith for everybody, or nobody." Not even Christians believe this, so I have no idea where you're getting it.You misunderstand karma. Unless it's specifically tied to reincarnation, there's nothing metaphysical about it at all. It's cause and effect.As long as this is a forum for all religions and not just the steel cage for the christian/atheist battle, I believe I am still free to voice my opinion. I'm not trying to "muddy" the discussion any more than peace activists were "muddying" the battle between the US and Vietnam, or abolitionists were "muddying" the battle between slaves and plantation owners. You're just so much a hammer that you refuse to see anything but nails.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

QUOTE

That argument really bothers you, doesn't it? You can't refute it, all you can do is whine about the fact that it gets used a lot. I hate to break it to you, but the reason why you can't refute it is the same reason why it gets thrown at you all the time. It's valid.

Ive already clearly destroyed the validity for this line of thought, why should I keep doing it just because crow won't let it go?

QUOTE

yes, and you have to agree the 4 billion non-christian parents in the world are passing on false beliefs. the "one more religion than you" thing is just an attempt to get you to think objectively about why christianity is any different.

No, the one less arguement is a passive way to try to make the case that all religions are false. If they are all false, than the logic to dismiss one would apply to all of them. They are not all equal, but since you think they are, you think the 'one less' argument is witty. It's really just bad logic. I doubt you will ever understand why, but you are very closed minded so it shouldn't come as a shock.

Sorry, BG, but you're wrong here. It's not an attempt to prove that all religions are false. You and I had this discussion about prior belief. You can't prove your religion true without, at some point, pulling out prior belief. The Christian argument is roughly akin to this:Christian: I believe that the bible is the word of God.Atheist: Why?Christian: Because God said so in the bible.Atheist: And why is that convincing?Christian: Because the bible is the word of God.It's just circular logic. What people are trying to point out with the "one less" argument is that you wouldn't accept this logic as a convincing reason to believe another faith, but you do accept it in your own. The "one less" argument has these premises:1. All people disbelieve in the faiths of others. That is, no one on earth believes in every faith at once.2. We each make our own choices, with the input of family, culture, learning, etc., as to which faiths to believe and which to disbelieve.3. Because these choices are governed by our own combination of circumstance, personal history, and the above societal inputs in varying degrees, they are by definition idiosyncratic.4. Since these choices are idiosyncratic, they cannot be universal.5. Because they cannot be universal, no person can claim that his or her choice is the only valid one. [Well, anybody can claim it, but they won't necessarily be right.]Now, note, some subset of these people is likely to be right. We don't know which subset that is. We all have our devoutly held ideas, but we don't know for absolutely certain. Even the Christians in this forum have agreed to that, citing Pascal's wager. So which of those premises do you think is demonstrably false and why? There's nothing in these premises that says all religions are false.You say that "not all religions are equal." I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think Christianity is superior. I would answer that that is your own chosen answer, but that all the attempts of several centuries have not proven it conclusively to be correct or that all other faiths are inferior to it, except in the minds of believers. That is, believers believe, because they are believers. But that argument hasn't convinced everyone. In other words, I guess I'm saying I take that statement as a matter of opinion, while you take it as a matter of fact.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well, excuse me for offering a third perspective.

sorry no offense meant. was late when i posted that and i was trying not to make it personal, but failed apparently. my point was you seem to misunderstand why most people remain in the christian faith, apparently because you tend to equate their justifications with what motivates you to call yourself a buddhist. their justifications are fundamentally different. the OP wasn't looking for a personal philosophy of life that makes him happy. he was trying to make sense of the objective truth claims of christianity.

I'll just be quiet now so you and BG can go back to hammering (and yammering) away endlessly at an argument neither of you is winning.

notice i'm just stating simple facts that follow from religious demographics and he's taking them personally. there's not much actual point counterpoint going on.

"It's either the faith for everybody, or nobody." Not even Christians believe this

again, you're apparently equating christianity with your subjective approach to buddhism. there's nothing subjective about christianity. its claims are either objectively true or they're false. they can't be true for some and not others - no christian believes that. on the other hand if by "the right faith for you" you mean to suggest that some people are better off being self-brainwashed to believe things that they have no good reason to believe because of the moral philosophy that comes with the same package, then i'd suggest you're better off spelling that out.

You misunderstand karma. Unless it's specifically tied to reincarnation, there's nothing metaphysical about it at all. It's cause and effect.

no i understand pretty well. there's nothing in eastern religions that suggests the supposed effects of karma can actually occur through purely physical chains of cause and effect. it's one thing to say it happens, quite another to make logical sense of what you're implying when you say it.

[brvheart 1,751]

so basically you're saying (in you other post) that you don't care if you're wrong because you're covered by pascal's wager. what if islam is right and you're going to hell?

Then we can meet face to face.

whoa whoa whoa, brvhrt, you own a dairy queen? is it a brazier? I WANT ICE CREAM CAKE NOW PLZTHNX.

Short answer: yes. We have Ice Cream and Food (Hamburgers, Chicken, Hot Dogs, Salads, etc etc)Long answer: no. Brazier is a name that is only allowed to be used by Dairy Queens that franchise through IDQ or ADQ (International Dairy Queen or American Dairy Queen). Back in the early 1940's, Dairy Queen was retarded and they sold parts of the US to "TO's" or Territory Operators. These TO's could buy the rights to areas, for instance, counties or states. The larger the area they wanted to control the bigger the price tag. Once they purchased the rights to these areas then they were allowed to sell franchises to anyone that wanted to open a store in their territory. They would charge these stores 4% of sales and be required to give 1% of that money to IDQ. The kicker however is that, for reasons that can not be explained, they were allowed TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE control over everything in these stores forever, without expiration. They could, stealing a line from Mitch Hedberg, sell spaghetti and blankets if they wanted to, which is why so many DQ's look so different throughout the country instead of all looking the same like McDonalds. Since IDQ finally wised up to their terrible business decision in the 80's, they have been trying to buy up all of the different TO's in the country. Most are holding out, obviously, but they have been pretty successful overall in buybacks by offerring alot of money. Well, my DQ is in a territory operator area, and DQ has been trying to force TO's into selling back to them by not letting them do certain things. One is calling their sandwiches the same names. Two is calling their stores the same names. So while we do serve food we can't advertise more than just DQ, and while we do have the Flamethrower sandwich (which is great, btw) we can't call it that. Our TO had to name it himself and in his brilliance he came up with Hot n Spicy. Anyway, I doubt you even read this answer so screw you for not caring.

bigd, I'd like to chastise you there, but to be honest I haven't been to a dq in years. I'm going on vacation next week though, and the plan is to eat as much crap food as my body can handle, so I may very well try to find one and get me a blizzard. any suggestions from anybody as to what type?

This month's Blizzard of the Month is Girl Scout Cookie Thin Mint. You could also go for Choco Cherry Love, Cherry or Strawberry Cheesequake, or a simple Snickers or M&M.

I'd go with the one that is made with soft serve, is filled with preservatives and uses crappy american candy..

yousonofa....

bigD's a commie!

QFT!!!

[PezPoisson 0]

the OP wasn't looking for a personal philosophy of life that makes him happy. he was trying to make sense of the objective truth claims of christianity.thank you for understanding the original purpose of the post. unfortunately, the only christians who have responded seem to dismiss the question as insincere and illogical. as an agnostic, i am trying to be open-minded in my approach to various religions, but can't get my head around this particular facet of christianity. regardless of whether or not i could ever accept the 'objective truth' claims of the bible, i think the requirement to choose to accept an innocent sacrifice on my behalf would always be problematic for me.additionally, religions proclaiming a diametrically opposed reward-punishment scheme such as islam and christianity (ie accept jesus' sacrifice and receive eternal life vs reject it and suffer eternally) are problematic in that they correlate our desire for life after death with what is claimed to be objectively true. the initial incentive to believe in these religions is not simply that there is one singular and universal religious truth, but rather that one will be rewarded for following the particular tenants of a given faith. i don't think real religious truth should have much to do with the individual practicing a given religion at all, and his acceptance of that religion should come irrespective of whether or not he will be rewarded for it. ultimately, i suppose that was the basis for the original question; that even if someone accepts christianity's objective truth, why should they still necessarily be inclined to accept an innocent sacrifice on their behalf?

[brvheart 1,751]

thank you for understanding the original purpose of the post. unfortunately, the only christians who have responded seem to dismiss the question as insincere and illogical. as an agnostic, i am trying to be open-minded in my approach to various religions, but can't get my head around this particular facet of christianity. regardless of whether or not i could ever accept the 'objective truth' claims of the bible, i think the requirement to choose to accept an innocent sacrifice on my behalf would always be problematic for me.additionally, religions proclaiming a diametrically opposed reward-punishment scheme such as islam and christianity (ie accept jesus' sacrifice and receive eternal life vs reject it and suffer eternally) are problematic in that they correlate our desire for life after death with what is claimed to be objectively true. the initial incentive to believe in these religions is not simply that there is one singular and universal religious truth, but rather that one will be rewarded for following the particular tenants of a given faith. i don't think real religious truth should have much to do with the individual practicing a given religion at all, and his acceptance of that religion should come irrespective of whether or not he will be rewarded for it. ultimately, i suppose that was the basis for the original question; that even if someone accepts christianity's objective truth, why should they still necessarily be inclined to accept an innocent sacrifice on their behalf?

Actually no Christians even responded to your question, unless you count BG's two sentence question. I simply stated that your analogy was illogical and a lie, which it was. I didn't answer or even mention anything about your question in my posts.

[brvheart 1,751]

so basically you're saying (in you other post) that you don't care if you're wrong because you're covered by pascal's wager. what if islam is right and you're going to hell?

no. that isn't what I was saying.

yeah, nothing better than soft serve ice cream. No offense, btw.. how a man earns his living is his own business. However, DQ's are the McDonalds of ice cream shops, just saying.

I don't understand this post. Are you saying McDonald's are crap? Because they make a ton of money. Even the crappy ones make like 1.5M in sales/year.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I don't understand this post. Are you saying McDonald's are crap? Because they make a ton of money. Even the crappy ones make like 1.5M in sales/year.

Of course you wouldn't. Yes, I'm saying McDonalds is crap. I'm NOT saying their business model is crap, just their food. It is easily the worst food you can buy outside of a gas station. Again, I'm not saying that a DQ wouldn't' be a PROFITABLE business to run, much as McDonald's is a PROFITABLE business. But they are both restaurants that sacrifice food quality and taste for profits. And that's fine if you're the owner of the restaurant, are broke, or living in an extremely small town with few dining options. I unfortunately don't own a dairy queen, but fortunately am not broke and do not live in a mono-ice cream parlor town, and take my frozen dessert business else where.I did love the DQ when I was a kid, however, much like I loved McD's, for what ever that's worth I'm sure you do a killing, and I wish you luck. Demand for Ice Cream is fairly inelastic ( I would imagine it would be cyclical, following weather and season patterns) and shouldn't be effected by the economic downturn.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Short answer: yes. We have Ice Cream and Food (Hamburgers, Chicken, Hot Dogs, Salads, etc etc)Long answer: no. Brazier is a name that is only allowed to be used by Dairy Queens that franchise through IDQ or ADQ (International Dairy Queen or American Dairy Queen). Back in the early 1940's, Dairy Queen was retarded and they sold parts of the US to "TO's" or Territory Operators. These TO's could buy the rights to areas, for instance, counties or states. The larger the area they wanted to control the bigger the price tag. Once they purchased the rights to these areas then they were allowed to sell franchises to anyone that wanted to open a store in their territory. They would charge these stores 4% of sales and be required to give 1% of that money to IDQ. The kicker however is that, for reasons that can not be explained, they were allowed TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE control over everything in these stores forever, without expiration. They could, stealing a line from Mitch Hedberg, sell spaghetti and blankets if they wanted to, which is why so many DQ's look so different throughout the country instead of all looking the same like McDonalds. Since IDQ finally wised up to their terrible business decision in the 80's, they have been trying to buy up all of the different TO's in the country. Most are holding out, obviously, but they have been pretty successful overall in buybacks by offerring alot of money. Well, my DQ is in a territory operator area, and DQ has been trying to force TO's into selling back to them by not letting them do certain things. One is calling their sandwiches the same names. Two is calling their stores the same names. So while we do serve food we can't advertise more than just DQ, and while we do have the Flamethrower sandwich (which is great, btw) we can't call it that. Our TO had to name it himself and in his brilliance he came up with Hot n Spicy. Anyway, I doubt you even read this answer so screw you for not caring.

what are you kidding? of course I'm gonna read this. I was excited when I woke up thinking about blizzards and cakes. I'm a fat boy at heart donchaknow. and yeah, we have a dairy queen in our town that for a long time somehow eluded all of that stuff I believe. it was like an old fashioned tasty freeze or whatever for a long time. I don't know to what extent it was controlled by any corporate people, but the owners were local and the same for like 40 years, and they served good food from what I remember. in the past 15 or so years though, it was made more corporate, from I guess what you're talking about, and now the food isn't as good and is ridiculously expensive. I'll still get me a blizzard though. I remember they used to have a damn fine ham sandwich and a blt I'd kill a puppy for. those were the days man, those were the days.

This month's Blizzard of the Month is Girl Scout Cookie Thin Mint. You could also go for Choco Cherry Love, Cherry or Strawberry Cheesequake, or a simple Snickers or M&M.

oh man, a snickers one. that sounds great.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Long answer: no. Brazier is a name that is only allowed to be used by Dairy Queens that franchise through IDQ or ADQ (International Dairy Queen or American Dairy Queen). Back in the early 1940's, Dairy Queen was retarded and they sold parts of the US to "TO's" or Territory Operators. These TO's could buy the rights to areas, for instance, counties or states. The larger the area they wanted to control the bigger the price tag. Once they purchased the rights to these areas then they were allowed to sell franchises to anyone that wanted to open a store in their territory. They would charge these stores 4% of sales and be required to give 1% of that money to IDQ. The kicker however is that, for reasons that can not be explained, they were allowed TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE control over everything in these stores forever, without expiration. They could, stealing a line from Mitch Hedberg, sell spaghetti and blankets if they wanted to, which is why so many DQ's look so different throughout the country instead of all looking the same like McDonalds. Since IDQ finally wised up to their terrible business decision in the 80's, they have been trying to buy up all of the different TO's in the country. Most are holding out, obviously, but they have been pretty successful overall in buybacks by offerring alot of money. Well, my DQ is in a territory operator area, and DQ has been trying to force TO's into selling back to them by not letting them do certain things. One is calling their sandwiches the same names. Two is calling their stores the same names. So while we do serve food we can't advertise more than just DQ, and while we do have the Flamethrower sandwich (which is great, btw) we can't call it that. Our TO had to name it himself and in his brilliance he came up with Hot n Spicy. Anyway, I doubt you even read this answer so screw you for not caring.

I skipped over this the first time, assuming it was about religion, which I didn't care to read about. But, seeing Sal quote it, I noticed it was about DQ. How utterly fascinating to see what franchising was like before business' like McDonald's came along and streamlined it. Does dairy queen still have those frozen orange stars with denice the menace on the package? that's what I would get 9 times out of 10 when I went to DQ as a kid. There were two Dq's in my town when I was a kid, one was an extremely small one, that only did walk up business ( as in they had windows outside, and a couple of outdoor tables to eat at) and the one I usually went to. The other one was a huge indoor one, that had the first Gauntlet Video game I ever played. I would always try and talk my mom into going half way across town to that DQ, so I could play gauntlet. But she wouldn't understand why I'd want to drive all that way to get ice cream, when we had a DQ right buy our house, so I'd always end up sucking on an orange star and pining for gauntlet.

[crowTrobot 2]

additionally, religions proclaiming a diametrically opposed reward-punishment scheme such as islam and christianity (ie accept jesus' sacrifice and receive eternal life vs reject it and suffer eternally) are problematic in that they correlate our desire for life after death with what is claimed to be objectively true. the initial incentive to believe in these religions is not simply that there is one singular and universal religious truth, but rather that one will be rewarded for following the particular tenants of a given faith. i don't think real religious truth should have much to do with the individual practicing a given religion at all, and his acceptance of that religion should come irrespective of whether or not he will be rewarded for it. ultimately, i suppose that was the basis for the original question; that even if someone accepts christianity's objective truth, why should they still necessarily be inclined to accept an innocent sacrifice on their behalf?

if you are seeking truth you should take the next step and consider the possiblity that these theologies aren't making sense to you because you're an educated modern human with an evolved sense of morality, and they are all nothing more than glorified mythology conceived by primitive superstitious humans with antiquated moral sensibilities.