==============================================================
>Explain "no person is more divine than any other person".
If there is a God of the Universe that you can talk to, then, as Luther said
"each man is his own priest before God" -- each person is as close to God as
anyone else.
My experience suggests each person is like me in that each person no matter
what their status in society has feelings, thoughts, insecurities, doubts, fears, hopes,
beliefs, physical needs, social needs, etc. You must respect that in each person and
realize they are human like you are. Often unexpected persons such as people with
mental handicaps come up with unique insights and often have the more genuine feelings.
If you look at a given person as unique as you are, all differences
become less important. You can then share and respect these differences as well as
the similarities.
But, you must also appreciate and respect individual differences in their feelings,
thoughts, insecurities, etc. This is where the Golden Rule breaks down ("do unto others"
or "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye
also to them
likewise" Luke 6:31 or "Therefore
all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
prophets" Matthew 7:12). What if you like being very social, should
you try to make
someone that likes more privacy have a more social life? What if you like being
preached at, should you pester those who might not enjoy it? What if you have
weird tastes in food or clothes, or bizarre sexual preferences, should you do unto
others as you would have done unto you? The Buddhist version of this is:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful" might be
somewhat better.
Also, be careful when applying "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself".
Most of us agree that love is good, but what about people that do not love themselves?
What if you are suicidal or have a low self esteem?
>Another thing, we are told that working in a team
is more important than working
as isolated individuals. You seem to say
individuals are more important.
Isn't Christianity a team effort?
From experience, I have found that original thinking, problem solving, development
of an idea is best done by an individual in private. Scientific discoveries are done by
individuals. Team effort comes in when the individual uses or shares the discoveries or
data of others -- many other people have usually done a lot of work to lead up to your
discovery. For greater effectiveness an individual must at sometime share his thoughts,
reflections, feelings, ideas with others. These others can be seen as sounding boards
to support, to criticize, to share, to discuss. So, I find working on a team and being
able
to work on a team is important and useful, but the individual working in private is
where the greatest work is done. The team can be two or more people around a
table, people on the internet, people on the phone, etc. The team could also be
such things as you and books, letters, e-mail, videos, radio, TV.
>It is easier to argue logic to a person on skid row.
He, at least, can see and acknowledge
the hopelessness of his plight. He has no difficulty in admitting that there must be
something
more to life than what he is experiencing.
You are right! Desperate people will grasp at anything. This is how so many cults gain
many
of their members. Cults such as Scientology, Eckankar, Christianity, Moonies (actually
part of the Christian cult), various American-Hindu cults, some New Age cults, etc.
When you say "arguing logic to a person on skid row", it is more like coercing
this
person when he is down and has no other place to go -- anything is better than
what he has, and he will be extremely grateful for it by joining the cult that helped him.
This is not a level playing field for him. To be fair, the time to argue logic with a
person
is when he is not desperate, when he is not coerced by circumstances.
Refer to "poor in spirit" near the end of this e-mail.
Dear J.,
>I hope you don't mind being put on the "hot seat." Each time I have a
chance
>to discuss questions of belief with humanists, atheists,
and agnostics I
>consider it humorous the desperate measures that are taken so as not to
>consider any evidence and therefore confine themselves to any logical
>approach to what they believe.
Thanks for your response. I really do appreciate your putting me on the "hot
seat".
You are the first one to point out specific difficulties with specific parts of my
website pages. Often Christians argue in very general terms and do not criticize
specifics; or they quote a lot of verses, but do not say how all of them are relevant.
Sometimes it is difficult to see one's belief system from the outside
-- you are acting like my outside viewer. I agree with you there are some major
problems with these statements. Since I added the second statement I have
felt uncomfortable with it. To make things a little clearer I have made
changes to the difficult parts that you indicated.
I would like to hear your critical comments on these two sections
-- also on other parts of my homepage.
>Or He could be a God of logic and purpose. Like you said, look at the universe
>and all it's variety. But, why - what purpose did God
create it?
>Please, don't dodge my very sincere question. Ask yourself, if this Creator has a
>purpose for both creation and creature, wouldn't it be a good idea to know what it is?
>Do avoid answering by saying, "I don't know." There is more then enough
evidence
>to prove or disprove what I am asking. It is not just a matter of opinion
>(or man made systems of religion). It's a matter of touchable, examinable,
>REAL evidence. After honestly allowing the evidence to speak for itself,
>(if you are honest, and have integrity) you must either accept or reject the
>evidence and it's conclusion.
>(1) Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?
Let me make sure you understand what
>I'm not asking. I'm not asking who you believe Jesus is not. I am asking for
>affirmative statements of what you believe to be true. For instance,
>(a) did a flesh and blood Jesus of
Nazareth ever live? Yes or no.
>If you assert that no such man existed - please tell me the evidence you based
>your decision on. If you agree that He lived, (b)
where are you getting your
>evidence from? Biblical or extra-biblical evidence? If you trust the Biblical evidence
>enough to agree that He lived, (c) what
do you do with the claims He made
>for Himself in the Bible? If you say, he was just a good man, teaching good things,
>but was not God, (d) what evidence do
you base that on? If you claim He was
>a good man (who really existed) based upon the Bible, you contract your
>own evidence because this man also claimed to be the Creator of the universe
>you say you believe in.
My reply:
The only evidence of Jesus is in the bible.
So far I have found no other definite evidence of Jesus in secular or religious historical
sources. My answer would have to be that the evidence of Jesus existing depends
on the evidence of the bible being true.
(a) Just like the
"God" discussion above, what is your evidence that Jesus existed?
The person that claims someone existed in the past must show evidence,
before someone can refute it.
(b) From my Bible Study I have
found Jesus did not teach just "good things".
The parts of his teachings that are considered "good" were not original with
him.
You may want to critically comment on some specific parts of these pages.
There is a good Site by a former minister and missionary Dan Barker.
On the topic of ethics in the bible I recommend chapter 50 "Is The Bible
A Good moral Guide?" in his book "Losing Faith in Faith".
Thanks again for your input (especially about parts of my homepage, which
I will change) and I hope to hear your reasoned comments on the above.
Take care,