Liberal 'Anti-religionism'

[Red_Paladin]

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity. She believes in God, but not religion. Her argument against Christianity is that it has done more bad than good and only a bunch of **** with all its rituals and with its fancy clothes for the popes etc. The usual.
But something I’ve never come across is this, she says, quote ‘Jesus’s disciples were common fisherfolk, he HAD to stoop down to their level, he couldnt afford to be subjective. The teachings of Buddha on the other hand…well, let’s say his crowd was more “educated” same goes to the Jains, the Hindus etc etc.’
So, she believes in all the New Age **** and reincarnation. She uses Jesus’s saying about being born again to support that, I’ve searched the internet and haven’t found anything that can help me. So I’m hoping I’ll get some answers here
What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

 

[Red_Paladin]

Forgive those censored words, i didn’t know c’r’a’p was considered a bad word.

 

[Asemodeous]

Well it would help if you didn’t make stuff up and lie. Ultimate religion, by who’s standards? Subjecting your viewpoint onto others while getting offended when she does the same is highly hypocritical as well.

What I would do is tell her how she came to her current set of believes, and not the what and when. The how is far more important then all of those petty details about the soul and other nonsense. Does she like Buddhism out of the flair of it being exotic? Theists rarely come to their desired conclusions based on reasoned and logical research of the available data. Since if they did, we would all be atheists already.

So there is something else that is clogging the way. Best to find it out and kick it loose before it does any more intellectual damage.

 

[Red_Paladin]

Well it would help if you didn’t make stuff up and lie. Ultimate religion, by who’s standards? Subjecting your viewpoint onto others while getting offended when she does the same is highly hypocritical as well.

When reason is involved, standards don’t stand. Dung is dung, whether you like to smell the dung or throw it away its still dung.

well, its not my opinion. I would do away with Christianity if it were not true.
I will give you a theist, who, if you want to remain an atheist it would be wise not to read. Aquinas.
I’ll tell you what the data is, there’s the Bible, there’s a universe which is quite harmonious if you care to look, and a man who many people say was mad who divides history in half.
And for your information, I did go say ‘You, believe in Christianity or you suck’ I gave her facts, precisely because she gave false ones, when asked to prove it she changed the subject and when I proved my point. For example, when proving that the NT could not have been edited with supposed ‘Christian’ things were added.
Me:“There are thousands of New Testament manuscripts that date to before the time of Constantine. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy… and they are very consistent.”

She replies: “I’ll throw yours back at you…Prove it!
And I dont care about factual data, that doesnt matter, it’s the teachings and all the ******** ceremonies and laws the church imposes that I have problems with.”

To which I reply: “There’s nothing to prove. Facts do not have to be proven, becoz they’re facts. If you want I can cite my sources and all. But if you do not believe that the New Testament is true, then you can believe that anything before Christianity was like anything you read today? Because there is less proof of such events and yet all history scholars do believe them. Its is only when the Bible is concerned that they bring out the flimsy argument that it must’ve been invented and blah blah. It doesn’t work. There are about 5,600 NT manuscripts, the closest to that is Homer with 643 manuscripts. See the difference?”

She likes Buddhism because it supports her views, she said herself ‘Mostly I follow Buddhism, but fully either.’

Anyway, i’m not here to argue with an atheist, especially since all your proofs that God does not exist aren’t real proofs and have been refuted many times.

 

[tonyrey]

Well it would help if you didn’t make stuff up and lie.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity. She believes in God, but not religion. Her argument against Christianity is that it has done more bad than good and only a bunch of **** with all its rituals and with its fancy clothes for the popes etc. The usual.
But something I’ve never come across is this, she says, quote ‘Jesus’s disciples were common fisherfolk, he HAD to stoop down to their level, he couldnt afford to be subjective. The teachings of Buddha on the other hand…well, let’s say his crowd was more “educated” same goes to the Jains, the Hindus etc etc.’
So, she believes in all the New Age **** and reincarnation. She uses Jesus’s saying about being born again to support that, I’ve searched the internet and haven’t found anything that can help me. So I’m hoping I’ll get some answers here
What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

the abuses of Christianity are just that people using religion as an instrument to further some political, social or military goals. Christ claimed to be God, He either is God and we should give our lives to Him or he is a liar and a bad man. Christ is what makes Christianity utterly legitimate, not the bad behavior of humans

 

[Red_Paladin]

Yes I told her that, but she thinks its Christianity’s fault. When i told her about the goodness of the Church she says " I know there were good popes who actually gave a ****, but they were like that because they were inherently good, maybe they found inspiration in Christianity. I’m not denying that, but religion has done more harm than good, you dont need to be a genius to see it. And whatever religion helps you only if you belong to their faith, is ********."

Her whole point is, Christ without the Church. She believes only the four Gospels and hardly that. So how does one refute that error. I think first of course show her how religion is important, to show our love and devotion to God. Second how Christianity is the perfect way to do it. I just can’t think of how to go about it, though

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

She likes Buddhism because it supports her views, she said herself ‘Mostly I follow Buddhism, but fully either.’

I think this is key here. She follows what she likes. That has nothing to do with truth. I find it is impossible to argue with such people because, just like your friend, they tend to go into ad hominem attack when presented with a solid argument because they have no substantial answer.

From what you have described you are doing a great job discussing these thing with her. Throw facts at her and challenge her immature attitude that considers one’s feelings to be fact.

 

[JRKH]

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity. She believes in God, but not religion. Her argument against Christianity is that it has done more bad than good and only a bunch of **** with all its rituals and with its fancy clothes for the popes etc. The usual.

Certainly these things have been well dealt with but I presume that she is not willing to really look at how incorrect her perceptions are… Just pray and gently engage her in discussion.

But something I’ve never come across is this, she says, quote ‘Jesus’s disciples were common fisherfolk, he HAD to stoop down to their level, he couldnt afford to be subjective. The teachings of Buddha on the other hand…well, let’s say his crowd was more “educated” same goes to the Jains, the Hindus etc etc.’

Jesus diciples definitely did NOT just comprise “common fisherfolk” but included people from all stripes. St Paul is the obvious example here since he was a Pharasee himself and student of the greatest Jewish teacher of the day. Besides, who says that “common fisherfolk” are such ones that he had to “stoop down” to their level. I’ve know many supposedly uneducated folk who had more sense than a boatload of professors…Station in life is no measure of ones inate intelligence and ability to understand. In fact, it was the very “education” of the Pharisees that prevented many from coming to faith.

So, she believes in all the New Age **** and reincarnation. She uses Jesus’s saying about being born again to support that, I’ve searched the internet and haven’t found anything that can help me. So I’m hoping I’ll get some answers here
What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

Well you ahve set a very bold taks for yourself. The first and most important thing to remember is that you cannot convince her. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit that she might be enlightened. That being said, approach her in Truth and Charity.
As for the Eastern Faiths, I wouldn’t get too down on them because many contain a good deal of Truth. Not the fullness of truth of course, but there are some good things there.
The business of “Born again” being reincarnation is simply pulling a phrase out of context. It should be easily refuted by putting it into the context of John 3:
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode’mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…
If Jesus words are about reincarnation, He would be speaking of reentering the mother’s womb would He not? Yet he seperates the two things…
Also, St Paul mentions specifically in Hebrews 9:27 that:
And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,
So it is pretty obvious that Jesus was not talking about reincarnation…

Peace
James

 

[ANNE_2]

A good book that answers most of your questions is: “Catholicism for Dummies” by Fathers Trigilio and Brighenti, published in 2003.

Educational reading for Catholics and for non-Catholics.
It has about 400 pages.
It has a Nihil Obstat, and Imprimatur.

---

“New Age” is a religion even though they do not admit to it.
It aims to create “a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas” - per L. Ron Hubbard’s dianetics. They (like some other religions) believe in clearing the mind, and ultimately becoming his/her own god.

If your friend believes in the four Gospels, she has not read them very well.

 

[wanstronian]

When reason is involved, standards don’t stand. Dung is dung, whether you like to smell the dung or throw it away its still dung.

Eh? Asemodeous asked by which standard you judge Christianity to be the “Ultimate Religion.” It’s a fair question. Muslims doubtless think that Islam is the ultimate religion. To make such a statement, you must be able to substantiate it. Your personal opinion might be that Christianity is the ultimate religion. What you mean is, it works for you. You don’t get to make that decision for anybody else.

So Asemodeous asked a reasonable question, and you start prattling on about dung? What are you talking about?

well, its not my opinion. I would do away with Christianity if it were not true.

Well, this amounts to a bare assertion. How do you know it’s true? A muslim thinks that Islam is true. What makes you right and them wrong?

Again, you don’t get to decide what is fact, based on your personal preference. (I’m starting to understand the source for your first statement now, if not its rationale. Reason appears to be something with which you’re not well acquainted.)

I will give you a theist, who, if you want to remain an atheist it would be wise not to read. Aquinas.

Give me a break. Nothing Aquinas says provides any validity of the truth claims of Christianity.

I’ll tell you what the data is, there’s the Bible,

A book of unknown but varied word-of-mouth authorship, which is internally contradictory and jeopardises even the reasonable claims it makes, by peppering impossibilities and proven errors throughout.

there’s a universe which is quite harmonious if you care to look,

Which proves nothing regarding the existence of God or the validity of Christianity.

and a man who many people say was mad who divides history in half.

Er, what…?

And for your information, I did go say ‘You, believe in Christianity or you suck’ I gave her facts, precisely because she gave false ones, when asked to prove it she changed the subject and when I proved my point. For example, when proving that the NT could not have been edited with supposed ‘Christian’ things were added.

Interesting that you gave “real” facts when she gave “false” ones - what decent evidence do either of you have that your claims are valid? How did you, for example, prove that the NT has never been edited?

Me:“There are thousands of New Testament manuscripts that date to before the time of Constantine. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy… and they are very consistent.”

Only they’re not. Even the story of the resurrection is inconsistent between the NT gospels that discuss it. The consistency of the gospels - where their stories intersect at all, that is, is at the level of consistency one might expect from campfire story propagation.

She replies: "I’ll throw yours back at you…Prove it!

And I dont care about factual data, that doesnt matter, it’s the teachings and all the ******** ceremonies and laws the church imposes that I have problems with."

She makes a fair point. Regardless of the truth of the bible, the RC church is hardly a paragon of virtue and reason. It holds billions of dollars of wealth, but gives a mere fraction of it to those in need. It preaches divisive and life-threatening doctrines; oppresses people by various means; invests people with an innate sense of guilt just for being alive; preaches witless bronze-age morality to the masses when most of the rest of us have grown up and moved on; and actively encourages people to believe in wacky, unproven superstition, in defiance of reason. I could go on, actually, but I’m out of space.

To which I reply: "There’s nothing to prove. Facts do not have to be proven, becoz they’re facts.

Er - how do things become established as facts, do you suppose?

If you want I can cite my sources and all. But if you do not believe that the New Testament is true, then you can believe that anything before Christianity was like anything you read today? Because there is less proof of such events and yet all history scholars do believe them. Its is only when the Bible is concerned that they bring out the flimsy argument that it must’ve been invented and blah blah. It doesn’t work. There are about 5,600 NT manuscripts, the closest to that is Homer with 643 manuscripts. See the difference?"

So you think that sheer numbers of manuscripts makes something true? If I enter “My cat can fly” into a word processor and print 6,000 copies, does that make my cat able to fly?

All your argumentum ad populum does is suggest that lots of people wrote down the same story. Doesn’t make the story true.

She likes Buddhism because it supports her views, she said herself ‘Mostly I follow Buddhism, but fully either.’

And isn’t that entirely her choice? What business is it of yours what she chooses to believe, unless she tries to make you accept unfounded truth claims, or attempts to force you to live your life according to her religious values?

Anyway, i’m not here to argue with an atheist, especially since all your proofs that God does not exist aren’t real proofs and have been refuted many times.

Another fallacy - there are no proofs that God does not exist. The best we can do is show that all of the theist “proofs” are fallacious and weak, show that the concept of God is logically contradictory (so if he does exist, he’s not the god you claim he is), and show that the probability of God existing at all is very low.

You’re clearly a very enthusiastic theist, but it’s equally clear that you don’t know your subject matter at all. No wonder you’re getting a beating at the hands of your liberal acquaintance!

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity. She believes in God, but not religion. Her argument against Christianity is that it has done more bad than good and only a bunch of **** with all its rituals and with its fancy clothes for the popes etc. The usual.
But something I’ve never come across is this, she says, quote ‘Jesus’s disciples were common fisherfolk, he HAD to stoop down to their level, he couldnt afford to be subjective. The teachings of Buddha on the other hand…well, let’s say his crowd was more “educated” same goes to the Jains, the Hindus etc etc.’
So, she believes in all the New Age **** and reincarnation. She uses Jesus’s saying about being born again to support that, I’ve searched the internet and haven’t found anything that can help me. So I’m hoping I’ll get some answers here
What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

Got quite a plateful.

Before you do anything though, is this person reasonable to talk to? It’s great to talk to people to defend the faith and talk about stuff, but if they do not listen to what you have to say at all and just dismiss everything and trash your religion, you will only be wasting your time. This goes to that Bible verse about ‘not casting your pearls before swine’ in Matthew.

Okay so she hates religion. After having a talk with her about what her beliefs are and what her moral code is, I would then point out that she practices her own religion.

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Yes other religions (Christianity) have more ritual than she does, but she does follow a “religion” whether she likes it or not. So religion is not inherently evil…or wrong…

Do your best to keep the conversation simple and on-topic. You will not get anywhere if you jump subjects frequently.

What you have to point out, is how her position of God is different from so many others…and how does she reconcile that difference? How does she know she is right? Are other interpretations of God wrong? If she says no, then we are going to relativism where nothing is inherently wrong, and God is … pointless.

That should be enough for now. You can easily have a full conversation on this topic. Only when she is convinced of religion’s usefulness will she even consider Christianity.

 

[wanstronian]

Before you do anything though, is this person reasonable to talk to? It’s great to talk to people to defend the faith and talk about stuff, but if they do not listen to what you have to say at all and just dismiss everything and trash your religion, you will only be wasting your time. This goes to that Bible verse about ‘not casting your pearls before swine’ in Matthew.

I think this is a problem with all religious people, and many non-religious people.

Okay so she hates religion. After having a talk with her about what her beliefs are and what her moral code is, I would then point out that she practices her own religion.

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Good point - it sounds like she hates Organised Religion. She hates the Church, because of how it corrupts the word of the bible.

Yes other religions (Christianity) have more ritual than she does, but she does follow a “religion” whether she likes it or not. So religion is not inherently evil…or wrong…

Personal religion is not inherently evil, as long as it does not contain dogma that causes oppression. Unfortunately, most of them do. Buddhism might indeed be an exception - I don’t know much about it though.

But religion is inherently wrong.

Do your best to keep the conversation simple and on-topic. You will not get anywhere if you jump subjects frequently.

What you have to point out, is how her position of God is different from so many others

… which means nothing in terms of whether it’s right or wrong.

…and how does she reconcile that difference? How does she know she is right?

How do they? Sheer numbers? I think geocentrism disproves that hypothesis, don’t you?

Are other interpretations of God wrong? If she says no, then we are going to relativism where nothing is inherently wrong, and God is … pointless.

That should be enough for now. You can easily have a full conversation on this topic. Only when she is convinced of religion’s usefulness will she even consider Christianity.

That’s gonna take some convincing. What do you see as the usefulness of religion in general, and of Christianity in particular?

 

[Red_Paladin]

Eh? Asemodeous asked by which standard you judge Christianity to be the “Ultimate Religion.” It’s a fair question. Muslims doubtless think that Islam is the ultimate religion. To make such a statement, you must be able to substantiate it. Your personal opinion might be that Christianity is the ultimate religion. What you mean is, it works for you. You don’t get to make that decision for anybody else.

So Asemodeous asked a reasonable question, and you start prattling on about dung? What are you talking about?

Okay. The human being’s longing to be absorbed into something greater than oneself. Thats why so many people are fascinated by sex, because it brings you ‘out of your body’ in a certain sense. And since Christianity teaches that God is a lover and has given Himself to us the only proper thing to do is to give ourselves back to him. No other religion teaches this and so no other religion encourages our giving ourselves to God(Islam does, but thats different in that the good Muslim submits himself to Allah, not as a good lover, but a good slave).
If you were really searching for the Truth you would’ve have known that.

It may be my personal opinion that dung smells good and it may be yours that it doesn’t, but its still dung, personal opinion doesn’t change what it is. If its my personal opinion that all atheists are nut jobs it doesn’t mean they all are. Christianity is not a set of personal opinions, where one can pick up what he likes and throw the rest away. To quote you “Again, you don’t get to decide what is fact, based on your personal preference.”

Yes, I’m not very experienced when it comes to talking with veteran atheists and all, I’m still young, I shall learn.

Give me a break. Nothing Aquinas says provides any validity of the truth claims of Christianity.

That was not my point.

Theists rarely come to their desired conclusions based on reasoned and logical research of the available data. Since if they did, we would all be atheists already.

Aquinas uses a system of thought, which you atheists use, in fact he formed it! And here you atheists talk about logic and reason as if it was your invention(a metaphor. Just so you don’t use that against me i don’t believe logic and reason were invented, merely dug up, like math). Christians have been using that system of thought longer than atheists!

Jesus. His existence changed the world. You have to agree that if Jesus had not descended from Heaven and become man the world would have be totally different.

It does prove that the universe was created. Everything that was created has to have a creator, deductive reasoning shows that. Imagine this(I know atheists find analogies hard to understand, but bare with me): Your in an airplane, your journey is going well and your relaxed and half asleep. Suddenly the loud speaker blares ‘Attention all passengers, our pilots have both died(don’t ask me how, use your imagination) and the plane is now on auto-pilot mode and will land at the next airport.’ Sighs all around, ‘But the auto-pilot was programmed by leaving a keyboard out in a hailstorm.’ Now, imagine yourself in that situation and ask yourself, would you trust the auto-pilot? Would you lie back in your seat, knowing your in safe hands and go back to sleep?
Now you may ask, if everything needs a creator, who created God? The answer is, No. Not everything needs a creator, only the things that were created! God is existence(if He was anything else He could not be God, for He would need to depend on something higher than Himself for His existence).

She makes a fair point. Regardless of the truth of the bible, the RC church is hardly a paragon of virtue and reason. It holds billions of dollars of wealth, but gives a mere fraction of it to those in need. It preaches divisive and life-threatening doctrines; oppresses people by various means; invests people with an innate sense of guilt just for being alive; preaches witless bronze-age morality to the masses when most of the rest of us have grown up and moved on; and actively encourages people to believe in wacky, unproven superstition, in defiance of reason. I could go on, actually, but I’m out of space.

Charitable Institutions came from the Church, do you know that? The Code of Chivalry, from the Church. The Scientific Method, from the Church. Universities, from the Church. Scholarships, from the Church. Almost half the hospitals in India are founded by various institutions of the church and more than half the schools. We have schools in the most remote parts of my country founded by institutions like the Sisters of the Holy Cross.

Another thing atheists tend to overlook are demonic possessions. The Anneliese Michel case is a good example. But I have seen a person possessed, she would spit on the Holy Eucharist and eat the ones that were not consecrated. Scream when holy water was sprinkled on her and break rosaries, and we’re talking about a frail old woman of 89 here. When holy water was mixed in her food she refused to eat saying ‘They won’t let me.’ in a horrible rough voice. She was exorcised using the name of Jesus(my Mom was present for it) and is now well, thanks be to God.

 

[Red_Paladin]

Alright, I haven’t proved it. But I had sources that did. Of the 5,600 manuscripts of the NT only a few had a few words wrong.

Your argument of the inconsistency of the Bible proves nothing. If it does prove anything, it proves that the NT wasn’t the invention of a group of people because if it was all the four gospels would have all been the same. The account of Christ was written down by four different people, who got the information from sometimes first hand and at other times second had information. If i say “I saw Harry going to the bathroom and then eat lunch.” and you say “I saw Harry eat lunch and then go to the bathroom.” would that mean he didn’t go to the bathroom, or didn’t have lunch? All the four Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead, it doesn’t matter if there were two angels or just one.

My knowledge is second hand, i know. She asked me to prove that there 5,600 manuscripts and that they were consistent. How is one supposed to prove that? I got my information from books and they showed proofs, if you really doubt it then go learn Greek and study the manuscripts for yourself.
How do you know that there’s a place called India(i’m assuming you have not been here), you know because you’ve seen images and read stuff about it and met people from here, but thats all second hand knowledge, isn’t it?

No, the 5,600 copies show that it was not edited.

And isn’t that entirely her choice? What business is it of yours what she chooses to believe, unless she tries to make you accept unfounded truth claims, or attempts to force you to live your life according to her religious values?

She’s my friend. Tell me, if you saw your friend walking on a road thats gonna be bombed soon would you let him be? okay, imagine if he’s your son, would you let him be? Oh its entirely his choice if he wants to walk that road. But he doesn’t know its gonna be bombed, he thinks it leads to his uncle’s house and he wants to go to his uncle’s house. His choice wouldn’t really be a free choice because he does not know that this road does not go to his uncle’s house and that its gonna be bombed soon. Once he knows that its gonna be bombed and that it does not lead to his uncle’s house, he can really choose whether to continue on that road or go back.

Another fallacy - there are no proofs that God does not exist. The best we can do is show that all of the theist “proofs” are fallacious and weak, show that the concept of God is logically contradictory (so if he does exist, he’s not the god you claim he is), and show that the probability of God existing at all is very low./QUOTE]

Yes, and even that cannot be done properly. The line in bold script shows how stupid you are. The probability of a planet being just enough distance from the Sun for it to support life and for that life to actually appear and evolve into so complex a creature as the human being are also quite low. But here we are.

@JRKH:
Thanks for that, I already pray for her. Though I may not have been quite so gentle

I shall tell her about the fishermen thing, but she believes(she’s liberal of course) that the uneducated are stupid and can’t think right and I don’t think she would believe that the Pharisees were more educated than the the Hindus.

Yes, I believe that there are great truths in the eastern religion. Peter Kreeft has a nice comparison here.

Ah yes, I told her that was baptism but I forgot to put it into context.

Thank you guys for your reassurance

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity…What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

I think this is a problem with all religious people, and many non-religious people.

So all religious do not talk reasonably however only many non-religious talk unreasonably? This is stereotyping and not logical.

Good point - it sounds like she hates Organised Religion. She hates the Church, because of how it corrupts the word of the bible.

Her opinion. What should be discussed is why she holds that opinion and is it reasonable for her too…or does she not understand the form of the Bible?

Personal religion is not inherently evil, as long as it does not contain dogma that causes oppression. Unfortunately, most of them do. Buddhism might indeed be an exception - I don’t know much about it though.
But religion is inherently wrong.

Says who? What is evil? Is evil determined by your opinion? You use the term evil…but in contrast to what? If there is no supernatural, there is no real right or wrong. Only who is the strongest.

… which means nothing in terms of whether it’s right or wrong.

Correct. Different viewpoints in of themselves do not constitute right or wrong. However to someone who is a relativistic, it shows that due to clashing beliefs, not everyone is right, and that some are wrong. My suggestion was an intro into arguing that if God exists, there is a formal way to believe in Him.

How do they? Sheer numbers? I think geocentrism disproves that hypothesis, don’t you?

Sheer numbers do not determine right or wrong. My only point was to find out the liberal lady’s rational.

That’s gonna take some convincing. What do you see as the usefulness of religion in general, and of Christianity in particular?

Everything.

Now I don’t mind debating religion in another thread if you wish to continue this, however that is not the intent of the original poster, and we should concentrate on answering the questions put forth and offering the advice that is asked by the following poster.

Okay, so I was discussing with this Liberal who’s blatant opposition to religion is only surpassed by her hate for Christianity…What I want to get across to her is first: The importance of religion, second: How Christianity is the ultimate religion and third: The erroneous beliefs of Buddhism(which she tends to favor despite her anti-religious views).

 

[JRKH]

@JRKH:
Thanks for that, I already pray for her. Though I may not have been quite so gentle

Well gentleness is something we all have to work on…

I shall tell her about the fishermen thing, but she believes(she’s liberal of course) that the uneducated are stupid and can’t think right and I don’t think she would believe that the Pharisees were more educated than the the Hindus.

Well the Pharisees were the most educated of their day and culture. Particularly as relating to things theological. I’m sure the Hindus were likewise highly educated…Of course the educations may have been different due to theological and cultural differences but don’t let her try to make out one education is necessariy better than another. The point is that she claims Christ could not go up agianst the “educated”, presumably because they would debunk him? , when this is clearly not the case.

Yes, I believe that there are great truths in the eastern religion. Peter Kreeft has a nice comparison here.

Ah yes, I told her that was baptism but I forgot to put it into context.

Thank you guys for your reassurance

You are welcome. Just be patient and don’t be afraid to tell her you’ll have to get back to her on some things…

Peace
James

 

[AntiTheist]

Okay. The human being’s longing to be absorbed into something greater than oneself. Thats why so many people are fascinated by sex, because it brings you ‘out of your body’ in a certain sense. And since Christianity teaches that God is a lover and has given Himself to us the only proper thing to do is to give ourselves back to him. No other religion teaches this and so no other religion encourages our giving ourselves to God

There are a couple of fundamental errors here.

In the first place, you’re just presuming that your religion is true – you’re not demonstrating it.

Perhaps what you mean is that this “longing” that you identify is in some way evidence for the truth of your religion, but even if this is what you mean, your argument fails miserably.

Even if we grant that it’s true that all people have a natural longing to be “absorbed into something greater than oneself” – which is very far from certain – it doesn’t in any way indicate that any religious or philosophical system that includes this idea is true.

You could, for example, have the causality backwards: if there really is a universal longing to be absorbed into something else, then it might be nothing more than a completely natural manifestation of the sex-instinct, and religious systems that contain the idea of “absorption” have simply built a mythology around this natural instinct.

 

[Red_Paladin]

Now I don’t mind debating religion in another thread if you wish to continue this, however that is not the intent of the original poster, and we should concentrate on answering the questions put forth and offering the advice that is asked by the following poster.

Thanks for that

Well the Pharisees were the most educated of their day and culture. Particularly as relating to things theological. I’m sure the Hindus were likewise highly educated…Of course the educations may have been different due to theological and cultural differences but don’t let her try to make out one education is necessariy better than another. The point is that she claims Christ could not go up agianst the “educated”, presumably because they would debunk him? , when this is clearly not the case.

I see. Her point is that Jesus could not teach ‘high’ subjectivist thinking to mere fisherfolk and the Pharisees were also of an anti-subjectivist mindset, if I’m right in my assumption. Yes, I think thats her point. But if Jesus really was a subjectivist(this is me speculating_ then why was didn’t He choose to be born in India? It couldn’t have been to educated the Jews, because He did not teach anything about subjectivism but exactly the opposite. How was that?

 

[Red_Paladin]

There are a couple of fundamental errors here.

In the first place, you’re just presuming that your religion is true – you’re not demonstrating it.

Perhaps what you mean is that this “longing” that you identify is in some way evidence for the truth of your religion, but even if this is what you mean, your argument fails miserably.

Even if we grant that it’s true that all people have a natural longing to be “absorbed into something greater than oneself” – which is very far from certain – it doesn’t in any way indicate that any religious or philosophical system that includes this idea is true.

You could, for example, have the causality backwards: if there really is a universal longing to be absorbed into something else, then it might be nothing more than a completely natural manifestation of the sex-instinct, and religious systems that contain the idea of “absorption” have simply built a mythology around this natural instinct.

This is a Catholic forum, I’m free to assume or presume that my Catholic religion is true on a Catholic forum.

It can’t be a natural manifestation of the sex-instinct because sex doesn’t satisfy it. The promiscuity of today proves it. Your body allows you to over eat, but only a bit, dying of overeating is a rare phenomenon if at all it exists. But if every man got to have sex enough times so as to fulfill that longing in a year he would have enough offspring populate a small village and still feel that longing. Sex is a flimsy substitute for it.

My argument is not to prove Christianity is true, it is to prove that it is the ‘Ultimate religion’.