A question to Christians

This applies only if you compare Religion (and the act of "Biblical Salvation") to Life-saving cancer treatment. The similarities are too few and far between, however. Most notable of differences is that one is [hypothetically in this case] provable by the improvement in physical health, while the other depends strongly on a concept of what may or may not be after the death of the human physical being.

But we are not talking about "provable" fact. We are talking about acting on one's beliefs. I believe that I know the truth, and so, I must give that truth out. Why are you so offended by that?

What is true to you is clearly not true to me. Now, were I to continually approach you with my truth, what would you tell me?

This is one part where you and I agree. I do not support continually talking to the same people, even though they make it clear they want no part of it. I believe that is an annoyance, and even a dtriment to one's message.

Thankfully, I have the capacity to understand that my truth is not everyone elses's truth, nor should it be.

Thats a pretty relativist statement. If his "truth" is just as valid as your truth, why don't you participate in his truth? Relativism is the most intolerant belief alive, because it devalues opinion.

It is only with extreme pompicity that one presumes his truth is the only truth, and that any who disagree are wrong.

Not what you have said in the past. You've changed your stance a couple times. At first, both yourself and FID were claiming that anyone who believes that they are correct and the opposing position is incorrect is in the wrong and is very intolerant. You then changed this story a little bit, even accusing me of "misrepresenting" your posititon. You said it was not wrong for a person to believe that they are right and that the opposition is incorrect. I'm just curious, which view do you espouse?


I do recall you saying this before, and I'm still confused as to how you come by this.

The entire lifeblood of what we call opinion is the idea that there is a right and wrong way to do things. People who have opinions are, in the very real sense, claiming that they are correct. Makes sense, doesn't it? Now, if it is possible to be right about something, it must also be possible to wrong at it too. The most intolerant, unbelievably rude thing one could do is to equate all beliefs in veracity Why? Because it says that it doesn't matter what you believe. Your beleifs don't matter any more than the next guy's. The freest thing in humanity is our opinions. Once they are all equated, they lose they're importance.*

I see here that you have not the slightest grasp of my beliefs, nor my philosophies.

You are absolutely correct. I personally confess a deep ignorance of your personal beliefs. I would be obliged if you PM your philosophies. I would very much like to know, and understand them

I believe everyone has the human right to believe or worship as they see fit.

As do I.


I do not approve, however, of those who seek to insult or demean my philosophies and my beliefs so as to elevate their own and "bring me to see their truth over mine."

I do not approve of that either. I can think I'm right, and still not demean your word. You can do the same. We all can. No need for petty insults and defamation.

So, you skirted around my question, but I assume you are saying that your truth is meaningless if youcannot spread it to others?

Not meaningless to me, but meaningless to others.

 

"What the bible says" is open to interpretation. Which is why you choose a denomination that fits your interpretation.

its not as "open" as you think it is. Jesus said that true christians would have love amongst themselves. He also taught his followers to love their neighbors as themselves.

We can see a lot of "denominations" forgoing this rule by maybe going to war with people of other nations. For example: What if you were a Catholic in America and you had to go off and fight against a Catholic in another country?

The "loving your neighbors as yourself," along with sevearl other principles serve as handy criteria to look at when you are evaluating a Christian congregation

 

But we are not talking about "provable" fact. We are talking about acting on one's beliefs. I believe that I know the truth, and so, I must give that truth out. Why are you so offended by that?

That is why your comparison was inaccurate. A cancer cure is provable. Truth as religious faith is not.

I am not offended by you wanting to give me that "truth". Your offense occurs when you devalue my way of life by proclaiming your belief as superior to mine. By telling me that my way is wrongand that only your way is right, you disrespect my culture.
This is one part where you and I agree. I do not support continually talking to the same people, even though they make it clear they want no part of it. I believe that is an annoyance, and even a dtriment to one's message.

And how many people here in America have truly not "been given" your truth, do you think? Do you think there is anyone in the country who has not heard the Word of Christianity?

Thats a pretty relativist statement. If his "truth" is just as valid as your truth, why don't you participate in his truth? Relativism is the most intolerant belief alive, because it devalues opinion.

You're always good for a laugh, CK. I'll give ya that!

Two things about that comment:
1) By telling me that my way is wrong and your way is right, you "devalue my opinion".
2) By saying my opinion holds value to me while I recognize that your opinion holds value to you, devalues nothing. My argument--along with this thread--is that it is when the belief of others are disrespected (in so much as telling others that their way is wrong, and that only Christianity is right) that Christians cast themselves in a poor light with non-Christians.

If I say I don't believe in your god, am I devaluing your belief? That is what you seem to be saying.

Again, the difference here is thus:
It is one thing to say: "I don't believe in your god."
It is another to say: "Your faith is wrong, and you're doomed to hell if you don't follow my god."

Not what you have said in the past. You've changed your stance a couple times.

Thank you. Unlike some, I like to think my mind is fluid, constantly updating with the influx of knowledge and awareness.

Having said that, however, I must say this has been a long-running pet peeve of mine.

At first, both yourself and FID were claiming that anyone who believes that they are correct and the opposing position is incorrect is in the wrong and is very intolerant.

You might be confusing my argument more with FID's. I know that I have never said that anyone who thinks they are correct and the opposition is incorrect is in the wrong and is intolerant. I personally find that a ridiculous accusation, and--as you say--is rather intolerant itself.

You then changed this story a little bit, even accusing me of "misrepresenting" your posititon. You said it was not wrong for a person to believe that they are right and that the opposition is incorrect. I'm just curious, which view do you espouse?

Accusing you? Not at all. You quite simply misrepresented my position. For the record, my position is as it is in this very post. If you need clarification, feel free to ask.

The entire lifeblood of what we call opinion is the idea that there is a right and wrong way to do things. People who have opinions are, in the very real sense, claiming that they are correct. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Of course.

Now, if it is possible to be right about something, it must also be possible to wrong at it too. The most intolerant, unbelievably rude thing one could do is to equate all beliefs in veracity Why? Because it says that it doesn't matter what you believe. Your beleifs don't matter any more than the next guy's. The freest thing in humanity is our opinions. Once they a

 

just wondering something about christianity, why is it in the old testiment alchemy is considered evil and would make you go to hell, yet now days alchemy is acceptable by christians (such as modern medicines,science ect.), thats something i find hypocriticle about christianity, when it helps christians its suddenly good yet before it was of much help to christians it was evil?

by that standard every christian who uses medicines should be sent to hell simply for the fact of using alchemy to help you

 

How is alchemy modern science?

The root of the alchemist's cause was to convert other substances into gold; this is not achievable by today's science outside of methods that are less cost-effective than mining gold itself.

And how is the Bible hostile to modern science (from a christian viewpoint)?

Peace,

V-03

 

How is alchemy modern science?

It used the scientific method. However, it didn't have all the information and was inherently flawed. But at least they were trying.

And how is the Bible hostile to modern science (from a christian viewpoint)?

Depending on your interpretation, the use of medicines could be interpreted as placing your life in science's hands instead of Gods, which is against the commandments.

now days alchemy is acceptable by christians

There are a few cult groups out there that refuse to use medicines and instead spend all day praying when they get seriously ill. Fortunately, natural selection keeps their groups pretty small.

 

Depending on your interpretation, the use of medicines could be interpreted as placing your life in science's hands instead of Gods, which is against the commandments.

Prove it.

God created the world in such a way that when we arrived here, we could use it to our advantage. Medicine is, in effect, the healing power of God put to use every day.

The reason alchemy was condemned (show me where), if it is at all, is because it attempts something through sorcery, not just science. Sorcery in any form is condemned.

 

the elements of alchemy are natural, not supernatural.

Alchemy and sorcery are two very different things.

 

Prove it.

Read the first four words of what I said again: "Depending on your interpretation". Just because you think God allowed for the possibility for acetaminophen to exist doesn't mean everyone thinks that's his permission to use it.

And by your reasoning, then marijuana and any other drug should be legal. After all, God put them here for our use.

 

[image=http://img89.exs.cx/img89/2017/spocklogic5ev.jpg]

Inhalation of hot gases into the lungs is not beneficial in any way. Sure it will give you a buzz, but you are ruining your lungs in the process.

With that you might as well suck the tailpipe of a car when its running.

Why don't more people do that I wonder?
Thats not illeagal?

 

Inhalation of hot gases into the lungs is not beneficial in any way. Sure it will give you a buzz, but you are ruining your lungs in the process.

With that you might as well suck the tailpipe of a car when its running.

I never said I believed it to be a good idea. But I've heard the argument several times that God put it here, so lets use it.

 

Marijuana does not necessarily have to be used by inhalation.

 

Pot brownies never worked for me when I used to do stuff like that.

They just tasted nasty and waisted my pot.

 

the elements of alchemy are natural, not supernatural.

Alchemy and sorcery are two very different things.

Well, in any event, it's not condemned in the Bible (probably because it wasn't practiced back then). But anything that has ANYTHING to do with sorcery, divination, or the like (basically anything supernatural besides God) is condemned.

Read the first four words of what I said again: "Depending on your interpretation". Just because you think God allowed for the possibility for acetaminophen to exist doesn't mean everyone thinks that's his permission to use it.

And by your reasoning, then marijuana and any other drug should be legal. After all, God put them here for our use.

But you see, these things were placed here to ease our physical suffering; that is, when we are in unbearable pain. They are not here to alter our state of mind for pleasure, however.

 

alchemy was something that was practiced in the middle ages; it was never mentioned in the old testament.

As earlier noted, it was an attempt to turn common metals into gold.

Though modern chemistry has its roots in alchemy, the observation of atoms and how they react with other atoms has very little in common with the medieval practice of turning copper (or anything else) into gold.

Again, as mentioned earlier, the bible forbid the practice of any sort of divination and magic.

As for medicines, the Bible has no restrictions on the use of medicine to heal or to cure.

 

In reply to the topic-poster, the reason they are bothering you is simply because we Christians have one major belief: We are saved. We are going to heaven. Everyone else is going to hell. Do we want everyone else to go to hell? No. Therefore Christians are supposed to save as many nonbelievers as possible during our lifetime on earth.

However, Christians are not to sit and bug someone 24/7 about getting saved unless God specifically told them to, which doesn't happen often. We are to witness to a person, and for the most part leave them alone, not to be pushy.


EDIT: Apparently the discussion going on now is about alchemy and stuff. Any church-related beliefs in the 1200-1600's is null and void in my opinion (unless the Bible specifically states it) because the Catholic church was acting more on superstition than anything else at that time, trying to scare people into submission.

 

But you see, these things were placed here to ease our physical suffering; that is, when we are in unbearable pain. They are not here to alter our state of mind for pleasure, however.

Marijuana can also be used for medicinal purposes.

 

1200-1600? Null and void? Aquinas? Anselm (though he was slightly earlier)? All superstition. These are philosophers, intellectuals. Hardly superstition.

What is then, your position on Orthodoxy? It predates your 1200-1600, schisming in 1054. Is it equally invalid?

 

The Fireman

This is a hard question for me to put into words, so bare with me.

God created the world in such a way that when we arrived here, we could use it to our advantage.

Where do you draw the line? If I go to a doctor to get better, and I trust him to make me better, is that wrong? If I trust the knowledge and experiences he has gained through living on a world with things that can be used to our advantage, is that ok?

Also, many modern drugs are not natural, (some are, like aspirin, but many, especially modern ones, are not). To me, that is not the world being made in such a way that we can use it to your advantage, but more that we are changing the world such that we can use it to our advantage. Is that ok?

 

God created the world in such a way that when we arrived here, we could use it to our advantage.

On the matter of sythesized medecines, could one also say God gave us the ability to take advantage of what is before us? With restraint of course. God gave us a mind and a conscience.

 

That is why your comparison was inaccurate. A cancer cure is provable. Truth as religious faith is not.

But my comparison focuses on one's beliefs affecting their actions.

I am not offended by you wanting to give me that "truth". Your offense occurs when you devalue my way of life by proclaiming your belief as superior to mine. By telling me that my way is wrongand that only your way is right, you disrespect my culture.

How do I disrespect your culture?


And how many people here in America have truly not "been given" your truth, do you think? Do you think there is anyone in the country who has not heard the Word of Christianity?

Hearing the scaprs of Christianity is one thing. Being truly reached out to with the Gospel is another enirely.

You're always good for a laugh, CK. I'll give ya that!

I'll take that as a compliment.



2) By saying my opinion holds value to me while I recognize that your opinion holds value to you, devalues nothing. My argument--along with this thread--is that it is when the belief of others are disrespected (in so much as telling others that their way is wrong, and that only Christianity is right) that Christians cast themselves in a poor light with non-Christians.

I added emphasis here because that is the part I want to focus on. Now, why am I Christian if I could just as well be an atheist and have the right way too? I tell you what, atheism would seem to be a whole lot easier for me. But I'm not an atheist. And you, you are not a Christian. Why not, if all faiths have the same validity? The mere fact that you believe one thing and not another denotes that you believe that is true, and what is contrary is false. That is the entire nature of opinion.

If I say I don't believe in your god, am I devaluing your belief? That is what you seem to be saying.

Huh?

Again, the difference here is thus:
It is one thing to say: "I don't believe in your god."
It is another to say: "Your faith is wrong, and you're doomed to hell if you don't follow my god."

But if the latter comment is not true, then my faith, which says that "No one comes to the Father but by me [Jesus]", is actually being called false.So, you are commiting the very crime you are calling out on me.


Thank you. Unlike some, I like to think my mind is fluid, constantly updating with the influx of knowledge and awareness.

Nice bait.


You might be confusing my argument more with FID's. I know that I have never said that anyone who thinks they are correct and the opposition is incorrect is in the wrong and is intolerant. I personally find that a ridiculous accusation, and--as you say--is rather intolerant itself.

But wait: didn't you just say here:

(in so much as telling others that their way is wrong, and that only Christianity is right)

You called that "disrespecting" a belief. You will have to clarify, as that looks like a glaring contradiction.


Okay, then here is a question. Using that "logic" (your presumption that saying all opinions are equally valid is very intolerant because it devalues everyone's opinions), you are saying specifically that some or one opinion is more valuable (or "true") than all others.

But, as I made clear above, you have gone on record as saying that that is not a problem. Please clairfy.


Now, when you take the next step in this line of thinking, since your belief is more valid than mine, it stands to reason that mine and other beliefs should be discarded and/or penailzed for the betterment of your belief.

Nonsense. PPOR that believing I'm right will eventually to my purging of all other faiths.



So, my friend, if this is your interpretation of "tolerance", I see now with complete lucidity why you and I have such a conflict.

Meh.. I wouldn't call it conflict. Just a perpetual diagreement on fundamental issues


If it has meaning to you, wh

 

Ton-G, for the most part, I do not believe what the Catholic church nor the beliefs that were originated during that time are relevant unless it is specifically stated in the Bible. The majority of things, anyway.

Citizen Kane, very well said, I agree with you completly on your post.

As for this medicine thing, God told us to use the earth to benefit mankind. I don't see why some people have a problem with medicines and stuff since it's all from the earth anyway in some form or another...I'm a very faith based person. I believe that God heals people based on their faith, words, and actions as the Bible specifically states several times (plus the fact I have seen it done countless times). I don't doubt medicine in the least, though, like some people with my general belief in healing do. Just wanted to make that note incase someone's brought up the point before I started posting in this topic or if someone makes it later...even if it has no relevance...

 

Where do you draw the line? If I go to a doctor to get better, and I trust him to make me better, is that wrong? If I trust the knowledge and experiences he has gained through living on a world with things that can be used to our advantage, is that ok?

I don't see why it would be. God gave us plants and such to use for healing purposes. It then stands to reason He expects some people to gain knowledge of which medicinal substances are best for any given ailment.

Also, many modern drugs are not natural, (some are, like aspirin, but many, especially modern ones, are not). To me, that is not the world being made in such a way that we can use it to your advantage, but more that we are changing the world such that we can use it to our advantage. Is that ok?

My reasoning is that everything on the earth is natural, because it's all part of the earth, and of the universe. So synthesized medicines are just as natural as, say, a marijauna plant, or whatever. (And for the record, VR, I do think "Mary Jane" is ok under certain circumstances, just as I believe alcohol is. I personally think it would be better to shun the desire to get stoned under even the gravest circumstances, but I do think it is permissable in those cases, to a point. Ultimately, however, we should trust in God, and what He has planned for us.)

 

The Fireman

I don't see why it would be. God gave us plants and such to use for healing purposes. It then stands to reason He expects some people to gain knowledge of which medicinal substances are best for any given ailment.

Maybe a better question is how could we not trust God in these cases? It seems like you are saying that no matter what we do are trusting God, and if so it is not a choice. It is being forced on us. There must be some way we can choose not to trust God, the whole free will thing.

Also why even mention it if we can't choose?

My reasoning is that everything on the earth is natural, because it's all part of the earth, and of the universe.

What about humans? The matter of our bodies is certainly from the universe. The universe was made by God, and we were made by God. Is the only un-natural thing then God?

 

could one also say God gave us the ability to take advantage of what is before us?

That's really not appropriate.

With restraint of course.

Ah yes. There's the kicker.