1. The problem of evil

2. Christians

1. The problem of evil

2. The behavior of Christians

Hmmmm…thought the list would be longer. Oh well.

Neither of those arguments are especially troubling in my view. That’s not to say they can easily be convincingly explained.

Were I to choose a couple, I’d first generalize xianity to theism and ask:

1. The paradoxical reasonableness of the supernatural interacting with the natural and yet somehow remaining supernatural.

2. The abysmal track record of supernatural explanations for phenomena that have subsequently been explained as natural phenomena.

HeatheNZ: For example, one could start the discussion in the area of supernatural with the question, does anything other than physical existence exist? (Physical existence meaning that everything can be explained by matter and energy)

A comprehensive apologetic discussion is beyond me and perhaps the circumstances here, but it might be nice if one could discuss the existence of nonphysicals instead of the terminology, natural vs. supernatural.

Actually, I get bored with myself when getting too involved in such lengthy apologetics, even though it has been my passion for over twenty years. Parts of it are more reasonable than others. I’ve taught a number of classes on the subject, but find it more satisfying to ask questions of others, and find out what, why and how they think.

Headline:
Gay Father Fay resigns in May

Of course, his partner won’t confirm any relationship other than friend, even though Father Fay spent $257,000 on the Fla. condo they shared. Just good buddies.

The amount of money that was misused is tremendous,” Lori said. “I think this report and other things we found out shows a real betrayal of trust and abuse of power.”

Tim
Absolutely LOVED your first post in this thread! LMAO! It was even funnier out of context, as I first read it before reading what the thread was about! HAR!
You’re a good’un to have around, you are!
Harrruuuumph! The Vatican was going to use that money to buy a new gold plated nut bowl! How DARE he!

HZ
I think this Fay guy is just beggin’ for a limerick.

HeatheNZ: For example, one could start the discussion in the area of supernatural with the question, does anything other than physical existence exist? (Physical existence meaning that everything can be explained by matter and energy)

Any consideration of the existance of the supernatural is by definition – speculation. There is (again by definition) no substance to any claim offered. If a claim were to become substatitive, it would no longer refer to the supernatural.

So I apply a reasonableness test. Which is more reasonable: that one or more gods created the universe, then micro-managed the affairs of mice and men, and no longer have any observable influence on the universe, let alone the planet; or that various cultures invented supernatural gods to explain what they could not understand and establish a form of social control?

Bear in mind that I was asking this question while immersed in a xian culture and environment.

I hope the answer is self evident.

I haven’t done a limerick for ages. I need to start producing again.

My point number two about the behavior of Christians has truth (although it was supposed to be somewhat “tongue in cheek”), but is really not a reasonable refutation of Christianity.

I beg to differ (please? Pretty please? Ah, hell w/it: I’ll differ anyways).
If for instance, you were looking into a group, say to join, you either plunge right in or do you investigate? Say I want join a club. The members all seem nice, reasonable people (cue the ominous foreshadowing music here). But having learned the value of rashness (which is to say, nothing), you investigate them on the side.

You find deeds tied to them directly (or indirectly) that horrify you to no end. Revolting deeds that defy excuses, defy reason, shake you to the core of your empathy.

Most of the members of this club are decent, ordinary folk: they either explain away the discrepancies in their philosophy (they’re not OUR people, they were pretending to be), they make some outrageous claims that are nigh well unverifiable, & they shrug the bloody history off, & say ‘that was then, this is now.’

Nothing to be done: all you can do is not join.

But now, they want you to join. Invitations deluge you: invites that vary from pleasantries to intimidation. Pleasantries that become vile accusations & trumpeting vitriol, that the invitation was rejected.

They try to take over your government: they try to place blame elsewhere when exposed: & when criticized, turn on you like a serpent bending its head backwards to bite your hand.

& since you’ve joined another club, you are now bound, by the loving, unseen head of their clan, to suffer forever & ever, because you didn’t join.

& all the while, they claim the higher moral ground: they claim compassion: they lay claim to the ultimate truth, an empty bowl proclaimed to be full.

It is no small wonder, then, that when the words don’t match the actions, that distrust sets in, & 1 stays on their toes, waiting, watching.

I don’t begrudge you your religion. I do begrudge the lack of tolerance due to my disbelief. Perhaps you do not, but others of your ilk do, & they are taking steps to change that.

Kneel, if you please.
I will stand.

I am Unbeliever. I will walk the road I have chosen, & wherever it takes me, there I shall be.

There, how’s that for a bit o’ rambling?