Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

lynx wrote:
> Chris Bell wrote:
> 
>> lynx wrote:
>>
>>> Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>>
*snip*

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is? But whatever it is, the result is as I said. By creating 
>>> doubt, confusion, and uncertainty about the Christian faith and it's 
>>> beliefs, the result is the promotion of atheism by default.
>>>
>>
>> Another comment which I find difficult to follow. Just because someone 
>> might create confusion about a particular faith doesn't mean that he 
>> or she is creating confusion about all faiths. There are many forms of 
>> religion and spirituality other than Christianity, so I cannot see 
>> that atheism is the default if Christianity is being downplayed. It is 
>> only one of a plethora of other possibilities, and one which is 
>> statistically rather unlikely.
> 
> 
> Yes I realized that I was open to that criticism, but nevertheless the 
> fact is that he's not sup****ting, defending, or encouraging christian 
> belief and faith, and the result of that is a turning away from it, 
> whether it be to a no-faith position or some other faith, and the former

> is possibly the more likely.
> 
I doubt it. A tendency to religion (or belief in God if you prefer) is 
found in our genes (and is seen to run in families). That is, it is 
built into us, so anyone who has that tendency will most likely move to 
another faith rather than atheism.
>>
>> BTW I don't agree that this is what Rowland is doing. What he is doing 
>> is to get people to question the basis of their faith, something in 
>> which he is following Jesus rather closely.
> 
> 
> But he's a Christian minister for petes sake! It's not his job to do 
> that. His job is to sup****t the Chrisitian religion and cause christian 
> faith to grow- not to create doubt and other uncertainties that could 
> cause faith to diminish. 

It is the "job" of every christian to follow Christ, and that means 
following his example, which was very much to question accepted 
religious dogma (sorry Athanasius). Of course, that is not all we must 
do, but it is a part of it. I think you will find that Rowland does an 
aweful lot of the rest too. Have you ever heard him preach? I have, and 
I thought what he said was very appropriate to his audience (a mainly 
elderly Baptist church). If not, try reading some of his sermons on his 
website.

> Anyway, it's quite obvious that modern 
> Christianity is a crock. The Christian Church is grasping at straws in a

> desperate attempt to stay relevant to an ever changing world. We've had 
> women's lib. So now the Church says it's ok for women to be priests. 
> We've had gay lib, so now it's ok for gays too. So now it's ok for 
> lesbian priests. It's quite laughable really. But I'm not commenting on 
> whether women or gays should or can be priests or not, only on the fact 
> that the Church has to keep changing it's dogma.
> 
In my lifetime, I have seen police regularly bash gays when they found 
them (without reprimand of any sort) change to their acceptance to the 
point where I never want to see another US sitcom version of a 
homo***ual. Yes, the world has changed. Are you really suggesting that 
we should be burning lesbians as witches rather than ordaining them? 
Perhaps we should follow Sharia law and stone all women found in 
adultery too (but do very little to the men). That is very OT, but Jesus 
seemed to take a different view.


>>
Chris