Religion Thread: Christianity (Part II)

[jhd1189]

This is a continuation of the original Christianity thread, which was closed after exceeding 1000 posts. Whether you're a Christian or not, you can debate all aspects of Christianity (all sects) in this thread.

The same rules still apply here. PLEASE remember to be nice and courteous to your fellow debaters, and to post links to evidence that backs up your position whenever possible! :)

The original debate can be found here (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=391955).

[Vanito]

If you are a non-Christian, reading this article on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity, and reading the Christian Bible, may be helpful in learning general information about Christianity.
The wikipedia varies from language to language: as english is most commonly spoken in the USA, the english wiki describes the USA version of christianity. It does not mention christianity in west Europe is different or vice versa.
One example is the variation upon the belief in who Jesus actually was in the various versions of christianity:

English wiki version:
Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, God having become man and the savior of humanity. Christians, therefore, commonly refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah.[3]

In the english version, god has become jesus. This seems to be what most USA people believe.

Dutch wiki version:
De christenen geloven dat Jezus de zoon van God is en de messias die voorspeld en aangekondigd werd in het Oude Testament.

Translated:
Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and the messiah who was prophesied in the Old testament.

The dutch christians typically belive jesus was the son of god, as was tought in my elementary school too. He is not god in this version, but his son, a different person.

German version:
Jesus wird von den Christen als der Christus (der Gesalbte), also der jüdische Messias, verehrt sowie als der Mensch gewordene Sohn Gottes.
Once again, "son of god", though this part is harder to translate correct considering my german skills. He is referred to as the "jewish messiah".

The wikipedia is quite subjective, and vary upon language from language. To get to know christianitity the wiki is a rather subjective source. (this goes for a lot of descriptions).

[RoseCity]

"The reason science is a major theme of this thread is because Christianity - indeed religions in general - are at odds with science. They claim knowledge without evidence."

Then maybe it should be called the 'Opposition to Christianity' thread.

[Vanito]

Yes, that is one flaw of reading the wikipedia article. It's not perfect, because it does not mention European views of Christianity. However, if you do not know Christianity at all or never have heard of it before, then this article is a good place to start. :) You may also read the Bible as well to get some general, basic information, but you may also have to keep in mind that it is a translation or interpretation and reading multiple translations or interpretations may help you understand many views of Christianity. :)

Personal anecdote: I have never been educated in religion in school or at home, so most of my knowledge of religion, especially Christianity, is from reading books (esp. the Bible) and flipping to the religious channel on TV, where a priest gives his interpretations to the audience. On TV, you can also find fascinating Biblical stories, like Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve. From my former classmates, I heard of the story of David and Goliath. Now to a person who knows so little about religion, all this stuff is so interesting, because I can now understand what people are talking about when they use religious references in language! :rofl:
The USA version of christianity is much more extreme and not in the positive sense. It focusses a lot more on the dark sides of the religion. The west european version is much more does-not-know-christianity friendly. When I was a kid I never realized USA christianity was that extreme. Or that any christian story would be more real than any other story we got read at school. It was disneyfied christianity thats for sure.

[fakepeeps7]

The USA version of christianity is much more extreme and not in the positive sense. It focusses a lot more on the dark sides of the religion.

It's not just the USA version. It's the North American version(s) of Christianity that can be a bit scary.

Check out what the Prime Minister of Canada believes: C&MA in Canada - Beliefs (http://cmalliance.ca/beliefsc1421.php)

I went to school with a bunch of these folks, too. Attended youth group a couple of times. Got completely weirded out. :lol: That sort of thinking just doesn't jive with me. It's so... black and white, for lack of a better term.

[kiwi_tea]

Then maybe it should be called the 'Opposition to Christianity' thread.

If you have a defence for claiming knowledge without evidence then out with it.

[Vanito]

It's not just the USA version. It's the North American version(s) of Christianity that can be a bit scary.

Check out what the Prime Minister of Canada believes: C&MA in Canada - Beliefs (http://cmalliance.ca/beliefsc1421.php)

I went to school with a bunch of these folks, too. Attended youth group a couple of times. Got completely weirded out. :lol: That sort of thinking just doesn't jive with me. It's so... black and white, for lack of a better term.
A bit scary? North american christianity in politics are about as extreme as the turkish islam politics. It is quite extreme when you've seen better. Extremist religious people shouldn't be in politics at all. Our previous prime minister was a christian, but he couldn't spout his beliefs around or he'd lose votes. Evangelizing and quoting bibles in politics does not work for the majority of voters here, so the dude had to base his ideas on reason instead. That kills off a lot of religious insanity, because there is no reasonable explanation for it to voters when "because its in the bible/god wants it" is cut off.

[fakepeeps7]

Evangelizing and quoting bibles in politics does not work for the majority of voters here, so the dude had to base his ideas on reason instead. That kills off a lot of religious insanity, because there is no reasonable explanation for it to voters when "because its in the bible/god wants it" is cut off.

We don't have evangelizing and quoting the Bible, either. That would cause a firestorm of controversy, since we're a pretty diverse country and one group or another would be up in arms about their rights being violated. The religious influence is more subtle. Like how Canada refused to fund abortions in developing countries because they said it had nothing to do with maternal health. :wtf:

Unfortunately, it seems that a large number of the people who actually get out and vote hold similar beliefs to the governing party. That doesn't mean they represent the views of all Canadians. They just represent the views of the Canadians who vote.

Sometimes apathy is far more dangerous than actually doing something.

[Vanito]

We don't have evangelizing and quoting the Bible, either. That would cause a firestorm of controversy, since we're a pretty diverse country and one group or another would be up in arms about their rights being violated. The religious influence is more subtle. Like how Canada refused to fund abortions in developing countries because they said it had nothing to do with maternal health. :wtf:

Unfortunately, it seems that a large number of the people who actually get out and vote hold similar beliefs to the governing party. That doesn't mean they represent the views of all Canadians. They just represent the views of the Canadians who vote.

Sometimes apathy is far more dangerous than actually doing something.
Thats even creepier.

[grumpy_otter]

So I had this really nice 4th of July BBQ, and some friends who were invited had friends coming in from out of town--so of course i welcomed them to include their friends.

These friends were super-Christian--little references to Jesus and Baptism and stuff like that--but they were nice and one was a blimp pilot, so it was fun to talk to them. They mentioned their house in England and one in Massachusetts with the Jesus sculpture, etc., etc. I never said ONE word about my personal beliefs--nor did my daughter to their kids. We've learned to keep a low profile.

So today, I got a thank-you note from them in the mail. Here is the text, verbatim;

Dear Otter (except for that, they used my real name :))

Thank you so much for including us on your Independence Day--we had such a good time meeting you and your daughter. I hope you will soon be as blessed as we are--remember that with Him all things are possible! Blessed in Christ, Mr. & Mrs. Christian.

So what do you think of that? A comment on my one-bedroom house? My 12-year-old car? My lack of constant prayer?

[fakepeeps7]

So today, I got a thank-you note from them in the mail. Here is the text, verbatim;

Dear Otter (except for that, they used my real name :))

Thank you so much for including us on your Independence Day--we had such a good time meeting you and your daughter. I hope you will soon be as blessed as we are--remember that with Him all things are possible! Blessed in Christ, Mr. & Mrs. Christian.

So what do you think of that? A comment on my one-bedroom house? My 12-year-old car? My lack of constant prayer?

This is a great example of why some Christians bug me. They've made an assumption that your life is crap, that you're not "blessed", and that you couldn't possibly be happy without accepting Jesus. While I'm sure they probably mean well, that sort of condescending attitude drives me crazy.

[el_flel]

Living in the UK we're exposed to a fair bit of American culture. Religion seems to be a lot more prevalent in the US than it is in the UK: many more people follow one and it has more of an influence on lifestyle and opinion. Many of the issues I see with regards to religion - believing things in spite of the evidence to prove otherwise, intolerance, etc. - don't seem to be issues over here.

My dad's parents and sister are involved with the church but they've never tried to 'convert' us or anything. The Jehovas came knocking a couple of times when I was a kid but that's about as much as I've experienced with regards to having a belief pushed on me. Anyone I've met who is religious has barely even talked about it beyond purely mentioning that they follow one.

I'm thinking that this isn't specific to the UK but perhaps is quite European. Any thoughts? What about why religion seems to be so important to Americans?

[christx101]

I really hate when some religious people blame other people's suffering on lack of belief in their god.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I really hate when some religious people blame other people's suffering on lack of belief in their god.

" the earthquake hit because you pissed Him off! "

" ...no, the earthquake hit because theres a thing called continental plates. "


stone age VS new age, yeah?

[grumpy_otter]

This is a great example of why some Christians bug me. They've made an assumption that your life is crap, that you're not "blessed", and that you couldn't possibly be happy without accepting Jesus. While I'm sure they probably mean well, that sort of condescending attitude drives me crazy.

I wish I knew if they knew I am atheist. If so, then they are probably just commenting on that. But if they didn't, then they must think they are better Christians than me because they have more stuff.

[kiwi_tea]

Well, you know what we non-Christians say, Otter: Turn the other cheek. :P

[RoseCity]

"The reason science is a major theme of this thread is because Christianity - indeed religions in general - are at odds with science. They claim knowledge without evidence."

Then maybe it should be called the 'Opposition to Christianity' thread.

Or the Self-Righteous Atheist thread.

[kiwi_tea]

Where has an atheist claimed in this and the last thread that they have a right to claim knowledge without evidence? Who is being self-righteous here?

I don't think it's the atheists and agnostics.

Please drop the insults and make a case, if you've an interest in debating the topic.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

...on-topic, i would like to say, christianity made no sense to me whatsoever when i really looked into it.

the angels, for example.
as ive come to understand ( and correct me if im wrong? ), lucifer was, not the devil at first. he was an angel. the favorite, even. but when commanded by Gawd he refused to bow to humans.

NOW, ive also heard it flung around that humans > angels because of free will. free will pretty much dictates we choose whatever we please, right?

but if angels didnt have free will, lucifer wouldnt have questioned it. he wouldve bowed.
so does that mean MOST angels dont and some actually DO, or just that they do, but choose to kiss Gawd's ass anyway? because there really is a difference.

because, lets face it.
if you are created a certain way, thats all you have the power to be. thats all you know. thats all you will ever be able to know.
so if angels were created to be perfectly obedient to Gawd, how could lucy-fer say "no" at all?

and beyond that, because lucifer said "no", god...pretty much told him to go bone himself. he went to hell. actually, he Founded hell.
is that something a loving parent would really do?
if your child said "no" when you told them to do something, would you make them live in the basement and shun them forever?
especially if we are agreeing that this is your FAVORITE kid, you love other kids but not the way you adore this little bugger.
and as its been said before, either god is absolutely benevolent and forgiving ( and thus there is no "hell" ), or hes kind of a mean tyrant loophole specialist.

[kattenijin]

NOW, ive also heard it flung around that humans > angels because of free will. free will pretty much dictates we choose whatever we please, right?

but if angels didnt have free will, lucifer wouldnt have questioned it. he wouldve bowed.
so does that mean MOST angels dont and some actually DO, or just that they do, but choose to kiss Gawd's ass anyway? because there really is a difference.

Making basically this argument in Sunday school when I was younger got me tossed out. The Priest told my mom that I couldn't come back untill I "learned my place".

Guess I haven't learned, because I'm still questioning "the church", although I do have a belief in God. That belief has come mostly from learning about various subjects in/through science however.

[kiwi_tea]

That belief has come mostly from learning about various subjects in/through science however.

See, now that's an interesting claim. Can you elaborate?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Making basically this argument in Sunday school when I was younger got me tossed out. The Priest told my mom that I couldn't come back untill I "learned my place".

Guess I haven't learned, because I'm still questioning "the church", although I do have a belief in God. That belief has come mostly from learning about various subjects in/through science however.

i think its really just intended as a lesson of "dont question your superiors, be obedient"...much the way that priest reacted.
lucifer questioned/disobeyed. he was punished. pretty simple lesson, too bad it doesnt make any damned sense the way these people have twisted things up...


and last i checked,
obedience has nothing to do with a higher power. it has to do with controlling others.

[kattenijin]

See, now that's an interesting claim. Can you elaborate?

Off the top of my head, a lot of it is math related, things like the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Ratio, groupings of the periodic table, dna sequenceng, weather chaos theory, fractals and Mandelbrot sets, etc. Studies about the time just after the "Big Bang", and how what may have been slight changes then would have led to major changes now.

And thats just the "simple" stuff. When you get into string theory, quantum physics, n-space, non-Ecludian geometry, it gets even more interesting.

There is too much inter-relationship between things that we see as discreet because we only experience 4 dimensions at a certain scale for me to believe there wasn't some sort of Creator.

To use the word "God" just keeps things simpler.

[Vanito]

...on-topic, i would like to say, christianity made no sense to me whatsoever when i really looked into it.

the angels, for example.
as ive come to understand ( and correct me if im wrong? ), lucifer was, not the devil at first. he was an angel. the favorite, even. but when commanded by Gawd he refused to bow to humans.

NOW, ive also heard it flung around that humans > angels because of free will. free will pretty much dictates we choose whatever we please, right?

but if angels didnt have free will, lucifer wouldnt have questioned it. he wouldve bowed.
so does that mean MOST angels dont and some actually DO, or just that they do, but choose to kiss Gawd's ass anyway? because there really is a difference.

because, lets face it.
if you are created a certain way, thats all you have the power to be. thats all you know. thats all you will ever be able to know.
so if angels were created to be perfectly obedient to Gawd, how could lucy-fer say "no" at all?

and beyond that, because lucifer said "no", god...pretty much told him to go bone himself. he went to hell. actually, he Founded hell.
is that something a loving parent would really do?
if your child said "no" when you told them to do something, would you make them live in the basement and shun them forever?
especially if we are agreeing that this is your FAVORITE kid, you love other kids but not the way you adore this little bugger.
and as its been said before, either god is absolutely benevolent and forgiving ( and thus there is no "hell" ), or hes kind of a mean tyrant loophole specialist.
The interpretation -some- theistic satanists give to the bible/religion makes more sense. God wrote the bible, the jealous, revengevull murderous god, who claims to be benevolent and loves to be worshipped. He wants obedient followers, most amusingly referred to as 'the sheep'. But god is not that great considering the misery on the planet. And the bible is not that great, because.. just read the first testament. How can anyone claim for THAT to be benevolent. Its a lie. God is arrogant, he wants to be worshipped OR ELSE...

Satan rebels against him, and is not the bad guy God makes him seem. Satan commands you to think for yourself and make your own descions. No mindless sheep. He has never made a book, and doesnt demands to be worshipped. He is blamed of a lot of misery on the planet, but since God is supposed to be --almighty--, that seems to be unlikely. Its far more likely God wants the misery there. Satan rebels against this god, so is consisered to be the good guy, the black sheep of the angels.

Some satanists believe Satan has a special place in hell for special people. Taking into consideration how miserably christianity often comes across, and what it does on the planet, this makes a most amusing anti-ideology.

[kiwi_tea]

But isn't that the argument from irreducible complexity, kattenijin?

What does 'God' mean in this case? An intelligent creator? Or just a First Cause?

[kattenijin]

Kiwi: An intelegent creator. It's the fact that in so much complexity, there are so many congruities, that I just can't put it down to... "luck of the draw" for lack of a better term. I know that we've barely scratched the surface of what's around us and what "reality" is, but so far the more I learn, the more my belief is reinforced.

[kiwi_tea]

But then, do you believe in evolution? What's the difference between this belief in irreducible complexity in nature, and the belief that the human eye is irreducibly complex - irreducible complexity in biology?

I'm not clear on what you mean by 'luck of the draw'.

[Drakesecaravdis]

suicidia, on that one thread you said that you don't believe in God given talent. now I understand why you would not believe in the God given part obviously but you really don't believe there is such a thing as talent?
so basically you think that we suck at everything until we work for it? is that what you're saying? have you forgotten about this little thing called DNA? so you think I just worked at being creative? I wasn't born that way? bogus bogus bogus if you ask me.
there is skill yes but there is also talent. working at being better doesn't discount that talent would exist. this would be perfecting your talent.

you also said in another post that hate can be a good thing. no you're utterly confused. hate is never good. it can be understandable in certain circumstances but I see no benefit. in general hatred is ugly and eats away at your very being. no one said you have to love a person you've never met but that doesn't mean you should hate a person you've never met either.
you can be cautious. you can even dislike someone especially someone as vile as you described in your example but you don't have to hate.
see if I were in your scenario I still wouldn't hate. I don't think it's even possible to hate someone you've never met. it's like being in love with someone you never met..just can't happen but I would probly have a funny feeling about them yes and I definitely wouldn't want to be around them.
I don't see how you can think being cautious requires such a strong emotion to work.


(I left this board for a while so this is why I'm posting about old things and this seems such a black and white way of thinking that I couldn't leave it alone. I probly could have PMed this but I felt it best to post it here.)

also this is kinda random but pretty on topic: I always wondered why Sims don't have a religion. not that I care because I'm not religious myself but just something I thought about.

[Oaktree]

Speaking of supposedly-benevolent-God, I was having a discussion with a Christian friend a few months ago and she told me that, to God, it doesn't matter so much whether you do good things as it does that you believe in him. She used this as a comparison to a parental figure, saying that parents are forgiving, but that you have to be willing to accept their forgiveness and help. This struck me as rather odd, as, to follow the metaphor to it's logical conclusion, parents should kick out their children if the child shows any hint of disobedience. In reality, parents are usually more forgiving, being willing to forgive disobedience even more than moral error.

I very briefly considered the other day whether quantum mechanics would require there to be a god, but this was before I got to the part in the book I was reading that cleared up my momentary philosophical dilemma. It has been said that observation inherently affects the outcome of an experiment. Microscopic particles, such as electrons, exist as probability waves, as demonstrated by the double slit experiment. When the electrons are directly observed, the probability wave collapses to a (relative) certainty of position (though it still has uncertainty of velocity). I considered that if this held true to the macroscopic world as well, then every sequence in the flow of time could exist as a probability wave. Only some of those possibilities could lead to the conditions that would develop life, so what was there to collapse the probability wave and create a universe with a certain timeline of events? While this train of thought does not provide evidence for a god, a god could be the answer.

This was before I came to the part that explained that only particles of or below a certain length can exist as probability waves. The noise only exists on small scales, similar to the way the texture of a painting disappears at a distance. It also explained that the observation affected the results because we can only observe through interaction. We need to shoot electrons or photons at something and use devices that read the deflected particles in order to observe things and shooting particles at other particles is a good way to alter the trajectory of the particles in question.

So I briefly had something that may have been a consideration for the idea of a god, but it turned out to be based in my own flawed understanding of quantum mechanics. :D

[grumpy_otter]

Speaking of supposedly-benevolent-God, I was having a discussion with a Christian friend a few months ago and she told me that, to God, it doesn't matter so much whether you do good things as it does that you believe in him.


This is one of the things I really hate about many Christian doctrines--that you can be "saved" if you believe, no matter how ROTTEN a person you might be.

This makes it pretty crystal clear to me that the whole idea was invented by humans--it's easy to sell an idea that has such an easy escape clause. God forbid you should preach that people must be good people to be saved.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

suicidia, on that one thread you said that you don't believe in God given talent. now I understand why you would not believe in the God given part obviously but you really don't believe there is such a thing as talent?

ahhhh nostalgiagoggles, how i have missed thee.

i believe there are inclinations TOWARD specific SKILLS in life, but none that you are automatically "the shit" at right away. nobody is ever a master on the first try, as the word "talent" implies; "talent" implies that you dont need to raise a finger to do what you do best, no matter what youve been through or how youve worked at it.
its just salt in the wound when someone not only removes that credit but punts it off to a celestial not-even-sure-it-exists type... being.


so basically you think that we suck at everything until we work for it? is that what you're saying? have you forgotten about this little thing called DNA? so you think I just worked at being creative? I wasn't born that way? bogus bogus bogus if you ask me.

name one person who was a master at whatever they did, the first time they did it.

even not needing to work as much as everyone else requires you to DO something in the right direction for you to get anywhere. DNA means jack squat if you dont hone that inclination in the slightest.

think think think harder.
you were not simply born creative.
nurture is decisively key in such things. you can be born a natural artist but in a family of farmers with no creative outlets or input about, youre about as useful/talented/"gifted" as a spoon in an air raid.
i dont recall asking you, either. but you obviously posted with the intent of garnering a response, so yes. here you go.

again.
the very notion of having a "talent" is that you dont need to lift a finger to be good at something, you just magically happen to be. which is bullshit, either way.


there is skill yes but there is also talent. working at being better doesn't discount that talent would exist. this would be perfecting your talent.

you also said in another post that hate can be a good thing. no you're utterly confused.

it can. im not. and i'll thank you not to presume you know the first thing about me granted you dont even know my first name.


hate is never good. it can be understandable in certain circumstances but I see no benefit. in general hatred is ugly and eats away at your very being. no one said you have to love a person you've never met but that doesn't mean you should hate a person you've never met either.

ahhh, spoken like a true lemming.
hate is a driving force in many situations for progress. oh i know you dont want to hear it, but the fact is, hate is a motivating passion, and while destructive by nature, can yield good results with the right user.
example: you know somebody who is a complete and total asshole. and by asshole, you know this person has screwed everybody theyve ever known, over, in the worst ways possible.

now say for instance you know this hypothetical person ( whom you hate for all the screwings-over ), is going to attempt to screw over your best friend/beloved family member/someone you know is too innocent to see what they really are.
...id say hate is a good tool for exposing that person.
if you dont hate them, youre not likely to care enough about what they do, and/or not try as hard as you would if you hated that person, to remove the other person from harms way.

people you hate are also much less likely to get the jump on you. people tend to undermine their feelings; chances are you hate who you hate for a reason, even if it hasnt presented itself yet.
intuition, i suppose thats called. anyway.

though, do tell me where ive pointed out that hating someone you dont actually know, is a good idea? i dont believe thats what my message concluded, though i have the memory of a tit mouse and could use a good refreshing should it fail me.


you can be cautious. you can even dislike someone especially someone as vile as you described in your example but you don't have to hate.
see if I were in your scenario I still wouldn't hate. I don't think it's even possible to hate someone you've never met. it's like being in love with someone you never met..just can't happen but I would probly have a funny feeling about them yes and I definitely wouldn't want to be around them.
I don't see how you can think being cautious requires such a strong emotion to work.

technically, i can be anything.
though i do think its ridiculous that you think you can moderate how people think and act.
nobody has to do anything, either. ever. choices are infinite, even by not making a choice you ARE making a choice ( a choice not to choose; wrap your head around that one, ha HA ).
unfavorable choices also still count as being choices, in the interest of not being heavily biased.

oh, i believe its possible to hate someone youve never met.
i do. there are plenty of people i hate without needing to lay eyes on them.
i can list a few right now:
*anyone who has discriminated violently against anyone of differentiating race, age ( disregarding where it is seriously appropriate ), gender, sexuality ( again, disregarding where it is necessary/a danger to others ), religion or financial situation. ( and before you try to tell me i am discriminating against religious folk, id like to point out that i do not discriminate religious people; just their religion, which i want nowhere near me, thanks very much. )
*anyone who has abused an animal out of malice, sadism, or sheer stupidity.

i know thats only two generalizations, but theyre surprisingly common among our species. disgusting, really, and i have full right to hate whoever i want for whatever reason i see fit. the glory of free will.

emotion and logic arent always synonymous, i might add. emotions are not governed by the same rules as logic, and only sometimes fall in line with it. thats why they are emotions, and logic is logic, and the two are not the same thing.


(I left this board for a while so this is why I'm posting about old things and this seems such a black and white way of thinking that I couldn't leave it alone. I probly could have PMed this but I felt it best to post it here.)

also this is kinda random but pretty on topic: I always wondered why Sims don't have a religion. not that I care because I'm not religious myself but just something I thought about.

mmm, then i feel sorry for you.
not...out of any misguided sense of superiority, dont get me wrong. but i think its a fools crusade to seek to govern something as immaterial and impossible to regulate as thought and thought processes.
we may not see eye to eye on this, but its likely due to different experiences in life. after all, you cant put different people in the same situation and expect them all to draw the same conclusions.

but, since i did all the answering and none of the asking, i leave you with this:

if we didnt know strong emotions like hate, how do you suppose we'd even know what love is?
if you never saw it, how would you know black from white? BOTH ends of the spectrum are necessary for a preference to be obtained.
i understand an ideal as focusing on the positive in life, but its...not realistic. to say the least.

[Drakesecaravdis]

ahhhh nostalgiagoggles, how i have missed thee.

i believe there are inclinations TOWARD specific SKILLS in life, but none that you are automatically "the shit" at right away. nobody is ever a master on the first try, as the word "talent" implies; "talent" implies that you dont need to raise a finger to do what you do best, no matter what youve been through or how youve worked at it.
its just salt in the wound when someone not only removes that credit but punts it off to a celestial not-even-sure-it-exists type... being.




name one person who was a master at whatever they did, the first time they did it.

even not needing to work as much as everyone else requires you to DO something in the right direction for you to get anywhere. DNA means jack squat if you dont hone that inclination in the slightest.

think think think harder.
you were not simply born creative.
nurture is decisively key in such things. you can be born a natural artist but in a family of farmers with no creative outlets or input about, youre about as useful/talented/"gifted" as a spoon in an air raid.


again.
the very notion of having a "talent" is that you dont need to lift a finger to be good at something, you just magically happen to be. which is bullshit, either way.



you're clearly not comprehending what I said. you are talking about skill and I said that does exist. and I never said that you were a master at anything the first time. that's where skill comes in but you sometimes need talent for it to work. working at it is perfecting your talent. you know how some things you can try a million times and you can never be good at. it's because you don't possess the talent. for example I can't get the hang of drawing no matter how hard I try. sometimes I don't draw that bad but I never draw well. it's because I don't have the talent unlike my mom.
I've been creative since as long as I can remember. I never had to work at being creative. it just came to me. it's one of my innate traits. it's part of who I am.









ahhh, spoken like a true lemming.
hate is a driving force in many situations for progress. oh i know you dont want to hear it, but the fact is, hate is a motivating passion, and while destructive by nature, can yield good results with the right user.
example: you know somebody who is a complete and total asshole. and by asshole, you know this person has screwed everybody theyve ever known, over, in the worst ways possible.

people you hate are also much less likely to get the jump on you. people tend to undermine their feelings; chances are you hate who you hate for a reason, even if it hasnt presented itself yet.
intuition, i suppose thats called. anyway.

though, do tell me where ive pointed out that hating someone you dont actually know, is a good idea? i dont believe thats what my message concluded, though i have the memory of a tit mouse and could use a good refreshing should it fail me.

I do know an asshole. he's the sperm donor and I hate his guts. people say how can you hate your father but no they don't understand so yes I do hate him
this is why I said in general. in general it's not a good idea but if this person that you are hating is like my father I completely understand. someone who has actually done something to you is fine to hate.
in general does not mean never. please read every word next time.

you said that you hated this guy and you hadn't even met him. I understand why you would have ill feelings but I'm just pointing this out.






oh, i believe its possible to hate someone youve never met.
i do. there are plenty of people i hate without needing to lay eyes on them.
i can list a few right now:
*anyone who has discriminated violently against anyone of differentiating race, age ( disregarding where it is seriously appropriate ), gender, sexuality ( again, disregarding where it is necessary/a danger to others ), religion or financial situation. ( and before you try to tell me i am discriminating against religious folk, id like to point out that i do not discriminate religious people; just their religion, which i want nowhere near me, thanks very much. )
*anyone who has abused an animal out of malice, sadism, or sheer stupidity.

I can understand why you'd have ill feelings towards people like that. I'm not discounting how wrong it is to act that way but you see people like that I do not hate them. if someone had an attitude that I didn't like I would hate their actions not them (unless they did something to me or possibly someone I personally knew). there is a difference.
I guess if you want to say that you hate them that's fine but I won't ever want to say I hate somebody if I have never met them and if I do say that, I correct myself immediately. I remember one time I was at CVS and I saw all this Twilight stuff and I said out of word vomit "I hate Robert Pattinson" I got so angry with myself. I cursed myself out and kept yelling at myself no I do not hate him. I don't even know him. never met him in my life.
I just don't see how it's possible to hate even those people you listed in those examples. they haven't done anything to you personally. it's possible to dislike them but hate?

we may not see eye to eye on this, but its likely due to different experiences in life.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. do you mean different as in I haven't had it difficult or as difficult as you? or just simply different?


let me ask you do you believe you can be in love with someone you've never met?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. do you mean different as in I haven't had it difficult or as difficult as you? or just simply different?


let me ask you do you believe you can be in love with someone you've never met?

pretty much everything before this came down to " because i dont understand i dont condone, but if i do understand go on and hate "--not an argument, so i wont respond.

difference means difference. if i meant difficult i wouldve said 'difficult' or something along those lines. unlike some, i dont attempt to invalidate others for not...being me. or having my views, or reaping my knowledge from my scenarios.

in fact, thats one of the main points that ( western ) religion ENCOURAGES, from my experience. religion ENCOURAGES others to discredit those who do not draw the same conclusions from specific scenarios. its close mindedness. its a lack of understanding and a contentment with lacking understanding, and it teaches not needing to/wanting to understand others and where theyre coming from.

and no. is the answer to your last question.

[Vanito]

also this is kinda random but pretty on topic: I always wondered why Sims don't have a religion. not that I care because I'm not religious myself but just something I thought about.
religion is a touchy and often not very positive topic. Also, the sims is meant to be distributed worldwide, not just in the USA. Imagine religion would be there... which type of religion would they pick? Christians would be offended if the religion was muslim like or polytheistic, the muslims would be offended if it was christian like or Buddhist, lots of ppl in asia dont have religions and would consider it insane, and ppl like Richard Dawkins would buy the game just to drown and burn religious sims. I would demand COOL reigions like jediism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Religion is not a very positive topic. Sims is about fun, so religion is best left out. (and chances are the creators are not religious like most geeks)

You do can hate someone you dont know personally for what they do. Like hating the pope for helping HIV spread in Afrika. You can also hate someone's TV imagine, seeing lady Gaga or the Jonas brothers for the millionth time, without hating them personally.

And religion is a lot about hate, so lets not forget all those that hate others in the name of a religion. They talk like hate, they act like hate, so its safe to assume they do hate. Even though they CLAIM " they just hate the sin" or "its for a peacefull jihad". Actions count more than words.

[Drakesecaravdis]

unlike some, i dont attempt to invalidate others for not...being me. or having my views, or reaping my knowledge from my scenarios.
is this supposed to be a stab at me?
because if it is I don't get it. invalidate...?
I read the definition too. it told me no more than I already know. I failed to tell you that I have two sides to me. there's the dumb blonde side and there's the "smartical" side so the dumb blonde side has kicked in when you used this complicated word at me.
the sad part: according to my ahole father I use too many big words.
and like I said you can say you hate people like that if you want. I wouldn't think bad of you with that as those kind of people are demonstrating themselves not to be very good people. I just don't see it as possible and I wouldn't do it.
I guess I'm mainly saying this because I can't stand it when people say they hate a celebrity. sometimes it just doesn't sit well with me at all especially since often times when they say that they demonstrate how ill they feel about them too.

in fact, thats one of the main points that ( western ) religion ENCOURAGES, from my experience. religion ENCOURAGES others to discredit those who do not draw the same conclusions from specific scenarios. its close mindedness. its a lack of understanding and a contentment with lacking understanding, and it teaches not needing to/wanting to understand others and where theyre coming from.
I can't disagree with this. like I said I'm not religious myself so I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

and no. is the answer to your last question.
if you can't be in love with someone you've never met then you cannot hate someone you've never met. they're on the same level of opposite ends of the spectrum.


religion is a touchy and often not very positive topic. Also, the sims is meant to be distributed worldwide, not just in the USA. Imagine religion would be there... which type of religion would they pick? Christians would be offended if the religion was muslim like or polytheistic, the muslims would be offended if it was christian like or Buddhist, lots of ppl in asia dont have religions and would consider it insane, and ppl like Richard Dawkins would buy the game just to drown and burn religious sims. I would demand COOL reigions like jediism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Religion is not a very positive topic. Sims is about fun, so religion is best left out. (and chances are the creators are not religious like most geeks)
ah I see.

You do can hate someone you dont know personally for what they do. Like hating the pope for helping HIV spread in Afrika. You can also hate someone's TV imagine, seeing lady Gaga or the Jonas brothers for the millionth time, without hating them personally.
isn't that what I said? I said you can hate someone's actions did I not?
image is a thing so exactly you hate something about them and not them. see I would never say I hate Taylor Swift because I do not know her. I hate her public attitude/persona but not her.
a strong word like that can not go near another human being as if it were nothing. it's like how I said I loved my ex bf when I didn't. if I had meant love in another way then that's fine but no...I didn't
and idk why you mentioned the Jonas Brothers when no one really talks about them anymore but whatever.

And religion is a lot about hate, so lets not forget all those that hate others in the name of a religion. They talk like hate, they act like hate, so its safe to assume they do hate. Even though they CLAIM " they just hate the sin" or "its for a peacefull jihad". Actions count more than words.
well..that's a good example of people that think they know how to feel when they don't.
you know the ones who act like they hate homosexuals for example. they don't. they just don't understand them.
see I used to be a homophobe (not for religious reasons obviously. I've never been religious even when I was a Christian) I would think that gay people are creepy but I was not around them enough to understand. I think religious people are the same way.

[grumpy_otter]

r

Religion is not a very positive topic. Sims is about fun, so religion is best left out.

Well, they do kind of a Wicca thing, so that's fun. What's really funny to me is that when I first started playing Sims, I was disappointed that there wasn't a church to get married in. AND I'M ATHEIST!!! What does that say about America's cultural brainwashing of girls? lol.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Well, they do kind of a Wicca thing, so that's fun. What's really funny to me is that when I first started playing Sims, I was disappointed that there wasn't a church to get married in. AND I'M ATHEIST!!! What does that say about America's cultural brainwashing of girls? lol.

they do? you mean on Sims 2 right?

I don't think that's all that's weird. it's because that takes away the tradition of marriage. it doesn't matter if you're atheist. how is it much of a wedding without a church?

[grumpy_otter]

Yes, Sims 2--do they have a church on Sims 3?

Yeah--it's just a cultural thing--where i grew up, every girl dreamed of "a big church wedding." lol

I go all out when I marry my sims--dance floor, decorated chairs, candles, flowers. I'm a sap.

[Purity4]

they do? you mean on Sims 2 right?

I don't think that's all that's weird. it's because that takes away the tradition of marriage. it doesn't matter if you're atheist. how is it much of a wedding without a church?

I've been married ... twice.... both time, not in a church. Both marriages, not by a priest or religious figure. The first one was state appointed, the second time we were married by my mother-in-law, legal in this state for a common person to officiate a marriage.

If by 'not much of a wedding', you mean, we didn't pay much, you're right!

[kiwi_tea]

Agree. I was married in an office, then had a big unofficial wedding with my friends and family. No-one needs a church for a wedding, just their loved ones.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Yes, Sims 2--do they have a church on Sims 3?

no I don't think they do have one in Sims 3. I just started playing it not too long ago though so I could be wrong.


I've been married ... twice.... both time, not in a church. Both marriages, not by a priest or religious figure. The first one was state appointed, the second time we were married by my mother-in-law, legal in this state for a common person to officiate a marriage.

hmm that's really different being married by your mom-in-law. didn't know you could do that anywhere.
yeah some people do state appointed and get married at City Hall but to my knowledge more people get married in a church. what do I know though? I haven't seen many weddings..going by hearsay and tv (a lot of tv shows have people getting married in the church. actually I haven't seen one that shows them getting married anywhere else)

[Oaktree]

Yes, Sims 2--do they have a church on Sims 3?

They don't. I've seen some people try to make one, but I don't think there are any crosses or anything like that either, so it would require custom content.

[lovetadraw]

I've changed a lot since last I posted on this subject.

I stand between agnosticism and deism. I do think that there is something beyond the physical, there is a spiritual force in the universe. (> means comes from) Only because, Big Bang>Primordial Atom>Membranes>? .....??? I feel that there is no way something can just be. But what about a god? ...??? Where did s/he....???? DAHHHH!!!!!! Either way it hurts my brain!

I think that if there is a god, he ain't listening. Also, I hate religion in general. JEWS! MUSLIMS! STOP TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER OFF!!!! CHRISTIANS!!!! SHUT UP!!

Also, I think most homosexuals are born that way. Maybe there is some nature-nurture, but still. Worst of all, why? Why do Christians hate Transsexuals? What? Are people not allowed to fix it when god fracks up?

I don't need a religion to be a "good" person. I don't have sex because I'm not going to risk it (NOT THAT THAT MAKES ME A BETTER PERSON! miss misquoters will be dealt with harshly), I think stealing is wrong because work=time -time is precious, killing (unless in (self) defense) is wrong, and so on.

Also let me say this, lack of pity is different from hate. I think babies deserve to keep there faces, if you don't... Okay... But if you miscarry, It's hard to feel compassion when you think it's "just a bundle of cells". Having sex more than I ever will? Go for it, I suggest protection, but even then, PLEASE! U took THE RISK! If you get aids and die from a cold or something... It's sad that you're dead, but you can really only blame yourself. Hey, I cut my wrist too deep and bleed to death? You don't hafta pity me.

Why are we here? Who gives a frack? Everyday could be our last, have fun, make history, and love. Who knows what's at the end, maybe the end is another beginning? Maybe there will be pearly gates and a bearded man named Jesus? Maybe I'll be eaten alive by snakes in a fiery place filled with accordions for all eternity?

My POV, your POV, his POV, her POV. We're all different, we will never all agree. But that's because we are pea brained imbeciles trying to find our way, wondering "what is greater than ourselves, greater than what we can see?"

PS
Many churches don't wanna marry "outsiders", so I'll probly get married somewhere else :| .

[Drakesecaravdis]

Also, I think most homosexuals are born that way. Maybe there is some nature-nurture, but still. Worst of all, why? Why do Christians hate Transsexuals? What? Are people not allowed to fix it when god fracks up?

I think many of them are too but there could very well be some that are homosexuals due to environmental factors. I wouldn't say that normally but I read this article during one of my college courses and it makes me think a little.
either way I don't see how people can say it's a choice. that doesn't make sense at all.

do they say they hate transsexuals? or do they just act like transsexuals are creepy?
I'm not saying I doubt that they would hate transsexuals...just wondering.

[Vanito]

I do not think in asia most people marry in churches. Or in Turkey.

You may assume hormonal or brain changes later on in life can make someone homosexual too. There has been a case of a guy on medicines for epilepsy who went gay during the period, and gambled all his money away. Somehow the medicines affected his sexual preference.

[ivan17]

Atheism and abandonment of God is modern thing. If you want to be modern, become atheist. If you believe in God, you will have many disagree under your post. Before our Christian God, there was many gods and godesses. Religion was culture and indentity of every nation. Today, people don't have time for religion. The reason is work, money or they just can't accept that God/god/godess will judge their lives. No wonder, there will be Apocalypse soon and I can't feel any regret.

[DarkCougar555]

A lot of you guys believe that God/Goddesses or religions would ruin/destroy people's lives. It look like you forget the faith do have benefits for various reasons..... I respectfully disagree cos it don't ruin my life, and I don't think my friends', my family's, some people's (I personally know who) lives are ruined by Him/Gods/Goddesses. Faith just did save my life and it changed my life a lot, much better. I turned out okay. Without the faith, this will not where I am now....... So this does apply to people I know.

There is no way I can reject my religion since it does help me a lot........................ Sorry, I feel I have to step in here to make some point............ I'm sorry if my POV offend anyone cos my life is just different than yours, it's not really my intention......... I can't understand why a lot of you guys believe in religions destroy a lot of people's lives and completely ignore all of helpful & useful benefits from any faith that would affect another people's lives positively. How do you know the religion will destroy each person's life? *confused looks* It is hard for me to believe in "OMG. Why do you believe in Gods/Goddesses/Him? It is so absurd. Religions will ruin your life! It is BAD. I suggest you to abandon your faith. It will save you and it'll bring a lot of happiness to you." stuff. =(

[jooxis]

Having sex more than I ever will? Go for it, I suggest protection, but even then, PLEASE! U took THE RISK! If you get aids and die from a cold or something... It's sad that you're dead, but you can really only blame yourself. Hey, I cut my wrist too deep and bleed to death? You don't hafta pity me.


Not trying be too judgemental, but it would benefit you to change your views on sex.
We all take risks every day, and we use certain measures of precaution each time. Maybe sometimes you forget to take these measures and sometimes when you do - they can fail. It happens and we are not always to blame.
Flying on an airplane is a risk we willingly take. I assume you do feel sympathy for someone who dies in a plane crash yet not for an AIDS victim, which wouldn't make sense. By the logic you imply we are ALL to be blame for any disease we catch (unless it's genetic) because it's usually something we DID that made us ill.
I also find it somewhat strange that you admit to self-harm (which can be very dangerous) yet don't engage in sex because of fear of STDs... it just doesn't make sense to me. How I see it, either you care about your body or you don't. I'm not trying to encourage you to have sex or anything, I'm just saying I personally find the particular attitude strange.

[el_flel]

No-one needs a church for a wedding, just their loved ones.^ This. Out of all the people I know who had a church wedding, the majority aren't even religious, let alone actually attend church. To me that makes no sense. A church isn't mandatory or even necessary. It only has a place in your wedding if it also has a place in your everyday life.

Why do Christians hate Transsexuals? What? Are people not allowed to fix it when god fracks up? Isnt the bolded part the point though? That changing sex is saying that God was wrong, and saying that God was wrong is bad.

[grumpy_otter]

I just wanted to hop in and say I never meant to imply that a church was necessary for anyone to have a beautiful and meaningful wedding. I was just amused by the contradiction in myself--that I am not Christian nor religious, and yet wedding still means "walk down the church aisle" because of where I was raised and my culture.

[jooxis]

Yeah, I also associate churches with weddings. I somehow expect a wedding to have the sounds of church bells when I imagine it. Same with funerals... I'm really used to funerals being portrayed at churches - the whole Christian ceremony and the "ashes to ashes..." everything.

[ivan17]

Religion has socalled law side. Religion says that it is bad to kill, hate, steal. And when I say: STOP! to religion, I can kill, steal, hate, one year be male, one year female lol, and this is bad, and I will have no conscience.

[jooxis]

Religion has socalled law side. Religion says that it is bad to kill, hate, steal. And when I say: STOP! to religion, I can kill, steal, hate, one year be male, one year female lol, and this is bad, and I will have no conscience.

Okay... someone else will have to do it for me. I'm too overwhelmed to reply here.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Morality can be dictated by religion, but morality is not religion. I am not Christian and I do not subscribe to any recognized faith. Yet I do not kill or steal, and I have very little hatred (only for some seriously fucked up individuals who really deserve it). Lack of religion (or lack of christianity) has nothing to do with individual morality. Your moral compass is part of yourself - not your religion. There are a lot of Christians who do some pretty horrible stuff - including killing, stealing, and hating.

[el_flel]

grumpy_otter - To clarify: my response wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the poster who said a wedding isn't the same without a church. I totally get what you mean; churches are associated with weddings because it's tradition.

ivan17 - people don't need religion to tell them that murder and theft are bad. Notice how Christianity tells us that adultery is a sin, yet there aren't laws against that. That's because laws and morality aren't made on the basis of religion. Atheists aren't devoid of a conscious and it's insulting to say that they are. Religion has led people to do some really abhorrent things: terrorist bombings, honour killings. Ever heard of the Yorkshire Ripper? Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 women because he believed he was doing God's work to rid the world of prostitutes. Don't act like you need religion to have a conscious because that's a load of rubbish.

[simbalena]

Religion has socalled law side. Religion says that it is bad to kill, hate, steal. And when I say: STOP! to religion, I can kill, steal, hate, one year be male, one year female lol, and this is bad, and I will have no conscience.

Some people who are religious also do all those things, and some people who aren't religious don't do any of those things. There is no proof that an individual's level of religiousness has any correlation to their level of morality or "conscience".

[lovetadraw]

Oh, FYI I had to hurry and finish that last post so let me finish here.

It's not that I won't pity, it's sad when something bad happens to someone. All I'm saying is, it could have been avoided. On the other hand, if someone gets shot on there front stoop, I'm not going to say I don't pity them because they went outside. But like, you're drinking and drugging while pregnant and you have a baby with issues it's kinda hard to pity you. Not that I won't.

Whatever, hate me if you want. If I make no sense, forgive me.

Oh and not to get off topic, but about homosexuality, probably way too much estrogen at anytime of a person's life my affect the brain. I'm not fetal doctor, but since baby get's what mommy gets, it makes sense to me that if when a fetus is just turning into a boy, too much estrogen could screw it up.

Transsexuals are just so... made to feel freakish. It's not fair. If there is a god, why would he purposly do that? I know that someone will say "god does cause bad things to happen, he lets things happen sometimes". One of the things transsexuals face is "be gay to my self, be gay" . I personally think it's wonderful that people found ways to fix it surgically. And hey, with all the cloning they are working on for replacing limbs, maybe they'll be able to clone the uterus, ovaries, or testes and all so they can have there own kids and all.

@ jooxis-
I know, I've broken my habit/addiction thankfully. 2 months now. As for sex, I'll admit I've never needed any self control because my parents try to be right on top of me ALL THE TIME. Like I've said, I might just do it because I can, not because I want to. If I'd ever get the chance.

@HP -
Sadly Christians are kind of told that you are to hate gays. Given that's more like the churches being @$$ holes. Christian 101, god hates the sin, and is made unhappy when people abuse things s/he gave them. But doesn't hate the sinner because he made and loves everyone. 10 years of church... ten years I can't have back. :lol:

[jooxis]

Oh, FYI I had to hurry and finish that last post so let me finish here.

It's not that I won't pity, it's sad when something bad happens to someone. All I'm saying is, it could have been avoided. On the other hand, if someone gets shot on there front stoop, I'm not going to say I don't pity them because they went outside. But like, you're drinking and drugging while pregnant and you have a baby with issues it's kinda hard to pity you.

Whatever, hate me if you want. If I make no sense, forgive me.


I understand that it could have been avoided - I'm just saying pretty much anything bad that happens to us could be avoided. We have to take risks all the time.
Everybody who ever died in a plane crash "could have avoided" their death had they just decided not to go on vacation or on their business trip or whatever. But it doesn't mean we don't sympathize with them and it doesn't mean we should blame them.
I didn't say I hate you, I'm just pointing out that sex is just one of the many, many "risky" things we engage in, so it's kind of weird to single out people with STDs as the only ones you don't sympathize with.
If someone is well aware of STDs and sleeps around with hundreds of people unprotected and just "doesn't care" then yes - that would be irresponsible behaviour and I would sympathize more with the victims of this person's behaviour. But most people aren't like that.

[lovetadraw]

"I understand that it could have been avoided - I'm just saying pretty much anything bad that happens to us could be avoided. We have to take risks all the time. "
^"on the other hand, if someone gets shot on there front stoop, I'm not going to say I don't pity them because they went outside."


"If someone is well aware of STDs and sleeps around with hundreds of people unprotected and just "doesn't care" then yes - that would be irresponsible behavior and I would sympathize more with the victims of this person's behavior. But most people aren't like that."

I agree.

[Neerie]

A lot of you guys believe that God/Goddesses or religions would ruin/destroy people's lives. It look like you forget the faith do have benefits for various reasons..... I respectfully disagree cos it don't ruin my life, and I don't think my friends', my family's, some people's (I personally know who) lives are ruined by Him/Gods/Goddesses. Faith just did save my life and it changed my life a lot, much better. I turned out okay. Without the faith, this will not where I am now....... So this does apply to people I know.

There is no way I can reject my religion since it does help me a lot........................ Sorry, I feel I have to step in here to make some point............ I'm sorry if my POV offend anyone cos my life is just different than yours, it's not really my intention......... I can't understand why a lot of you guys believe in religions destroy a lot of people's lives and completely ignore all of helpful & useful benefits from any faith that would affect another people's lives positively. How do you know the religion will destroy each person's life? *confused looks* It is hard for me to believe in "OMG. Why do you believe in Gods/Goddesses/Him? It is so absurd. Religions will ruin your life! It is BAD. I suggest you to abandon your faith. It will save you and it'll bring a lot of happiness to you." stuff. =(

I think that when people say that religion is bad for people, they don't necessarily reject the fact that some people find comfort in religion, but more pointing to the fact that this comfort is artificial, like a band-aid to hide a badly infected wound, out of sight and out of mind.

Also, religion DOES bring bad things for people in general. Religions teaches that we should feel ashamed for certain, totally human, behaviors, they teach that "God did it" and that scientists are conspirationnists, they teach that being gay is wrong, a sin, an abomination, etc. Some religions even teach that it is better to die than to recieve certain medical interventions that could save one's life, other religions teach that some body mutilations, often on babies, infants, or young kids, are necessary in order to be loved by whatever god it is they worship.

Of course not every religions are equal, and not every religious person within one single religion is equal, but as a whole, religions are all about faith, which means that the church leaders expect their members to blindly follow and eat their words, and most importantly, to never question them (including on scientific facts), else they face punishment, excommunication or death (depending on where you live on this big ball called Earth).

And THAT is what is bad about religion; the sheep mentality, the repression of critical thinking and of individuality.

[Vanito]

Religion has socalled law side. Religion says that it is bad to kill, hate, steal. And when I say: STOP! to religion, I can kill, steal, hate, one year be male, one year female lol, and this is bad, and I will have no conscience.
So.. you are saying that religion is the ONLY thing that keeps you from murdering, stealing and going transgender? :blink:

[pandemonium]

So, I just read the last page of this debate. Frankly, my intuition is telling me that the people arguing for Christianity here truly know little of it and that's a bit sad. I'm not claiming I know everything there is to everything. I simply believe in what I believe in. A person's opinion and faith is their own personal choice. Frankly, what my views on Christianity is, is that it's a relationship with God, trying to become closer to him not by anything you're trying to accomplish, but by responding to what he's already done. To think that any religion controls the borders of morality is not completely true. Some people use it as justification to murder, to steal, to do whatever sin that the general public knows to be wrong. It's called having a moral compass. BTK was caught from his own church, for goodness sakes. Morality is a normal thing for most decently functioning human beings, whether or not they're religious.

So I guess I'm not really arguing for Christianity, but rather for morality. Sorry for the rant. :P

[ivan17]

@jooxis, HystericalParoxysm, el_flel, simbalena, Vanito.

It is not important are you monotheist, politheist or Christian. If you are breaking your God/gods/goddess law, you are not member of your faith. You are just monotheist, politheist or Christian on paper.
Peter Sutcliffe, I think that he was/is crazy.

[Vanito]

@jooxis, HystericalParoxysm, el_flel, simbalena, Vanito.

It is not important are you monotheist, politheist or Christian. If you are breaking your God/gods/goddess law, you are not member of your faith. You are just monotheist, politheist or Christian on paper.
Peter Sutcliffe, I think that he was/is crazy.
If you dont wanna break the laws of your faith.. you should stone your wife at the wedding night if shes not a virgin, you should cut out your eye if you look at a woman lustfully, you should kill your children who curse at you, kill gay men, kill witches, kill unbelievers, kill people of other religions. Furthemore you should kill anyone that commits adultery and Jesus refers to remarriage as adultery too. And kill wallmart people that work on sunday.

So.. you are either a serial killer... or just a christian on paper.

[lovetadraw]

^ yup...

[jooxis]

@jooxis, HystericalParoxysm, el_flel, simbalena, Vanito.

It is not important are you monotheist, politheist or Christian. If you are breaking your God/gods/goddess law, you are not member of your faith. You are just monotheist, politheist or Christian on paper.
Peter Sutcliffe, I think that he was/is crazy.

Most "Christians" are not following all the Bible laws (in fact, doing some of the stuff the Bible tells you is okay could land you in jail in today's world, hah). People choose to follow which laws suit them and completely disregard those that don't. How many self-identified Christians are saving themselves for marriage? Very few, I'm sure. That's because saving yourself for marriage represents quite a challenge for most people so they try to justify sex before marriage as being okay according to the Bible (by interpreting it however they want). I'm also sure you have broken some of these laws as well.

Also, how can you claim that someone else is not a member of your faith? Anyone who identifies themselves as followers of a certain religion could be considered followers of that religion. You don't get a membership card or something that will accurately determine whether you're a follower of some religion.

[Nouk]

If you dont wanna break the laws of your faith.. you should stone your wife at the wedding night if shes not a virgin, you should cut out your eye if you look at a woman lustfully, you should kill your children who curse at you, kill gay men, kill witches, kill unbelievers, kill people of other religions. Furthemore you should kill anyone that commits adultery and Jesus refers to remarriage as adultery too. And kill wallmart people that work on sunday.

So.. you are either a serial killer... or just a christian on paper.

This is not christianity. In fact, Jesus made it very clear that every single human is guilty of disobeying God (wich is sin), and therefore we are all equal. If a person wants to go back to God, they need to accept Jesus as their way back to Him. It is 100% vulontary. This is a complete act of mercy, as mankind as we are now cannot do it on our own power, because of the standards God has (you cannot have one sin). A christian needs to become like Jesus. Jesus did not kill, did not lie, was not violent (except on the occasion of protecting the temple), did not force others to His beliefs. In fact all He did was tell the truth and if you didn't accept it, too bad. In christianity Jesus taught the christian to pray to God to forgive them of their sins, like they themselves forgive others. This is very heavy, because alot of people have a hard time forgiving, and are easy to pass judgement.

The tasks of the christian community (church) was 1. to spread the good news like Jesus commanded and the apostles did (and guess what, they didn't kill, plunder, rape, torture, burn, force in any way, or commit freaking genocide) 2. to keep their own community as free from sin as possible, without sinning themselves (no torture, burnings, murders, outright genocide, I mean... duh?) 3. to take care of eachother like they were family 4. to keep their knowledge of Gods word up to par and to keep out false teachers, so that they would only follow the truth. 5. leaders/teachers were servants: leaders would serve the people by teaching and helping them on their way, and were held by much greater standards, and the community was allowed to criticise them based on the writings. (instead of taking the position of a 'king' and have complete immunity, and having their words made law without scrutiny)

Instead, they eventually became a religious and political system with huge power, in a large part of history the people were actively kept from reading the bible (if they could read, and if they could read latin!) and thus kept from finding out that things were wrong, and were taught to swallow everything teachers and church higherups said for absolute truth asif it came from God. We all know the results and this is a large part of why people feel an aversion against christianity.

When you look upon the complete monstrosities that some of the churches have become and have committed, in christianity they would never represent God or Jesus. And it's still going on in many ways.

[HystericalParoxysm]

ivan17 - I'm not any kind of theist. I don't believe in one all-powerful creator (or multiple ones) - not the Christian god, not Zeus, not Buddah. There are no "laws" of my faith because I don't -have- a faith. I'm -not- an athiest - I believe in things, but there is no holy book, no priests, no temples for what I believe. Morality operates completely separately from religion. It can be dictated by it, but whether or not you actually obey it is an internal process and has nothing to do with what god you may or may not believe in. If all that keeps you from being an animal is your faith, I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground - your morality should be a core of your personality and a desire to be a good person and not fuck people over, not dictated by what someone else tells you you -should- do.

[Drakesecaravdis]

ivan17 - I'm not any kind of theist. I don't believe in one all-powerful creator (or multiple ones) - not the Christian god, not Zeus, not Buddah. There are no "laws" of my faith because I don't -have- a faith. I'm -not- an athiest - I believe in things, but there is no holy book, no priests, no temples for what I believe. Morality operates completely separately from religion. It can be dictated by it, but whether or not you actually obey it is an internal process and has nothing to do with what god you may or may not believe in. If all that keeps you from being an animal is your faith, I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground - your morality should be a core of your personality and a desire to be a good person and not fuck people over, not dictated by what someone else tells you you -should- do.

you're not a theist but you're not an atheist either. well gee that makes sense. :wtf:

[iCad]

I'm flying in to comment on something that Otter said. Again. I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you, Otter. I'm really not. It's just that you often say things that make me ponder (at length) and that give me yet more pause and concern about how Christians and Christianity generally tend to be perceived and what people seem to think that "Christianity" is about. I tend to like to try to explain things when that happens. So, Otter said:

This is one of the things I really hate about many Christian doctrines--that you can be "saved" if you believe, no matter how ROTTEN a person you might be.

This makes it pretty crystal clear to me that the whole idea was invented by humans--it's easy to sell an idea that has such an easy escape clause. God forbid you should preach that people must be good people to be saved.

The reason it isn't "preached" that one must be "good" to be saved is this: Christian thinking is that you don't have to be good to be saved, no, but also that salvation is just the very first step in one's life as a Christian. It's not the end of the road, not the ultimate goal. Salvation makes one a "new man," as Scripture says, wholly different than the one who existed prior to salvation. That "new man" then embarks on a new walk, a new life, which indeed lasts for the rest of one's life and involves the believer's salvation making the believer "better." (Because the belief is that no human being can be "good," at least not by God's standards, and in that sense we are all on equal footing because in God's eyes there is no sin greater than any other.) The overall idea of salvation is that one comes to Christ willingly, becomes saved, and THEN, after that, as the fruit of one's "new life," one goes forth to do the "good" that God gives one the strength to do.

So, what we think of as "goodness" isn't a requirement for salvation but, if one goes about things the right way, such "goodness" is the result of salvation. As an example, from my life: I am a past victim of rape, as I've said before if you've been reading in this and other threads. After I was saved, I eventually felt called to do prison ministry/counseling for, specifically, sex offenders, convicted rapists and child molesters, and I have done some "good" that way. My belief is that I A) Never would have chosen to do this, of my own accord and B) Would not have had the strength to do so, without God and without allowing Him to change my heart. (I once hated rapists and thought that child molesters deserved...horrible things.) But my heart has changed; I hate no one and believe that even the lowest can be saved...and I credit God for that change in attitude, not me. So now I do "good" toward these people that current society believes to be amongst the lowest of the low not to "earn salvation" (because I already have that) but rather to become the person that I am supposed to be. I do not say any of this to "blow my own horn" but merely to show how God changes lives AFTER one is saved, NOT before. (Which isn't to say that people can't do good without being saved. Of course they can and do, often! It's just that, for some of us, we find our life's work via God and not without Him and, for some of us, we can't let go of things that are better left behind without God's help.) God changed me, changed my cherished prejudices which I thought entirely justifiable because I had been hurt, and through me He has changed the lives of a few of these offenders. This is how God works, and I am honored and very humbled to be a part of it...but one must be willing to let Him do such work in oneself, to go where He leads rather than to do what one wants or what one thinks is best. Not every person, much less not every Christian, will allow that to happen. There is a song by a Christian singer/songwriter that I have always liked, that I play and sing often as part of my own personal prayer. The first verse goes like this:

Got a stack of books so I could learn how to live;
Many are left half-read, covered by the cobwebs on my shelf.
Got a list of laws growing longer everyday;
If I keep pluggin' away, maybe one day I'll perfect myself.
Oh, but all of my labor seems to be in vain;
And all of my laws just cause me more pain;
So I fall before you in all of my shame;
Ready and willing to be changed

THAT is the attitude that Christians are supposed to have: "Ready and willing to be changed." Not just "to change" but "to BE changed," and that "be" is scary because it means that the change is not always or entirely under one's own control. Now, there are many, MANY Christians out there who say they believe in Jesus as the Son of God and who are therefore are saved. There are, I feel, many who really don't believe in Jesus but who DO believe that they can fool God as easily as they can fool people. There are also those who say that they are saved and who may genuinely believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but who do not allow for change in their lives, who cling to their "previous" lives, and so...may or may not be saved; I honestly don't know and can't say because that's not my job, as a Christian.

But fortunately, regardless, there are indicators of whether or not someone who says they're saved is truly "letting God in," so to speak. Guess what those indicators are? Their "works," the things that they say and do. This is quite clearly spelled out throughout most of the New Testament but most obviously in Galatians 5:

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Now, according to Scripture, we all have a "sinful nature," even after being saved. It is simply who we are, or if you take Genesis literally, what we chose. The point of salvation, according to Christianity, is not that one suddenly becomes sinless and perfect because that doesn't and more importantly CAN'T happen. What does happen is that one receives help -- that being the indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- to overcome one's nature and to live as God wishes us to live, IF one is open to be changed. (Again, not just "to change" but "to BE changed.") The point is that those who are saved and who are allowing God to work in their lives will indeed show more and more of the "fruit of the Spirit" and less and less of their "sinful nature" as time goes on. It is nothing less than a guarantee. In general, the more "fruit" they have, the closer they are to God.

So, I advise all of you who complain about "Christians," no matter where they live, to look to this Scripture because it applies to every last Christian around the world. It is the measuring stick by which anyone, Christian or otherwise, can size up anyone calling themselves Christian. If a Christian shows more of the qualities of a sinful nature than they show of the qualities of a Spirit-filled life, then they are failing as a Christian, even if they are and remain saved.

So yes, you can be saved even if you are rotten...but if you are saved and do what you are supposed to do, you will generally not remain rotten. That's the thing. In fact, that's the entire point. In short, salvation is supposed to be rehabilitation, not an "easy out." Because if my own life is any indication, it's actually "easier" to not be saved because what happens afterward is often not "easy" at all.

[iambeastmode]

If you dont wanna break the laws of your faith.. you should stone your wife at the wedding night if shes not a virgin, you should cut out your eye if you look at a woman lustfully, you should kill your children who curse at you, kill gay men, kill witches, kill unbelievers, kill people of other religions. Furthemore you should kill anyone that commits adultery and Jesus refers to remarriage as adultery too. And kill wallmart people that work on sunday.

So.. you are either a serial killer... or just a christian on paper.

Remarriage is considered adultery in the Bible because people get divorced when marriage is supposed to be for life and then they get remarried and have sex with that person. I was kind of suprised when I read this, but it makes sense. When you marry someone you pledge yourself to them for life, including with your body. (I'm going to remain a virgin until i am married because I believe that sex is God's gift to married couples and because I want to give that ultimate gift to my husband.) Anyway, so divorcing them and doing someone else isn't exactly right. I believe that a justified divorce is when someone is abused in the marriage or cheated on repeatedly. Then I think that since their original spouse didn't respect them and obviously wasn't commited to the relationship that finding someone new that you could spend your life with is justified.
The Bible also talks about marriage. It says that if you aren't married, stay that way. But if you cannot resist temptation (sex) then get married. Makes sense to me, but I want to get married I'm not just interested in sex.
Alot of that murder stuff was found in the Old Testament I'm guessing? We're different people that those who were around before Christ so they had different rules. We don't abide by those but we learn from the stories in the OT. Except for the Jewish religion. They reject the NT claiming Jesus was a prophet and not the Messiah. I'm just stating what I know.

[Vanito]

There are many version of christianity. While some believe that 'believing' and worshipping god, and asking for forgiveness gets you in heaven, other versions think you must live a good live to go there.

Just like the debate of wether jesus is the son of god or is god himself, christianity varies from place to place in what it believes.

[iCad]

There are many version of christianity. While some believe that 'believing' and worshipping god, and asking for forgiveness gets you in heaven, other versions think you must live a good live to go there.

Just like the debate of wether jesus is the son of god or is god himself, christianity varies from place to place in what it believes.

You are indeed correct, Vanito, that there are many "versions" of Christianity. They're called "denominations." :) A Catholic has different beliefs than a Lutheran who has different beliefs than a Baptist who has different beliefs than a Mormon, etc. Beyond that, individuals even within the same denomination have different interpretations of different specific issues and different specific Scriptures. That's the result of people, you know, thinking. Of people NOT being sheep.

This is precisely why I bristle when you go off saying things like "USA Christians believe 'X'," as if we all believe the same things. Hardly! "USA Christians" have beliefs every bit as diverse as Christians in any other place in the world. It's just that our media and, apparently, the media in other countries like to focus on specific individuals who have "newsworthy" beliefs that get emotions flaring and ratings pouring in. Yippee.

For a Christian, I think the key to finding the truth is putting aside what you think is right or what you are told is correct and getting to know God for yourself. At least, that's what has worked for me.

[jooxis]

But if you cannot resist temptation (sex) then get married. Makes sense to me.

You see, this I find ludicrous. I've seen this opinion shared around the internet among Christians and I can't believe anyone can think it's a good idea to get married because they're too eager to move on to the "sex" part.
I've seen young teenagers complaining on Christian message boards that they are having a hard time with their relationship and feel very tempted to have sex - and people there are actually advising them to just get married as soon as possible and poof!- problem solved.
Getting married is supposed to be about having a future together, growing old and all that. When you're controlled by your hormones you're probably going to make a mistake if you marry the first person you're tempted to sleep with.

[grumpy_otter]

I'm flying in to comment on something that Otter said. Again. I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you, Otter. I'm really not. It's just that you often say things that make me ponder (at length) and that give me yet more pause and concern about how Christians and Christianity generally tend to be perceived and what people seem to think that "Christianity" is about. I tend to like to try to explain things when that happens.

I think we have established that we have a mutual respect and healthy discourse so Please! Feel free to pick on me anytime!

I appreciate what you said about being saved, and I understand about accepting Christ being the first step--and then you have to go on to try and live up to that ideal. It just seems like such a "get out of jail free card." Let's say you are awful awful person during your life--and on your deathbed you say "Jesus, come into my heart! I was wrong all along and I accept you!" or whatever it is. Scot free--into heaven.

But ME--who gave up god at age 29 after 12 years of struggle. Who gives to charity, who volunteers time, who never passes a flat tire on the interstate--who does her best to fill her students with the thirst for knowledge--who has never knowingly hurt another being in the last 37 years (because I am supremely regretful of the time I did) -- I have to go to hell because I don't accept the idea of a deity?

I have extreme respect for your life--you have been through things that are amazingly tough and you have come out of it not bitter, but with a zest for life--how wonderful! And if "God" helped you get there, then okay!

But I really struggle with the idea that I--a person who really tries to do good all day long-- would be consigned to eternal punishment because I don't believe in one thing.

Edit to Jooxis--apparently that's why Bella married Edward. He wouldn't boff her until they tied the knot.

[Nekowolf]

*sees Twilight reference*

NNNOOOOOOOOOOO!! *head asplodes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA) *

/:P Just had to!

[Vanito]

You are indeed correct, Vanito, that there are many "versions" of Christianity. They're called "denominations." :) A Catholic has different beliefs than a Lutheran who has different beliefs than a Baptist who has different beliefs than a Mormon, etc. Beyond that, individuals even within the same denomination have different interpretations of different specific issues and different specific Scriptures. That's the result of people, you know, thinking. Of people NOT being sheep.

This is precisely why I bristle when you go off saying things like "USA Christians believe 'X'," as if we all believe the same things. Hardly! "USA Christians" have beliefs every bit as diverse as Christians in any other place in the world. It's just that our media and, apparently, the media in other countries like to focus on specific individuals who have "newsworthy" beliefs that get emotions flaring and ratings pouring in. Yippee.

For a Christian, I think the key to finding the truth is putting aside what you think is right or what you are told is correct and getting to know God for yourself. At least, that's what has worked for me.
If everyone gets to know the same god - it does not seem logical they come to very different conclusions about what said god considers to be wrong or right, and what he considers to be "sin" or no "sin". The christian god seems to have some communication issues. It makes no sense for people or institutions to pray and get to know the same god, then to get a totally different answer on even simple questions like "who was jesus - god himself or his son?"

The dutch media does not focus much on USA christianity. Where dutch churches already do not get much attention, USA ones rarely reach the news. (Unlike dutch mosques where the supposedly all evil terrorist hide..). Which is why most dutch people have no idea USA christians are -on average- that extreme. Holland we already consider the Christian Union here to be very extreme.

[Nouk]

Christian Union extreme? Try SGP. XD

[iCad]

@ Otter: I'm glad you're taking my comments in the spirit in which they were thought up and offered! :)

See, I think Christians (and non-Christians, actually!) have gotten far too hung up on the reward/punishment thing. As in, "heaven is one's reward for believing and hell is the punishment for Evil Non-Believers." Bull! That concept is literally medieval, wrought by the medieval church as a means of increasing its membership and therefore increasing its temporal political and financial control. So the entire concept, the entire reward/punishment dichotomy, is a direct result of CORRUPTION. It is so blatantly obvious to me, both from what I've learned of God and what I have learned of history. But, unfortunately, it seems to have been passed down and has become part of the general cultural/religious mindset, I guess because it does sort of encourage socially-beneficial behavior. I see it as a lie, however "well-intentioned" it is, and quite frankly, it...Well, it doesn't offend me, but it does exasperate me. And, of course, the dichotomy is preached by Christians of the more "hellfire and brimstone" flavor. But that doesn't make them right.

Really, if one reads Scripture closely and in cultural/historical context and in literary context, one realizes that "heaven" is NOT a reward for "goodness" or even for belief. Nor is it a place. It is merely a state of being, and it is merely the consequence of choosing to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. The only thing that it "gets" you, the only thing that some might see as a "reward," is the removal of one's sinful nature so that one can have a face-to-face relationship with God. Such a relationship is different from the relationship that a believer has here on Earth because a sinful person can only be with God "at a distance," so to speak. So in my own case, I believe as I believe not because I think I'm going to be "rewarded" or because I'm seeking some elusive "comfort" because I'm afraid of death (something I neither fear nor anticipate), but only because I truly want to know the God whom I firmly believe exists, and I want face-to-face interaction with Him. And I've become convinced of the only path that exists to do so. That's all.

So, if your hypothetical horrible deathbed repenter thinks he's going to be rewarded with everything that he's always wanted or whatever it is that people think heaven is, then he is sorely mistaken and is in for quite the shock. He will be "rewarded" with the unimaginable glare of God's light shining right in his face, into his soul, and in the face of his horrible deeds with no real time for repentance and with no earthly time to get to know God "gently," he will likely be very...uncomfortable. Because God is, indeed, loving...but He is also just. So I would not at all envy your deathbed repenter. It's not that he's going to be tormented or punished or anything like that. He will have the same "reward" as any other believer...but he will feel the weight of what he has done, without having been able to repent of it. That's the "just" part. Becoming sinless doesn't mean that one forgets all that one has done. If anything, I think one will become even more aware of those deeds, because one will be able to compare it against a sinless nature. So heaven, IMO, isn't all that some indicate that it is.

And neither is hell. Again, if one reads the Scriptures carefully and realizes that things like Revelation are not meant to be read literally (which is clear from analysis of the text), then one also realizes that hell, too, is not a place but rather a state of being. Its primary characteristic is eternal separation from God. Which, guess what? Is exactly what we all have here on Earth, only it isn't guaranteed to be eternal. Those who choose not to believe...will simply experience more of what they are currently experiencing, in a way, the only difference being that at that point one will have no hope of ever being with God. And if one is/was OK with that notion prior to death, then I'm sure one would be eternally OK with that, yes? So, "hell" is not punishment, either. IMO, the only "bad" thing about hell is that it is...hopeless. And by "hope" I mean "the anticipation of something better than one's current situation." It is apparently an eternity of life much like what is experienced on Earth. I, personally, am not entirely fond of that notion, but it is also clearly not an existence of unending torture and torment, either...unless one is tortured and tormented now.

So, clearly, one earns neither heaven nor hell. In fact, scripture says that we all "deserve" hell in its separation-from-God sense and there's nothing to be done about that because we all, here on Earth, are sinners. So, we CHOOSE one or the other: Either be with God or not. Many people on this Earth have no desire to be with God for whatever reason. So why should they fear more not-being-with-God? But some of us do want to be with God for whatever reason and some of those people choose to believe that Jesus was telling the truth when He said that He is the only path to God. And so those people, me included, do what Jesus says. I personally wouldn't advocate anyone making a choice to be with God who doesn't really WANT to be with Him because the "purification process," so to speak, is not easy and is sometimes not entirely pleasant. This makes me a very poor evangelist, indeed.

So as far as I'm concerned, you in your good deeds without belief are "better" than a person who believes but who does good only because they think it makes them look good, because they think it earns them "heaven points" rather than because they actually feel the goodness of He who resides within them and so want to lead others to Him by example. "Goodness" born of a sense of obligation or, worse, out of fear is, to me, "less" than the selfless goodness in which you indulge. So I have every confidence that you will suffer no "punishment" for your disbelief, not because you have "earned" a lack of punishment by doing good but simply because separation from God is not punishment at all if one is and remains perfectly content with such separation. The true tragedy, in my opinion, would be a person who truly wants to know God and who thinks that "being good" will get them to that place, only to find that...it doesn't.

See? I'm a HORRIBLE evangelist. :) If you listen to me, you might come to the conclusion that hell might very well be more pleasant than heaven, for a good number of people. And you know what? You might be right about that. That's one of the things I've learned, you see. And God of all people knows this. Scripture says that the majority of people will choose hell. What people don't realize is that those people probably made/will make the right choice for themselves and that those who make the "heaven" choice are not "better" than those who make the "hell" choice. This, I have learned.

@ Vanito: Oh, it makes ALL KINDS of sense that people come to very different conclusions about God! Why? Because they're people. Flawed, fallible, stubborn, closed-minded, prideful, usually-deaf-to-God people. And in the end, many people including Christians will believe what they WANT to believe. A person who comes to God firmly believing that, for instance, homosexuals are evil will often continue to believe that homosexuals are evil because they think God says so and they find more people who agree with them. (And make no mistake: most homophobic Christians who weren't born to homophobic Christian parents were homophobic before they became Christian.) They will not look deeper into the issue, as I did, and they will not see or believe anything that disagrees with what they already believe. It is a VERY difficult prospect to change their minds; they will often not be willing to listen to whatever people who disagree with them have to say. These people are not at all "willing to be changed," and so, as I said, they fail at Christianity.

Because to truly seek God is to have the ONE characteristic that Christians are often seen as not having at all, as not being capable of having: An open mind. A willingness to admit that everything that one "knows" might well be wrong. One has to abandon ALL preconceived notions and have the willingness to set aside anything and everything that one currently believes. It's what in Christian circles is called "surrendering to God." BUT one must be careful to surrender only to God, not to false religious authority. The latter is a distressingly common mistake amongst Christians, especially when the false authority preaches what one already believes. But these characteristics are all very rare things in any human being, no matter what they believe. Having these characteristics runs contrary to our "self-sufficient" nature, our prideful thinking that we know everything and that we know what is best for us. I struggle with this every single day, constantly praying for willingness to be changed, but I'm slowly learning that the more I admit that I don't know...the more I DO know, and that makes it a little easier to continue to let go, every single day. And that, to me, is further confirmation of God's existence, although at this point I really don't need any more confirmation.

[kattenijin]

I don't think that's all that's weird. it's because that takes away the tradition of marriage. it doesn't matter if you're atheist. how is it much of a wedding without a church?

Of the 60ish weddings I've been to in the past 20 years, not one has been in a church, or been performed by a member of clergy. Each one has had all of the trappings I consider part of a wedding (bridesmaids, white dresses, groomsmen, ushers, lots of flowers, receptions, wedding cake, etc). How are they any "less" of a marriage for not having been in a church? The marriage certificates (other than proper names) all look equal to me.


Kiwi: Haven't forgotten you, just had to go out of town semi-unexpectedly; (Knew I would be going, just not exactly when) and am now a new poppa, kinda! lol! I went to see the birth of my two new puppies, and now have to wait about 6 weeks for them to come home. :( I'd post cute pics, but they weren't cute at all lol! I'm still trying to hunt down specific info for you, so I can better explain where I'm coming from. One math equation in particular is proving quite elusive.

DarkCougar555 If your religion helps you to be more like Mother Theresa then it's a good thing. If you become more like Reverend Phelps, it isn't. People need to question "why", and not just follow like sheep.

If you dont wanna break the laws of your faith.. you should stone your wife at the wedding night if shes not a virgin, you should cut out your eye if you look at a woman lustfully, you should kill your children who curse at you, kill gay men, kill witches, kill unbelievers, kill people of other religions. Furthemore you should kill anyone that commits adultery and Jesus refers to remarriage as adultery too. And kill wallmart people that work on sunday.

So.. you are either a serial killer... or just a christian on paper.

You forgot to kill anyone who: planted a vegtable garden, ate a cheeseburger, wore a cotton/polyester shirt/pants/skirt/etc, worshiped in a church with Jesus on a Cross, a statue of Mary, a statue of Joseph, a statue of a saint, ...

And, one small point of clarification, you are allowed to re-marry after divorce if your spouse has passed away.

[iCad]

Of the 60ish weddings I've been to in the past 20 years, not one has been in a church, or been performed by a member of clergy. Each one has had all of the trappings I consider part of a wedding (bridesmaids, white dresses, groomsmen, ushers, lots of flowers, receptions, wedding cake, etc). How are they any "less" of a marriage for not having been in a church? The marriage certificates (other than proper names) all look equal to me.

Hee hee...I wasn't married in a church, even though my husband and I were both Christian. I didn't belong to a church and still don't, and his church wasn't physically big enough to hold all of our friends/family. So, we were married in a park by his pastor. Churches are nice and picturesque, if that's your bent, but IMO they don't "make" (or break) a wedding. What's important is the commitment between the people being married, not where they say the words, for heaven's sake.

[kattenijin]

It is merely a state of being, and it is merely the consequence of choosing to believe in Jesus as the Son of God.

This is probably the one thing that most keeps me away from Christianity. (Well, DUH! Now that I look at that sentence again, it's kinda self-evident that you can't possibly be Christian without a belief in Jesus.) I see no need for an intercessor between myself and God. Although God may be ultimately unknowable, and unscrutable to me, I'm not to Him; and He has no need of an intercessor either. That, and the fact that although Jesus lived for about 38 years, there is NOT ONE scrap of anything written by him personally. Everything has come second or third hand. I just find it hard to believe that he never found a need to even jot down a note or two; yet we have pages and pages by Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew, etc.

[Oaktree]

But fortunately, regardless, there are indicators of whether or not someone who says they're saved is truly "letting God in," so to speak. Guess what those indicators are? Their "works," the things that they say and do.

How can you determine that someone is actually 'letting God in", rather than simply having a change of heart? There's a saying that essentially says that it's okay to talk to God, but when God talks back, you're probably crazy. If God can't actually directly talk to you, how do you feel his influence? How do you know that you're not simply doing these things out of your own nature?

[ivan17]

Most "Christians" are not following all the Bible laws (in fact, doing some of the stuff the Bible tells you is okay could land you in jail in today's world, hah). People choose to follow which laws suit them and completely disregard those that don't. How many self-identified Christians are saving themselves for marriage? Very few, I'm sure. That's because saving yourself for marriage represents quite a challenge for most people so they try to justify sex before marriage as being okay according to the Bible (by interpreting it however they want). I'm also sure you have broken some of these laws as well.

Also, how can you claim that someone else is not a member of your faith? Anyone who identifies themselves as followers of a certain religion could be considered followers of that religion. You don't get a membership card or something that will accurately determine whether you're a follower of some religion.

Yeah, most of Christians are just Christians on paper (my brother first).

Well, there is "a membership card". Just wondering are you Orthodox? In Catholic Church you get certificate of baptism.

Second question, if I am born Buddhist and I am going to Buddha Temple, but at home I am praying to Allah, am I really Buddhist?

ivan17 - I'm not any kind of theist. I don't believe in one all-powerful creator (or multiple ones) - not the Christian god, not Zeus, not Buddah. There are no "laws" of my faith because I don't -have- a faith. I'm -not- an athiest - I believe in things, but there is no holy book, no priests, no temples for what I believe. Morality operates completely separately from religion. It can be dictated by it, but whether or not you actually obey it is an internal process and has nothing to do with what god you may or may not believe in. If all that keeps you from being an animal is your faith, I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground - your morality should be a core of your personality and a desire to be a good person and not fuck people over, not dictated by what someone else tells you you -should- do.

Okay, so when Jesus said that is wrong to kill, it is not sort of morality teaching? God is not dictating what I should or shouldn't do. He is just showing us way to heaven. We can accept it or not.

And I am bad person because I am posting about Christianity in Christianity topic. :lol:

Just like the debate of wether jesus is the son of god or is god himself, christianity varies from place to place in what it believes.

The answer is simple. Jesus is God and He is Son of God. Have you ever heard about The Most Holy Trinity? JHWH/God is triune (God/Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/520px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

[Vanito]

The answer is simple. Jesus is God and He is Son of God. Have you ever heard about The Most Holy Trinity? JHWH/God is triune (God/Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit).

You are telling me your version is 'the asnwer', while others claim their version is 'the answer' and not yours. I know the different fairytales from various christian sects, they all claim their version is true. Christianity has some issues with consistensy in the stories, thats what you get with no proof for any version. Your claim is equally likely as that of any other religious, and thats not very likely with all the religions this world has known.

[jooxis]

Well, there is "a membership card". Just wondering are you Orthodox? In Catholic Church you get certificate of baptism.


I'm not Orthodox because I'm not religious (neither are my parents)... so being baptised means you belong to a religion? That would be a strange way of looking at it. My friend was baptised when she was a baby, today she is the most outspoken atheist I know.


Second question, if I am born Buddhist and I am going to Buddha Temple, but at home I am praying to Allah, am I really Buddhist?


In the case of religion, you are what you define yourself as. If someone tells me they're a combination of Neo-Pagan/Wiccan with a splash of Buddhism - I'm not going to try to prove that they aren't. Because there's nothing to prove. You can't accurately determine what someone is when everyone's definition varies. The Westboro Baptists (all one hundred of them) believe they are the only "real" Christians. Their interpretation of that word is just as good as yours, ivan17.

[Nekowolf]

Second question, if I am born Buddhist and I am going to Buddha Temple, but at home I am praying to Allah, am I really Buddhist?
YES. Period.

As Jooxis said; if you want to define yourself as Buddhist, then you are.

Okay, so when Jesus said that is wrong to kill, it is not sort of morality teaching? God is not dictating what I should or shouldn't do. He is just showing us way to heaven. We can accept it or not.
*coughaslongasyouarechristiancough*

Anyway, accept, exactly? God's words, or Heaven? And just who should accept it, cause I really hope you don't mean everyone.

[iCad]

This is probably the one thing that most keeps me away from Christianity. (Well, DUH! Now that I look at that sentence again, it's kinda self-evident that you can't possibly be Christian without a belief in Jesus.)I see no need for an intercessor between myself and God. Although God may be ultimately unknowable, and unscrutable to me, I'm not to Him; and He has no need of an intercessor either.

Quite frankly, I as a "thinking person" don't see or understand the need for an intercessor, either. But I accept that I don't know everything, and so I know that I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. All I know is that I tried to know and understand God without accepting Jesus and all of His implications, and it didn't work. But when I accepted Jesus, I found that I could know God. This leads me to believe that one intercessor (not a million of them, as the Catholics believe ;) ) is indeed necessary, as much as intellectual me doesn't see why one is necessary at all. Of course, other people claim to know God without Jesus, and I can't say for certain whether or not they do. I'm not God.

That, and the fact that although Jesus lived for about 38 years, there is NOT ONE scrap of anything written by him personally. Everything has come second or third hand. I just find it hard to believe that he never found a need to even jot down a note or two; yet we have pages and pages by Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew, etc.

My thinking is that God wants us to believe ON FAITH, not because He wrote something down. Further, He wants believers to be the ones to spread faith in Him, not that people simply become convinced through "evidence" that He Himself left behind. For this reason, I do NOT accept the notion of the Bible being essentially written by God, but "only" by very wise-in-faith people who came to know Him well. For this reason, the devotion and reverence that many Christians show toward the Bible, usually at the expense of applying that devotion and reverence to God, disgusts me.

In any case, having faith seems to be very important to Him, and my feeling is that we are denied the "evidence" that we would accept as such of His existence for precisely this reason. I do not know why this is so, and many people see this as "cruel" or discriminatory in some way. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My personal thinking is that it's actually a kind of protection. Those who have the ability to have faith might be able to better assimilate the paradox that is a being that exists entirely out of space/time and to whom our cherished scientific laws and scientific processes cannot apply. Perhaps it is true that those who cannot have faith or who have no willingness to have it would have their physical and spiritual brains fried by such a being. Thus, protection. As I said elsewhere, many people choose not to be with God, and my belief is that, for them, this might very well be the best choice. It doesn't make them "less" and it doesn't make faithy people "more;" it only makes each person exactly what they want to be. God wants to be with all of us, but I think He of anyone knows that not everyone wants to be with Him. And He will apparently not directly intervene in anyone's choice about that issue. He does not force people to believe.

How can you determine that someone is actually 'letting God in", rather than simply having a change of heart?

Honestly? I don't. Nor do I much care. The status of anyone else's relationship with God is not my domain because, quite honestly, I can't know because I am not God and cannot know another person's heart. I'm simply saying that if someone claims to be a believing Christian, then they can be evaluated by anyone against the Scripture I mentioned. If a believing Christian is "letting God in," then it is a guarantee that he/she will show more and more of the fruit of the Spirit and less and less of the slimier aspects of his/her sinful nature. But don't make of that more than it is.

People can certainly have changes of heart all on their own, can be "good" people (by society's definition, at least) or become "better" people, without a belief in a God and/or without "letting Him in." But for those of you who complain about, say, Christians who hate, I just wanted to point out that you can evaluate them with their own Scripture. You have the "authority" and indeed the right to do so and, in fact, if you do so you will be doing them a favor. You will be pointing them in the right direction even if you yourself think that Christianity is a crock of shit. If you're face-to-face with a "hating" Christian, then point out that Scripture to them. IF they are in the right place, and IF they are really feeling hate (rather than that merely being your perception), it will most certainly give them pause. Their human selves will become defensive because no one likes to be wrong, and they might not outwardly concede that you've struck a blow. They might, in fact, become angrier and perhaps more hateful because they are only human. But if they are indeed hating and they truly want to be "right with God," so to speak, then internally at least they WILL feel convicted by the Spirit who dwells within them, though not necessarily by you. It is then up to them whether or not to listen to the Spirit.

There's a saying that essentially says that it's okay to talk to God, but when God talks back, you're probably crazy.

See, I'd disagree with that saying. :) God "talks" to me, but I am likely no crazier than you. He doesn't speak in words, true, but words are inefficient and unnecessary. Rather, He literally lives in me, guides me, both by encouragement and by conviction. It's not that my words and actions aren't my own or that I'm not in control at all times but rather that I've been given a compass that eternally and unfailingly points in the right direction. It tugs at me when I decide to head in a not-right direction. Sometimes I listen, sometimes I don't, and there are consequences either way. This is the Holy Spirit, the "piece" of the triune God that everyone seems to forget about and that people seem to understand the least but who, in my opinion, is the most important for believers in their daily lives. FAR more important than the Bible.

If God can't actually directly talk to you, how do you feel his influence?

Why must communication be in words, in "talking?" As I said, communication is the entire function of the Holy Spirit; it is all the communication that I need while I'm still here on Earth. God is literally always with me, via the Spirit. It, as Scripture says, as written the Law on my heart. That's the compass, which is indeed His influence.

How do you know that you're not simply doing these things out of your own nature?

Because I am often led to do things that are NOT in my nature at all. They only become part of my "nature" later. Like, as I said, deciding to do prison ministry. It was an entirely selfish decision at first. Given my history, I thought that rapists and child molesters deserved a slow and torturous death; lethal injection was far too good for them. But then I had a dear friend who was wrongly accused and eventually convicted of molesting his own child by his vengeful ex-wife. He ended up in jail. I knew that if I went into the jail with the ministry team, then I could see him and talk to him face-to-face, as I couldn't via the prison's closed-circuit TV visitation system. So I decided to join the team. My motivation was utterly selfish. I had absolutely NO intention of "doing good" for anyone other than what I could do by trying to cheer up my friend and myself.

But once I'd been there a few times, to make a long story short, I found my calling, as they say. Talking to, counseling, and in some cases befriending these (mostly) men that I otherwise would have condemned to a horrible death if I could have became part of my "nature." It NEVER would have been a decision that I would have made all by myself. So now, when I feel a need to do something that really isn't in my nature at all, whether it's a big thing or just a little thing, I know that's God pulling at me, guiding me to wherever I'm supposed to be or whatever I'm supposed to become. I'm not saying that EVERY change of heart that I have or that any other Christian has is a product of God's work, but I know for a fact that SOME changes most certainly are.

[jooxis]

Because I am often led to do things that are NOT in my nature at all. They only become part of my "nature" later. Like, as I said, deciding to do prison ministry. It was an entirely selfish decision at first. Given my history, I thought that rapists and child molesters deserved a slow and torturous death; lethal injection was far too good for them. But then I had a dear friend who was wrongly accused and eventually convicted of molesting his own child by his vengeful ex-wife. He ended up in jail. I knew that if I went into the jail with the ministry team, then I could see him and talk to him face-to-face, as I couldn't via the prison's closed-circuit TV visitation system. So I decided to join the team. My motivation was utterly selfish. I had absolutely NO intention of "doing good" for anyone other than what I could do by trying to cheer up my friend and myself.

But once I'd been there a few times, to make a long story short, I found my calling, as they say. Talking to, counseling, and in some cases befriending these (mostly) men that I otherwise would have condemned to a horrible death if I could have became part of my "nature." It NEVER would have been a decision that I would have made all by myself. So now, when I feel a need to do something that really isn't in my nature at all, whether it's a big thing or just a little thing, I know that's God pulling at me, guiding me to wherever I'm supposed to be or whatever I'm supposed to become. I'm not saying that EVERY change of heart that I have or that any other Christian has is a product of God's work, but I know for a fact that SOME changes most certainly are.

I have had somewhat "similar" experiences but I just didn't come to the same conclusion as you. My explanation is - things happen. Sometimes they don't happen exactly as we expected them to, sometimes we change in the process. Seems like a much more simple (and logical?) explanation than someone being guided by a divine force who has an ultimate plan. http://www.bdwf.net/forum/images/smilies/smiley_shrug%5B1%5D.gif

[iCad]

I have had somewhat "similar" experiences but I just didn't come to the same conclusion as you. My explanation is - things happen. Sometimes they don't happen exactly as we expected them to, sometimes we change in the process. Seems like a much more simple (and logical?) explanation than someone being guided by a divine force who has an ultimate plan. http://www.bdwf.net/forum/images/smilies/smiley_shrug%5B1%5D.gif

Whatever works for you. :) Being in the place that I am, the "divine plan" explanation actually makes far more sense to me than the "random convergence of events" explanation does. I suppose it's a matter of the path your life has taken before the event in question. That will color your perceptions of things.

[ivan17]

You are telling me your version is 'the asnwer', while others claim their version is 'the answer' and not yours. I know the different fairytales from various christian sects, they all claim their version is true. Christianity has some issues with consistensy in the stories, thats what you get with no proof for any version. Your claim is equally likely as that of any other religious, and thats not very likely with all the religions this world has known.

This is not my version, it's Catholic.

I'm not Orthodox because I'm not religious (neither are my parents)... so being baptised means you belong to a religion? That would be a strange way of looking at it. My friend was baptised when she was a baby, today she is the most outspoken atheist I know.

But, are you declarative Orthodox? My brother is also baptised and he is not religious and he don't believe in God, but he is declarative Catholic.
Well, when you get certificate of baptism after ritual, you can burn certificate, but ritual is always present.

Anyway, accept, exactly? God's words, or Heaven? And just who should accept it, cause I really hope you don't mean everyone.

Who should accept it (God's words)? Christians.
I am sure that Heaven's gates are open to everyone.

Personaly, I think that Buddhist monk will enter Heaven rather than Catholic who is changing "bed partner" often.

[Nekowolf]

I thought you are Catholic. Therefore, it is your version. Because you are Catholic.

[jooxis]

But, are you declarative Orthodox? My brother is also baptised and he is not religious and he don't believe in God, but he is declarative Catholic.
Well, when you get certificate of baptism after ritual, you can burn certificate, but ritual is always present.

I'm not sure what you mean by "declarative Orthodox" but I am sure I am not one. My parents are not religious and neither am I. I was never baptised nor do I go to Church, etc. so I am not a Christian "on paper" nor in my head. In fact I am more likely to be Catholic since my family is from Dalmatia. So we "celebrate" Catholic Easter and Christmas every year, but it's mostly about food and conversation, nothing deeply religious at all.

The only thing is that the majority religion in this country is Orthodox and people somehow expect you to be one. It is annoying because this country is supposed to be a secular country even though the religious authorities have too much power in my opinion. And they're jerks too.

[kattenijin]

I was never baptised nor do I go to Church, etc. so I am not a Christian "on paper" nor in my head. In fact I am more likely to be Catholic since my family is from Dalmatia.

You can't be Catholic and not be a Christian as Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

It goes:

Christianity

-Catholicism:

Roman Catholic · Anglican · Independent Catholic · Old Catholic
Protestant · Etc.

-Lutheranism

Calvinist · Anabaptist · Arminian · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelical · Holiness · Pentecostal · Etc.

-Eastern Christianity

Eastern Orthodox · Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) · Assyrian · Etc.

-Nontrinitarian

Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo · Etc.

[jooxis]

Well, you misunderstood. I didn't say I was Catholic.

I was just replying to his assumption that since I am from Serbia I am most likely Orthodox - and I was just saying that even if I were religious, I wouldn't be Orthodox because my family is from the neighboring Catholic country. I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox nor anything, I do not follow any religion.

[Vanito]

My thinking is that God wants us to believe ON FAITH, not because He wrote something down. Further, He wants believers to be the ones to spread faith in Him, not that people simply become convinced through "evidence" that He Himself left behind. For this reason, I do NOT accept the notion of the Bible being essentially written by God, but "only" by very wise-in-faith people who came to know Him well. For this reason, the devotion and reverence that many Christians show toward the Bible, usually at the expense of applying that devotion and reverence to God, disgusts me.
The god you describe supposedly would be willing for everyone anno 2010 to want to get to know him has very dubious methods of doing so:

You can get to know about him and jesus via: a bunch of christians of which the majority waves around with the bible, which is a rather dubious book in itself. Of which many do dubious things in the name of the christian religion ( all the christian hate speech and groups, the HIV pope, the sheeping, the political abuse with christianity, etc etc). Despite the rather crappy way the word is spread, this is gods way to show he LOVES people to get to know him.

Another method is via the book filled with cruelties itself, with all its contradictions. Selecting people out on those who can believe despite a cruel book is a GREAT method of encouraging people to come to him.

Unlogical, strange and dubious explanations which the followers have use to make this god seem ok, because he badly WANTS us to get to know him.

Then last but not least, he does his best to make it appear like he does NOT exist. No, we are supposed to have faith despite this.

By this very unlogical way, he wants you to depend on "faith" alone to go seel for him.

Sorry ICad, as much as I appreciate you trying to explain your version of faith, this claim of "god wants everyone to get to know him" does not make much sense.

[ivan17]

I thought you are Catholic. Therefore, it is your version. Because you are Catholic.

Yes, I am Catholic, but I didn't put this version into Catholic Church.
Maybe Saint Peter did.

I'm not sure what you mean by "declarative Orthodox" but I am sure I am not one. My parents are not religious and neither am I. I was never baptised nor do I go to Church, etc. so I am not a Christian "on paper" nor in my head. In fact I am more likely to be Catholic since my family is from Dalmatia. So we "celebrate" Catholic Easter and Christmas every year, but it's mostly about food and conversation, nothing deeply religious at all.

The only thing is that the majority religion in this country is Orthodox and people somehow expect you to be one. It is annoying because this country is supposed to be a secular country even though the religious authorities have too much power in my opinion. And they're jerks too.

Well, if you during the census, e.g. say that you are Serb and Orthodox (even though you are not religious), you are then declarative Orthodox.

Interesting thing about "celebrating", to me it's already normal to hear that people are celebrating something without real meaning, but I think that it's great to respect own roots. There are also Orthodox communities in Dalmatia.

The best thing is when Muslims are celebrating Christmas. :lol:

[jooxis]

Well, if you during the census, e.g. say that you are Serb and Orthodox (even though you are not religious), you are then declarative Orthodox.

I have never participated in a census but I never say to anyone, ever, that I am Orthodox nor do I pretend to be :)

And yes, Christmas and Easter are becoming more "secular" for some people around here (and in the USA as well) and I enjoy those holidays even though I am an atheist. I like gathering with my family a few times a year and catching up on things.

[HystericalParoxysm]

you're not a theist but you're not an atheist either. well gee that makes sense. :wtf:

Hehe what I meant was - I don't subscribe to a particular recognized theology, but I also don't deny that there is something more than meets the eye, something huge and unfathomable. I guess "agnostic" would be an acceptable term, though that generally implies more of a spiritual shrug and "Hell if I know" - what I believe goes a bit deeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic) than that. ;)

I was raised Christian - Baptist. My great-grandfather on my father's side was a Baptist preacher, with a bible wagon and everything (trailer with speakers that he would have pulled around and he'd preach on the move - seriously). And I was fully Christian for a lot of my youth - went to church, prayed, participated in youth ministry stuff... took me a while to realize it wasn't for me, and was a bunch of hypocritical, judgmental crap. :)

[Nekowolf]

Yes, I am Catholic, but I didn't put this version into Catholic Church. Maybe Saint Peter did.
Then what "version" of Catholicism are you then. And try to make some sense this time. I don't seem to recall ever mentioning you being the inventor of Roman Catholicism.

[ivan17]

Then what "version" of Catholicism are you then. And try to make some sense this time. I don't seem to recall ever mentioning you being the inventor of Roman Catholicism.

I am Roman Catholic, but I am not theologist. It just sounds stupid (to me) to hear: "That's your version!" ... like we are talking about Chocolate cake recipe.

@HystericalParoxysm

Since you realized that Christianity is not for you, why don't you start your own kind of religion without hypocritical and judgmental crap and gather people with equal conviction. It will be cool.

[Nekowolf]

The crickets are chirping. Do you mean you do not believe in God? Or are you saying you are not a theologist? Cause the latter would be irrelevant.

[ivan17]

The crickets are chirping. Do you mean you do not believe in God? Or are you saying you are not a theologist? Cause the latter would be irrelevant.

OMG, do you know the difference between theologist and theist?

I have said that I am Roman Catholic (that means that I believe in God), and I accept everything what is in Catholic Church, but I am not theologist (so I am not studying God) and I am not bringing my ideas into Roman Catholic Church. Ok?

[Nekowolf]

Don't you snap at me, you little brat. Let me put this through your fucking skull, see if it will fit in there. You accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Then Roman Catholicism is part of you. It is your version, because you have embraced it. It has defined you.

This isn't about being a theologist. If you accept a particular teaching, then that is what you accept. That is your version. You are the one splitting linguistic hairs, and not making a damn bit of sense.

[jooxis]

I doubt Ivan's trying to annoy you on purpose - there's just a bit of a language barrier so you're not understanding each other.

[Vanito]

OMG, do you know the difference between theologist and theist?

I have said that I am Roman Catholic (that means that I believe in God), and I accept everything what is in Catholic Church, but I am not theologist (so I am not studying God) and I am not bringing my ideas into Roman Catholic Church. Ok?
Do you believe what the pope says?

[jhd1189]

Knock it off. I think jooxis is right about the language barrier, and even if she isn't, that doesn't excuse snapping at another debater. And really, this applies to everyone. Be polite.

[Rectos Dominos]

I am not trying to ruffle feathers or anything but I keep hearing that the bible is racist not on this thread but elsewhere. I am not a Christian I have never read the bible or gone to church and I can see where they think its sexist or homophobic mind you those are common knowledge.

Where in bible does it say or imply that its a sin to be black, or ok to discriminate because of the colour of their skin, or that whites are superior? To my knowledge their isn't anything that suggests those but please correct me if I am wrong.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Don't you snap at me, you little brat. Let me put this through your fucking skull, see if it will fit in there. You accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Then Roman Catholicism is part of you. It is your version, because you have embraced it. It has defined you.

This isn't about being a theologist. If you accept a particular teaching, then that is what you accept. That is your version. You are the one splitting linguistic hairs, and not making a damn bit of sense.

"I wish that we could all get along like we used to in middle school and I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone could eat it and be happy"

btw I'm talking about ice cream cake because that's the only good type of cake.


I am not trying to ruffle feathers or anything but I keep hearing that the bible is racist not on this thread but elsewhere. I am not a Christian I have never read the bible or gone to church and I can see where they think its sexist or homophobic mind you those are common knowledge.

Where in bible does it say or imply that its a sin to be black, or ok to discriminate because of the colour of their skin, or that whites are superior? To my knowledge their isn't anything that suggests those but please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm going way out on a limb here. I'm not a bible reader either but I've heard that the bible had a lot of stories about slavery and that is apparently how it is racist.

[Purity4]

I'm going way out on a limb here. I'm not a bible reader either but I've heard that the bible had a lot of stories about slavery and that is apparently how it is racist.

I think the racism is more about how white is written about as clean/holy/good and dark/black is written about as dirty/evil/wrong throughout the entire bible.

[fakepeeps7]

I think the racism is more about how white is written about as clean/holy/good and dark/black is written about as dirty/evil/wrong throughout the entire bible.

It's a little clearer with the Mormons and the whole Lamanite thing. But all the stuff about God's chosen people in the Bible itself seems to have been used as justification for the oppression of others over the centuries (at least, that's how it looks from the outside).

I tried searching for racism and the Bible, but all I get is one side of the story (the Christian side), so I didn't find much that was helpful. I know there's stuff about slavery that was used to justify slavery in the U.S. South... but beyond that, I'm not sure.

[Vanito]

It's a little clearer with the Mormons and the whole Lamanite thing. But all the stuff about God's chosen people in the Bible itself seems to have been used as justification for the oppression of others over the centuries (at least, that's how it looks from the outside).

I tried searching for racism and the Bible, but all I get is one side of the story (the Christian side), so I didn't find much that was helpful. I know there's stuff about slavery that was used to justify slavery in the U.S. South... but beyond that, I'm not sure.

The Bible approves of slavery, and it also give you some rules on how to treat them. Now THOSE are moral values! Obtain some slaves to enchance your sexlife, beat them to death, or sell your daughters to make money. Rules from the loving god about slavery.

THE OLD TESTAMENT:

How to get slaves:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Hostage hebrews
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
They can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these??

It is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. (gods gotta LOVE women, with all his rules)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he keeps feeding, clothing and fucking them. Viagra sponsored ©

Beating slaves is totally moral.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


NEW TESTAMENT:

No "its the OLD testament" excuse. God is ok with slavery in the new testament too!

Christian slaves, obey too!
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Punish them severely. And if they didnt know they were doing wrong, punish them anyway.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Christians can be slaves.. even to nonbelievers!
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


Racism? Against everyone but the people from israel.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Since you realized that Christianity is not for you, why don't you start your own kind of religion without hypocritical and judgmental crap and gather people with equal conviction. It will be cool.

Not all Christianity - or Christians, are full of hypocritical and judgemental crap. However, the Baptist church I attended at the time - and the Christian school I attended, -were- full of hypocritical, judgmental crap. They would preach love and forgiveness on one hand - and with the other condemn anyone who wasn't a believer or did something they believed was wrong. They would say "Jesus loves you" while using it to spew hate. The Sunday School class walls were filled with brightly-coloured construction-paper shapes that the children had been told to write different sins. Murder, jealousy, gluttony, all that was there... but then there were things like abortion, homosexuality, disobeying authority, lust... things that were real inappropriate to have written on construction paper by 3 year olds who were only being told what to write.

So I got the hell outta there.

My beliefs don't allow for religion - there's no reason for me to make one. In fact, my beliefs are pretty contrary to religion - believing in one god, one thing, not keeping your mind open - that's against what I believe in. I apologize if I was misunderstood - I have Christian friends and I do believe that Christianity has its place in the world and is a valid belief system - but so many twist it to misconstrue the meanings to what -they- want and use it as a fuel for hatred and then hide behind it as "God's word".

[whiterider]

Vanito, you're indeed correct - there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that nowadays is completely revolting. Rules about slavery, about disposing of an infertile wife, about how many people you're allowed to kill for revenge... all sorts of stuff which is patently insane by today's standards. The problem is that people - both Christians and non-Christians - often don't stop to consider a few things, such as context. If you've grown up in a largely Christian society, then you've probably had it pounded into your head at various points that the Bible is God's word as written. There are very few people who actually think of the Bible as having been penned by the hand of God, but there also aren't many who think of it as having been written as various stories, retellings, records and letters by a bunch of normal Christians; people who were living as part of a small, mostly underground, and in some places and times illegal group (albeit a loosely-connected one). If these people thought they could have put the world all to rights, they probably would have tried; but a limited group of people has a limited influence.

They were living in a world where slavery was an accepted fact of life - the idea that there could be a world without slavery would have seemed ludicrous and, to be honest, probably didn't even occur to these people. What did occur to them, however, was that slaves were often treated horrifically - and that that was incompatible with their shiny new religion. Looking at the verses you posted, they're all written in a way which very much suggests that they're intended to restrain - Christian slave owners shouldn't keep a slave forever, shouldn't beat a slave to death for a mistake, etc. At the time they were written, this was probably a rather liberal attitude to slavery.

Of course, the time they were written is several thousand years ago, and there aren't particularly detailed historical records of much of that time. Christians today who take the Bible, pick a verse, and then go "Well then, that's how it is" without even thinking about it - about how it applied when it was written and how it applies today, and who wrote it, what they were talking about, why they said it, how it could be interpreted in different ways, who they said it to... it's laziness, or fundamentalism. And if they then take that lazily formed opinion and use it as an argument over a major issue - like slavery, gay marriage, female clergy, racism - and do so in a way which actually ends up having a huge effect on the world, all of this without once studying and analysing and criticising their conclusion, it's staggeringly irresponsible and completely unacceptable to a Christian way of thinking. And, of course, it gives the entire Christian religion a bad name - because people listen more to antagonists than they do supporters.

At the time when the Bible was being used to support slavery, it was very clear that slavery could be abolished - this was a massive opportunity to improve the lives of thousands (if not more) people; the kind of opportunity that never existed in Biblical times. The thought process of Christians then should have been look - early Christians were trying to help slaves, to help free them; and now we can do the same, but on a massively bigger scale. Awesome! The realisation that the though process was probably "Harum harum, I don't like the sound of that, what's in it for me? I wonder if I can find anything in the Bible to oppose abolition." is one of the things that drive me away from the organised Christian church. There are groups who take the "Awesome!" approach, and groups who take the "Harum harum" approach - on all sorts of issues.

[Vanito]

Vanito, you're indeed correct - there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that nowadays is completely revolting. Rules about slavery, about disposing of an infertile wife, about how many people you're allowed to kill for revenge... all sorts of stuff which is patently insane by today's standards. The problem is that people - both Christians and non-Christians - often don't stop to consider a few things, such as context. If you've grown up in a largely Christian society, then you've probably had it pounded into your head at various points that the Bible is God's word as written. There are very few people who actually think of the Bible as having been penned by the hand of God, but there also aren't many who think of it as having been written as various stories, retellings, records and letters by a bunch of normal Christians; people who were living as part of a small, mostly underground, and in some places and times illegal group (albeit a loosely-connected one). If these people thought they could have put the world all to rights, they probably would have tried; but a limited group of people has a limited influence.

They were living in a world where slavery was an accepted fact of life - the idea that there could be a world without slavery would have seemed ludicrous and, to be honest, probably didn't even occur to these people. What did occur to them, however, was that slaves were often treated horrifically - and that that was incompatible with their shiny new religion. Looking at the verses you posted, they're all written in a way which very much suggests that they're intended to restrain - Christian slave owners shouldn't keep a slave forever, shouldn't beat a slave to death for a mistake, etc. At the time they were written, this was probably a rather liberal attitude to slavery.

Of course, the time they were written is several thousand years ago, and there aren't particularly detailed historical records of much of that time. Christians today who take the Bible, pick a verse, and then go "Well then, that's how it is" without even thinking about it - about how it applied when it was written and how it applies today, and who wrote it, what they were talking about, why they said it, how it could be interpreted in different ways, who they said it to... it's laziness, or fundamentalism. And if they then take that lazily formed opinion and use it as an argument over a major issue - like slavery, gay marriage, female clergy, racism - and do so in a way which actually ends up having a huge effect on the world, all of this without once studying and analysing and criticising their conclusion, it's staggeringly irresponsible and completely unacceptable to a Christian way of thinking. And, of course, it gives the entire Christian religion a bad name - because people listen more to antagonists than they do supporters.

At the time when the Bible was being used to support slavery, it was very clear that slavery could be abolished - this was a massive opportunity to improve the lives of thousands (if not more) people; the kind of opportunity that never existed in Biblical times. The thought process of Christians then should have been look - early Christians were trying to help slaves, to help free them; and now we can do the same, but on a massively bigger scale. Awesome! The realisation that the though process was probably "Harum harum, I don't like the sound of that, what's in it for me? I wonder if I can find anything in the Bible to oppose abolition." is one of the things that drive me away from the organised Christian church. There are groups who take the "Awesome!" approach, and groups who take the "Harum harum" approach - on all sorts of issues.

The bible does not forbid to kill a slave - just to do it slowly.

For a book written by mortal men, and for its time, it may be liberal, but don't make more of it than there is - this is not about stopping slaves from beeing killed or freeing them. (unless they are hebrew men who do not marry or abandon their family). For women its even worse; selling daughters is downright disgusting.

If you believe this book was written with the help of an omnipotent god, he would have known about the future. So if you accept that, it is logical to assume this all either still applies - or somewhere he forgot to update.

[whiterider]

It looks like the verse about slaves dying is rather ambiguous. I don't know which translation you're using; CEV has it as "if the slave lives a few days after", which implies that the slave dies. The NIV has "if the slave gets up after a day or two", the NLV has "But if the slave recovers within a day or two", both of which imply that the slave lives. As if there weren't already enough ways to interpret any passage. ;)

I don't think I am making more of it than it is. Christian writers today tell people to do charity work, to donate old belongings rather than throwing them away - but they don't tell readers to remove the problem of homelessness; it'd be pointless, it's just not possible. In however many hundreds of years, when there are no homeless people, the idea of donating them a winter jacket might seem a ridiculously weak gesture; but that doesn't mean that it's meaningless now, nor does it mean that the principle has changed.

I don't think God forgot to update - I think the church did. Hell, people are still writing theological texts and less theological ones that match perfectly the "formula" for what was included in the Bible - studies of particular subjects, stories of their own experiences, addresses to others, and so on. Why don't these go into the Bible? Why has there never been a Bible v.2? Why do people put more store by the particular texts that were selected by the council of whatsit to go into the Bible than to those which weren't, or are too new to have been considered? I swear, the most contradictory thing about the Bible is that 20-ish books after Jesus defeats death and demonstrates the attainability of eternity, the Bible itself is laid to rest.

[Vanito]

It looks like the verse about slaves dying is rather ambiguous. I don't know which translation you're using; CEV has it as "if the slave lives a few days after", which implies that the slave dies. The NIV has "if the slave gets up after a day or two", the NLV has "But if the slave recovers within a day or two", both of which imply that the slave lives. As if there weren't already enough ways to interpret any passage. ;)
I don't think I am making more of it than it is. Christian writers today tell people to do charity work, to donate old belongings rather than throwing them away - but they don't tell readers to remove the problem of homelessness; it'd be pointless, it's just not possible. In however many hundreds of years, when there are no homeless people, the idea of donating them a winter jacket might seem a ridiculously weak gesture; but that doesn't mean that it's meaningless now, nor does it mean that the principle has changed.
I don't think God forgot to update - I think the church did. Hell, people are still writing theological texts and less theological ones that match perfectly the "formula" for what was included in the Bible - studies of particular subjects, stories of their own experiences, addresses to others, and so on. Why don't these go into the Bible? Why has there never been a Bible v.2? Why do people put more store by the particular texts that were selected by the council of whatsit to go into the Bible than to those which weren't, or are too new to have been considered? I swear, the most contradictory thing about the Bible is that 20-ish books after Jesus defeats death and demonstrates the attainability of eternity, the Bible itself is laid to rest.
The original bible is claimed to be gods word; but not anymore he and/or his son appear on earth to give peope rules to live by: a new bible would require a new appearance of a miracle prophet.

Who else can decide which christian is following the 'true gods will'? (christians vary widely in ideas and interpretations)

The text can be translated in several ways; many of the passages no matter what way the translation is done, are still cruel. Even is the lightest way translated, slave as servant, beating to death as beating almost to death, and despite the friendlier passages, does not make it a friendly book. Was this inspired by a divine creator? May one consider the supposed inspirator of such a book holy?

Would bible 2.0 be made, including the lost gospels and ancient findings would make sense. Other than that, even if translated in the best way, erasing evil passages - erasing the majority - would be self deception. Interpreting them as if god was not omnipotent, would not make sense to a book which claims so, and who would decide which passages are supposed to be taken litterally and which are supposed to be taken metaphorically? The newest science theory, which kills off another passage? Humanism and altruism, human emotion, which no longer agree with text?

What purpose would it be to call a new book, based on our current human values still "christian", taking into consideration that other cultures without christianity also developed these good morals, or even better ones?

[ivan17]

Do you believe what the pope says?

Well, rare are days when he is really talking about facts about God and Christianity.
He is apologizing, sends condolences, etc.
I think that better word is that I trust him. He is not prophet, so it's hard to say that I believe.

I hope that people like Nekowolf are rare.

[Vanito]

Well, rare are days when he is really talking about facts about God and Christianity.
He is apologizing, sends condolences, etc.
I think that better word is that I trust him. He is not prophet, so it's hard to say that I believe.

I hope that people like Nekowolf are rare.
So you trust his HIV spreading methods in Afrika are good and moral. Ok, insane, but well its his idea.

People like Nekowolf are rarer than they should be.

Popes should be rarer. Like non existant. And priests. That saves Afrika on HIV, and saves children from a lot of pedophillia.

[whiterider]

Jesus was not alive when the majority of the Bible was written, and he certainly didn't have a hand in compiling it. If you're Christian, then God is still just as present now as he ever was in the times of Elijah and whatnot, and is still "appearing to" and communicating with people just as much - of course, if you're not Christian you won't believe that to be the case, but then you wouldn't believe that the Biblical prophets were talking to God either.

...and who would decide which passages are supposed to be taken litterally and which are supposed to be taken metaphorically? The newest science theory, which kills off another passage? Humanism and altruism, human emotion, which no longer agree with text?
Yes - this is the problem that I've not yet managed to come up with an answer for. The Church contains some people who I would be ecstatic to see take on such a task - and an awful lot who I wouldn't trust to open their mouth in the presence of a child (because of the impact that being taught hypocritical crap has on children). While I can happily point out, and so can many others, who falls into which group; there could never be a consensus, and such an effort would end, as things often do in the Church, in years of circular debate.

That said, many Christians spend just as much time studying and discussing the works of modern day people as they do the Bible - they don't, however, wield such works as weapons the way the Bible is commonly misused; and so there's no real debate between religious (or non-religious) groups about such new works and ideas.

[Neerie]

I've watched this documentary the other day, entitled Who Wrote the Bible? (http://fulldocumentaries.com/2009/05/14/who-wrote-the-bible/). It was extremely interesting and I actually learned a lot about the history of the Bible and the Old Testament.

[Nekowolf]

The Pope is a propagator of anti-pagan sentiments. He is a con-artist with followers. The whole damn Vatican is. It is a symbol, forged in the fires of war, soaked in black blood. He might as well just read straight from the Malleus Maleficarum!

Apologetic?

"And in the 20th century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry. The result has passed into history as the Shoah." - Pope Benedict XVI, 2005

Yeah. Real apologetic. And wholly full of bullshit. The Vatican is a beast. They are demons in the guise of saints. They have been exonerated from their history, their crimes, their hate for long enough! The Pope is not a vassal of God, he is a man, and a fool. And so long as the Vatican has its dominion, it will continue to be exonerated in spite of its victims. It makes my stomach turn with disgust.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I've watched this documentary the other day, entitled Who Wrote the Bible? (http://fulldocumentaries.com/2009/05/14/who-wrote-the-bible/). It was extremely interesting and I actually learned a lot about the history of the Bible and the Old Testament.

but..that question alone is interesting in itself.


MAN wrote the bible, yes?
and if we can all agree that man was made with free will...who's to say that in between "the word" and the hand, nothing extra slipped in or was omitted? or changed, for that matter?

last i checked, the 'holy spirit' ( agreeing that it is a spirit, an energy with no body ) doesnt have fingers with which to grasp a quill and write.

[ivan17]

So you trust his HIV spreading methods in Afrika are good and moral. Ok, insane, but well its his idea.

People like Nekowolf are rarer than they should be.

Popes should be rarer. Like non existant. And priests. That saves Afrika on HIV, and saves children from a lot of pedophillia.

I didn't know on what you thought. But I doubted on trick question. For more ask the pope.

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

[Vanito]

I didn't know on what you thought. But I doubted on trick question. For more ask the pope.

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.
Hmm.. I dont think the pope will think Apocalypse will "save" Afrika. No, he goes for the HIV method.

[Nekowolf]

So the only way to save Africa is to destroy it.

Nuke the bitch, then. Fire in the hole.

[jooxis]

I can totally picture the Pope going "Nuke that shit already!!"

[Oaktree]

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

This is a very short-sighted perspective. Cultures take time and effort to change. It may take decades or more to make Africa as a whole more civilized, but it can be done. Most of it will have to come from the inside - they will have to realize that constant war isn't good for them and that they'd be better off making peace - but the outside world can give them a helping hand along the way. You are saying we should just give up. That doesn't sound very much like "love thy fellow man" to me.

[fakepeeps7]

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

All cultures have to grow and change. We (the developed world) were once in Africa's position. But we got through it. Fortunately for us, we didn't have some arrogant, advanced culture screwing with our growth through colonialism. Africa would probably be a lot further ahead if it hadn't been for centuries of the white man screwing with their societal evolution.

To me, saying Africa needs an apocalypse is sort of like a college student saying all kindergartners should be killed because they don't have as much knowledge. You have to at least give them a chance to get where they're going!

[Oaktree]

All cultures have to grow and change. We (the developed world) were once in Africa's position. But we got through it. Fortunately for us, we didn't have some arrogant, advanced culture screwing with our growth through colonialism. Africa would probably be a lot further ahead if it hadn't been for centuries of the white man screwing with their societal evolution.

It's a little off-topic, but every part of the world has been conquered and reconquered. There is no single part of the world that has been left to develop entirely without outside influence. The two most well-known examples of conquerers are Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. Alexander conquered most of Europe and, I believe, parts of Asia and Africa. Genghis Khan conquered most of Asia. What we call the developed world pretty much entirely falls under one or both of these conquerer's territories.

Outside influence isn't all bad, either. It's a satirical example, but if you've ever seen Life of Brian, there's a conversation in there in which the people of Judea angrily ask what the Romans have ever done for them. People gradually start to pipe up with things like medicine, sanitation, education, irrigation, and all sorts of other technological and sociological boons. Colonization isn't inherently evil because it often leaves the colonized country better off. That isn't to say that it has no downsides; in the case of Africa, the countries were arbitrarily divided, leaving bitter enemies living in the same colonies and forced to work together. This heightened the tension and the tribal warfare that goes on in Africa, which certainly leaves Europe with some responsibility for the current mess, but they are not entirely responsible, as the conflicts were pre-existant, and they also helped Africa by providing better medicine and other technologies.

[Nekowolf]

I am quite sure Alexander has at least made it as far as India. I don't think he was able to conquer it though. Early India was pretty badass, what with their interesting weapons and, a real nightmare, war elephants. But, my historical knowledge is limited, so...*shrugs*

[dreforall]

Alexander the Great did conquer India, elephants and all; he went as far as the Ganges. He didn't continue because his army said "enough fighting already" and refused to continue.

*goes back to lurkmode*

[kattenijin]

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

Before you start complaining about other peoples' issues, look to your own "backyard" first, and get over Eastern Europe's "racial purity" issues. Maybe the nukeing needs to start there first. "OMG! Ewwww! A Serb!" "WTF?! A Bosnian moved in next door! There goes the neighborhood!" "You know about those Slovenians, dirty rotten baby eaters!" Not to mention the whole Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic issues.

[fakepeeps7]

This heightened the tension and the tribal warfare that goes on in Africa, which certainly leaves Europe with some responsibility for the current mess, but they are not entirely responsible, as the conflicts were pre-existant, and they also helped Africa by providing better medicine and other technologies.

That is true. I was thinking about places like Zimbabwe when I wrote this, though. As a backlash to colonialism, some people (like President Mugabe) have pretty much destroyed their countries. Europeans brought them advances in medicine and education... and now they're turning up their noses at it. (Well, the guys in power are. I'm sure the average Zimbabwean is smarter than that, but there's not much you can do when a dictator is calling the shots.)

[Nekowolf]

@dreforall

Oh he did? Thanks for the correction.

[dreforall]

@dreforall
Oh he did? Thanks for the correction.
You're welcome!

As for Africa: colonialism certainly didn't help, any more than it helped my country (Brazil). The fact lots of its tribes were also destabilized and destroyed through slavery (sometimes even among themselves) also doesn't help.

[Vanito]

I can totally picture the Pope going "Nuke that shit already!!"
I can picture him THINKING that when he is busy on his pro-HIV campaign.

"Let those infidels be punished. HIV is gods punishment for people who CHEAT and for HOMOSEXUALS.....

....but not the pedo priests.. grab ye flesh YOUNG and PURE"

[fakepeeps7]

I can picture him THINKING that when he is busy on his pro-HIV campaign.

"Let those infidels be punished."

And what's crazy is that a lot of Africans will identify as being Christian. And then there are the little children who get infected because of the rumour that raping a baby will cure AIDS.

So you have little Christian children in Africa getting infected through no fault of their own... who somehow deserve it?

I don't get the Vatican.

[grumpy_otter]

Africa had the oldest universities in the world and the most cosmopolitan cities.

It was the Portuguese--who wanted a sea route to the great riches of Africa--who messed with their power and development. (Since the Portuguese conquered the sea route, nobody needed the Trans-Saharan Trade Routes anymore, so the African nations needed new sources of income, so they turned to the slave trade--and the rest is history)

[ivan17]

@Vanito, Oaktree, fakepeeps7

I was thinking on Apocalypse that would destroy the whole world, not just Africa.

@kattenijin

"OMG! Ewwww! A prostitute!" "WTF?! Another prostitute moved in next door! There goes your neighborhood!" :lol:

[Vanito]

@Vanito, Oaktree, fakepeeps7

I was thinking on Apocalypse that would destroy the whole world, not just Africa.

Well if the whole world would be destroyed the problem of humanity WOULD be fixed.

[Nekowolf]

@ivan17

My point still stands, however. Your only hope is the destruction of everything. Feh.

[kattenijin]

@kattenijin

"OMG! Ewwww! A prostitute!" "WTF?! Another prostitute moved in next door! There goes your neighborhood!" :lol:


Ummm...?? What? I don't get it.

[fakepeeps7]

Ummm...?? What? I don't get it.

Looks like ivan's trying to justify ethnic cleansing. At least, that's how I took it.

Just because you don't like some group of people doesn't give you the right to kill them all.

I find it amazing that some people still don't get that in 2010.

[Oaktree]

@Vanito, Oaktree, fakepeeps7

I was thinking on Apocalypse that would destroy the whole world, not just Africa.


I don't think I'll ever understand the desire that so many Christians have to see the world end. What's so wrong with our current world? Sure, it's got it's problems, but it's better than it used to be and it can continue to improve. And why does no feel good about the accomplishments of our species in getting this far? What's so appealing about some omnipotent power being mommy and making everything "all better"?

[dreforall]

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire that so many Christians have to see the world end. What's so wrong with our current world? Sure, it's got it's problems, but it's better than it used to be and it can continue to improve. And why does no feel good about the accomplishments of our species in getting this far? What's so appealing about some omnipotent power being mommy and making everything "all better"?
I still say these Apocalypse-loving peoples make up a death cult. Seriously; it's creepy.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire that so many Christians have to see the world end. What's so wrong with our current world? Sure, it's got it's problems, but it's better than it used to be and it can continue to improve. And why does no feel good about the accomplishments of our species in getting this far? What's so appealing about some omnipotent power being mommy and making everything "all better"?

the promise of a lack of personal responsibility is a strong allure.

one that western religions preach until they're blue in the face.
GOD did it!
its not YOUR fault, GOD made you that way!
...and probably more but ive blocked them out by now.

[Iris5467]

*First post on the forums, pardon any grammatical errors I may make; I'm rusty from non-use!*

There's a fun way of looking at Christianity, at least from my USA, Bay Area, California upbringing and love of biology and evolution.

I always think back to what life might have been like before medicine and modern science. Crappy, death relatively early and few children living. Hard work mostly. No time for web browsing at all. Sicknesses up the wazoo. We (as in those of us in "modern countries/areas) have eliminated the dangers of many things they had to worry about. We know how to treat these things usually when something nasty does slip past the vangaurd that is modern day regulation.

Like that funny part against eating pork products many Jewish still follow today. Why was that in there anyway? Well, if you take a look at pigs back before our niffty science allowed us all to be super clean, the little buggers were common carriers of nasty parasites! And when you live in smaller communities which may or may not have access to ways to supplement food (farming for instance) and labor pool, having parasites is a BAD thing. They take your energy, and then you become useless to an already small stock of laborers. And being busy laborers, maybe they don't have the time or habits of observation to link pork with the sick-making.

So what is the community to do? How can you tell people to just not eat these large, tasty animals without them just laughing you out of town? Wouldn't it be nice if there was an all powerful being who would reward people for listening to your smart ideas? Maybe you could get that neighboring village to quit stealing your stuff too, if they realized how much better things would be if you could all work together?

I always find it rather marvelous how a fearful, intimidating God would be able to force smaller groups of primitive persons together. Intimidation works better on smaller scales, as there is less of a chance of someone standing up and demanding proof or noticing your proverbial strings on the puppet during your "miracle working".

And then when the groups got larger and the bad stuff got more sneaky, how changing the emphasis from a fearful to a more loving God might shift the population to spreading the happy love vibes so that at least while it tried to destroy itself it was also still spreading influence.

The purpose of genes and DNA are simply to perpetuate themselves in favor of other flavors of genes. Religion helped unify people, allowing for cooperation and growth, and thus more baby making, gene spreading goodness. Now we're at a large enough size that the variants of these types of religions can be more of a destabilizing factor than a help.

Funny, most of the places religion does still seem to hold strong are smaller communities with little diversity. Makes sense in that light.

Just my little perspective.

[grumpy_otter]

I don't think I'll ever understand the desire that so many Christians have to see the world end. What's so wrong with our current world? Sure, it's got it's problems, but it's better than it used to be and it can continue to improve. And why does no feel good about the accomplishments of our species in getting this far? What's so appealing about some omnipotent power being mommy and making everything "all better"?

Well, at least you can plan ahead--

http://www.wecanknow.com/

It's all been calculated here for you.



And then when the groups got larger and the bad stuff got more sneaky, how changing the emphasis from a fearful to a more loving God might shift the population to spreading the happy love vibes so that at least while it tried to destroy itself it was also still spreading influence.

Right on. You can see this if you study Jesus in early Christian art. Though he started out as a sweet kid, then got more vengeful, then got more mature and nicer, then went sweet again.

[omgrawr213]

As a Christian myself, I have to admit I've run into a lot of discrepancies.
Number one, I hate that everyone puts so much emphasis on religion, when God is (supposed to be) the only one that matters. There are tooo many denominations (not that I have a problem with any of them or dislike any of them; it's just ridiculous IMO). Sure, we have the bible for "guidance" on what's good and what's not, but why must there be sooooooo many rules (based on what denomination one is a part of). "well, we don't drink alcohol, but..." "you have to dress up for church! casual attire is an insult to the Lord!" "being gay in this church is unacceptable..." "you can't date until you're fourteen!" *explodes*
If we're all supposed to love God, why can't we all just do it the way we want to, instead of having to join THIS one if you're THIS, or THAT one if you believe THAT, but don't believe in THAT.
Number two, everyone thinks that Christians have to be perfect and shxt because they answer to a higher power and what not. Christians are no different than any other human being on the planet. They're not the only ones going to heaven, they're not the only ones going to hell.
Number three, I hate that sometimes we're told "you can't do this or this, but OOOOOH, if you do THIS then you'll be on the first class ticket to HELL."
and THEN you hear "no matter what you do, God will always forgive you."
I can imagine how someone who isn't a believer could be put off by either of these, because, again, EVERYONE believes something different about Christianity.
My thing? Just go your own way. If God is supposed to love everyone, he should love you no matter how you decide to show him you love him back.
I could get into my view on homosexuality here, but I think I might go too far, and plus there's a topic on that already.... so I'll keep it simple.

Number four, blindly following religion. You're supposed to do everything God tells you to do or refrain from doing something God forbids (based from the Bible), yet you can't question it. Plus, many situations no longer have validity in our society, due to the time difference. There are some things I just don't understand the reasoning behind (I feel quite like Vanito right now, lol), like having to save yourself for marriage, or not being able to live with someone without marrying that person first.
I think I'll stop there for now...

[Vanito]

Number two, everyone thinks that Christians have to be perfect and shxt because they answer to a higher power and what not. Christians are no different than any other human being on the planet. They're not the only ones going to heaven, they're not the only ones going to hell.
Any christian who comes and thinks his morality is so superior he can preach that others do bad, gives an unspoken agreement to kick his butt with his own method. One of the better methods is pointing them to their own scripture which they do not follow, since preachers seldomly even do an attempt to follow it.

Its the ultimate hypocricy to come here and say "gay marriage is evil" when your sleeping around, are divorced, remarried etc AKA are ignoring your own religions rules, yet harras others with those same rules. The biggest preachers on this forum have often been those who screwed their own rules bigtime.

Christians who are not like that, not peachy, not pushy, not judgemental, not trying to get any christianity in the law, not passively support wrongdoing churches, support harrasing christians, etc do not need a kick under their butt because they dont do anything wrong.

Harrasing pushy christians with their own scripture is more of a get-back method than an expectation of that type of people to act good. We know not too expect too much of that type of christian. They are annoying, respectless people.

[fakepeeps7]

If we're all supposed to love God, why can't we all just do it the way we want to, instead of having to join THIS one if you're THIS, or THAT one if you believe THAT, but don't believe in THAT.

Because, from my understanding, you're supposed to do what God wants... not what you want. And that's where all the fighting comes in, because nobody can really know what God wants... yet everybody thinks they do.

[omgrawr213]

Its the ultimate hypocricy to come here and say "gay marriage is evil" when your sleeping around, are divorced, remarried etc AKA are ignoring your own religions rules, yet harras others with those same rules. The biggest preachers on this forum have often been those who screwed their own rules bigtime.


Yeah. Because gay marriage is the root of all evil. :lol:

Because, from my understanding, you're supposed to do what God wants... not what you want. And that's where all the fighting comes in, because nobody can really know what God wants... yet everybody thinks they do.

Including the ones that make their own religions/denominations.
I wouldn't be this way if maybe there was some general way of Christian worship in which there aren't so many differences in expectations and laws and what to do and what not to do, based on different interpretations from a single book.

[Vanito]

Yeah. Because gay marriage is the root of all evil. :lol:
The Root of all Evil? There was a documentary called that..


Including the ones that make their own religions/denominations.
I wouldn't be this way if maybe there was some general way of Christian worship in which there aren't so many differences in expectations and laws and what to do and what not to do, based on different interpretations from a single book.
Of if the christian god would tell everyone the same as an answer to their prayer, send a new prophet etc..

[Nekowolf]

That'd only work with a fundamentalism, or traditional, belief structure. It excludes the concepts of newer movements, which while still believing in the underlying concepts, does not necessitate a fundamentalist aspect.

[Vanito]

That'd only work with a fundamentalism, or traditional, belief structure. It excludes the concepts of newer movements, which while still believing in the underlying concepts, does not necessitate a fundamentalist aspect.
Why? Its the same god. If he would not agree anymore with his original bible, he would be able to send the message through prayer or send a new prophet/son/self. After all he is onmipotent.

[Nekowolf]

Because nobody knows God. And in some ways, you could say, yes, it's the same God, but different views of who, what, God is.

You are attributing the idea that God is active, something that is more fundamentalist or traditional, where someone in one of the more modern movements may actually think closer to the lines of the Deists, that god is not active, or at least not active to the same extent as traditional Christianity believes. As well as being more likely to reject the idea that they have some kind of greater understanding of God as anyone else, to the contrary of fundamentalists.

[Vanito]

Because nobody knows God. And in some ways, you could say, yes, it's the same God, but different views of who, what, God is.

You are attributing the idea that God is active, something that is more fundamentalist or traditional, where someone in one of the more modern movements may actually think closer to the lines of the Deists, that god is not active, or at least not active to the same extent as traditional Christianity believes. As well as being more likely to reject the idea that they have some kind of greater understanding of God as anyone else, to the contrary of fundamentalists.
This is specifically about the christian god, as that one is one which has been made many claims about.

[Nekowolf]

No no, I think you misunderstood.

Even in Christianity, the aspect of God, the Christian God, can vary. Traditional Christianity says that God is an active being, shaping people and lives, etc. Doing all this stuff. "God has a plan." With fundamentalists acting like they know who, what, God is and what God wants.

In newer religious movements, however, you can have Christians who are quite contrary. It's still the Christian God, but they are not so, uh, what's the word I'm looking for... They're not as, uh, they don't pretend to have this otherworldly knowledge that fundamentalists pretend to have. They're more likely to ponder on the nature of God, as well as more likely to see God more as a passive entity than the active entity present in traditional Christianity. Basically, the nature of God and what God wants is of much less importance to them.

[Vanito]

Yeah in the case of people who claim to have less knowlegde of the god, it makes more sense that thier ideas vary.

[kattenijin]

I think I owe myself a kick in the a$$. I've been waiting for Kiwi to reply to my post about why I see the presence of a God through science, especially in the way matematical concepts interrelate. Just out of curiosity/puzzlement, I've combed the past few pages, and found no trace of it. OI! Now, I have a feeling that after all the cut/paste, adding links, and a few pics I never actually hit post and just closed out the window or hopped to the next page/site. >.<

[kiwi_tea]

Apologies kattenijin. I've dropped off the face of the earth. I'm totally, totally drowning in school work (hence all my Sims projects are on hold). There most likely won't be any satisfactory response until late October. Thanks for understanding.

Funnily enough, the studies I'm bogged down in are the influences of the King James Bible on English literature. Appropriate to the thread.

To be fair though, there's not a lot to say to an argument from personal incredulity. It's a bit like trying to argue with the claim that because a puddle is puddle-shaped a metaphysical, conscious puddle-maker is the logical inference. Unless by 'creator' you just mean 'first cause'. Non-conscious, mechanistic first causes are very plausible, I'm just not certain why anyone would call them 'God'. (To be fair, Spinoza and Einstein did).

[Bchbch Walk]

I am an Atheist for one reason:
Everything has a beginning and an end. If there was nothing in the beginning, how did god make himself?

[fakepeeps7]

I am an Atheist for one reason:
Everything has a beginning and an end. If there was nothing in the beginning, how did god make himself?

So... the Big Bang was the beginning and everything arose from nothing? To me, that even seems a bit more magical than "God did it".

(I'm not trying to bash your beliefs... I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)

[Vanito]

So... the Big Bang was the beginning and everything arose from nothing? To me, that even seems a bit more magical than "God did it".

(I'm not trying to bash your beliefs... I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
Its not known where the big bang came from yet; branes my be an explanation but so far they are only theoretical. Most likely the big bang was not the beginning.

[fakepeeps7]

Its not known where the big bang came from yet; branes my be an explanation but so far they are only theoretical. Most likely the big bang was not the beginning.

We agree, then. I don't think the Big Bang was the beginning, either. But Bchbch Walk seemed to imply that it was... so I was just trying to get some clarification on why he/she thinks this is so.

[Nekowolf]

Actually, what I heard (but this was a while ago, and I may be misremembering) was the very very beginning is the Theory of Inflation. Was that it? Hm...

But anyway, the simplest answer? Something, like a photon, just... appeared. From nothing. Quite literally something from nothingness. And it expanded or something, I dunno, to create a small, chaotic universe, which then forced a massive expansion (the Big Bang).

I mean, the Big Bang, from what I understand, is not the start of the universe itself; rather, the start of the universe as we know it.

[fakepeeps7]

I mean, the Big Bang, from what I understand, is not the start of the universe itself; rather, the start of the universe as we know it.

True. The whole thing may be cyclical. Unfortunately, our perception is kind of restricted to the last 14 billion years.

Living in a universe that does have time, I think it's difficult for us to wrap our brains around... well, a time when time didn't exist. What came before the beginning?

I shouldn't think about such things. It gives me a headache. (It also has nothing to do with Christianity, which pretty much sums it up with "God did it". Even if that were the case... where and when did God come from?)

[jacovski]

...on-topic, i would like to say, christianity made no sense to me whatsoever when i really looked into it.

the angels, for example.
as ive come to understand ( and correct me if im wrong? ), lucifer was, not the devil at first. he was an angel. the favorite, even. but when commanded by Gawd he refused to bow to humans.

NOW, ive also heard it flung around that humans > angels because of free will. free will pretty much dictates we choose whatever we please, right?

but if angels didnt have free will, lucifer wouldnt have questioned it. he wouldve bowed.
so does that mean MOST angels dont and some actually DO, or just that they do, but choose to kiss Gawd's ass anyway? because there really is a difference.

because, lets face it.
if you are created a certain way, thats all you have the power to be. thats all you know. thats all you will ever be able to know.
so if angels were created to be perfectly obedient to Gawd, how could lucy-fer say "no" at all?

and beyond that, because lucifer said "no", god...pretty much told him to go bone himself. he went to hell. actually, he Founded hell.
is that something a loving parent would really do?
if your child said "no" when you told them to do something, would you make them live in the basement and shun them forever?
especially if we are agreeing that this is your FAVORITE kid, you love other kids but not the way you adore this little bugger.
and as its been said before, either god is absolutely benevolent and forgiving ( and thus there is no "hell" ), or hes kind of a mean tyrant loophole specialist.


Ok...I am unsure if anyone has replied to this and further explained or what...I know I am a little late to the "party" on this.
The angels are basically the thoughts of God in Christianity, they are breathed into life and become servants. Well Lucifer was the "perfect angel" - he looked 'perfect' and saw his reflection in a mirror (or other reflective surface) and instantly became full of pride. He then felt that he should take over God's position in Heaven and become the lord of all creation. He managed to corrupt other angels and a war in heaven began where the arch angel michael led the forces of heaven against Lucifers fallen. Eventually Lucifer's forces lost the battle and they were cast into hell. And thus Lucifer becomes Satan.
The reason this happened was because God gave humans/angels free will.
And also, to any saying that Christianity in North America is scary - read the full bible and realise that Chrisitianity in NA is doing its best to follow God's Word...at least most denominations are.

[Nekowolf]

"And also, to any saying that Christianity in North America is scary - read the full bible and realise that Chrisitianity in NA is doing its best to follow God's Word...at least most denominations are."

Okay. Well, first of all, "most denominations" and "God's word" are rather relative. Most denominations? How many are there in the US, really? Nor is it necessarily all that important that "most denominations" do such and such, because it is some of the most vile ones who are out there to do some of the most vile stuff.

I should know. Since you're not a commoner around here (this particular forum), I am a pagan. I'm just lucky I am not a victim to it, living a rather private life out in farmlands. But if I was to go out west like in Utah, or some places down South, it would be a completely different situation. I wouldn't be private out of choice, but out of necessity, much like others who have commented on how it is out in these places, who end up living in heavily fundamentalist areas where coming out as, say, a Wiccan would be like coming out saying you're gay, maybe even worse.

Sure, not all the denominations are "scary," true true. But those that are? They're not just scary. They're down right shit-your-pants psychotic. Just look at the Pentecostals, it's downright cult-like in some areas. Living together, watching over each person with an eye of suspicion, trying to keep any and all outside information or entertainment away, because it is unworthy and sinful. And god forbid they find out. When Matthew Murray's mother found out he had been listening to rock and roll, she told her priest/pastor/whatever, and they searched his room, every day, for months, looking through everything he owned. They live in constant fear of the demons of the outside world. In some places, they are being trained to be the spiritual prayer warriors, to fight against the evils of pagans and demons, to prepare for the Second Coming and Armageddon. Is this God's Word? Depends who you ask. People have done many things, from the good to the vicious, in the name of God, so who really knows anymore. Besides, I thought Christianity was more geared towards the teachings of Jesus, anyway. Or was supposed to be. But there is one thing I do know; they scare the hell out of me. But I'll be damned if I'll let them intimidate me, that's for sure.

Though as I said, thankfully, I'm lucky enough not to have to really worry about it in my personal life. But there are other pagans who are not so lucky, sadly, and have to hide who they are. Because really? I think being pagan is seen as worse than being gay.

[whiterider]

Wikipedia lists around 90 major christian "bodies" or national groups in the US - some, of course, are very similar; some share one denomination but go about things in very different ways. It's certainly true, though, that it's usually the nutjobs who are most vocal: we rarely hear anything much from at least 90% of the christian population worldwide. There's a tendancy among non-christians - and I suffer from this too - to paint all christian groups with the same brush as the fucked up, evil groups like WBC and AFA. That should be avoided just as much as they should avoid painting all gay people with the brush of the sterotypical obnoxious, promiscuous gay population; and all adherents to various pagan religions with the brush of "omg omg evil devil-worshipping cultist!".

That said - the small, vocal, fucked up minority in christianity are still incredibly dangerous, and cause real harm to millions of people all over the world.

[lovetadraw]

Well, at least you can plan ahead--

http://www.wecanknow.com/

It's all been calculated here for you.


Uhh.... My dad is with that... I personally don't think there can be an end of the world where god returns or anything like that because.... Well... I've gone a month without 'god', and no lightning. :lol: And I feel fine.

I need no hope, so I don't have god
I don't want forgiveness, so I don't have Jesus

Don't poopoo me but *hides*
2012 ain't the end, It's like a digital clock, it just goes back to the beginning (Mayan calender).

Quote (by Ghandi)
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Kinda very true.

[Nekowolf]

What do you mean!?

Didn't you see the movie 2012? DIDN'T YOU SEE IT MAN!? It grossed $225 million worldwide on opening weekend, with a domestic gross of $166 million! The market has spoken, THE WORLD WILL EEEEEND!!

[kattenijin]

The reason this happened was because God gave humans/angels free will.

Actually, God did NOT give angles free will, free will was only given to Man(kind). God had decided his "perfect" creations weren't so perfect after all. Lucifer rebeled because God told the Angles to bow down to Man, after he had promised them they would only bow down to Him. (Kind of like the commandment "Thou shal not have any others before me.") God broke His promise first. What I can't figure out, is how angles were able to rebel without free will. Kind of illogical to me. And, if God is omnicient and omnipotent, how can He possibly create a "flawed" creation? It's little inconsistencies like these that show that the Christian version of God is created in Man's image, rather than Man being created in God's. God, by definition, is unknowable; regardless of Biblical attempts at rationalization.

...read the full bible...
You might want to go back and re-read that Bible again.

Most denominations? How many are there in the US, really?
There are over 90 "major", and 3000 "minor" denominations, each and every one claiming that THEY are the "one and only "TRUE WORD" of God".

What do you mean!?

Didn't you see the movie 2012? DIDN'T YOU SEE IT MAN!? It grossed $225 million worldwide on opening weekend, with a domestic gross of $166 million! The market has spoken, THE WORLD WILL EEEEEND!!

Nope, nope nope! At least not on the day they clam. It's my B-Day that day, so I'm sending that particular "present" back unopened! :P

[Nekowolf]

Frankly, I -still- don't see why the Christian God has to be all-powerful and perfect and such and such. I don't see how it could really be a core pillar that god MUST be these. You see it in polytheism; those gods aren't all-powerful and perfect, but they're gods nonetheless and are still way more powerful than any mortal.

Just because the Christian God would have flaws and such, it doesn't make God any less of a god, really.

[Oaktree]

I'm agnostic, so I may not be the best person to explain this, but I'm going to explain why I think God is supposed to be perfect.

If you look at Greek mythology, the Gods were not perfect, but merely powerful. They also committed atrocities, seemingly on a whim, on numerous mortals. They cursed, maimed, raped, and killed mortals left and right in the mythology. So imperfect gods with the same capriciousness as mortal men would be very frightening.

Imperfect gods also cannot pass down perfect laws. Most people have a drive to self-perfection of some sort. For many people this involves moral law. Now, I disagree with the idea that moral law needs to be passed down from a god, but for those who think that it needs to be passed down from a god, or for those who personify the universe as God, the thing passing down the laws would ideally be perfect, so as to allow a person to follow the right laws. The laws that are passed down by imperfect gods would be no more accurate and meaningful than the laws passed by a handful of powerful mortals. Furthermore, a totalitarian oligarchy, as the gods could be described, often passes unjust laws because power corrupts. Mortals will often do selfish things when given the opportunity. How can it be determined that the laws passed by immortals with mortal sensibilities are truly good, as opposed to just good for the gods? And, as Socrates points out in the Euthyphro, the gods in a polytheistic system do not always agree. How can "good" be determined when its definition varies from god to god? The only answer is that "good" is not determined by the gods at all, but a single perfect God is a counter solution. There are various reasons why I think it isn't the correct solution, but that isn't really the point here. Basically, there would be no more meaning in following a patheon of imperfect gods than there is in following a group of mortal people. The only difference is that the gods might have a better ability to punish you if you choose to disobey them.

[Nekowolf]

Uh, but really, the idea of "laws," well, I dunno. That seems to be an exclusively Abrahamic thing.

Take the Ten Commandments. That's what I see when you say "laws." But things, like the Nine Noble Virtues in Asatru, they're more like suggestions rather than laws. If you don't follow them, it's not a "sin." You aren't necessarily punished for breaking something. They are not written in stone like the Ten Commandments are (both "literally" and figuratively). They are more like codes of conduct than anything else; you are not really beholden to them.

"So imperfect gods with the same capriciousness as mortal men would be very frightening." Not really. At least, I certainly don't see it as frightening. Think about it for a sec. We're already living that. And generally, those who are usually bad people. Take Norse mythology. Sure, you might die, say, because Odin did something, like start a war. But only the truly vile are sent into the deepest nether regions of Niflheim to be eaten by Níðhöggr. Those who commit evil on their own mortal whims.

And "left and right" is pushing it, I think. Sure, there are numerous myths about it, but left and right? No, I think that's quite an exaggeration.

[jacovski]

@Kattenijin - Isaiah 14:12-15 that passage describes Lucifer/Satan being pushed out of Heaven because he strove to become higher than God, not because God asked the Angels to bow down to humans. And Ezekiel 28:12-15 also backs up what I said about Lucifer/Satan being a 'beautiful' angel and being full of pride.
Ezekiel 28:17 (NIV) " 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings."
Seems like I actually do indeed know what I am talking about when I speak of things in the Scriptures, so think before you actually say to "re-read" it. And it certainly seems like the angels were given free will, as God gave to creation (I refer to humans/angels here...) as they were certainly able to rebel and take up arms against God and his loyal Angels. And on the denomination points, they do not claim to be the one true word of God, but they claim to follow the one true word of God - the Bible. I should really know this stuff as I was brought up in a Christian household where my Dad is a Minister to the church in my hometown. And contrary to the fire and brimstone preachings of the stereotypical Minister he presents the historical context, the scripture and explains what it all means (as best an understanding as can be had of an infinite being can be achieved by us humans). I am a youth group leader, and surprise surprise I don't preach fire and brimstone - I do however preach that there is one true god, who's son died to redeem our sins. And the son is God as well....that whole Holy Trinity thing which seems to be downplayed on this forum. My dad who is a minister isn't of the 'touchy' kind that the Catholic Priests have gotten themselves into, and for him to be put in the same category as Pedopheliacs is the worst kind of insult to him. Yes, I did get off-topic, but that was to explain that not all us Christians are the Fire and Brimstone "death-cult" that has been labelled on this page as what it means to be a Christian. To have faith in God is to have a relationship and fully trust in him. And communication doesn't have to be the verbal talking face to face communication...it can be as simple as opportunities showing up, different ideas, anything really. And I am somewhat well edumacated/intelligent being at or near the top of all my courses in school. Anyways, if you have a problem with what I am saying, message me so we can continue a discussion without other distractions.

[whiterider]

Nekowolf, ah, but what defines evil - who decides what acts and attitudes make a person evil enough to be sent deep into Niflheim? If you decide that it's mortals, then you get constant fighting because nobody agrees. If you decide it's god(s), that makes things much simpler, and makes absolute divine judgement possible.

[Nekowolf]

But sometimes, it has nothing to do with "divine judgment." As far as I am aware, nobody said "these are crimes for which you will be punished!" But rather, it's more of a consensus thing.

Things like murder (although there are exceptions in ancient Nordic culture, such as for revenge of another's death), rapists, etc. There really wasn't any god or person who delivered divine judgment (granted, as far as we know). Hel, while she rules the underworlds, isn't really a judge but more like a manager.

Or in Egyptian, if I recall correctly, Anubis weighed the hearts of the dead against a feather. In Greek mythology, again, if I recall correctly, it was the Erinyes who delivered punishment.

These are not necessarily "divine" in that they were decreed by a divine source to be "this is how you should act!" Rather, it was more general than that.

[TRIriana]

FYI, Anubis puts the heart on the scales, but the judge is the feather of Ma'at (who is the goddess of truth and order), and it is by her laws that you must obey for the heart to balance. Otherwise it is devoured by Ammit. So yes, strict law that must be followed was set down by the god(dess).

[Nekowolf]

Ah, thank you. Granted, my knowledge of Egyptian mythology is a bit limited. Though it doesn't change the overall point.

[Rawra]

If you people don't know, well I guess it's time for you to know. There is enough evidence to prove that God and Jesus exists. First, there are the remains of saints. They are dry, yet perfectly conserved, even better than the egyptian mummies. Second, there is Noah's Arch, which they say it was found in Turkey, on a mountain. Third, there is Jesus's tomb. Which is empty, no bones, nothing. And fourth, people say that even Christ's cross was found somewhere. And there are proofs of Sodom and Gomorah's disaster. Do you need more? I've got enough time to say it all.

And, for the record, God doesn't force us to do anything. He doesn't force us to believe in Him, but He left us enough evidence so we believe. If we believe or don't, for Him is absolutely okay, but for us is really bad if we don't believe.

[Nekowolf]

1. I haven't heard of that. But the better question is how can we tell these are the saints? Was there something found with them to help identify them? Otherwise, they're just strangers.

2. One: they were evangelical Christian "explorers". So unbaised, right? Furthermore, real experts, such as archeologists and historians have said "Uh, yeah. No. It's probably just a load of crap." Not to mention, at least as far as I read, the location of it is a secret (Hmmm? Why would it be a secret?).

Another reason scholars are skeptical of the latest Noah's ark discovery claim is that Genesis—the first book of the Bible—never specifies which peak the vessel supposedly landed on in Turkey.

"The whole notion is odd, because the Bible tells you the ark landed somewhere in Urartu,"—an ancient kingdom in eastern Turkey—"but it's only later that people identified Mount Ararat with Urartu," said Jack Sasson, a professor of Jewish and biblical studies at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.

Stony Brook's Zimansky agreed. "Nobody associated that mountain with the ark" until the tenth century B.C., he said, adding that there's no geologic evidence for a mass flood in Turkey around 4,000 years ago.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/27/4349742-noahs-ark-found-not-so-fast

Yeah, it's been found all right. And my crotch is the end of the rainbow with gold stuffed into my pants.

3. Thieves. Tomb raiders. Happened all the time. They would break into tombs, steal everything of value, and shove off. Or hell, the body may not have even been in the tomb in the first place.

And what's this? STILL more criticism on its authenticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus#Archaeological_Questions

4. How do we know? Christ, do you know many crosses their were? The Romans used crucifixion all the time. There could be thousands out there, buried somewhere; that is, if the wood hasn't completely rotted away.

5. Sodom and Gomorah? Yeah, so what? Even if the cities did exist, which is possible, what kind of evidence would there be something happened? Just because there were structures means nothing. All that means is that, at one point, there were cities that proved as inspiration to something. Yeah, there may have at one point been a tower that served as the inspiration for the Tower of Babel. Does it mean the Tower in the Biblical sense exists? No. Just that there was a tower, it fell, the end. In all likelihood, it probably fell due to poor design or natural disaster, or both.

Hell, just a quick search turned this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1497476.stm

What's this? An idea that methane exposed thanks to a massive earthquake ignited? Every thing you say, can be refuted. Every "evidence" that Christianity comes up with to support a literal Biblical translation can be refuted. Either with sciences, or the simple fact absolutely no form of evidence exists. It depends on the events. Not to mention the number of inconsistencies in the Bible, which only further hinder the concept of it being taken as a literal historical document.

And for the record: do I think Jesus existed? Maybe. I think it's possible, but as no "son of God" or whatever. More than likely, just some dude, wandering around through the cities, who had ideas, and would tell them to anyone who would listened.

And of course, there we go. "really bad if we don't believe" - well guess what. You certainly aren't going to change my mind and I certainly won't renounce my Heathenism over a few trite "evidences" that have been refuted time and again.

[whiterider]

There certainly is evidence of all sorts of Biblical characters and events having existed or occurred. However, if the evidence were so strong that it were beyond doubt, everyone would be Christian already - and similarly, if there were conclusive evidence that Biblical characters and events did not exist or occur, then no-one would be Christian any more. It's never that simple - and I wouldn't want it to be to be honest. Tackling philosophical and ethical questions from a position of doubt and uncertainty is good mental exercise.

[Rawra]

Neko, I do not intend to change people's beliefs, I'm just saying... I have a proof in my own family that the devil, at least, exists, and I won't go on with this because it's only my business.

[Nekowolf]

Conversely, you pointed out one of my biggest annoyances with Christianity; or rather, practitioners of Christianity. The need for some kind of proof, some kind of evidence, something that they can exploit to prove their faith.

I find it so... feeble. I don't mean that as a personal attack or anything, just to note. It's just how I see it. Is your (I mean that generally, not individual) faith in your own religion so sensitive, so easily swayed, that you need some form of physical manifestation in order to simply reaffirm a book written by men and filled with contradiction? When even if it's supposed to be the word of God, yet at the same time, men are full of flaws and have free will? Are the literalists of Christianity really so weak-willed in face of philosophical confrontation, that they require a burden of proof for themselves, yet at the same time, surmise that those who do not agree, who follow a different path, are to be condemned to Hell?

For these people, I really have only apathy at best.

[Rawra]

The word of God means nothing anymore for almost all people who call themselves Christians, yet they never do what is right. 2010 years ago, something happened and the Christianity appeared. And, maybe the Christian god doesn't exist, but something created the small particle from which the big bang resulted and with it, the Universe we live in today.

[Nekowolf]

Not necessarily. Or rather, I should say, not technically. Either way, there's simply a circular logic which doesn't get anywhere. But I digress.

The thing is, people say there are Christians, and then there are "Christians." But who defines who? After all, those who are "Christian" nowadays are, if anything, actually closer to the traditional Christian of previous times, at least in a cultural sense. Homosexuality has always been looked down upon, to various degrees. It's been that way since human history.

Conversion, especially forced, also something practiced throughout human history. Fear of angering God has also often been used for centuries.

Outcasting the outsiders, those who are different.

The question becomes, if they are more like the Christians of previous times, then does that make you an outsider, too? Now of course, I'm sure you would say no, that they don't follow the word of Christ. But on the same hand, they can say the same about you, that you are the one not following the Bible. There really are no Christians and "Christians." You are all under the same name, although ideas, concepts, and practices can vary vastly. So arguing differences of such a broad name becomes rather weak; rather, it is better to focus on individual denominations.

But then isn't that passing judgment of others? The problem is that while Jesus may have taught noble things, they are also somewhat unrealistic, in that human nature is pretty shocking, really. Judgment, prejudice, it is actually inherent within humans. It is something that we cannot escape. And when you tack on concepts of sins and eternal damnation and stuff, damn, pretty much everyone is going to Hell. Partly because everyone says something different. Saying "well they never do anything right," it just circles right back to you, with them saying you're the one not doing anything right.

So saying "well they're just wrong" is rather null.

[fakepeeps7]

If you people don't know, well I guess it's time for you to know. There is enough evidence to prove that God and Jesus exists.

I'd argue that you'd be more likely to find evidence of Jesus' existence than of God's. The existence of a person doesn't make a belief real. (You could apply the same logic to Buddhism or Mormonism or Islam or Judaism. Just because someone came along and taught about something doesn't automatically make their subject matter true.)

First, there are the remains of saints. They are dry, yet perfectly conserved, even better than the egyptian mummies.

There are bodies that have been almost perfectly preserved all over the world. And they're not always saints. They're just unlucky people who happened to get caught out in the cold... and who would probably be condemned to hell by your God because they weren't Christian. God preserves saintly bodies? Oops...there goes that theory.

Second, there is Noah's Arch, which they say it was found in Turkey, on a mountain.

Noah's Arch? Is that like The Gateway Arch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Arch)?

That's not proof of God, either. If it exists, all it proves is that there was a big flood and some people built a big boat. That's not necessarily supernatural. Big floods happen every once in a while. Just look at Pakistan right now. Or at New Orleans in 2005.

Third, there is Jesus's tomb. Which is empty, no bones, nothing.

All that proves is that his grave was robbed. If that was even his tomb.

And fourth, people say that even Christ's cross was found somewhere.

Again, that's not proof of God. That's proof that crucifixion was practiced in those days. And we already know that.

And there are proofs of Sodom and Gomorah's disaster.

Nobody agrees on the exact location of those cities, so I don't see how proving that some random cities met with a cataclysm is proof of God. Is Pompeii proof of God? How about Pripyat?

Do you need more? I've got enough time to say it all.

If those are the kind of "proofs" you're going to provide, I don't think we need to hear them. We get the idea.

And, for the record, God doesn't force us to do anything. He doesn't force us to believe in Him, but He left us enough evidence so we believe. If we believe or don't, for Him is absolutely okay, but for us is really bad if we don't believe.

It's kind of hard to have the free will you claim we do when only one choice is viable. And if it's "absolutely okay" for God if we don't believe, then why does he need to make it "really bad" for the non-believers? A truly loving God wouldn't care and would value people based upon the goodness in their hearts and actions... not whether they believed in him. That just makes your God sound like he has a really fragile ego. What would we say about a person who throws a temper tantrum every time somebody does something he doesn't like? Why is your God allowed to get away with it?

The Christian God was made in man's image millennia ago... and reflects the human mindset of the time. I wish someone would make up a god that accurately reflects today's human values. A god who values all life on this planet (human, animal, and plant); who doesn't discriminate based upon colour, gender, or sexual orientation; who doesn't demand belief; who doesn't need rituals and oppressive customs to be appeased; who doesn't punish people for thinking for themselves; and who actually walks the walk and treats people with the same kindness that s/he wants us to treat others with (i.e., no smiting!). Unfortunately, it wouldn't take; for some reason (fear, maybe?) most Christians seem to want to live in the past.

[Oaktree]

From what I have heard from talking to people about Christianity, there isn't supposed to be evidence for God. He is supposed to exist on faith alone. To borrow from Douglas Adams, if there were evidence of God, he would "disappear in a puff of logic". This concept doesn't sit well with me because, frankly, I am, philosophically, a materialist (not in the sense of possessing stuff, in the sense of caring about and believing in things that are physically observable and/or rationally based on physical existence). But trying to prove God just means that you don't really believe in him.

[whiterider]

After all, those who are "Christian" nowadays are, if anything, actually closer to the traditional Christian of previous times, at least in a cultural sense. Homosexuality has always been looked down upon, to various degrees. It's been that way since human history.
I appreciate most of your argument, although it's a difficult one; but I'd contest these two points. Those who are "Christian" nowadays is, as you say, entirely subjective - to some people, "Christians" are those who go to church on Sunday, sing the songs, then go home and let their religion have absolutely no influence on their daily lives. To some, those who are "Christian" are those who are very actively "Christian" in their daily lives - without considering the effect of their actions on anyone else; and so on and so forth. You can't define a relative term with an absolute description. :)

Secondly, homosexuality hasn't been looked down on "since human history". In the ancient greek and roman worlds, it was a normal, accepted part of life, particularly for the wealthy, and was seen as entirely healthy - and there is very little in the Bible that even suggests that being homosexual was ever considered wrong by the writers of the Bible; mostly the passages spouted by fundies refer to the exploitative relationships often forced on young boys, in that time, by older men. Religious homophobia is a relatively modern thing, in Christianity at least (by modern I mean last few hundred years).

[Nekowolf]

Actually, that was partly my point, to be honest; the subjectivity of definitions. By having two sides saying "we're right, you're wrong" immediately validate the subjectiveness, making arguing that, "oh, well those people aren't really Christians" a rather poor point. Apologies if it wasn't entirely clear.

And damn it! You got me there! It is true that in some cultures, it was embraced, or at the very least, tolerated. But, since the rise of Christianity, it has changed that. From our perspective, the Christianity of the Middle Ages would probably be more "traditional," largely because it's both closer to what we see in some denominations now, and also because we know more about it thanks to better historical records. But, yes, I misspoke when I said "human history."

[Rawra]

Why don't you google "clinical death" and read what people saw when they "died" for 10 to 15 min? Even my grandma was in clinical death and she saw exactly what other people say they saw. And that happened 50 yrs ago, when there was no internet.

[WayBack]

Why don't you google "clinical death" and read what people saw when they "died" for 10 to 15 min? Even my grandma was in clinical death and she saw exactly what other people say they saw. And that happened 50 yrs ago, when there was no internet.

You know, when there was no internet, people still talked to each other, read the news, magazines and books, listened to the radio, watched the TV ... it certainly wasn't impossible to hear and read those stories and get inspired by them, even if it was just subconsciously.

Those visions can be easily explained as dreams and dreaming about something doesn't make it real.

[Oaktree]

Why don't you google "clinical death" and read what people saw when they "died" for 10 to 15 min? Even my grandma was in clinical death and she saw exactly what other people say they saw. And that happened 50 yrs ago, when there was no internet.

If you're talking about the tunnel of light and hallucinations of heaven, have you considered that a) the tunnel of light may be a physiological outcome of poor oxygen flow to the brain and b) people also tend to hallucinate due to poor oxygen flow to the brain? A dying person could probably be considered legally insane in the moments he/she is dying.

[Nekowolf]

And as a medical theory? There's a couple.

You also hear the same stories about people who go through training on those giant centrifuges (these things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6PPWxjgu0)) before they pass out.

But anyway, I really don't see how this is proving or countering any arguments, but more as just some random statement.

[whiterider]

Actually, that was partly my point, to be honest; the subjectivity of definitions. By having two sides saying "we're right, you're wrong" immediately validate the subjectiveness, making arguing that, "oh, well those people aren't really Christians" a rather poor point. Apologies if it wasn't entirely clear.No, sorry - I was the one who was unclear. I understood your point about subjectivity; but it contradicts your other point about "fake christians" (in some people's eyes) being closer to traditional Christianity - since that term could describe any group from very traditional to very progressive.

[fakepeeps7]

Why don't you google "clinical death" and read what people saw when they "died" for 10 to 15 min? Even my grandma was in clinical death and she saw exactly what other people say they saw. And that happened 50 yrs ago, when there was no internet.

And this proves... what? Christianity?

These visions (or NDEs, really) are a bit of a mystery. Some people think they're nothing more than hallucinations brought on by a lack of oxygen. If it's anything "spiritual", one could argue that such things are evidence of the survival of human consciousness after death. They don't seem to say anything about God.

To say they are evidence of God or that they mean Christianity alone is true is a bit of a stretch.

[Nekowolf]

No, sorry - I was the one who was unclear. I understood your point about subjectivity; but it contradicts your other point about "fake christians" (in some people's eyes) being closer to traditional Christianity - since that term could describe any group from very traditional to very progressive.
Uh, what term exactly? "fake Christians" or "traditional"?

[whiterider]

Er, "fake Christians", sorry. Grammarfail.

[Nekowolf]

Oh. I was speaking from her perspective. She said something like, well those people (the ones I was criticizing) aren't really Christians, so I just pegged them with the name "fake Christians" for the sake of argument. That's what I meant was subjective, the idea that there are people who "aren't really Christian," when those people who are called that, they may well say the same about her, that she's the one who isn't "really Christian."

So it's like, there aren't any people who are not Christian if they call themselves so and believe the core tenet. They have be very different in other aspects, but if they believe in God, see Jesus as the savior, and call themselves Christian, then they are, by definition, Christian, regardless of the other differences (such as literalism, homosexual opinion, etc).

[Lemon&Lime]

I remember seeing an interesting article on a Church website called "Checklist for Salvation?" Might try and find it. Basically, it was about the whole debate on what you need to do to get in Heaven, considoring the complex rules a Christian has to follow.

[kiwi_tea]

similarly, if there were conclusive evidence that Biblical characters and events did not exist or occur, then no-one would be Christian any more.

@whiterider

That's not strictly true. It's perhaps true of Christ and Christ alone. Christianity depends on the myth of Christ not being a myth. But several stories in the Bible are definitely intended as "sacred fiction", that is "fiction that reveals some divine truth about humanity". The books of Tobit and Judith are definitely folk stories intended to tell the reader/listener something about the nature of God and faith. Likewise, plenty of so-called "sophisticated" Christian theologians argue that the book of Genesis is also in the genre of "sacred fiction" (it's probably the only way to get it to mesh with reality). There's conclusive evidence that the book of Judith is fiction simply because it's ahistorical, and Tobit is filled with fortuitously apt names that pretty much give the game away. There is pretty conclusive evidence to suggest a fictional element all through the Biblical stories: the supernaturalism defies the observable world as it is known to us.

However, we're forced to conclude that the evidence of a historical Christ is inconclusive at best - there's no contemporary evidence at all. But consider: Even if Christ was verifably fiction, plenty of people would continue to claim that work of fiction was a divine message from the Christian god - a metaphor for the human condition.

[el_flel]

To revive this thread and take in a slightly different direction (have put my question here as this does seem to happen mostly with Christianity in my experience): HP got me thinking.

As an atheist if I ever get married I would not have any form of religious ceremony, nor, if I have kids, would I have them christened. This isn't because I hate religion - I don't - I just don't believe in the concept. If I had kids and they grew up and decided they wanted to follow a religion then that would be completely fine.

However, most people I know who are married or have children have had church weddings, and had their kids christened, even though they are not religious and have no intention of raising their kids as that religion. They assign godparents who know nothing about the faith. Some might have been baptised as a child but certainly don't attend church, or even necessarily believe the religion they were baptised into. They simply do these things because it's tradition.

My question is: do you agree with that? Non-religious people having religious ceremonies just because it's tradition?

[fakepeeps7]

My question is: do you agree with that? Non-religious people having religious ceremonies just because it's tradition?

I don't think it's really up to me to agree or disagree. If someone wants to sprinkle water on their kid's head or get hitched in a church, it doesn't affect me at all. For some people, tradition is really important... even if they don't actually believe in it themselves. (I think sometimes people do these things just to get other family members off their back.)

Only one of the last 4 marriages in our family has been in a church (and that was because she was a convert to evangelical Christianity... "born again" and all that). We're really not a religious bunch; I think we've proved it is perfectly possible to have a beautiful secular wedding.

[whiterider]

Sorry, kiwi tea, I didn't see your post earlier. Yes, you're quite right, much of the Bible is fiction - but I was referring to Biblical events as a whole, or perhaps an overwhelming majority of them, as opposed to a few bits here and there. :)


I don't disagree with non-religious people having religious ceremonies... but it seems strange. It seems like a viewpoint which can't have been really thought out - do people actually, actively, think "I am going to go and dedicate my new baby and his or her life to a god who I don't believe in, and who I don't expect to have any real place in my baby's life"? I mean... why? Traditions have their place - but they do have to be examined and not accepted blindly. Just look at male circumcision in the US - I really don't understand why it's so widespread over there, but it seems that everybody does it...

On the other end of the scale, my parents are Christian and I was christened, and I have two godparents (they're not of the same family, and one of them I haven't seen since he nearly got me into a car crash speeding when I was about eleven) - but I wasn't baptised as a baby; my parents believed that that should be a decision for me to make once I was old enough to do so, and I'm glad they did. I can't help feeling that piling so many ceremonies and sacraments on a baby, or anyone, to whom they're not relevant does devalue the sacraments from a religious perspective.

[Oaktree]

I think a church wedding can make some sense for a non-religious couple simply because churches often have nicer architecture. I personally would prefer some sort of outdoor setting, but I can understand the reasoning behind having a church wedding. I can also sort of understand the godparent thing, as it's almost the same thing as your kids calling your close friends "uncles" and "aunts". It's a name I wouldn't choose to use, but for someone who is more apathetic about religion, I can understand why the word "godparent" might be used.

I don't understand christening the kids, though. First, I think it is wrong to force a religion on a child. You are doing a mild version of that when you christen a child who is not capable of consent. Second, if you don't believe in the teachings of the church, presumably you don't share the - for lack of a better word - superstitions of the church. I don't understand why someone would, say, throw salt over his/her shoulder if he/she doesn't believe that spilling salt causes bad luck.

[el_flel]

I, personally, don't agree with it which is why I would never do it myself. It's a bit of a sham IMO - like saying that religion is only relevant when getting married or having a kid - devaluing it, in a sense (this mainly applies to non-religious people). If you're religious then surely your faith is relevant all the time, not just at certain points in your life.

As for the look of the place, I guess it depends on where you live, but there are beautiful non-religious buildings too. When a friend of mine was looking for locations for her wedding she found some amazing places.

[Rectos Dominos]

I am non-religious and it's hard to put my beliefs into a label. There's nothing wrong exploring another beliefs and their culture in fact it is a very open-minded thing to do. You don't have to be Catholic to visit the Vatican, or to be Jewish to vist a Synagogue, and for Hindu temples as long you follow the etiquette both Hindus and Non-Hindus alike.

[Lemon&Lime]

On the other end of the scale, my parents are Christian and I was christened, and I have two godparents (they're not of the same family, and one of them I haven't seen since he nearly got me into a car crash speeding when I was about eleven) - but I wasn't baptised as a baby; my parents believed that that should be a decision for me to make once I was old enough to do so, and I'm glad they did. I can't help feeling that piling so many ceremonies and sacraments on a baby, or anyone, to whom they're not relevant does devalue the sacraments from a religious perspective.

*Ahem* Theres a contradiction in your post. You said you were christened and have two godparents, then you said you weren't baptised as a baby.

Christened=Baptism.

Only difference is baptism tends to be applied to adults, not children.

[fakepeeps7]

*Ahem* Theres a contradiction in your post. You said you were christened and have two godparents, then you said you weren't baptised as a baby.

Christened=Baptism.

Only difference is baptism tends to be applied to adults, not children.

Not necessarily.

Christening versus Baptism (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/christening-vs-baptism.html)

Baptism is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Christening refers to the naming ceremony and does not have any religious connotations.

[geallach]

As far as I can see, most people who apparently do not practise a religion, yet participate or have their children participate in religious ceremonies do so for the most shallow of reasons, not for tradition at all. I have seen many people who are getting married checking out several churches to determine which would look the best in photos. Many children I have seen baptised were only baptised because their parents wanted an excuse for a day out or a booze-up. I have seen many children been given Communion just so their parents would have an excuse to doll them up and buy the Communion dress, then take them out somewhere. In many cases, the child is not even entirely aware of why they are at the church at all, because their parents do not even tell them the religious importance of the occasion. They just know they get to dress up and go out after. It is actually quite pathetic in one way, because no regard at all is given to either the religion or the tradition; people just want an excuse to have a big party. It would almost make you laugh. I respect people who at least show respect for the ceremony if they are religious or non-religious, but this sort of thing is just sad.

[whiterider]

As fakepeeps says - in my parents' denominations at least, christening is a general blessing (and naming) for babies, whereas baptism is the act of declaring oneself "officially" part of the christian church. Of course, the two are often performed at the same time.

[geallach]

Sorry, I'll correct myself, children actually being baptised for the wrong reasons was what I was talking about.

[Lemon&Lime]

As fakepeeps says - in my parents' denominations at least, christening is a general blessing (and naming) for babies, whereas baptism is the act of declaring oneself "officially" part of the christian church. Of course, the two are often performed at the same time.

Incorrect again I'm afraid :S the act of declaring oneself officially part of the christian church is called confirmation, and is usually done at age 14. Christening IS the same as baptism, look it up. If you have been christened you do not need to be baptised and in fact cannot be baptised because you only have one chance in life to wash away original sin, which is done at christening.

Christening/Baptism - must be done to wash away original sin to become part of the church.
Confirmation - it is when you were either christened as a child and are now making an informed decision to continue your relationship with the church.

It is very clear you have not done any research. You cannot be christened AND baptised at the same time - it's the same thing! However, christening is when your parents make the promises for you - and then you make them yourself when you are confirmed. If you're an adult being baptised, then you "confirm" yourself at the same time.

Infant baptism or christening[1][2][3] is the Christian religious practice of baptising infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning "child." The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism", or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe," which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underaged children.

For Roman Catholics, Confirmation is a sacrament that "confirms" or "strengthens" (the original meaning of the word "confirm")[50] the grace of Baptism, by conferring an increase and deepening of that grace.[51]

For some other Christians the ceremony of Confirmation is a matter not of "being confirmed" but of "confirming" the baptismal vows taken on one's behalf when an infant. This is the essential significance of the Lutheran non-sacramental ceremony called in German "Konfirmation," but in English "affirmation of baptism" (see Confirmation (Lutheran Church)).

In Eastern Christianity, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after baptism, and there is obviously no renewal of baptismal promises. In the Latin-Rite (i.e. Western) Catholic Church, the sacrament is to be conferred at about the age of discretion (generally taken to be about 7), unless the Episcopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is danger of death or, in the judgement of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise (canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law). The renewal of baptismal promises by those receiving the sacrament in the Western Catholic Church is incidental to the rite and not essentially different from the solemn renewal of their baptismal promises that is asked of all members of this Church each year at the Easter Vigil service. Only in French-speaking countries has there been a development of ceremonies, quite distinct from the sacrament of Confirmation, for young Catholics to profess their faith publicly, in line with their age.[52]

Q. What's the difference between a baptism and a christening?

A. None, they are just different words for the same thing.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/baptism1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

@fakepeeps7 - that website is incorrect. Go on an actual Church website. Well, they're not incorrect exactly - just don't understand what it is they're talking about. When a baby is Christened, or if you are an unchristened adult and are being baptised - you are asked what name you have/are going to have. This is so you can be added to Christ's family by name and so that Christ will know your name. Then you are baptised "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit". You are asked the same again as an adult because many adults who were not christened as a baby like to add a christian middle name at the same time.

[whiterider]

The link fakepeeps posted is so far the best source I've found explaining the difference, although it's not an ideal one given that it's not addressing the meaning specifically in my parents' denominations (nor are the sections you quoted, Lemon&Lime; it's pretty much impossible to find info on the tradition I was brought up in since it's an unofficial mishmash of several different denominations); it does roughly reflect the tradition I was brought up in. As you say, confirmation is the act of, well, confirming one's membership, and is only needed as a separate sacrament if you were baptised as a baby. It was very rare to baptise babies in my parents' church, so I don't think I've ever witnessed a confirmation - my best friend was baptised when she was 15, though, as she had previously been christened but not baptised.

I'm not, of course, claiming that this is the norm among christian churches - I really don't know - but one striking feature of christianity is that the denominations disagree over so many mostly petty things. I can assure you the difference exists in some, if only a handful of, denominations; I can't speak to the rest.

[Lemon&Lime]

Thats the thing, the one fakepeeps linked was not a religious source therefore I discounted it. Which denomination were you from?

Apologies if my last post seemed aggresive, It wasn't mean to, I was stressed. I've been very busy today.

[whiterider]

Methodist URC CofE Anglican. ;)

Don't worry - I know better than to take offence in a debate. :)

[Lemon&Lime]

Methodist URC CofE Anglican. ;)

Don't worry - I know better than to take offence in a debate. :)

That's good :)

And wow, that's confusing. I'm a straightforward Catholic-church going type of person. Although my mother is Methodist and my dad is CofS (Church of Scotland). I chose Catholic because I've always found it interesting after studing it at school, so yeah.

[Safyre420]

Thats the thing, the one fakepeeps linked was not a religious source therefore I discounted it.

You shouldn't discount sources due to them not being religious/non-religious.

[whiterider]

lol, yes it is. The church was set up about 17 years ago by a group of local churches who felt that one area needed another church - so it ended up sharing the denominations of all its parent churches.

I don't really associate myself with the church these days - my beliefs are closer to Christian than anything else, but I dislike the nature of the church, both as a whole and on a smaller scale.

[Lemon&Lime]

I can discount as non-religious source as irrelevant because it's not an "expert opinion". It's like having a quote about chemistry given by a professor of maths. Also the fact that its explanation of the difference was a bit dubious and made a couple of mistakes added to it. Personally I think it makes sense to have a source from an actual Church itself, otherwise the impression is that there aren't any main churches who share that view.

That sounds really interesting whiterider, so the church was a new one then? The Church as a whole on itself can be... I can't think of the word, but the people who make up the Church aren't infallible themselves which is something you have to remember. What is it about it that you dislike?

[Purity4]

What moral wrongs did the inhabitants do in the cities that upset God so badly that He wanted to destroy them?

Rape of men, women and children.

[RoseCity]

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is just the beginning of a very freaky story in the Bible. Because if I remember correctly after Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt, Lot continues on with his daughters into the mountains or hills. And the daughters get Lot drunk and they all have sex. I remember thinking as I was reading it, oh, no, now Lot's daughters are going to get smited by God in some innovative way, but, no, God approves of their decision to keep it in the family, and they found a mighty nation. Or maybe 2 mighty nations, I don't remember.

[kattenijin]

Rape of men, women and children.

Not even close.


Ezekiel 16:49-50:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.


What reasons does this passage give about Sodom? They were proud and arrogant. They had "fulness of bread", in other words they were self-indulgent. Abundance of idleness - they were lazy. They assumed NO responsibility for poor people, they had no social conscience. They were haughty - "stuck-up" with an attitude of superiority, arrogant. They committed "abomination" before God.

I don't like the use of the word abomination in most modern interpretations of this passage. The original word is "to'ebah", and would be better translated "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice".

In a nutshell, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people had become terribly evil and had totally turned away from God.

[Purity4]

Kattenijin, and Extensa, it has been several years since I read the Bible, but I do remember that there were many reasons, including those you stated Kattenijin, the laziness, gluttony, but it also was due to the raping of men, women and children. It is a part of the bible in which some people would like to misinterpret as god being against homosexuality, but in reality, it is the part where he says that forcing sex (rape) on another person is wrong. That was one of the sinful things occurring in those cities, the overeating, the laziness, the alcohol consumption, the theivery, the lack of compassion for the sick, elderly or poor, and the rape of the people. There were many things being done wrong in those cities, including rape, which I stated as the reason because to me, that one is the worst.

[kattenijin]

Purity4: There is no reference to rape of women or children. Although Lot offers up his daughters, he is turned down. Christian teaching also presents the desire of the mob to rape Lot's guests as "the evils of homosexuality" rather than the evils of rape of men; therefore I couldn't accept your statement of rape being the reason.

2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

I've always loved how well most Christians don't follow this commandment. Jesus on the cross anyone?

[RoseCity]

Isn't it something about angels came to Sodom and Lot wanted them to stay in his house? And then some men of the town wanted the angels, and because Lot said, rather than take the angels, they could take his daughters (what a family!), it's interpreted that they wanted the angels for sex.

[iCad]

In a nutshell, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people had become terribly evil and had totally turned away from God.

Thank you, kattenijin. :) So many people don't really understand what the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was really about, especially since it has become the rallying cry for the "God Hates Fags" crowd. :rolleyes: Your "nutshell" is exactly right, and you worded it far more concisely than I would have.

Now, as for Lot and his family and his story and its "morality" or lack thereof...Keep in mind that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, was written for people of the time. Genesis is probably not the oldest book in the Bible (That would be Job, most likely), but it was likely written in the 1400s BCE. For the numerically-challenged, that's about 3,400 years ago. Much of it, IMO, is allegorical and symbolic, very meaningful spiritually, but certainly not an historical document. But even if it were, do you (as in a general "you," not any specific person) seriously expect the morality of 3400 years ago to be the same as modern morality? Seriously? Is our current morality the same as it was even 100 years ago? Or even just 50 years ago? Think about it. 3,400 years ago, in the dominant Ancient Near Eastern cultures which Genesis and most of the Old Testament portrays, polygamy was OK, as was incest, as was a number of things that we consider not-OK, even heinous, today.

For instance, women who were raped were not seen as victims to be pitied or helped; they became instead pariahs, reduced to beggary because they no longer had any societal value. It was "morally OK" to disown a daughter because she was raped, even if it wasn't her fault. (Note that I'm not saying that this view of raped women is right, only that it's how it was.) This is why God's law that a rapist must marry his victim was not, for the culture, "cruel" as we would see such a law today, but instead incredibly kind and indeed loving, providing the raped woman with a secure, normal-for-the-time life that she would have been entirely denied otherwise. And do note that she would have been denied such a life by her own family. Such things as this is why, before one judges the Bible's "morality," particularly of the Old Testament, one should have some understanding of the culture that produced it. You cannot apply modern morality to it; it simply doesn't work.

IMO, Christians have gotten far too bogged down in the whole "It's the WORD OF GOD!" thing, sometimes going so far as to claim that instead of merely "inspiring" the human authors, God took over the their minds and bodies and wrote it Himself! IMO, that makes no sense at all. For one thing, if that were true, it would make no sense that the Old Testament in particular is indeed an accurate warts-and-all reflection of Ancient Near Eastern culture and would be most literally meaningful -- as opposed to spiritually meaningful -- to the people who existed then, not to us here in the 21st century CE. This is one way in which I differ from the majority of Christians. IMO, the Bible is a Work of Man, not the Word of God, but that doesn't make it less important or less meaningful. In fact, for me, it makes it MORE meaningful. It is full of deep and often allegorical spiritual meaning. It is a reflection of the wisdom, the thoughts, and the experiences of people who truly knew God, which is exactly what I aspire to do, and their words, their wisdom, and the things that they learned about God from their experiences guide me on my own path.

So IMO, the Bible is not a book of rules. Although it contains history, it is not meant to be a history book, and it most certainly is not a science book. It is not a book designed to tell you "how to live," as a lot of people (who haven't read it) will claim. It is full of stories about people who totally FUBARed their lives in extraordinarily spectacular ways. (Like...oh...King David) The point is that those Total Life Failure people -- who are some of the Biblical "greats!" -- learned all about the power of God's grace and what leaning on Him instead of on oneself allows one to do in spite of one's screw-up human ways, and that this is learning that one can then pass on to other Total Life Failure people. IMO, that's the whole point of being a Christian.

All that said, I don't want it to seem like I believe that God "changes with the times," so to speak. He doesn't. However, Jesus made it quite clear what was most important amongst all the gobbledygook, Biblical and otherwise: To love God and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. He said that everything hangs on those two edicts. So for me, if I'm analyzing something in the Bible or something that a Christian has said, I measure it against Jesus's "Greatest Commandment." If it doesn't measure up, then it is irrelevant or wrong or whatever. Since I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God," doing this neither distresses me nor shakes my faith.

ETA, at kattenijin again (Sorry!):



I've always loved how well most Christians don't follow this commandment [about graven images]. Jesus on the cross anyone?

Well, in fairness, it's the part about bowing down and worshiping the image that the command is warning against, not the image or icon itself. This addresses the habit of surrounding cultures of imbuing an object depicting a god with "godhead." i.e., in Egypt, a statue or Horus, WAS Horus, not just a statue of him. For instance, most Catholics I know who pray before a crucifix don't see the crucifix AS literally Jesus. If they do, though, then they're breaking the commandment.

[RoseCity]

I understand that it was a different time, but it isn't Lot and his daughters and their whole soap opera who I have a problem with. It's the God of Genesis who, for example, turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt merely for looking back, but then doesn't care if the daughters have sex with their father. And there must have been something shady about it - if incest was just a daily fact of life, why'd they have to get him drunk first?

[iCad]

I understand that it was a different time, but it isn't Lot and his daughters and their whole soap opera who I have a problem with. It's the God of Genesis who, for example, turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt merely for looking back, but then doesn't care if the daughters have sex with their father.

A couple of things, although one of the things is wholly dependent on the way I see the Bible in general.

1) Bear in mind that Genesis is not literal and is not meant to be read literally. Sodom and Gomorrah may or may not have been real. (I suspect not, if only because the name of the city of Sodom is derived from the Hebrew word that means "burnt," which is eventually what happened to Sodom in the story. Why would a city be named, literally, "burnt" when is wasn't, at least not yet? :) ) Lot and his family may or may not have actually existed, too. The point of the story is NOT the "history" or the "literal" events, but rather the intention behind the actions of the people/characters. Leading me to:

2) Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt because she apparently willfully disobeyed a direct order from God. Lot and his daughters did not. But don't misunderstand: It's not that disobeying God is "worse" than incest at all. The point is that it's one's heart and one's intentions that ultimately matter to God. People screw up and do "wrong" things all the time and they aren't destroyed for it. Why? Because usually they aren't doing what they do to willfully disobey. They're just being human. Even people who murder as a crime of passion often aren't in full control of their actions, and even human law makes allowances for this, distinguishing between premeditated and unpremeditated murder. God does no less. The spiritual message -- at least to a believer -- is strong: That God loves us even when we screw up, but we should avoid willfully screwing up.

3) Even if the events/people were real and that what was written actually happened...As I said, you can't apply modern morality to Old Testament times. Fathers and daughters, sisters and brothers often interbred in the local dominant cultures of the time, particularly in Egypt. They were very much into "keeping it in the family," especially so in the royal dynasties, where the pharaoh was literally a god. The Hebrew people lived amongst the Egyptians for a long time; their cultures and mores obviously and understandably "rubbed off." (Again, not saying that this is "right," only that it's how it was.) And really, "shady" or not, God doesn't seem to have too much of an opinion on the subject of incest, other than incestuous relationships make one unclean, if you believe that Levitical law applies. We, now, in modern Western cultures, find it morally abhorrent. God doesn't. Nowhere is it written that God has to agree with us. :) And frankly, I don't always agree with Him, either, much as I didn't always agree with my human father, for all that I loved him with all my heart, just as I do God. Beyond that, as I said, the Bible isn't an exhaustive book of rules, nor is it really a book about "how to live." The important thing is to pay attention to the intentions behind the people's/character's actions, at least in those books that are narrative in nature.

[RoseCity]

Well, I'm obviously not a believer but here's what I don't like about these stories - Lot could've said to the people who wanted the angels, 'if you want the angels, you're gonna have to get through me first.' Abraham could've told the guy who wanted his wife, 'this woman is my wife and you can't have her'. Abraham could've told God, 'sorry, no, this is my son who I love, I'll sacrifice myself first.' But instead they act like cowards.

[kattenijin]

...the name of the city of Sodom is derived from the Hebrew word that means "burnt," which is eventually what happened to Sodom in the story. Why would a city be named, literally, "burnt" when is wasn't, at least not yet?...

Which reminds me that saying Jesus Christ the Savior is mulitiply redundant.

Jesus (which happens to be a mis-translation of a mis-translation) means "salvation/savior".

Christ means "anointed" or "redeemer", which is a synonom for savior.

So, basically, you are saying "Savior Savior the Savior".

[HystericalParoxysm]

I thought Jesus was a distortion of his real, original name (something like Yeshua), which is closer to Joshua.

[kattenijin]

It is. If you look up the meaning of the name Joshua, it has the same meaning as Jesus.

[iCad]

Well, I'm obviously not a believer but here's what I don't like about these stories - Lot could've said to the people who wanted the angels, 'if you want the angels, you're gonna have to get through me first.' Abraham could've told the guy who wanted his wife, 'this woman is my wife and you can't have her'. Abraham could've told God, 'sorry, no, this is my son who I love, I'll sacrifice myself first.' But instead they act like cowards.

They could have, yes...but they didn't. Why? Well, in some cases, it's because they're human beings, perhaps that really existed, perhaps that were "only" characters in a story. Either way, human beings do boneheaded things all the time, out of fear or out of a sense of self-preservation or out of anger or whatever, and the stories reflect that.

Lot COULD have stood up to the mob, sure. But how many people do you know in real life who will stand up, alone, to a large enraged mob obviously bent on physical violence? Seriously, how many people would really do that, in reality, and how many would run away or, in a mindless panic, do whatever it took to protect themselves? How many stories have you read about people being attacked in some way, screaming for help...and people walking right on by, furtively, averting their faces in shame because they know they SHOULD help, but they just don't have the courage to do so.

One needs to understand that virtually NONE of the Biblical characters, even the "greats" like Abraham or Moses or David or an endless list of others, are icons of perfection and that, furthermore, they are not meant to be. In cases like Lot's and many others, the Bible doesn't portray the noble or "right" thing to do, but rather the thing that would more likely happen in imperfect real life. (Or, in some cases, what the person does or doesn't do is crucial for the spiritual meaning of the narrative, regardless of what we, the readers, might think of the action. In other words, sometimes it's a...uh, plot device. :) )

Look at it this way: Judeo-Christianity isn't (or at least, IMO, shouldn't be) about being perfect and/or perfecting yourself. I was Buddhist for a number of years before I came back to Christ, and Buddhism was definitely about perfecting yourself. Its texts are full of things that you should or shouldn't do or things that you should or shouldn't think/say in order to not accumulate karma and therefore achieve enlightenment. The Bible and Judeo-Christianity isn't like that. At all. Much of the Bible -- at least the narrative books of it -- is, in a sense, a big honkin' allegorical play, with all of the standard dramatic devices in play.

When you see it this way and don't try to turn it into literal history (even when it actually IS history; the history usually isn't the important thing), you start to see it in a new light. You see that you have a host of very human characters, with all of the human foibles represented. Some characters do the wrong thing for the worst reasons but find redemption anyway. Some do all the right things only to find their lives in shambles anyway, but they learn lessons whilst huddling in the muck. Some do the wrong things for the right reasons and their story plays out from there. Some, like Lot, have absolutely no clue what's going on, and they repeatedly screw up because they're human and perhaps a bit on the cowardly/panicky side, but they ultimately trust and obey God and because of that, they eventually come out OK, despite hardships.

Whatever the case, the end result is usually that the person in question learns to trust God and so develops a stronger faith, which, really, is the ultimate thing that you're supposed to do. If you're a believer, of course.

So the Biblical stories generally aren't about characters acting in ideal ways, no. If you read it looking for that you will be sorely disappointed. :) Perhaps that would have been more straight-forward, particularly to us in our more literal and "just give me the information!" mindset; the average person isn't into sitting and contemplating deeper meaning, as were the learned people of more ancient cultures. But if one DOES sit and rethink how one approaches reading the Bible, if one does attempt to see it as allegorical and symbolic storytelling, one realizes a couple of things. Namely:

1) As I said, the Bible isn't a book of rules or a guide for living or what-have-you, even though people will insist that it is, usually without having read it. The people/characters in all of the more-narrative books do very human things. They are not, as I said, larger-than-life icons of perfection but rather people to whom we can relate. When we can relate to them, we can learn from the consequences, good or bad, of their actions, just as they did. Which is the whole point. Because:

2) What the Bible is, at least in part, is a record of people's learning experiences. Whether or not those people really existed ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is that we (meaning, believers) are meant to take note of those experiences, to see how God worked in those people's lives and then perhaps to apply those lessons to our own lives, so that we perhaps won't have to go through the same sort of thing in order to learn a similar lesson. Because really, there are so many people in so many different situations and with so many different mindsets in the Bible that you're bound to relate to someone in some Old Testament narrative or in one of Jesus's parables or somewhere. And then that story becomes meaningful for you, as the Prodigal Son parable is deeply meaningful to me. Once one bit is meaningful, then you can perhaps begin to appreciate how the other stories might possibly be meaningful in some way, too, so that you DON'T feel such a need to be judgmental of the person's/character's actions but rather to see the story for what it is: A learning situation for that individual...and perhaps, for yourself.

For instance...You mentioned Abraham's willingness to sacrifice of Isaac. Sure, he could have offered himself instead. It would have been the far more "noble" thing to do since "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13), much less for his son, yes? BUT that's not the point of this particular situation. The point was that Abraham showed his willingness to trust and obey God, even though he didn't really understand what was going on and didn't want to do what was asked of him, even though it was killing him to do it. To me, Abraham wasn't a coward at all; it takes deep courage to trust what one doesn't understand and even deeper courage to do what one is asked to do, once one trusts. Abraham trusted God, and that was the important thing. In fact, Abraham's entire life from the time we "meet" him in Genesis is all about him learning to trust God instead of doing it his own way (i.e., as when Abraham lied about who and what Sarah really was), which is exactly the path that many new believers have to tread, which is just one reason why his story is meaningful.

So in short, in Biblical narratives, spiritual meaning is usually not derived from the literal course of events but rather from seeing the narrative as a story and realizing where the affected person/character's heart is. Of course, if one isn't seeking spiritual meaning from the Bible, I suppose that all that's left is the literal course of events. I suppose that some of the stories are interesting that way, certainly full of drama, but to me reading the Bible that way is very...dry. And I can see why people get frustrated with the Biblical characters' actions if they're reading the stories as just a literal course of events or if they think that the things that characters do are always the "right" things or are always what God wants or approves of, when obviously the people in the stories don't always make the best of all possible choices. *laughs*

But I really, truly don't think that the Old Testament, especially, was ever meant to be read that way. Reading it that way is, IMO, a by-product of our modern mindset. The Hebrews and other Ancient Near Eastern cultures had a true gift for telling allegorical stories, stories that had (and have) far more meaning beyond the words on the page. I think that, in a sense, we in the modern "information age" have lost the ability to see beyond the words on the page. That's kind of sad, really.

I suppose this is why Christianity has become the world's #1 religion. It probably has gained worldwide popularity, because many people choose to pay attention to the intentions behind the character's actions.

I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say here. I certainly don't think that Christianity is "popular" because of how people choose to read/interpret the Bible. It's "popular" for many different reasons, ranging from simple tradition (meaning, people are born into the religion and never see a need to deviate from it) to people actually appreciating, embracing, and practicing its message of unconditional love.

Although I am not a believer of Jesus Christ or God, I do enjoy the biblical stories. They are just hard to interpret, since there is a 2000-year-long time gap between me and the Hebrew authors.

That can be very difficult, indeed. I believe that it's important to understand the Bible in its cultural and historical context; it makes some of the more distant-from-us concepts a little easier to understand, and when you understand you often come to appreciate. But this takes effort, and not everyone is willing to do that. It'd be NICE if we could just pick up the Bible and read it and understand all of it easily. With some of it, you can do exactly that; the Gospels are very accessible, especially in modern-language translations, and generally do not require context, for instance. But unfortunately the Old Testament was written for an audience that existed thousands of years ago in a culture very alien to ours and that had a VERY different mindset than we have. To understand them, and therefore the Old Testament, takes effort, yes. Sometimes, it takes a LOT of effort.

[Nekowolf]

"I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say here. I certainly don't think that Christianity is "popular" because of how people choose to read/interpret the Bible. It's "popular" for many different reasons, ranging from simple tradition (meaning, people are born into the religion and never see a need to deviate from it) to people actually appreciating, embracing, and practicing its message of unconditional love."

Not to be an asshole, but violence should also be recognized (although of course, it is HARDLY alone in that way).

[iCad]

Not to be an asshole, but violence should also be recognized (although of course, it is HARDLY alone in that way).

You? An asshole? Never. ;)

Well, sure. Violence unfortunately is a part of human nature, and religion -- as in the organized, ritualized institution, apart from bare theology and belief -- is certainly not devoid of human nature, both good and bad.

Of course, I hardly think violence and violence perpetrated in the name of God is a reason why Christianity is popular. ;) And forceful conversion isn't exactly common anymore, certainly not so much as it was in, say, the Middle Ages.

[whiterider]

Violence doesn't generally convert people. Certainly there have been instances of Christian armies invading and occupying a territory, and the culture of the invaders dominating the native culture until the religion takes over (as in England). However, that still comes under tradition.

[Nekowolf]

Well, I see it as, yes, it did attribute to modern day popularity. Through forced conversion of Europe, it spread outward, eventually suppressing competing native faiths (sometimes through violence, sometimes through demonization) until eventually, other faiths simply did not have the power to gain a proper foothold within Christian territory (again, I mean mostly in Europe).

So eventually it just maintains a hold for hundreds of years, being Christian or Catholic or whatever becomes an expected tradition, for various reasons, such as fear of ostracization. And that leads to popularity, in a sense. It depends how we're defining "popularity." I'm going pretty much simply by numbers, just to clarify.

But basically, waging war and invading other regions with the prospect of trying to convert others did give it its widespread reach, at least in Europe. Though, certainly, not a sole cause, of course. It may have happened regardless of war or not.

@whiterider

Maybe I'm just thinking too specifically, like, certain events and such.

[iCad]

Well, I see it as, yes, it did attribute to modern day popularity. Through forced conversion of Europe, it spread outward, eventually suppressing competing native faiths (sometimes through violence, sometimes through demonization) until eventually, other faiths simply did not have the power to gain a proper foothold within Christian territory (again, I mean mostly in Europe).

So eventually it just maintains a hold for hundreds of years, being Christian or Catholic or whatever becomes an expected tradition, for various reasons, such as fear of ostracization. And that leads to popularity, in a sense. It depends how we're defining "popularity." I'm going pretty much simply by numbers, just to clarify.

In a pure numbers way, you're probably right. I was thinking of "popularity" more along the lines of "being appealing to large numbers of people." From that point of view, violence doesn't really enter into it, unless you're some kind of psychopath. ;)

I don't disagree that people did (and still do) bad things in the name of God. But I do think that in terms of the spread of Christianity throughout Europe, the motivation was not spreading Christianity so much as spreading power and money-making potential. Unfortunately, that was the historical church's corruption "talking," not Christianity as a general concept. The church and the general faith are not always one and the same. Thankfully! :)

But basically, waging war and invading other regions with the prospect of trying to convert others did give it its widespread reach, at least in Europe.

Not just in Europe. In the 17th-19th century, the British took their Christianity wherever they went, and they went...practically everywhere. India, Africa, the South Pacific, and of course North America. See? The US learned its imperialistic technique from the masters! ;) (Note: In case it's not obvious, that was a joke. :) )

Though, certainly, not a sole cause, of course. It may have happened regardless of war or not.

Would that it had, my friend. Would that it had. And would that the people who spread it weren't quite so...uh, insistent. They really didn't need to be.

[RoseCity]

But I really, truly don't think that the Old Testament, especially, was ever meant to be read that way. Reading it that way is, IMO, a by-product of our modern mindset. The Hebrews and other Ancient Near Eastern cultures had a true gift for telling allegorical stories, stories that had (and have) far more meaning beyond the words on the page. I think that, in a sense, we in the modern "information age" have lost the ability to see beyond the words on the page. That's kind of sad, really.
I understand what you're saying - I don't agree but that can't be helped.
I think I am seeing beyond the words on the page - as a modern person which is what I must remain. And the gist of all these stories is that one must fear and obey God above all else which to me is ridiculous.

[alexross8]

I think the Old Testament is supposed to be taken literally for a few reasons. If the words were truly allegorical, then it would be fine to assume that the Hebrews did not believe in the literal stories of the bible, but they did believe in the literal stories.
They were believed to be literal history, as well as relating certain events to them and even using principles from them as the basis for understanding truth about genealogies and such. Both Mary and Joseph's family is traced back to Adam , as if they literally existed.

And another reason , is that this world is a state of being. To be living in this world , you take on a form that obeys certain rules and principles (like gravity and such). It's almost like a dream, and is a dream , in the sense that we have a body that is subject to it's boundaries. But sometimes we question things , and some things make absolutely no sense unless it is explained in a certain way with as much evidence as we can gather. And the mere fact that life is too mysterious to know absolutely everything about , makes us unable to see our world as one continual rational process. But instead, life and past can be interpreted in any way we desire , as long as it is reasonable to us.

Believing in something that makes more sense than what people understand as truth , is much more fun, because life is just one big interpretation.

Also , I disagree with the whole "believe this and be saved thing".
According to what Jesus said (Not what priests say) , to be saved , we must admit that we are bad . We must love God with all our body , mind , and soul. And we must treat others the way they expect to be treated , and we must respect each other as equals and as neighbors.

The man on the cross knew not of Jesus nor of Goodly ways , but he knew his place , he knew his sins which he admitted , but Jesus forgave him and promised him paradise.

That is the Jesus I believe in.

[Nekowolf]

Dreams really don't have boundaries, aside from being creations of the mind. Other than that, it's pretty much anything goes in a dream.

[amazi]

This is one of the things I really hate about many Christian doctrines--that you can be "saved" if you believe, no matter how ROTTEN a person you might be.

This makes it pretty crystal clear to me that the whole idea was invented by humans--it's easy to sell an idea that has such an easy escape clause. God forbid you should preach that people must be good people to be saved.

My opinion on what you just said is that EVERYONE is a bad person. Everybody sins, nobody is perfect. Metaphorically, say there is some lollies or something, and two kids are trying to reach it. One is close, almost there, and one is far away. Neither get the lollies, even though one is far closer to them than the other. The lollies are salvation and eternal life, and the kids are people. However, both can get up and get the lollies if they ask for forgiveness and truly believe.

[kiwi_tea]

I often have this idea for a short story.

Christ falls asleep under the groves and in his dream he meets the devil. They go to the highest point and can see all the lands (globe be damned I say, this is dream metaphysics!). The devil's temptation of Christ consists of Satan pointing out the broad cooperative nature of society. There are mothers with children, there is a group of people building a shrine, there are families, there is a dinner. This, says Satan, is so much of human nature. Are these such beasts? But Christ's brow furrows as, arrogantly, he seeks out the rare thief, the adulterer, the bully, and declares these anomilies to be the very essence of human nature.

And then... ...he wakes up, all the more misanthropic. All the more convinced that he is the bringer of salvation. In short, all the more crazy.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I love it, kiwi. I'd read that if you wrote it. :)

[RoseCity]

I often have this idea for a short story.

Christ falls asleep under the groves and in his dream he meets the devil. They go to the highest point and can see all the lands (globe be damned I say, this is dream metaphysics!). The devil's temptation of Christ consists of Satan pointing out the broad cooperative nature of society. There are mothers with children, there is a group of people building a shrine, there are families, there is a dinner. This, says Satan, is so much of human nature. Are these such beasts? But Christ's brow furrows as, arrogantly, he seeks out the rare thief, the adulterer, the bully, and declares these anomilies to be the very essence of human nature.

And then... ...he wakes up, all the more misanthropic. All the more convinced that he is the bringer of salvation. In short, all the more crazy.

I understand that your story would be a work of fiction. But the Jesus you're describing I don't really see in the Bible, even at his craziest and crankiest. Jesus did I guess hang with the sinners, giving the reason that they were the ones he wanted to reach out to.
Also I wouldn't call stealing, adultery and bullying anomalies. They are very common human behaviors.

[kiwi_tea]

But the Jesus you're describing I don't really see in the Bible, even at his craziest and crankiest.

We don't see a lot of Jesus in the Bible, really. We never get in his head. As a character, he can only be judged by his actions, and insofar as his actions carry him he's a cynical death cultist with a very impressive talent for parables. Certainly Christ isn't deliberately cruel, his arrogance and meaness is Gandhi-like: It is faithful in character, accidental and sincere cruelty, intermingled with genuine compassion. There are few more deluded and inhumane spiels in literature than the one between Matt 6.24 and Matt 6.34. It should be infamous as tragedy.

Moreover, as a short story and a work of fiction, it represents more than *just* Christ's perspective, but rather the deeper Christian perspective cemented (whether or not it's considered historical) in the story of the Fall of man, in which humanity allegedly falls from a state of grace. I was once friends with an incredibly devout theologian and academic - a religious studies professor with quite a liberal Christian attitude and a woman much older than me - who said the reason she could not be an atheist is because the world is so terrible and it needs (underlying assumption: her specific) God. I don't think I've pitied anyone more, and I hear echoes of her in every Christian who believes in this "Fallen" and "broken" mankind. I don't believe in perfectablity, neither Xtian nor otherwise. But I certainly don't believe things are nearly so bad as to warrant some sort of supernatural "salvation", which, in reality, is really just short-hand for "Salvation, while I live, from coping with the probability that I'm a mortal creature who will one day cease to be." The core of faith: Loneliness, fear and cynicism, all masquerading clumsily and unfortunately convincingly as some kind of comfort and love.

It reminds me of Mother Teresa's letters that were published after her death: "When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I... am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

Poor woman. She deserved reality, with its real love, and its real voices.

Also I wouldn't call stealing, adultery and bullying anomalies. They are very common human behaviors.

Really. I don't see them happening very often at all, barring the bullying. You definitely see bullying a bit more than stealing or adultery, but still, the vast majority of people aren't bullies. This is a problem for police actually, because for years and years we've been drilling "stranger danger" into kids. In principle it's a good thing, but NOT if a kid is lost or in trouble, because parents tend to teach their kids not to approach strange adults under any circumstances. The reality is that kids are in a much safer position if they DO approach strangers and ask for help, apparently it's when they don't that they can become easy targets for malicious persons, both because they are alone and also because the vast majority of adults will actually help the kids. People are, generally, pretty nice and reasonably compassionate, given the everyday pressures (particularly financial) that they endure. We needn't be nearly so misanthropic as we tend to be, and as religions like Christianity dictate we must be, doctrinally.