/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>743936

morally superior is subjective

especially considering some parts of holy texts it could never be overwhelming proved.

religions don't argue merits, they "believe".

t.atheist.

>1

It's intellectually stimulating, most Athiests don't even understand the Christian view point and we like to correct their wrong presumption.

>2

The discusion of God's impact on the social spheres of humanity come down to the perspective of God, if you are an athiest and blame God for the wrong doings of mankind you'll never be able to engage seriously on this topic. This idea is impossible to discuss with a person that has a pure secular perspective.

>3

It's absolutely relevant. You cannot see why it would be so you stay agnostic. If you believe in the properties of the Soul you should take every aspect of it with a high reverence. God is a fundamental to all things, if you don't understand objective truth you'll never see this.

Because God is the end, not the means

>>743941

>creation

He is both.

We like to polish our swords and grow in the faith

>>743941

>>743943

>>743945

yeah but I am trying to say that the debate over God existance is useless, so better not do it.

>>743936

That's exactly what mainline protestantism has been doing for almost a hundred years

See the "social gospel"

I have to agree. I believe in the Lord with all my heart, but it's silly to me that atheists get hung up on whether or not God is real–because they completely ignore everything religion is good for: community, family, children, worldly purpose (and so forth). It's no secret that atheists are incredibly unhappy with life.

>>744012

>>744018

Some guy told me once that God was the ultimate placebo, and then I wondered if placebos even if they're not real, they still had effects on sick people.

Even if homeopathy is placebo as winnie the pooh, people still claim being cured by it.

So, following that logic, is irrelevant if God maybe a placebo or God is real, because the effects he has over people lives are real.

>>744024

Well, I'm not sure, I'm just trying to say that God being real is an irrelevant and maybe not the proper question we should be doing today.

>>744025

We are just trying to say that the idea you present is a retarded product of apathy, philosophically and theologically bankrupt. As we have said, God is the end, not the mean. God does not matter because it cases moral superiority. God defines what moral superiority is. But given that you seem to be a brainlet (which is obvious the moment you say "I'm agnostic"), you completely ignored this here: >>743946 repeating a statement that is based on God being a mean and not an end.

And of course all of this is rooted in your disgusting materialistic, hedonistic mind, where morality is only defined by pleasure, and evil is only defined by lack of physical well being. In this twisted vision, people should only care about God if doing so brings "social utility", that is, pleasure or any other convenience. Its the other way round. A society deserves to exist insomuch as it acknowledges God.

>>744361

>But given that you seem to be a brainlet

this is rude

>>743936

REDDIT

SPACING

I don't like those gnostic faggots either.

>In the sense that even if God is not real, or maybe not, is irrelevant and we should focus if christian lives are morally superior to atheists ones.

So we should just assume God isn't real, and judge other humans?

1 Corinthians 15:14

>And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

The only way anything, including life itself, truly matters is if God is real. If you're willing to live a lie, go ahead. I won't stop you, but I can't respect you either.

Reading /christian/ thread's is a good reminder for someone like me who came from a skepticist household that religious people aren't idiots just because "they believe in something that doesn't exist".

>>744361

And then I read something like this and I'm reminded that detestable people come from all walks of life, including ones that promote respect.

>>744833

Christianity isnt "a walk of life". There is a single narrow door, and it doesnt respect what is perverse.

You are a good reminder of the damage that atheism has done to the world.

>>744836

Nothing says "single narrow door" like ~18 groups all with differing interpretations on what christianity represents.

>>743936

>why do christians still engage in the debate with atheist over if God is real and they can prove it somehow

I used to debate them in the past, but I usually don't bother anymore. It's better to invite them to church, maybe share your reasons for believing in God if they ask, and leave it at that.

>we should focus if christian lives are morally superior to atheists ones

That should be without question. When I was agnostic in my teens, I still considered myself "conservative", but became accepting of sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, etc.. Very scary to think back on.

The only "morals" most atheists have are "I hate pedophiles and animal abusers", and even then that's going to change over time as mainstream culture conditions them to be welcoming of pedophiles and bestiality.

I suppose that brings us to your second line:

>why [haven't Christians] switched the debate to something more useful like God's social utility

Only the most delusional person would argue that a society that lives according to the teachings of the Bible is no more moral than a society that lives according to their own definitions of morality.

>>743936

>I'm agnostic.

>Having said that, why do christians still engage in the debate with atheist over if God is real and they can prove it somehow.

Because atheists don't accept the proofs Christians present, same as any other difference of theory.

>Why, and this is something I'm asking here, why they haven't switched the debate to something more useful like God's social utility.

>In the sense that even if God is not real, or maybe not, is irrelevant and we should focus if christian lives are morally superior to atheists ones.

Because if God isn't real then all morality is subjective. Most atheists today think that Christians are immoral for not approving of fag marriage. You can present the statistics on pedophilia, promiscuity, and STDs to them but they act all offended and say "not all fags" when you do. How can I prove them wrong in matters of morality without first proving the existence of God? There's just no way to do it, because without the basis for an objective morality then morals are just determined by whatever "feels" good.

>>743936

>why they haven't switched the debate to something more useful like God's social utility.

Because it is idolatrous to replace God with the benefits he provides.

Btw we did this as a society with secularism. We took all the goodies that our knowledge of God gave us and excluded God from them. This removes the moral absolutum of all morals. They are no longer imperatives they are just a "life for dummies" self-help book.

As such they can be relativized away. Morality is a crutch and its simply preference when its divorces from God, hence proud sluts and the universal celebration of abortion.

Without God all his gifts eventually fade.