[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by bryanfal

This law states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time, unless qualified.

I assume you add "unless qualified," or someone could say "Jesus is both God and man" breaks this law. Though you'd still have some explaining to do.

Of course, we also cannot forget that logic must correspond with reality. With history, with nature, etc. So you also need to look at that. Again to pick on Mormon religion. The Book of Mormon claims that the Native American population comes from ancient Jews that traveled on a boat to get to America, well we KNOW through history, archaeology and DNA mapping, that the Native Americans were of mongolian decent mostly. So again, it does not exist in reality and must be thrown out.

So, you accept evolution. I'm glad you don't simply have a selective view of science that allows you to dismiss Mormonism but prevents you from accepting other mainstream scientific discoveries.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Do you own a copy of C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity," Jen? It is widely regarded, including by me, as one of the best apologetic works for Christianity ever written. You owe it to yourself, if you are wanting to know how Christians can believe that Christianity is correct and all other religions false, to read this book, or at least the first third of it. The first part of the book is written in a very logical, step-by-step fashion, starting with very basic and generic "religious" ideas and working forward to fully "Christian" ideas. My advice when reading the book as an apologetic work is to go chapter by chapter through the first part of the book and stop once you get to something that makes no sense to you or that you absolutely cannot agree with. Consider what Lewis is saying about Christianity or religion, think about why you disagree, and see whether the problem is with you or with Christianity / religion in general.

No no no no no. This book was the catalyst to this period in which I'm struggling with my faith to the point where I have depression. Do NOT read this book. Lewis' dismissal of atheism almost made me cry because it was so poorly done, and his trilemma is a perfect example of poor logic.

My recommendation to someone evaluating the truth of Christianity: do not attempt to do so unless you have read through the entirety of Scripture at least once. Do not allow apologists to shape your view of it, nor detractors to shape your view. Read Scripture in its entirety, then re-read it. Then begin looking at the scholarship.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jengoesup

Edit: Just some additional thoughts...
One thing that sort of turns me off from Christianity is how everybody seems to pretend to know everything about the state of things and of God. There is no mystery to it. We obviously know everything God plans and thinks. This impression of knowing even the smallest details bothers me. It makes me feel like there is nothing left to oneself and God, nothing for you to discover on your own, nothing for God to teach you. Everything is taught to you. You are told it's truth even if you don't feel like it's truth. You are encouraged to glaze everything over, to look upon your doubts as your faults and feel ashamed of them. What if your doubts are your instincts? What if they're right? Is it healthy to ignore them? Are you shortchanging your spiritual development?

In all honesty, this seems like a poor thing to take offense to with Christianity. Why is mystery a requirement for a religious system? I am not trying to be snide, I am curious.

[jengoesup]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

In all honesty, this seems like a poor thing to take offense to with Christianity. Why is mystery a requirement for a religious system? I am not trying to be snide, I am curious.

I feel like it's impossible for the people who preach Christianity in the West to know everything about God. A lot of prominent preachers are intolerant, or hypocrites, or tell us that other Christians are damned to Hell (Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, *insert televangelist*).

I also do not believe that everything we could know about God has been revealed in the Bible, and I find it incredibly annoying when people assert that the answers to everything can be found by taking this Bible verse out of context, perhaps mistranslating it and then applying it to their own needs.

By the way, I am realizing more and more that I take this issue with Western Christianity. Well, in the United States to be exact, since I haven't had experience with Christianity in other countries.

[bryanfal]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I assume you add "unless qualified," or someone could say "Jesus is both God and man" breaks this law. Though you'd still have some explaining to do. .

Why, because God cannot choose to bind himself in his own creation? The statement is not that Jesus was both God and not God or that Jesus was both man and not man, but that Jesus is a fusion of God and man. Two seperate entities in one being. Not illogical at all just difficult when thinking about attributes.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So, you accept evolution. I'm glad you don't simply have a selective view of science that allows you to dismiss Mormonism but prevents you from accepting other mainstream scientific discoveries.

If you refer to evolution as meaning adaptation, then of course you cannot shy from science. But if you mean in a darwinian sense of random chance being the cause of all life then yes I woulld say that evolution is highly illogical, and quite a leap of faith in philosophy not science.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by jengoesup

I also do not believe that everything we could know about God has been revealed in the Bible.

Christianity is a religion "of the Book," Jen. The Bible declares itself (2 Tim. 3:16-17) to be wholly sufficient to give you a complete spiritual knowledge and to fully equip you for service to God. This does not mean that you will never learn anything about God apart from the Bible. The Bible is full of examples of men of faith learning about God through personal experiences and revelations. What it does mean is that you will never learn anything about God that contradicts the Bible or that overreaches the Bible. Similarly, it means that you can learn everything you need to know about God from reading His written Word. If you do not believe this or can not accept this, then you need to seriously reconsider your commitment (if any) to Christianity (and not just "Western Christianity," whatever you mean by that).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bryanfal

If you refer to evolution as meaning adaptation, then of course you cannot shy from science.

That would be where my hands get callouses in response to rubbing.

But if you mean in a darwinian sense of random chance being the cause of all life

Darwin said no such thing. You are inventing your facts.

then yes I woulld say that evolution is highly illogical,

Real evolution (as opposed to your parody of it) is completely logical. Please feel invited to open up a thread on your critiques in science.

and quite a leap of faith in philosophy not science.

Again an entirely unsubstantiated and untrue assertion. This is the right forum for that. Please ffeel invited to create an "evolution is philosophy" thread and defend your position.

[tlj009]

I feel like it's impossible for the people who preach Christianity in the West to know everything about God.

You are right. We can't know everything about God. We can only know what God reveals to us.

A lot of prominent preachers are intolerant, or hypocrites, or tell us that other Christians are damned to Hell (Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, *insert televangelist*).

First, you are talking about televangelists here. Not a very good idea if you want to identify a great preacher in Christ.

Second, you need to identify what you are calling intolerant. A whole lot of people think that calling something a sin is intolerance and is therefore wrong. Carrying a hatred or resentment is what is wrong. Or having pride in yourself by thinking you are better than someone else.

Third, I may agree that they are hypocrites, but anyone who has ever done something that they believe is wrong can be labeled as hypocrites. So it is very important that we don't think higher of our selves or place labels on people because they sin. We may call someone a hypocrite until they repent of their sin, but then we need to move on. We can't hold the past against people, just who they are now.

I also do not believe that everything we could know about God has been revealed in the Bible, and I find it incredibly annoying when people assert that the answers to everything can be found by taking this Bible verse out of context, perhaps mistranslating it and then applying it to their own needs.

That is kind of irritating, but then I don't know anyone that would admit they are taking the verse out of context or mistranslating it. Maybe you should point that out to them. Also, I think the Bible is clear that it doesn't have "everything we could know about God". The Holy Spirit reveals a lot more than just the words in the Bible.

[jengoesup]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Second, you need to identify what you are calling intolerant. A whole lot of people think that calling something a sin is intolerance and is therefore wrong. Carrying a hatred or resentment is what is wrong. Or having pride in yourself by thinking you are better than someone else.


Third, I may agree that they are hypocrites, but anyone who has ever done something that they believe is wrong can be labeled as hypocrites. So it is very important that we don't think higher of our selves or place labels on people because they sin. We may call someone a hypocrite until they repent of their sin, but then we need to move on. We can't hold the past against people, just who they are now.

By intolerant, I mean those who call gays fags, those who bomb abortion clinics, those who commit hate crimes in God's name, those who discriminate out of hatred or bigotry against groups deemed sinful in the Bible.

By hypocrites, I mean those who deem some sin to be less important than other sin; for example, someone who sees divorce as no biggee but when confronted with homosexuality, gets set on a fire and brimstone mode. (Well, I see that more as part of a tolerance issue than a hypocritical one, though it is both).

I will reflect before I respond to other quotes. (Might be a couple of days).

[Nate]

Jen, you would do well to not allow lunatics like Phelps, Hagee, Osteen, and whoever else to dictate to you what Christianity is or must be. Would you find it fair to allow folks like Bin Laden to represent to you the whole of Islam? If not, then don't do the same with your own faith. There are idiots in Christianity, sad to say... but that's their problem.