Phoenix and Indy discuss God's Existence

[Chrawnus]

I understood you the first time. That's fair. My point is that Christianity has gone sour when it devotes itself to isms and ologys instead of compassion. This discussion is not the sign of a healthy religion. Metaphysics is just a game with words. Jesus did not need the new testament, so why do we?

How about you leave the essentials of Christianity to us Christians, and we'll leave the essentials of Secular Humanism to you Secular Humanists. Sound fair to you?

[Soyeong]

I understood you the first time. That's fair. My point is that Christianity has gone sour when it devotes itself to isms and ologys instead of compassion. This discussion is not the sign of a healthy religion. Metaphysics is just a game with words. Jesus did not need the new testament, so why do we?

While compassion is certainly important, it is not something that should be done at the neglect of other things, such as studying. Metaphysics may seem like word games, but that is only because you have not made a sufficient effort to understand it. It is important to study because it is foundational to philosophy and science and in fact, it would be the sign of a much healthier religion if everyone were fully engaging their hearts as well as their brains.

[firstfloor]

How about you leave the essentials of Christianity to us Christians, and we'll leave the essentials of Secular Humanism to you Secular Humanists. Sound fair to you?

How can you be so cruel? These are just labels, the names we give ourselves. They come off. We are the same, interested in the same things but standing apart, in different fields, seeing the same world from different angles. I am just describing the view from here. OK? I wouldn’t bother except that I think it’s the better view. I’m shouting “Come and see this”, while you’re saying, no, it’s OK, I’m saved.

And what are the essentials of Christianity? The Lamb of God sacrificed himself at the Jewish Passover festival in order to carry away sin and thereby abolish death. Did I miss anything? Oh! And he’s coming back.

[firstfloor]

While compassion is certainly important, it is not something that should be done at the neglect of other things, such as studying. Metaphysics may seem like word games, but that is only because you have not made a sufficient effort to understand it. It is important to study because it is foundational to philosophy and science and in fact, it would be the sign of a much healthier religion if everyone were fully engaging their hearts as well as their brains.

Karen Armstrong discusses compassion and the golden rule. She says that religion should be about practice not belief and advocates the restoration of compassion to the centre of religious life, all day and every day. She explains that the current conflict between religion and science indicates that religion has taken a wrong turn because it was enticed by the possibility that the existence of God can be proved (Newton). Bishop "Jack" Spong gets a mention in the Q and A. Too literal apparently!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Karen Armstrong discusses compassion and the golden rule. She says that religion should be about practice not belief

So it's her belief that religion should not be about belief, which would be her religious belief.

and advocates the restoration of compassion to the centre of religious life, all day and every day.

So would Aquinas. He was a monk and saw charity as the essence of God. He also did serious metaphysics. The two don't contradict.

She explains that the current conflict between religion and science

There is no conflict. Nothing in science is a death knell for Christianity.

indicates that religion has taken a wrong turn because it was enticed by the possibility that the existence of God can be proved (Newton).

This assumes proof is scientific proof. Why mention Newton? The belief that God's existence is demonstrable goes way before Newton.

Bishop "Jack" Spong gets a mention in the Q and A. Too literal apparently!

So nothing about the actual argument. Good to know I didn't have to waste my time.

[firstfloor]

So nothing about the actual argument.

That’s correct. I am saying that the argument itself is vacuous. The problem is ego - using a bad image of God to back up our own prejudices. God is supposed to be mysterious.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That’s correct. I am saying that the argument itself is vacuous.

Okay. I see how this goes.

Your accusation is vacuous.

Wow! That's easy!

The problem is ego - using a bad image of God to back up our own prejudices.

The motivations of the argument does not change the data.

God is supposed to be mysterious.

So demonstrating that God exists supposedly kills any mystery?

[firstfloor]

So demonstrating that God exists supposedly kills any mystery?

I think it does. You see, if you can explain God, describe Him, even simply using the pronoun "He" about God, then you are creating God in your image.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I think it does. You see, if you can explain God, describe Him, even simply using the pronoun "He" about God, then you are creating God in your image.

So since you are describing God as indescribable, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are making God in your image.

[firstfloor]

So since you are describing God as indescribable, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are making God in your image.

Armstrong describes it this way: Aquinas applies the leading scientific ideas of his day and then pulls the rug out from under us by saying we don’t know what we have proved. All we have proved is the existence of a mystery.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Armstrong describes it this way: Aquinas applies the leading scientific ideas of his day and then pulls the rug out from under us by saying we don’t know what we have proved. All we have proved is the existence of a mystery.

By reason alone, yes. We cannot prove that much about God. When we add in revelation, we get more. Again, none of this disproves the actual argument. Saying you don't like the result is not a disproof.

[firstfloor]

By reason alone, yes. We cannot prove that much about God. When we add in revelation, we get more. Again, none of this disproves the actual argument. Saying you don't like the result is not a disproof.

I am content with the mystery.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I am content with the mystery.

Yes. We already know you're content with ignorance.

[firstfloor]

Yes. We already know you're content with ignorance.

And you are slow on the up.

[Chrawnus]

How can you be so cruel? These are just labels, the names we give ourselves. They come off. We are the same, interested in the same things but standing apart, in different fields, seeing the same world from different angles. I am just describing the view from here. OK? I wouldn’t bother except that I think it’s the better view. I’m shouting “Come and see this”, while you’re saying, no, it’s OK, I’m saved.

And what are the essentials of Christianity? The Lamb of God sacrificed himself at the Jewish Passover festival in order to carry away sin and thereby abolish death. Did I miss anything? Oh! And he’s coming back.

Whatever.