Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long as we don't say 'the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"

Well that is a fair summary of my position…but doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot more to say, discuss and debate.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's sovereign choice that Israel be spiritual and not physical is often parlayed into God's sovereign choice to save this one and not that one.
I wouldn't skip over the context to rush to another doctrine.

But surely that’s the whole point of Romans 9-11? In asking whether God’s previous promises to physical Israel are now null / unfulfilled, Paul clearly says that salvation has always depended on God’s will and not human action / descent. This is the link to the related question of “how does one enter the spiritual Israel?” So, the question of physical / spiritual Israel and the question of election / salvation are inseparably linked. That seems to me to be the most natural way to read Romans 9 and following, but I totally accept that others may disagree.

antiskeptic wrote: »

No argument there. The question is the totality of guilt - that was what was been insisted on and I question that. If you have been lumbered with a distinct propensity to sin, its difficult to say you are totally responsible for the consequences.

Now you can turn to your bible and pluck a verse out, but the problem remains. If you rely on some special pleading 'irrespective of how bizarre it sounds, we are totally guilty because God says so' then it is special.

God is above us. His justice is our justice - perfected. Not mangled.

You cannot read the bible but through the lens of what it is to be human. God's justice, if utterly divorced from our own sense of justice - however flawed and inconsistent - would be gobbeldygook. You could only say "dah byble sayz it"

Our sense of justice is an imperfect reflection of God’s perfect justice. As I said before, we are guilty as a race (i.e. the human race) because of Adam’s fall, and also individually and actually guilty by virtue of our own actions.

Honestly, I don’t see a problem with this or any grounds to charge God with injustice. I’d also ask whether the bible should correct our thinking or vice versa.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't agree. Paul earlier deals with an objection to the gospel 'what shall we say then, shall we continue in sin because we're irrevocably saved?" By no means..

He deals with a specfic matter. There is no reason to suppose (as Calvinists do) that passages dealing with a specific objection to the gospel ("e.g. but what about Israel?") has anything at all to do with the way of salvation.

The twins, Esau and Jacob are frequently pulled out."This is how salvation is wrought: God's sovereign choice". But the passage is dealing with an objection "what about Israel?" not salvation.

How is a writer supposed to deal with one subject (spiritual Israel vs physical Israel when everything he says is shoehorned into another subject?

You gloss over that. "Yes that't what he's speaking about but we can take more from it.."

Can we? How?

But that’s exactly the point – the objection / question Paul is responding to is related to salvation. He is answering the person who says “hang on, what about the promise to physical Israel, had God discarded them or changed his mind?” And in Romans 9-11 Paul shows how this is not the case

antiskeptic wrote: »

That presupposes that my questioning is rebellion and your view aligns with God's.

Yes, who are we to say to God 'how dare you'. But first we must establish if this indeed is what God dares.

On free will: there is no free will. Slave to sin have not free will.

Lol, I don’t think your questioning is rebellion. But Paul is pretty clear that Pharaoh was raised up for a specific purpose, and that he remains responsible for his actions. Same applies to Saul, Judas and many others.

On our slavery to sin, remember it is a willing slavery. We do precisely the things we want to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God as Jesus. God as Hitler, the ethnic cleanser. If you are content that ethnic cleansing and the killing of babies is okay so lony as God does it then there is no issue.
God would be like Hitler petting his dog or Stalin cuddling his daughter - a bizarre entity beyond comprehension.

I don’t really want to keep engaging with you on this part if you’re going to be offensive. And I’ve already given you my answer in my previous post. The question in the destruction of the Canaanite nations is whether God has the right to judge the world he has made.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or Jesus is actually the representation of God. Not the one written about by a formerly pagan people who had worshipped war gods who led them to victory amd demanded their children as sacrifices. Rather, one written about by people who met him face to face.

Well, scripture is pretty clear that Abraham, Jacob, and Moses all encountered God directly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the cross displays as no other, the depths to which God is prepared to exercise his sovereign choice. Gentle and meek unto death. There is no greater underline attaching to the nature of the exercision of the sovereignty of God than that he laid down his life.

If God's sovereignty allowed him to do anything he liked and be right every time, why would he die for us.

God is sovereign. But he is mevertheless constrained. Not evem he has a magic wand.

My point was that God is still in control of events. He lays down his life, and he takes it up again. He is gentle, meek, and sovereign. I don’t think any of that is even remotely controversial.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yeah, but Pharoah had no hand in obtaining his depraved nature (what a poor choice of word - requiring much explanation given what is normally attached to that word)

Unless you magic up a form of justice which blames the kid for the sins of the father…

How so. Conscience acts as a restraint. Sometimes we expend effort (at least I do) to suppress its restraint so that I can sin. Sometimes I don't insist on having my daily sin.

Are you suggesting that we have no involvement?

The doctrine of total depravity states that sin extends to every part of us, not that we are all as bad as we might be. That’s the point I was making. As for Pharaoh’s part in obtaining his depraved nature, as I said in my last post our guilt in Adam comes from the fact that he is our representative. So when he fell, we all, in a sense, fell too.

In any case it’s a moot point for you or me or anyone else reading this, as we have all incurred our own individual guilt before God by our own sin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Taking you hand off the wheel is as much an act will as steering the wheel. Both are sovereign choices. There is no need to suppose sovereignty is a matter of action. You can also decide not to act
If deciding not to act ( a sovereign decision) then the person is in control.
Why would you think God is always in control? His will might be done in allowing others to determine things.

Because the bible says so? If God isn’t in control, and doesn’t know what’s going to happen next, then who does? That idea doesn’t make much sense to me.

john123470

Not a peep out of Sandor Clegane - he who originally opened this thread - with those Leading existential questions -

Well, is Senor Clegane anyway satisfied with our various contributions thus far .. ?

Has he .. er ..
.. been terminated .. ��

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Well that is a fair summary of my position…but doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot more to say, discuss and debate.

I don't mind it being settled in your head. There is much still to say, as you say.

But surely that’s the whole point of Romans 9-11? In asking whether God’s previous promises to physical Israel are now null / unfulfilled, Paul clearly says that salvation has always depended on God’s will and not human action / descent.

The whole point of Romans 9-11 is that a verse doesn't make a whole point.

Zooming out we see the CHAPTER is dealing with the objection: "what about physical Israel?"

The argument continues along, clear as day, uninterrupted to 9:9. God's sovereign choice to have Israel spiritual and not physical.

9:10 starts out with a 'not only that'..thats the language of continuation of the argument. The case of the twins and God having a purpose for them, aside from anything they did - just as he choses Israel to by spiritual, apart from anything anyone does. There is nothing about salvation to be extracted, only inserted. If you think election has anything to do with salvation then by all means show. Its not founded here though - just God's sovereign purpose to chose which nation are his true, eternal people. Or chose that the line of spiritual Israel travel through this person and not that person.

We're at 9:13 and nothing to deflect from the theme of the chapter thus far. Paul's contimuous argument prevents a side step into the mode of how individual salvation is wrought.

14? 15? Is God unjust in drawing the line down the spiritual and not the physical? For that is the continuarion of argument context. No. He will have mercy on who he, by sovereign choice, will have mercy on. Who's that, in context thus far? Spiritual Israel is the amswer. He choses to habe mercy on spiritual Israel. There is no mention, no argument dealing with personal salvation



We could go on and on with Pharoah etc and find there is no more reference to personal salvation there than with the twins.

Suffice to say that the obviousness of the context 'it shall be Spiritual and not physical Israel' is as plain as the nose on your face again at 9:22. Objects of mercy 》spiritual Israel. Objects of wrath 》 not spiritual Israel.

Straight into Old Testament proof " my people (spiritual Jews) who are not considered my people (because they are not physical Jews)"

9.30 to end. He wraps the argument he has made stepwise and continuously linked together, up. One flow, one argument, one conclusion.

-

You appear to find it sufficient to extract a verse here, a seeming doctrine-confirming phrase there (election, hated, sovereign choice) to make this about how a person is saved.

It just isn't there. And if you insist it is, you do no better than the 'on this rock-ists' do
A mangling of Paul's aim for the piece. Him, so careful to build and build upon his argument piggybacks in a doctrine like personal salvation in? No way. The piggy backing is from those with a doctrine to support by way of snippets.

Now maybe you think the argument is made properly elsewhere. And that its fair enough that Paul makes oblique references, that he doesn't build am argument he has already made, or will make, elsewhere. If so, then where is this argument?

God sovereignly choosing who to and who not to save??


-
You said at the start that Paul clearly says salvation is a matter of God's will, not of human will or act. Pauls argument: God's will is that the saved belong to the spiritual nation Israel. It is his sovereign choice that it be so. Says the chapter

How one becomes a citizen of Israel is a completely different matter. For which this chapter offers no support. None.


.

This is the link to the related question of “how does one enter the spiritual Israel?” So, the question of physical / spiritual Israel and the question of election / salvation are inseparably linked. That seems to me to be the most natural way to read Romans 9 and following, but I totally accept that others may disagree.

With all due: forensic Paul, with his linking argument style is not going to import the inarguably more vital doctrine of personal salvation by means of a phrase here, an anecdote there.. shoehorned into a completely different argument responding to a specific objection: the displacement of physical Israel?

Sandor Clegane

john123470 wrote: »

This opening post is a very reasonable question by Sandor. We all ask it in some form - To be or not to be, that is the question.

From the poster's questions above, he seems to be inviting discussion on these questions in a general way. 'We are victims of our geography etc...'
I don't think he specifically asked for a scholarly debate on the bible.

And yet, it seems that posters are continually getting sidelined for offering their 2 cents on the poster's questions.

Its a great question. It could have been a very interesting disussion

This was not intended to be a scholarly debate on the bible, you are correct. It was a general discussion on if there is a God what kind is he...

The original question was is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...which I think is if you're a believer is a very valid question, because if there is some sort of omnipotent presence that started it all and is overseeing everything then he is not all good and shouldn't be seen as such.

Then we get bogged down on which God is the culprit, who started it? or did several start it?... there are so many potential candidates it's impossible to tell since every culture believes in something different.

Christians follow the bible, but what about all the other holy books in the world? flip the conversation we are all having to an Islamic perceptive and you'll get them defending there beliefs, but we say no we're right and you're wrong and vice versa and the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

antiskeptic

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

This was not intended to be a scholarly debate on the bible, you are correct. It was a general discussion on if there is a God what kind is he...

The original question was is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...which I think is if you're a believer is a very valid question, because if there is some sort of omnipotent presence that started it all and is overseeing everything then he is not all good and shouldn't be seen as such.

Then we get bogged down on which God is the culprit, who started it? or did several start it?... there are so many potential candidates it's impossible to tell since every culture believes in something different.

Christians follow the bible, but what about all the other holy books in the world? flip the conversation we are all having to an Islamic perceptive and you'll get them defending there beliefs, but we say no we're right and you're wrong and vice versa and the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

And if you conclude that, whilst having set the ball rolling, the bag of putrid rot the world became and is isn't his wish or doing, then what?

Would he be as scary then?

ticklemonster

God is love, regardless of creed or dogma

theological

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

This was not intended to be a scholarly debate on the bible, you are correct. It was a general discussion on if there is a God what kind is he...

The original question was is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...which I think is if you're a believer is a very valid question, because if there is some sort of omnipotent presence that started it all and is overseeing everything then he is not all good and shouldn't be seen as such.

Then we get bogged down on which God is the culprit, who started it? or did several start it?... there are so many potential candidates it's impossible to tell since every culture believes in something different.

Christians follow the bible, but what about all the other holy books in the world? flip the conversation we are all having to an Islamic perceptive and you'll get them defending there beliefs, but we say no we're right and you're wrong and vice versa and the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

Welcome to the Christianity forum. You know that our faith is based on what we have revealed to us in Scripture, therefore you also know that it is highly likely that we will use it in response to your questions. What would you expect instead? That we answer from a different perspective? If you don't want Christian answers, there are plenty of other places to ask.

If you ask if God is scary, then I'm perfectly entitled to answer that I don't think God is scary based on what I know about Him from Scripture. Any atheist who wants to come onto this forum probably needs to be aware of what Christians actually believe about God before arguing that He is scary. What Christians actually believe is based on Scripture for the most part.

As for arguing against other religions, I don't usually do that unless someone else from the other religion is present. I've had fruitful discussion and dialogue with Muslims in the past, including on one occasion reading the Qur'an and the Bible one to one in turn. What I don't do is argue against Islam for an atheist's thought experiment because I don't think that is respectful to Muslims. They should always have the opportunity to respond.

ticklemonster wrote: »

God is love, regardless of creed or dogma

Is God allowed to speak? Or is it that God is simply silent?

If God has spoken, then we're perfectly entitled to discuss His word. I personally am not a fan of having a mute god that I can shape into anything I want. The God who speaks and challenges me in His word is far richer.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

The whole point of Romans 9-11 is that a verse doesn't make a whole point...

I'm conscious that to an outsider this all sounds like arcane nonsense, so it's important to say at the outset that it's a difference of opinion between brothers. Being a faithful Christian does not depend on our understanding of Romans 9-11!

For what it's worth, this is where I stand:

In chapter 8 Paul has shown that the church of Jesus Christ now enjoys the promises made to Israel. In chapters 9-11, as you have said, he now asks whether the promises to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled.

I know we've talked about Romans 9 before and you see it differently, which is fine. In short, I think it's a mistake to see Romans 9-11 as only referring to ethnic Israel - Paul also has salvation in view. A few quick points on this if I may:

• Verse 11 is key as it contrasts works and calling, which means that salvation is in view and not just the destiny of Israel as a nation.
• The example Paul gives in verses 11 and 12 is God's choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau. They represent their respective nations, for sure, but they are also individuals.
• In verse 14 and following, Paul answers the question of whether this is just on God's part - neither Jacob nor Esau had done anything good or bad when they were chosen / rejected.
• Verse 16 - it (i.e. salvation) doesn't depend on human will or effort.

This all makes sense in terms of the wider context, for two reasons:
1. One of the promises made to Israel was election / adoption
2. Paul's whole point is that not all who are part of ethnic Israel are part of the true, spiritual Israel - hence salvation through faith rather than by virtue of belonging to a certain nation or people group.

The final thing to bear in mind is who Paul is writing this to, i.e. a church made up of both gentile and non-gentile Christians. Chapters 9-11 aren't merely a theological treatise on the fate of ethnic Israel, but are clearly applicable to those contemporary Christians as well, flowing out of chapter 8 and on into chapters 12-16.

The doctrine of election does not stand or fall on the basis of how we understand Romans 9. Other important references are John 6:37-39, 44, 64-66; 8:47; 10:26; 15:16; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 1 John 4:19; 5:1. It also fits into the wider context of how the bible views salvation, moving us from dead in sins to glorified in Christ, and everything in between. It also connects to how we view God, and what it means for him to be sovereign.

I'm also conscious that this discussion somewhat derails the thread, so I'm happy to leave my thoughts there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With all due: forensic Paul, with his linking argument style is not going to import the inarguably more vital doctrine of personal salvation by means of a phrase here, an anecdote there.. shoehorned into a completely different argument responding to a specific objection: the displacement of physical Israel?

Hopefully I've given a fairly clear answer to this above, i.e. that nothing is being shoehorned in and it's all of a piece - Romans 9-11 refers to both ethnic Israel and the means of salvation for his original audience (and us).

How do you think someone enters spiritual Israel?

smacl

theological wrote: »

Welcome to the Christianity forum. You know that our faith is based on what we have revealed to us in Scripture, therefore you also know that it is highly likely that we will use it in response to your questions. What would you expect instead? That we answer from a different perspective? If you don't want Christian answers, there are plenty of other places to ask.

Mod warning: Less of the back seat modding please.

john123470

theological wrote: »

Welcome to the Christianity forum. ...If you don't want Christian answers, there are plenty of other places to ask.

If you ask if God is scary, then I'm perfectly entitled to answer that I don't think God is scary based on what I know about Him from Scripture.
Any atheist who wants to come onto this forum probably needs to be aware of what Christians actually believe about God before arguing that He is scary ...

Really - yet, Deuteronomy 6:13 asks that we "Fear the LORD, your God, serve him only .."
You are obviously up to speed on all this, Theological

So it seems Senor Sandor, you will not only not have your questions considered, but will be greeted with walls of text "from a Christian perspective"

If you're not happy with this, you can jolly well bugger off coz "there are plenty of other places to ask"

I think you shd apologize, Sandor for straying onto the wrong forum

Meanwhile, where on Boards can Sandor discuss these perfectly reasonable questions ? Is there a "non Christian" section ?

This is the 21st century. The man did not come here to brush up on his bible studies

RobbieTheRobber

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if you conclude that, whilst having set the ball rolling, the bag of putrid rot the world became and is isn't his wish or doing, then what?

Would he be as scary then?

If you believe that a God is omnipotent then how can you conclude that everything has not happened exactly as it planned?

smacl

john123470 wrote: »

Really - yet, Deuteronomy 6:13 asks that we "Fear the LORD, your God, serve him only .."
You are obviously up to speed on all this, Theological

So it seems Senor Sandor, you will not only not have your questions considered, but will be greeted with walls of text "from a Christian perspective"

If you're not happy with this, you can jolly well bugger off coz "there are plenty of other places to ask"

I think you shd apologize, Sandor for straying onto the wrong forum

Meanwhile, where on Boards can Sandor discuss these perfectly reasonable questions ? Is there a "non Christian" section ?

This is the 21st century. The man did not come here to brush up on his bible studies

Mod warning: As with theological, less of the back seat modding please. If you don't want to discuss things from a Christian perspective, this is obviously the wrong forum for you. For a more openly critical take on religion I'd recommend the Atheism & Agnosticism

theological

john123470 wrote: »

Really - yet, Deuteronomy 6:13 asks that we "Fear the LORD, your God, serve him only .."
You are obviously up to speed on all this, Theological

So it seems Senor Sandor, you will not only not have your questions considered, but will be greeted with walls of text "from a Christian perspective"

If you're not happy with this, you can jolly well bugger off coz "there are plenty of other places to ask"

I think you shd apologize, Sandor for straying onto the wrong forum

Meanwhile, where on Boards can Sandor discuss these perfectly reasonable questions ? Is there a "non Christian" section ?

This is the 21st century. The man did not come here to brush up on his bible studies

Sandor is perfectly entitled to ask. However, complaining that we answer from the Bible is obviously confusing. How else do you expect us to answer on the Christianity forum? Highlighting this is not "back seat modding", it is responding logically to the objection.

As for Deuteronomy 6:13, I'm sure that you know that fear has multiple definitions, not all of them being synonymous with being scared.

ChrisJ84

john123470 wrote: »

This opening post is a very reasonable question by Sandor. We all ask it in some form - To be or not to be, that is the question.

From the poster's questions above, he seems to be inviting discussion on these questions in a general way. 'We are victims of our geography etc...'
I don't think he specifically asked for a scholarly debate on the bible.

And yet, it seems that posters are continually getting sidelined for offering their 2 cents on the poster's questions.

Its a great question. It could have been a very interesting disussion

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

This was not intended to be a scholarly debate on the bible, you are correct. It was a general discussion on if there is a God what kind is he...

The original question was is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...which I think is if you're a believer is a very valid question, because if there is some sort of omnipotent presence that started it all and is overseeing everything then he is not all good and shouldn't be seen as such.

Then we get bogged down on which God is the culprit, who started it? or did several start it?... there are so many potential candidates it's impossible to tell since every culture believes in something different.

Christians follow the bible, but what about all the other holy books in the world? flip the conversation we are all having to an Islamic perceptive and you'll get them defending there beliefs, but we say no we're right and you're wrong and vice versa and the whole thing just gets ridiculous.

I think these are great questions, and I think you're right that everyone asks them in one form or another from time to time.

One follow up question to ask is "what sort of God are we talking about?" Christianity would say that God is transcendent, so he has to reveal himself for us to know him. It also says that God is personal, meaning that he can speak and we can in fact know him after he has revealed himself. Another question is how exactly God reveals himself, and I would answer that by saying that he is revealed primarily in Jesus, and by extension in the bible. He is also revealed generally in the created universe.

Other religions will clearly frame these questions differently, and come to different conclusions. For my part, Christianity gives the best and most consistent answers.

On whether God is scary, I think the answer from Christianity would be "not if you are united to Jesus by faith - otherwise, very much so."

Liberalbrehon

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

written in the BC

Also, if you read the Bible, then you will find God has killed more people than the Satan ever did. Not sure Satan killed anyone in Bible. Actually, anyone have the passages where Satan is quoted in the Bible?

smacl

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

written in the BC

Also, if you read the Bible, then you will find God has killed more people than the Satan ever did. Not sure Satan killed anyone in Bible. Actually, anyone have the passages where Satan is quoted in the Bible?

If you take a bit of time to read this thread, you'll find this has been discussed pretty thoroughly, starting with this post and followed by many others.

Sandor Clegane

My problem with people answering solely from a Christian perspective is how they can be so self assured that their perspective is correct, it seems absurd to me that one can be so self assured that their religion is the answer when there are so many religions to choose from.

I was born and raised with Catholic beliefs, but you get to a stage where you find out there are an infinite number of different religions, you then realize you only believe what you believe because of geographical location.

So is it all a lottery then? which ever people are lucky enough to happen to believe in the correct religion gets to go to heaven and the rest of us are damned? only a mad man would deem that just.

theological

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

My problem with people answering solely from a Christian perspective is how they can be so self assured that their perspective is correct, it seems absurd to me that one can be so self assured that their religion is the answer when there are so many religions to choose from.

I was born and raised with Catholic beliefs, but you get to a stage where you find out there are an infinite number of different religions, you then realize you only believe what you believe because of geographical location.

So is it all a lottery then? which ever people are lucky enough to happen to believe in the correct religion gets to go to heaven and the rest of us are damned? only a mad man would deem that just.

Actually if I was to determine my beliefs based on "geographical location" I'd more than likely be an atheist than anything else.

Which begs the question, why are you so assured that your current philosophical standpoint is correct? Non-belief isn't the neutral middle ground, it is one ideological position amongst many and the same questions you raise can be equally asked of it.

In conclusion, I'm still not sure why you are so surprised that you got Christian answers in the Christianity forum.

I don't believe what I do "solely because of geographical location". If you want to hear the case for Christianity, feel free to ask why we believe what we do. Expect answers from Scripture though because that is the source material for our beliefs.

Sandor Clegane

theological wrote: »

Actually if I was to determine my beliefs based on "geographical location" I'd more than likely be an atheist than anything else.

Which begs the question, why are you so assured that your current philosophical standpoint is correct? Non-belief isn't the neutral middle ground, it is one ideological position amongst many and the same questions you raise can be equally asked of it.

In conclusion, I'm still not sure why you are so surprised that you got Christian answers in the Christianity forum.

I don't believe what I do "solely because of geographical location". If you want to hear the case for Christianity, feel free to ask why we believe what we do. Expect answers from Scripture though because that is the source material for our beliefs.

My philosophical standpoint is that it is utterly impossible to follow or believe in any one religion/God due to the amount of religions/gods there are, at least for me.

Its not a fair set up and any God that would create the world and people then leave it to chance on what religion we get is utterly insane, again it goes back to punishing people for things that aren't their fault.

Im only Catholic because I was born in Ireland, if I was born in the middle east id believe in Islam and so would you, lets say Im correct being a Catholic what happens to all the muslims in the world? All the religion can't be right.

I assume you wouldn't bat an eye in dismissing the likes of Odin, Thor, Zues etc...but people at one time believed in them, are they all dammed now or what?

theological

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

My philosophical standpoint is that it is utterly impossible to follow or believe in any one religion/God due to the amount of religions/gods there are, at least for me.

Its not a fair set up and any God that would create the world and people then leave it to chance on what religion we get is utterly insane, again it goes back to punishing people for things that aren't their fault.

Im only Catholic because I was born in Ireland, if I was born in the middle east id believe in Islam and so would you, lets say Im correct being a Catholic what happens to all the muslims in the world? All the religion can't be right.

I assume you wouldn't bat an eye in dismissing the likes of Odin, Thor, Zues etc...but people at one time believed in them, are they all dammed now or what?

The same questions apply to you. Why is atheism more valid than any other worldview?

As a Christian I'd tend to look at this by saying - look to the case for Jesus from the eyewitnesses if you're interested.

As for the other religions my principle applies. I don't debate against them for a thought experiment. If there was a Muslim happy to make the case against Christianity here I'd argue my case in respect with them but I won't do this with you because there would be no opportunity for a Muslim to respond.

My question to you: are you actually interested in hearing anything we have to say or did you come to vent? If you actually want to learn about what we believe I'm happy to share. Otherwise I don't see much value.

john123470

theological wrote: »

The same questions apply to you. Why is atheism more valid than any other worldview?

As a Christian I'd tend to look at this by saying - look to the case for Jesus from the eyewitnesses if you're interested.
What does this even mean ?


"My question to you: are you actually interested in hearing anything we have to say or did you come to vent? If you actually want to learn about what we believe I'm happy to share. Otherwise I don't see much value.

Really, you are the one who is venting.

Sandron came here to ask a few pertinent questions. He is not assuming anything. He's not trying to be confrontational. He would like for his questions to be cinsidered and addressed. And he leaves empty handed.

His mistake seems to be in addressing his questions to the wrong forum.
This has been pointed out to him on no uncertain terms in various reply posts. He wandered onto a Christian forum - and now he's being shown the door

A more pertinent Op might be 'why are people continuing to flee the church .. ?'

theological

john123470 wrote: »

Really, you are the one who is venting.

Sandron came here to ask a few pertinent questions. He is not assuming anything. He's not trying to be confrontational. He would like for his questions to be cinsidered and addressed. And he leaves empty handed.

His mistake seems to be in addressing his questions to the wrong forum.
This has been pointed out to him on no uncertain terms in various reply posts. He wandered onto a Christian forum - and now he's being shown the door

A more pertinent Op might be 'why are people continuing to flee the church .. ?'

The questions in the OP have been answered from a Christian perspective which is all we can give. What else would you like us to do on the Christianity forum?

As for "the church". Which do you mean? We're not all Catholics here. Evangelicalism is growing in Ireland for example.

john123470

theological wrote: »

The questions in the OP have been answered from a Christian perspective which is all we can give. What else would you like us to do on the Christianity forum?

Hmm .. let me see

Show a bit more Christianity
Some humility
Less arrogant / spiritual pride
Less rush to score points

Welcome newcomers whenever they stumble by with a question .. they would like to discuss

Not have them feel like they shd have been baptized in the Liffey and speaking in tongues before they even get to say hello ..

If nothing else, people will have learned where not to go with their questions

ChrisJ84

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

My problem with people answering solely from a Christian perspective is how they can be so self assured that their perspective is correct, it seems absurd to me that one can be so self assured that their religion is the answer when there are so many religions to choose from.

I was born and raised with Catholic beliefs, but you get to a stage where you find out there are an infinite number of different religions, you then realize you only believe what you believe because of geographical location.

So is it all a lottery then? which ever people are lucky enough to happen to believe in the correct religion gets to go to heaven and the rest of us are damned? only a mad man would deem that just.

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

My philosophical standpoint is that it is utterly impossible to follow or believe in any one religion/God due to the amount of religions/gods there are, at least for me.

Its not a fair set up and any God that would create the world and people then leave it to chance on what religion we get is utterly insane, again it goes back to punishing people for things that aren't their fault.

Im only Catholic because I was born in Ireland, if I was born in the middle east id believe in Islam and so would you, lets say Im correct being a Catholic what happens to all the muslims in the world? All the religion can't be right.

I assume you wouldn't bat an eye in dismissing the likes of Odin, Thor, Zues etc...but people at one time believed in them, are they all dammed now or what?

Those are fair questions Sandor, but in my experience everyone is self assured that their perspective is correct! Even saying, like you have, that it's impossible to believe in any one religion or god is taking a position on these things. In practice you are probably taking the position that none of them are true, or at least that they don't matter.

Culture and geography are important for sure, but you shouldn't overplay that either. When our church meets (pre-COVID) there are people from six continents and all sorts of cultural backgrounds - and all Christians. It's important to remember that Christianity is not for a single nation or people group and never has been.

And I don't think that God leaves anything to chance - the God I see in the bible is in control and cares deeply about the world he has made. He sent his Son to die for all who put their trust in him - wouldn't you say that is a pretty big indication of how much he cares?

smacl

john123470 wrote: »

Hmm .. let me see

Show a bit more Christianity
Some humility
Less arrogant / spiritual pride
Less rush to score points

Welcome newcomers whenever they stumble by with a question .. they would like to discuss

Not have them feel like they shd have been baptized in the Liffey and speaking in tongues before they even get to say hello ..

If nothing else, people will have learned where not to go with their questions

Mod: Carded for backseat moderation after having already been warned. Please do not discuss this in thread. As previously noted we have a feedback thread should you wish to discuss how this forum can be improved upon.

theological

john123470 wrote: »

Hmm .. let me see

Show a bit more Christianity
Some humility
Less arrogant / spiritual pride
Less rush to score points

Welcome newcomers whenever they stumble by with a question .. they would like to discuss

Not have them feel like they shd have been baptized in the Liffey and speaking in tongues before they even get to say hello ..

If nothing else, people will have learned where not to go with their questions

My tolerance for that argument is extremely limited in a thread with 400+ posts where we've discussed the OP and other objections very carefully with reference to the Bible only for you to tell us that we shouldn't use the Bible to answer.

In my eyes that's the bit that is rude and disrespectful. Ask your questions but we will answer the best way we can.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Why is atheism more valid than any other worldview?

Personally, I'd dispute that atheism is a worldview, in that all it says how someone doesn't view the world while saying nothing about how they do. For example, atheism does not imply secularism nor does it imply anti-theism. Nor for that matter does it imply rationalism, empiricism or any other philosophical outlook, nor any political leaning.

At a guess, and it is no more than a guess, I'd say the larger part of atheists in this country are lapsed Catholics who have become disaffected with their church and religion for various reasons, all of which have been discussed ad nauseum here and on the A&A forum.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I'd dispute that atheism is a worldview, in that all it says how someone doesn't view the world while saying nothing about how they do. For example, atheism does not imply secularism nor does it imply anti-theism. Nor for that matter does it imply rationalism, empiricism or any other philosophical outlook, nor any political leaning.

At a guess, and it is no more than a guess, I'd say the larger part of atheists in this country are lapsed Catholics who have become disaffected with their church and religion for various reasons, all of which have been discussed ad nauseum here and on the A&A forum.

I'd tend to agree with you here smacl, it's a bit like referring to myself as a monotheist - it tells you how many God's I believe in but not a lot else. As with most things, it's better to ask someone what they believe rather than assuming!

In saying that, most atheists and agnostics I interact with tend to be functional materialists, by which I mean that they live as if this world is all there is.

Maybe it's fair to say that if someone is an atheist it is at least an indicator of some likely broad categories of (un)belief, in the same way that if someone is a monotheist it's likely they are a Christian, Muslim etc.?

Peregrinus

There is a definite correlation these days between atheism and materialism (in the sense of a belief that matter is the only reality that there is). On this board, for example, you will often see atheists advance materialist arguments in support of an atheism position, which implies that they accept the beliefs which underpin materialism.

But on a one-to-one level there' no need to conjecture or project someone's materialism (or other belief). You can just ask them.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a definite correlation these days between atheism and materialism (in the sense of a belief that matter is the only reality that there is). On this board, for example, you will often see atheists advance materialist arguments in support of an atheism position, which implies that they accept the beliefs which underpin materialism.

But on a one-to-one level there' no need to conjecture or project someone's materialism (or other belief). You can just ask them.

I'd need to see somewhat stronger support for that argument, P. I don't think atheists form a homogeneous group to the extent that you could easily prove the above correlation and am not convinced that atheists posting on these forums are typical atheists, if such a thing even exists. While hard atheists might use materialist arguments against theists I suspect many others are perhaps superstitious and accept notions such as luck. For someone such as myself, there are numerous aspects of my reality which I don't consider materialistic, e.g. pure mathematics, love of my children, a sense wonder and even the simple pleasure derived from cycling into the hills in the early morning to catch the sun rise. I've heard all of the reductionist arguments that attempt to quantify these things in a material sense but personally don't see any value in them. More importantly perhaps, I suspect many atheists simply don't care about the argument either way. They are agnostic atheists where theism simply isn't a part of their lives.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I'd need to see somewhat stronger support for that argument, P. I don't think atheists form a homogeneous group to the extent that you could easily prove the above correlation and am not convinced that atheists posting on these forums are typical atheists, if such a thing even exists. While hard atheists might use materialist arguments against theists I suspect many others are perhaps superstitious and accept notions such as luck. For someone such as myself, there are numerous aspects of my reality which I don't consider materialistic, e.g. pure mathematics, love of my children, a sense wonder and even the simple pleasure derived from cycling into the hills in the early morning to catch the sun rise. I've heard all of the reductionist arguments that attempt to quantify these things in a material sense but personally don't see any value in them. More importantly perhaps, I suspect many atheists simply don't care about the argument either way. They are agnostic atheists where theism simply isn't a part of their lives.

Not to speak for Peregrinus, but most people in Ireland (at least in my experience) live as if there isn't anything beyond our present material reality, or at least that any such possibility is largely irrelevant. That's what I meant by people being functional materialists - whether or not this is underpinned by a philosophical framework, or has been thought out at all, is a different matter (no pun intended ).

I think that there is still value in the broad categories we've been touching on here - when I describe myself as a Christian you should at least be able to assume that I believe in God, see Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world etc. and haven't just moulded the word to mean whatever I want it to mean.

Another thing is that when you look at individuals we tend to be more complex and contradictory, and don't want to think things through. That's true of me anyway - I only want to put effort into thinking about things I see as important.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not to speak for Peregrinus, but most people in Ireland (at least in my experience) live as if there isn't anything beyond our present material reality, or at least that any such possibility is largely irrelevant. That's what I meant by people being functional materialists - whether or not this is underpinned by a philosophical framework, or has been thought out at all, is a different matter (no pun intended ).

I wouldn't really agree with this as a typical definition of materialism though. If we look at Wikipedia for example, we see the following

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

There are many other non-theistic philosophies and worldviews out there that either do nor accord well or run directly contrary to materialism. More simply, very many people do not consider or subscribe to any single philosophy and if you were to dissect their worldview you would find a mishmash of philosophies and beliefs both at an individual and group level. I think one is always on thin ice making a broad proclamation of any kind about a bunch of largely unrelated individuals we know little about. All we can safely say about atheists for example is that they don't believe in a god or gods, anything else is speculation unless properly supported with proper studied.

Jackiebt

Im not a religious person, neither am I an atheist. Im suppose I'd say I'm on the fence, agnostic is that what the call it. For me religion was a form of control and when you look at the history of the church here in Ireland I don't know how anyone can step foot inside their buildings. Regarding life after death, whats the big deal with nothing? How did nothing feel before we were born? I'd imagine thats how it is if there is indeed nothing so not too bothered with that. If indeed there is a higher power I'm pretty certain he/she/it won't favour one religion over another, so why bother prescribing to just one? My belief is that if I live a decent life and be kind to others as best I can that Ill be ok either way.

theological

Jackiebt wrote: »

Im not a religious person, neither am I an atheist. Im suppose I'd say I'm on the fence, agnostic is that what the call it. For me religion was a form of control and when you look at the history of the church here in Ireland I don't know how anyone can step foot inside their buildings. Regarding life after death, whats the big deal with nothing? How did nothing feel before we were born? I'd imagine thats how it is if there is indeed nothing so not too bothered with that. If indeed there is a higher power I'm pretty certain he/she/it won't favour one religion over another, so why bother prescribing to just one? My belief is that if I live a decent life and be kind to others as best I can that Ill be ok either way.

There isn't a big deal with nothing, it's just that I don't buy it based on Jesus and what He did and what He said, and how He is at work today.

God isn't "favouring" anything other than His Word and what He has said from a Christian perspective. This is why a key question in this question is what is God like? Christians believe that God has clearly spoken to us in His Word, and through His Son. If anyone wants to argue an alternative I'm all ears, it's just going to take a lot of convincing because the case for Christianity is pretty strong.

smacl

Jackiebt wrote: »

My belief is that if I live a decent life and be kind to others as best I can that Ill be ok either way.

Pretty sound approach in my opinion. I tell my kids to be kind to others and kind to themselves and reckon they won't go far wrong on that basis.

Jackiebt

theological wrote: »

There isn't a big deal with nothing, it's just that I don't buy it based on Jesus and what He did and what He said, and how He is at work today.

God isn't "favouring" anything other than His Word and what He has said from a Christian perspective. This is why a key question in this question is what is God like? Christians believe that God has clearly spoken to us in His Word, and through His Son. If anyone wants to argue an alternative I'm all ears, it's just going to take a lot of convincing because the case for Christianity is pretty strong.

I've learned from experience that arguing an alternative or anything at all with a religious person like yourself, I'm sorry to say is an absolute waste of time.

ChrisJ84

Jackiebt wrote: »

I've learned from experience that arguing an alternative or anything at all with a religious person like yourself, I'm sorry to say is an absolute waste of time.

I'm curious to know what you're expecting to achieve here? You and theological clearly disagree and have very different perspectives on this, so either one of you can change your mind or you can come away understanding one another's perspectives a little better. I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Pretty sound approach in my opinion. I tell my kids to be kind to others and kind to themselves and reckon they won't go far wrong on that basis.

If you're working on the assumption that there is no God then I'd say it's a pretty reasonable way to proceed alright. And whatever your religious beliefs, it makes the world a more pleasant place for everyone.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

There are many other non-theistic philosophies and worldviews out there that either do nor accord well or run directly contrary to materialism. More simply, very many people do not consider or subscribe to any single philosophy and if you were to dissect their worldview you would find a mishmash of philosophies and beliefs both at an individual and group level. I think one is always on thin ice making a broad proclamation of any kind about a bunch of largely unrelated individuals we know little about. All we can safely say about atheists for example is that they don't believe in a god or gods, anything else is speculation unless properly supported with proper studied.

I think you're right, most people don't subscribe to a single philosophy and their worldview is made up of a mish mash of different ideas and influences. And even if they do, it's highly likely that there is at least some inconsistency in their thinking or living. That's true of me anyway, I often think and live in ways that are inconsistent with my Christian worldview.

I wasn't trying to provide a definition of materialism so much as identify a common theme or trend among many of my friends and acquaintances who don't profess any religious belief. And, by and large, they are a lot more focused on the material than the immaterial. I'm not even saying it as a criticism at this point, it's just an observation.

Jackiebt

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm curious to know what you're expecting to achieve here? You and theological clearly disagree and have very different perspectives on this, so either one of you can change your mind or you can come away understanding one another's perspectives a little better. I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

I agree 100%

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to provide a definition of materialism so much as identify a common theme or trend among many of my friends and acquaintances who don't profess any religious belief. And, by and large, they are a lot more focused on the material than the immaterial. I'm not even saying it as a criticism at this point, it's just an observation.

Quite a few friends here in the arts and music here who are very far from materialistic without being anyway religious. There are many forms of abstract thought and expression out there which are very far removed from a materialist philosophy or broad outlook. I'd consider religious belief to be among these.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Quite a few friends here in the arts and music here who are very far from materialistic without being anyway religious. There are many forms of abstract thought and expression out there which are very far removed from a materialist philosophy or broad outlook. I'd consider religious belief to be among these.

Yep, I agree with you there smacl. It's not a simple either/or, materialism or religion. That's also why it's important to engage with individuals on their own terms - I made a general observation, but it's definitely not a universal truth.

All that being said, I'd still contend that theres a strong materialist streak in modern Ireland, and throughout the West generally.

ticklemonster

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yep, I agree with you there smacl. It's not a simple either/or, materialism or religion. That's also why it's important to engage with individuals on their own terms - I made a general observation, but it's definitely not a universal truth.

All that being said, I'd still contend that theres a strong materialist streak in modern Ireland, and throughout the West generally.

Atheist materialism relates to physical reality. I agree with many posters that materialism is reductive and has been proved to be logically inconsistent. At this point in time, I think the only rational position is Agnosticism. However, my own personal position is very much Pascals wager. I believe in a God, and my conception of that God is personal but shaped by my Catholic upbringing and wider (limited) theological study.

radiotrickster

I like the idea that there’s something else out there, but none of us can predict it because it’s the same as before we were born. We were there, existing, so close to the next stage of our lives but waiting for the right time.

We were literally a couple of inches, if even, from the outside world and everything that comes with being born and alive.

Death could be like that. It’s just a moment that happens and next of all, you’re into the next part of whatever happens. It’s so close but still, none of us have any way of knowing.

Peregrinus

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think you're right, most people don't subscribe to a single philosophy and their worldview is made up of a mish mash of different ideas and influences. And even if they do, it's highly likely that there is at least some inconsistency in their thinking or living. That's true of me anyway, I often think and live in ways that are inconsistent with my Christian worldview.

I wasn't trying to provide a definition of materialism so much as identify a common theme or trend among many of my friends and acquaintances who don't profess any religious belief. And, by and large, they are a lot more focused on the material than the immaterial. I'm not even saying it as a criticism at this point, it's just an observation.

But, if we're honest, it's an observation that we could equally make of many of or frients and acquiantances who do profess a religious belief, isn't it? And - possibly - from time to time of ourselves?

I think the truth is that we live in a pretty materialist culture, and we absorb the valus and assumptions of materialism without necessarily ever considering or embracing the philosophical propositions that underpin them. And the result of that is that, if we are atheists, we have a tendency to be atheists in a materialist kind of way and, if we are Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc we likewise tend to be that in a materialist kind of way.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if we're honest, it's an observation that we could equally make of many of or frients and acquiantances who do profess a religious belief, isn't it? And - possibly - from time to time of ourselves?

I think the truth is that we live in a pretty materialist culture, and we absorb the valus and assumptions of materialism without necessarily ever considering or embracing the philosophical propositions that underpin them. And the result of that is that, if we are atheists, we have a tendency to be atheists in a materialist kind of way and, if we are Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc we likewise tend to be that in a materialist kind of way.

We really need to better define what we mean by materialism here, as the philosophical sense of the word that closely relates to physicalism has very different meaning to "a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things". I think it is a mistake to conflate these things as if we look at a notion such as personal monetary worth it lies at the heart of the latter but is physically immaterial for the most part.

My reading of yourself and ChrisJ's last few posts is that you're talking about materialism in the sense of, and obsession with, the accumulation of personal wealth and the accompanying consumerism. If this is the case, I'd agree it is a problem for all of us but would argue it has little to do with Christianity, which has as much historical involvement in the accumulation of wealth as everyone else if not more so. Personally, I'm of the opinion that capitalism is well past its sell by date and we, as a people, need to move towards a more equitable sharing of wealth. I'm quite taken by George Monbiot's description of a commons in this respect. I suspect we've conned ourselves into confusion between wealth and happiness to a large degree, which is exacerbated by capitalism driving consumerism. In Ireland, I do think we're becoming increasingly aware of this and place great value on shared experience, or simply having the craic, but have a very long way to go. I recognise the importance of promoting a philosophy that promotes kindness, generosity and social equality here and would consider many expressions of Christianity to be of value in this respect. Other more right wing expressions of Christianity, notably in the USA, would seem to have gone in the opposite direction.

I would also dispute that atheists are any less concerned about these issues than theists, not least because atheism has nothing to say on the matter. Secularism on the other would tend to correspond with physical materialism in the philosophical sense while also promoting an equitable society and seeking to do good wherever possible.

smacl

ticklemonster wrote: »

Atheist materialism relates to physical reality. I agree with many posters that materialism is reductive and has been proved to be logically inconsistent. At this point in time, I think the only rational position is Agnosticism. However, my own personal position is very much Pascals wager. I believe in a God, and my conception of that God is personal but shaped by my Catholic upbringing and wider (limited) theological study.

I don't think the word 'atheist' is a meaningful adjective here and would substitute 'secularism' or 'secular materialism' in the place of 'atheist materialism' above. I agree that materialism, as in physicalism, has problems, not least with our emerging understanding of what matter is or is not. Reductionism also frequently has the effect of making things meaningless, where much of what we understand is built on a complex hierarchy and combination of abstract ideas. The value is in the whole, not the sum of the parts. If I relish the sense of wonder and exuberance in experiencing a sunrise in the Wicklow hills for example, decomposing that into endorphins and various neurons firing in my brain really says very little about the experience, not has it much value.

Regarding theism, agnosticism and atheism, I think it is very much a personal choice and respect for the other person's beliefs. If someone looks to impose their religious beliefs on me or my family, I will counter strongly. If not, as is the case with a number of friends, I'm entirely accepting and supportive of their chosen beliefs. This is very much my understanding of what it means to be a secularist.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if we're honest, it's an observation that we could equally make of many of or frients and acquiantances who do profess a religious belief, isn't it? And - possibly - from time to time of ourselves?

I think the truth is that we live in a pretty materialist culture, and we absorb the valus and assumptions of materialism without necessarily ever considering or embracing the philosophical propositions that underpin them. And the result of that is that, if we are atheists, we have a tendency to be atheists in a materialist kind of way and, if we are Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc we likewise tend to be that in a materialist kind of way.

Yes, that's a really good point - and those of us who profess Christianity have zero excuse for such inconsistency.

One observation is that Christianity (and some other belief systems) give us a framework to understand and critique such an attitude. I would question whether an atheist has the same advantage, and in fact you could argue that a materialist philosophy is entirely consistent with atheism.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

We really need to better define what we mean by materialism here, as the philosophical sense of the word that closely relates to physicalism has very different meaning to "a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things". I think it is a mistake to conflate these things as if we look at a notion such as personal monetary worth it lies at the heart of the latter but is physically immaterial for the most part.

My reading of yourself and ChrisJ's last few posts is that you're talking about materialism in the sense of, and obsession with, the accumulation of personal wealth and the accompanying consumerism. If this is the case, I'd agree it is a problem for all of us but would argue it has little to do with Christianity, which has as much historical involvement in the accumulation of wealth as everyone else if not more so. Personally, I'm of the opinion that capitalism is well past its sell by date and we, as a people, need to move towards a more equitable sharing of wealth. I'm quite taken by George Monbiot's description of a commons in this respect. I suspect we've conned ourselves into confusion between wealth and happiness to a large degree, which is exacerbated by capitalism driving consumerism. In Ireland, I do think we're becoming increasingly aware of this and place great value on shared experience, or simply having the craic, but have a very long way to go. I recognise the importance of promoting a philosophy that promotes kindness, generosity and social equality here and would consider many expressions of Christianity to be of value in this respect. Other more right wing expressions of Christianity, notably in the USA, would seem to have gone in the opposite direction.

I would also dispute that atheists are any less concerned about these issues than theists, not least because atheism has nothing to say on the matter. Secularism on the other would tend to correspond with physical materialism in the philosophical sense while also promoting an equitable society and seeking to do good wherever possible.

Yep, agree that definitions are important and I think you've provided a fair summary of what I was driving at anyway. I would expand it beyond wealth and consumerism to other things that people live for like success, comfort, power etc. So perhaps materialism isn't the best term to use.

I would also want to draw a distinction between formal / philosophical materialism and functional / practical materialism. I suspect relatively few people actually subscribe to the former, but many peoples lives reflect the latter.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

If someone looks to impose their religious beliefs on me or my family, I will counter strongly. If not, as is the case with a number of friends, I'm entirely accepting and supportive of their chosen beliefs. This is very much my understanding of what it means to be a secularist.

Curious to know what you mean by "impose" here? Does evangelism count, or are you thinking more of state sponsored religions and such?