That ignores freedom of speech and assembly.
Why must we reject supernatural beliefs?
Richard
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
As a collective society we cannot adhere to every individualâs supernatural beliefs (Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Hare Krishna, Wiccan, etc..) Yes, each individual should have the right to believe whatever he or she desires, including supernatural beliefs. But supernatural beliefs and laws based on supernatural beliefs should not be imposed on anyone else and definitely not on society as a whole.
Societies need rules of behavior. Religion has filled that role for thousands of years. I suggest that secular humanism could take its place and do a better job because it can be adopted in all cultures. It is not sectarian.
Ask the genius what the Moslems in mosques and the Jews in synagogues have said about his brilliant proposals.
1 Like
That applies to any belief system, supernatural or otherwise.
Have I tried to tell you that you must be a Christian? Have I condemned or rejected off hand any other belief system, or religion?
Did I not actually tell you to try and live without Christianity?
You need to ignore the propaganda, and exclusivity claims, be they Christian, Muslim or humanist.
Richard
Do Hindus in Hindu majority lands impose their supernatural beliefs on society? Yes. Google: âSatiâ.
Do Muslims in Muslim majority lands impose their supernatural beliefs on society? Yes, its called Sharia law.
Do Christians in Christian majority lands impose their supernatural beliefs on society?
Answer: Yes. Laws regarding birth control, abortion, and marriage (affecting property rights; tax deductions; inheritance rights) are imposed on society based upon the supernatural beliefs of the majority religion.
Secular humanism takes the good ideas from the worldâs major religions (caring for the poor, sick, and disabled) while rejecting the bad ideas (discrimination against women, gays, and minorities, blaming disease upon invisible ghouls instead of accepting the proven findings of science and medicine).
I think something like secular humanism already has replaced religion in secular society where laws are concerned and given how diverse we are religiously that seems best. Freedom from anyoneâs particular religion is the best guarantee that each can worship as they see fit.
I wonder if you are suffering from a kind of âex smoker syndromeâ here as a deconstructing Christian? I have a friend who identifies as a Transcendental Universalist who has more trouble dealing with Christians than I do; I think his trouble is the result of having left a church and now feeling like others should probably do the same. I may have it too though not in relation to religion but to materialism, reductionism and atheism to a degree. I have no problems with Christians for believing certain things literally or as historic truths because I also believe in something higher and I value the experiences I have that strengthen my connection to whatever that is. I excuse literal belief as a strategy for strengthening the connection. But when I hear atheists demanding definitions and evidence Iâm less forgiving. Perhaps we just tend to project our dissatisfaction with our old ways when we change?
3 Likes
That is possibly true.
1 Like
I am curious what makes you want to stick around a forum centered on Christians who accept evolution and so on? Just
Because of old comforts? Or hoping to have your mind changed? Or change other minds? Or just in general really like these topics?
Good debates.
Not as much as wealth.
Include any other faith or movement you like.
Whether they do or not is not the point.
Is what you said and I agree.
Richard
1 Like
So you just simply enjoy debating with science accepting Christians about what aspects of science and theology? Whatâs an example of a good debate youâve had? Also this is not a gotcha or anything. Iâm just as in if you donât respond for whatever reason. On my end itâs just curiousity. Though Iâm a Christian i never see any good particular debates on why someone should be one here. Not that people are bad debaters or anything just that I donât see any particular reason for someone to believe story of god outside of faith or very ancedotal unprovable persons experiences.
Here is one: Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being use the Big Bang and evolution to create a universe? Why use such a haphazard, inefficient, extremely slow process to create?
That question would take a long time to answer, but I find it sufficient to say it is because God is better thought of as an artist than a magician.
1 Like
Christians often accuse atheists and other non-supernaturalists of bias when they reject Christianityâs miracle claims. Christians allege that if skeptics would stop denying the reality of the supernatural, they would then see how very probable these events are. But are Christians consistent in their use of this argument? Do Christians consistently include supernatural explanations in their list of possible causes for odd, unexplainable events in their everyday lives?
Scenario: Your local bankâs vault was found empty this past Monday morning when the bankâs employees arrived for work. Not only is all the bankâs cash gone, every safe deposit box is empty with no sign of forced entry to the boxes. The police and the FBI are called. The bank is searched with a fine tooth comb and dusted for fingerprints but no evidence of a break-in can be found. 24 hour video surveillance reveals no one entering the bank after closing time on Friday at 6PM. All bank employees are evaluated thoroughly and none is suspected of the robbery.
A local newly formed religious sect, consisting of 20 members, alleges that last Sunday morning, a demon suddenly appeared in the middle of their worship service and admitted that he had committed the crime. He then vanished into thin air.
What evidence would you require to believe that a demon robbed the local bank?
Iâm not one of the Christians who will tell you that. Miracles arenât able to be objectively proven beyond any doubt. My reasoning is theological, not scientific.
My personal belief is that most miracles likely, if you could observe every microscopic and molecular aspect of them in the moment, would have a scientific explanation. Does that mean they werenât miraculous? Not to me. The primary purpose of miracles in the scriptures were to convey something. They are called signs and wonders in some translations. A miracle is all in the outcome, timing, and meaning conveyed.
Why do I believe this about Miracles? Because I specifically believe God continuously grants the universe existence, and all time, space, matter and beyond are known by him in every given moment. Some would disagree with this theological statement, thats ok. God has ordered the universe by its laws, and he has called the universe good. He is also outside of time and space, and is omniscient. If He commands and sustains the laws of the universe, He would not necessarily need to break the laws of nature to accomplish his goals. God has a tendency in scripture to use people to achieve things, or at least desires that they come along side him in his working. Why would it not be the same with nature? Science doesnât mean God isnât at work - itâs the primary means by which he operates. Science is thinking Godâs thoughts after him. This cannot be proven, it is a metaphysical/theological idea.
Am I just using rationalization coincidence and wishful thinking? Maybe. But I know of some pretty uncanny events from some people. It wouldnât matter if you could prove that event had a scientific explanation, because its the outcome, timing, and meaning that indicate its a sign.
I would bet many people who receive visions and voices from God would have parts of their brain light up on an MRI that would have some physiological explanation. Would that mean that it was not from God? Not necessarily, God could simply be working through means within the Universe he sustains. It depends on the outcome, message, and timing.
Thatâs my belief anyway. Theologically speaking, as far as malevolent forces go, those rules donât apply. Scripture is somewhat ambiguous about those kinds of events - intentionally, except to say that their intent is to steal, kill, and destroy, and deceive. I try to avoid such things in general.
3 Likes
What evidence would you require to believe quarks are a fundamental component of matter?
Can quarks be seen? No that is impossible. Demanding evidence contrary to somethingâs nature is not reasonable â that is just a lame excuse of pure rhetoric. The God I believe in is not much different than this. I donât believe objective evidence can be expected.
When someone first asked me if I believed in God, my immediate response was you first need to ask the question âWhat is God?â The same applies to your question. What is a demon and how is that different from a your usual bank robber? How do the members of this religious sect know what they saw was a demon? How do they know he told the truth? And how was this different from a magic show?
1 Like
In statistics, one finds that very, very rare events are actually fairly common across the globe. However, the incidence that one of these events occurs to you is very low. So is the fact that a very odd event occurs within close proximity of your prayer to God really a âmiracleâ or just a rare but natural event? For instance, the odds of flipping a coin twenty times and it landing on heads 20 times in a row, is 1 in 1,048,576; essentially one chance in a million. Has any miracle that youâve experienced ever beat that long shot odds?