|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 17:04:40 GMT -5
Now you may have lost me. re: your post 104, substitute "visible proof" for "proof". Yup, you really did lose me. I don't see how making that substitution alters the thrust of my simple statement: faith (the belief in what cannot be proven) is the opposite of questioning (seeking proof). I can see how Catholicism would invite you to question many things about life, just not certain fundamental things.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 18:04:55 GMT -5
re: your post 104, substitute "visible proof" for "proof". Yup, you really did lose me. I don't see how making that substitution alters the thrust of my simple statement: faith (the belief in what cannot be proven) is the opposite of questioning (seeking proof). I can see how Catholicism would invite you to question many things about life, just not certain fundamental things. It does make a difference because we have a different definition of what "faith" is. Faith, to me, is belief in something that cannot be seen, not necessarily something that cannot be proved. I don't see gravity itself, but I do have faith that tomorrow, I will still be stuck to the ground and not floating on thin air or outer space. By the way, I'm Protestant, not Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 17, 2007 18:08:07 GMT -5
ah ah, I asked you my questions WAAAAAY before that. Stop dodging and just answer. I asked for a fundamental thing, and you can't come up with it? I mean if you have no proof, then my answers to your questions become irrelevant, and we'll just be wasting time. So, you answer first.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 17, 2007 18:26:14 GMT -5
Ok, so I'm changing it here. I knew you'd get it... Believing in something for which there can be no visible proof will always be questionable. Unless you have 'faith' that is. But 'faith' and questioning are by nature opposed, they rub each other quite awkwardly when united under one "faith". I see the subtle difference, but it's not really clear to me if you're now agreeing or disagreeing with this statement, and were you agreeing or disagreeing before? It seems to me that you're saying that faith is proof, so that you're disagreeing with the first sentence (but I'd think that you'd disagree with that sentence with or without 'visible'). The nature of the second sentence doesn't change either way as far as I can see. - I'll go ahead and say: faith to me can never be proof of anything other than faith. - While gravity can be demonstrated in the external world, God cannot.. if you have a demonstration I'd love to hear it. - Protestant.. sorry for the mistake.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 5:58:42 GMT -5
I asked for a fundamental thing, and you can't come up with it? I mean if you have no proof, then my answers to your questions become irrelevant, and we'll just be wasting time. So, you answer first. No, you're avoiding my questions. I asked my questions well before you can up with that, and I've been fair to you in answering all the questions you asked. You should show me the same courtesy. ;D Unless of course you know that in doing so you'll lose this debate The answers to your questions will provide you with the answer to your to post 88 No, I'm not afraid of losing a debate. I've been wrong before on many things, like when I thought Hong Kong was a democracy. Lol. To be honest, what I'm afraid of is this thread turning into a witchhunt, something that will degenerate into demeaning someone's religious beliefs just to prove a point. Now let me find your questions again so that I may respond.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 6:18:57 GMT -5
1) Does your religion place restrictions on how you live your life, your actions etc.?
It depends on whose perspective. I don't view them as restrictions, but rather as things to protect me from harm. For instance, when one of the commandments says "Thou shalt not commit adultery", I believe that's for my protection. Cheating in a marriage relationship causes harm to the couple, to their children and to the community as a whole. Won't you agree?
2) Does it use the concept of sin to make you feel guilty if you don't adhere to the rules?
There's a difference between true guilt and false guilt. True guilt is when I know I did something wrong and my conscience is bothering me, e.g. hit someone without a cause, which is sin. False guilt is when there really was no wrong committed, yet you are made to feel bad. My religion does not espouse false guilt, but it does heighten my conscience and my sensitivity when I did something wrong.
3) Are all the rules practically useful or logical?
See this is hard to answer because every denomination has their own set of beliefs and practices. With regard to the more conceptual rules, yes I think they're useful and practical. I'm talking about say the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus says "Blessed are the merciful for they will find mercy" or "To forgive your enemies, to love them that hate you, and to bless them that persecute you".
4) Do you spend a significant amount of time worshipping?
Again this is a subjective question. What is "significant time" to you may not be that significant to me. Nonetheless, speaking quantitatively, I spend about 3 hours at church on Sundays. A few hours volunteering every month.
5) Does it teach you that there is a hell where you could be punished for sins? If so how is this hell described?
Hell is described as a place of separation from God and a place of suffering. It is punishment for rejecting God. As you know, in Christianity, we have a Savior in Jesus Christ who became man to live a sinless life and die a vicarious death on the cross in order that by believing in Him, we do not have to go hell.
There are your answers.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 6:29:31 GMT -5
Ok, so I'm changing it here. I knew you'd get it... Believing in something for which there can be no visible proof will always be questionable. Unless you have 'faith' that is. But 'faith' and questioning are by nature opposed, they rub each other quite awkwardly when united under one "faith". I see the subtle difference, but it's not really clear to me if you're now agreeing or disagreeing with this statement, and were you agreeing or disagreeing before? It seems to me that you're saying that faith is proof, so that you're disagreeing with the first sentence (but I'd think that you'd disagree with that sentence with or without 'visible'). The nature of the second sentence doesn't change either way as far as I can see. - I'll go ahead and say: faith to me can never be proof of anything other than faith. - While gravity can be demonstrated in the external world, God cannot.. if you have a demonstration I'd love to hear it. - Protestant.. sorry for the mistake. You seem to imply that I have chosen to believe in Christianity without having investigated it, without thinking logically and rationally about it. To me, faith, reason, questioning can all exist side by side without conflict. One way it was demonstrated to me was in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't mean to be condescending, but are you familiar with the story?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 7:03:01 GMT -5
ok, well out of respect for you I'll leave it at that. I've no desire to belittle your belief and make you feel uncomfortable. Thanks for answering though. No, I was thinking more along the lines of "How stupid can you be for believing in crap like that?" I mean a good debater can prove a point without personally demeaning the opposing side. I haven't seen you stoop to that level (and I expect you won't), but I've seen other religious/anti-religious debates degenerate into that, which I absolutely hate. I suppose it's because spirituality is such an intensely personal and societal issue. Anyhow, please do make your point. I think you were gonna say that religious teaching is brainwashing.
|
|
|
Post by long on Dec 18, 2007 7:27:06 GMT -5
You seem to imply that I have chosen to believe in Christianity without having investigated it, without thinking logically and rationally about it. To me, faith, reason, questioning can all exist side by side without conflict. One way it was demonstrated to me was in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't mean to be condescending, but are you familiar with the story? - I didn't mean to imply that at all juancarlos, it's strange to me that you think I did; I don't see it in my words at all. - What I find undeniable is this: faith is the opposite of questioning, it is the end of questioning. You may have gone through 25 years of consistent questioning to arrive at faith, but once you have faith you have stopped asking questions surrounding the matter of your faith. That is the nature of faith. - Yes, I am quite familiar. I was raised Protestant myself. Living outside of a cave in the US for one's entire life, one cannot help but be acquainted. p.s. - I still don't really see the difference in adding the word 'visible'.
|
|