OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[SlipperyJim]

This is a game for adults. Fundamentalists who insist on being insulted by everything should feel free not to play.

"This is a game for adults. Grown children who insist on being insulted by everything should feel free not to play."

Fixed that for you. :) As a politically-incorrect conservative, I often find that liberals and secularists lead the way when it comes to being offended by everything. But let's play it safe and leave the reference open to possibility. If you're easily offended -- whatever the cause of your offense -- Dominions 3 is probably not the game for you.

Yes, I'm an evangelical Christian. You'd probably call me a fundamentalist, although that term is often misused. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about Christian fundamentalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

As controversial as Christian fundamentalism has become, our actual beliefs are very simple. Basically, we believe the same things that Christians have believed for 2000 years. We believe that the Bible is true, and Jesus is who He claimed to be. Simple enough.

Gregstrom nailed it back in July:
I often think people use religion as an excuse to hate, rather than a cause. In the secular world, similar hatred and violence occur in the name of animal liberation or nationalism.
I agree completely. Anyone who hates "in the name of Christ" is not doing it because Jesus told him to hate, but is actually misusing our Lord to cover for his own evil. Haters are haters, no matter what their excuses might be....

If anyone's curious, the path to playing Dominions 3 as a Christian is also very simple. I just remind myself that it's a game, not reality. :angel

[Adept]

[QUOTE=Adept;639602]This is a game for
If anyone's curious, the path to playing Dominions 3 as a Christian is also very simple. I just remind myself that it's a game, not reality. :angel

Exactly :)

[Tifone]

I really don't see the link between animal liberation and hatred/violence ^_^ Quite the opposite btw. And about secularists being much more easily offended than many religious people, I think you're totally wrong - both historically and in current society. But I think we're going faaaar off topic. :)

Anyone who hates "in the name of Christ" is not doing it because Jesus told him to hate, but is actually misusing our Lord to cover for his own evil.

Before starting to answer, I would like to say that I'm agnostic and I respect everyone's belief until it becomes dangerous for my, or other's people, freedom and happiness and life. So I got no prejudice at all against any religion, I've got many friends having lots of different beliefs/disbeliefs so I'm not attacking your point from an hate-mongering point of view. Actually, I'm not attacking you at all, just reading an historical book for me, an Holy Book for you.

Said that, I ask you to just read, just for the love of talking, debating and learning from each other:

Jesus says (and I'm just quoting):

"If anyone comes to me and does not HATE his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." [Luke, 14:26]

"I tell you that to EVERYONE WHO HAS, MORE WILL BE GIVEN, but as for THE ONE WHO HAS NOTHING, EVEN WHAT HE HAS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. But those enemies of mine who DID NOT WANT ME TO BE KING OVER THEM - BRING THEM HERE AND KILL THEM IN FRONT OF ME." [Luke 19:26-27]

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I DID NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. FOR I HAVE COME TO TURN A MAN AGAINS HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, A DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW, A MAN'S ENEMIES will be THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD." [Matthew 10:34-36]

This of course, not to go into the Old Testament, as you were talking just about Jesus.

If you think I'm decontestualizing or exploiting these passages, feel free of course to read the entire chapter.

Peace

[JaghataiKhan]

No problem with all that. This is why believe both OT,NT and the third newbie, the Quran are just made up by religious leaders to hypnotize the masses.

http://www.luciferianliberationfront.org/arss_1.html

A parody chick tract with direct quotes from the Bible. Never thought Moses would capture 32000 virgins and SACRIFICE 32 of them as a burnt offering. Burn 32 virgins alive. Moshe.

Perhaps Gath's blood magic is a subtle hint to this...

[llamabeast]

Wow, they're quite surprising quotes.

In Oxford, the animal rights protesters have decided that any student or member of staff at the university is a valid target for violent protests. This includes English students and what have you. Quite apart from the unnerving threat of violence, every Thursday afternoon we have to endure loud protests outside our windows, which cause huge distraction. I'm okay with it really, but my two officemates basically can't work. We're doing computational work to better understand viruses in the theoretical chemistry deparment - about as benevolent and animal-friendly as you could hope for really. But the animal protesters can be heard around much of the science area.

Frankly, they upset me. I think it's excellent that people stand up for the rights of animals. But I'm not sure these people have really thought it through, and in particular I find their untargeted threats of violence quite despicable.

[thejeff]

Not to dispute you on the animal rights protesters, I have no idea what's been happening in Oxford, but what type of violent protests are we talking about? How many people have been killed? How many bombs?

I mean, if we're talking about "similar hatred and violence" to religion? How many animal liberation wars have been fought?

Nationalism, I'll be quite happy to concede to the original poster. It's all really just different ways for people to choose sides and pretend they're better than those other people so they can take their stuff. (Or for demagogues to convince them to gain a following.)

[Tifone]

Also, that nationalism is a prerogative of "secular world", sorry to say but it's just absolutely storically untrue.

Surely there were a lot of non-religious dispotic nationalist governments which committed lots of atrocities (Russia, Cambodia).

But also that two of the most terrible nationalist dictatorships of modern times, the German nazi one and the Italian fascist one (one of the first acts of Mussolini was the Patti Lateranensi, to make the Christian Catholic the religion of state), were both ruled by proven religious Duces who actually claimed many times to be acting on God's will.

This of couse proves, as SlipperyJim says, that if one wants to commit evil it can do it using religion too -it would be very false to claim Hitler and Mussolini did their crimes BECAUSE they were religious, as it is false to say so about STALIN and POL POT doing them BECAUSE they were atheists-, but it even disproves the claim that nationalism is something secular. At all.

Again, peace :) (sounds ridiculous maybe, but it's my sincere wish and also my best try not to seem a satanic jerk every time I debate on someone's religion :D )

[Tifone]

Wow, they're quite surprising quotes.


I know. Many people don't actually know the religious book, it's ok of course, but what surprises me are religious people which don't know what they really believe in.
Don't misunderstand me! I talk with many people about their religion, they say they believe in the Bible and for me it is really no problem, far from being a problem, let's be friends ;) maybe 75% of my friends are catholic btw

But when someone says that the Bible is the book of the Religion of Love, and that if I'm not a believer I can't have morality, sorry, hey, stop, I am a blood and bone marrow donor without expecting any Heaven for this, but I've also got 3 or 4 pages of quotes of the bible which actively encourage, and sometimes COMMAND by the word of god, killing of dissidents, genocide of women and babies, lapidation, enslavement of civilians, pedophilia. Of course I'm not saying that Christian people do that, OF COURSE NOT :D but don't come and attack me on the basis of a book you don't even know.

Sorry for the rant, we are just on the topic, again I'm not really saying ppl should stop believing, believe whatever you want if it makes you feel good and in peace with the others ;)

@ llamabeast: of course, not talking about you, I don't even know what do you believe in ^_^ I just took the input from your words

[JaghataiKhan]

again I'm not really saying ppl should stop believing

It's OK as long as they don't worship the OT God. It is like Khorne! And shed that "I don't impose my faith,but..." face, any logical,rational human being would blanch at these verses...

[Tifone]

You can think that, and I think too that a perfect, all-knowing, all-believing God would not write verses so full of hate.

But I just think it's not right to claim I'm smarter than the millions (billions?) of Jews and Christians around the world, because I'm not of course.

I just hope they read their holy books with attention, and decide if it's right to follow what the religious leaders say them to do on the basis of those texts, and if they believe that the perfect God that they are worship is supposed to have written or directly inspired such things.

Peace (sorry, it's an habit now :D)

[SlipperyJim]

I really don't see the link between animal liberation and hatred/violence ^_^ Quite the opposite btw. And about secularists being much more easily offended than many religious people, I think you're totally wrong - both historically and in current society. But I think we're going faaaar off topic. :)
All across America, Christianity is being challenged in the courts on a daily basis. Michael Newdow and his quixotic challenges against the Pledge of Allegiance come to mind. (And the Pledge isn't even specifically Christian, just generally theist.) Secularists sue to prevent schoolkids from praying. Teachers confiscate Bibles. Religious monuments are constantly under legal threat.

The town of Las Cruces, NM (Spanish for "The Crosses") was sued because the town logo has three crosses on it. Thankfully, the lawsuit has been dismissed, although the plaintiffs may attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10480497

Despite our whining, American Christians actually have it easy. We just have to put up with lawsuits and social pressure. Christians in other countries are literally in danger of being killed for their faith. See The Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com/) for more details about anti-Christian persecution around the globe.

Historically, religious believers have done most of the persecuting. That's shameful, but also true. However, secularists have turned the tables these days, and faith is in the crosshairs.

Anyone who hates "in the name of Christ" is not doing it because Jesus told him to hate, but is actually misusing our Lord to cover for his own evil.

Before starting to answer, I would like to say that I'm agnostic and I respect everyone's belief until it becomes dangerous for my, or other's people, freedom and happiness and life. So I got no prejudice at all against any religion, I've got many friends having lots of different beliefs/disbeliefs so I'm not attacking your point from an hate-mongering point of view. Actually, I'm not attacking you at all, just reading an historical book for me, an Holy Book for you.
Sure, understood. I don't think you hate me. (You don't even know me!) It's much more likely that you misunderstand the message of Christ. So let's talk about it.

Said that, I ask you to just read, just for the love of talking, debating and learning from each other:

Jesus says (and I'm just quoting):

"If anyone comes to me and does not HATE his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." [Luke, 14:26]
When interpreting Scripture, context is key. In Luke 14, Jesus was telling His followers about the cost of being a disciple. He wanted to make it very clear to them that His demands were absolute. There should be no possibility of divided loyalties, because Jesus must be the Lord of your life. Reading the whole chapter makes this point quite clear.

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

It's also instructive to note that the overall message of the Bible is extremely pro-family. Parents are told to love our children. Children are told to love and obey their parents. Husbands and wives are instructed to love each other so completely that they become "one flesh" [Genesis 2:24]. One of the last acts Jesus performed before He died on the Cross was to make sure that His mother would have someone to care for her [John 19:25-27]. When taken in context, the idea that Jesus wants us to hate our families is plainly false.

"I tell you that to EVERYONE WHO HAS, MORE WILL BE GIVEN, but as for THE ONE WHO HAS NOTHING, EVEN WHAT HE HAS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. But those enemies of mine who DID NOT WANT ME TO BE KING OVER THEM - BRING THEM HERE AND KILL THEM IN FRONT OF ME." [Luke 19:26-27]
This quote is taken out of context. Jesus was telling a parable in Luke 19, the Parable of the Ten Minas. Those words you quoted are spoken by Jesus, but they're actually the words of the king in the parable.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I DID NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. FOR I HAVE COME TO TURN A MAN AGAINS HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, A DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW, A MAN'S ENEMIES will be THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD." [Matthew 10:34-36]

This of course, not to go into the Old Testament, as you were talking just about Jesus.
As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe. Our priorities are different. Our worldview is different. Our lives are different. When Jesus is Lord, everything changes.

I have experienced the truth of Jesus's warning in my own life. My parents and I are divided on the Gospel. We maintain a cordial relationship as best we can, but our efforts aren't always successful. You might as well ask a Windows user and a Linux fan to share the same PC. :rolleyes:

By the way, please don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians ignore the Old Testament. Ignoring the Old Testament is just modern-day Marcionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism). The introduction to John's Gospel makes it crystal-clear: Jesus is the Word of God. Therefore, we have to take the whole Word if we accept Jesus as Lord. Ignoring the Hebrew Scriptures won't do.

That said, it is also important to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. He is the "lens" through which we read the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is the culmination of the Jewish rituals of sacrifice, the perfect High Priest, and the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. So we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures, but we do understand them in a very different way from most Jews.

Shalom. :)

[JaghataiKhan]

By the way, please don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians ignore the Old Testament. Ignoring the Old Testament is just modern-day Marcionism. The introduction to John's Gospel makes it crystal-clear: Jesus is the Word of God. Therefore, we have to take the whole Word if we accept Jesus as Lord. Ignoring the Hebrew Scriptures won't do.

Ok. Care to read the comic ink I gave you then? Old Testament god is f***ing scary.

[SlipperyJim]

By the way, please don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians ignore the Old Testament. Ignoring the Old Testament is just modern-day Marcionism. The introduction to John's Gospel makes it crystal-clear: Jesus is the Word of God. Therefore, we have to take the whole Word if we accept Jesus as Lord. Ignoring the Hebrew Scriptures won't do.
Ok. Care to read the comic ink I gave you then? Old Testament god is f***ing scary.
I'm happy to answer questions about my faith, but I'm not going to read comics by some organization called the Luciferian Liberation Front. Life is too short to spend on such pastimes....

That said, if you have a serious question, I'll do my best to answer it. In answer to your claim that "Old Testament god is f***ing scary," I can only respond that you have underestimated the situation. God can be very scary, even in the New Testament. Read some apocalyptic prophecies.... :eek:

God is perfectly holy. Humans are not. An imperfect creature standing in the presence of pure holiness should be scared. It's the logical reaction.

God is also perfectly loving. That's why He sent His Son to save us. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, we can be cleansed of our sins. God makes us holy, and He adopts us as His children. When we are in Christ, we have nothing to fear anymore.

Think about a speed trap on the highway. When you see the patrol car, how do you respond? If you've been driving a bit too fast, you probably experience an adrenaline surge. If you were really speeding, you're probably terrified. Guilt is afraid of justice. But if you weren't speeding, then you have nothing to fear. You notice the officer, but you aren't worried.

The stakes are higher with God than with any highway patrolman.

[licker]

The bible is pro family????

chuckle...

That's rich, verily.

Prostituting ones daughters, sacrificing ones sons, god killing all first borns, ...

Yes, how pro family that is.

The bible is not pro family in the slightest, it is pro god. It is also full of contradictions and misleading statements which can be interpreted in any number of ways, and often are for individuals own uses or personal bents. I'm sure this is neither new nor interesting to any christians though, just as christians are not new or interesting to most agnostics.

[thejeff]

I really don't see the link between animal liberation and hatred/violence ^_^ Quite the opposite btw. And about secularists being much more easily offended than many religious people, I think you're totally wrong - both historically and in current society. But I think we're going faaaar off topic. :)
All across America, Christianity is being challenged in the courts on a daily basis. Michael Newdow and his quixotic challenges against the Pledge of Allegiance come to mind. (And the Pledge isn't even specifically Christian, just generally theist.) Secularists sue to prevent schoolkids from praying. Teachers confiscate Bibles. Religious monuments are constantly under legal threat.

Despite our whining, American Christians actually have it easy. We just have to put up with lawsuits and social pressure. Christians in other countries are literally in danger of being killed for their faith. See The Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com/) for more details about anti-Christian persecution around the globe.

Historically, religious believers have done most of the persecuting. That's shameful, but also true. However, secularists have turned the tables these days, and faith is in the crosshairs.

Shalom. :)

Despite the Christians "whining", most of those are not attempts to persecute Christians, but to keep non-Christians or non-theists from being required to fund or participate in Christian ritual. No one wants to prevent kids from praying in school. The suits have largely been against organized school/government sponsored prayers. The religious monuments under threat are ones on government land or funded by the taxpayers. I don't know about teachers taking away Bibles, but a quick Google pulls up nothing reputable. Perhaps under the same conditions they'd take away any non school books? Disruption, reading during class etc?

And as an occasional atheist, I do find it a little annoying to pledge "under God". It's easiest to understand with a little substitution. How would you feel if you (or your child) had to repeat "under Allah" or to be as generic "under the Goddess"?
And that time honored pledge that it's such a horror to even consider changing? The "under God" part dates only to the 50s. It was added to distinguish us from the godless commies.

It's always amused me that Christians get to play the victim card in the US where they are in so many ways so dominant. Far more societal and political influence than almost anywhere else in the developed world, but anytime they can't get the government to force their beliefs on the rest of us, someone will cry "persecution"


Even in the rest of the world, most of the persecution of Christians is done by other religions. (And there is plenty of persecution of other religions by Christians as well.) The largest exception would be the remaining Communist regimes, particularly China, where they'll persecute anyone who doesn't toe the party line anyway. Religions are only one target.

[Nikelaos]

I think it is wrong for people to pick out little qoutes to make judgements, being totally conservative here, the bible was written by several people and their scriptures were all written at different times, even the 4 gospels were written with a 30/40 year gap between each one and as such each chapter of the bible will have the individual ideas of a single individual and is insufficient in my opinion to lift an entire faith but instead the fundamentals of the entire collection of scriptures should just be followed.

i myself am a catholic but i feel sometimes it is unsafe to believe little more than there is a god and that i should live a good, honest life wether or not there is a god.

also to clarify i believe most christians take the old testament to be little more than a fable, the fundamental values are accepted but the stories aren't necesarrily taken literally as they are written in the bible.

for instance moses didn't make miracles in my opinion, it was simply scientific knowledge, everyone who has made the effort to read the bible should know that with most of moses miracles the pharoahs advisors recreated them on a smaller scale, explaining to pharoah that moses was a fake and telling him not to release the isrealites. A good example would be the parting of the sea, moses didn't really part the sea and it was more of a large inland lake than an ocean, the lake was and i believe still is connected to a tidal river and so the water level would drop with the tides revealing a landbridge, the israelites would cross and the egyptians would be cut off from them completely when the tides rose.

off course this is only an educated guess on my part but i hope it may clear some things up.

[licker]

So you just pick what you want to take literally and what you don't?

And you accept that even though there are more gospels than what are included in the bible that the others are not important/relevant to the religion?

Look, I have nothing against christians (or any religion), but it amuses me the leaps of logic many people make in trying to make their decision to believe in fairy tales palatable to themselves.

[Agema]

So you just pick what you want to take literally and what you don't?

And you accept that even though there are more gospels than what are included in the bible that the others are not important/relevant to the religion?

Look, I have nothing against christians (or any religion), but it amuses me the leaps of logic many people make in trying to make their decision to believe in fairy tales palatable to themselves.

I might suggest that saying you have nothing against the religious is a lot more convincing when you don't then patronisingly belittle them for illogicality and believing fairy tales.

I'm an atheist too for the record. But I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, some are smarter than me and many of their detractors, and I think all deserve better than casual mockery.

* * *

I think many atheists are a little disingenuous with "Christians pick and choose" arguments. The Bible is and always was considered a book that works on many levels. Biblical literalism - much of what causes problems in the modern world in my view - was popularised by elements of Protestantism 1500 years after Christ. Even today it is only prevalent in Protestants, and a minority at that, albeit a minority with plenty of money and will to make a disproportionately big noise about their beliefs.

Someone (Slippery Jim?) said that Jesus is the lens through which the Bible should be read. This reflects an important ideal that has existed in Christianity since its earliest day recognised by earliest Christian thinkers like Origen or St. Augustine: that not every last bit of the Bible, especially the O.T., should be carried out to the letter, or is an absolute word of God. Much of it allegorical, inaccurate interpretations by men with primitive understanding, simple historical record or whatever else.

[thejeff]

I think Nikelaos is saying he doesn't take it literally. Which is a fine way to approach it, there's a lot of wisdom in the Bible.
And with someone who took that approach I wouldn't "pick out little quotes to make judgements". That's reserved for those who claim to believe the whole thing it divinely inspired word for word, all literally true. Which is, I agree, a minority of Christians. Just usually the loudest ones.
(Especially in America.)

I particularly like those who claim they simply believe the literal meaning of the text, needing no interpretation, then proceed to explain what the verse means.

I am also reminded of the Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
So many, and so many of the loudest voices, claim to be Christian, but I see very little of Christ in their behavior.

[licker]

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can take my statements at face value though.

And I don't have a problem with people who believe in fairy tales either, hell my kids love them ;)

I don't think it's casual mockery either when people will say that that bible contains the 'word of god' but then decide they somehow get to chose which of words he actually apparently meant to be taken literally.

So either you accept that the bible is a big fairy tale and don't chose to base an otherwise completely arbitrary belief system off of it, or you stick up for a more literal interpretation of *all* of it. Really the distinction for most christians is between the old and new testament anyway. And there are arguments out there for why the old shouldn't be taken literally, but that the new should be. I think those arguments fail though, so that's why I take the stance I take.

[Tifone]

Secularists sue to prevent schoolkids from praying. Teachers confiscate Bibles.

My friend, the public school of a lay state is a place to /Learn/. I don't say it, it's in the laws of the state you accepted to live in. School is a place to learn maths, english, geography and science. Not Creationism, which is one religious, non-scientific thing. Not praying, because there are places, not of the state, for doing this as a freedom the state consider innate into you and nobody can remove. And not having Bible, because in a school a Bible is just out of place, as it would be everything else not related to teaching to children (from a Superman comic book to Playboy :D sorry, joking)

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

Jesus was telling a parable in Luke 19, the Parable of the Ten Minas. Those words you quoted are spoken by Jesus, but they're actually the words of the king in the parable.

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe.

Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.

That said, it is also important to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. [...] So we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures, but we do understand them in a very different way from most Jews.

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes. ;)

[JimMorrison]

When interpreting Scripture, context is key. In Luke 14, Jesus was telling His followers about the cost of being a disciple. He wanted to make it very clear to them that His demands were absolute. There should be no possibility of divided loyalties, because Jesus must be the Lord of your life. Reading the whole chapter makes this point quite clear.

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

For some reason it wanted to glitch and note show Tifone's original quote from Luke 14. I gave up trying to get it into this reply. :p Anyway, I find this part particularly interesting, because it's the same sort of indoctrination that is embedded into the US Special Forces, and CIA. Only there they replace Jesus with America. The premise is still the same, to convince someone to embrace something so entirely with their being, that should they be told that their own brother or mother is a threat, that they will do what has to be done to protect the ideological focal point.


"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I DID NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. FOR I HAVE COME TO TURN A MAN AGAINS HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, A DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW, A MAN'S ENEMIES will be THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD." [Matthew 10:34-36]

This of course, not to go into the Old Testament, as you were talking just about Jesus.
As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe. Our priorities are different. Our worldview is different. Our lives are different. When Jesus is Lord, everything changes.

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.


I think it is wrong for people to pick out little qoutes to make judgements, being totally conservative here, the bible was written by several people and their scriptures were all written at different times, even the 4 gospels were written with a 30/40 year gap between each one and as such each chapter of the bible will have the individual ideas of a single individual and is insufficient in my opinion to lift an entire faith but instead the fundamentals of the entire collection of scriptures should just be followed.

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict eachother, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.


also to clarify i believe most christians take the old testament to be little more than a fable, the fundamental values are accepted but the stories aren't necesarrily taken literally as they are written in the bible.

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

[JimMorrison]

Oh and I'm glad that this thread picked back up. 8 )

Let's just try to keep things civil please, so the discourse can continue. As the most level-headed faithful whom I have met have claimed to only want to help me and improve my life, it is the same that I give in return. Personally I believe that there is only one spiritual destination, and that no religion can actually take you all the way there. They are human constructs (most of them quite old, as well), and therefore intrinsically flawed. It is the individual, the human who must transcend beyond the confusion and lies - grasping the seed of truth that is within their faith, and letting it grow within themselves without the interference of of the garbled rantings of barbaric and unwashed madmen from the past.

<3

[JaghataiKhan]

I'm happy to answer questions about my faith, but I'm not going to read comics by some organization called the Luciferian Liberation Front. Life is too short to spend on such pastimes....

O RLY? The comic directly quoted from the OT, I remember stating that. Nice dodge. Life is never short not to read even the rival's apologetics(correct If I wrongly used it)

Let me read it for you then! As the Jews exited Egypt, they assaulted the promised land to cleanse it of other faiths. It speaks of 32000 virgins captured, 32 of hem SACRIFICED to God WHILE BURNED ALIVE(stop dodging this!), and the rest given as slave wives!

So stop defending the Abrahamic faiths. God ordered these. That equals a "sick feck".

You Christian folk are all the same. You always dodge a question, miss the point, find a way to denigrate the rival argumentator (Luciferian liberation front is an atheist website, but it is named Luciferian! OHNOES!), or entirely try to lead away from the point.

Well, my final conclusion is that God is a 5 year old fat kid throwing a hissy fit against a creaton that gives him the finger because he is just that. Noah's flood itself is stolen from Gilgamesh, and is logically contradicting as a perfect God simply can disintegrate those hated in an instant, and never need a pair of animals to repopulate the world. Babies drowned too, animals drowned too, children drowned as well. A perfect entity CANNOT make this. End of discusion.

So your God is either a mad raving monster or a holy entity that has LIMITED powers. Take your pick.

Also, if such a thing is perfectly holy, I am the anti-Christ, or will definitely follow him should all this Bronze Age babble is right, and he will rise.

[llamabeast]

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.

[Edratman]

This site is a collection of saying from a famed (at the time) late 19th century American athiest.

Naturally, I concur with this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm

[Edi]

For the sake of completeness, this was split from here. (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=39644)

[Kuritza]

Surely there were a lot of non-religious dispotic nationalist governments which committed lots of atrocities (Russia, Cambodia).

/Cough
Was it Russia or Cambodia that dropped nuclear bombs on civilians?... Or maybe they started Opium Wars after Chinese government tried to protect its citizens against drug dealers?..
/cough
Lets keep to the topic, please, which is religion. :)

[Agema]

Mainstream interpretation of the Bible, even since the earliest Christian theologians, has never been that it is entirely literal.

Even if the Bible is the word of God, it does not mean it has to be literal truth. It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding. (That argument was originally based on Platonic philosophy, although it's also compatible into one of the major strands of postmodern philosophy.)

The failing with literal interpretation was pointed out over 1500 years ago by Christian theologians. They noticed their understanding was far greater than the primitives who wrote the early Bible and had even less chance of comprehending the whole truth. As human knowledge grows, Christians need to consider whether tracts of the Bible are actually loose framework, grossly simplified versions of events, or outright allegory.

For Christians to back total literal interpretation is to put them at odds with the intellectual background of their own religion. For atheists to do it (assuming they aren't countering a literalist), it's nothing but setting up a straw man.

[thejeff]

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

[Edi]

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.
True. And the "part literal, part allegory" approach on the other hand provides all sorts of ammunition against a lot of things that even mainstream Christianity accepts as a matter of course. It comes to the "So, which is it?" question and sooner or later the religious arguments start contradicting themselves.

It's hard to give any respect to something that is so inconsistent and self-contradictory. Most of the good stuff associated with Christianity is not actually sourced in the Bible per se, but is universal to most ethical systems that aim to improve the lot of people. The Golden Rule being one of those.

Another problem Christianity has in the eyes of non-believers is refusal of moderates to outright condemn the whackjob fringe, thus silently enabling them to claim more supporters for their position than there really are. If someone on my side were sabotaging constructive efforts the same way they are, I'd let them have it with both barrels. And as long as the other side doesn't return the favor, I won't bother making any distinctions when talking about them as a group. If someone has a problem with it, they can speak up later. Not that the earlier silence will get a lot of sympathy.

[lch]

Wow, they're quite surprising quotes.


I know. Many people don't actually know the religious book, it's ok of course, but what surprises me are religious people which don't know what they really believe in.
Don't misunderstand me! I talk with many people about their religion, they say they believe in the Bible and for me it is really no problem, far from being a problem, let's be friends ;) maybe 75% of my friends are catholic btw
The problem is people who take the words of the bible literally. As for me, I know that there are chapters in the bible that I don't accept as valid, same as I don't take what's in the Qur'an as valid information. Some parts in the bible are downright crazy. I acknowledge a lot of things in the old testament and since I'm a Protestant I accept what's in the evangelists books, but I don't acknowledge some of the shorter and crazier chapters of the bible. That is from other authors, and what they wrote is their own view on things.

[SlipperyJim]

So. Many. Responses! I'm going to skip over the political stuff, because politics is being talked to death these days....

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.
Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.
If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

So what should I do? Should I stop witnessing to preserve short-term peace, while knowing that the long-term effects will be horrible beyond belief? Or should I risk some short-term conflict in order to influence my parents toward salvation?

Real-world analogy: If your parents were smoking six packs of cigarettes every day, would you try to get them to quit? What if your parents were already showing signs of poor health -- lung cancer, emphysema, asthma -- would that encourage you toward greater efforts on their behalf? But trying to get them to quit smoking will be tense! They might resent you for interfering in their lives. What now?

The dilemma is that I cannot witness to them if I allow our relationship to become completely estranged. Furthermore, the Bible tells me very clearly that I must honor my parents. So I must walk a middle ground. I try to maintain a cordial relationship with my parents (including frequent contact with my kids, their grandkids), but I also maintain my witness. It's not easy, but few worthwhile things are easy.

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".
When you carry the parable into the Kingdom of God -- which is the valid interpretation -- you also pick up some other context. The new factor to consider is grace. God doesn't want you to perish. He wants to save you. In fact, He wants to save you so badly that He sent His Son to die for you.

He has also taken every step to make sure that you know the stakes. He has given us His Word. He has ordered His followers to tell you about Him. You cannot claim ignorance. In fact, since you seem to know more about Scripture than many believers, you especially cannot claim ignorance. :)

Given all of that, what then should God do with an unbeliever at the final judgment? Salvation can only be found in God. In other words, the only way to save you is to join you to Himself. Do you want Him to do that against your will? What kind of loving God would bind people to Himself for all eternity without their consent? That's not love, it's slavery. So He lets you go to destruction. He doesn't enjoy it -- and neither should His followers -- but there's no other way. You've chosen to separate yourself from God, so He honors your choice.

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe. :(

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe.
Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.
A divided world was never part of God's plan. He created humanity to live in unity with Him and each other. But we screwed it up. When the Bible speaks about division and hatred, those aren't good things. Division and hatred are the consequences of human sin. The Bible is just being honest about them.

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of the Caananites' appalling sins. He also wanted to protect the Israelites -- His chosen people -- from being led astray. Unfortunately, His people didn't obey Him as well as they should have, so they were led astray, and the consequences were disastrous.

That said, it is also important to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. [...] So we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures, but we do understand them in a very different way from most Jews.

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)
The pagan natives of the Promised Land were a very wicked people. The conquest of Israel was so thorough that we don't know too much about them, but we do know that they practiced human sacrifice. And that children were among the sacrifices. The full extent of their iniquities have been lost to history, but whatever they had done, it was so bad that God decided they couldn't be redeemed. They were too wicked to save. Just as a surgeon cuts out a tumor to heal a person, sometimes God destroys sin rather than allow it to spread.

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes. ;)
Same here. :)

[SlipperyJim]

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe. Our priorities are different. Our worldview is different. Our lives are different. When Jesus is Lord, everything changes.

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.
I said we were fundamentally different, and that's what I meant. What have I said that would lead you to believe that I meant "inferior"?

Unbelievers are not inferior to believers, and no Christian should claim so. Jesus died to save the whole world, not just a chosen few. Each human being is worth the life of God's own Son. That's a lot of value....

In a sense, unbelievers may be worth even more than believers. If I die today, I'm going to heaven. If an unbeliever dies without accepting Christ, he goes ... somewhere else. Therefore, an unbeliever's earthly life is (in a sense) more important than mine, because it's the only chance he has.

I think it is wrong for people to pick out little qoutes to make judgements, being totally conservative here, the bible was written by several people and their scriptures were all written at different times, even the 4 gospels were written with a 30/40 year gap between each one and as such each chapter of the bible will have the individual ideas of a single individual and is insufficient in my opinion to lift an entire faith but instead the fundamentals of the entire collection of scriptures should just be followed.

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict each other, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.
That's why Marcionism was rightly condemned as heresy. If God is God, then we must take His entire Word. We must interpret it correctly, but we must accept it. Picking apart the Bible will only lead a person astray. We can see the clear danger of picking apart the Scriptures in Christ's warning to the church of Laodicea:
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

also to clarify i believe most christians take the old testament to be little more than a fable, the fundamental values are accepted but the stories aren't necesarrily taken literally as they are written in the bible.

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.
In one sense, you're mistaken. But in another sense, you're very correct.

It is a mistake to conclude that one cannot believe in the truth of Scripture without taking it literally word-for-word. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken word-for-word. Scripture contains history, biography, poetry, and prophecy. Some of those events (such as Jesus's biographies, AKA the Gospels) are clearly meant to be understood as the literal truth. Other passages of Scripture are poetic, and they must be understood as metaphor. Much of Scripture works on multiple levels. The Song of Solomon is a good example of beautiful (erotic!) poetry that praises married love between a man and a woman, while it also gives us an analogy for the relationship between God and His church.

On the other hand, you're very correct to spot that there are some logical inconsistencies in Christians who want to dismiss the Old Testament as a mere fairy tale. Christ came to earth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. We cannot dimiss those prophecies without dismissing Christ Himself. The miracles in the Old Testament also point to Christ. If we dismiss those miracles, how can we maintain any consistency in our belief about Jesus?

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. More importantly, the parting of the Red Sea (and the entire Exodus) is a foreshadowing of how Christ saved us from sin. Just as the power of God created a passage in the Red Sea, so the power of God through Christ created a passage through sin and death.

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.

[SlipperyJim]

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.
Belated apologies for dragging the thread even further off-topic than it already was.... :o

[thejeff]

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.



And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

[SlipperyJim]

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.
We need to draw a very careful distinction between Truth and literalism. Fundamentalist Christians like me believe the Bible to be true. We believe that Scripture is the infallible and inspired Word of God. What does that mean?

"Infallible" means that the Word is never wrong on any subject that it addresses. The doctrine of infallibility does not claim that Scripture contains all knowledge. I work in IT, and I can tell you that Scripture is remarkably short on advice for properly configuring a virtual datacenter. ;) However, when Scripture speaks on a subject, it is always correct.

The doctrine of infallibility also does not require us to always interpret Scripture in a literal, word-for-word sense. Some parts of Scripture are poetry, some are prophecy, and some are literal. We have to understand what we're reading. Of course, now we have the problem of determining which is which. Is the creation account from Genesis poetry or literal history? Christians are divided on this question. Personally, I'm undecided, but I'm leaning toward literal history.

A good rule of thumb for interpreting the Bible is: When the Word makes plain sense, seek no other sense. In other words, if the text makes sense from a literal view, then that's probably how it was meant to be understood. We shouldn't reach for a poetical or metaphorical understanding unless the plain meaning of the words can't possibly make sense....

"Inspired" simply means that the Bible came from God. Yes, it was written by human hands, but those people were all guided by God's Holy Spirit. In other words, the Bible has only one Author, but He gave a lot of dictation. ;)

With those points in mind, I will refer you back to Agema's comment. Literal understanding of the Bible simply doesn't work, and Christians have known that for many years. I suspect that you actually don't know too many literalists. I am a member of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I don't know any literalists.

Most of the people who believe in a literal understanding of the Bible are straw men. Actual Christians -- including the fundamentalists -- know that literalism is both self-defeating and unnecessary to proclaim God's Word as truth.

[SlipperyJim]

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.
Conversion by force doesn't work. Jesus wants you to follow Him freely. He wants your heart, not merely your surface obedience. For example, see Amos 5.

If God was only interested in forced obedience, He would take it. Yet He has given us free will. If God Himself won't take away your free will, what right would I have to do the same thing?

The Inqusition and other examples of forced conversion are among the shames of the Church. We elevated ourselves above our stature and claimed a privilege that not even God Himself has claimed. God's Word tells us to be faithful witnesses. That's our mandate, and no more than that.

And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)
I don't know why the original inhabitants of the Promised Land were beyond redemption. I can hazard a guess that God calculated their likelihood of redemption was far less than the certainty that they would tempt the Israelites into destruction, so He had to destroy them as a threat to His chosen people. Again, we have to remember free will. God wouldn't force them to repent of their wickedness, because that would take away their free will. He had to convince them. Presumably, He gave them sufficient opportunity to prove to His own infallible judgment that they would never turn away from their wickedness....

But really, I don't know. I'm not God.

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.
Christ's sacrifice was necessary to satisfy the demands of God's justice. We had sinned. Over and over. And we are going to continue sinning. Someone had to pay a price for all of that sin. As an act of supreme love, God paid that price Himself by sending His Son to die for us.

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

How would you have done it?

[thejeff]

So God cannot forgive? The sins must be paid for? He is incapable of just forgiving them?

Why did someone have to pay a price for all of that sin?
If someones hurts me, then repents, I don't have to choose between beating them up and beating myself up, I can just forgive. But God can't. Someone must pay. So he hurts himself.
To me, this is nonsense.

In a ancient world view, where religion is all about sacrificing to propitiate the gods, it does make sense. In a comparative mythology kind of way, I can see where the idea comes from.

[Tifone]

Hello, me again here. Nice to see how this discussion is becoming interesting. I think all of us will learn something here, even from positions not shared, if we just keep open minded. Wow, lots of responses here around the time I was to university ^_^

I want to thank expecially SlipperyJim who is continuing to keep his position, and even giving attention to my rants, in a totally polite way. I don't share virtually any of his world views, but he is an excellent and interesting debater.


If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible. I could just prove almost everything true with circular logic - God isn't real just because the Bible says so, as the Bible was written to prove this God to be real - just like the ancient Greek legends of Zeus' "miracles" were made to prove him real and still I don't believe them too.

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

[...]

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles?

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way :) )

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad.

If even you would prove that your God is real, and not one clearly created by man like Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Moloch, Chtulu, the FSM, which may or may not be have been worshipped now or in the past... and he is the only God, and not the Hindu ones i.e... Heck, even if He would appear in front of my face and being this way... Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.

Also, excuse me, but I have to think if there is really a/some God/Goddess/Gods who have created all the billions of billions of stars and gigantic galaxies and the life forms from the lower bacteria to the most complex ones, I can't really see him/she/them in a so "little" and "wretched" activity like looking is every of his little creations' hearts, divide the ones who believe from the one who don't, and expect them do die to send the first ones in an all shiny and happy place and the other ones to SUFFER FOREVER. Period.


Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe. :(

Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about? People live their lives. They work, they suffer, they rejoice, they gain and lose precious people for them. All with the morals from their religion, Christian or not, or from their coscience. No "neverending party" for nobody (ok, only for those ducks of My Super Sweet Sixteen on MTV, may they really burn forever, no, joking again ^_^ ). Also, agnostic and atheists and buddhists don't see neverending parties anywhere, and surely not in any "afterlife".

A divided world was never part of God's plan.

[...]

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? :confused: He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.

It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding.

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin.

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody ;)

[JimMorrison]

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.


Bingo.

Get back to me when you make it that far. It will be like a breath of fresh air. A somewhat scary breath of fresh air, on the verge of what we secularists like to refer to as "self reliance".

Oh and to help you along - there is no evidence whatsoever that a single person who ever met or "witnessed" Jesus ever wrote a single passage in the bible. Every account of him that you read was written by someone decades or centuries after the fact, who likely did not have the benefit of another written copy to work from - hence they had two choices, 1) obtain inspiration from word of mouth, 2) make stuff up. Given the overall quality and consistency of what is written in the bible, it would seem there was a little of both going on.


And for the record, I 100% refuse (as in it will never ever ever happen, NOT in all of eternity to "worship" an entity that would enact such a cruel and infinite torture on my everliving soul, for spending this tiny wisp of a lifetime NOT believing in something (someone) that there is absolutely no evidence for other than anecdotal centuries old writings. Since he either 1) refuses to create any new prophets of the credible caliber, or 2) has created a faith that refuses to recognize those prophets when they rise - then HE fails. It is not me who has failed or fallen, it is my father who IS fallible, and who is capable of punishing me for his own failure. That is a fragile and human entity - not the all powerful, all loving god whom I would be willing to worship if the situation actually warranted it, and he actually deserved it.

[JimMorrison]

Tifone, did you just reference the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :happy:

[thejeff]

Ramen!

[Tifone]

RAmen to you, my pastafarian brothers touched by His Noodly Appendage. You caught me :laugh:

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/hisnoodlyappendagenew.jpg

At the risk of seeming offensive (and not wanting actually to be so), I sometimes used our great FSM in real religious debates.
The fact that the words "God", "Jesus", "Bible" (among others) have become so strong in the centuries in my society, bring sometimes my debating counterparts to believe that everything said in those names must be auto-legitimating to me, FAR ABOVE my own intellect and reason (the best thing all of us have IMHO)

Me:"Why should I oppose (i.e.) gay marriage? It doesn't damage me and I want those people to be happy like everybody else!"
Other:"Because GOD (<-loud and deep voice) said it is an abomination!"
Me:"If I tell you everybody must do everything I want because the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER (<-louder and deeper voice) told so, would you just accept it?!"

It can be very confusing for the adverse party and remind him/her that "God" is just a name, and saying this word loudly doesn't make his/her arguments truer than mine, if mine are just more reasonable (as I believe they are of course, or I wouldn't defend them - may I be right or wrong, the time the better judge ;) )


PS on a totally unrelated topic... FSM for Dom3 Pretender God!!

[JimMorrison]

But but..... Didn't you know? Everything other than the one true god (how do we know which is which though?) is simply one of the infinite faces of the devil, trying to lure you away from the faith?

Of course, if you interpret the bible differently than I do, that means you are going to hell, and therefore you are also led astray by satan. By proxy, all Christians+Catholics are devil worshippers, because their particular belief system differs from another who claims the one true god.


I also worship the one true god. But what he told ME was that I didn't need to smite the differently-believing, I only needed to tell them to calm down and be quiet while we endeavor to resolve things on a human level. He was mum on the issue of heaven, but implied that more of us will be happy in the end, if we strive only to get along - as our top priority. He didn't say anything about the "costs" of getting along, but it seems like our current paradigm of NOT getting along, is costing us billions of lives and souls, and that's a bit steep.

[Kristoffer O]

This is a rather long tread by now. I believe there was something I wanted to add to the discussion but somehow it drowned in fifty other posts or so :)

I want to thank SlipperyJim for his patience and dedication. This interesting thread would probably have have died without your continous efforts.

Personally I'm an atheist, unfortunately. I believe I would feel better if I found God. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that I will find any god, unless I'm directly approached by God.

Once I considered Islam to be the religion I found most attractive. If God has a plan it, why not tell people how society is supposed to be organized. Islam is quite integrated in society and the Quran says something about how society should be.

Later on I have tended to appreciate christianity more. Mostly since I view the core functional message of christianity as being: Just be gentle and love everyone.

I have been less fond of buddhism (theravada more than mahayana) and new age since I consider their salvation to be individualistic. But this was when I was young and less ... meek. Now I consider myself quite at a loss regarding the views of practicing buddhists. My only personal experience with buddhism is with members of Sokka Gakkai, and they are not that representative.

In a way I am partial to institutionalized religion, where there is a TRUTH. If there is a God , there is a truth, and thus there should be a great plan for life, society and the world. Thus I consider fundamentalists right on Gods track.

On the other hand I'm quite opposed to fundamentalist teachings, since I find them opposed to some of the values I adhere to. Mainly because of the interpretation of what the TRUTH is. Anyone who claims to know a truth is a potentially dangerous man. I dislike truth. That makes me a postmodernist. I strongly dislike postmodernists.

I view religion a as a tool that should guide and aid people respect and love others, aid people in trouble, inspire people to aid and help and build and compose and do good stuff to others and society.

My problem is that I want religion to be something else than I want my own devotion to be, should I become religious.

I should go for messiah-hood. That would solve my problems. :)
I'm actually halfway there. I already have students calling me Jesus, even yelling 'hello Jesus' from the other side of the street the other day. I had to smile :)


Hmm, not sure if I said what I intended when I started, but I sad something :)


Edit: I seem to have left junk and misspellings and stuff in my text, but I'm not in the mood of fixing it. You get my meaning anyway I hope.

[Edi]

Hmm, would it be appropriate to say that you are a spiritual person, but not truly a religious one, Kristoffer?

[Ballbarian]

My view is that you don't need to belong to an organization or align yourself with a particular set of teachings.

Words to live by:
"To thine own self be true"

[Kristoffer O]

I'm truly not religious. I'm quite materialistic, but I don't care about material things.

I'm mostly a feel good kind of person. I feel good regardless of circumstances. I rarely become angry or stressed and am more or less content with everything that happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as spiritual.

[JimMorrison]

I'm truly not religious. I'm quite materialistic, but I don't care about material things.

I'm mostly a feel good kind of person. I feel good regardless of circumstances. I rarely become angry or stressed and am more or less content with everything that happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as spiritual.


I believe what Edi was getting at, was that it seems that you feel "it", though you don't understand the need to ritualize "it".

What is "it"? I don't think anyone really knows. According to some eastern teachings (they all kind of bleed together for me), when you discover what "it" truly is, it is beyond human language and expression, and thus everyone trying so fervently to tell you what "it" really is, are either liars, or just misguided.

In any case, I would agree, you (do you prefer Kristoffer, or is Kris okay?) do seem to feel "it". It's always nice to see that in people, I think your students would agree. :p

And don't feel too bad about your inability to define "it", like most of us who "feel it", you haven't yet "reached it", so "it"s a little bit foggy. Just give it some time.


And SlipperyJim, I also wanted to thank you. We're disagreeing quite handily here, and it is all managing to not turn ugly, that's pretty exceptional. Just remember that I am all for your ability to do, think, and feel what you please - I just draw the line on all the judgement and damnation junk. I am in no hurry to find anyone's god for one simple reason - I am entirely, 100% confident that I am a good and kind person - and therefore no all-loving god could ever commit me to any hell. The human mind loves the arbitrary, but this god person wouldn't let a guy like me be tortured for eternity over an issue of semantics. ;)

<3

[HoneyBadger]

I believe in all religions, in that they all exist, and that their existence-(atleast as far as they pertain and relate to my own existence)-result completely from my own perception of them. That makes me a 'pantheist solopsist'. It works well as a belief system, in that I can accept that all these different viewpoints are fundamentally correct (God exists, Allah exists, Jesus exists, Buddha exists, Odin exists, Rama exists, everybody's right, etc ad infinium), while still allowing myself to accept or deny their personal relevance to myself-in that the very existence and fabric of the Universe Itself-(as it pertains to me)-exists as a result of my own existence and perspective on it. And, should I at some point entirely cease to exist, the very Universe, Time, and Reality-as I percieve them-will-(for me)-then completely cease to exist. Thus, being my very own Alpha and Omega, the freedom and responsibility of choice falls entirely on my own infinite and ultimate self, while any sense of subservience or obsequity before a higher power is nullified by the fundamental inability for there to be a Universe which I can percieve, which does not also force my existence. To put it as succinctly as I possibly can:

"I, therefore.".

[Edratman]

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defense.

[HoneyBadger]

Or our money :p

It just ticks me off that churches are tax exempt, and yet religion won't keep it's nose out of politics.
Fine, you want to be part of the political process-pay your part like the rest of us.

I'll respect any church that pays taxes to the government, even when they don't have to.

It even says in the Bible "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars."

I don't think priests, ministers, etc. should be able to vote, unless they also pay taxes.
And I don't think you should be able to donate any taxable income or assets to a church-maybe
that would keep some of the greediest of the evangelists from taking too many houses and mortgage payments.

to (probably mis)quote some comedian I can't remember the name of:

"I don't believe in any god that requires heavy financing"

[SlipperyJim]

Firstly, thanks to all of the people who have thanked me. It is challenging to be the only (as far as I can tell) fundamentalist Christian in a virtual sea of agnostics, atheists, and other believers. If I don't answer a particular post, please don't be offended. There's only so much typing that my ten fingers can do....

Thanks also to the assorted agnostics, atheists, and other believers who are participating. We have (mostly) managed to keep an even keel and a respectful tone, and those qualities are truly rare in online debates. Especially online debates about religion.

On to the responses:
If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible.
Firstly, I object to the notion that you can reject the Bible as evidence. Even if you disregard the divine inspiration of the Bible, it's still an astounding collection of primary source material. We know more about Jesus than we know about Socrates (for example), and historical documents are our primary sources of knowledge.

By the way, the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus in his writings. Josephus never mentioned Christ's divinity, but his writing should be enough to prove (at the very least) that there was a guy named Jesus in first-century Judea who seems to correlate with the Jesus of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, I can meet your challenge in the same way that the earliest apostles did. I have met Jesus. Not physically, of course, but in ways that were utterly real nonetheless. I have seen His power at work in my life and in the lives of others around me. I cannot doubt the power of God through Christ any more than I could doubt the existence of the sun, the wind, or the force of gravity.

Logic also insists that there's something real to the Gospel. Christianity exploded across the Roman Empire in spite of several emperors who tried to stop it. (Nero is the obvious example, but Diocletian wasn't any better.) Now look at the original apostles. A bunch of fishermen, a tax collector, and a former persecutor of the faith. They weren't the most-likely candidates to lead a spiritual revival, but they did it anyway. That's either a lot of coincidence, or the power of God.

The fate of the original apostles also reinforces their claims. Every one of the eleven (not counting Judas Iscariot) suffered for the faith. Ten of them died for it, and John was exiled to the island of Patmos. These guys all knew Jesus personally. If He had been a fake, wouldn't they have known about it? If so, why would they have been willing to die for a lie?

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way :) )
That's a fair question, but you have to really think about it. What do you suppose would happen if God performed a big, showy miracle today? Before you answer, remember that there are people who still believe that 9/11 was faked and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition....

It wouldn't work. Skeptics would raise questions. So-called experts would prove how the miracle could have been done through science, special effects, or mass hypnosis. You can't force people to believe, even if you raise someone from the dead.

That's the very point that Jesus addressed in the parable about Lazarus the beggar & the rich man (as recorded in Luke 16):


There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
Shortly thereafter, Jesus rose from the dead ... and people still didn't believe Him.

Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.
Doubt is not your problem. Many believers have doubted. Mother Theresa doubted. The apostle Thomas doubted.

Excuse me for saying so, but your problem is a failure to grasp your condition. You seem to believe that you deserve Heaven on your own merits. You don't. None of us deserve Heaven on our own merits. Heaven is perfect, and we aren't.

By the way, how "good" do you have to be in order to be GOOD? Where's the line between good and not-good?

Let's take the average guy. He doesn't hurt anyone, not usually. Maybe he drives a little too fast, but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet. He gets a little short-tempered, and he occasionally has a harsh word for his wife or his kids. But we all do that, right? In spite of that, he deeply loves his family. He would give his life for them, but he hasn't been required to do that yet. He's a good worker, even though he spends a little too much time on the Web when he should be working. He's nice to people most of the time. Some people would miss him if he died.

Is this guy good enough for Heaven? Is he worthy of perfection? What if he worked a little bit harder?

Alone among all of the religions, Christianity recognizes the true problem. None of us is truly righteous [Romans 3:10]. Even when we think we're being good, most of us are usually seeking some sort of reward or praise. Genuine self-sacrificing love (with nothing to be gained by it) is darned rare in our broken world, whereas evil seems commonplace. How would humans rise above these problems to become worthy of God?

We can't do it. So God came to us. He gives us the worthiness and righteousness that we cannot attain on our own. And He gives it to us for free, because He already paid the price.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject goes something like:
"Christianity is not a religion. Religion is all about people working toward God. God is smart enough to know that we can't possibly reach Him, so He came to us. Christianity is simply living with Christ in your life."

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe. :(
Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about?
I was referring to a popular misconception that life would be great if only God would leave us alone to enjoy it. Perhaps my language was too strong, and I apologize for any offense.

I am well aware that life is not a neverending party.

A divided world was never part of God's plan.

[...]

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.
Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? :confused: He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.
You're confusing God's omniscience with His perfect will. Yes, God knew we were going to fall from grace. He knew we were going to sin. That's why He planned for our redemption from the very beginning of time.

But knowing something bad is going to happen does not mean the same thing as actually planning for it to happen. For example, I know that my kids are probably making trouble for my wife during homeschooling today. (Yup, we homeschool.) Do I want that to happen? No. Would I be delighted if it didn't happen? Sure! But I know it's probably going to happen anyway, so I make my plans for how to respond to it.

In the same way, although God knew we were going to fall from grace, He didn't want it to happen. He even made plans to redeem us after our Fall. But He couldn't have prevented our Fall without taking away our free will, so He allowed it to happen.

It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding.

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke
Actually, you're quite correct. If the Bible isn't reliable, then God is not God. Fortunately, the Bible is reliable and clear.

Actually, the clarity of the Bible is another point toward why it should be trusted. Think about it. The books of the Bible were written over thousands of years by many different human beings. Their cultural backgrounds, languages, and environments all changed many times, but the message stayed the same. God loves His people and wants to save them. Sadly, we keep screwing up the plan because we want to be in control. Only by accepting the grace of God and asking Him into our lives can we ever find happiness and holiness.

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin.

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody ;)
What translation are you using? The NIV renders Isaiah 45:7 a bit differently:
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
The NASB has:
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
The point in this verse is God's sovereignty. In context, the verse is part of God's explicit endorsement of Cyrus (a pagan king!) as the agent of God's will and deliverer of God's people. God is not the author of Evil. However, He is lord of all, and He can use destruction to fulfill His purposes.

Your citation of Amos 3:6 suffers from a similar problem. NIV:
When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?
NASB:
If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?

God is not claiming authorship of Evil. Rather, He is forcefully stating His sovereignty, even going so far as to declare that He can use disaster & destruction as part of His plans.

Hmmm ... so I did a little comparison, and it appears that you're using the good ol' King James Version for your quotations. I love the KJV because of its poetic language and beautiful cadences. In fact, I still recite the Lord's Prayer in KJV English.

The problem is that the KJV English is distinctive because it is old. The English language has changed a bit since King James's day, and those changes can make the KJV a little tricky to understand. If you like the KJV, may I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) for you? It uses much of the same poetic, beautiful language, but it also uses modern words to avoid confusing modern readers.

[SlipperyJim]

So God cannot forgive? The sins must be paid for? He is incapable of just forgiving them?
God did "just" forgive them. He's capable of doing it, and He did it. He paid the price for it.

Why did someone have to pay a price for all of that sin?
If someones hurts me, then repents, I don't have to choose between beating them up and beating myself up, I can just forgive. But God can't. Someone must pay. So he hurts himself.
To me, this is nonsense.
No, all forgiveness has a price. When the sin is not very great, the price is not very high. If I step on your toe, you can forgive me easily. On the other hand, if I massacre your family with a chainsaw, you might find forgiveness a little more difficult. The worse the sin, the harder it is to forgive.

It's only reasonable that the sins of the entire human race -- past, present, and future -- would require a whole lot of forgiveness. That much forgiveness can't come cheap.

[Edratman]

I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To The Indianapolis Clergy" The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana (1882)

[Bwaha]

You have to understand that the God of Isreal is a very pure being, and won't abide with evil. What He defines as evil. It is part of his nature that can't be changed. He has given us the choice to accept the blood sacrifice of his only begotton son or not. It is the blood of the Lamb that allows us into his presence without being destroyed. This world was created to be the source of beings that would destroy the rebelling angels. All of the rebels are bound on this planet. Thats why this world is so messed up. We are in a war that is spirtital in nature, that it bleeds into our physical realm is unfortunate but seems to be part of the plan. I ask everyone to just try an experiment. Ask the being known as Jesus to cover your sins and enter your heart. Then ask to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. The tingling sensation that you will feel is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then give praise and thanks. Go and share what you have found. Its that simple. Because this is the sole path to ever-lasting life, we are commanded to share the truth with others. If you choose this path, you will be included in something that is wonderous. But there is a cost. You will be hated by all man unreasonably, it is part of the deal. Also your eyes will be opened to a realm that is simply too hard to comprehend without the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I've offended anyone but this is the truth. Try the experiment, you will discover more than you could possibly imagine.:D

[Edratman]

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.


-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

[lch]

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.
Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.
No he isn't. There is no holy trinity in my book.
Yes, he did pick a random Jewish carpenter for it. That was EXACTLY THE POINT.

[SlipperyJim]

Get back to me when you make it that far. It will be like a breath of fresh air. A somewhat scary breath of fresh air, on the verge of what we secularists like to refer to as "self reliance".
No, I am not self-reliant. I'll freely admit that. I am totally reliant on God for everything that I have, everything that I am, and even the very breath in my lungs.

I could pretend otherwise. I could claim that I'm a self-made man. I could even produce evidence to support my claim. But would that really make me self-reliant? If I drop dead of a brain aneurysm in the next five minutes, whose fault would it be? Can I control the blood vessels in my brain?

I'm proud of my education, but should I be? Would I be as well-educated if I had not been born into a middle-class family in the richest country on Earth? For that matter, don't I owe my intelligence to genetics, upbringing, and other circumstances outside of my control? What if I had been born with a mental disability of some kind?

Isaac Newton wrote:
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

We all stand on the shoulders of other people. Those people stood on the shoulders of still more people, etcetera. And we all "stand on" nature to a great extent, not to mention seemingly-random chances. None of us are self-reliant. Not me. Not you.

Oh and to help you along - there is no evidence whatsoever that a single person who ever met or "witnessed" Jesus ever wrote a single passage in the bible. Every account of him that you read was written by someone decades or centuries after the fact, who likely did not have the benefit of another written copy to work from - hence they had two choices, 1) obtain inspiration from word of mouth, 2) make stuff up. Given the overall quality and consistency of what is written in the bible, it would seem there was a little of both going on.
Odd. I found some evidence for the Gospels with a quick Google search:
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence) (Faithfacts.org)

I'm sure that you can find more evidence if you look. Naturally, skeptics will claim that this evidence is false, biased, or whatever. That claim can be tested by looking at the evidence itself. Still, it seems like an exaggeration to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wikipedia actually has a decent summary of the different opinions about the authorship of the Gospels. For example, some people claim that Luke could have been written as early as 37 AD, which would have been less than ten years after the Crucifixion. Fascinating.

And for the record, I 100% refuse (as in it will never ever ever happen, NOT in all of eternity to "worship" an entity that would enact such a cruel and infinite torture on my everliving soul, for spending this tiny wisp of a lifetime NOT believing in something (someone) that there is absolutely no evidence for other than anecdotal centuries old writings. Since he either 1) refuses to create any new prophets of the credible caliber, or 2) has created a faith that refuses to recognize those prophets when they rise - then HE fails. It is not me who has failed or fallen, it is my father who IS fallible, and who is capable of punishing me for his own failure. That is a fragile and human entity - not the all powerful, all loving god whom I would be willing to worship if the situation actually warranted it, and he actually deserved it.
I think I've mostly addressed these points in my reply to Tifone, but I'll add one more thing: You are totally free to reject the claims of Christ. You are also free to reject God.

Although you may not care, no matter how much you reject Him, He still wants you. He's funny that way. I know that I won't ever convince you via online debate, but I pray that you will be open to Him one day.

Shalom!

[SlipperyJim]

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.
Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God. He claimed to forgive sins, even when He was not the injured party. How can a mere man, even a prophet, claim to forgive sins against others? If I sin against you, you can forgive me. But if I sin against a complete stranger, and you still forgive me, by what right would you offer that forgiveness? (And wouldn't it seem arrogant?) Forgiving sins only makes sense if Jesus Himself was injured by our sins -- all of our sins -- and that only makes sense if He is God.

Let me be quick to clarify: You are free to believe whatever you believe, and you don't owe me any answers. If you would entertain my questions, I would appreciate your attention. I have been a non-Christian. Now I am a Christian. (Not Catholic, by the way, although I have a great respect for the Catholic Church.) In all of that, I simply don't see a way to be a Christian who rejects the divinity of Jesus.

---

PS: Plain honesty requires me to identify CS Lewis as the inspiration for much of my argument in this post. His book Mere Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926) explains much of these points, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in an intellectual approach to the Christian faith.

[SlipperyJim]

Personally I'm an atheist, unfortunately. I believe I would feel better if I found God. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that I will find any god, unless I'm directly approached by God.
Thanks for your openness. May I ask: Why would you feel better if you found God? Is something missing that you believe that God could provide, if you could only find Him?

I can't speak for other gods, but I can tell you that God works through His people. If you want to find God, go spend some time with a Christian whom you know and respect.

Of course, it's tricky to pick the right one. As a very wise man once said:
"The best thing about Christianity is Christians. The worst thing about Christianity is Christians."

We can be a very motley crew. Still, there are some good-hearted Christians in the world, and I'm willing to bet that there's (at least) one good-hearted Christian who will be happy to help you in your search for God.

Later on I have tended to appreciate christianity more. Mostly since I view the core functional message of christianity as being: Just be gentle and love everyone.
While that message is certainly one of Christ's teachings, it isn't the core message of Christianity. Many other great teachers and wise men have told us to be nice to one another, and it hasn't stuck all that well.

The core message of Christianity is that you can't do it. Thankfully, you don't have to do it. Christ offers to do it through you. Christians don't love other people in order to please Jesus. (When we're loving, that is....) Christians love other people because Jesus lives inside us, and His love shines through us.

In a way I am partial to institutionalized religion, where there is a TRUTH. If there is a God , there is a truth, and thus there should be a great plan for life, society and the world. Thus I consider fundamentalists right on Gods track.
Good points.

On the other hand I'm quite opposed to fundamentalist teachings, since I find them opposed to some of the values I adhere to. Mainly because of the interpretation of what the TRUTH is. Anyone who claims to know a truth is a potentially dangerous man. I dislike truth. That makes me a postmodernist. I strongly dislike postmodernists.
You're a post-modernist, and yet you strongly dislike post-modernists? Wow, that must be interesting.

Post-modernism is a self-defeating philosophy. The moment that you claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth, you have made a claim that you believe to be absolutely true. It's serious doublethink. It's like saying, "Everything I say is a lie." But if everything is a lie, then that statement must be a lie, which would mean that not every statement I say is a lie.....

I view religion a as a tool that should guide and aid people respect and love others, aid people in trouble, inspire people to aid and help and build and compose and do good stuff to others and society.
No, that's ethics. Ethics without religion is perfectly plausible. You don't need God to do all of those good things you mentioned.

Religion is about humanity trying to meet God.
Christianity is about God coming to be with His people.

My problem is that I want religion to be something else than I want my own devotion to be, should I become religious.
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. What is the difference between your own devotion and what you want religion to be?

I should go for messiah-hood. That would solve my problems. :)
I'm actually halfway there. I already have students calling me Jesus, even yelling 'hello Jesus' from the other side of the street the other day. I had to smile :)
Does that mean that you have a beard? You can't be Jesus without a beard, you know. :rolleyes:

Gandalf's avatar makes me think that he looks a little like the stereotypical Jesus.... ;)

[thejeff]

With all due respect to CS Lewis, the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument falls apart if you do not accept the Bible as, at least, a fairly accurate description of Jesus's ministry.
If you do accept the Bible's claims then there is little point in making the argument. If not, then the argument falls apart: perhaps he never claimed divinity.

[SlipperyJim]

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defense.
You posted a lot of quotations, but I wanted to respond to this one. It reminded me of a passage from Acts 5:33-39:
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
You go, Rabbi! ;)

[SlipperyJim]

With all due respect to CS Lewis, the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument falls apart if you do not accept the Bible as, at least, a fairly accurate description of Jesus's ministry.
If you do accept the Bible's claims then there is little point in making the argument. If not, then the argument falls apart: perhaps he never claimed divinity.
That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

If you reject the Bible, why would you believe that Jesus was a prophet of God? For that matter, why would you believe that Jesus was anyone special at all?

Perhaps one would choose to accept parts of the Bible, but not others. For obvious reasons, I think that approach is fatally flawed. Still, let's accept it for now. If you want to accept parts of the Bible, but not other parts, then how do you choose which parts? The divinity of Jesus is a central theme of Scripture, from Genesis right through Revelation. Christ's place as the second Person of the Trinity is not merely a side-issue; it's the core issue.

As I wrote, I understand other doctrinal disputes. I started my Christian walk in a Lutheran church. Lutherans are a sacramental denomination who practice infant baptism. Now I'm a Southern Baptist, and we don't baptize babies. I can see arguments in Scripture for both positions, and I truly wish that Christians would not divide ourselves over it. (For the most part, we don't, but there are always exceptions.) We can disagree over these points of doctrine, and the core truths of Christianity are not threatened.

If Jesus was merely a prophet, there's no point in Christianity. A prophet can't save you from your sins. He can't heal your broken spirit. He can't walk with you throughout your life. And he can't bring you into Heaven when you die. Only God can do that.

[JimMorrison]

Although you may not care, no matter how much you reject Him, He still wants you. He's funny that way. I know that I won't ever convince you via online debate, but I pray that you will be open to Him one day.

Shalom!


And it is for this reason that if he is the all loving, and all forgiving source of goodness that is claimed - that he will not cast me into some lake of fire to be tortured for all of eternity.

For the record, I am not wealthy, and I am not highly educated. I was born into poverty, and to this day, it is in poverty that I dwell. I have little to be thankful for in this life - in this nation - which is ruled by and large by those claiming the Christian faith, who work tirelessly to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the citizens. I have been harmed more by Christians, and helped more by atheists in my lifetime, and that is my evidence - my testament to the effectiveness of the gospel.

[lch]

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?
Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that. I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity. And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God. How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.
As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God. Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

[SlipperyJim]

For the record, I am not wealthy, and I am not highly educated. I was born into poverty, and to this day, it is in poverty that I dwell. I have little to be thankful for in this life - in this nation - which is ruled by and large by those claiming the Christian faith, who work tirelessly to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the citizens. I have been harmed more by Christians, and helped more by atheists in my lifetime, and that is my evidence - my testament to the effectiveness of the gospel.
To clarify, the existence of bad behavior among Christians -- or even bad Christians -- does not disprove the Gospel. After all, there is plenty of greed, hatred, jealousy, and strife among non-believers. Sanctification is a long, slow process for most of us. Jesus is making us perfect (as He wants to make you perfect), but He surely takes His time in doing it.

That said, Jesus told His followers that other people should know us by the love that we show. To whatever extent you have suffered at the hands of Christians, Jesus would not approve of your ill treatment. As a member of the Body of Christ, I am connected to those who have hurt you, and I am sorry for it. :(

[thejeff]

Agreed in general. I'm not a Christian, as you may have gathered. I do not accept the Bible as any form of revealed truth or however you wish to phrase it.

I don't believe Jesus was a prophet of God. I don't really believe much of anything about Jesus. And as I understand the Liar, Lunatic or Lord argument, it's not aimed at Christians (or those claiming to be Christian if you wish) who don't believe Jesus was divine. It's aimed at unbelievers. It's a good argument if you accept the premises, but those who accept the premise are likely to already believe the conclusion.

Jesus's divinity is a core issue of your interpretation of Scripture, not of every ones. Most Jews, at least, would deny that the divinity of Jesus is a central theme of the Old Testament. That belief wasn't settled, although widespread, even among Christians until several hundred years after his death. Nor was any such theme evident beforehand - Jewish Messiah expectations, which certainly existed, were much more secular and nationalistic than the later Christian interpretations of the same passages.

[SlipperyJim]

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that.
God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity.
Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

That's why the Holy Trinity is such an essential piece of Christian doctrine. Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God.
To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't encourage or require any Cult of the Madonna. But yeah, plenty of actual Catholics seem to go overboard in their devotion for Mary. All I can do is to point to the official Catholic teaching, which does not encourage such behavior. Mary was a special person, and God chose her for a unique role to bear His Son ... but Mary was still a human being.

How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.
Jesus was always God. He didn't "become" God. All the way back in Genesis, when God spoke the world into being, His Word was Jesus. That's the point that John makes in the first chapter of his Gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
It goes back to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus has always been God the Son, along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God.
I won't address the reliability of Scripture, but only because I've already spent so much time writing about it on this thread. ;)

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Also, as I mentioned before, the divinity of Jesus is one of the major themes of Scripture. You'd have to do away with an awful lot of the Bible to get around it....

Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?
Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

By the way, that was perhaps the ultimate punishment of the Cross: Jesus endured separation from God, which is the fitting punishment for all of us. Because He took it for us, we don't ever have to suffer that horrible separation. We can be united with God -- all three Persons -- forever.

[lch]

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that.
God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.
Exactly, only God can forgive the sins. Jesus is the proxy.

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.
I don't like the word "Godhead", but I don't like "Trinity", either. Yes, there exist all three, and they share something, but they are not one.

Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.
Only with that all-are-one-are-not-the-same definition, it seems. I am not confused with my model. :)

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?
Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine. My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas. I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one. The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down. One may hope to understand some things in it, I chose to decide what I can say I have understood and accept it and I decide to discard what doesn't fit in for me. Those parts are not canonic for me in order to save the whole. It may either be that the source got it wrong, or the written word is presenting it in a bad way, or my interpretation and decision is false. I do understand that a lot of things got into the mix from other religions, like Hell and the Devil. And I decide that parts in the bible, which is a work of many authors, are not valid, in the same vain like I decide that the Quran is not valid for me. And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God. :)

Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?
Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.
It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more. :p

[HoneyBadger]

This is the kind of thing that always bothers me about religious debates-everybody's always trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong. Here's a thought: You're right. They're *also* right. Nobody's wrong. You're both right *at the same time*

That's why it's called a "belief system" instead of a "fact system".

Just shut the **** up and deal with it.

If you must insist your ways are *more* right than everyone else's, if yours is truly the One True Path, then simply trust that by the time this Universe ends, everything will have worked itself out to your satisfaction. It's called *FAITH* for a reason! And the reason religions have caused so many problems over the years isn't because of flaws within the religions themselves-it's because of peoples' insecurities and doubts about their beliefs.

I'm not a Christian, but I was raised Christian, and I've taken certain values from that upbringing. I admire some of the things Jesus said and did and represents (whether or not those things are factual doesn't really matter. They are good messages, and that's the important thing). I also admire many Christians. They can be good, kind, generous, intelligent folk--worldly and earthy.

I still look upon Christianity fondly. I have read the Bible, some parts more than once, and continue to study the lives of various saints, as well as Christian history, mysticism/occultism, and apocrypha.

At one time, I considered becoming a Christian preacher of whatever denomination. I think there's a lot of beauty and truth to the religion, and that it often speaks with a powerful message of love. Being Christian, to me, means finding compassion for those who are different than you are, and helping them, if they need it, to improve their lives, and to be better people--But only if they actually *need* that help.

The whole Christian Missionary thing really ticks me off, though. If you really want to convince people that your beliefs and your way of living is better than theirs, then be their friend. Help them improve their lives. Show them compassion and strength of character.

Don't destroy their culture and way of life that they've spent hundreds and thousands of years to develope, just because you can. That's not being a Christian, that's being an arrogant, unfeeling, uncaring bastard, and spreading the very Word of God like it was an infectious disease. I don't care if their kids are starving and they can't grow food and don't wear a lot of clothing. Don't rely on God to feed them someday in Heaven, after they've already starved to death, God's name on their dying lips. Just feed the kids, teach the parents how to farm, deal with the fact that cultural differences aren't the same as moral deficiencies, and shut up about it.

If you want to introduce them to Christianity, wait until they come to you, personally, and ask you about it. If you do enough to show them you care, and represent yourself and your religion well, chances are they'll want to know more about you and what you stand for. If they don't, then consider it a test of your faith. Do more, give more, and shut up about it.

And don't make the Bible the first book they ever read in English. That's just pathetic propagandaism--and it colors their view of our *entire* culture, not just your precious religion. I'm an American, and I don't want to be identified with certain aspects of the Bible, or Christian fundamentalism. I'm not comfortable with that, or with the integration of religion and government which often acts as a motivation for missionary work (if you deny this, go ask an Aztec). So please respect the wishes of a fellow tax-payer. I may not attend your churches, but I helped build them.

And please, please, respect other cultures. If nothing else, they keep our restaurants interesting.

If you want a good book to introduce people to the English language, teach them to read the Complete Works of Shakespeare. From Inuit to Bushmen to Japanese to Peruvians to New Yorkers, I guarantee that everyone can identify with Shakespeare *atleast* as much as they can identify with the Bible. Feel free to make the Bible the *second* book they read, if you so choose. I have no issues with that, as long as you get through all of Shakespeare *first*--and Shakespeare will make a fine introduction to the Bible for them, thus allowing them to better appreciate your wonderful religious scripture.

And I have a real problem with Christians going around saying "God is in control. God is in complete charge of my life". Step in front of a speeding bus sometime, and then you can tell me all about how God has got a really dark sense of irony. God is in charge of angels. Your god gave you free will. That makes you *better* than angels, and closer to God. To believe that God is in control of you is to be in agreement with Satan, not God. It's your belief system, not mine.

As a human, you've been entrusted with the ability to make decisions for yourself, and to affect and attempt to control your life. If you have a problem with living your life responsibly and assertively, then take it up with your faith. Maybe you can convince God to make you an angel, and then you can go around burning cities and murdering babies without a second thought.

And going around and actually *telling* people that God is in complete charge of your life and everything that happens to you, is both moronic and sad. I'm sorry, but that's *my* belief, and I don't mean it personally. I've heard that message over and over from many Christians, and it never fails to irritate.

People who say that God is in complete control of their lives never seem to realize that it makes God sound like an insecure prick, since he's making you go around telling everyone what a badass bigshot god he is. People that go around telling other people how big and strong and great and in control they are (even by proxy), I just don't associate myself with, because they're intensely annoying, and often belligerant, erratic, and dangerous. Your self-conscious control freak god does not impress or awe me, as he speaks-like some divine ventriloquist-through your fleshdummy lips. You represent your god and your faith in such a way that I wouldn't want to be anywhere nearer your horrifying Cthulhu-god, for fear *It* would suck out my soul, scramble my brains, and work me like a zombie puppet on it's invisible tentacles, like you're telling me that *It* did to you.

I am, to some degree, in charge of my life-imperfect though I am. I accept that some things are out of my control, and that their are greater powers in this world than myself. But I take responsibility for my own actions, and I affect my surroundings and circumstances with determination, and without reliance on anyone but family and friends-and only total reliance on myself, and my ability to survive and prosper.

That said, I understand that it may be difficult to act as a true representative of such a potent entity, that it may be impossible for you to discribe the true beauty of your faith in terms which don't make my guts turn to jelly, and I've led a hard enough life, so if the higher power you've put in charge of your life can make my life better and easier, I'm willing to accept all the help I can get, but I'm going to need proof--in the form of cash. After all, Christianity already had 1 shot at my soul, and it blew it.

So if you're willing to take a *real* leap of faith in God and Humanity, and send me $50,000 in U.S. currency to prove to me God's generosity to His faithful(what's money, compared to the strength of your religion? Small bills, please-and no consecutive serial numbers.), then I'm prepaired to consider your arguments, and to accept your money, and to spend it, verily.

Understand that I must take payment because, while I refuse to be a slave to your god, I *am* willing to consider an exciting employment opportunity.

Once I have the cash safely deposited in the bank, and have retreated to a secure, undisclosed location, I'm willing to give you 1 hour of my time (in IMs) to convince me that I can be led back into the fold. I promise it'll be me on the other side of the IMs, that I'll be as open to it as I can be, and that I'll give you the full 60 minutes, but I make no promises of reconversion. Convincing me is up to you and God. God being infinite and omnipotent, I consider an hour to be a generous amount of time, and the $50,000 a mere-but very necessary-formality.

I'll be splitting the money with JimMorrison, by the way, so maybe you'll make 2 converts for the price of 1?

Obviously, not all Christians are missionaries, not all missionaries are poisonous, and the Christian message isn't always "You Will Be Assimilated".

The thing that bothers me about Atheists, is when you do your best to attack, dismantle, and destroy anyone who *has* found religion. Stop acting like you're on some sort of Atheist Jihad. If someone has a relationship with God (in whatever form), and that relationship has improved their lives and made them better people, that's a good thing for them, and it's probably a good thing for you. Now if someone gets in your face about religion, and you react to that, I completely understand. But just because you don't believe in a spiritual and eternal element to your life, doesn't give you the right to seek out and assault the faith (and personality, and culture, and background) of someone who does, just because they do.

And just because you do it intellectually, with the weapons of science and reason, doesn't erase your blame for furthering hatred and fear and misery. Stop acting like you're no longer a citizen of this planet, or that you're better and smarter than everyone else who does believe in something.

And stop making Atheism *your* religion. You're missing the whole point of being an Atheist.
"I'm not going anywhere when I die. Nobody does. There's no God and nothing more to life than this one. You're all just deluding yourselves-hahaha!" Sound familiar? Well **** you. You don't know what happens when we die, any more than anybody else does.

Again, this only applies to some Atheists-and you know who you are.

Rejecting spirituality is in itself a belief and a choice, whether you like it or not. Many people who have religion weren't given that choice, and with that choice comes the responsibility to act with compassion and understanding (if also with skepticism), and to create a moral code that you, yourself, live by.

I could find some fault with the nature and/or practices of any other belief-system on the planet,
I promise you, but there's a 25000 character limit that I'm fast approaching, and my rant is not yet complete. None of them embody or achieve perfection more than any of the others, though, not even yours (Yes you! I've studied and sought out more of them than the average bunny, and if I'd hit upon a perfect system, I'd be here spouting off cheerfully about how we can all someday find ourselves in the midst of a big sloppy orgy in my version of Eternal Paradise.).

The point to all this is that *all* of our belief systems, or just our experiences of life, have given us all values that can compliment one another. There's no reason for us to argue about who's god or gods or lack therof, has the bigger dick.

We're all adults here, and it's behaviour that we should have left behind with the 3rd grade--and good riddance! We're just putting a new spin on "My dad can beat up your dad", using bigger words and concepts, and pretending that it somehow makes it all so luminous and deep. It's a bull**** argument that we continue to beat like the well and truly dead horse that it is, because it's easier to sit here and argue about than it is to identify real problems that face all of us, work together openly and respectfully to find a solution, and to then take that solution and act on it. It's fear and distrust, and lack of real hope and faith in ourselves and our abilities, and we let those things separate us.

Whether you're Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Atheist, Wiccan, Gnostic, Agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Hari-Krishna, Norse, Animist, Satanist, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, whatever the hell I am-because I really don't know-or none of the above-we *ALL* have something to bring to the table, and we all can sit and eat together and be satisfied.

I recognise most of you on this thread, atleast as well as one can recognise another human being, when glimpsed through a computer screen. I consider many of you friends, and I'm writing this out of friendship to all of you, in the hope that maybe, in this one tiny little corner of the world, we can actually come together as different people-recognising and accepting that it's those differences that can make us stronger!-and talk together and work together to make our lives and the lives of those close to us-and maybe even the world itself, just a tiny bit better, by setting aside as irrelevant to the conversation, those fears and hatreds that were handed down to us from long-dead history, and that we hold so dear to our hearts. If we just try to understand each other simply as peers.

We have enough reasons to argue and fight and hate and resent one another, as human beings.
We don't need our spiritual sides and nobler natures-and arguably those things which are the *best* parts of us-to give us yet another reason for antagonism.

It's a very lonely world out there, no matter who you are or what you believe in. It's lonely, but it's also full of endless variety and freshness, richness and wonder, and we can do better for ourselves and each other than trying to make everybody into the same person. We're all humans, we're all the same species, and that applies to gender and nationalism and sexual orientation, and even religion.

We're all on this world together, at the same time, and we'd be smarter and stronger and better, if we just helped one another out, without also asking that they become more like us.

[JimMorrison]

Oh boy, now look, you've made the Badger 'splode.


Oh and FYI - my god's dick es mue gigante! :happy:

[HoneyBadger]

Well,

I 'splode,

but I 'splode with love.

[Agema]

I might make a minor correction to HoneyBadger.

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues. :)

[thejeff]

I might make a minor correction to Agema.

When atheists and Christians argue, at least one side is wrong. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues.

It's quite possible both are wrong. It's possible Mongo Bongo, God of the Congo is the only real divinity. More likely, the actual truth is something none of us have even thought of.

[Agema]

Hey, I did say "at least" one side was wrong. ;)

* * *

I thought I might also share a humorous modern parable about putting your trust in God. (It's an old one so apologies if you have heard it.)

A man decides to be a missionary in Africa. He prays to God for guidance as he is worried, and God answers his prayer saying to the man "As you spread my word in my name, I will look after you."

So he becomes a missionary, and sets out preaching. Whilst walking along a road on a mountain, the path crumbles underneath his feet and he slips down a steep cliff. He grabs an outcrop to prevent his fall, and thinks about how to get to safety. He realises the cliff is too hard to climb up and he won't make it. He looks down and there's a river beneath him, but it's full of crocodiles. Then he remembers his prayer, and with his faith rejoices in the knowledge that God will save him.

A few minutes later, a 4x4 drives above him on the road. A man gets out having seen him, and shouts "I've got a winch, I can pull you up." The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The driver replies "Well, okay then, your choice." He gets back in his car and drives on.

Five minutes later a another man in a boat comes down the river. He shouts to the missionary "Hey, if you drop into the river, I'll quickly pull you in before the crocodiles get you." The missonary replies "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me". The man in the boat shrugs and continues downstream.

Five minutes later a helicopter passes. It pulls close to the man, and the passenger holds out a rope ladder and shouts (very loudly) "I'll throw you this!". The missionary shouts back "No, I have put my faith in God, he will save me." She looks incredulous, but tells the pilot, and the helicopter flies on.

Eventually, with no-one else coming, the missionary becomes too tired to hold on. He drops into the river, and the crocodiles move in and eat him. The missionary goes to heaven, and enters. There, he finds God, and says "I thought you said you would save me if I got in trouble. Where were you?" God looks at the man and frowns, then replies, "I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter. What more do you expect me to do?"

[HoneyBadger]

None of you have the facts to adequately prove anything, except that *I'm* right, and that arguing about religion is meaningless.

And you're wrong in thinking that neither side can be correct, because you're limiting your thinking to a single dimension, which proves again the meaninglessness of arguing about religion.

None of us are capable, as human beings, of precieving or understanding anything as complex as God must be, if God exists. I seem to be the only one who gets that. Reality and existence are just too big of concepts for us to make any statements about it's nature, beyond what iota of information our tiny brains and meager sciences can process.

If I told you about the popular artwork of an alien species who's technology is three billion years beyond ours, you'd think I was either lying, or crazy, or just making it up-and I would be. And yet, you want to argue about the nature and existence of a being well beyond that. A being that would be beyond Time itself, as we can understand the concept.

And it's entirely possible, and imminently debatable, that we all exist in separated realities. We only suppose that we all exist in the same one, but if we don't, then what is right from one perspective may be wrong from another. From my perspective, the Universe began when I began. As I learned and grew older, the Universe expanded around me. God came into being the moment I heard about Him, and became a woman, when I made that choice, and ceased to be-or atleast retired-when I stopped being a Christian.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of you only exist as words on a screen, and in my imagination-that's the entirety of your existence. That's all you are, unless I give you more. And there's very little you can do to prove to me that you're more than a complex hallucination. When I dream, I've dreamt people realer to me than you are. I could see them, touch them, taste them. I could percieve their emotions, and they could surprise me. They had their own motivations, and they affected my emotions. I could care about them-I yearned to know them better, and felt certain that they must somewhere exist. You fail to compete with a vision from a dream that I failed to remember particularly well, and yet you want to argue about God's existence, and demand that one viewpoint must be right, and one must be wrong?

Even insane, I can't concieve that I've conjured such arrogance.

Nobody knows anything. That's the only truth and the only beauty, and the only wisdom to be had.

Goodnight and good morning. I'm going to go dream a world, with such people in it.

[Agema]

Solipsism is in my view the greatest intellectual dead-end in philosophy. Why say anything? Think anything? Do anything at all? It undermines everything as utterly pointless.


I also strongly disagree with the pessimistic view of humanity you've expounded. We might not be able to fully understand the universe (or God if he exists). But we know a more than we did 50 years ago, a lot more than we did 500 years ago, and a vast whopping great deal more than we did 5000 years ago. Humanity is not a series of weak, ignorant, isolated units. We have a population knowledge. I might not understand Kantian metaphysics, motorcycle maintenance or the literature of Kobo Abe, but other people do, and if I need I can access their knowledge.

I'd also suggest that even if by looking at a tree we only see an iota, the basics of what it does, not knowing the chemistry and biochemistry and physics within, we have actually seen a very significant part of what a tree is. We should enjoy, appreciate and use that, not quail at the thought of how much we don't know about it.

[lch]

... [[stuff]] ...
I don't reject the idea that I'm just a delirious whelk who imagines everything around it. But I won't start to go around and state it as a fact. It's nothing more than a funny alternative and a thought experiment.

[SlipperyJim]

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?
Well, I'm sorry if my belief system doesn't match yours and we disagree about things. But I don't have to accept yours, in the same way as you don't have to accept mine.
I never said that you have to change your belief system. I simply asked you to explain it. I'm sorry if the question gave offense, but it was only a question.

My belief in God and Jesus Christ works for me, and I don't regard yours as any "truer than mine" just because you managed to fit more of the bible into it. I am not one for dogmas.
Minor point of clarification: I am not so arrogant as to believe that I know all about God. I simply know where to find all that I ever need to know about God. The Bible is perfect. My own understanding of God is very imperfect, and I learn more every day.

Actually, this conversation has helped me by forcing me to take another good look at my beliefs. What do I believe to be true? How do I support that belief? Christians are not expected to take our faith blindly, but rather to test it and examine it. Blind faith may work out well in the short-term, but it cannot survive the first challenge. Only a well-grounded, often-examined faith will enable you to face what life has to offer.

I can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture as, first, words are hardly capable to contain what happened concerning what you refer to as "divine", and second, if the scripture was without error, then we wouldn't need four gospels which disagree in parts with each other, then we'd only need one.
Another minor point of clarification: The canonical Gospels don't actually differ on any substantive issues. Each Gospel writer picked up a few events that the others missed, which is what you might expect from four different eyewitness accounts. Even so, the Gospels are all in agreement on the "big" things.

The bible is a book written by human hands and you have to interpret it, which automatically happens and starts already when you read the words in it that are written down.
I agree. Scriptural interpretation is very important. Of course, the next obvious question is how do you interpret Scripture? Theologians refer to this concept as Biblical hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics).

And if I'm the only one with my belief system that matters little for me, as I do believe in "my" God. :)
Again, you are free to believe whatever you believe, and you certainly don't need my approval. :)

My question is about how you believe what you believe. And my question may be particularly focused because you have professed a Christian faith. Therefore, I'm trying to understand how your belief fits into Christianity.

It's strange for me because I'm jumping between "in principle we agree" and "no, that's not it" every odd second. It probably has to do with language as well, but I guess that my simple and working model disagrees with yours after all. I'd probably have to start going cross-eyed before I attempt to understand this in the way that it is meant to be understood. As I already said, I do not agree with dogmas like those that you state.
So here's my other point: Names have meaning. If I wanted to call myself a Pastafarian, that would bring certain meanings along with it. My identification with the Flying Spaghetti Monster would imply certain things about my beliefs. I am not especially familiar with Pastafarianism, but I think it would require me to accept (at least) the following beliefs:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
He is omnipotent, invisible, and very powerful. (Surely this last point is redundant, if he's also omnipotent.)

Source: http://www.venganza.org/worship/guide-to-pastafarianism/

However, I don't believe that the FSM exists, that he created the world, or anything else about him. Therefore, if I called myself a Pastafarian, I would be incorrect in doing so. Furthermore, I might expect that Pastafarians would ask me some questions about my beliefs.

(Before anyone gets huffy, I should add that I know that the FSM is satire. I used it in my example so that I could avoid needlessly offending believers of other faiths.)

I don't want to convert anybody to my belief system, though, so let's just give it a rest. If I wanted to battle the dark ages, I'd be playing Dom3 some more. :p
Understood. As I told KO, I don't seriously expect to convert anyone via the Shrapnel forums. I'm looking to increase our mutual understanding.

[Tifone]

When atheists and Christians argue, actually one side is right. It's a belief system because none of them have the facts to adequately prove they're right on several important issues. :)

Thanks, you just remembered me why it's so great (once again) to be agnostic :D

Sorry if I'm not gonna be a very active part of the discussion anymore, but university will take me a lot of time these days. I will continue reading this 3ad anyway.

Thanks again to SlipperyJim. I would have liked to argue you with more time, so my arguments this time will be quite faster and shorter.

I would argue you that the apostoles might have died for the "ideals" of Jesus, like people died for defending ideals through all history. I have no problems too with many of his ideals - he was preaching peace and the irrelevance of richness in times where war and conquer were everything, so I would have died (and maybe said he was God) too to spread those ideals. If the Christian religion spreaded so fast, remember it was appealing to the poors and it went to substitute the great popular cult of Hercules - that's history.

Your analysis about the "average good guys will not go to heaven" was enjoying to read but quite pointless to me as when I die, the last thing I expect to find is the Christian Heaven and expecially God, as I see Him too contradictive, too antropomorphic and convenient (in a "you are with me or you are against me and you suffer forever" way) to be real. So being an "average good guy" (actually I hope, better than the one you described :D ) isn't for me something to reach an (unproven :) ) Heaven. I just say "A" God (not necessarily yours) which saves just a relatively small elite isn't very appealing.

And about miracles, I still think if the Christian God was
actually like you perceive it, our world would be much different. Matthew 17:21, "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." Reiterated through all the New Testament in several passages (you certainly know that). Ask with faith, and you will be given? We would not have famine and illness, amputees with regenerated arts (!) would be in TV everyday thanking God for the miracle, and lots of other beautiful things. It's not this way and I live with it. I once found a (excuse me, it's quite ironic but it was the best I could remember in this little time) prayer on a website:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

You could do it tonight and you already know nothing would happen. But as you said many times you have no problems saying that God parts seas, casts flamestorms and resurrects people at will so this would not take great efforts to him - as he loves people (and you too, as you say you see him in your life, doing good things I suppose) he could actually do it, no?

;) Sorry, my English is bad and I have no time to refine my words this time. Maybe they look to you more offhanded and unpolite than the situation would require... it is just a language barrier, forgive me. ( I think I also invented some words while writing, I just hope everything is comprehensible)

Oh, thanks to you too HoneyBadger. Actually, as I was friendly "debating" with SlipperyJim, it was maybe not so clear, but I think too that the reciprocal differences enrich us all. I think I stated it some times ;)

[Kristoffer O]

>lch> Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Thats a rather unchristian perspective on Jesus I would say. I would almost say you are closer to a muslim than a christian :)

I actually go to some lengths to teach my students that the belief that Jesus is God is a requisite for the salvation act to be possible and thus a requisite for being a christian :)

You put the finger on my problem with truth etc. The christian article of faith includes the belief in God becoming flesh in Jesus and sacrificing his son for the salvation of mankind. Of course there have been other articles of faith that claim to be christian. Once they were considered heretic. Today they are just considered other faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are not christian according to the earlier christian articles of faith, but they consider themselves christian.

If there is a God there is a truth and only one of the articles of faith is true. I can't get rid of my logically based worldview - thus do not think there can be multiple truths regarding the truth.

New articles of faith where an individual or a religious movement states his/its beliefs might be true, but they cannot be true at the same time as every other article of faith. If we accept multiple truths there will be some faiths and ideologies that readily accepts practices others would abhor. So if there is no truth other than what everyone accepts for his own truth a believer of a truth could legitimize atrocities. I do not like atrocities. This is why I hate postmodernism. On the other hand I dislike people who would force their will and their beliefs upon others. Since there is no way of knowing which belief system is the TRUTH I dislike people who believe they know the truth and what they might do. Everyone who believes in a truth has a moral duty to his own belief system. Thus a believer in a truth is potentially a dangerous man in the view of someone not sharing the same belief system. My problem with postmodernism might be that it defends fundamentalist beliefs. Somewhat ironic.

I end up thinking that society as a whole makes up for what faith and truth and stuff cannot work out. A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

---

Hmm. I intended to answer SlipperyJim in another post, but I might have covered some ofg it here.

[Tifone]

A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

The problem, mister Kristoffer, is that "values" aren't "mantained". They are supposed to enrich, grow and evolve in time, as you know.
My problem with religion in society is that often it wants to "anchor" ethics and morals to the period their Holy Books were written - at the times they were given as godly commandments to make them more easily acceptable, but now, 2/3 thousand years later, they are still perceived as godly commandment, even after we've gone through Renaissance, Illuminism, Sexual Revolution and our values should have changed and have become more opened.

In Italy, the most of the ppl still has many problems to accept homosexuals as NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS (I mean, it doesn't sound a so terrible thing to do :smirk:) because we've, everyday, this or that man high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy reading a passage of the Bible in national television and saying they're an abomination and their love is "twisted" and "innatural". I can hardly imagine something more narrow-minded and terrible (not to say less god-inspired) that considering someone's way to LOVE "twisted" and "innatural" - not even knowing it and with science (and bare nature, look at animals, even them have heterosexuality and homosexuality as well, it's far more natural than chastity) stating the exact opposite.

Ok, I've gone for the lenghts and I'm off topic - I just wanted to say that I disagree that religion "legitimizes" many of the ethics of current society - in fact it tends to immobilize them, stops their natural evolution through people's experiences, and I can't really get how it could be a good thing.

Btw if anyone is curious I'm not homosexual ^_^ I live my heterosexual life happily and with satisfaction - but I have some homosexual friends, males and females, and I just hate to see how my society looks at them many times. :mad:

[Kristoffer O]

Personally I'm an atheist, unfortunately. I believe I would feel better if I found God. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that I will find any god, unless I'm directly approached by God.
Thanks for your openness. May I ask: Why would you feel better if you found God? Is something missing that you believe that God could provide, if you could only find Him?

I can't speak for other gods, but I can tell you that God works through His people. If you want to find God, go spend some time with a Christian whom you know and respect.

Of course, it's tricky to pick the right one. As a very wise man once said:
"The best thing about Christianity is Christians. The worst thing about Christianity is Christians."

We can be a very motley crew. Still, there are some good-hearted Christians in the world, and I'm willing to bet that there's (at least) one good-hearted Christian who will be happy to help you in your search for God.


I assume that I am materialistic enough not to become a believer with less than a direct intervention from God. If God intervened and gave me a revelation he would exist and I would feel good and happy as I had found him. If I had a deep religious experience based on psychological processes I would likely be as happy.

Unfortunately I do not know any christian that well. And I don't think he or she could give me a deep religious experience. I might just as well become a buddhist or a muslim. I have more contact with muslims than christians these days, and the leap of faith is probably slightly easier. Islam is not as demanding with regards to theology I'd say. On the other hand the leap of faith in regards to islam would be greater since I'm not socialized into it. Not that I have a christian upbringing, but I have more preconceptions regarding christianity than islamic traditions.

Likely there are good hearted Jews and muslims that would gladly aid me as well. A couple of years ago I had regular visits from mormons for a while. Mostly to get to know their beliefs and traditions. They were aware that I didn't intend to convert, but were glad to visit and inform me. I suppose they hoped for me to convert eventually.


Later on I have tended to appreciate christianity more. Mostly since I view the core functional message of christianity as being: Just be gentle and love everyone.
While that message is certainly one of Christ's teachings, it isn't the core message of Christianity. Many other great teachers and wise men have told us to be nice to one another, and it hasn't stuck all that well.

The core message of Christianity is that you can't do it. Thankfully, you don't have to do it. Christ offers to do it through you. Christians don't love other people in order to please Jesus. (When we're loving, that is....) Christians love other people because Jesus lives inside us, and His love shines through us.


Good points.


You're a post-modernist, and yet you strongly dislike post-modernists? Wow, that must be interesting.

Post-modernism is a self-defeating philosophy. The moment that you claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth, you have made a claim that you believe to be absolutely true. It's serious doublethink. It's like saying, "Everything I say is a lie." But if everything is a lie, then that statement must be a lie, which would mean that not every statement I say is a lie.....


No, that's ethics. Ethics without religion is perfectly plausible. You don't need God to do all of those good things you mentioned.

Religion is about humanity trying to meet God.
Christianity is about God coming to be with His people.


I did not say core message. I said core functional message. What I consider the societal function of christianity to be. What's it's use to society.

Regarding postmodernism se my earlier post.


My problem is that I want religion to be something else than I want my own devotion to be, should I become religious.
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. What is the difference between your own devotion and what you want religion to be?


If I did believe I would have a belief system and a faith etc. Something personal. I called theis devotion.
With religion I mean the institutionalized faith, with traditions, beliefs etc. Faith as expressed in society.


I should go for messiah-hood. That would solve my problems. :)
I'm actually halfway there. I already have students calling me Jesus, even yelling 'hello Jesus' from the other side of the street the other day. I had to smile :)
Does that mean that you have a beard? You can't be Jesus without a beard, you know. :rolleyes:

Gandalf's avatar makes me think that he looks a little like the stereotypical Jesus.... ;)

I do have a beard, as well as long hair. I look far more 'Jesus' than Gandalf do :)

[SlipperyJim]

Whoops, we seem to have cast Growing Fury on the Badger.... ;)

I can't possibly respond to everything in this entire post. Actually, I've suddenly become very busy, so this may be my last post for a while. :mad:

I'll try to pick out a few main points to address. Starting with the first point:
This is the kind of thing that always bothers me about religious debates-everybody's always trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong. Here's a thought: You're right. They're *also* right. Nobody's wrong. You're both right *at the same time*

That's why it's called a "belief system" instead of a "fact system".

Just shut the **** up and deal with it.
Postmodernism is unsustainable, as I mentioned to KO. Everyone can't be right, because many of our beliefs are mutually exclusive.

For example, I believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Atheists believe there is no god at all. We can't both be correct. One does not equal Zero.

There's either something (or Someone) greater than us, or there isn't. If there is something (or Someone) greater than us, then that something (or Someone) must have some sort of identity. There must be facts we can learn and truths we can explore.

But we won't get anywhere if we continue to indulge the postmodern fallacy that everyone is right. Everyone cannot be right. It is entirely possible that everyone is wrong, but that's a different question. :)

If you must insist your ways are *more* right than everyone else's, if yours is truly the One True Path, then simply trust that by the time this Universe ends, everything will have worked itself out to your satisfaction. It's called *FAITH* for a reason! And the reason religions have caused so many problems over the years isn't because of flaws within the religions themselves-it's because of peoples' insecurities and doubts about their beliefs.
Read the Book of Revelation some time. The world will end, and God will work everything according to His plan (not mine).

The problem is not my doubts in God's plan. On the contrary, God has made His plan perfectly clear (at least in some respects), and that plan requires me to take action. If I don't want my family, friends, and loved ones to spend eternity apart from God, I have an obligation to be a witness to them. More about that later....

The whole Christian Missionary thing really ticks me off, though. If you really want to convince people that your beliefs and your way of living is better than theirs, then be their friend. Help them improve their lives. Show them compassion and strength of character.

Don't destroy their culture and way of life that they've spent hundreds and thousands of years to develope, just because you can. That's not being a Christian, that's being an arrogant, unfeeling, uncaring bastard, and spreading the very Word of God like it was an infectious disease. I don't care if their kids are starving and they can't grow food and don't wear a lot of clothing. Don't rely on God to feed them someday in Heaven, after they've already starved to death, God's name on their dying lips. Just feed the kids, teach the parents how to farm, deal with the fact that cultural differences aren't the same as moral deficiencies, and shut up about it.
Missionaries don't usually do what you're claiming they do. Missionaries do help the poor, feed the hungry, and tend to the sick. They do all of the good things that you're saying they should do, so I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

The North American Mission Board (http://www.namb.net/) is the missionary arm of my denomination. Go explore the website and see the sorts of things that Southern Baptists do. For example, we're very involved in helping people who were affected by Hurricane Ike. In addition to the NAMB, my church also sponsors missionaries that build houses for poor people in Central America, install clean water filters in Africa, and provide free medical care to poor tribal folks in various undeveloped countries.

If you don't like Southern Baptists, check out Habitat for Humanity (http://www.habitat.org/), which is an ecumenical Christian mission to build houses for poor people.

If you want to introduce them to Christianity, wait until they come to you, personally, and ask you about it. If you do enough to show them you care, and represent yourself and your religion well, chances are they'll want to know more about you and what you stand for. If they don't, then consider it a test of your faith. Do more, give more, and shut up about it.
That's a great philosophy if the Christian worldview is utterly false. On the other hand, if Jesus was right, then we have an obligation to help people spiritually in addition to helping them in material ways.

(I promised I'd get back to our obligation to witness.)

To put it another way: If all you do is feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and tend to the sick without ever telling them about Jesus, then all you've accomplished is to send well-fed, well-dressed, healthy people to Hell.

And I have a real problem with Christians going around saying "God is in control. God is in complete charge of my life". Step in front of a speeding bus sometime, and then you can tell me all about how God has got a really dark sense of irony. God is in charge of angels. Your god gave you free will. That makes you *better* than angels, and closer to God. To believe that God is in control of you is to be in agreement with Satan, not God. It's your belief system, not mine.
We do have free will. As Christians, we must surrender our will to God. That's what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that's what He wants us to do.

However, our free will is limited. Essentially, we have to pick to whom we shall be enslaved. That's the point that Paul made in Romans 6. We are all born slaves to sin. By the grace of God, we can choose to surrender our wills to Him. When we do so, we are set free from sin and we become slaves to righteousness.

Before someone flips out, the neat "trick" to becoming a slave to righteousness is that it's our only way to become free. (That's almost Zen, really.) Surrendering to God opens all sorts of new possibilities in one's life. God has shown me things that I could have never imagined before I knew Him. A life of faith is a life of adventure.

That said, I understand that it may be difficult to act as a true representative of such a potent entity, that it may be impossible for you to discribe the true beauty of your faith in terms which don't make my guts turn to jelly, and I've led a hard enough life, so if the higher power you've put in charge of your life can make my life better and easier, I'm willing to accept all the help I can get, but I'm going to need proof--in the form of cash. After all, Christianity already had 1 shot at my soul, and it blew it.

So if you're willing to take a *real* leap of faith in God and Humanity, and send me $50,000 in U.S. currency to prove to me God's generosity to His faithful(what's money, compared to the strength of your religion? Small bills, please-and no consecutive serial numbers.), then I'm prepaired to consider your arguments, and to accept your money, and to spend it, verily.
I don't have $50,000, so I'll skip over the rest of your offer. :(

Obviously, not all Christians are missionaries, not all missionaries are poisonous, and the Christian message isn't always "You Will Be Assimilated".
The Church is not the Borg. Christianity does not require you to become a certain race, abandon your language, or turn your back on your culture. There are Christians in every culture on Earth.

We're all adults here, and it's behaviour that we should have left behind with the 3rd grade--and good riddance! We're just putting a new spin on "My dad can beat up your dad", using bigger words and concepts, and pretending that it somehow makes it all so luminous and deep. It's a bull**** argument that we continue to beat like the well and truly dead horse that it is, because it's easier to sit here and argue about than it is to identify real problems that face all of us, work together openly and respectfully to find a solution, and to then take that solution and act on it. It's fear and distrust, and lack of real hope and faith in ourselves and our abilities, and we let those things separate us.
If your point is that we should all work together to face common problems, then I agree with you completely. We should never let our religious differences get in the way of being good people.

However, if your point is that we should just table all of our differences and pretend that we agree ... then I can't agree with you. But there should be no need to do so!

If you want to feed a hungry person, and I want to feed a hungry person, then there's no reason that we should fight about who gets to feed hungry people. Let's both feed the hungry. As we feed the hungry, I'll be telling them about Jesus. You may choose to tell them about something else, or not to tell them anything. That's your choice. But here's my point: Both of us can still feed hungry people! "My" hungry person will simply get an introduction to the Gospel to go with his meal. Why should that bother anyone?

We have enough reasons to argue and fight and hate and resent one another, as human beings.
We don't need our spiritual sides and nobler natures-and arguably those things which are the *best* parts of us-to give us yet another reason for antagonism.
Agreed. I think we've done an excellent job of being good neighbors right here on this very discussion thread. Nobody has shouted at anyone else. Nobody hates anyone else. (At least, I hope not!) We're discussing one of the most contentious topics of all time, and we're managing to be polite & respectful while we do it.

Tolerance doesn't require us to all agree with each other. Instead, tolerance allows us to disagree with each other as long as we are respectful while we do it.

We're all on this world together, at the same time, and we'd be smarter and stronger and better, if we just helped one another out, without also asking that they become more like us.
Agreed. Shalom! :)

[Kristoffer O]

A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

The problem, mister Kristoffer, is that "values" aren't "mantained". They are supposed to enrich, grow and evolve in time, as you know.
My problem with religion in society is that often it wants to "anchor" ethics and morals to the period their Holy Books were written - at the times they were given as godly commandments to make them more easily acceptable, but now, 2/3 thousand years later, they are still perceived as godly commandment, even after we've gone through Renaissance, Illuminism, Sexual Revolution and our values should have changed and have become more opened.

In Italy, the most of the ppl still has many problems to accept homosexuals as NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS (I mean, it doesn't sound a so terrible thing to do :smirk:) because we've, everyday, this or that man high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy reading a passage of the Bible in national television and saying they're an abomination and their love is "twisted" and "innatural". I can hardly imagine something more narrow-minded and terrible (not to say less god-inspired) that considering someone's way to LOVE "twisted" and "innatural" - not even knowing it and with science (and bare nature, look at animals, even them have heterosexuality and homosexuality as well, it's far more natural than chastity) stating the exact opposite.

Ok, I've gone for the lenghts and I'm off topic - I just wanted to say that I disagree that religion "legitimizes" many of the ethics of current society - in fact it tends to immobilize them, stops their natural evolution through people's experiences, and I can't really get how it could be a good thing.

Btw if anyone is curious I'm not homosexual ^_^ I live my heterosexual life happily and with satisfaction - but I have some homosexual friends, males and females, and I just hate to see how my society looks at them many times. :mad:

I agree. I think Sweden is a bit more accepting than Italy, but my homosexual friends do suffer some by general conceptions, generalizations and beliefs.

Religion is the single most effective preserver of society. Be it social structures, world view or traditions. It is conservative by nature.


Since most sacred scriptures are old and shaped by a society far from today I would probably become either desperate to find a coherence between my ethics and my newfound belief in a revealed truth, or become a full-fledged fanatic, should I get a revelation from God.

Neither prospect seems to attractive :) Hmm, thats a new though, I might not be happy as a christian :)

If I turned christian by slow socialization I would proably not turn into a fanatic, and be rather friendly and happy and inclusive of all kids of postmodern beliefs in personal truths and Gods.

[Bwaha]

To anyone who tried the experiment of finding Jesus,(see my previous post) If you got the tingle,(indwelling of the Holy Ghost) and have any questions please pm me. These guys who want to argue are missing the simplicity of the whole message. Read first John, all of it. Its small. Enjoy.:D

[Tifone]

These guys who want to argue are missing the simplicity of the whole message.

Hey there Bwaha ;)

I am a guy "wanting to argue" - I'd call debating more appropriate. :smirk: As you may have read, I already have some knowledge of the Bible too.
And I just can't agree that the "whole message" of the book and religion is simple. That's why we're discussing it in a ton of posts from different points of views here, and we're just scratching the surface. And that's why Bible has been discussed for centuries at this moment and still people have plenty of doubts.
The message is big and difficult and has many faces which go to involve all the aspects of a person's life - a message which for this reason may be shared or not, accepted or not :) I don't, JimMorrison doesn't, you and SlipperyJim do, Ich does (with some reserves AFAIK :) ), and we're all analyzing it. But its' not simple ^_^

Best wishes ;)

[Bwaha]

I agree with you on the depth of the subject. That being said, I know some people were touched thru this discussion. Those people need the message kept simple because they are babies. I won't go into the higher mysteries because it will confuse them.:D

[Tifone]

:confused:

I think we're all deeply thinking adults here, maybe even with a quite high QI, but thanks for your interest :D
If you want to go deep into some religious mistery, please feel free to do it and maybe we can "solve" even them through discussion and multiple points of view from the most believers to the most skeptics ;)

[JimMorrison]

You put the finger on my problem with truth etc. The christian article of faith includes the belief in God becoming flesh in Jesus and sacrificing his son for the salvation of mankind. Of course there have been other articles of faith that claim to be christian. Once they were considered heretic. Today they are just considered other faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are not christian according to the earlier christian articles of faith, but they consider themselves christian.

If there is a God there is a truth and only one of the articles of faith is true. I can't get rid of my logically based worldview - thus do not think there can be multiple truths regarding the truth.

New articles of faith where an individual or a religious movement states his/its beliefs might be true, but they cannot be true at the same time as every other article of faith. If we accept multiple truths there will be some faiths and ideologies that readily accepts practices others would abhor. So if there is no truth other than what everyone accepts for his own truth a believer of a truth could legitimize atrocities. I do not like atrocities. This is why I hate postmodernism. On the other hand I dislike people who would force their will and their beliefs upon others. Since there is no way of knowing which belief system is the TRUTH I dislike people who believe they know the truth and what they might do. Everyone who believes in a truth has a moral duty to his own belief system. Thus a believer in a truth is potentially a dangerous man in the view of someone not sharing the same belief system. My problem with postmodernism might be that it defends fundamentalist beliefs. Somewhat ironic.


Didn't Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all technically start with Moses? So they all believe in the same god, but in very different ways.

They are all believers in the same entity, and they all think the others are heading to hell. Now you have dozens of individual Christian denominations, and many of them think that many of the others are going to hell.

I'd bet that in just about any given church around the world, you can find people who will tell you that other members of that same church, are heading straight to hell.

Obviously no one sane is advocating a clear distinction of "violence is okay if directed at someone who does not believe correctly", but what if they try to preach their version of the truth to your friends, your loved ones, your children? Is no sacrifice too great to save them from being corrupted by heretical thoughts? Would you sacrifice a simple non-believer, because they were an adequate threat to your loved ones' ability to enter into heaven?

(That's not really directed at you Kristoffer, just what you wrote inspired it, so I quoted you. ;))

[JimMorrison]

I agree with you on the depth of the subject. That being said, I know some people were touched thru this discussion. Those people need the message kept simple because they are babies. I won't go into the higher mysteries because it will confuse them.:D


I really like you Bwaha, but I'm sure you could have put that a bit more politely. I've seen and experienced things that would blow your mind and test your faith - but I've not come here to condescend to anyone, just to discuss.

<3

[Tifone]

I've seen and experienced things that would blow your mind and test your faith

"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion"? "C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate"? :D

[JimMorrison]

I've seen and experienced things that would blow your mind and test your faith

"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion"? "C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate"? :D


Actually, though I won't go into profound personal details, the term "Near Death Experience" isn't nearly enough. "Temporary Death Experience" might describe things more clearly. The universe looks a little bit different when your heart stops beating, and you stop breathing. And the world looks a bit different when you start doing those things again, perhaps a bit unexpectedly.

[Tifone]

Seems like a "forming experience" nobody would really like to experience Jim...


Returning into the "Bible" subject, I was wondering if anybody knows this site other than me: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com.
It discusses many matters of faith from the atheist and strongly reason-guided point of view. Who, like me, doesn't believe (while I'm agnostic and not atheist) will find an interesting reading there.
A believer instead, may wish to give a read and give a little "test" to his/her faith against the arguments of the author (I'm not in any way connected to the website). I thing it has some strong points - of course it is to be read without prejudices, and just letting your own brain and reason work :).
If anyone reads the site and wants to discuss something he's welcome.

Best wishes ;)

[HoneyBadger]

It's not meant to be insulting, and I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. I believe Humanity to have a vast potential, and you're absolutely right-it has already achieved spectacular results.

I'm not committed to solopsism, I'm just intrigued by it-and for the record, I do believe you exist apart from me. But it's still just a belief. And I don't find solopsism pessimistic. It's all in how you take it, and what you do with it. For me, the consideration of it quiets some of the fears and uncertainties that *I* have about the Universe, and myself, and my place in it. Doesn't silence them, but helps me, as-as you say-a though experiment, deal with my life without going completely insane.

But none of that denies the uselessness, and even harmfulness, of trying to weigh belief-systems against one another. If anything, you should be trying to integrate the best parts of each into a greater whole.

[HoneyBadger]

"To put it another way: If all you do is feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and tend to the sick without ever telling them about Jesus, then all you've accomplished is to send well-fed, well-dressed, healthy people to Hell."

SlipperyJim: It's this line right here, this perfect moment of crystal clarity, in which you render your entire faith, religion, and hope of salvation, utterly and completely empty, meaningless, forever a non-relevant, non-entity--atleast for me and for everything I hold to be good.

You seem like a true believer, a representative of the faith, a man of God, and a man who atleast *wants* to do good, so I thank you for giving me an insight into what lies at the heart of one Christian's relationship with God-you've put to bed any lingering doubts I might ever have had about not being a Christian anymore. Free from angst that my life might have been better and richer, had I chosen another path, I continue on, stronger and freer than ever before.

[Tifone]

My dear Badger please take a breath and re-read Slippery's post in its integrity ;)

I think you are quite taking the quote out of its context. SlipperyJim stated clearly that he believes in building something great together despite of the differences of believing. Feeding the poor etc.

But you must accept that he (as his religion commands) believes in a somewhat invisible force that continues to live after s.o.'s death (belief that was born far before Christians and Jews, so not so strange... it was actually existing beyond Neanderthals, far before new earth creationists think the world was even born :D but that's another story) and that this force must be preserved from evil after death - even the one of other ppl - as a moral duty. This leads him to believe that some teachings are as important, or even more important (counting for a literal "eternity"), than feeding those poor people - just live with it. But he never said feeding and helping poors is useless. The contrary.

Plz, don't ruin your nice words of mutual acceptance because of that. Slippery may have used words me and you don't like too much but I'm sure his intentions are good - and his efforts directed even in more "physical life" (we would call it "real life" maybe :) ) ways ;)

Best wishes ;)

PS also remind that Slippery doesn't represent an entire faith of religion - our friend is a self-proclaimed (as far as I understood) fundamentalist evangelical Christian, so extending his ideas (good or bad) to an entire community of believers should be done with great caution.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm not saying anything against SlipperyJim, or against his religion. I have absolutely nothing against him, and I've stated the few things I have against his religion-neither of which are primary to it, and one of which is entirely in disagreement with what his religion stands for-and yet, has been circling closer and closer to the core of it's message-as it is spread.

I'm just saying that I'm not compatible with it, and I gave the quote as a prime example why that's the case. And as I mentioned, he's just serving as a representative of that religion-and as far as I can tell, has the best of intentions.

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?

I'm not attempting to be anything less than accepting and welcoming of other points of view-sadly, some of those views are not my own, which is why I can make statements about the strength of variety and differences.

Please try not to find antagonism within simple disagreement. My desire is that we all get along, but that desire doesn't subjugate my own point of view.

[Tifone]

SlipperyJim: It's this line right here, this perfect moment of crystal clarity, in which you render your entire faith, religion, and hope of salvation, utterly and completely empty, meaningless, forever a non-relevant, non-entity--atleast for me and for everything I hold to be good.

Well, ok, that seemed to me a bit antagonistic :smirk: i was jus hoping to prevent the starting to a flame, forgive me ^_^

Not of course that I like SlipperyJim's words too, btw. He calls himself a fundamentalist, which means his style of life is just different from the "average guy" he depicted (btw, I'd also like to know how it is so different if he was willing to say us :) ) and whoever lives his life in a less "God-driven" way (whatever it means) than him is going to Hell.

Of course I'm not accepting it. I just think at my grandma, she died last year. She was a very good woman, religious and a "good Christian", going to the church every sunday and so.
But of course "Jesus" wasn't the purpose or the "engine" of her life.
Her 2 sons were: my mother and my uncle. 2 sons that she had to raise alone after the early death of her husband, in a whole life of hard work and renunciations. She would have gave up her faith, like everything else for them - for fundamentalist believers like Slippery, this is enough for them to call her a "bad Christian without God in her heart", and see my good ol' grandma burning forever in a lake of fire.
Her and all the unbaptized or muslim innocent children dying for starvation (let's say if in the 10 millions of children who every year according to the FAO die for starvation, the 60% are muslim or unbaptized or so, it's 600 innocent children every hour sent in a lake of fire by a loving God :eek:)

But you know what? I don't care :) Because I'm 100% sure it isn't the case at all - otherwise I wouldn't be agnostic.
The Bible, which is said to be the "evidence" of all this, is supposed to having been written by the "smartest person of the universe", still when you read it where's the sensation of awe you should prove in reading something so smart, so timeless? A lot of it is mass-murdering, slavery, sexism, not to talk about the endless contradictions, the scientifical nonsenses, the commandments of lapidation.

So I can debate with all calm with Slippery and all the others who think me and my family and lots of "averagely-good" and innocent people will be sent, or are already, in a giant lake of fire forever (i mean, can you imagine it?) without getting offended by this and still trying to comprehend better each other.

Sorry for the harsh words. Best wishes to all. Take care.

[capnq]

Read first John, all of it.It has always baffled me why so many of my fellow Christians recommend that people start with the Gospel of John. John is the most opaque and allegorical of the Gospels, far and away the hardest of the four to grasp the message of.

If someone is curious about Jesus, I recommend they start with the Gospel of Mark. It's the shortest and most straightforward telling of Jesus' ministry (and believed to be the earliest written down). What I'd recommend after Mark would depend on what questions it brought up for you.

[Bwaha]

Hi, sorry to be so short in my posts. What I asked people to look at was the chapter named First John. My internet connection is rather bad, and thats why my posts are so short. Today I'm off work so I can chat for a while. Tifone I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. I apologize if I did. My reference to babies was a due to the fact that when you are "born again" you are changed into a new person. Here is my reasoning :

First Peter [1] Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
[2] As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

And next:
Hebrews 5 12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
[13] For every one that use th milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
[14] But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

So I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I was expressing a doctrine. Yah, I know its rather obscure but I feel its important to be correct in this subject. One reason that "we" have to share our belief is:
Revelation 12 [9] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
[10] And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

So one of key components of my belief is I have to share the "truth" with anyone who asks. I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone, after all God have given us the right to choose to believe or not. So who am I to tell someone they have to believe. The choice is for each person to decide. :D

[JaghataiKhan]

Since every side is deep entrenched in their beliefs, I'll drop 2 cents and disappear and never visit this thread again.

Any God that takes people that heard his message and accept it into heaven, despite other,non-grace-saved people choosing to be benefical, charitable and all other "good" side of the good-evil morality scale(which is a pretty much relative scale anyway), despite some of the the grace accepting people having horrific deeds, despite many people not having the chance to even see this message, into heaven without even punishing them for their misdeeds to even the scales, and throws the rest into hell forever, is an extremely disgusting, sick monstrosity with whom no covenant can be made, no word can be taken seriously, no mercy can be expected, and its covenant must be abjured from the rest of humanity as diseased of the mind, its book be eradicated and never be copied again, its laws erased once and for all, and its followers prevented to breed until their minds are free from the disease.

Save your excuses,I won't hear them! "But you can't understand the workings of the grace!" I'm glad I can't, as I have yet to ponder what convoluted Lovecraftian logic allows an all loving,omni-everything God to even start existing or start existance, yet alone throwing innocent non-Christians(which mostly happen to be non-white as well, Manifest Destiny anyone?) forever into Hell for...eternal torment, which is something even Hitler,Stalin,Erzsebet Bathory or George W. Bush doesn't deserve.

P.S if you think I made a dish of copypasta, being a non-native English speaker to formulate these words, **** you, whomever even considers it.

[Tifone]

Tifone I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. I apologize if I did.

Wait, wait! :) You have nothing to apologize... I understood what you wrote. Mine was a totally unrelated thought. Don't worry, you didn't offend anyone at all ;)

Thanks for having expressed your reasons also. Nothing that I didn't know already (I know the Scriptures ^_^ ) but it's always good to listen someone explaining his life styles and choices ;)

[HoneyBadger]

JaghataiKhan: I appreciate that you're earnest in your beliefs, and I realize that English isn't your first language, but every time I try to decypher what you wrote up there, my eyes cross of their own volition.

That's not helping us to understand you, or you to get your message across.

Could you maybe calm down a bit and give that back to us more slowly, with little words?

[Bwaha]

Hi, here's a thought. Suppose I was a doctor looking for a cure for aids, and I found one. Then the company that I was working for decided that they didn't want it revealed because of some stupid reason. Then they threaten me with jail or worse if I divulge this information. Would I risk my life to save people that I don't know? Of course I would freely share this knowledge despite the ramifications. The God of Israel has said he will destroy this world and all that are on it. Then He said I will give anyone a way to get off this rock before it goes. Further more He gave us the choice to escape this fate.

Suns go nova all the time. This means that whole ecosystems, and dare i say it, civilizations go poof... If some alien came and said your planet was going to be destroyed and he will rescue all who would get on his ship. But you have to do something that seems silly first. Would you do it?

I've got a proposition for you, I would like to see if there's a measurable change in a person when they are in a normal state versus being filled with the Holy Spirit. If there was, would you take it as proof of the existence of God? Or would you say its just a change in the energy state of said person. When God uses me to heal people I feel a charge of energy that I can't hold back. Totally being filled to overflowing. The energy is not from me. I'm simply a conduit. I've seen some pretty amazing things, so for me there is absolutely no doubt in my mind.:D

[thejeff]

I've read way to much science fiction to get on a ship with any old alien who comes along claiming the Earth's going to be destroyed. I want to see the evidence.

You're offering a miraculous solution to a problem that I don't believe exists.

As for your "measurable change", as far as I know no such thing has ever been shown. If you've got evidence, bring it on. I'd like to compare it with studies of similar states from other religions. Reports of such states are not limited to Christianity and appear to go back the earliest shamanistic traditions. Many of the more mystical eastern traditions have exercises dedicated to producing similar things at will. All of which suggests to me that it's some inherent potential in people rather than produced by a specific God.

[Bwaha]

I volunteer to be subject to testing, a mri maybe? Does anyone have access to one?:D

[JimMorrison]

Reports of such states are not limited to Christianity and appear to go back the earliest shamanistic traditions. Many of the more mystical eastern traditions have exercises dedicated to producing similar things at will. All of which suggests to me that it's some inherent potential in people rather than produced by a specific God.


Furthermore, even if they are linked and granted in some way by some specific god - they are apparently not linked to the specific faith, thus proving that he is not as biased as some would like you to think.

Remember that religion is a competitive industry, and most people only tithe or donate to one church at a time. Worship is money, my friend. ;)

[HoneyBadger]

Aliens showing up, asking me to do silly things, doesn't seem like sound philosophical basis to live one's life by.

And-instead of AIDS-what if you discovered a cure for homosexuality? Would you freely inject it into any gay people who crossed your path, whether or not they were content to be gay?

[Tifone]

Worship is money, my friend. ;)

Better, my friend. Worship is POWER. Absolute power on people, for being the voice of the absolute truth, which can "give" absolute joy if obeyed and absolute torment if not. What is money compared to this? :o

And-instead of AIDS-what if you discovered a cure for homosexuality?

You know it isn't a disease at all, ya? It's like saying, a cure for being... tall or... brown haired :rolleyes:

[Bwaha]

HB, I don't have an axe to grind about homosexuals. And if I had a cure I would share it only with those who wanted it. That is if you considered it a sickness which I don't. :D That being said, I love all of you! That is why I care. I promise you that I will never utter hate speach on this or any other forum. If I ever come off harsh, it is that I lack the skills to communicate at the level that you all are used to. This is changing as I continue to speak with you. So please cut me a little slack.:D
I will continue to love you regardless of whatever you say. So peace bro. :D

[HoneyBadger]

That's what I'm saying-having another belief system is a state of being, it's not a disease, you aren't necessarily helping someone by inflicting your point of view on them, without them asking for it, anymore than you're helping someone by giving them a "cure" for being tall, or having brown hair.

And no matter how great you think your point of view is, that's still *all* it is, and it's not going to work for everybody, no matter how hard you pray about it.

[Bwaha]

Okay, I understand your point of view, please try to understand mine. I must share, I have to. I wish to continue, but if you require me to be silent, I will stop. Its up to you the community to decide, and I will abide by it.:D

[HoneyBadger]

You're free to share, that's not the point. Everyone here is here out of choice. The point that I take objection to is the point where you share your views with a starving person, in return for food for them and their children, in the understanding that if they want you to keep feeding them, they'd better come around to your way of thinking. If you want to "share" with somebody, and they willingly put themselves in a position to be exposed to that, then that's fine-and freedom of speech gives you the constitutional right to "share" even with that starving person, and I respect that right, and defend your ability to invoke it--but don't ask that I believe it to be the action or the will of a benevolent god.

[Bwaha]

Huh? I don't get the context. I'm not a member of a church, when I give I do it secretly so no one knows who did it. Are you talking about soup kitchens? I've been to a church that did what you said, preaching to them for about an hour then feeding them. This I find to be detestable. Its all about pride. Anyway I would like to talk about cosmology and the bible. Is that a safe subject? :D

[HoneyBadger]

Oh absolutely. :)

[Bwaha]

I will start tomorrow. I'm too tired to start now. :D:

[Bwaha]

Okay, I'm ready to start. First let me say that these thoughts are mine and not any church doctrine. None of these thoughts are "gospel truth" or anything like that. I just wish to exchange thoughts. I wish that reason and logic will prevail in this discussion.


Lets start out granting that there are dimensions that are outside of normal perception. That being said lets continue, I posit that "god" is outside of the time stream. My perception of this is that "god" or the creator of all is holding the strands of the universe like a "cats cradle". I beleve that the folks with him are also outside of our here and now. There's some passages that indicate that this is the case, but I don't want to clutter this up with a bunch of bible qoutes. I will await your comments at this point.:D

[Skirmisher]

Each star burning in the infinite realm of space is one of god's brain cells.

Space is infinte. That in itself is mindblowing.
Humans only have 5 senses and thus cannot know much of what exsists.
For anybody to say that humans here on earth are the only form of life in the universe have there heads ...(well you get the picture).

Also when we die that's not the end, nature gives us a new body. No we dont remeber that. It would be to confusing for us anyways. The soul is eternal,why should it be limited to one lousy lifetime?

[Tifone]

I wish that reason and logic will prevail in this discussion.

Good. So let's start! ;)

Lets start out granting that there are dimensions that are outside of normal perception. That being said lets continue, I posit that "god" is outside of the time stream. My perception of this is that "god" or the creator of all is holding the strands of the universe like a "cats cradle". I beleve that the folks with him are also outside of our here and now. There's some passages that indicate that this is the case, but I don't want to clutter this up with a bunch of bible qoutes.

Ok. In the sake of the same reason and logic you called, I would ask you to prove all of those "beliefs" and "perceptions", as you called them yourself.
Of course you can believe everything you want and for me it's great, but where is the evidence of all this? How do you percieve this "god" or creator which stands somewhere in those dimensions out of the time and space, and why others don't?
Mind I'm not negating it could be true, but without evidence it is pretty much like believing in leprechauns and unicorns to me - things I wouldn't base my life on :D
And as you seem a reasonable and nice guy, I would ask you why do you believe all this and possibly (as your previous posts seem to suggest) why do you base your life on those beliefs.

Of course again read no attack in my points, I'm just asking :) - I think I should just stop saying this, it should be clear to everyone who has read 1% of this 3ad that I don't want to hurt or attack anyone, but it is true even that religious susceptibility is very hot these days :D

Best wishes, waiting for reply ;)

[Tifone]

Each star burning in the infinite realm of space is one of god's brain cells.

Also when we die that's not the end, nature gives us a new body. No we dont remeber that. It would be to confusing for us anyways. The soul is eternal,why should it be limited to one lousy lifetime?

Those are nice beliefs, but nothing in our perceptions makes me believe it is more true than the FSM or Zeus ;)

Space is infinte. That in itself is mindblowing.
Humans only have 5 senses and thus cannot know much of what exsists.
For anybody to say that humans here on earth are the only form of life in the universe have there heads ...(well you get the picture).

With all that I pretty much agree - dunno if there are other life forms, but it's unlikely that we are alone ;) Remember we have science to expand our senses. But what can thing out of our senses (which actually reducing to the traditional 5 is very reductive ;)) be if not creations of our easily suggested minds?

Best wishes

[Bwaha]

I agree that there's probably other life out there. One of my Buddy's and I discussing the possible dangers of the Cern collider, and he posited that when some race turns one on it creates a black hole and poof, and that maybe the source of the mysterious gamma bursts is some foolish race that started it on the surface of their planet. I posited that it will open a gate to a place that we really don't want opened. I think we should have a massive collider but lets build it in space, headed away from us on a exit vector just in case...:D

One of the reasons I believe in et's is Jesus said, "I will make you priests and kings." To be a king you have to have subjects, ditto for priests. I believe that this planet is a prison world designed to be the place of destruction of the fallen angels and the devil. Also to raise a people that over-came the miasma of evil that permeates our troubled world. I think that they (the aliens) are free from the things that trouble us here, and so are innocent. When Moses was leading the Israelis thru the desert the people kept coming to him for judgments (so in so is ripping me off, ect...) His father in law said to Moses, "appoint judges to take over judicial matters." I think that likewise God has created us to fill a similar role. Yes I'm sorry to say that my future may be as a bureaucrat. Brr, frightening that thought. Argh my internet is fading, be back later.:D

[Bwaha]

Okay, I had to move to a better connection. Tifone you asked me why I have these beliefs. Please let me tell you some of my history. I grew up with some problems that left me quite bitter. In response I grew to hate god. How dare he do this to me... So as a teenager I joined a coven. I considered this to be cool, we had a place to smoke dope and were served beer in a "safe" environment. But as I saw the terrible things that they did I didn't want to participate in them. In a dream a demon grabbed me and I cried out to god. I used his grace to get out of the clutches of the devil. Then I had a problem, they wanted me dead. So I joined the air force to get out of town. I took the path that got me out as quickly as possible. No mos specified. After taking the aptitude tests they decided to make me a crew chief for a b-52g, in sac no less. So here I was sitting next to a bunch of nukes all the time. I wanted to distract myself from what I was doing. So I read scifi when I was waiting to fire the missiles. One of the things that they pounded into us was global war was gonna happen. It was simply a matter of time. When they did a ori test we didn't know if it was a test or the real thing. To us each test was the real thing. We had orders to fire if we didn't get the recall signal. Brrr, I tell yah it was scary. So it was noticed I was reading and they didn't want me to be distracted. So came the command "don't read scifi on the flight line." So I got a bible and started reading it. Much to my horror I found a lot of similarity's to global thermo-nuclear war and the writings I was reading. And I turned into a pacifist. After being threatened with military prison if I didn't change my mind. I clung to my convictions and they let me go. Honorable discharge BTW. So I went on about my life and got hooked up with a group known as the order of Saint Luke. These people go the hospitals and comfort the dying. In one of times I was there my mentor took me to the chapel and told me to close my eyes. Then she prayed that I would have a vision. I did. I can't divulge exactly what I saw, but lets just say it was wonderful. I've looked at Jesus in his full glory, and heard, well done my faithful servant, enter into paradise...:angel So I can't say I believe, because I know. Sorry about the length of my rant but you asked. I've experienced many other things as well.:D

[Bwaha]

Sorry If you are offended by my last post, also sorry about the syntax. It was rather painful revisiting that time in my life and I knew that if I stopped I wouldn't be able to continue. So lets move the subject off of me and return to cosmology.

I find that the references to other dimensions to be fascinating, Please look at II Corinthians chapter four. BTW the god of this word is satan. The verse that I'm referring to is #18. The bible is full of allusions like this. I'll stop for a response at this time.:D

[Skirmisher]

Those are nice beliefs, but nothing in our perceptions makes me believe it is more true than the FSM or Zeus ;)



Humans were given free will, as a result we can believe whatever we like. True or not.

[JimMorrison]

Those are nice beliefs, but nothing in our perceptions makes me believe it is more true than the FSM or Zeus ;)



Humans were given free will, as a result we can believe whatever we like. True or not.


Given, developed, possess..... Semantics aside, your conclusion is rock solid, even if the premise is a matter of conjecture.

<3

[Aapeli]

Free will is relative. We have it, in theory, but, in theory, we dont. Extreme relativism is my favourite philosophy. I mean, in theory anything goes. But anywho I dont like to think we dont have a free will, cause that would just be too simple and too boring.

[Imp]

Firstly I am not a beliver as such though have read decent sections of 3 religious tomes.
While not believing them I do think they are literary masterpieces they all say the same thing & the message is simple.
They are codes of conduct, a way of life what you should aspire to be written people living in hard times where doing the right thing was not as easy as now. What you think of as hardships are things that encroach on your spare time, perhaps paying a bill, big frigin deal.
Somebody qouted

Sorry for the rant, we are just on the topic, again I'm not really saying ppl should stop believing, believe whatever you want if it makes you feel good and in peace with the others

As I said not a beliver but this is exactly the wrong use for religion, using it to prop you up & make you feel good means neither are you its something you should be striving for. In fact a true follower makes his life harder as persicuted lives in poverty etc because they make sacrifices things to help others. Trying to live by the "code" of your religios book is what makes you faithful & you cant be selective & ignore the hardest bits they are probably the most important.

As I said have read big chunks of 3 plus bits of others but lets take the Christian bible & employ some logic for a moment on if it should be taken literaly or as a guide.
Is it the word of God if so it got lost, how.

Firstly take any story translate it & pass it down over a period of time. That thing we now call spin happens, its impossible for it not to. Just translating someone puts his interpritation on it.
Christianity borrows heavily from earlier religions a simple example & there are very many we celebrate Christs birthday when? On his Birthday no on a previos religions Christ is ignored. Start reading folks lots of these books are the same stories with diffrent actors.

Even if you ignore all this there is one more problem, the saying "(absolute) power corrupts" seems to hold true. People with power seem to lose some morals.

The Catholic Church for instance to name but one managed to twist the context of the bible (easily done with anything) & decide going to war in the name of God was good.
What sorry is that really the message
Is the church run as it should be trying to help people keep on the path or & call me Mr Cynical here is it run as a business. Are they worried about falling attendance because more people will fail when the time comes or do they want more bums on pews because donations have dropped?
How rich are they, Vatican State thats a country & despite the church being rich do they help out when there are disasters or keep the coffers full & send a few people.
Over emphasising here but does the Catholic church try & do as it preaches or does it tend to be selective in its followings. They seem to have broken the mold of living in hardship giving up things to help others, yes they give up a few but its selective & not exactly a harsh life.
With that in mind even if I am wrong & the bible did not get lost in translation by accident can you trust these guys interpritation on it.

On a truly sad note the reason we need these books is obvious & the people that wrote them never would have if they had realised that they would be twisted to be what?
A shout for war.
Yes the human race is lost it deserves its fate.

[Imp]

Sorry but I have read more of these posts not all mind.

Surely the mark of whether you are a good man has nothing to do with race religion. etc.
If some one has suffered missfortune & you go out of your way to help or share what you have leaving yourself short is that not more a mark of a good person.
Race & religion generaly make you a worse man if you are the sort of pesrson that takes them in to account rather than just treating the person before you as just that a person. If you actually happen to have picked the right God from those available I would also like to know how you earned the right to judge. I don't think its your call somehow.
I would also say modern society is bad look at western culture its collapsing. Family values, what sorry whens the last time you helped your neigbour, who lives 5 doors away from you, think of there name even let alone know them. Of course not you are living a cellular life community has died all you want is a bigger Plasma or car.
Sell my Plasma to help someone out you are having a laugh, of course the money you spent on it could keep several hundred people alive in africa for a few months. But hey its not my problem the goverments should do something about it.
Wake up people you elected them based on what exactly, so they are going to do as you do because that keeps them in power.
Off topic but all nations politics are lost because a big part of the vote is probably the sympathy bit, you can relate to them. How do you seriosly expect a guy who is an ex farmer, failed in the oil business despite millions being bunged at him to suddenly be capable of running a country & making sensible decisions. Not aiming at one nation they are all the same mine included & power corrupts remember.
You want a better world get off your *** & do something about it forget all segregation for whatever reason. At the end of it all you will know you tried & hey just perhaps somebody was watching. Strangely this person whether he believes in God or not actually strayed terribly close to the teachings of them all. Quite possibly he did it without wanting something in return just because he was brought up with a sense of values & managed to stick to them. It may have made him feel good about himself from time to time to.
Sorry for the spelling & not having ago but a few weeks ago I helped at the local school doing some work because my friends children go there & it was for kids.
The people there wer amazed I had given up a day (doing what exactly) to come & help. 6 parents had bothered to show up which kind of shows how much they value there kids futures let alone someone elses.
Society what society if it does not help me directly aint doing it.
Welcome to hell you live in it.

[Imp]

Slippery Jim
Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity


Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?

I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race. Better health & the bunny syndrome, 2 produce etc etc so where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.

[capnq]

This thread is itself evidence for the resurrection of the dead. ;-)

Even if you ignore all this there is one more problem, the saying "(absolute) power corrupts" seems to hold true. People with power seem to lose some morals.From the science fiction novel "The Postman":It's said that 'power corrupts', but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. When they do act, they think of it as service, which has limits. The tyrant, though, seeks mastery, for which he is insatiable, implacable.(BTW, the book regarded far better than Costner's movie; I haven't seen the movie, but the original novella was pretty good.)
With that in mind even if I am wrong & the bible did not get lost in translation by accident can you trust these guys interpritation on it.One of the fundamental tenants of Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism, which is my own faith) is that the Holy Spirit assists the believer in interpreting the Scripture. One does not have to rely upon a professionally trained intermediary such as a priest to learn from it.

(That still doesn't guarantee that the believer will always interpret it correctly, though.)

[capnq]

I would also say modern society is bad look at western culture its collapsing.People have been saying basically the same thing at least since the Roman Empire passed its peak. "Western culture" has been "collapsing" since before the idea was coined, yet we're still here.How do you seriosly expect a guy who is an ex farmer, failed in the oil business despite millions being bunged at him to suddenly be capable of running a country & making sensible decisions.This is a terribly condescending slam on farmers. If you think running a farm doesn't require "sensible decisions", you should try working on one. Jimmy Carter was an ex-farmer, too, and many of the people who dislike Bush liked him.

[Imp]

One of the fundamental tenants of Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism, which is my own faith) is that the Holy Spirit assists the believer in interpreting the Scripture. One does not have to rely upon a professionally trained intermediary such as a priest to learn from it.

(That still doesn't guarantee that the believer will always interpret it correctly, though.)


Now this seems another stumbling block to me.
I can understand free will rather than have the message forced on us we are allowed to make a choice, its then our call & we get judged on our actions.
But if I have not understood it correctly how can I make a rational decision, also & nit picking does the holy spirit only help once you are a believer requiring a blind leap of faith or does he try & assist you to interprit it correctly & so become a believer?

An extreme example of misreading or more likely based on what you are told.
A badly educated & or uninteligent person is decieved by someone who is better educated/smarter into straping a bomb to himself in the name of religion.
Now am I wrong in thinking this is a true believer who is willing to sacrifice his life for his religion so is definetly a religous man.
His only error is being poorly educated/thick he is not a bad man that is the guy that recruited him.

As I said making sure the message is understood correctly is important.

[capnq]

If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity.Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?Skeptics have been raising this argument ever since believers started preaching the concept. I have my own answer to the problem that (sort of) satisfies me, but I'm not confident enough that I'm correct to try to convince others of it.I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race.This is a modern myth that has repeatedly been debunked (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/dead.asp).where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.Why are you assuming that there is some kind of "conservation of souls", that new souls can't be created? Different faiths have different theories about this, but the universe is both big enough and old enough that the answer could very well be extraterrestrials, for all we know.

[Imp]

On the farm wholy agree it is a buisness & no idea how he did but when he tried moving up to oil failed miserably despite status giving him breaks. Now you want him to take on something bigger.
Like I say not aiming at him specificly most people do not get in for the right reasons.
Understandable really you do not know what it takes to run a country so you are electing someone to do so based on .....
The one thing I can think of is good management skills & a proven track record

Chalk one on the myth, learning stuff if nothing else.

[lch]

Oh, this thread is still not yet dead? I remember that I started writing a response, then had to abandon it due to lack of time and just saved it in some text file. Let me see how much I need to edit what I wrote now - having read nothing of the latter posts yet. :)

I never said that you have to change your belief system. I simply asked you to explain it.
I believe in the existance of the God of Israel, or "something" which men have identified as that, his sole existance and that the other religions "got it wrong somehow", I believe that the Bible is not just a fable but, concerning a couple of things, a historical document which aims to collect and preserve what has happened to record it. I believe that Jesus Christ existed, was a real person that lived about 2000 years ago, that he was chosen and exalted by God and did wonders like described in the bible and died for us and that the apotheosis/ascendance happened. I pray the Apostles' Creed and Lord's Prayer. I do not belief in the trinity, because it is something that is not in the Bible, but has been interpreted out of it some centuries later. I think I remember that this popped up during the last few days of the talks that we had before our confirmation, and if the presbyter would have insisted that I adopt this belief, then I would have refused to get confirmed. We settled somewhat for: he doesn't press the issue, and I get my confirmation. Though I have said myself that one shouldn't take the Bible by the word only, finding the right interpretation can go wrong.

I have no use for dogmas like "God is without sin". Man can't comprehend his motives and his existence, so the question if he can sin is useless. I consider myself pretty much nihilist, scepticist, and regarding things like these, agnostic.

The canonical Gospels don't actually differ on any substantive issues. Each Gospel writer picked up a few events that the others missed, which is what you might expect from four different eyewitness accounts. Even so, the Gospels are all in agreement on the "big" things.
Yes, they do. And while I am no first- or second-hand witness myself, I make my interpretations based on my knowledge and ability of judgment based on what they wrote.

I agree. Scriptural interpretation is very important. Of course, the next obvious question is how do you interpret Scripture? Theologians refer to this concept as Biblical hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics).
Well, mostly I can give you "yes" or "no" answers, and the things that I say might even be conflicting. If there wouldn't be room for potential conflicts regarding these things, then everybody would necessarily have to adopt to Christianity. For some reason, that is not the case.

@KO: People have attributed me to the Islamic mindset not only in regards to my views on Jesus and the Bible, but on other views that I pronounced, as well. :) Well, that doesn't matter to me...

[Imp]

Skeptics have been raising this argument ever since believers started preaching the concept. I have my own answer to the problem that (sort of) satisfies me, but I'm not confident enough that I'm correct to try to convince others of it.


Not asking you to convince but if willing to post not forcing on anyone I asked.
Feel free to do as a PM rather than in the forum. I will just confirm reciept not comment on as feel I am coming across as judgemental which is not my aim.

This is a major sticking point for me though & if you look at the whole picture where you are born has a huge bearing on your chances.
Generalising but being born in the West say means you have a good chance of decent living conditions & are likely to adopt some faith involving Christ.
Being born in Asia possibly a worse standard of living & more likely to adopt another faith. So I would think its fair enough to say the odds have been stacked against you simply because of your place of birth.
If so for a God to be fair does he not have to judge you on your actions & the way you live your life with the fact that you believe him having little bearing on the outcome.
Does that make sense?

A discussion like this is far easier conducted face to face when you can keep pace with your thoughts.

[capnq]

Like I say not aiming at him specificly most people do not get in for the right reasons.
Understandable really you do not know what it takes to run a country so you are electing someone to do so based on .....
The one thing I can think of is good management skills & a proven track record< cynic >
Well, there's where your misunderstanding is coming from. We elect people primarily based on their ability to talk other people into giving them enough money to run for office.
< /cynic >

[Imp]

And that shows the fundamental flaw in our political system:)
Once saw a quote cant remember who that said something like 5% of poloticians are doing the job for the right reasons (i.e. not self gain) 5% actually have the abilty to do the job. The chances of somebody falling into both categories are remote so we can deduce most of the time no one is capable & they would never be heard anyway.
Mind even if thought I was capable I would not fancy it.
Good stepping stone for getting you on the board of big companies though:shock:

[capnq]

This is a major sticking point for me though & if you look at the whole picture where you are born has a huge bearing on your chances.
Generalising but being born in the West say means you have a good chance of decent living conditions & are likely to adopt some faith involving Christ.
Being born in Asia possibly a worse standard of living & more likely to adopt another faith. So I would think its fair enough to say the odds have been stacked against you simply because of your place of birth.
If so for a God to be fair does he not have to judge you on your actions & the way you live your life with the fact that you believe him having little bearing on the outcome."Standard of living" not only has less relevance than you think it does, it has the opposite effect. And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."(If you'd like more context, I recommend reading Matthew 19:16-30.)

Affluence makes it more difficult to recognize your own need for any form of spirituality. I was raised as a Lutheran, and can't consciously remember a time when I didn't believe in Jesus, but the closest I've ever felt to God was during a two-week period when I was homeless. (I'd rather not discuss my circumstances at that time in any detail.)

I tried to dig up a better answer to your question, but disagreed myself with the conclusions people came to in the first couple search results I looked at. The first piece I found that I thought worth linking to was this PDF (www.freechurch.org/pdf/monthlyrecord/february01.pdf) from the Free Church of Scotland.There's an article in it titled "Cross-cultural Evangelism", written by a Hindu who converted to Christianity:What about those who live and die without
ever hearing the gospel? What about - to take
one people group at random - the Western
Gaisu people in China? [...] They practice
ancestor worship, and no Gaisu or indeed no-
body in the immediate area has ever been
known to become a Christian. The area is al-
most untouched by Christian witness. So what
will become of those Gaisu who have died and
will die without hearing the gospel?

The answer is, we just don’t know.As frustrating as it is, this is the most honest answer I've found to your question. The people who are absolutely sure they know the answer are the ones whose arguments I find the most painful to read.

[Imp]

So its an unsolved question.
As pointed out in the article I raised standard of living not because it effects faith but because they are "inherintly bad" so given a harder life (does not mean worse mind you) & less chance for salvation.
Its this lack of a solid founding on important issues that causes me problems. Lots of things look fine at first glance but if think them through fall down or indeed contradict themselves.
Thanks for taking the time but think I must accept that I have chosen my lot, as I said at the start great pieces of work & I think there must be something the universe or at least Earth is just to well organised to create life without some help.
To me that is the biggest argument that somebody/thing was involved in its creation, so surprisingly science & maths show the odds of it happening are so remote that its the best argument that someone designed it that way.

From the scientific viewpoint you could indeed take the view that God is all around us & in everyone of us. No matter how hard science looks it cannot understand the atom, the harder you look the more difficult it gets. It is the only known thing that acts both as a particle & a wave depending on if you are looking or not. Other things to so everything including you are made of something we cannot comprehend.

Actually they may have found a second thing recently not sure as have not kept up to date

[Skirmisher]

Bah Youtube had a nice Zappa video relating to this dicussion but the damn link doesn't work. Oh well.

[Imp]

Skirmisher whats the name of the song, the guys a bit of a nutter or was:) Quite smart though I think seem to remember he has a good buisnees head.
Could be a myth again but think read he was not getting the reaction he wanted in one video so made his guitarists equipment live. That got the jerking about response he wanted:doh:
Guessing they were not to happy about it.

[Skirmisher]

It's called "Dumb All Over"

You can find it by searching youtube, somebody posted a live version from 1981 with I think spanish sub titles in it.

[Imp]

Good call not listened to for ages just setting up the muffin man

[capnq]

As pointed out in the article I raised standard of living not because it effects faith but because they are "inherintly bad" so given a harder life (does not mean worse mind you) & less chance for salvation.I'm sorry, but I've read this sentence three times and I still can't figure out what point you're trying to make. What are you referring to as being "inherently bad"? (I can't tell what the pronoun "they" is replacing.)

"Standard of living" and "a harder life" do not correlate in any way with "chance of salvation". (IME, the first two don't even correlate with each other.)

[Imp]

Sorry it was late, what I meant was they had been selected already as being unworthy by birthplace. No chance of hearing the word & hence salvation & one could say punished with a harder life to.

I would agree that a lower standard of living is no bad thing in 3rd world countries I would make sure once I realised to be able to repay peoples hospitality. In many cases I was invited into strangers homes & fed because its a sign of freindship, the done thing. For several of these I am sure feeding me was a bigger sacrifice than you might expect but you could not refuse so made sure I had something to give in return. People just are far more friendly only 2 times ever in Central Europe has this happened to me & never in a big city.
You do not have to go totaly native to get this change, getting out of the "rat race" money driven culture seems enough. Also people have/take the time to try & understand you help etc which strangely means despite language barriers etc you feel less alienated than back home. Slow your pace of life down & do your best to recipricate.

[capnq]

what I meant was they had been selected already as being unworthyThat point starts getting into arguments about predestination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination), which I'm not going to even attempt to summarize. It's one of the issues that defines the doctrinal differences between denominations.

[Imp]

As said I am going to bow out of this conversation as you have reraised an earlier point. No matter generally which God is followed there is more than one interpretation of his word religion following him. So you are accepting someones previous interpretation of it who is in fact accepting that the written word was interpretead & passed down correctly. If you disagree with parts of it then you are now adding another interpretation yours is just not the official one so does not make print.
Therefore you should throw most of the book away & just take the underlying themes & as for those people that believe it should be taken literaly even translating Old English into Modern English has its problems. If a language is structured diffrently it becomes even harder. Now chuck in variations for diffrent regions which would have been more varied in a time without travel communication & I can see them as no more than guides. If you add in poaching of bits from earlier religions its hard to see how it was not fudged in some way after all it was left to man to collate it.
If you really wanted to be pessamistic you could say man often misinterprets woman, a smart person often has trouble understanding one less so & vica versa even on fairly basic stuff. Taking this as a premise the whole message could be a bit off.
Slightly diffrent subject but whats the point of SETI if we have disparitys of understanding in our own society we are really going to understand an alien aren't we.

[Kartoffel]

I LIKE BIG BIBLES AND CANNOT LIE - Baby Got Book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4)

[Kartoffel]

Embedded YouTube clip which features a christian parody of Sir Mix-a-Lot's 1992 hit: "Baby Got Back". :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tTYr3JuueF4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tTYr3JuueF4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>