Originally posted by Ark-Angel
Oh, look at that, I managed not to question you after all!
but rather choose to state my thoughts
The reason I was hard on Raphael - so hard, it seems, that he abandoned the thread! - was that people should either believe or not. If you are a
Christian, then you *should* believe in God without evidence, without proof, without justification, without evidence - go ahead! I can't disproove
it (not yet, at least). What irritates me beyond measure is the "explanation" of religion in pseudo-scientific terms.
God is ineffable, right? Which means that you, Mr. Guy-In-The-Street-Christian, cannot know his mind, cannot know his intent, cannot know his
ultimate plan, and *cannot* understand his concept of morality - by your own admission
! How can you condemn "in the name of God" when you
have no clue what God's word actually is?
But for those people - and I know several of them - who are Christian, are believers in a real and objective God, but accept their own frailty and
imperfection and just try and get on with their lives in decent, reasonable ways; for those people, I have nothing but respect. I will still argue
the necessity of a God, and I'll still combat ignorance and prejuidice wheresoever I find it, but I can also accept that these are good people.
It's the evangelists who spoil it for everyone.