My own position is that velle non discitur, willing cannot be taught; that by the time they get round to choosing a religion people are either nice or nasty or somewhere in between, and so pick a religion (or style or practice within one) that caters to their desire to be nice or nasty to other people.

Originally Posted By cmaglaughlin
Slow down there, Jack. Been exactly “where” you are.

Oh, you “have”?

If you think that by making your idea of God into reality, keep it to yourself.

Is this a sentence? Let’s ask the judges. –BZZT!– They say no.

I understand the “keep it to yourself” part, though. You mean to say that you should be free to proselytize, but if I disagree with you, I should shut up. Is your confidence in your belief that weak, that opposing viewpoints must be silenced? I’m flattered that you consider me such a threat. It does speak volumes about the hypocrisy and arrogance of religion, though; you come here to preach, on my blog, and instruct me to shut up. What tasty irony.

You have made the One true God into your own delusion. Enjoy the emptiness of all your own conclusions, NOT based upon fact, but cover up.

Another familiar faith-head argument. People who don’t believe in the imaginary are actually the deluded ones. Here, let me save you the next step; you’re certainly getting ready to say that atheism is a religion and requires just as much faith as christianity. Sorry; wrong on both counts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want me to believe your fairy tales, you’ll have to do a lot better than “you’re deluded if you won’t believe without proof.”

Yes, covering your own “sin” with a fig leaf,(your own conclusions and righteousness) and not what the Only I AM provided in His death, burial and resurrection.

Again, judges? –BZZT!– Seems like that started out with a clear goal in mind and wandered off into non-sentencehood. I think. Hard to say, really.

Please define “sin.” This should be great fun.

When is the last time, if ever, you picked up His Word, and read the Gospel of John. Read it and get back to me.

I’ve read it. The first problem is, it doesn’t agree with Matthew, Mark, or Luke. There are entire books documenting the internal contradictions of your bible. I’ll be interested to see what dodge you use to try to explain this away. Will it be the “bible-as-metaphor” dodge? The “we mortals can’t have a full understanding of what god was trying to say” dodge? Or maybe some of the more recent misleading claims of translation errors?

Putting that aside for the moment, I have here in my hand three volumes that detail events in the distant past, involving supernatural happenings and miracles, describing the adventures of a savior who rescued the world from falling into the eternal grip of evil, at great personal cost. This narrative is far more internally cohesive than your bible. And hey, it’s in a widely read book, right? So if I read it, and I’m inspired to believe it in my heart, then it must be true, right? So I guess I should start worshiping Frodo Baggins.

The point, “Jack,” is that your holy book means nothing in and of itself. It’s not enough to write a book that says “this book is true because this book says so.” It needs to pass rational muster; it needs to make sense. Which it doesn’t. The most farfetched Hollywood B-grade sci-fi film has more consistency. If you choose to set common sense aside and believe it anyway, well, you can if you want, but that doesn’t mean you get to insist on being taken seriously.

One sentence really stands out: “You will even thank Him for all the ‘bad’ because it brought you closer to Him, and made you ALL that He intended you to be, for His glory!” Wow, talk about Stockholm syndrome. “Thank you for making me miserable, master! It made me a much better lickspittle servant! I’m so happy that my abasement feeds your ego!” Didn’t I write a blog entry about this?

Do they realize how awful that saying is? God graced you, but not me? Really?

WAHAHAHAHAHAHA so true!

Regarding the schizophrenia comparison, my point is not to accuse the interlocutor of mental illness directly, but rather to make the point that I see religion as they would see mental illness.