I'm Christian. I'm proud I'm Christian. It is MY choice.

THEN what happens is, an Atheist comes along, & usually, this is what comes out of their mouth;;
'Christians are only Christians because they were raised that way, they follow their parents footsteps' [I'm not saying that ALL Ahtiests do this, I have great friends who are Ahtiests]

Well, my question back to them is, what about an Atheist? Some kids are born in Atheist families, and follow on being an Atheist. And their reply ends in an I'm stupid.

I don't know how often this happens to you, but this really really really ANGERS me beyond you know. It's only the Christian's that can't choose their own religion. It's only the Christians that are idiots. Atheists always choose their own path. That's not it at alL! Any kid born into any family is most likley to follow their parents veiws, even if the parents are Ahtiest, Jewish, Christian, Buddhists, Muslims, you get my point yes?

PS; I'm NOT generalizing. Like I said, I know a lot of Atheists that are my friends, and have never offended me.

quote:

Sorry, other posts demonstrate that you are not a Bright - it's the name for a secular humanist movement. Sorry about the confusion. I just made the assumption that you were an atheist/agnostic based on your well reasoned and well written posts. I know that isn't generally true, but I just thought that you were being very balanced for a believer - so my apologies again.

Well no need to apologize. I was hoping that I was actually part of some secret society without knowing it. So the news comes to a little bit of a disappointment but nothing severe.
In any case, I'm flattered about what you said of my posts.

quote:

I have to confess, I'm not sure what you mean by a Bright

Sorry, other posts demonstrate that you are not a Bright - it's the name for a secular humanist movement. Sorry about the confusion. I just made the assumption that you were an atheist/agnostic based on your well reasoned and well written posts. I know that isn't generally true, but I just thought that you were being very balanced for a believer - so my apologies again.

God is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all good. So if such a being existed why would he allow evil in the world? If he is all-good he should hate evil. If he is all-knowing he should no exactly what goodness is. If he is all-powerful he would be able to stop all evil. So why doesn't he? Why does he let such evil exist in our world? To torment us? Or perhaps he simply isn't all-powerful, but then he wouldn't be God would he?

Also, what I do not understand is why people say "God controls fate" and then say that we have free-will.

When a disaster happens people say it was not an act of god but when a miracle happens who gets all the credit?

And I really dislike when Christians say science is wrong when it comes to natural selection and the big bang theory, but as soon as they hear that scientists have found noah's ark or some crap they use it to their advantage.

God is a cruel being and a good being. He is the alpha and the omega, he is everything and he is nothing. He is a giant-ass contradiction.

quote:

Do you, by any chance, consider yourself a Bright?

I have to confess, I'm not sure what you mean by a Bright. I'm a little out of my element in these discussions, seeing as my studies are centered more around biology (as you may have gathered), so I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with a lot of philosophical/theological terms.

quote:

So why then embrace one theology without proof and discredit the other?


Because I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. I do not know what will happen when I die.

This was more directed at Brehon, who stated (somewhere) that he was an atheist, but you picked up the gist of what I was asking anyways.

I'm not certain if the rest of your post was directed at me, christians in general, or both. But just something I'd like to point out:

quote:

The hatred that God brings to the hearts and minds of people. They despise differences and treat those who are unlike them cruelly.

This is more of a trait of humanity than Christianity (or any religion believing in God, I just used Christianity because it rhymes with humanity). My observations (in America) have been that jerks and great people exist in all races, genders and creeds, I don't think I'm in the minority with that notice. This kind of makes sense, because I don't think reading a holy text, (like the Bible) would make a nice person turn mean. Nor has any church I've ever been to ever encouraged meanness. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

I am aware that several communities exist where the people are mean to those who are different than them for a variety psychological reasons, and I imagine it would suck majorly to be around that. It's not cool, but I don't believe religion is the culprit. People can be cruel and they will use any reason handy, religion, race, intelligence, etc. to be cruel to others.

My $.02

quote:

Rather than say I don't believe in something unless its proven, I would say I believe in the most reasonable explanation. Is that a decent translation?

Pretty much - yours is more of a general rule, whilst mine is more apposite to this argument, but yes, I think we demonstrate a consensus.

quote:

When someone says "I don't believe in God because there's no proof." It sounds complete, but it actually has no reasons behind it.

This is true, but it is a more convient short hand than the explanation I gave (I clearly get carried away) or the much better explanation you gave.

Do you, by any chance, consider yourself a Bright?

quote:

I just don't get how anyone can live the way any of you do. How can you be okay with blindly following something that was written 2000 years ago.

I take it that you're not addressing nathan and me at this point?

quote:

Well, we'll see.

Or not see, of course, depending on who's right.

quote:

So why then embrace one theology without proof and discredit the other?

Because I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. I do not know what will happen when I die.

If there is a God it will be the omniverse or nirvana, not some magical fairy being that a random group of humans dreamed up.

I just don't understand. I just don't get how anyone can live the way any of you do. How can you be okay with blindly following something that was written 2000 years ago. Why do you base your whole life on it? Are you just incapable of finding your own morals to live by? Are you so fragile that you have to depend on a fairy tale?

I was raised Christian and even at a young age I saw through the BS. The hatred that God brings to the hearts and minds of people. They despise differences and treat those who are unlike them cruelly.
The meanest people I have ever met have been religious ones and the kindest have been those who have no religion.

It's so illogical and rather than just considering that maybe parts of your religion are wrong, you make excuse after excuse after excuse.

Well, we'll see.

Brehon, you may be the first person to call me fashionable.

and with your long explanation, you answered in a similar way I'd anticipate you would, and if I understand you correctly, I would be in agreement with your thinking. I think what we may disagree on is how to word it. Rather than say I don't believe in something unless its proven, I would say I believe in the most reasonable explanation. Is that a decent translation?

To use your examples: if you use earl grey with lemon on 5000 cancer patients and none of them show any improvement, while you haven't proven that it can't cure cancer, it's more reasonable to say it can't than it can. Same thing with zombies etc.

Hope you realize, I'm not trying to be aggressive here, if anything I'm saying I think we have similar philosophies. While this may seem like a nit picky and an unnecessary distinction, it actually makes a big difference (to me at least). When someone says "I don't believe in God because there's no proof." It sounds complete, but it actually has no reasons behind it. It also puts responsibility on someone else to prove something they may believe is unprovable. Now saying "I don't believe in God because I think the lack of a deity is the most logical explanation. (or because I don't think it's reasonable)" begs explanation.It allows for more sharing on your thoughts than simply "there's no proof". And plus it's more technically accurate, since it follows suit for other creatures/disbelief you have. Not sure if this makes sense...

Nathan, you've made some quite reasonable points that are very fashionable right now:

quote:

Specifically: it seems like you're one of "those" who says they need to have proof in a god before believing in him. This seems like a pretty reasonable ideology and normally I'd leave it alone. But what confuses me is that later it seems you claim to be atheist.

I've had a number of tussels with this type of argument, and I don't think it holds water, and it is largely philosophy's fault that it doesn't, because it encourages people to doubt when it is no longer reasonable.

The problem is this: atheists face the problem that, in order conclusively to demonstrate that god does not exist they must search not only the entire of the known universe, but in addition all the universe/universes that are unknown. It is for this reason that a rational world view does not work like that; people who propose a statement are required to back it up with evidence, so that I can't just say 'earl grey with lemon cures cancer', and then argue that the people who deny that 'earl grey cures cancer' have to prove that it doesn't cure cancer by giving earl grey to every single cancer sufferer throughout time and space. If I said that 'earl grey with lemon cures cancer', any rational person expects me to make the case for it, and to dismiss the case if they find the evidence I present lacking.

If it did work like that, and I had to be agnostic about everything that there was some doubt over (and no good proof for), then I would also have to be agnostic about zombies, unicorns, werewolves, the real existence of characters from Twilight and the Lord of the Rings and so on. However, I am concretely and utterly sure that I do not believe in the existence of zombies et al, and I do not think that under any other circumstance that people would say that I was being unreasonable by being atheistic about the real life existence of Elrond or Bilbo.

In essence, this is an area where philosophical doubt has tainted normal thinking to an unnecessary degree, an area that Wittgenstein no doubt went wild about. Either I have to be agnostic about hundreds of things that any commonsense person is not agnostic about, or I have to give in to one of the more absurd demands of philosophy, and pretend that I think there is no definite proof that these things don't exist, and that I must thus carry garlic, silver bullets, and legendary elvish swords wherever I go in case it turns out that they actually exist.

quote:

God also released joy in me, and soon the whole room was in hysterics. We were laughing, absolutley drunk on the Holy Spirit. It was amazing, especially since before Sunday I've been very depressed. That afternoon similar stuff happened, and the whole room was filled with an amazing fire. Everyone was sweating like mad, drinking barrells of the Holy Spirit, falling over, laughing like crazy, and praising Jesus in such a way that soon every single person was there worshipping Him.

Is this actually real, or is this a joke? I actually can't tell - it sounds like, what Wolfie explained to me, a 'frat' party might sound.

quote:

I just want to applaud you when you say, "Don't get me wrong if God came down and did some almighty task, I would believe it." Many atheists have such closed minds that they wouldn't. And I just pray that you get to see one of God's many miracles, because they are beautiful! I pray that you get to experience one for yourself!

Whilst I, in turn, appluad your peseverence, you realise that the whole point is that all atheists would be forced, by definition, to believe in god if there were actual evidence for his existence that stood up to a tolerable amount of scrutiny. Not only that, but David Hume argues that miracles are in themselves not evidence of a divine creator or agent, (aside from the fact that they are notoriously unreliable and often proven to be hoaxes) that they represent fundamental violations of god's own proscribed laws for the universe.



Lost, I think there is a difference between my train and your tree example, which is that, if I were to translate my train into your tree example, it would be you cutting down the tree rather than it falling naturally. The whole point of the hypothetical example is that your agency forces you to decide whether you save many people or whether you save one, and whether ultimately utilitarianism is the measure of these things.

quote:

Are you saying that Jesus was not the one who suffered, or that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient?

I'm sort of saying the latter; that is, I'm saying that the reason Jesus is seen as special by Christianity is that he suffered the most a human being has ever suffered, when in fact this is not the case. In turn, I think that this strikes a blow at traditional Christianity. Somehow the symbol of one man suffering on the cross is insufficinet to match up to the symbol of suffering that was the Battle of the Somme, or that of the Jews in Auschwitz.

quote:

You are not a Christian, so your speculation on the Christian treatment of the soul is yes, speculator, and as I Christian I am telling you that your speculation is incorrect.

Aside from the fact that this sentence doesn't make sense (in quite an important way), I don't think that you quite get the point I was trying to make. In Christian belief, suffering is seen as good because it purifies the soul, makes the route to heaven easier, whatever. And don't tell me it doesn't, because I've just spent a week revising George Herbet poems and had to read about unending groans and crys and so on that allow the Christian soul to be saved.

However, as people who are interested in any kind of thought post-Nietzsche, which I take us both to be, I think it is necessary for you to concede that suffering is not a good thing for human beings, and that a system of thought that generates that belief is in itself abhorent to all thining people who have even the tiniest notion of human rights.

This, in essence, is the difference between your 'Atheists eat children' example (one that Christians have historically used against Jews for centuries): my speculation is a speculation about the interpretation of the teachings of Christianity, whereas yours is a factual error. My attack is based on considered thought, not simply outrageous slander as you appear to believe.

By the by, I am quite sure that there have been a number of atheist cannibals, but I am also quite sure that there have been religious cannibals and that any good atheist will not be a cannibal except in conditions where no other choice presents itself and not without serious moral thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
Yes, they are dissimilar in many respects, but I think the central issue here is the human sacrifice element. Why is god, who is, after all, aware that this is happening, not interested in interesting to save the life of this poor girl? As a moral being, I have to question the motives of a god who knew that this was happening but didn't release Jephthah from his unnecessary vow. And this story is included in the Bible which is supposed, at least partly, to act as his guidance to moral living. This is not like the Crusades because the Crusades were not added to the Bible to explicate the nature of god or to add to its ethical messages.

I have already said that God does not in all cases make an appearance to give a thumbs up and a wink, or a “tisk tisk” and rubbing his index fingers together in every event in mankind. I also have a hard time believing that you think this is the only acceptable way a omnipotent being -should one exist- behaves. As I have exampled for you, God has established the rules already.

quote:

But I'll think that you'll agree that the fact that the majority of states still practise the death penalty indicates that the Declaration of Independence has been ignored in state legislature in this instance, and thus it is at least theoretically possible that it could be waived in other circumstances as well.

It is easy for a legislator to trample the rights of people. This precedence isn’t one that I agree with, nor will I submit is sufficient enough to continue to the trampling of rights.

quote:

But in the train example, you are responsible. You just have to decide if you are going to kill one man or three. You are driving towards the station, but it is not until too late that you notice the situation developing. You jam the breaks on, but to little avail. The men can't clear off the tracks in time. The train is bearing down on him/them, with no possibility of escape. In a split second you must decide; do you kill one or three?

I must disagree that I am the one doing the killing or in anyway responsible for the reason someone would be on the tracks. No more so than a tree is a murder if it falls naturally in the forest and lands on a person killing them. I am accountable for my own actions, no people who stand on train tracks.

quote:

By coincidence I have just happened across a quotation from a reputable theologian that explicates what I mean: 'the most actual is joined with him who suffered supremely and died; the most perfect and immense is joined with the insignificant'. The symbolism of this is quite clearly reduced in potency if Jesus is not the person who 'suffered supremely'.

I am sorry. I suppose am I missing what you are arguing here. Are you saying that Jesus was not the one who suffered, or that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient?

quote:

So I think I do have at least some ground to stand on, and it's approximately as definitive as yours. Religion, separate in normal life from academic theology, is not like being a doctor, or as Plato would have it, a politician (or metaphorical vet). Alongside politics, at least in democratic politics, it is something that everyone is entitled to speculate on.

Your original comment:

quote:

It is a religion that states that unearned suffering is redemptive, where, in essence, masochism of the soul is encouraged.

You are not a Christian, so your speculation on the Christian treatment of the soul is yes, speculator, and as I Christian I am telling you that your speculation is incorrect. I am having trouble in understanding how you think your speculation can withstand the critique of experience in this case. If I speculated that all Atheist eat children, and you told me as an experience atheist that you do not in fact eat children, I would (as a person driven by reason) either reject that you are indeed Atheist, or that my speculation is then false.

When I say that my eyes have been opened by Jesus I am talking about Him giving me sight to things I couldn't see before. It's giving me sight to His glory and love and acceptence and fire. It's sight that allows me to see that he was not just a man, that say, as you put it, was "a strong, political figure".

God certainly responds back to me! I'll give you the example of just this week, where I was at a camp and God filled the place where we were worshipping with His fire, with His Presence, with His peace... it was amazing. I had just been in a pretty rough patch in my life, but yesterday God released His fire in me, and the Holy Spirit came upon me and I fell backwards (not for the first time) and was filled with an uninmaginable peace, a supernatural peace, something I've been longing for for quite a while now. God also released joy in me, and soon the whole room was in hysterics. We were laughing, absolutley drunk on the Holy Spirit. It was amazing, especially since before Sunday I've been very depressed. That afternoon similar stuff happened, and the whole room was filled with an amazing fire. Everyone was sweating like mad, drinking barrells of the Holy Spirit, falling over, laughing like crazy, and praising Jesus in such a way that soon every single person was there worshipping Him.

I could give you millions of examples of how God works on this earth and how he responds to us, especially because last night was one of the scariest nights of my life, yet one of the most peaceful. Because God defeats the enemy. I'd rather not go into what exactly happened because that would be opening up myself for Satin to poke at me, but please trust me when I saw what he did was amazing. AMAZING. Beyond understanding or comprehension. The peace he gave us group of girls in absolute tears was just... amazing. And then He heals my friend's arm and collarbone.

I just want to applaud you when you say, "Don't get me wrong if God came down and did some almighty task, I would believe it." Many atheists have such closed minds that they wouldn't. And I just pray that you get to see one of God's many miracles, because they are beautiful! I pray that you get to experience one for yourself!

So I was cruising a different type of forum than my regular, and I noticed Brehon's response. I remember us having a pleasant chat over abortion several months ago and read your post. I have a couple questions if ya don't mind the intrusion. Specifically: it seems like you're one of "those" who says they need to have proof in a god before believing in him. This seems like a pretty reasonable ideology and normally I'd leave it alone. But what confuses me is that later it seems you claim to be atheist. Now, maybe my perspective is off (and this is something you seem to know more about than I do), but as I understand it an atheist absolutely believes there is no god just as much as a christian believes there is a god. This is a lil weird to me because while I acknowledge there is no definite proof of a god, there certainly isn't any proof that there isn't a god. So why then embrace one theology without proof and discredit the other?

And while I'm on the subject, I'm curious as to why some people feel like they need to have firm proof for themselves before believing something. I mean, there has to be some things you take on some sort of faith that they work. When you get down to it, every theory out there has some hole in it (how medicines work/origin of life are especially this way) I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this.

4% of the nation are atheists (psych. today). You must live a huge pocket of them.

My eyes have been open by Jesus, but I am not christian. I just think he was a strong, political figure back in the day.

How can you have a relationship with something that doesn't respond back to you? It'd be like saying you have a relationship with the internet or the sky or something, unless you are trying to say God responds to you, which I would be very interested in hearing about.

Don't get me wrong if God came down and did some almighty task, I would believe it.

You would think, though, that an omnipotent being might leave more evidence of his existence than some ancient text.

For me, the majority of the Christians I know, including myself, have families that are atheists, or at least do not believe in Christianity. I don't think, in this day and age, that most Christians are Christians because that's what they have been taught. Where I live that's certainly how it is. Here, Christians are Christians because their eyes have been opened... by Jesus.

Although there are quite a few Christians I know that are have been raised in a Christian family, that does not mean that that's why they are Christian. It is not simply about believing there is a God, it's about having a relationship with God. And that's the reason they're Christian. Because they have a relationship with Him. Jesus is not only my saviour, but my best friend as well.

Like Brehon said, I'd believe in God if there was documented, sound proof of his existence. I think most people who are not Christian would but thus far no one has ever been able to give such evidence.

I never really understood how atheism is a 'form of rebellion'. If any set of beliefs is a form of 'rebelling against the church' it would be satanism before athesim....

Really, that many people are atheist in England. I find that a wee bit difficult to believe. In America, it's like 3-4%.

smashing furniture. lol.

My religion.... I believe in a mix of stuff. Sometimes I think reincarnation could be possible (at least I hope it is), sometimes I think there's nothing and sometimes I think we all morph into the force when we die. I live by my own standards which are no one has the right to take the life of another, good manners, control and fun. Of course, I do not keep my morals on the internet because that just wouldn't be any fun at all.

I believe God exists, but not in the realm of the real. I believe God exists only in the minds of people.
However, that does not make him any less powerful to those who believe in him.

There is no omnipotent being in the real world that controls everything and hears everyone's prayers.

Seriously, why can't people see the similarities between God and Santa Claus? Both seem to have some sort of global control, both are 'magical' and both can hear you and know when you're sleeping/awake. Now do we believe in Santa? No. We did when we were children (if you weren't some lame jewish kid), but then we grew up and realized, 'well, how could this be possible.' Think of atheism as growing up and realizing 'how can God(s) be possible.'

I don't know I just woke up.

quote:

obviously no one has or can get through to people like wolfie or Brehon.

No, they can, but only if they provide sufficient evidence. Is that so unreasonable?

quote:

Sure research has shown some beliefs of Christians to be unclear but that's the beauty of faith.

That isn't the beauty of faith, that's the veil of ignorance.

quote:

For your own sake why would you not want to believe or have faith in a higher goodness that loves all living beings unconditionally?

Because, and this ties back into my previous responses, there is no evidence that such a being exists. And if it isn't real, then it is meaningless to believe in something like this.

quote:

the religion doesn't have to be Christianity and those specific set of rules or beliefs, but any of the religions that believe in God.

This is a very strange loop hole, and I think it rather undercuts the various accusations that you've just leveled at Wolfie and me. What about Zoroastrianism, which upholds belief in two gods, one good and the other evil, who are equally powerful? Or what about Buddhism, a religion with no gods? I have studied a few religions, and none seem to have the kind of evidence that you need to base you whole life's directions on. It just doesn't seem reasonable.

quote:

what do you get out of being an atheist Brehon?

Many things. A coherent world view, an occasionally cheery disposition, a moral code that allows for innovation and change. But this isn't a case of what I get out of being an atheist, but a case of what the fundamental nature of reality is, and the simple answer is that the fundamental nature of reality is an atheistic one.

quote:

one can't help but believe atheism is merely a form of rebellion, as another commenter has already said.

I live in England, where the rates of atheist are estimated to be as high as 75%. I'm fairly certain that means that my atheism is not a case of rebellion.

However, if my rebellion consisted of attempting to understand the universe through the use of rational thinking based on empirical evidence, I'm almost certain that any set of parents would be relieved I wasn't taking drugs and smashing up furniture.

quote:

i just don't understand why anyone would strive so hard to search for new arguments and tear other people's beliefs down.

For all the reasons above. It's just the scientific paradigm, the only really useful tool that humanity ever came up with. You almost certainly owe your life to it several hundred times over. Besides, what you believe doesn't make sense, and non-nonsensical beliefs cannot, by definition, be meaningful.

obviously no one has or can get through to people like wolfie or Brehon. i just don't understand why anyone would strive so hard to search for new arguments and tear other people's beliefs down. Sure research has shown some beliefs of Christians to be unclear but that's the beauty of faith. For your own sake why would you not want to believe or have faith in a higher goodness that loves all living beings unconditionally? the religion doesn't have to be Christianity and those specific set of rules or beliefs, but any of the religions that believe in God.

what do you get out of being an atheist Brehon? one can't help but believe atheism is merely a form of rebellion, as another commenter has already said.

I'm curious to know, Wolfie, what is your religion? If you haven't stated it already.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfie:

quote:
So God did not demand this sacrifice, Jephthah vowed to give it to him


So basically, you're saying that God didn't ask for a sacrifice, but he accepted it. Even better.

But as Brehon is saying, he allowed it to happen. Why would a loving God do that?

Please I'm ready for the next excuse.

quote:

So God did not demand this sacrifice, Jephthah vowed to give it to him. I know you'll argue why didn't God stop this like he did Isaac, but I don't feel the stories are similar in except they share a case of human sacrifice (except Isaac's story doesn't actually have one like this one).

Yes, they are dissimilar in many respects, but I think the central issue here is the human sacrifice element. Why is god, who is, after all, aware that this is happening, not interested in interesting to save the life of this poor girl? As a moral being, I have to question the motives of a god who knew that this was happening but didn't release Jephthah from his unnecessary vow. And this story is included in the Bible which is supposed, at least partly, to act as his guidance to moral living. This is not like the Crusades because the Crusades were not added to the Bible to explicate the nature of god or to add to its ethical messages.

quote:

Not every state has a death penalty, nor does every American in the states that do agree with the death penalty

But I'll think that you'll agree that the fact that the majority of states still practise the death penalty indicates that the Declaration of Independence has been ignored in state legislature in this instance, and thus it is at least theoretically possible that it could be waived in other circumstances as well.

quote:

In your example, I would only argue that if you stand on a trains track you will sooner or later get hit by a train.

This is excellent. Hilarious.

quote:

If it were that I must kill one man to save 3 others I would not do so because I’m not responsible for the actions whoever might kill those three men.

But in the train example, you are responsible. You just have to decide if you are going to kill one man or three. You are driving towards the station, but it is not until too late that you notice the situation developing. You jam the breaks on, but to little avail. The men can't clear off the tracks in time. The train is bearing down on him/them, with no possibility of escape. In a split second you must decide; do you kill one or three?

quote:

For the Christians who see the symbol of Christ’s suffering there is no loss in that symbolism simply because he “didn’t suffer to death enough”.

By coincidence I have just happened across a quotation from a reputable theologian that explicates what I mean: 'the most actual is joined with him who suffered supremely and died; the most perfect and immense is joined with the insignificant'. The symbolism of this is quite clearly reduced in potency if Jesus is not the person who 'suffered supremely'.

quote:

You must agree though that the people with experience in a field you speculate on would have some more information and expertise then one on the outside looking in.

Yes, I must agree with this, But...

quote:

One might speculate the Ethics of Abortion, but to speculate the experience of abortion without even considering the testimony of those who have is, in my opinion, arrogant.

Do my arguments thus far, my considerations, my quotations, my sources demonstrate me to be someone who has not even considered the testimony of at least some of the most critical believers?

And there is another problem here; as an atheist, I take it to be a very silly mistake to believe in a soul - if I am being arrogant by disagreeing with Christians about the existence and nature of a soul, then they are being just as arrogant by disagreeing with my experience and testimony as someone who doesn't believe in a soul. You are violating my lack-of-a-soul with your speculations that there might be one.

So I think I do have at least some ground to stand on, and it's approximately as definitive as yours. Religion, separate in normal life from academic theology, is not like being a doctor, or as Plato would have it, a politician (or metaphorical vet). Alongside politics, at least in democratic politics, it is something that everyone is entitled to speculate on.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:

quote:

So God did not demand this sacrifice, Jephthah vowed to give it to him

So basically, you're saying that God didn't ask for a sacrifice, but he accepted it. Even better.

Basically, I didn't say anything like that. So good job.