Why I cannot be Christian simplified

What about science?

 

Science rarely provides absolute proof or even claims it does.

 

Which is of course what knowledge requires, so I don't know what your point is.

Here's what:

Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

~Guess who​

 

This was my point, Belief in a religion is one based on faith, faith has nothing to do with critical thinking.

 

Ironically when I was growing up as an Evangelical was wasn't particularly religious but when I rejected the myths about creation and all that nonsense and started reading and learning "real" science I actually became more spiritual for lack of a better word. I am now more convinced than ever that there is a guiding power of some kind its just not God or Jesus or Bhudda or any of that. Most of that is based on the statistical odds against life forming in particular intelligent life.

 

I think you may be misinterpreting this.
Love and belief boils down to both thoughts and actions.

Nowhere where it mentions faith or believing is it specifically referring to mental belief that God exists.
It's more like the type of faith or belief that you can trust another person to be reliable.

What you believe pretty much always invariably pours over into actions.

 

The trouble is the concept of sin can be very abstract. Not all thoughts lead to actions. In Christianity, some thoughts even though they do not lead to actions are considered wrong.

I've overused sexual desire so I'll change it up a bit. Say a child disagrees with their parents punishing them for something he/she did that they feel was not wrong. The child feels angry and fantasizes running away from home. That would cause a lot of emotional heartache for the parents. Ultimately the child refrains from doing so. Were those feelings of anger something to go on the child's record as something they did wrong? It did not lead to any harmful acts.

 

I think you don't have a good understanding of the connection between sin and punishment.
Probably some sorts of sin lead to their own natural form of self-punishment, like gluttony.
"Sin" is actually a very broad category, and in its most expansive sense just means anything that is in error or wrong.

 

Exactly. And within the Bible, there are many arbitrary rules and omissions of additional rules that do not fit modern standards of what is right and wrong and don't even make sense when logically thought through.

 

Yes, I would partially agree with you on that point.
But bear in mind that doesn't mean modern standards are the true standards for what's right and wrong.

And it's really difficult to describe everything that's right and wrong into simple rules.

What that means is that, while I'm not disagreeing with the truth behind your statement, the way you describe it makes it sound worse than it actually is.
That being said, we are being vague here by not actually describing specifics, but like I stated it's a little bit complicated.

 

Then as I've shown, if you define faith as belief without proof, your point is idiotic.

 

What does faith have to do with critical thinking? Do you believe in a global floodor Jonah being swallowed by a fish?

 

Another is the Black Sea.

 

Nope.. the Black Sea breech was 5600 BC and it was slow.. The waters rose only a few feet a week.. There was plenty of time to move livestock to higher ground.

 

Did I define faith as belief without proof, I think you did, not me.

 

I've heard different.
There are parts being studied right now.
I can see how it would flood quickly after it breechs.

 

Source?

 

Well there is a charlatan making crackpot claims by the name of Ballard.

 

In the Bible, the words faith and belief are pretty much used interchangeably.
Confusion can arise because these words have multiple meanings in English.

This analogy might help you understand the proper meaning of the word. Imagine you're a child and some adult is telling you to get in the car with them, they tell you your parents have just gotten into a car accident.
Do you have faith in that adult to get into the car?

Or how about if you sell me something and I say I forgot my wallet but I'll give you the money tomorrow. Do you have belief in me that I'll give you the money?
Or a family member has a business idea and wants you to invest money into starting up their business. Do you believe in them?

 

Don't know if I read him, but lots of people theorize that.
It's been a theory at least since the 70's when I first heard it

 

So yet again no source.

 

LOLOLOL

Are you actually saying you never heard of that.

 

And we are back to the LOLs and deflection. Just provide the source.

 

Think about it this way: in the time when this Noah story was supposed to have happened, "the world" consisted of a valley between two rivers.

 

We also have points from many sources.
None of it can be proven.
I like the Black sea theory because a deluge would wipe out their known world.
They also have undersea stuff going on right now, including an old shoreline.
I'll see if I can find something.