Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Min

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have followed the thread since the beginning and have seen little that matches your interpretation.

I do not think most of the "atheists" on here have a problem with differing beliefs. Differing beliefs are great, the world would be boring if we all believed the same thing.

I think the issue people have is actually with entirely baseless and unsubstantiated beliefs. A massively different thing.

Even then I do not think the issue is with people HAVING those unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs. Few, if any, here seem to have issues with what peoples private faith is. The issue is when such people do not keep faith private and try to implement it in our society or our halls of power, education and science.

If people want to think there is a god in their own time, in their own heads I am not seeing many people here who have an issue with that.

Why should people keep their faith private, it is not something they are ashamed of, it provides a lot of good in a society, it brings people together by being public with it as seen in Croke Park today.

John Bruton, from the Irish times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984570.html

CHRISTIANS HAD a right and an obligation to bring their faith to bear in their engagement in politics, former taoiseach John Bruton has said in an address to the Eucharistic Congress.
The participation of people of faith could enhance the quality of political discourse by bringing an “added value” that would benefit believers and non-believers alike, said Mr Bruton. “Christians, and Catholics in particular, should not be afraid to bring their beliefs into the public sphere,” he added.
Referring to the argument that religious belief should be kept out of politics, Mr Bruton said the European Convention on Human Rights did not confine religion to the private sphere and in fact contained a right to manifest religious belief in public.
“I believe a ‘separationist’ view of keeping religion in the private sphere, and out of politics, is artificial. It misunderstands human nature. It also refuses to accept religious faith for what it is something that informs every aspect of one’s life.”
Mr Bruton stressed there were clear distinctions of function between the role the State performs and the role performed by churches. “These must be respected even though the boundaries will shift slightly from time to time,” he said.
He said everyone believed ethical beliefs could and should influence the actions of political institutions. But for many people it was impossible to separate their ethical beliefs from the religious source from which they sprung.
Voters did not divide their minds into compartments. Faith was not just one compartment of life and what went on in one part of the mind influenced what went on in the other.
Mr Bruton was warmly applauded when he referred to religious education, which he described as having shaped the ethos of Irish society in many positive ways. “Anybody that would put that social capital at risk or diminish its value or diminish our ability to pass it on undiminished to the next generation would not be doing a favour to this country,” he said.
During a short question-and- answer session afterwards, a woman who described herself as a Fine Gael voter expressed concern because she thought the party was in government with a party “who profess to approve of abortion”. What could committed Catholics do “to get Fine Gael on our side”, she asked. Mr Bruton said the argument against abortion should be presented in “completely secular terms” and “the language of human rights” should be used.
He went on to say he had made the speech because he felt a lot of Catholics had become discouraged in recent times by the secularisation of society. “You have many secularists who are saying keep religion separate from politics and keep the Catholics silent and if the Catholics speak up its intimidation,” he said.

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

Why should people keep their faith private, it is not something they are ashamed of, it provides a lot of good in a society, it brings people together by being public with it as seen in Croke Park today.

John Bruton, from the Irish times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984570.html

Ok, You put forward one mans screwy (in my opinion!) notions uttered at a Catholic lovefest......and?
Theres a difference between not keeping your supernatural beliefs private and trying to get them shoe horned into the public life of an entire population via politics.

Zab

Min wrote: »

Why should people keep their faith private, it is not something they are ashamed of, it provides a lot of good in a society, it brings people together by being public with it as seen in Croke Park today.

John Bruton, from the Irish times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984570.html

I don't think people should have to keep their faith private, however I do think that if you're giving your faith as a basis for a position you're taking then you obviously open up your underlying belief to argument. I think it's also pretty easy to argue that religion should be kept out of state institutions.

Pushtrak

Min wrote: »

Why should people keep their faith private

If your faith is in Jesus, then perhaps this might answer that.

it is not something they are ashamed of[

Indeed it isn't. But on some level, there should be shame. Why was it the pope didn't actually attend?

During a short question-and- answer session afterwards, a woman who described herself as a Fine Gael voter expressed concern because she thought the party was in government with a party “who profess to approve of abortion”. What could committed Catholics do “to get Fine Gael on our side”, she asked. Mr Bruton said the argument against abortion should be presented in “completely secular terms” and “the language of human rights” should be used.

There is already an abortion thread.

He went on to say he had made the speech because he felt a lot of Catholics had become discouraged in recent times by the secularisation of society. “You have many secularists who are saying keep religion separate from politics and keep the Catholics silent and if the Catholics speak up its intimidation,” he said.

...

“Penalties are necessary to ensure that laws are respected, and may involve terms of imprisonment, but these penalties should be calculated by reference to the need for deterrence and restitution, not as a form vengeance or catharsis for victims.”

Offenders should be forgiven once a penalty is paid, he added.

Wonder how many of his audience he lost there.

Min

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ok, You put forward one mans screwy (in my opinion!) notions uttered at a Catholic lovefest......and?
Theres a difference between not keeping your supernatural beliefs private and trying to get them shoe horned into the public life of an entire population via politics.

"Mr Bruton said the European Convention on Human Rights did not confine religion to the private sphere and in fact contained a right to manifest religious belief in public."

No one is saying to have them shoe horned anywhere, but a person's faith cannot be compartmentalised into one section of one's life as their faith is a part of whom they are.
No one apart from radical secularists maybe, wants to have a Dáil full of atheists. Society is made up mostly of people with a faith, however strong or weak that faith is, and of people with no faith. The point is everyone draws their morals from some source, some will draw their morals from their faith, some will draw their morals from the society that has been shaped by governments both good and bad. There are a lot of shared morals between all people.
Everyone has a right to express their belief and what is best for society whether they are coming from a background where they have a strong religious belief or where they have no belief in a God. Otherwise we are putting in censorship towards those of whom we do not share a common denominator with.

Pushtrak

Min wrote: »

"Mr Bruton said the European Convention on Human Rights did not confine religion to the private sphere and in fact contained a right to manifest religious belief in public."

Oh, appeal to the ECHR, will you? Ok.. http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/2010/12/echr-irish-abortion-law-violates.html

Zab

Min wrote: »

Everyone has a right to express their belief and what is best for society whether they are coming from a background where they have a strong religious belief or where they have no belief in a God.

I'm not sure what it is that you're arguing here. Are you suggesting it would be a good thing if the Dáil passed laws because they're supported by the bible rather than supported by secular concepts of morality?

Min

Pushtrak wrote: »

Oh, appeal to the ECHR, will you? Ok.. http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/2010/12/echr-irish-abortion-law-violates.html

I was just posting what John Bruton said.

It is common for the west to believe killing people is a help to human rights as seen with the invasion of Iraq and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, or drone attacks in Afghanistan where innocent people are killed, or the lies told about Syria, or how they armed Gaddafi before they attacked the country.
It is no surprise that the ECHR which is a western institution believes women have a right to kill the unborn. They didn't exactly stop European governments from killing civilians in the middle east through lies and propaganda.
Killing is obviously a human right as no one in a powerful country in the west will ever be prosecuted as a war criminal because it is a human right for powerful western leaders to invade countries based on propaganda and to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the process.
Of course the ECHR would want abortion in Ireland, killing is a human right.

Min

Zab wrote: »

I'm not sure what it is that you're arguing here. Are you suggesting it would be a good thing if the Dáil passed laws because they're supported by the bible rather than supported by secular concepts of morality?

I am saying anyone who is elected should not be restricted based on what they believe.
It is the people who gives the person a mandate and they should know what the person believes in, in terms of policy before they are elected and if that is influenced by their religious belief, it should not be restricted.
Just as if a person who is atheist is elected, they should not be restricted by being an atheist.

philologos

Wibbs wrote: »

On the changes made after Paul I can't see us ever agreeing, as with the vast majority of Christians groups that survive to today you're Paulian in doctrine. This was not always the case as the early Gnostics, Nazerenes and others show. The early back and forth issues that survive between the Jerusalem Christians and the Greek/Roman adherents give some hint of the divisions involved. One was very much a Jewish sect, the other a "Gentile" one. Why do you as a Christian not observe the Jewish sabbath and other religious dates as Jesus did(repeated references to same in the Gospels), why do you as a Christian not circumcise your sons as Jesus was, why do you not follow the dietary(and other) Jewish codes that Jesus did? The people "on the ground" that knew him followed all these. Paul introduced these novelties. Can you show me where any of the original apostles suggested these changes before Paul? My contention is this; if Paul hadn't existed Christianity would have had a very different flavour and it would have been rooted not in the Grecoroman world but in the Jewish.

I can't see myself agreeing with you because there is no good Scriptural reason for any of the stuff you're saying. If there were, I would commend you. In the absence of any good reason to suggest that Paul radically differed from the other Apostles or Jesus Christ, I can't agree. The Apostolic writings speak for themselves on this issue. I've shown you how James actually doesn't even radically differ from John, or Paul or Peter.

I've explained in previous posts why I believe that the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus. Simply put, the festivals point towards Jesus. Jesus in John's Gospel clearly says that the Law of Moses speaks about Him (John 5).

I'm going to come to the alleged contradictions of the Resurrection and of the Virgin Birth in another post, PDN and others on the Christianity forum have responded to these numerous times before. I think it might be good to have a look at what they've said about it.

I also note that you've not provided any Biblical references to what you're actually talking about. It really really does help if you're discussing a text to cite chapter and verse.

Pushtrak

Min wrote: »

Of course the ECHR would want abortion in Ireland, killing is a human right.

:rolleyes:

Min wrote: »

I am saying anyone who is elected should not be restricted based on what they believe.

You can't believe that, surely. How about if you heard a politician who believed

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

It is the people who gives the person a mandate and they should know what the person believes in, in terms of policy before they are elected and if that is influenced by their religious belief, it should not be restricted.

Would you like to add conditions to that or would you accept someone who voiced belief in the above?

philologos

Pushtrak: It'd be really good if you engaged with the Bible for yourself instead of googling websites with lists of quotes. Blindly trusting the interpretation of others, isn't really free thinking in a meaningful sense.*

Why can't we discuss it with just our own argumentation? - Otherwise it seems like you are blindly assuming the Bible is wrong before you're even considered it, and that your posts are the result of confirmation bias.

* Your post is from www.evilbible.com

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: It'd be really good if you engaged with the Bible for yourself instead of googling websites with lists of quotes. Blindly trusting the interpretation of others, isn't really free thinking in a meaningful sense.*

Why can't we discuss it with just our own argumentation? - Otherwise it seems like you are blindly assuming the Bible is wrong before you're even considered it, and that your posts are the result of confirmation bias.

* Your post is from www.evilbible.com

You fail to see the point I'm making in my post. I'm responding to an assertion that whatever one holds as their religious beliefs is the personal business of whomever. I'm interested if anybody would hold to such a perspective to the point where they would actually vote in someone who believes such content as I've quoted above.

Edit: For an example outside the frame of quotes, I wonder who would advocate for a Jehovahs Witness to become Minister for Health and would think reasoning like "“I believe a ‘separationist’ view of keeping religion in the private sphere, and out of politics, is artificial. It misunderstands human nature. It also refuses to accept religious faith for what it is something that informs every aspect of one’s life.”" would justify said Minister wanting to end blood transfusions. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic example. Would never happen.

philologos

Your post shows that you and the people who wrote www.evilbible.com don't understand what Christians actually believe in respect to covenant theology.

Namely, that yes, we did deserve God's wrath for sin entirely and unequivocally. Sin deserves death (Romans 1:29-32), but Jesus Christ has taken God's wrath on our behalf so that we are justified before Him (1 Peter 3:18). Therefore if I've been justified on Christ's behalf, how on earth could I expect a penalty like that to be imposed on anyone (Matthew 18:21-35).

This New Covenant agreement influences how Christians read previous Scriptures. That's unequivocally been the position of the earliest Christians.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

I can't see myself agreeing with you because there is no good Scriptural reason for any of the stuff you're saying. If there were, I would commend you. In the absence of any good reason to suggest that Paul radically differed from the other Apostles or Jesus Christ, I can't agree. The Apostolic writings speak for themselves on this issue. I've shown you how James actually doesn't even radically differ from John, or Paul or Peter.

I'll ask you again

Here's one I prepared earlier wrote:

Can you show me where any of the original apostles[or Jesus for that matter] suggested these changes before Paul?

Secondly there was disagreement over Jewish rituals/traditions between Paul and the Jerusalem church. The latter many of whom actually knew Jesus in life.

I'm going to come to the alleged contradictions of the Resurrection and of the Virgin Birth in another post, PDN and others on the Christianity forum have responded to these numerous times before. I think it might be good to have a look at what they've said about it.

I also note that you've not provided any Biblical references to what you're actually talking about. It really really does help if you're discussing a text to cite chapter and verse.

OK here's a few(PITT that it is to go a hunting);

On where Jesus appears first.
Matthew 28:8 Jesus first appears near the tomb
Luke 24:13 Jesus first appears miles away from Jerusalem.
John agrees with this version.
Mark says he appears to M Magdalene but doesn't say where and stylistically it's long been suspected that these passages are later additions as they don't show up in the earliest versions.

On who he appeared to and how many.
Matthew 28:1 Says two women, both Marys. One Magdalene, the other I dunno.
Luke 24:10 Says three lassies, MM, Joanna, and another Mary like Matthew. Mark 16:1 Comes along and again says three of the fairer sex, but one was different again. MM, the other Mary and Salome(not of the 7 veils one presumes)
Then we come to John 20:1 who claims only MM was there.
Paul in Corinthians 15:5 then adds another name to the pot and appears to omit the ladies entirely. Then again he's hardly a witness to anything of the times.

On the angels and the state of the tomb.
Mark 16:5 Has a man sitting beside the tomb.
Matthew 28:2 has one angel, who shows up, actively rolls the stone door and then sits on it.
Luke 24:4 has two men in shiny clothes who appear from thin air.
John 20:1 is the most mundane of the descriptions with MM only seeing the empty tomb.

And there's lots more where that came from.

As to the explanations? Oh I've read a few of them. None come close to explaining away the internal inconsistencies of the most important event in Christian history and theology. One of the usual excuses is that this is a good thing as it shows that they weren;t trying to invent anything, otherwise they'd be consistent. IMHO that's beyond daft an "explanation".

philologos

Wibbs: My point is what changes? - There are none I can see. Paul is teaching the same Gospel as Jesus and the other apostles. I've gone through what changes you claim that Paul made to the Gospel. The reality is that we've found that this is actually teaching consistent with Jesus and the Apostles.

As for disagreement in Galatians, I agree, there was, but this has very little to do with what Jesus actually taught. And Peter, affirms Paul's writings in his letters. This doesn't mean that Paul changed Christianity. Rather what it could mean is that Paul corrected Peter.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: It'd be really good if you engaged with the Bible for yourself instead of googling websites with lists of quotes. Blindly trusting the interpretation of others, isn't really free thinking in a meaningful sense.*

Indeed so, however are those quoted passages in error? If so cool and the gang, if not we're down to that old get out clause beloved of the religious "interpretation".

Zab

Min wrote: »

I am saying anyone who is elected should not be restricted based on what they believe.

Who is arguing that believers should be "restricted" from being elected?

It is the people who gives the person a mandate and they should know what the person believes in, in terms of policy before they are elected and if that is influenced by their religious belief, it should not be restricted.

What do you mean "it" should not be restricted?

Look, the general argument is simple here: The state should stay as far away from any particular religion as it can while also ensuring freedom of religion for all, or more broadly upholding civil rights in general.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Wibbs: My point is what changes? - There are none I can see..

Again avoiding the point like the very plague... "Why do you as a Christian not observe the Jewish sabbath and other religious dates as Jesus did(repeated references to same in the Gospels), why do you as a Christian not circumcise your sons as Jesus was, why do you not follow the dietary(and other) Jewish codes that Jesus did? " Where does Jesus say change the Sabbath day? Where does he say eat pork? Where does he say don't circumcise? I'll give you a clue, he doesn't. His followers on the ground in Palestine didn't either, hence the letters and dispute concerning same.

philologos

How have I avoided the point? I've tackled each one of your objections. B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79213310&postcount=482"]1[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79232489&postcount=488"]2[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239729&postcount=495"]3[/URL][/B

You've ignored the questions I asked you by the by.

Sabbath observance can be seen in Mark's Gospel, and Luke's Gospel and varying other Gospels. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and Jesus clearly showed the Pharisees that they had misunderstood the Sabbath as a concept in all 4 of the Gospels.

Circumcision is obvious. We are no longer under the Old Covenant therefore we do not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. Jesus, preached the Gospels clearly to Gentiles, and at no point did Jesus order them to be circumcised. If Jesus had earnestly suggested that Gentiles needed to be circumcised as a result of that covenant relationship we would have seen clear examples in the Gospels as Gentiles came to believe in Him.

As for foods - in Mark 7 Jesus declares all foods clean.

The simple fact of the matter is that all of the Apostolic works are consistent with Jesus' teaching in the Gospel, and all of the Apostolic works are in agreement with eachother concerning how Christians are justified and saved in Jesus.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Sabbath observance can be seen in Mark's Gospel, and Luke's Gospel and varying other Gospels. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and Jesus clearly showed the Pharisees that they had misunderstood the Sabbath as a concept in all 4 of the Gospels.

Did he change the day? Yes, or no? No is the answer.

Circumcision is obvious. We are no longer under the Old Covenant therefore we do not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. Jesus, preached the Gospels clearly to Gentiles, and at no point did Jesus order them to be circumcised. If Jesus had earnestly suggested that Gentiles needed to be circumcised as a result of that covenant relationship we would have seen clear examples in the Gospels as Gentiles came to believe in Him.

It wasn't so obvious to the Jerusalem church or they wouldn't have taken some issue with it. Secondly at first his mission was to the "lost sheep of Israel" who would be snipped and actively told his followers not to enter an area of Gentiles, only later globally changing his tune, because "his own" rejected him. Which of course begs two questions, 1) if he was so obviously a great prophet and worker of miracles you'd think those who knew him would be more gung ho for him and his mission and 2) Jew/Gentile is an accident of birth, so nice way to be excluded from salvation on that point. Samaritans being of a Jewish bent would also be snipped so no issue there as would many of the other tribes and faiths in that neck of the woods. The objection to the practice comes to us from Paul who was dealing with potential converts who though it was a repugnant and primitive practice and indeed was illegal under Roman law for a Roman to be so chopped. Again as I've pointed out this question is asked by Paul first, not Jesus nor his followers at "ground zero". IE he drove this change.

As for foods - in Mark 7 Jesus declares all foods clean.

The commentator in brackets says he declares all foods clean. One can also read the passage and come to the conclusion that ritual washing before eating isn't the big deal these Pharisees say it is. No mention is made of the nature of the foods themselves, merely the washing of hands. Again the earliest followers at "ground zero" did believe the Jewish food laws were to be observed again reflected in the dispute.

The simple fact of the matter is that all of the Apostolic works are consistent with Jesus' teaching in the Gospel, and all of the Apostolic works are in agreement with eachother concerning how Christians are justified and saved in Jesus.

One can say a thing a million times, but it doesn't make it any more accurate or inaccurate as the case may be. The "explanations" for gospel inaccuracies, inconsistencies et al should be good, especially as you seem to base much of your arguments on such bulk of docs and continuation and accuracy when compared to other historical documents.

Min

Pushtrak wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You can't believe that, surely. How about if you heard a politician who believed


Would you like to add conditions to that or would you accept someone who voiced belief in the above?

As I said, the person should be upfront about what they want or support in terms of policy so the electorate can decide if that is what they want.
We do not want Mick Wallace type politicians who keep quiet about tax deals that deprive the country of earnings and who could be accused of being elected under false pretenses. Then tells people not to pay the household charge tax without people knowing that he has his own tax default history...

philologos

The original Greek interlinear also contains that, so I have no issue with the round brackets. If you are disputing Mark in respect to the application, then we might as well throw out the whole of Mark and discuss about nothing.

The reality is that the New Testament is the most reliable source that we have in all history, and is by far the most reliable source concerning Jesus.

If we talk about Jesus, our point of reference is the New Testament. If it isn't we're not really talking about Jesus Christ anymore.

You also say, one can say something a million times. Yes, one can. One can also clearly demonstrate from Scripture that your claims are false which is what I've done the last few pages. I've explained to you exactly why on a Biblical level, I can't accept your position.

Edit: Actually Wibbs - looking at the passage alone can tell you what Jesus thinks on this subject. Let's cross out the brackets. I don't think it makes any difference.

Mark 7:14-22 wrote:

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Min

Zab wrote: »

Who is arguing that believers should be "restricted" from being elected?




What do you mean "it" should not be restricted?

Look, the general argument is simple here: The state should stay as far away from any particular religion as it can while also ensuring freedom of religion for all, or more broadly upholding civil rights in general.

It is being argued they should keep a part of them quiet and private, that they should not be public about their faith or practice their faith in terms of what they believe is best for society.

It is - people shouldn't be restricted of what they are allowed to support or not support because their conscience is ruled by what they believe and the faith of a believer is a vital part of one's make up. Some want this part restricted in public.

philologos

Min: I think some people don't realise that Christianity holds that people need to hear the Gospel. Therefore, it can never be "private". It's good news for the entire world so that they might come to salvation.

If it was illegal to evangelise, many would still do so, myself included. In that case, God's standard comes before the standards of the State.

Some people whom I could only admire have been put to death because they were Christians and refused to recant. Such courage, and such faith is lacking in the Western world.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

Min: I think some people don't realise that Christianity holds that people need to hear the Gospel. Therefore, it can never be "private". It's good news for the entire world so that they might come to salvation.

If it was illegal to evangelise, many would still do so, myself included. In that case, God's standard comes before the standards of the State.

Some people whom I could only admire have been put to death because they were Christians and refused to recant. Such courage, and such faith is lacking in the Western world.

You can thank education.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

You can thank education.

Do we need to go back to when I made the point that many people who are educated are Christians?

It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that education has anything to do with this subject. I know Christians who have phD's, I also know Christians who don't have any form of qualification. It's highly irrelevant. Both know that Jesus is Lord, both are able to trust Him in much the same way.

Helix

philologos wrote: »

Both know that Jesus is Lord, both are able to trust Him in much the same way.

neither know

they think they know

just like the child who thinks they know santa is real

Zab

philologos wrote: »

Do we need to go back to when I made the point that many people who are educated are Christians?

It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that education has anything to do with this subject. I know Christians who have phD's, I also know Christians who don't have any form of qualification. It's highly irrelevant. Both know that Jesus is Lord, both are able to trust Him in much the same way.

I strongly disagree. If religion ever dies off education and quality of life will have had a lot to do with it. Just because you know any number of people who don't follow that trend doesn't make any difference. Education leads to rationality and rationality leads to a lack of faith.

Min

Helix wrote: »

neither know

they think they know

just like the child who thinks they know santa is real

Santa is real in that it comes from St (Santa/saint) Nicholas (Claus) who is reported to be buried in Kilkenny. Santa also means holy in Italian.
Basically Santa Claus is St Nicholas, anf then stuff was added on like the north pole and elves, down chimneys and so on but Santa Claus is based on a real person, St Nicholas of Myra.