October 28, 2005

• Joe, I did read most of that before I started skimming.  To keep from having a post of similar length to yours, I will just counter some of the main points.

  One of your major arguments was that deism is a religion, just one that encourages worship of self.  You have somewhat of a point, since you followed the technical definition of religion, but throughout history, what is considered religion has been defined by some sort of holy writing(s) talking about gods and what they have done.  Do you find any Christian that would consider somebody else a Christian if they don’t read, or even believe in the Bible?  Who cares if they are responding to God in a Christian way; they must believe the Bible.  The real working definition of any religion is adhering to the holy writings and worshipping God.  There is also, of course, the faith aspect, where you believe something to be true based on limited or no evidence.  I cannot find that logical, either.  Christians might be right.  I am not denying that, but Muslims may also be right, as may Buddhists and Hindus.  Is one of them right?  Are all of them right?  Are none of them right?  I don’t know.  Admitting that somebody else MIGHT be right does not equate me with saying somebody else IS right.  Just because I am open-minded doesn’t mean that I am admitting defeat.  What you seem to be advocating is that in order to be logical we must be completely closed-minded, because allowing for any margin for error is illogical.

  And taking a stand by saying we cannot know what the answer is is still taking a stand on something.  For example, is there life on other planets?  Using your logic, if I say that we cannot know, with the technology we have, whether there is life on other planets or not, then I have committed a logical fallacy.  Even if I believe that there is, and I have limited evidence to back my opinion, I cannot argue, because I admit that I might be wrong.  This is obviously hogwash.  Using your words (since you used mine), “if you say that there is a possibility that you could be wrong, then there is a chance someone else is right. Yet, you continue to argue that [you are] correct, even though it could be wrong (circular argument.) If you admit that [you] could be wrong, then your argument has no grounds. You can neither prove nor deny proof that your belief or lack of belief exists for a reason (another circular argument.) If someone else comes to you with no proof but wants to argue with you, then neither of you has an advantage because you have no proof, you’re arguing for the sake of argument. If someone comes to you and offers proof, then you lose the argument because you’d have to admit you’re wrong.”  Isn’t argument all based on opinion, anyway?  I mean, if nobody had opinions or beliefs, then why argue?  The facts can speak for themselves.  It is in the interpretation of those facts that they differ.  Do you have undeniable proof that ANY religion is correct?  Remember, you cannot use opinions or beliefs to back up your claims, nor can you use anything that is based on opinions or beliefs (like the Bible).  Without that undeniable proof, then by your own argument neither of us has a leg to stand on.

  Just because God has left does not mean that I have made a God of myself.  God is still God, and I respect that He is such.  I believe that He created this world as a place for us to enjoy life and marvel in His Creation, yet He wisely chose not to interfere so that the course of our history would be in our own hands, very similar to the prime directive on Star Trek.  If I am a god unto myself, then that is because God has made it such.  However, the term “god” is relative, because what a god really is is someone who is so much more powerful than us that we worship Him, because if we are not on good terms with Him he could destroy us.  Therefore, if I am a god unto myself, but I still believe that God is all powerful, then I cannot be a god, because I am still the inferior being.  You also said that you believe in having the freedom to choose for ourselves what is right (to worship, or in terms of Biblical interpretation), and this is basically the same thing, which means that you also believe you are a God unto yourself, by your own words.

  How can we truly have freedom of choice if God is meddling in all of our decisions, forcing the outcomes to go in the direction he wants?  If He does intervene, then we cannot be held fully responsible for the consequences of our actions, because God also played a part.  Therefore, sin itself cannot be fully our responsibility, and therefore we cannot be destined for Hell.  That is one of the many places where Christianity contradicts itself.  A just god who intervenes in our lives cannot also condemn us for the bad things we do, if the decisions and outcomes were influenced by things He did.

  About rules and regulations, I probably should have rephrased that.  What I meant was that you should not follow a set of rules and regulations BECAUSE somebody else said they are right.  You need to determine for yourself what is right and wrong, no matter what other people say.  This puts you in a conundrum.  If you agree with me, saying that right and wrong is all what you believe, then you are condoning moral relativism and saying that there are no standards for right and wrong.  This means that the Bible cannot be held as a standard, and the whole basis for Christianity withers away, and thus we are gods unto ourselves.  If you disagree with me, saying that we must define right and wrong by the interpretations, writings, and wisdom of others, then how are we different from robots?  If all of our actions should be dictated to us by scholars, elders, and religious leaders, then what is the point of witnessing (for you as a Christian), what is the point of searching for the truth, and what is the point of even being here anymore?  Christianity is thus no longer a voluntary religion; instead, it has been forced upon us by people who have drilled into us that it is correct.  According to your argument, you also cannot allow a mix of the two, because you said that it is a logical fallacy to hold to standards while also admitting that in personal exploration you might find something else to be right.

  Anyway, I just thought I’d respond to your post, Joe.  I think open, honest debate can be very insightful, and not just to the debaters, but to the audience as well.

  Lol…that post ended up not being that much shorter than yours.

  • 12:43 am
  • 1 Comment