Dan56

I'm in the majority, so yes it dominates, but I don't think its disrespectful... You know, you can be in the minority and be disrespectful too... Its not necessarily an either or neither dilemma, respect emanates from the individual, whether they're in the majority or minority. That verse is saying just the opposite, if the fruit is foul, they aren't following the example of Christ.. Its a warning, not an endorsement of hypocrites. I'm a follower, but the gospels represent the virtues and values of Christianity... And all though I try, I never claimed to be a good Christian. Its not a protest, just my answers.. Christians have the same privileges as anyone else, no more no less. Sorry you feel bullied, but no ones trying to culturally dominate you, you enjoy the same freedom as everyone else. Feelings of victimization seem to be running rampant these days, but imo, for people like Jussie Smollett and Christine Ford, its just a cry for attention. It was not my intention to become a source of contention as occurred in that other thread, but for some reason my views and answers are taken as an offense, but since I've attacked no one or made any outrageous accusations, I'm content to let it slide off my shoulders

The example for Christians is Christ, and he did not torture nonbelievers or force anyone to convert... And BTW, neither have I So your saying people have rights but not Christians? Last I checked, Christians are people too. "Endorse what you believe and ignore what you don't, live and let live".... That's not dominating anything.... And I disagree, just because a particular faith dominates a culture, doesn't mean you can't have respect for others.

I ain't forgotten anything, and I still believe Christians have rights. The majority always dominates a culture, but I don't believe any belief that dominates a society should have an agenda that forces everyone to comply with. By the same token, I don't think minority beliefs should constantly try to restrict or disrupt what the majority have freely chosen to believe. Endorse what you believe and ignore what you don't, live and let live.

Your confusing the Catholic church with Christ... Religious power forced on nonbelievers (inquisition) isn't anything Jesus would have approved of, in fact he warned us about lunatics; "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7) Cute video... I agree, I don't like pushy people no matter what side of the fence their on.. Any belief shouldn't become an agenda promoted by intense salesmanship, but the majority gets cocky and the tide of popular opinion often rolls over everyone, politically or religiously.

Not every audience wants to hear about it

null I'd be reluctant to accept anything similar, it would need to precisely coincide with the specifics of the gospel, eg; a Savior, crucifixion, and raised from the grave. A mere mention of a flood would not suffice.

Cubits were rounded off to the nearest whole number, so fractions aside, the 10 cubit diameter does equate to a 30 cubit circumference. So if aliens came to earth with the same gospel and teachings of Christ, its a weak argument to fret over minute measurements of fixtures in Solomon's temple. I suspect if God were giving dimensions to construct a space craft, the instructions would have been precisely listed.

Yes, if their story matched what I already believe, that would certainly be universal confirmation of the truth.. It would just be beyond coincidence that someone from another world would have received the same revelation that was already known on earth. If Christ were just a man or a myth, there's no way his gospel could have transcended the universe.

No, just that they delivered the same creation story, that God created the universe and everything in it. And no, I wasn't being too serious since we are talking about imaginary aliens. You've heard enough out of me to know the answer to that...... Of course not.

What if the alien visitors turned out to be Christians and their message was Christ...... That would probably be the evidence ya'll have been looking for. An unbiased universal message could not be a coincident, especially if it matched what we've been hearing on earth for +2000 years. No religion and nothing to join, just the simple story of creation and the gospel of salvation.

Oh, not much.... Its been the normal peace loving forum with just a few minor disagreements..

Its nice you could step-up to the plate and help fill-in as Pastor, but good to have you back here too.

Its hopeful thinking, but I don't think there will ever be any reconciling between the faithful and faithless. Its not an area where perspectives aren't altered, but as you say, belief and non-belief is what we're left with. The only compromise would require a change of heart and mind from one of the 2 conflicting views, but we certainly can't be expected to abandon our faith or expect opposing views to accept what they don't believe. There's no resolution because its not so much a dispute as it is conflicting ideologies. Tolerating what we don't believe is the best that can be hoped for, but I've never seen that among all the people of the world.

I'm sure that's true. True, but I still don't know what I was nitpicking about? That's a quality that sets you apart from some others... Thanx

If "liberal" is not applicable to you, then don't take it personally because it wasn't meant to characterize any specific person, but just a general observation of how liberals often retort with mindless accusations when they have no valid answers when debating any subject. I believe my postings are pretty much direct and to the point, so your seeing them as nitpicking escapes me? But thanks for being civil about your objections.

Likewise

What rules? The definition of philosophy; the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.... a theory or attitude held by a person or organization . Atheist don't believe in the existence of any God, whereby 'philosophy' could be an accurate description of atheism. It certainly isn't a religion or a fact, but a philosophical observation derived from the absence of evidence. But as I said, describe it with any words of your choosing, I don't care.. You don't believe in God, so I refer to it as a philosophical conclusion, and you get offended? I believe in God, you refer to it as mythology and fairy tales, but I'm not offended because I don't care. No.... Again, I didn't write that Atheist don't have morals, I wrote that Atheist don't abide by a given set of morals... Your misconstruing what I wrote (again). Sorry you find the term "liberal" offensive, but its not a dirty word. You have no argument, just accusations of me nitpicking without a single example of it.

No ones trying to bait you.. I give direct answers to questions and state my honest opinion.. Cuchulain accused me of the same thing after he couldn't answer a question or didn't like my answers. Its typical of someone (liberal) who has no valid points to contribute to a discussion, so they just resort to constant accusations. I previously wrote; "Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion." Your just nitpicking and arguing semantics now. Conclusion, philosophy, or non-belief - call it what you will.

I didn't say a person could not have morals, I wrote that Atheist don't have a system of morals, like the 10 commandments... It was actually Jonathan who wrote; "What gets me bent out of shape, is when the pious insist on misrepresenting Atheism; into something that it's not. For instance, dialectic materialism. Or Philosophy. Or a system of morals." So I was simply agreeing that Atheist don't abide by any preset system of morals, but not implying that a person can't have individual moral values.

Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion. I've wrote that Atheist have no system of morals, so I haven't misrepresented anything. And since God cannot be dis-proven, Atheism can only be construed as an unproven philosophy. Funny how you define Christianity as mythology, but take offense when Atheism is referred to as a philosophy.

Thanks for attempting to reason, but some folks just aren't open or receptive to ideologies besides their own, and that includes myself. But it stands to reason that since I believe in one God and one truth, I can't agree or compromise with those who believe in nothing spiritual. That fact seems to irritate them, they are easily insulted and get extremely defensive. Its almost a paranoia that puts them into immediate attack mode, as you have discovered. I do agree with your terminology and analysis comparing theistic realism and dialectical materialism. I'm obviously in the theistic realism camp and think dialectical materialism adequately defines the Atheistic/Agnostic group, not so much in the godless communistic sense as they've implied, but more from a humanism perspective. The bottom line is that Atheist discard spirituality, their reality is limited to the natural world, so they only diagnose things from a physical existence, which is limited to what you can see, touch, hear, smell, and feel. Thus the consistent demand from cuchulain who's only acceptable evidentiary procedure is limited to his materialistic realm of existence. That's essentially the non-negotiable duality, God is spirit and is experience spiritually, God is not revealed or perceived naturally, the spiritual and the physical are entirely separate. Anyway, thanks for trying to bring some clarity to what differentiates the 2 ideologies, which in my opinion boils down to those with spiritual faith and those who don't know or just can't conceive of anything beyond the here & now.

Sorry, but I still don't get it... Did I misquote Hensley? Or do you think I was saying that I have the authority to decide what is right for the rest of you? I don't see a lie..

Exactly what privileges do you think I'm demanding? I determine truth by what rings true to me. There are things about the Christian God I don't understand and don't like, but the over-all message does appeal to me. I've also listed some evidence that I find very convincing, despite the fact that you discard it as lacking proof. And there you go again... I said nothing about you that was a lie

I've only suggested the exact same thing as you've written many times.. That you don't believe in anything divine (God), nor do you care.. So its puzzling why you think that I consistently misrepresent your position. And I understand there's no direct evidence of any God, so its difficult for many to believe. Belief is a choice, so for myself, its simply a choice to accept a truth that appeals to me, and I don't need confirmation via tangible evidence for that. The slogan of the founder of ULC (Kirby Hensley) was: "Do that which is right". So which of us has the authority to say, "What I believe, is "right' for all of the rest of you." ?

I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind, but just responding to questions and observances of others. I suspect they think I'm the hardheaded ass that never changes his mind.. and they're right. I'm sure my answers get redundant, but that's because I'm addressing the same repetitive questions. I'm not sure if they are trying to figure out why I believe, looking for concrete evidence, or just oppose what they consider a frivolous belief. I view some of the negative responses as being rooted more in frustration than attack mode. I believe everyone wants (needs) to believe in something, and its good to 'always wonder', because no one has all the answers. The post below was taken from an Atheism Forum at http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/ "As I write this, I'm watching my father sleep. He's losing his battle with cancer and the doctor doesn't think he'll make it to New Years. Both my father and I are nonbelievers-Ive considered myself to be both and atheist and agnostic through the years. I'm the type who will argue up and down that I cant believe in an afterlife because it doesn't seem scientifically feasible. But at this very sad time, I desperately want to think that when my dad finally goes, he'll go somewhere great where his consciousness will live forever. I realize that what I want isnt necessarily what is. For the other non believers out there, how do you cope with death? What can I say to him to calm his fears? I need something now because I hate to think that this great man will be lost forever" http:// http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/2998914-atheism-death.html#ixzz5diNp4gJq So, people need hope, even when they can't rationalize anything beyond the here and now. Its a sad thing to me to see people who can't believe in anything, but the world demands evidence to conceive a truth, while God requires faith to accept the Truth. But as you say, its impossible to convince anyone who's made up their mind, but deep down, I don't think any of us are 100% certain of anything.