Thread: Any christians here?

I believe in the superhero in balban's avatar. Who is that, balban? He reminds me of Goldar, Spectreman, and Ultraman, but he's none of those. Is he Iron Jesus?

This is PROOF that evolution is total nonsense. There is no way around it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I believe in the superhero in balban's avatar. Who is that, balban? He reminds me of Goldar, Spectreman, and Ultraman, but he's none of those. Is he Iron Jesus?

Johnny Sokko and his Giant Robot!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is PROOF that evolution is total nonsense. There is no way around it.

Check... and mate!

@UM: So typical - the theory of evolution hasn't even got anything to do with how life came into being initially. Commenting on that feels almost like taking this guy seriously, though. Na well - we will see how this goes on.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Would you like to make this a straight up debate about evolution? I have studied this subject immensely, and wouldn't mind that.

Most definitively Sensei - I am fully with balban on this one - your evolution treatise is what I look forward to the most!
I'll take back my three question for an eventual later discussion, and I'd like you to focus on this absolutely central issue for now. Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the topic - this promises to be a lot of fun!

So evolution override the other questions? If so I will need a link to the type of evolution you believe. Depending on where you live and how you.were raised, there are a few different ways I could go. Universal mind, balban, and StephL, I would like each of you to answer independent of each other (don't just say "what universal mind said!")

Originally Posted by Sensei

Would you like to make this a straight up debate about evolution? I have studied this subject immensely, and wouldn't mind that.

It's been a while since I've seen a good evolution discussion. I'm game to watch/participate. I'm interested in how you've studied it immensely.

This should be fun; I for one had no idea there was more than one theory of evolution... of course, I also don't know why creationists need to prove or defend anything, because they should know that a God Who can create 100 million galaxies ought to be able to create a populated earth, complete with a scientifically provable history -- including evolution -- any time He wants, even yesterday; so clearly I'm not qualified for a debate...I guess I'll be an interested onlooker, if you guys don't mind (even if you do )!

Originally Posted by Sageous

This should be fun; I for one had no idea there was more than one theory of evolution... of course, I also don't know why creationists need to prove or defend anything, because they should know that a God Who can create 100 million galaxies ought to be able to create a populated earth, complete with a scientifically provable history -- including evolution -- any time He wants, even yesterday; so clearly I'm not qualified for a debate...I guess I'll be an interested onlooker, if you guys don't mind (even if you do )!

Yeah, after seeing memories in dreams it makes you realize that fake memories are way too similar to real memories that any omnipotent being could have started the whole world yesterday or 3 seconds ago. Lol. So if you go by that it is impossible to prove that the world wasn't created. From a Christian perspective, It is impossible to believe in evolution, unless through ignorance as a Christian. The Bible is very very clear about creation.

StephL, this is not really the great commission, arguing online. the great commission is to tell people the gospel and.then disciple them. I believe yall know the gospel, if not, then PM me and we can talk about it in more close detail. This is really me just trying to cover for my mistake of posting here and trying to leave on a note that doesn't make Christians look bad.

Balban, you say that I am not giving you good answers, but yall roped me into this, and instead of answering a few questions, there are over 50 questions that are waiting for me on every side of Christianity, from the validity of the BIble to what it actually takes to be a Christian, to evolution. Now I would be able to give more clear and accurate responses if this was a discussion about one thing, but a whole arsenal of things. Now I am more busy than I have ever been in my life, so I am trying to rattle the discussion into one thing before typing out a huge response that will take an hour of my packed day.

Since evolution is impossible from a Christian perspective, it will be scientific perspectives that I come from. I am not the best when it comes to science, but I will do my best. This way as well yall get the debate you want, and we will all hopefully learn something.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Since evolution is impossible from a Christian perspective

There are many, many people who would disagree with you. Are you taking the bible too literally or do you think you have found the correct version of Christianity?

it will be scientific perspectives that I come from. I am not the best when it comes to science, but I will do my best.

Arguing against evolution from the perspective of science will be, well, difficult enough that it may not be worth your time. I hope I don't need to state why.

How did a dinosaur change into a bananda?

Originally Posted by Sensei

So evolution override the other questions? If so I will need a link to the type of evolution you believe. Depending on where you live and how you.were raised, there are a few different ways I could go. Universal mind, balban, and StephL, I would like each of you to answer independent of each other (don't just say "what universal mind said!")

Universal Mind said something already?
You could start with watching his 2 min. video and making sure to convince us, that you do not agree with what this creationist has got to say on the topic. Or do you concur with the guy that if evolution were true - we would find new life in jars of peanut butter all the time?
If so - that's a fallacy - and I explained why in my last post.
But I will repeat myself - the theory of evolution has got nothing to do with how life initially came into being. Nobody knows how that happened yet. There are very good hypotheses - it might have to do with hydrothermal vents in the ocean, and little pockets in stone, which enabled closed systems - but this is really another topic altogether. That's why your usual Christian has no problem with evolution - they can (still) say - well yeah - god did that 3.6 billion years ago, and then evolution. What it is all about, is how life evolved from these initial single-cellular organisms - the protozoa. So you can spare your breath on that one. Or can you?

As Sageous has already remarked - in "which sort of evolution" we believe, has got nothing to do with where or how any of us grew up!
There are absolutely zero controversies about the general concept.
It's Christianity, not science, which comes in almost 40.000 different flavours. Taking into account, that not everybody actually listens in biology class, or when otherwise confronted with the evidence, there is the possibility of misconceptions, even among people who believe in it. All the more so among people who don't. So to clear the field of some of these - here a nice and easily digestible info-graphic on the topic. It's big and contains nothing new to probably most of us - so I spoiler it:

Spoiler for common misconceptions about evolution:

Could it be that some of your "scientific arguments" against evolution are already cleared up by this?
No?

Well then - what are your "scientific arguments" against the conclusion, that human beings and modern animals have a common ancestor, and that life has evolved over billions of years? Besides "it says so in the bible" of course.





Small print: Evolution is the most fascinating topic in here - but anyway - if you really want to leave this thread with making a good impression - you will have to eventually get back at walking us through the bible-thumping. Not overly soon, though - we got almost all the time of the world after all. But letting that stand virtually guarantees leaving behind an extremely bad taste.

@Sagous - almost, if not virtually everything is theoretically possible - we could be a simulation on some advanced beings' computational arrangements, and such everything we perceive could be an elaborate fake. But does Christianity's version make one shred of sense?
It would come down to god taking the piss out of his creation - deceiving us about virtually everything. Why would a divine being do such a thing?
Burying fossils for his entertainment?
Letting us watch evolution in progress in micro-organisms - enabling us to interfere with it in logical ways?
Extremely unlikely - and not in the least, what Sensei believes, too.





Since I am fiddling with my posts already - I'll drop the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate in here as well - fodder for the patient on both sides:



Been reading some of the following discussions on both sides - even most creationists seem to agree, that Nye "won" the debate - unfortunately in their eyes, and of course not because he is right. rolleyes.gif
I can link that up, if somebody would be interested.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Balban, you say that I am not giving you good answers, but yall roped me into this, and instead of answering a few questions, there are over 50 questions that are waiting for me on every side of Christianity, from the validity of the BIble to what it actually takes to be a Christian, to evolution. Now I would be able to give more clear and accurate responses if this was a discussion about one thing, but a whole arsenal of things. Now I am more busy than I have ever been in my life, so I am trying to rattle the discussion into one thing before typing out a huge response that will take an hour of my packed day.

First, no one is roping anyone into anything. No one is forcing you click this link and type your responses. So this is a very poor excuse, IMO. Second, I realize there are many more questions that have been put in front of you, which I why I suggested to narrow the discussion to just one. It seems that the others are in agreement. So... in case you missed it, I am asking you to answer just one subject. How can you not see that? I believe that you are attempting to play the victim here? It isn't working and you are just coming off as a banging gong. Either respond with something or don't respond. Honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you just gave up; I think this is going to go very poorly for you based on this one comment you just made....

Originally Posted by Sensei

I am not the best when it comes to science, but I will do my best.

I don't know how you can make the statement "I've studied the subject immensely" and then come back around making comments like this before your big reveal. Suffice it to say, I've had this type of conversation many, many times in my life and I've heard these words uttered by many believers who sought to "school" me in the facts. And with questions like "what type of evolution do you believe in", I am willing to put myself out there and predict this will not go well for you. Just saying. :/

Finally, I'll go ahead and answer your question about the "type of evolution" I believe in. I come from the premise that the theory encompasses many different scientific principles. The act of combining these individual principles together and considering the predictions that are made when viewing one principal through the lens of other principles and then comparing these predictions with reality after meticulous testing, I believe that. Basically the type of evolution that was discovered using the scientific method.

Originally Posted by StephL

@Sagous - almost, if not virtually everything is theoretically possible - we could be a simulation on some advanced beings' computational arrangements, and such everything we perceive could be an elaborate fake. But does Christianity's version make one shred of sense?

It doesn't need to make sense; that is not their point, or the point of faith. Aside from that:

I wasn't arguing for creationism, Steph, or even the inherent absurdity in believing stuff that some guys wrote a few thousand years ago (based on stuff they in turn heard from other guys for generations) in order to explain their existence and importance to frightened tribesmen, and maybe pick up a few free meals in the process (it was good to be a priest back then).

No. Rather, I was simply stating my ongoing surprise that creationists get themselves caught up in defending or proving their faith or, worse, disproving evolution or the real age of the earth. A simple shrug and maybe a statement like "God could have created us whenever he felt like it; so there," really ought to be enough for a truly faithful creationist, right? If you truly believe in creationism, there is no reason to defend it with complex explanations or embarrassingly empty "scientific" proofs, like that video's peanut butter "experiment." Just shrug, say "I'm right, you're wrong, because God said so," and walk away. Sort of like Sensei's been trying to do for many a post now.

I often wonder if the reason creationists make these elaborate defenses is because somewhere in the back of their heads, perhaps in their own genetic memory, they know that the earth is 4 billion years old, that we did evolve from other things (again, no reason why God couldn't have arranged this as well; strange that believers dismiss that concept as well), and that yes, if you left a peanut butter jar in warm temperatures, bathed in water and primordial gasses, in 100 million years or so it too would produce life.

The touting of Creationism for me is a defense mechanism, another excuse to hold humans above all other things. For them, to scientifically, logically, or common-sensibly dismiss creationism is to dismiss or diminish humanity. Who knows? This may have nothing to do with the Bible at all -- that book is just a go-to for "proof" of something that is unprovable.

It would come down to god taking the piss out of his creation - deceiving us about virtually everything. Why would a divine being do such a thing?

Who says He's deceiving us? When we set up an aquarium with lots of rocks and plants that makes a fish comfortable, or seem at home, are we deceiving the fish? God might just know that if He creates sentient beings, they are going to need some sort of aquarium, and that aquarium must match the complexity of His pets.

Burying fossils for his entertainment?

Just more layers of realism for the aquarium, something to keep us occupied, entertained, and perhaps to solidify the illusion of independence that the aquarium's careful assembly created.

Letting us watch evolution in progress in micro-organisms - enabling us to interfere with it in logical ways?

That fits the aquarium metaphor too, I think! A good creationist might point out that, with all the manipulation we seem to be able to do, we always fail to really change anything -- no doomsday bugs, no nanotech gray goo, no nuclear annihilation -- it is as if there is some force holding us back from really harming ourselves, or the aquarium... but they never do point that out. Odd.

Keep in mind, Steph, that all this is said to make a point, and that I personally am confident that this world of ours is billions of years old, that we evolved from little more than primordial matter and energy (and a whole lot of time), and that if there ever was a God, He did little more than set things in motion 15 billion years ago, and then went on to whatever other things gods do. He might come back occasionally to check out the aquarium, but I highly doubt he cares much about what we do or say, or in Whom we believe. So, again, due to that bit of ambivalence, I really shouldn't be arguing here.

Alright. Then we shall begin. Ya'll type a lot more than me, so I will try to make it as to the point as possible.

Balban, which question is it that you want me to answer above all? I did not say that as a disclaimer. "I am not the best, but I shall do my best" is actually something that I say. I have studied evolution, from an evolutionist and creationist perspective. As well as studying creation from both perspectives as well. I drew up my own conclusions, lol, they may be crazy, but they are mine. :p

Steph, I am not confused by those things. They are pretty much what you will always see when you look at evolution from a modern evolutionist perspective. You want me to answer that picture most of all right? I do not agree with a lot of it. The Bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The price of a thing is the amount that a thing is bought for, and since Jesus spent the most precious gift, then the human soul is worth a lot. The being dead thing versus alive is like this, when we were made we were alive in the spirit and flesh, neither would have died had we not fallen. When we fell, the spirit died, and the flesh started to die (we shall all die, so we are really "dead men walking"). When one gets "born again" like it says in John 3:16, what happens is that "not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, he saved us". So the spirit gets regenerated, the second birth. The first birth is just birth in the normal way. The main thing missing on both sides is purpose. If I am just a cosmic accident, then what is my purpose? God said that he knew you before you were born and gave you everything that you needed to walk a path of good works that he set up beforehand. David says in Psalm 16 that:
You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

Do you think that it is a coincidence that as there becomes less and less Christians (especially in America that knew God before), the suicide rate and the depression rate have gone up? Having no purpose means having no reason for living. What is your purpose?

Blueline, from a literal perspective, which is taking it in context, what did the original author mean to the original recipient. When reading Genesis you see that it takes painstaking care to make sure you know that it only takes 6 days. In between each day it says "and the evening and the morning were the first day" and so on. Now if you don't believe that the Bible is literal, then you can change every single bit to what you believe, and I could probably even get it to say that Papa Smurf is the supreme deity if I wanted to. So the question from a literal standpoint would be "did Moses when giving this to the Isrealites mean 6 literal days" and I don't think that there would be a doubt in your mind that it is 6 days. The only margin for error would be between verse 1 and 2, but I don't think that you are talking about gap theory.

I know this has little to do with the subject, but I need to interject as an American with a purpose in life:

Originally Posted by Sensei

Do you think that it is a coincidence that as there becomes less and less Christians (especially in America that knew God before), the suicide rate and the depression rate have gone up? Having no purpose means having no reason for living. What is your purpose?

First, this country is in the midst of a christian resurgence it hasn't seen since the 19th century, so please spare us the right-wing-talk-radio BS that we're getting less christian. Next, I'm pretty sure that overall the suicide rate (and the murder rate, and the violent crimes rate, etc) has been dropping for years. The depression "rate" could mean pretty much anything, so I'll give you that.

Even if it were all true, to conflate any of this with the assumption that anyone who is not christian has no reason to live is naive at best. There are plenty of reasons to live beyond dedicating your life to some religious doctrine.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Balban, which question is it that you want me to answer above all? I did not say that as a disclaimer. "I am not the best, but I shall do my best" is actually something that I say. I have studied evolution, from an evolutionist and creationist perspective. As well as studying creation from both perspectives as well. I drew up my own conclusions, lol, they may be crazy, but they are mine. :p

What the hell... I'll bite. ABOVE ALL... tell me how you could have "immensely" studied evolution, from a scientific perspective, and come to the conclusion that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. And, just so we don't go around and around with this, please expand on exactly what scientific principles you have studied in order to make your points and show us the path(s) you have taken to arrive at your "own" conclusions. Just so we are clear, I am asking you to argue for your position and tell the scientific world why Sensei thinks they've got it wrong.

You don't have to answer today. I am not looking for a response immediately. I won't post in a few hours or days that you lose because you are taking too long (our thoughts on your winning or losing status seems to be important to you). I'm really patient and more than willing to wait for as long as it takes for you to roll it around in your head, figure out exactly what you want to say and type it out on your broken keyboard, all the while respecting the time challenges you have in your life. For what it's worth, I am inviting you to give us a really good response. Blow my doors off, man! Be the ball! There is no try... only do! Whatever it will takes for you to answer something... anything I have asked you.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Next, I'm pretty sure that overall the suicide rate (and the murder rate, and the violent crimes rate, etc) has been dropping for years.

Let's put some numbers with your response, Sageous. Since the origin of this part of the conversation was about suicide, let look at that. From the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (who got their numbers from the CDC), here are the suicide rates from 1981 to 2010. For 30+ years, the suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 12 per 100,000.

So... you are right, but based on which years you happen to be comparing. Your broader point was spot on.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Do you think that it is a coincidence that as there becomes less and less Christians (especially in America that knew God before), the suicide rate and the depression rate have gone up? Having no purpose means having no reason for living. What is your purpose?

Do you have any idea how disgustingly insulting that is?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Originally Posted by Sensei

Do you think that it is a coincidence that as there becomes less and less Christians (especially in America that knew God before), the suicide rate and the depression rate have gone up? Having no purpose means having no reason for living. What is your purpose?

Do you have any idea how disgustingly insulting that is?

I probably shouldn't interfere here, since the debate seems fiercely hot, and I have not followed it from the beginning, but the above quote by Sensei does not in any way seem insulting from my perspective. He is merely posing a question ("Do you think that it is a coincidence ..."), followed by a statement ("Having no purpose ..."), followed by yet another question ("What is your purpose?").

The statement is arguably true (unless you really want to redefine common usage of the words employed), and the questions may simply be honest attempts at knowing the position of the person asked. Acknowledged, Sensei certainly seems biased in his position, but any persons position on anything is by nature biased.

Where's the insult?

@Sageous - I like your aquarium metaphor! And it is consolable with a theist god, talking to and interfering with his creation, too.
But he would have never been taking his sentient and sapient fish seriously, when they asked about their environment. Nor does or did he ever truly love us - with all that theoretical power - he could have done much better.
And now he's lost interest for ages.
It's a nice thought-experiment, though.
smile.gif

Originally Posted by Sensei

Steph, I am not confused by those things. They are pretty much what you will always see when you look at evolution from a modern evolutionist perspective. You want me to answer that picture most of all right? I do not agree with a lot of it.

The Bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The price of a thing is the amount that a thing is bought for, and since Jesus spent the most precious gift, then the human soul is worth a lot. The being dead thing versus alive is like this, when we were made we were alive in the spirit and flesh, neither would have died had we not fallen. When we fell, the spirit died, and the flesh started to die (we shall all die, so we are really "dead men walking"). When one gets "born again" like it says in John 3:16, what happens is that "not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, he saved us". So the spirit gets regenerated, the second birth. The first birth is just birth in the normal way. The main thing missing on both sides is purpose. If I am just a cosmic accident, then what is my purpose? God said that he knew you before you were born and gave you everything that you needed to walk a path of good works that he set up beforehand. David says in Psalm 16 that:
You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

I know you want me to come out with my John 3:16 interpretation-aid. I will, but not just yet.
I want you to stay on topic - and we agreed on the topic. And I wanted to kick start said topic off with these:

Originally Posted by StephL

Could it be that some of your "scientific arguments" against evolution are already cleared up by this?
No?

Well then - what are your "scientific arguments" against the conclusion, that human beings and modern animals have a common ancestor, and that life has evolved over billions of years? Besides "it says so in the bible" of course.

Unfortunately you ignored the second set of questions. Balban asked you for exactly the same thing again, just in different words - see below.
So come on, do not dodge!
And no - I did not want you to "answer the picture", it doesn't even constitute a question. I wanted you to consider it, before you bring up one of the mentioned misconceptions as an argument.
But since you say, you do not agree with all of the information it contains - please point out, what exactly you don't agree with!
It is easy to only quote the relevant parts of it, too - it consists of many singular pictures.

Originally Posted by balban

What the hell... I'll bite. ABOVE ALL... tell me how you could have "immensely" studied evolution, from a scientific perspective, and come to the conclusion that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. And, just so we don't go around and around with this, please expand on exactly what scientific principles you have studied in order to make your points and show us the path(s) you have taken to arrive at your "own" conclusions.
Just so we are clear, I am asking you to argue for your position and tell the scientific world why Sensei thinks they've got it wrong.

You don't have to answer today. I am not looking for a response immediately. I won't post in a few hours or days that you lose because you are taking too long (our thoughts on your winning or losing status seems to be important to you). I'm really patient and more than willing to wait for as long as it takes for you to roll it around in your head, figure out exactly what you want to say and type it out on your broken keyboard, all the while respecting the time challenges you have in your life. For what it's worth, I am inviting you to give us a really good response. Blow my doors off, man! Be the ball! There is no try... only do! Whatever it will takes for you to answer something... anything I have asked you.

Otherwise I position myself behind this completely.
Including being very patient and wanting you, Sensei, to really give it your best shot. Take your time! May it be several days - it's okay.
It's adequate, you know. This is important.
And it makes no sense to bring up more, before you even have begun to answer, what is already here.

Originally Posted by StephL

@Sageous - I like your aquarium metaphor! And it is consolable with a theist god, talking to and interfering with his creation, too.
But he would have never been taking his sentient and sapient fish seriously, when they asked about their their environment.

Take that one step further -- what if He never intended that humanity be sentient? What if He were going simply for an incredibly complex biped that could dominate the food chain with brain power rather than muscle power? Then He would not only be confused at their asking about anything, but He likely wouldn't have cared much, aside perhaps for feeling a bit of consternation that his Plan hadn't gone as planned... yes, that would make the whole "omniscience" thing a problem, but it could explain why God really tossed Adam & Eve out of the Garden: "What? You're asking me a question? That's not right! Get out of here so I can try again! Honey, where's my clay?".

So no, there would have been no reason for this particular version of God to take His creations seriously.

Also, keep in mind that God, if there was one, might have left at the moment of creation, without ever returning to see how the aquarium was developing.

Nor does or did he ever truly love us - with all that theoretical power - he could have done much better.

Right, there may never have been a reason to love us at all. I often wonder if that "loving God" theme is a bit of anthropomorphism on humanity's part: since love is the most excellent thing in human experience, God must do it as well, and necessarily perfectly, right? Of course, this is in spite of the albeit arguable fact that love is more a result of combining our reproductive/nurturing/herding instincts with sentience than it is some mystical magical power within us.

He sure could have done much better. Maybe things improved with His next try... or the one after that... or the millionth one after that?

And now he's lost interest for ages.

Perhaps forever.

It's a nice thought-experiment, though.

Thanks... I do still find that a part of me sort of hopes is isn't true... and another lingering facet of my past still cringes in anticipation of the lightning bolt from Heaven that never comes!

@Voldmer - this debate is most definitively hot - but if you want to see fierce hot - go look at page eight in here, please:
http://www.dreamviews.com/general-dr...d-brain-8.html
It would be nice to hear your thoughts in there as well, as it were. Also anybody else's of course.
Otherwise - I agree with BLUELINE and Sageous - see below.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I probably shouldn't interfere here, since the debate seems fiercely hot, and I have not followed it from the beginning, but the above quote by Sensei does not in any way seem insulting from my perspective. He is merely posing a question ("Do you think that it is a coincidence ..."), followed by a statement ("Having no purpose ..."), followed by yet another question ("What is your purpose?").

The statement is arguably true (unless you really want to redefine common usage of the words employed), and the questions may simply be honest attempts at knowing the position of the person asked. Acknowledged, Sensei certainly seems biased in his position, but any persons position on anything is by nature biased.

Where's the insult?

I thought he was drawing an odd causal relationship between Christianity and happiness, which I'd love to see a source for. There is the implication in his question that those who are not Christian have no purpose in life and have no reason for living. It paints the non-religious (or at least non-Christian) as depraved and dejected.

I'm willing to give Sensei the benefit of the doubt that he did not actually know he was being incredibly offensive, but he should know for any future arguments he has with the nonreligious: a lack of religion does not mean a person has no reason to live. They can and do live happy, fulfilling lives. To say otherwise is to be, well, just plain wrong.

I drew the same conclusion as Blueline, Voldmer. Though Sensei's question might have been semantically sound, it did indeed come off as an insult, or perhaps a moment of directed condescension because of the implied context -- that only christians who have found Jesus can possibly be happy, with all others being without purpose and subject to suicide. All in all such a question makes a hell of a statement, I think, and offense would be taken by "otherwise" happy or fulfilled people, should they care.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I drew the same conclusion as Blueline, Voldmer. Though Sensei's question might have been semantically sound, it did indeed come off as an insult, or perhaps a moment of directed condescension because of the implied context -- that only christians who have found Jesus can possibly be happy, with all others being without purpose and subject to suicide. All in all such a question makes a hell of a statement, I think, and offense would be taken by "otherwise" happy or fulfilled people, should they care.

Main point: even if he didn't mean it as an insult, it has been used by creationists so much as an insult that it is insulting no matter what the person's intentions.