Christianity has its nutbags too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

True enough - its not just about religion. I would imagine a person who say, commits murder in the name of their religion via suicide bomb (for instance) would have some sort of personality defect (low self-esteem, for example) that would make them willing to believe that this kind of action is justifiable (even though it conflicts with the basic philosophy of their religion).

I think you will agree that religion is not a set of rules that must be slavishly followed - its a more interactive , introspective and philosophical process.

i prefer the term "gullible" to describe those who do that

In this case, I think that's pretty much the same thing.

[incanada1234 0]

Pot? Kettle on the line....

Sorry, couldn't resist. I do prefer the "new, improved" incanada over the old one. Still a ways to go, though IMHO.

I know, I was bad back then. Doesn't everyone have "a ways to go" though? Who can be perfect?

[Fuzzness 2]

Pot? Kettle on the line....

Sorry, couldn't resist. I do prefer the "new, improved" incanada over the old one. Still a ways to go, though IMHO.

I know, I was bad back then. Doesn't everyone have "a ways to go" though? Who can be perfect?

well since you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you and agree with you is doomed anyway, I guess only people like you can be perfect

[VivaMexico 0]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

[Aymerlu 3]

Pot? Kettle on the line....

Sorry, couldn't resist. I do prefer the "new, improved" incanada over the old one. Still a ways to go, though IMHO.

I know, I was bad back then. Doesn't everyone have "a ways to go" though? Who can be perfect?

well since you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you and agree with you is doomed anyway, I guess only people like you can be perfect

LOL you made me giggle

[Fuzzness 2]

Pot? Kettle on the line....

Sorry, couldn't resist. I do prefer the "new, improved" incanada over the old one. Still a ways to go, though IMHO.

I know, I was bad back then. Doesn't everyone have "a ways to go" though? Who can be perfect?

well since you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you and agree with you is doomed anyway, I guess only people like you can be perfect

LOL you made me giggle

hey i'm allowed to say stupid things too

[incanada1234 0]

well since you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you and agree with you is doomed anyway, I guess only people like you can be perfect

Yeah, by believing that, it makes me perfect. Good job on that one.

[Ric Flair 0]

Nuts in a bag what? Nuts in a bag

Woooooooo!

[incanada1234 0]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

I haven't read that one but I did read his Case For Christ book. It was great.

[Alex+R 0]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

I don't get it. Why would one commit to a religion based on logical reasoning? Isn't that the whole thing? The leap of faith?

[Sister Fracas 5]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

I don't get it. Why would one commit to a religion based on logical reasoning? Isn't that the whole thing? The leap of faith?

good point....no empirical evidence required...

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Ok, I'm not sure if I'm misundertanding your tone or if you're deliberately using language to be inflammatory, so I'll take these on for the time being.

I have a BA in Sociology, I skipped 7th grade in middle school because of my ability to learn very fast, so what? Do I get to be called educated now? I intend to get my masters one day. There are many well educated Christians. Education doesn't mean to pretend there is no God.

The word I'm having issues with is "pretend". You're entitled to your beliefs, as are all beings. However when in the defense of your beliefs you discount anything contradictory as being "pretend" you're being quite closed minded. My beliefs are just as valid as yours, and if my belief that 'god' doesn't exist is pretend, so therefore must your belief that 'god' exists also be pretend. It seems very arrogant and dismissive of you to do such an act, especially when you've been so very sensible during the rest of this discussion, so I'm inclined to think I may be misunderstanding or applying too much tone to the word, but that is how I read it.

Oh my goodness, I canNOT read this thread anymore. The amount of self-righteous posts is starting to make me gag. Before your little fingers start flying across the keyboard in response, I'm NOT saying my posts are much better. But still, I can't take the smug replies of the liberal atheists. Open-minded my @SS.

Where to start on this one? Is it the smugness that bothers you? Or the other labels? Would smug replies from moderate or conservative atheists be better? What about agnostics? Would a smug liberal Muslim be ok? What about a smarmy moderate Taoist?

[VivaMexico 0]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

I don't get it. Why would one commit to a religion based on logical reasoning? Isn't that the whole thing? The leap of faith?

good point....no empirical evidence required...

Of course faith is involved, that is the point. But many people claim that religion, (Christianity in this case) are illogical and that any educated person couldn't possible believe in them. The book proves that to be quite untrue. Again, I urge you to read it before you judge it. I think anyone would find it interesting, even if they don't come away changing their mind.

Here is a review:

Award-winning reporter and author Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ) once again uses his investigative skills to address the primary objections to Christianity. As a former atheist, Strobel understands the rational resistance to faith. He even names the eight most convincing arguments against Christian faith:

1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?

2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?

3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?

4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?

5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?

6) If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?

7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?

8) If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?

These are mighty tough questions, and Strobel fields them well. Rather than write a weighty dissertation about the merits of faith, he brings us along on his quest as we meet leaders in the Christian community, such as Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig. We also encounter his everyday friends and acquaintances that serendipitously fill in the holes in each of the eight arguments against faith. The use of dialogue from personal interviews and a scene-by-scene active narrative makes this an easy and engaging read.

[Ric Flair 0]

George Michael says "you gotta have faith"

Wooooooo!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would refer you all to a great book called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He is the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. He became a Christian after spending 2 years trying to prove that Christianity was a lie. It's a very good book based on scientific and logical reasoning, not emotion.

I don't get it. Why would one commit to a religion based on logical reasoning? Isn't that the whole thing? The leap of faith?

good point....no empirical evidence required...

Of course faith is involved, that is the point. But many people claim that religion, (Christianity in this case) are illogical and that any educated person couldn't possible believe in them. The book proves that to be quite untrue. Again, I urge you to read it before you judge it. I think anyone would find it interesting, even if they don't come away changing their mind.

Here is a review:

Award-winning reporter and author Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ) once again uses his investigative skills to address the primary objections to Christianity. As a former atheist, Strobel understands the rational resistance to faith. He even names the eight most convincing arguments against Christian faith:

1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?

2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?

3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?

4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?

5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?

6) If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?

7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?

8) If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?

These are mighty tough questions, and Strobel fields them well. Rather than write a weighty dissertation about the merits of faith, he brings us along on his quest as we meet leaders in the Christian community, such as Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig. We also encounter his everyday friends and acquaintances that serendipitously fill in the holes in each of the eight arguments against faith. The use of dialogue from personal interviews and a scene-by-scene active narrative makes this an easy and engaging read.

I could be wrong, but isn't that the guy who wrote that book about "intelligent design theory"?

I'm not sure how you can argue that christianity is "logical" or "illogical" - certainly religions have their own internal logic - but I wonder in what context is he (the author) talking about?