Ask a Christian Theologian

Recommended Videos

Milford Cubicle

New member
Nov 17, 2008
140
0
0
Alex_P said:
You should consider offering your family a compromise: the kid gets baptised but you never take him to church afterward. ;)

-- Alex
I was never going to take him to church either way. I would never deny someone their right to go and worship, but I have better things to do with my Sundays.

Thanks for the advice though.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
Milford Cubicle said:
I was never going to take him to church either way. I would never deny someone their right to go and worship, but I have better things to do with my Sundays.

Thanks for the advice though.
All I can say is that I was baptised because my great-aunt-who-was-like-a-grandmother-to-me was a pretty religious person, and that, aside from making her happy, it definitely didn't impact my life or my god-beliefs in any way.

(My dad's an atheist and my mom's pretty much agnostic in a vaguely Christian way.)

-- Alex
 

gamebrain89

New member
May 29, 2008
544
0
0
Baby Tea said:
gamebrain89 said:
Baptism is a sign of dedication. I think it is rediculous that people dedicate their infant children to something that the child can not even understand for at least another 10-15 years. Baptism is a personal decision that should be made by a mature individual, not forced upon an infant.
GothmogII said:
It's weird, as I recall, Jesus himself wasn't baptised until he was a full grown adult. So, history (such as it can assumed to be) agrees with waiting till you're old enough.
Please, let's not turn this into a debate about infant or adult baptism. Because it'll just boil down to Calvanist theology VS Armenian Theology.

It isn't soteriological if someone is baptized at infancy or adulthood.
Never said it was. I agree that just because your baptized doesn't mean your automatically saved ( if I understand the meaning of soteriological, sorry if I misunderstood the word) . It just means that you dedicated your life to God. So, my point is still the same as stated above.
 

Ursus Astrorum

New member
Mar 20, 2008
1,574
0
0
Good evening, I'm just your friendly neighborhood Zen Buddhist/Taoist, dropping in for a few questions.

One: Considering that there have been so many translations over the centuries, that though through divine inspiration the bible was still written by man, and even further considering the changing standards and morals of our race as a whole, can the modern bible truly be considered the word of God? In either case, why do christians continue to heed the words of a set of ideas and beliefs founded before the fall of Rome? Our intellectual prowess has expanded quite a bit since Christianity's founding, and our way of life would be better off changing to reflect it, in my opinion.

Two: Do you consider those that claim to channel "The word/will of God" truly Christian? Do you, in other words, believe that God himself contacts certain individuals by means of divine influence and/or outright telepathy? If so, to what extent? Do those that begin crusades, murderous epidemics, and overall cruelty and hate to any who do not strictly conform to their point of view have just as valid a connection with God as the blind man down the street who claims that God told him to paint? Why or why not?

Three: There was an old quote from a Cherokee man many years ago: "There are many great things in the good book. If the white man (And through that association christian missionaries) actually did as the good book said, the world would be a better place." What is your opinion on this statement, both in its historical context and today?

Four: As a child, my father was constantly harassed (some would go as far as to say tortured) by extremist christians, who attempted to force Christianity into his way of life whether he accepted it or not. As a result he grew to despise the religion. Is it still his sin for not believing in the lord when the cause of his disbelief was based on circumstance rather than prior thought and decision?

Five: What is your opinion as to the fates of those who contemplate the existence of God, or even a god, though without true recognition of God as the one and only greater being? On that matter, what of those that are willing to accept whatever is given to them, those who choose to believe but simultaneously not believe in something until they encounter it? Even further, what of those who due to their upbringing never encounter Christianity in their life?

Six: In your personal opinion, what is the image of hell? Is it the fire and brimstone constantly depicted by the general public? Is it a frozen, desolate wasteland? Is it something much more subtle and sinister, that custom-tailors itself to the senses of each individual victim? Is there any true and official depiction of hell?

Seven: I may begin to anger you at this point. I do not mean this as an attack, by any means. It is merely a philosophical musing. Several aspects of your religion are shared with others, from your basic structure to your morals and virtues. What is in your religion that makes your beliefs more right or valid than the beliefs of a Jew, or a Muslim, or an Atheist, or a Buddhist like myself? What do you believe gives you the right, or even the privilege, of telling believers of other religions that they are wrong? What do you believe gives you the ability to know that you are right?

Eight: As another philosophical musing, would you believe an old man's story about how an invisible man in the sky named Joe created the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe as we know it in under a week? Would you believe him if he further added that this being had a son named Bill who could defy the laws of basic physics, chemistry, or for that matter mortality?

Nine: Would you believe an old man's idea of a woman named Wilma who gathered two of each and every animal from every region of the world, built a boat large and sturdy enough to house them all comfortably, and with her husband Hank survived for around a month through rainfall that scientifically speaking would not only crush a wooden craft to fine powder, but further pound the Earth into a perfect sphere? Let alone that the Earth does not have enough water on it to fuel such a dire storm.

Ten: Let us say, purely for the sake of argument, that as you die you discover that Norse Mythology is the actual one true religion. What would your reaction be? Keep in mind that this is a circumstance for the sake of dispute and opinion, and "Such a thing would never happen" is not a valid reply.

~Mike
 

gamebrain89

New member
May 29, 2008
544
0
0
Michael_McCloud said:
Good evening, I'm just your friendly neighborhood Zen Buddhist/Taoist, dropping in for a few questions.

Three: There was an old quote from a Cherokee man many years ago: "There are many great things in the good book. If the white man (And through that association christian missionaries) actually did as the good book said, the world would be a better place." What is your opinion on this statement, both in its historical context and today?


Six: In your personal opinion, what is the image of hell? Is it the fire and brimstone constantly depicted by the general public? Is it a frozen, desolate wasteland? Is it something much more subtle and sinister, that custom-tailors itself to the senses of each individual victim? Is there any true and official depiction of hell?

~Mike
for number 3, I do believe that to be very true. If people actually followed the bible ( love your neighbor, do not kill, ect. ect.) the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many twist or outright ignore the contents of the bible to suit their own requirements.

My answer on question 6 is on page 19, its in spoilers as its long ( though not as long as some I have seen here.) As I mention there, the info is direct from a book, as when I try to paraphrase, it gets all screwed up, and that has all the citations in it, but that is my view of "Hell".

The rest would all require some heavy research on my part, and I am particularly busy right now, with college and all, so I most likely won't be able to get to them anytime soon. Sorry.
 

TheDean

New member
Sep 12, 2008
412
0
0
Alex_P said:
TheDean said:
I was never baptised or christened because my parents wanted me to be able to make my own choices. Everyone should have that choice. It symbolises givingt he child to "god". not good at all. You are effectively giving yourkid up to be a slave for eternity.
I was baptised as a young child. Didn't make me Christian. Didn't make me remotely more interested in believing in God. If I were to become a Christian today, it wouldn't be in the Orthodox Church, so... didn't do anything for my denomination, either.

So, as far as I'm concerned, baptism is just an empty little ritual. Do it or don't, it doesn't matter for shit anyway.

-- Alex
Well, thst may be so, but the problem is what it symbolises, what it represents.
 

Tranka Verrane

New member
Jul 21, 2008
242
0
0
Baby Tea said:
The Old Testament is in the Bible as a history of God's people, and to show the Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. The New Testament is based on the teachings of Christ and the early church. Christians live according to the NEW testament, not the old testament. That's why I don't have a moat around my house, why I don't throw my wife out of the house when she's on her period, and why Christian's don't live by 'eye for an eye', but rather 'turn the other cheek'.
I would be happy if this were the case. I can't, offhand, think of a single thing, either by parable, metaphor or direct reporting, in the new testament to which I object. Oh, I'm sure there is something, but even that can probably be solved with an argument of interpretation. Howvere to claim that Christians don't believe the Old Testament is missing the point.

I asked a series of questions of the OP at the beginning of this thread to see whether he did, and he does. He accepts the olde testament as literal truth, in common with a great many others. I don't have a problem with the christian who accepts the teachings of Christ at face value and the rest as stories. metaphors, and manglings of true history. I don't think many other agnostics or even atheists do either (or, indeed, sensible people from other religions). It is the evangelical literalist extremeists we have a problem with, and the OP placed himself squarely amongst them.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
Tranka Verrane said:
It is the evangelical literalist extremeists we have a problem with, and the OP placed himself squarely amongst them.
"Evangelical" is, however, a much broader category than the cable news networks let on.

-- Alex
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Tranka Verrane said:
I would be happy if this were the case. I can't, offhand, think of a single thing, either by parable, metaphor or direct reporting, in the new testament to which I object. Oh, I'm sure there is something, but even that can probably be solved with an argument of interpretation. Howvere to claim that Christians don't believe the Old Testament is missing the point.

I asked a series of questions of the OP at the beginning of this thread to see whether he did, and he does. He accepts the olde testament as literal truth, in common with a great many others. I don't have a problem with the christian who accepts the teachings of Christ at face value and the rest as stories. metaphors, and manglings of true history. I don't think many other agnostics or even atheists do either (or, indeed, sensible people from other religions). It is the evangelical literalist extremeists we have a problem with, and the OP placed himself squarely amongst them.
Well, I also believe the Old Testament happened as recorded. So what? Just because I, or the OP, believe that the OT actually happened as it said it did, doesn't mean that we don't live by the New Testament. And I don't know how that makes him, or I by proxy, an 'extremist'. It kind of seems you just threw that term out there for the sake of the negative connotations that go with it.

So because I accept the teachings of Christ, I'm ok. But if I don't believe the rest are 'just stories' then we have a problem? Why? I still believe and follow the teachings of Christ, so why does the rest even concern you?
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
TheDean said:
Well, thst may be so, but the problem is what it symbolises, what it represents.
Dean, this is crazy. You're an atheist! So what are you denying with this statement? If, according to you, God doesn't exist, then baptism doesn't represent anything. In fact, it literally represents nothing, since God doesn't exists in your eyes.

You seem awfully dogmatic for someone with no interest in dogma.
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Dean! I found your response!

TheDean said:
ok listen. Good and evil are what we decide they are.
But we have decided that certian things are god and bad. Society as a whole is unimportant, it is all about the individual and choice. However, i'm saying i wouldn't exploit people because i don't think it's very nice.
Good and bad aren't real, they are perception, but what i'm saying is people shouldn't do things that they wouldn't want others to do to them.
Ok, this is a slight rephrasing of your last sentence but with the same meaning:

"There is no such thing as good or bad, but people shouldn't do certain things because it's bad."

Does that not strike you as totally contradictory? I'm not saying you don't have a moral framework, Dean. I'm just saying that you have no basis for it, and you've only proven thus by only responding with 'just because'.
 

Redlac

New member
Dec 12, 2007
184
0
0
Good grief, is this still going? Wow.
Good erm.. afternoon my friendly neighbourhood Taoist. I shall try as best I can to answer your questions.

One: For me this is a 'Yes'. I believe that the bible is the Word of God How God inspired these folks is still a debate amongst theologians. Was is 25% God and 75% the author? I've no idea. But given that I have read these writings and have seen how God speak through them I'm fairly confident that whoever wrote it isn't the issue, it's what God does with it that counts for me.

The reason we should follow scripture? Well, Jesus thought it was a good idea. As for changing with the times, it does happen, but very slowly because people get set in their ways. I'm told that back in the 50's the Bretheren lot thought that going to the cinema was sinful. Now we have CS Lewis stories being played in there.

Two. Yes, I believe God can speak through individuals. As part of the Charismatic set it would be silly not to. However, the message we get has to be considered before being brought to the church. We have to ask questions of our message. Does it stack up with what we know of God through scripture? Does it build up the people of the church in some way? Is it a message just for me or everyone? Is the message being brought by someone with a good track record of bringing such prophetic words? If you are not sure, you don't share it there and then. You go away and pray about it. You share it with fellow Christians who will also pray about it. If it's truly of God, he'll let someone know that it's him and not just last nights cheese acting up. This is how we regulate it in my church at least.

For others though, this is not the case. Certainly during the Crusades, a lot of people could not read the bible because it was in Latin, so couldn't read the bits about living in peace with one another, and challenge what they were told with what scripture said. They had to take the priests word for it that they were doing God's will. Not our brightest hour unfortunately. 'By their fruit they shall be known' is a good scripture to sling out this point.

Three: Yes, if we actually did what we were supposed to be doing Christianity would look a lot different that it does.

Four: We are not meant to force anyone to believe. It is also not my place to say what will happen to your Father or even you or me on the day of judgement. But God will be fair about it.

Five: This is similar to a question I have often asked myself. What does become of all the millions of people who have never heard anything of Christ? What of all the millions in the past who were born before him, or even before the birth of Judaism? The Uber-Conservative 'Well they're sinners so they'll go to hell' doesn't quite wash with the God of love that I have encountered. As I said in point four, God will be a fair judge.

Six: Jesus gives us the fire and brimstone hell, as he mentions a place of fire and torment every now and then in his parables. Across the Christian spectrum there are different ideas about the whole thing. There are your traditionalist fire and brimstoners, annihilationists that believe that non-believers just die and that believers souls survive, and so on and so on. Having a brother who died a non-believer I don't particularly like the idea of a place of eternal torment, of course there's not a lot I can do if such a place exists. I hope that if there is a hell, it's only a temporary deal.

Seven: Don't worry, it's a valid question, doesn't anger me in the least. You could ask 'What makes you right?' to anyone. I believe Christianity is the right way because I explored other ways, read about them, met some of the people. All the others did not inspire me as Christianity has. The longer I journey on this path the more I see, feel and ultimately know that the way I'm going is the right one. That's how I know I'm right. I need to add a 'But'. But, I will not tell anyone they are wrong for what they believe. I'm not to judge, that's God's job. But I am obliged to tell them the Good News. If they believe, fine. If they do not, fine. I might not be the one to convert a person, I may just plant the first seeds of a long process worked out over decades. Or not.

Eight: That's a weird question considering I already have, but with different names. This is a situational question. If it was just some random guy I'd probably smile and ask them if they got their information from the bible. If this is you're way of asking 'do you believe in a seven day creation' I'd say yes I do but I'm not discounting what the scientists say either. I've mentioned my thoughts on the accuracy of the Genesis stories before. It's likely that they are a myth to tell us some basic facts about our origins, but if it happened as it says then I'd be OK with that because God is all powerful and could do it if he wanted. However, from what we've observed as humans we have discovered it probably took a bit longer than seven Earth days.

Nine: Not quite sure where you're going with these questions. Some theologians say this story may have been a myth to tell the tale of a very large localised flood in the Middle East. Or it might be actually true.

Ten: I would probably start by laughing. I certainly would'nt have any regrets because by then it's too late. Then I'd grow a beard and get quaffing and scoffing!


I hope that helps. Phew!
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Ok, this is a slight rephrasing of your last sentence but with the same meaning:

"There is no such thing as good or bad, but people shouldn't do certain things because it's bad."

Does that not strike you as totally contradictory? I'm not saying you don't have a moral framework, Dean. I'm just saying that you have no basis for it, and you've only proven thus by only responding with 'just because'.
I'm not Dean, but I have a response.

Moral ideas come into being and get passed on and modified through the same set of mechanisms that affect all human culture and knowledge. It's all... emergent.

Learned behaviors can be propagated and adapted much faster than genetically-coded instincts. Cultural or "memetic" evolution occurs much faster than physiological evolution, in other words(*). On this level, any kind of behavior or belief exists simply because it's effective(**). I think all of the oldest, most fundamental elements of human culture are basically emergent phenomena. They don't exist because they were effective foundations for the formation of higher-order cultural concepts; there's no "why" beyond that.

Humans have developed some powerful tools to accelerate and direct this process. One of them is what you could call introspection or, perhaps, metacognition: the awareness of one's own cognitive processes. Our learning is self-regulated. We're able to evaluate and modify our beliefs through non-random means. More simply, we're capable of thinking about why we think what we think(***).

The idea that morality is a special domain is only meaningful or useful on the level of metacognition. Which is, incidentally, where most philosophical discussion occurs. What frustrates many essentialists is that, of course, you can't keep drilling down forever and finding more and more levels of thought all the way down. On some level, our most basic beliefs are the result of something that can't be classified as reason, just like neither the individual molecules that make up our brains nor the microscopic organisms from which we evolved are actually sapient like we are.

Underlying all that fancy thinking are basic behaviors that are the result of a few even simpler instincts and many, many years of selective pressure.

-- Alex
__________
* - Memes are potentially a useful abstraction for thinking about this stuff, but not necessary. In other words, my argument isn't based on some old stuff Dawkins wrote. Most descriptions of memes seem kinda forced and arbitrary to me.
** - One useful thing to steal from "memetics" here is that some beliefs may propagate effectively while still being unhelpful to the people who hold them.
*** - They have been studies that seem to indicate that this capacity isn't unique to humans. Something about chimpanzees forming opinions about the accuracy of memories or something like that.
 

Robyrt

New member
Aug 1, 2008
568
0
0
Tranka Verrane said:
Baby Tea said:
The Old Testament is in the Bible as a history of God's people, and to show the Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. The New Testament is based on the teachings of Christ and the early church. Christians live according to the NEW testament, not the old testament. That's why I don't have a moat around my house, why I don't throw my wife out of the house when she's on her period, and why Christian's don't live by 'eye for an eye', but rather 'turn the other cheek'.
I would be happy if this were the case. I can't, offhand, think of a single thing, either by parable, metaphor or direct reporting, in the new testament to which I object. Oh, I'm sure there is something, but even that can probably be solved with an argument of interpretation. Howvere to claim that Christians don't believe the Old Testament is missing the point.

I asked a series of questions of the OP at the beginning of this thread to see whether he did, and he does. He accepts the olde testament as literal truth, in common with a great many others. I don't have a problem with the christian who accepts the teachings of Christ at face value and the rest as stories. metaphors, and manglings of true history. I don't think many other agnostics or even atheists do either (or, indeed, sensible people from other religions). It is the evangelical literalist extremeists we have a problem with, and the OP placed himself squarely amongst them.
You seem to have missed the point on which the everyday behavior of most Christians is based.

I believe the Old Testament is true. I also believe in Plessy v. Ferguson (the US Supreme Court's separate-but-equal case) but I am free to ignore it, because it has been rendered obsolete by subsequent decisions. Similarly, most of the commandments in the Old Testament have been replaced by the New. The purpose of following them (to retain ritual purity for personal salvation) has been accomplished elsewhere by Jesus. Note that this isn't selectively ignoring parts of the Bible, because the New Testament itself includes discussions on how to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant laws.

To hold the Old Testament as literal truth does not require throwing common sense out the window. It's not as easy to read as the New Testament, because it has been edited so that different accounts are merged by subject rather than author, and much of it was metaphorical in the first place, but by that standard Homer and Chaucer are also unintelligible.
 

s0ap sudz

New member
Aug 28, 2008
262
0
0
Okay, this is an honest question:

Would you find it strange if a priest or nun liked to play violent video games such as Gears of War? Because if they are against violence does it carry over to gaming?
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Alex_P said:
I'm not Dean, but I have a response.

Moral ideas come into being and get passed on and modified through the same set of mechanisms that affect all human culture and knowledge. It's all... emergent.

Learned behaviors can be propagated and adapted much faster than genetically-coded instincts. Cultural or "memetic" evolution occurs much faster than physiological evolution, in other words(*). On this level, any kind of behavior or belief exists simply because it's effective(**). I think all of the oldest, most fundamental elements of human culture are basically emergent phenomena. They don't exist because they were effective foundations for the formation of higher-order cultural concepts; there's no "why" beyond that.

Humans have developed some powerful tools to accelerate and direct this process. One of them is what you could call introspection or, perhaps, metacognition: the awareness of one's own cognitive processes. Our learning is self-regulated. We're able to evaluate and modify our beliefs through non-random means. More simply, we're capable of thinking about why we think what we think(***).

The idea that morality is a special domain is only meaningful or useful on the level of metacognition. Which is, incidentally, where most philosophical discussion occurs. What frustrates many essentialists is that, of course, you can't keep drilling down forever and finding more and more levels of thought all the way down. On some level, our most basic beliefs are the result of something that can't be classified as reason, just like neither the individual molecules that make up our brains nor the microscopic organisms from which we evolved are actually sapient like we are.

Underlying all that fancy thinking are basic behaviors that are the result of a few even simpler instincts and many, many years of selective pressure.

-- Alex
__________
* - Memes are potentially a useful abstraction for thinking about this stuff, but not necessary. In other words, my argument isn't based on some old stuff Dawkins wrote. Most descriptions of memes seem kinda forced and arbitrary to me.
** - One useful thing to steal from "memetics" here is that some beliefs may propagate effectively while still being unhelpful to the people who hold them.
*** - They have been studies that seem to indicate that this capacity isn't unique to humans. Something about chimpanzees forming opinions about the accuracy of memories or something like that.
As beautifully worded as your response was, we aren't discussing the history of morality, or the cultural evolution of humanity which may or may not have grown into what became morality.

I'm saying that within the non-theist worldview, there is no BASIS for morality. What you're talking about is how it could have come to be. 'Morality is there because it's effective' isn't a 'why'. It doesn't explain why something is good or bad. It's another way of saying 'Just because'.

You have no reason or basis, say, to help those in need. TheDean himself said that society doesn't matter! It's the individual that does! And let's be honest: One of the basic core 'instincts' of man is 'self' and 'self preservation'. So Dean isn't far off the mark, if off the mark at all. So where is the 'why'?
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
s0ap sudz said:
Okay, this is an honest question:

Would you find it strange if a priest or nun liked to play violent video games such as Gears of War? Because if they are against violence does it carry over to gaming?
Personally? No. Well maybe a little, but only because it was a nun or priest, and they have such a 'goody goody' stigma.

I'm a Christian, and I play violent games. Now, not every Christian does, and so those who do have to be careful not to be a 'stumbling block' (To quote Paul) for those who don't.

Example: A friend of mine (Christian guy) doesn't like things that involve too much magic. IT bothers him. Fair enough! So when he's over at my place, we don't play any games that have too much magic in them, and we don't go see movies with it either. I don't want to make him uncomfortable, or offend him, with these things, so I avoid it.

Another example: I grew up in the country. Because I did, some words I use might be a bit more colorful then what other Christians might use. I grew up hearing about 'cow shit', 'horse piss', and other 'barnyard' language. So to me, these words aren't terribly offensive. However, some friends of mine (Christians) get offended if I say 'ass'. So, I avoid that language when I'm around them.

Now I feel like I've gone astray from your original question, so let me pull back here: It might seem a little surprising, but I wouldn't say it's wrong. Games and reality are far removed, remember. I'm completely against violence in reality, but a game is a game. Who didn't play war-type games as a kid? Besides, how awesome would it be to say that you saw a nun headshot some guy?
 

s0ap sudz

New member
Aug 28, 2008
262
0
0
Baby Tea said:
s0ap sudz said:
Okay, this is an honest question:

Would you find it strange if a priest or nun liked to play violent video games such as Gears of War? Because if they are against violence does it carry over to gaming?
Personally? No. Well maybe a little, but only because it was a nun or priest, and they have such a 'goody goody' stigma.

I'm a Christian, and I play violent games. Now, not every Christian does, and so those who do have to be careful not to be a 'stumbling block' (To quote Paul) for those who don't.

Example: A friend of mine (Christian guy) doesn't like things that involve too much magic. IT bothers him. Fair enough! So when he's over at my place, we don't play any games that have too much magic in them, and we don't go see movies with it either. I don't want to make him uncomfortable, or offend him, with these things, so I avoid it.

Another example: I grew up in the country. Because I did, some words I use might be a bit more colorful then what other Christians might use. I grew up hearing about 'cow shit', 'horse piss', and other 'barnyard' language. So to me, these words aren't terribly offensive. However, some friends of mine (Christians) get offended if I say 'ass'. So, I avoid that language when I'm around them.

Now I feel like I've gone astray from your original question, so let me pull back here: It might seem a little surprising, but I wouldn't say it's wrong. Games and reality are far removed, remember. I'm completely against violence in reality, but a game is a game. Who didn't play war-type games as a kid? Besides, how awesome would it be to say that you saw a nun headshot some guy?
I was just wondering because I was thinking of a priest as a career path, but I love to game, so I dunno...
 

TheDean

New member
Sep 12, 2008
412
0
0
Baby Tea said:
TheDean said:
Well, thst may be so, but the problem is what it symbolises, what it represents.
Dean, this is crazy. You're an atheist! So what are you denying with this statement? If, according to you, God doesn't exist, then baptism doesn't represent anything. In fact, it literally represents nothing, since God doesn't exists in your eyes.

You seem awfully dogmatic for someone with no interest in dogma.
ok,it's simple in my messed=up mind. Hre goes:
It means nothing to me, but it DOES mean something to some people.I'm saying the kid shouldn't be baptised for a silly reaosn, he should be able to make choices aobut religion for himself.
 

TheDean

New member
Sep 12, 2008
412
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Dean! I found your response!

TheDean said:
ok listen. Good and evil are what we decide they are.
But we have decided that certian things are god and bad. Society as a whole is unimportant, it is all about the individual and choice. However, i'm saying i wouldn't exploit people because i don't think it's very nice.
Good and bad aren't real, they are perception, but what i'm saying is people shouldn't do things that they wouldn't want others to do to them.
Ok, this is a slight rephrasing of your last sentence but with the same meaning:

"There is no such thing as good or bad, but people shouldn't do certain things because it's bad."

Does that not strike you as totally contradictory? I'm not saying you don't have a moral framework, Dean. I'm just saying that you have no basis for it, and you've only proven thus by only responding with 'just because'.
It makes sense to me!
I'm not saying it is "bad" to do certian things, because no one really has the right to decide what is good and bad. I'm just saying it isn't nice to do things that hurt others. And i think we shouldn't do that. Not because it's bad, but because it's fair.