/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The point of our very short lives is to get to Heaven. To die early is mercy and pain is of no consequence if it ends in the beatific vision.

>>690954

>you must still accept the fact that life is a random hellish torture chamber

Well, that's pretty much what it is. The sooner you accept that, the easier your time of it will be. There is a far greater reward awaiting you … but you have to ask for it.

>>690956

>>690955

meh, ill never believe anything without sound logic behind it. Thats not how i do my taxes, thats not how i plan my retirement fund, thats now how I pick my diets and meals.

Not sure why I'd change that method that seems to work well for anything else. Seems silly, seems ignorant, seems lazy.

>>690958

referencing heavens existence btw

>>690958

How are you Christian without a hope in the resurrection?

>>690958

>sound logic

Hmm … well, you're going to die. There is literally nothing you can do to prevent that no matter how well you prepare your taxes or how large your retirement fund. What happens after that is up to you.

"Someday there's going to be a lot of health nuts laying in the hospital embarrassed to be dying of nothing" - Mark Twain

>>690961

well, last time i perused this board, i thought non-christians were allowed to ask questions, so if this is bait to get me banned under rule #whatever. i wont lie, so if this gets me banned so be it.

>>690962

right, but thats why i also asked

> If I had this belief, I don't know how I would refrain from killing myself, since everyone here is doomed, and you can't help yourself - let alone anyone else.

>>690954

>Is arrogance the actual quality one needs to have faith?

Arrogance and pride in Christian understanding is overexaggerated view of himself. Humility on the otherhand is accurate view of ourselves. So when we state, for example, that we are children of God, made in His image and likeness and we are exalted and are above all creation, this is not arrogance but an objective fact, for it is said by God himself. But at the same time we realize that we are limited and are made by Him, we are inferior to Him, so this is humility. If we would think that we would be equal or above God, that would be arrogance. we need to differentiate the two

with that being said, there are two things to note here:

1) Humans are immortal (If that retarded hafizposter shows up, banhammer awaits him) and they dont disappear but continue to exist in afterlife with their soul.

2)You are forgetting that mankind wont leave their bodies behind permanently. Both saints and damned will arise at day of resurrection of the dead, because of Jesus assuming our human nature.

Asides these two, what you are saying are vain experiences mostly that will fade away and net gain for your immortal soul would be zero. Temporal things cannot truly satisfy us on the long terms. What I found good yesterday are boring today. I enjoyed building empires in strategy games for example, but now I find them boring, I enjoyed ball with friends but its boring. These temporal experiences are vanities. Humans are made in image and likeness of God and only thing that can actually really satisfy Human for eternity is God.

>>690965

yea, i guess this is all good information and reasoning, but only if you are the type of person to just take a book as fact, that was written last millennium, by people you never knew.

I guess this will always be my hang up.

Anyway, sorry to bother. I always do this. Make a dumb thread that I shouldn't. I simply will never be able to be christian, because I cannot reconcile the bible being anything else than another creation of man.

Feel free to delete the thread, I need to sleep anyway.

>Would like input

No, you wouldn't.

>>690966

>>690970

right, but none of that supposed evidence and hearsay would hold water in any fair trial. Is that how you would want your court case to go? Someone at the stand telling a story that they have no evidence of happening but an old book?

>>690974

>but you've just assumed prayer is a selfish activity

Nope, I have tried prayer in many forms. I once prayed every night for a month for my neighbor to be happier, has family to be healthy etc. I noticed no changes. In fact, his dog died and his daughter broke her leg.

>>690993

Well, I can see why you would think that. But, I honestly don't know how else to go about asking questions. If simply not conforming to an idea before discussing it is akin to not actually wanting discussion on the topic is what you believe, I can't change that.

>>690999

Thanks for the link, but generally I post threads like these to have an interaction with someone whom I can have a dialogue with, I know I could just hop on youtube and search away and watch millions of videos, but thats not what I am looking for here.

Also, thanks to the mods for being extremely cool. I just woke up, never thought this thread would still be around. The fact that it is, gives me a little more hope in the christian way at least. And thanks to everyone who takes this thread seriously, I hope to respond as seriously to your posts as you did mine. Thanks.

>>690958

>>690964

>You Christians are so stupid, you don't know that God cannot logically exist.

>I'm just asking questions.

There's a difference between logic and Logic. You obviously rely more on the latter.

>>690954

If you think it's evil/wrong for people to suffer pointlessly on earth then you must believe in a transcendent, unchanging Good.

from an atheist worldview there's nothing particularly wrong about a kid dying from brain cancer and then just disappearing when his cells disintegrate. What's wrong with matter changing phases?

If you think there's something wrong with this, you must believe in God.

>>691117

I think you're the first one here to use the word stupid. I certainly didn't. Sorry you feel that way?

>>691119

I've never heard that. Kind of seems counter productive to any rational discussion to be that edgy without proof sir.

>>691122

I never said it was evil/wrong. I said that it seems that IF there is indeed an omnipotent god,and we are supposed to pray and be in contact with him for our benefit, it seems he is doing a poor job. Unless of course, as I stated, this is only for our benefit after we die. Then it seems that there is no reason to even live in the first place, if life is suffering, and you cannot change this for you or anyone else, and god will not care while you are living.

>>691114

>right, but none of that supposed evidence and hearsay would hold water in any fair trial. Is that how you would want your court case to go? Someone at the stand telling a story that they have no evidence of happening but an old book?

I would say it's non-Christians who have to prove an alternative theory, since Christianity obviously happened, and had a tremendous force. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." This link briefly summarizes the alternatives to the resurrection: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm There are also whole books about the topic obviously.

My line of reasoning would be, by reason alone (no divine revelation involved), God exists (proven by Aquinas using Aristotelian metaphysics) -> God by its very nature can temporarily influence events -> Jesus Christ is the son of God and could perform miracles -> everything that Jesus Christ said is true -> Christianity is true

>>691124

Maybe I didn't clarify what I was saying well enough.

I really don't think anyone will argue that Christianity as a movement ever happened. Afterall, I am speaking to a christian right now, on a christian board. Not sure why you are even using this as a response, but I clarified nonetheless.

I am saying, it would not be evidence, for someone to be on the stand in court, and use an old book as proof of jesus being the son of god, any of the miracles actually happening, and any of the promises in the bible being the materialization of words from a deity, thats all.

>>691128

First of all, not old book, but old books. Bible isnt a one book, but collection of books. You have four canonical Gospels and numerous Apocrypha (mostly written by retarded gn*stics, but still), book of acts, Didache and so on.

Second of all, by this way you cant really have any knowledge on anyone, considering that most of the sources about historical figures come from old books, inscriptions and so on.

Lastly, as we said, people died for what they saw and facts about their martyrdom is recorded not only in scriptures but in sources like that of Tacitus and Pliny as well.

>>691123

>Unless of course, as I stated, this is only for our benefit after we die.

Mostly right. Prayer is preparation for death. Actually this life is preparation for death.

But prayer/worship make us better able to handle the sufferings and tribulations we face in life and also get us closer to God so that once we die we will be attuned to his presence (heavenly) instead of being afraid of Him (hellish).

The martyrs and saints all loved God but they still suffered and toiled in this life like anyone else, sometimes even more than we know.

>>691128

>I am saying, it would not be evidence, for someone to be on the stand in court, and use an old book as proof of jesus being the son of god, any of the miracles actually happening, and any of the promises in the bible being the materialization of words from a deity, thats all.

Then it would be a hell of an unfair trial. We (the modern day world) has more evidence for the existence of Jesus than we do of anyone who lived at his time except Caesar.

You might as well question whether Peter or Paul ever existed. (People also wrote about miracles about both, and we know much more about Jesus than we do Peter or Paul or Francis of Assisil.) If you don't like religious references, how do we know that William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings ever existed. Well, England exists and traces it roots with an uncontroversial lineage to William the Conqueror, and we have some scant evidence from years later like the Domesday book.

In the end, the story is analogous, and there is a clear fact that needs an explanation: Christianity exists. You need to track things backwards, and that trail leads to a singular person who is the object of that religion, to whom much has been written, and relatively early accounts. These accounts not only had to survive contemporary scrutiny at the time – not all accounts did – but later scrutiny and research. The Dead Sea scrolls and other, 20th century archaeological evidence like the pools in Bethesda in John all conform with the basic reliability of the Gospels. Certainly one can quibble about details, but to dismiss this as no evidence…

>>691142

>The martyrs and saints all loved God but they still suffered and toiled in this life like anyone else, sometimes even more than we know.

to add to this, one of the views of Christianity on suffering is that it makes us stronger, Its like a fire that melts steel and makes it possible to forge it into a weapon. Some saints and monks were actually disturbed when their werent suffering enough, hindering their spiritual development, according to them.

>>691141

one book, hundreds of book, an entire library, still. it is all just words, that really provide no evidence other than eye-witness accounts, ,these people cannot even be interviewed. There is no other case in life, where I would take someones word of the supernatural if they merely wrote it down and I read it.

>>691142

Thats my understanding, but still I ask, why live life if it is suffering? There is no real incentive if you know the only REAL reason to live is to die and be happy then.

>>691143

Not sure where you're losing me here, I am not doubting the existence of a man named jesus. Or his crucifixion, or even that its possible people saw him walking around after his death. This does not prove anything at all to me, other than there was a man named jesus, and he lived, died, and people claim they saw him after he died. Nothing can be proven about the supernatural aspect.

>>691144

>one of the views of Christianity on suffering is that it makes us stronger

I can agree to this to an extent, but there is nothing about terminal illness and torture that makes the victim stronger.

>>691147

>one book, hundreds of book, an entire library, still. it is all just words, that really provide no evidence other than eye-witness accounts, ,these people cannot even be interviewed. There is no other case in life, where I would take someones word of the supernatural if they merely wrote it down and I read it.

You…do realize that information is transfered by words, right? Also, there's a one joke in my country saying that if two men calls you a teapot, you should start boiling. If there are numerous accounts on certain figure written down by eyewitnesses who knew that they would most likely be gored to death because of them, it supports the fact that the accounts are reliable. They gained nothing by lying. They lost their property, they were reviled by both pagans and fellow Jews. Most of them got tortured and murdered. They had to abandon their families and travel to literal shitholes like India and barbarian lands where they could get pillaged and killed off and basically only thing that perhaps saved them was that they didnt have anything to steal.

>I can agree to this to an extent, but there is nothing about terminal illness and torture that makes the victim stronger.

You are viewing it in a material way. We are talking about spirituality, not that suffering ill make you stronger in physical way. For example, Illness and torment are one of the last ways to reduce arrogance of the person and rethink his life due to nearing death. Its sort of a dropping bucket of water on dreamer/drunk/sleeper.

>>691147

>Nothing can be proven about the supernatural aspect.

What kind of proof would be sufficient for you?

>>691155

>You…do realize that information is transfered by words, right?

Yes, but proof is transmitted via method and independently verified results. That is why the term hearsay exists, you hear someone say something, but that is all it is, someone saying something.

> Also, there's a one joke in my country saying that if two men calls you a teapot, you should start boiling.

Not sure which country that is, but that sounds like groupthink and totalitarianism.

>If there are numerous accounts on certain figure written down by eyewitnesses who knew that they would most likely be gored to death because of them, it supports the fact that the accounts are reliable.

I do not see how you came to that conclusion. Again, I am referring to the supernatural aspects, many men throughout history have been killed/oppressed etc. It is something one can believe. The supernatural aspects are less frequent, rather nonexistent throughout history or modern day in any verifiable state.

>You are viewing it in a material way. We are talking about spirituality

True, I am. Because that is all I know. And, I don't think of spirituality the same way you do I guess, I think spirituality is something you hold within - a way of dealing with life, not taking an account of a man rising from the dead and walking on water as fact.

>>691158

Well, when it comes to miracles, resurrection, and the son of a god walking the earth. I don't think you can prove such a thing in an ancient world with no way of recording sound/light/geo coordinates/taking samples etc.

Proof of worldly things are easier, as we know things like that exist. we know men can start movements, we know men can become idols, we see this today, it is not so far fetched. But as for the more supernatural things, like I said, for one to believe this in any rational way, you would need something empirical, otherwise you are just foregoing your own use of your brain and just letting someone tell you to shut up its real, because i said so.

>>691165

>for one to believe this in any rational way, you would need something empirical

So according to you, empirical science is the only rational form of inquiry.

Let me ask you something: can you establish scientifically that science is a rational form of inquiry?

>>691164

>Yes, but proof is transmitted via method and independently verified results. That is why the term hearsay exists, you hear someone say something, but that is all it is, someone saying something.

Except that only one Gospel is written by non-eyewitness Luke, who was Paul's scribe. The rest three Canonical ones are written by apostles who saw Jesus in person after crucifixion.

>Not sure which country that is, but that sounds like groupthink and totalitarianism.

Its more something about that if people are saying something about you, there maybe some truth in it. Like I said its a joke.

>I do not see how you came to that conclusion. Again, I am referring to the supernatural aspects, many men throughout history have been killed/oppressed etc. It is something one can believe. The supernatural aspects are less frequent, rather nonexistent throughout history or modern day in any verifiable state.

Except that they didnt. People like Mani who got flayed alive were basing their faith in subjective conclusions. It is easy to get carried away with subjective opinions and take it as true. This however doesnt apply to Christianity, because apostles based their view on objective fact, instead of their personal opinion. Resurrection either happened or not and dozens of people witnessed it or not. There is no other way around it. In fact pagans considered that apostles were retards for believing in this, but they converted because they witnessed their endurance to torment and death, supporting this view.

No offense, but I mostly think that you are a bit prejudiced and on a way of becoming Dawkinsoid in terms that in early stages he stated that he would become faithful if provided evidence but as time passed he stated that nothing would convince him in existence of God because he would dismiss these evidences also. He basically admitted that he has animosity against God, instead of simple disbelief.

>>691166

>So according to you, empirical science is the only rational form of inquiry.

No, but it is the only one that I know of to consistently produce results that benefit me in anyway. I am speaking to you, on screen through tubes spanning miles and miles because of empirical science.

>Let me ask you something: can you establish scientifically that science is a rational form of inquiry?

Well, according to the philosophy of solipsism, we cannot even prove that we inhabit the same world, let alone any absolutes about how to investigate/utilize it. For instance, we are are both seeing our posts through stimuli processed by our brain from our optical nerve, we do not really see reality. Therefor, we cannot even prove we truly exist in the same world. So, in short, your question really is part of a deeper philosophical quandary.

>>691167

>Except that only one Gospel is written by non-eyewitness Luke, who was Paul's scribe. The rest three Canonical ones are written by apostles who saw Jesus in person after crucifixion.

Ok, but that still does not change the fact it is hearsay you are taking as fact. and yet AGAIN, I will say that I am doubting the supernatural aspects, I have no doubt men existed and have anthropomorphic experiences which they spoke of.

>Its more something about that if people are saying something about you, there maybe some truth in it. Like I said its a joke.

Right, I understand. Still, that may be right sometimes, but not all the time, and its a dangerous precedent, the kind of thing that dictators use to subvert nations.

>>691167

>This however doesnt apply to Christianity, because apostles based their view on objective fact,

So they say. And if you wish to take their word unquestioningly, that is what makes you have faith in Christianity - and entirely your right. But I cannot, as I know men today who are honest, some who are liars, some who have agendas, and some who are plain out of their mind. So I cannot believe such accounts without knowing these people personally.

>>691173

> AGAIN

sorry about the capslock, I wasnt angry or yelling, I would have used bold/italics if I could.. .wait, this isnt the other chan. i can do that.

>>691175

>That doesn't make it rational though.

True, as rationality is subjective. But I can put it in more simple terms. It keeps me alive, well fed, and functioning. I have yet to find some supernatural account to follow that can do the same.

>Yes, I am basically trying to prove to you that metaphysics are necessary. Science itself makes several metaphysical assumptions, so you cannot go and say 'I only believe something if you show me a recording/samples/etc' (This is called scientism by the way).

Right, so see my above response.

btw I will be on this ID now, need to be on phone for a while.

>>691173

>Ok, but that still does not change the fact it is hearsay you are taking as fact.

But if people who were eyewitnesses of the event are ready to be tortured and murdered for the objective fact they saw, it becomes convincing.

>But I cannot, as I know men today who are honest, some who are liars, some who have agendas, and some who are plain out of their mind. So I cannot believe such accounts without knowing these people personally.

You're right, thats why the view on the apostles are essential in this part. They basically gained nothing out of this in reality. In fact they got tortured and killed off for it, they lost their families, they had to abandon their past lives and become alien amongst their own people, traveling to four corners to spread the Gospel. Where their life would be ended miserably. You can easily dismiss Mohamed or Joseph Smith, because its clear even in their scriptures that religions found by them had personal gains for them. You cant state same about apostles.

>>691174

None taken. You are actually a rare case of a visitor who wants actual discussion.

>>691177

>It keeps me alive, well fed, and functioning.

Based on my personal experience it wont last forever (no not in a death way, as I stated above, humans are immortal so e dont cease to exist). It gets detrimental to ones psyche leading to depression and perhaps even suicide. How you view it is that you basically want to be an animal and nothing more. But you are more than that, you are made in image and likeness of God and not as mere animal to eat, drink and die to cease to exist.

>I have yet to find some supernatural account to follow that can do the same.

To be honest, you are the only one who said this from my experience. I know Christians who admit that they are Christian because they find it "comfy". I mean, its a discussion for another topic, but Christianity is an only religious system that holds humans in high regard, if that says anything.

>>691181

now looking at my post, maybe I have formulated certain parts in wrong way. English isnt my first language, take note.

>>691180

>But if people who were eyewitnesses of the event are ready to be tortured and murdered for the objective fact they saw, it becomes convincing.

Maybe to you. All it proves to me is that people were convinced of something. Memory, especially memory is a social entity is flawed. Individuals have a hard enough time remembering things correctly, but in a social scenario, with peer pressure, feelings of conformity etc, it is extremely unreliable.

As for the rest of your comment about the apostles, I could be convinced of that being true, but still. It just means that they believed something, it doesn't convince me of the same.

And np, I really dislike the internet nowdays, rarely go on "chans" much anymore either, kids are way too disrespectful and ignorant, it used to be like that but there were also people who cared to have discussions, thats becoming rare I agree.

>>691181

>To be honest, you are the only one who said this from my experience. I know Christians who admit that they are Christian because they find it "comfy". I mean, its a discussion for another topic, but Christianity is an only religious system that holds humans in high regard, if that says anything.

Right, but these same people work jobs/and earn a living based on a society built on numbers/measurements/and science.

>>691123

>People try to tell you a point of theology.

<meh, ill never believe anything without sound logic behind it.

Gee, I wonder why people think you look down on Christians.

>>691185

Yea, well I was just being honest. And a few posts later I pretty much stated the futility of the thread and that I probably shouldnt have made it, further said I wouldnt care if it was deleted. But, people have been kind enough to respond since then, and I am happy to have a discussion regardless.

Also I do not look down on anyone for what they believe, as long as they arent killing people etc. of course.

>>691184

>Maybe to you. All it proves to me is that people were convinced of something. Memory, especially memory is a social entity is flawed. Individuals have a hard enough time remembering things correctly, but in a social scenario, with peer pressure, feelings of conformity etc, it is extremely unreliable.

>As for the rest of your comment about the apostles, I could be convinced of that being true, but still. It just means that they believed something, it doesn't convince me of the same.

And again, I think that you fail to see differences between believing in subjective concepts invented by your own thoughts and objective fact or event. Example of Thomas clearly shows that even apostles werent eager to believe in it. If so many people, eyewitnesses were convinced in the event, then it must be true, considering that people died for what they saw.

>Right, but these same people work jobs/and earn a living based on a society built on numbers/measurements/and science.

Except that theres more to life than merely eating and drinking. Especially considering that you wont need any of it after death, which will happen someday. Another thing is that what you state doesnt oppose to what we state. Yes, science is a great tool thanks to our Godgiven powers of reason to use for benefit of mankind, sure. But it doesnt make it universal principle. You cannot take one certain principle and make it so to apply to another. Asides this, theres one thing I personally find Interesting: I had math teacher who was preparing me for the exams at university. He told me that Mathematics may be described as a religion on its own in terms that there are certain axioms that you cannot explain in conventional way on which entire geometry is based. That is the dot/point. Technically it is immeasurable, but it is taken as an axiom and entire geometry is based on existence of the point that later creates lines that create plains that create space. It's been a while since I had interaction with mathematics so I may have forgotten what he exactly said, but the point is that even science bases itself on faith (in certain axioms).

I have to go now for a while, maybe other anons will continue the discussion.

>>691184

>>691190

>Right, but these same people work jobs/and earn a living based on a society built on numbers/measurements/and science.

also take note that modern day science was largely developed in Christian world by devout Christians such as Pascal, Newton (yes he was Nontrinitarian but still), Kepler, Mendel and so on.

>>691190

I do understand your point, I even expounded upon it saying we cannot even agree we are living in the same reality, so nothing truly ever is real, or "verifiable" in the absolute, verbatim, and philosophical sense.

But I think we both agree on the notion that we tend to prefer when we have something that we think to be evidence when buying a car from a car salesman, or voting for a politician. We seek something that we can verify, whatever it is that you want to call that.

>>691191

Somewhat besides the point of what I'm trying to say. You mentioned things that are entirely within the realm of man as we know man. I'm just saying that believing jesus was the son of god, parting the red sea.. etc. It is entirely hearsay.

>>691177

>But I can put it in more simple terms. It keeps me alive, well fed, and functioning. I have yet to find some supernatural account to follow that can do the same.

We're taking about whether science is the only method of rational inquiry or not. If anything your argument proves the main reason why people defend scientism so much nowadays, because they are fascinated by the very usefulness of recent technological developments (by the way, this purely empirical way of thinking has many drawbacks because it's based on the complete domination of man over nature. But that's a different topic for another day I guess).

>Right, so see my above response.

Those modern philosophical problems like solipsism only arise if you have a purely materialistic conception of the world. You think there is gap between mind and reality because you think there are no universals.

>>691203

>We're taking about whether science is the only method of rational inquiry or not.

Well, actually, other people were talking about that - I was just kind of going along with it because it's interesting.

> You think there is gap between mind and reality because you think there are no universals.

Well, if you had taken the time to read all of my replies (they are numerous and lengthy at times) you would see I think quite the opposite.

And regardless of such, it doesnt in anyway prove the biblical supernatural stories, it merely proves that we know absolutely nothing at all. So, if you want to use the logic that sense we dont know anything, maybe the bible is real in its entirety, that seems like a valid course to take. I just don't think its very practical, so state it kindly.

>>691224

>sense

since*

>>691224

to state*

>>691224

>Well, if you had taken the time to read all of my replies (they are numerous and lengthy at times) you would see I think quite the opposite.

Then great, you should look into Scholastic realism. I guarantee you it will not disappoint you because it is purely based on logic.

>if you want to use the logic that sense we dont know anything, maybe the bible is real in its entirety

where did I say that?

>>691234

>Then great, you should look into Scholastic realism. I guarantee you it will not disappoint you because it is purely based on logic.

Well, I can certainly look into it, but I am not really lost for direction, or seeking answers. I have accepted life as is, it sucks, and were stuck here because of our instincts to survive and not kill ourselves. There is no happiness/contentment without self delusion, religious delusion or regular delusion. And I know I can't ever do that, so life for me is just random vice after vice to distract me from this truth.

>>691234

>where did I say that?

Sorry, just assumed since you were posting here.

>>691250

>There is no happiness/contentment without self delusion, religious delusion or regular delusion. And I know I can't ever do that, so life for me is just random vice after vice to distract me from this truth.

Wow that is sad anon. I really wish you could find God. Your kind of thinking is exactly what happens with modernity, people have no purpose because we have lost God. To evaluate modernity you have to distance yourself and one of the things that help is honestly religion. It's not something you will figure out in a day or with some posts though. Why not start with with some apologetics like Tim Keller.

>>691310

OP here, new ID probably.

I'm middle aged almost, I've read pretty much every philosophers work that has been written, from helenic times (socrates→plato, epicurus, marcus aurelius, seneca etc..) all the way to modernity (blackburn, searle, burge, chalmers, simons, chomsky yada yada).

I have tried meditation, diets, workouts, self help, medication, therapy, and the rest of the infomercial fodder. I have examined pretty much most religions in existence today, from obscure ones still practiced in sparsely populated east asian cultures, to buddhism and of course christianity.

But, for the thinking man (i do consider myself somewhat of a thinking man), there really is nothing that will ever make him forget that he is ultimately here alone, waiting to deteriorate, watch his loved ones get sick/deteriorate, and no one can change this. The only solution people seem to have found is to believe in an afterlife, which I can see why they do, when it comes to the burden of torture until nothingness, I cant blame people for throwing logic and common sense out the window in order to dampen the pain.

>>691114

there is more than one way to read the bible. literalist Christianity is only about 150 years old

>>691338

Fides et ratio. Faith is not the antithesis to reason, both are necessary. There is no logical reason that reason is of ultimate worship and blind worship should be met with skepticism. Human reason is fallible and common sense is equally deserving of skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_ratio

>>690955

Thats actually not true cuz God wants us to contribute go His mission and bring Heaven to Earth NOW. Wouldnt what you said be gnostic? Puts spiritual over material at expense of material.

>>690964

Not him but yes you can ask questions. This is good and keeps us on our toes and ensures we search for what we do not know. Actually very good thought-provoking thread.

OP, have you personally tried wearing a Miraculous Medal for a month to measure its affect on your quality of life? If you won't perform this one simple scientific experiment in your own life then you are simply looking for convoluted conjecture amd don't honestly care to try our persepctive reality has Christians. You're making fun of the menu but won't try the food, like a coward. I truly pity you OP. Relationships are so much more fulfilling after you stop trying to always be right and instead try to be truly nice.

>>691902

Enjoy your ban again

There is no arrogance in honest prayer which is a way of communicating with God. The foremost thing a Christian should pray for is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Sure there may be people who think of God as of a machine to fulfill their wishes. But if that is your concept of prayer you do not understand what the prayer is at all.

Stating truth is not arrogance. Believing in Truth is not an arrogance. Payer can be hardly an arrogance/

So the answer is no. Arrogance comes hand in hand with pride, a mortal sin.