To me (an objectivist, which I assume you are as well), there is absolute good and absolute evil in the world. I guess this is more a religious point of view, but I think that the things that are true stand the test of time, whereas the things that do not have truth fail. This is not in regards to only religion but everything, i.e., the failing of communism. Freedom is good and coercion is bad- therefore, the system based on coercion failed and the systems based on freedom do not. To me, the fact that Christianity has survived so long (while not being a proof in and of itself of its validity) is a reassurance to me. I do not think that it got lucky in the beginning and therefore is now harder to disprove (as you are inferring Mormonism would be should it become widespread after these earlier, skeptical stages).

 

I have an actual reply. But check this out too

To me (an objectivist, which I assume you are as well), there is absolute good and absolute evil in the world. I guess this is more a religious point of view, but I think that the things that are true stand the test of time, whereas the things that do not have truth fail. This is not in regards to only religion but everything, i.e., the failing of communism. Freedom is good and coercion is bad- therefore, the system based on coercion failed and the systems based on freedom do not. To me, the fact that Christianity has survived so long (while not being a proof in and of itself of its validity) is a reassurance to me. I do not think that it got lucky in the beginning and therefore is now harder to disprove (as you are inferring Mormonism would be should it become widespread after these earlier, skeptical stages).

 

1. To me, all major religions got lucky, and under the right circumstances have flourished.

 

To me, the fact that Christianity has survived so long (while not being a proof in and of itself of its validity) is a reassurance to me.

 

2. By that logic wouldn't it mean that all major religions are right? To me that seems pretty doubtful with so many differing views. But if you check out these numbers you will see that most of the world is reassured then. Honestly if you think about it atheism as been around for a very long time as well.

While looking at numbers I have found quite a difference from BGP. It seems that when most groups attempt to do a religious census they put some interesting groups in with Christianity.

Fundamentalists, other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and such varied groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unification Church, etc. generally form the conservative wing;

:sssh:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm

I won't disagree with that. This is due to the imperfection of our own abilities to reason, not on the truth of something itself. For example, your have faith that life luckily assembled (as outlined in the other thread) instead of their being some Intelligent Creator. From what I gather, you have faith in the powers of chance.

 

The existence of faith is due to our own inability to 100% prove anything. Even in science, where faith is supposedly nonexistence, each new idea is contingent upon the truth of something else, which is contingent on another theory, etc. We have faith that our past theories are true so that we can discover new ones based on them.

I guess you could say that I have a faith in the powers of chance. I look at as more of a faith in science. In science I have evidence that I can see and make sense of to determine my thinking. With religion I have to make leaps that I am unable to make.

 

And now I have managed to get my own thread off topic. :lol:

I don't see anywhere in your passage that says infant baptism doesn't count. You're on base on the issue of choice/free will, but I think that it's a choice as to whether or not you want to follow Christ's teachings that's important more so than actually choosing to be baptized.

 

there are two different debates going on. This post was not about infant baptism but rather on the posts that said accepting Christ was more important than baptism.

I'm considering replying but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Is there a problem, LBBC? Any other backhand comments you want to get out before I reply? I would have thought that I had gained enough respect to not deserve comments like that, but I guess not....

 

I truly did not mean for that to come out as a slam. please accept my apology if you took it that way.

I truly did not mean for that to come out as a slam. please accept my apology if you took it that way.

Is that like saying "I'm sorry that you're mad at me.":idunno:

If you have read the previous threads on this subject, you'll remember that Catholics believe in Original Sin. The stain of sin must be washed away before ANYONE can enter heaven. Thus, if a baby dies unbaptized, they will not see the face of God. Thus, we protect the souls of infants by baptizing them at birth. After a child reaches the a "age of reason", and after at least a year of preparation, a child may choose to continue in the Catholic faith, of their own free will. But, as parents, we took care of the original sin, and ensured our innocent childs ability to go to heaven by baptizing them at birth.

 

Technically, Jesus took care of it. But I know what you meant.

 

I would like to read the Scripturally basis for the thought that parents can make that decision for a child.

 

Is the Catholic religion than taking the stance that those babies who die in delivery are not going to see the face of God?

Is that like saying "I'm sorry that you're mad at me.":idunno:

 

NO. IT means I did not mean it as a slam but a light hearted comment that Imust have screwed up on.

 

I do respect ccch and did not mean it as a slam against him.

NO. IT means I did not mean it as a slam but a light hearted comment that Imust have screwed up on.

 

I do respect ccch and did not mean it as a slam against him.

Oh, you mean like the one I just made to you!

I am shocked that someone would follow a church that was founded by someone with an arrest record. I am told that there are some folks that follow a church that was founded by a fellow that was not only arrested, but was executed for his crimes.:eek:

 

very nice catch

I have an actual reply. But check this out too

Short-term membership growth doesn't mean much to me, just as short-term economic growth for various reasons does not equate to long-term economic growth.

 

P.S. is it pitiful that I constantly relate religion to economics because they are my two primary interests? :lol:

1. To me, all major religions got lucky, and under the right circumstances have flourished.

 

2. By that logic wouldn't it mean that all major religions are right? To me that seems pretty doubtful with so many differing views. But if you check out these numbers you will see that most of the world is reassured then. Honestly if you think about it atheism as been around for a very long time as well.

To me, it means that all major religions have elements of truth. Islam, for example, was developed by Mohammed as he traveled around the Middle East as a caravan driver. The similarities between Islam and Judeo-Christianity are numerous and striking (and, worth noting, often ignored by many).

While looking at numbers I have found quite a difference from BGP. It seems that when most groups attempt to do a religious census they put some interesting groups in with Christianity.

:sssh:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm

I don't know enough about Mormonism to comment on whether or not they are Christian (without taking into account the various definitions of what is a Christian).

I guess you could say that I have a faith in the powers of chance. I look at as more of a faith in science. In science I have evidence that I can see and make sense of to determine my thinking. With religion I have to make leaps that I am unable to make.

 

And now I have managed to get my own thread off topic. :lol:

I'll stop (so long as I get the last word :clap:) . PM me or start a new thread if you wish for us to continue to :deadhorse: together! :lol:

Let's see what Jesus Christ says. You would agree that he is a pretty good source on the matter, right?

 

 

From that, Jesus sure indicates that both are important. Not sure how you can get anything different out of it.

 

And I would agree that not accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is where things go wrong. From the Scripture the act of accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is baptism.

 

Luke 23

 

Ephesians 2:8,9

 

The problem some people have in religion (including Mormonsim) is because of the differences ,whether small or large, and the animosity that arises among denominations with these issues. Personally I should have clarified a little more about Mormonism. I believe that the Mormons that are involved with polygamy are part of a cult. I don't have enough information about the rest of the Mormons to call them a cult.

Edited February 11, 200917 yr by KY Thorobred

ROCKMOM, an infant passes away and isn't baptized. This baby is in hell?

 

Someone gonna start a new Thread?

AL

 

A devout (and saved) baptist kills a gay man claiming the dead man was an abomination in God's eyes.

 

Is he going to Hades?

 

Once saved always saved right?

 

More fodder for another thread?