Yeah, this rarely gets addressed, right? Case in point: Dennis ignored this completely when he responded to you. Christianity is incredibly egotistical. It attempts to elevate humans over everything except divine beings - and even the divine beings are supposed to be super-focused on us!
Sorry mate, not sure what I ignored and don't understand your summary. Or what I must disagree with? It is pretty fair in description - but you label that egotistical?
The Christian worldview is that man has dominion over the earth. Made in the image of God and all that. But we have a free will that we have used to try and elevate ourselves. Not sure how you connect the humility required to NOT consider ourselves gods as being egotistical?
Until we recognize that the lord and master of all reality created the entirety of reality because he loves humanity sooooooooooooooo much and sent his one and only son to be sacrificed and murdered for our sake and salvation, we're going to be a bit too full of pride.
That's correct. I know you are being sarcastic, but correct nevertheless.
here is no conscious choice involved. All that remains is acknowledging, or denying, that the change has occurred.
Choice, by definition, requires two or more options. In in matters of importance, it really helps that both options are real. If there is no god (and I'm more than sure enough that there isn't), choosing him over being an atheist is indeed not a choice.
Sure, I could lie to myself, but then the choice I made would be to lie to myself.
I cannot choose a god in to existence.. I don't have that much pull in the universe.
Nor can you. However much you think otherwise.
In fact ParkingPlace as I was on my 2-hr commute this morning it struck me that I did not really read that 'one-liner' thing right. Your explanation above and the one of Azdgari actually articulates the naturalist view correctly: there is no choice in the true sense of the word. Just neurons (as someone facetiously called Gandhi neurons) firing and chemical interactions happening. Or as Richard Dawkins described the 'blind indifference of the selfish gene.
I am still waiting for anyone to explain to me how that worldview actually makes sense of free will. (The thread was diverted into a mud-slinging stoush about sexuality.)
I.e.: HOW, if your brain and body is just a chemical soup that chanced into a particular formation, there would logically be a reason to believe that the particular chemical composition that arrived at the 'solution' that naturalism (via science) is the right answer, can actually be construed to be the right answer? In this subjective/relative view of what is right (truth?) surely nothing is 'right' - it is just consensus fo similarity? Is my understanding correct?
Whatever christianity was intended to be has little to do with how christianity is expressed.
That is true. As I said before, you can't judge the football coach by the fans. Humans do stuff it up all the time - we TRY to seek God's way, but we don't know… and even if we are closer to the truth we still fuck it up.
We're accountable to everyone in the reality around us; more accountable to some, less accountable to others.
See my comments about. This outcome of your worldview is that (by extension) that morality is relative - that we agreed what is nice to live with each other. I think morality is absolute.
And Jag again
That last sentences also offers you an insight into how this forum works and what will be expected of you as a member.
I am learning