Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you're pretty close. I've read the new testament no less than ten times and studied it for close to forty years. There's a couple of things in there which instructs the followers of Jesus to be meek, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, love their neighbors, do unto others as they would want someone to do unto them, If sued in court for their cloak to voluntarily give their coat as well, to take no thought for tomorrow, to love their enemies and pray for those who curse and despise them, to be perfect even as the father in heaven is perfect. Add to that the instruction to give a tenth of what they're able to get their hands on plus gifts and you've just about summed it up.
I've never met one...a Christian. 'Course I'm just 75 years old.
Of course, you know, all that was presented...and demonstrated by Jesus...as a standard for us to ATTEMPT to emulate...and while no one has ever met anyone (except Jesus) that met a standard of Godly perfection...falling slightly short (which, as you know, we were told would be the reality) is a far cry from, "Yeah...mankind did a pretty good job of creating god in his image. Jealous, Egotistical, Vindictive etc."
Of course I have not met any perfect people either, but I've known many that gave their very life for others...and I'd hardly call that Egotistical and Vindictive. I'm sorry you had such evidently negative personal experiences in your life to see man as so evil...such has not been my experience. I've met some really bad people, but that's been the exception...not the standard.
You are correct; there are adult converts. But, you have to admit, theists tend to stick with their religion of birth. Also, do you think it is easier to convert to christianity in a predominantly christian nation? By that I mean, that particular 'meme' already exists and it is easier to adopt that meme.
I don't know the answer to this question but I wonder if converted adults tend to adopt established religions. I would be curious to see if adults from the middle east tend to convert to Islam, etc. Alternatively, are adult converts more likely to convert to minority religions in their area?
They probably do go to the more common religion in their culture as that's the religion they'd find if they want to find religion.
Still I think I've heard of exceptions even to that. Cat Stevens went from irreligious to Muslim and I don't know if Britain at that time was as Muslim as it is now. Aldous Huxley came from a highly secular British family, but joined some Hindu movement. American author Mary Doria Russell went from Catholic upbringing to atheist adulthood to Judaism. She lives in a suburb of Cleveland, which seems to have a solid Jewish population but is not majority Jewish from what I can tell.
Many who converted to Baha'i did so as adults and in Muslim nations becoming Baha'i entails risks, but I believe it still occurs.
Just because they didn't have the label "The Scientific Method" didn't mean that isn't what they were using when they saw water running over, and off, a round rock...but then collecting in a pool on a flat rock with depressions in it...thus being the "test" that proved what they observed and formed a hypothesis about...showing others the same was the "peer review". Anyway, my initial point about it was...a "Flat Earth" concept wasn't just something they heard and then became "popular opinion" with no "evidence" to support it. In conclusion...despite what "science" might "prove" with their strictest current testing...it could be (and many times IS) completely wrong.
You may not agree...but I give The Scientific Method no more...actually less...viability to come up with the answer to the way things actually are...compared to intuition, perception, and common sense.
All the best.
I guess you and I define science differently. I mean, showing Bob from next door your latest 'experiment' doesn't count as peer review.... at least not by our modern definition. Also, I would like to note, deficiencies of science in the past (ya' know when they were still working out the kinks), do not invalidate the rigorous method we use now. Sure, it's not perfect but it's the best we have and provides very reliable results. In fact, I'll wager on scientific results over perception and intuition any day.
I guess you and I define science differently. I mean, showing Bob from next door your latest 'experiment' doesn't count as peer review.... at least not by our modern definition. Also, I would like to note, deficiencies of science in the past (ya' know when they were still working out the kinks), do not invalidate the rigorous method we use now. Sure, it's not perfect but it's the best we have and provides very reliable results. In fact, I'll wager on scientific results over perception and intuition any day.
Keep wagering...I raise and call you! You might find this interesting::::-
HaHaHaHa...It wasn't "popular opinion" that made people think the world was flat way back when...that was "SCIENCE" that had people believing that BS.
Repeating this doesn't make it true. It only hurts your credibility when you post obvious falsehoods - if you can't even get the easy to verify stuff correct, why should we believe you about the more difficult stuff?
Typical Atheist shtick---Cite mans "individual perception" as somehow indicative of the nonexistence of God.
I submit that the amount of differing perceptions of God is equal to the number of people that perceive God. Which has no bearing as to whether God exists...since ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is ultimately perceived differently by each person...since each person is unique.
How is that "so obviously confusing"? Ooooooooh, it's really not.
Why don't we have similar confusion due to different perceptions of the value of G, for example? That's something that's measured by people with all sorts of different backgrounds and biases and yet everyone comes to an agreement on what the value is since it refers to something real an concrete. Why do gods behave so differently than things which are real?
Why don't we have similar confusion due to different perceptions of the value of G, for example? That's something that's measured by people with all sorts of different backgrounds and biases and yet everyone comes to an agreement on what the value is since it refers to something real an concrete. Why do gods behave so differently than things which are real?
God doesn't . . . people's preferences do . . . like yours ("Nature")
Repeating this doesn't make it true. It only hurts your credibility when you post obvious falsehoods - if you can't even get the easy to verify stuff correct, why should we believe you about the more difficult stuff?
It's YOU not getting the "easy stuff".
My point was...the people back when that believed Earth was flat weren't just going with "popular opinion" for that belief...like believing, for example, a Sun God Ra cried-and her tears were the other celestial bodies.
I was noting that their supposition of a flat earth was based on their "observation", and that the "hypothesis" they formed based on that observation was "tested" by all (even if the "test" wasn't specifically conducted) who drew the same conclusion at the time. That is "in essence" how the "Scientific Method" is conducted.
The ancients weren't just "repeating what they heard" with no evidence, was my point...they had, what would have been to them, "scientific proof". And coming to conclusions based on belief in lightly held "public opinion", is a far cry from coming to conclusions based on the observance of naturally occurring phenomena...and then discerning facts based on deductive reasoning applied to those observations.
Leading to my statement that it was "science" (direct observation of consistently repeatable evidence)...as the observance of the "properties" of water, and the earth "appearing" flat (sunrise & sunset) was unavoidable...that led to ancients believing in a flat earth. Not just "public opinion" with no "supporting evidence".
Why don't we have similar confusion due to different perceptions of the value of G, for example? That's something that's measured by people with all sorts of different backgrounds and biases and yet everyone comes to an agreement on what the value is since it refers to something real an concrete. Why do gods behave so differently than things which are real?
Man is fickle. Gravity isn't. God isn't. But just because man is fickle, and wavering in his perceptions, doesn't mean God isn't just as real as gravity (really cool of Him to create the force of gravity...nice work God), and even more constant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
