Christianity - a question.

[Komachi Angel]

I've had a few things that have been bugging me for some time now, so I thought I might see what people think.

In the bible, numerology is incredibly important. Almost all of revelations is based on numbers alone, and I don't think a single one goes without a deeper meaning. Also, if 13 is generally accepted as the devil's number, why then does Jesus and 12 disciples make 13? Also, 13 is the ideal number for a coven in witchcraft (denounced by Christianity), but once again it's smack on.

Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else.

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.

And about Easter, etc. They were originally old Pagan festivals, but Christiantiy used the same dates to compete, and yet most Christians I have spoken to about this get angry at me (again with the tolerance).

And what's this about God being human? They say God made humankind in his image, but if God is a spiritual being and not of the flesh, and that which is eternal about humanity is the spirit, why does God always look like a real person?

Why do people believe that in some place called heaven, god is looking at people and willfully attempting to malign them? Some ask 'Why does god let bad things happen', but I thought it was clear that God doesn't interfere with our choices and our lives. Which means God doesn't listen to prayers, because that would be taking away our power, in which case God might as well save us from all that sort of thing anyway.

And why is it so common to lower God's intelligence to our own level? Some talk of flaws in evolutionary theory as though they were flaws in God's creation, but in realtiy, we are talking about a being who is meant to be infinetely smarter and wiser than anyone down here. Yet those that believe in God see fit to detail his every work without even knowing the details.

For example - you don't see me writing books about the construction of apartment buildings and why they are good and bad, because I have never done anything but live in them. I can't tell you about structural theory - just how it feels to live in it.

Why is there the belief that things were actively made? I much prefer the idea of evolution, because to me it makes sense. After all, the concept of evolution is the ultimate in a self-managing process, as everything affects everything around it, achieving balance.

I understand religion's place in society as something to give people identity and so forth, and I also believe I can answer the above sufficiently. Still, I want to open these points to discussion. This is not a discussion of merit of religion, however, but points of theory.

As for my definition of God? If god is omniscient as stated in the bible, then that means god is in fact everything, correct? If there is a God, I don't see it as an active being in some far of destination, but as existence itself. It's hard to explain, but it goes a long way in explaining things, and if that becomes your definition of God, it's hard to refute.

I have met a lot of Christians whose lives grew dramatically better after they joined the church. They became more dynamic and so on, taking risks and so on simply because of their faith. But this is nothing special - it is something we can all do, God or no. What these people have done is simply believe in themselves, using the concept of God to blanket their own fears because they truly believe they will succeed due to that. And so they do.

Disucss!

[fa11en87]

Err I think every religion has something weird...I can't even discuss the topics you mentioned because I am a very unorthodox christian, and I do not know much><.

[Jon885]

I don't know about the answer of your questions but I felt like I read the first two paragraphs of your post before. I think I confused you with somebody else.

Oh and: http://www.christiananswers.net/ That helped me when I had some questions about Christians.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

I've had a few things that have been bugging me for some time now, so I thought I might see what people think.Well I'll help you the best I can but no bady has all the answers to anything religious or not least of all me.

In the bible, numerology is incredibly important. Almost all of revelations is based on numbers alone, and I don't think a single one goes without a deeper meaning. Also, if 13 is generally accepted as the devil's number, why then does Jesus and 12 disciples make 13? Also, 13 is the ideal number for a coven in witchcraft (denounced by Christianity), but once again it's smack on. Ok first of all 13 is not the devils number it is just a unluck number. If i remember my superstitions right the superstition about the number 13 come from the fact that there were 13 people at the last supper (Jesus and his 12 diciples) and shortly after jesus was arrested and put to death. And the superstion became that the number 13 was a fortelling of ill events. Essentailly if you saw 13 of something it meant something bad was going to happen, and this later graduated into just being unlucky.

6 is actually the number most closely associated with the devil because 666 is the mark of the beast. However 6 and 666 are not the samething as any numerologist will tell you (i belive 666 actually becomes 9 in standard numerology if i remember right). And it was actually some bishop or archbishop or something like that, that first wrote about 6 being the number of the devil, a great long time ago, citing the number 666 as evidance.

However nowhere in the bible will you see the numbers 13 or 6 being refered to as "the devils numbers" which leads to the conclution that it is more superstion than religous based.

Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else.
That is what we like to call hipocrasy. Kinda like an aethist saying he hates when people try to force their views on others while trying to make force christian to belive there is no god. Hypocrasy is not limited to religion. However were are veering a bit off subject aren't we. The problem stems from interpetation and human nature.

The bible tells us to share our belive with others. I thnk we can all belive that sharing ideas is a good thing. I'm will tell anyone who is willing to listen about my faith. However they forget or ignore that the bible says that not everyone is willing to listen. They try to force seeds to grow on the rocks or in the brambles. But why do they do this? Why do they try to force this on people? It's because they care about them.Tehy fear for their mortal soul. Lets say your perants are christain and you are not. They want their son to be with them in heaven not damned eternally in hell, so they try to do what they think is best for you. Would you let your child commit suicide? Of course not, and they are trying to prevent you from commiting suicide on you soul.

It is because of love they they try to force thier beliefs on others, but a great many get so preoccupied with the deed they forget the reason. And then all that is the forcefulness and the love is gone. This happens with a great many things beside christianity, where peopel get so precupied with doing something they forget the reason why they are doing it. Christian should remember that all we can to is share the gosepl we can't make anyone hear it. They will hear it when they are ready.

As for the judgemental christians, once again and example of hypocracy. However you non-christains can take comfort in the fact that if we christains are right and there is a god as exists in the bible. Then as we have judged others, so shall we be judged in the kingdom of heavan.

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.
First of all while catholosism may be a form of christianity, christianity is not catholoism. And there are a number a major differances between catholoism and prodostant christain beliefs, I just wanted to clear that up because many peopel asume one form of christianity reprisents it all which as every one should know is not true.

If you don't mind I will reword you question so that it will apply to a broader scope of christianity. Why do certain christians such ad some televangelist and churchs ridiculous sums of money on artifice? Well You really should need me to answer this one, the answer is greed and averice. Yes there is corruption even amoung christians. They question might as well be why do some members of charities embezzle funds? Of course this is on a more personal level.

On a more grander scheme such as extravegant churches can be justified. I'm not going to say it right or wrong, but it can be justified. Do you think more people are likely to visti a rundown shack in some back all or a extravagant cathedral? But it shouldn't matter to a real christain, should it? It's the worship thats important isn't it, not fancy buildings or pretty bibles. However we all know that in this day and age that that fails to hold true, esspesially for those weaker in faith. And isn't that who the church REALLY needs to attract? Jesus didn't come here to save the people that were already going to heaven, He came the save the ones that weren't going to make it. So isn't that who the church should cater to? The ones that are still drawn to big extravagant places?

Personally i was raised in a rather large church, andi t was fine and all. But when i found God for myself, i chose to to attend a tiny little church off the beaten path outside of town and I have to say as a hole it was the best church I've ever been to.

And about Easter, etc. They were originally old Pagan festivals, but Christiantiy used the same dates to compete, and yet most Christians I have spoken to about this get angry at me (again with the tolerance). Don't forget chistmas too since its that time of year. This was actually the old catholic church's doing way back in medievil times. And the purpose was to absorb the pagan cultures into christianity with as little conflict as possible by adapting part of their culture. Do I agree with it? No. Do I thing its a good thing? No. We've already established, that christians like everyone else will still do wrong things. Nobodies every said that christains never do any thing wrong and only do the right thing. The bible tells us we all sin. Far more often than we know. Will I still celebrate those holidays? Yes. Regardless what the intentions behind the dates, there are still ment to celebrate something and that is what I ill celibrate on those days.

And what's this about God being human? They say God made humankind in his image, but if God is a spiritual being and not of the flesh, and that which is eternal about humanity is the spirit, why does God always look like a real person? This is just a differance in interpetation. Most the people I know belive that Man being made in gods image refers to mans Soul being created in gods image. Why didn't they just say soul? Well you have to understand the context of the creation story. No human that had access to written language was there to see the creation, Genesis wasn't writen by adam and eve, nor by god himself. (It largely accepted that it was writen by Moses) It was a dream or a vision, and as we see through out the bible these dreams and vision rarely if ever come out exactly as they are seen. I belif is that the creation in the bible is a really dumbed down version of the creation of the universe on a level that the people of that time could grasp. Its like, why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs, well there is no anceint hebrew word for dinosaurs and rather than showing a dinosaur and expaining what it was it was far easier to for go them and just show the animals that people already knew about. After all These people would never see a dinosaur so it was completely irrelevant. Just as stuff like explaining how a cloud of dust and gas becomes a galaxy or how the world is round. To these people it was irrelevant, so you simplify it for them

Why do people believe that in some place called heaven, god is looking at people and willfully attempting to malign them? Some ask 'Why does god let bad things happen', but I thought it was clear that God doesn't interfere with our choices and our lives. Which means God doesn't listen to prayers, because that would be taking away our power, in which case God might as well save us from all that sort of thing anyway.I almost agree with you here, I a gree that god isn't sitting up there making bad things happen to you, nor is he sitting ther making good things happen to you. But I disagree that prying does no good. It depends on what you pray for. If you pray for a car, or more money, or material things like that then you'll largely be on your own there. How ever you can pray for strength, for wisdom, for grace, and most of all forgiveness, for ourselves an others. I notice many of the people who claim god doesn't listen to their prayers are just praying for the wrong thing.

And why is it so common to lower God's intelligence to our own level? Some talk of flaws in evolutionary theory as though they were flaws in God's creation, but in realtiy, we are talking about a being who is meant to be infinetely smarter and wiser than anyone down here. Yet those that believe in God see fit to detail his every work without even knowing the details.

For example - you don't see me writing books about the construction of apartment buildings and why they are good and bad, because I have never done anything but live in them. I can't tell you about structural theory - just how it feels to live in it. I'm not really sure i understand what your trying to say on this. So I can't really answer you on this on

Why is there the belief that things were actively made? I much prefer the idea of evolution, because to me it makes sense. After all, the concept of evolution is the ultimate in a self-managing process, as everything affects everything around it, achieving balance. Persoally I think its more likely that both creationist and evolutionist are partially right, and mostly wrong. And until either can be witnessed on and witnessed consistently, neither will be proven. Personally I don't care. It really doesn't effect me, or my children, or my childrens children, or my childrens childrens children. If evolution is true then it takes millions of years and ultimately is out of any of our control therefore the answer is merely acedemic. What I do care about is the hiding of the truth when teaching our future generations. Evolution is a theroy, and its a therory because it still has flaws. I belive that if you are going to teach a theory you should teach the whole theory including the peices missing. If nothing else so that the future scientist of the world can find the answers. Currently a decent number of professor get fided for teaching about the flaws in the elolutionary theory.

I understand religion's place in society as something to give people identity and so forth, and I also believe I can answer the above sufficiently. Still, I want to open these points to discussion. This is not a discussion of merit of religion, however, but points of theory. Unfortunately like all the other treads this will eventually turn into a debate on the merits of religion, but hopefully we can get some good discussion in before that happens.

As for my definition of God? If god is omniscient as stated in the bible, then that means god is in fact everything, correct? If there is a God, I don't see it as an active being in some far of destination, but as existence itself. It's hard to explain, but it goes a long way in explaining things, and if that becomes your definition of God, it's hard to refute. Omniscient means god KNOW everything. Omnipresent is a bit closer meaning god is everyWHERE. I'm not sure what the term for everything would be...anyone wanna help us out?

I have met a lot of Christians whose lives grew dramatically better after they joined the church. They became more dynamic and so on, taking risks and so on simply because of their faith. But this is nothing special - it is something we can all do, God or no. What these people have done is simply believe in themselves, using the concept of God to blanket their own fears because they truly believe they will succeed due to that. And so they do. My take is being christian in and of itself does not make you a good person or a bad person. I've know great people that were not christians, I've known horrible people that were (or claimed to be but thats a differant subject), and vice versa. Weather or not you are truely a christian really only comes into play after you are dead.

[Lan]

Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else.

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.

Decided to pick a couple. =) I pretty much agree with Jynx, though I have to work at getting past the grammar a bit.

IRT second point: Personally, I prefer the soft approach when sharing Gospel. I wont' push it upon my friends, classmates, etc, that aren't willing to listen. I happily answer questions when someone _does_ ask me, and I just try my best to be a 'good witness,' doing what I hope Jesus would've done. I really disagree with pushy people (which i've met from several faiths) and am somewhat ashamed to say that I once argued with a Jehovah's Witness (a pastor no less) who was arguing in circles....hindsight being 20/20, i figure I didnt' give him the best impression of Christians (which is what I am) either =\....so I hope that helps

IRT third point: I read somewhere once that you should never trust a <insert Christian branch of faith ie. Catholic, J'Witness, Christians..etc> sales person.

That didn't really make sense. Hmm.

What I mean is, somehow the Roman Catholic church has (I assume) amassed enormous funds from the tithe that churches collect, and injected that into 'bling' (for lack of a better term...it's 3am here) in a cathedral. I've been to a mass before at a monastery, and everywhere except the actual Sanctuary (where ceremonies take place) was very...spartan? barren? something like that. However, the Sanctuary contained the big shiny...erm...coffin? altar? ionno...I really ought to educate myself on other faiths...anyways, big shiny thing...and a shiny Communion goblet, and a shiny bible...adn shiny candleholders....etc...
while non Catholic Christian churches were merely modern looking, and spent money on size (cause the reason for building a new church is usually expansion) and adequate parking....a few aesthetic touches here and there, but at least the church I attend, does not have that much money to spare...the underground parking (which the city says is necessary) is pricey stuff :P the entire church will cost 5 million including the property. Needless to say, =\ It'll be a challenge. So it's easy to guarantee that there will be no flashy this and that inside ^^.

Trying to lurk around forums isn't very good after writing an essay ><" brain is dead...i think i'm off to bed to prep for classes tomorrow -_-

Hope that helped :o sorry if it didn't...I'm happy to clarify in PM or whatever you want =D

[Kass]

I'll answer, but your post indicates you've already made up your mind just by the negative way you ask every question.

Jesus is not counted among the disciples, so it does not make thirteen disciples. He isn't his own disciple. The thirteen at the Last Supper is considered a bad omen. It was not good and the thirteenth apostle, Judas Iscariot, ultimately betrayed Jesus. That is kind of the point, you know. With Judas Iscariot tossed out as a traitor, there are 12.

You do understand that the number of Christians who are in the group of pushy, judgmental nuisances is roughly 2% of all Christians in the world. In a former thread, I posted the research. That means you are judging the other 98% unfairly. I personally know few Christians (make that one) who consider non-Christians to be "totally wrong." Most will answer questions when asked and will offer up prayers or invite people to their church, but if turned down, will leave it at that. Asking to share something with you isn't pushy if you say "no thank you" and they leave it at that. I wish more people would do that with all the nasty details of their most recent disgusting medical procedures. Blech.

The Vatican is another matter. As a protestant, I don't place my faith in the catholic ideology and I do find the Vatican corrupt. One of the reasons I joined the Baptist church was because they are not part of a hierarchical organization like the Roman Catholic Church. All tithes are spent by the church and the spending is set by representatives of the membership. Baptist churches are all independent. For the sake of completing larger service/missionary projects, they do join forces, but the extent to which they participate is soley up to the individual church itself.

The holiday point is a misconception of most non-Christians. It's often used to beat Christans about the head like we're idiots. Easter and Christmas are NOT pagan celebrations nor were they ever. Early Christians adopted pagan symbols and the celebrations were likely deliberately timed to coincide (there's no documentation to support that that I know if) with pagan festivals because it was easier to celebrate that way and easier to make the celebrations more acceptable. Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Christ, is not a pagan celebration and if you ask any practicing pagan, they will tell you that. They will tell you it co-opted the timing and symbology, but it is not a pagan celebration. Neither is Easter. Celebrating the resurrection of Christ is not a pagan celebration, though the egg and rabbits are symbols from pagan festivals. Since a pagan does not recognize Christ as a savior or that he was really ressurected, they don't celebrate Easter.

How exactly could a pagan have celebrated Christmas before Christ was even born? Or the resurrection of Christ before he died?

Christmas isn't even really timed right. Best estimates put the actual birth of Jesus in the March-April time frame. There were baby animals in the fields, which indicates that it was springtime. Most animals don't give birth in the winter. Of course, we don't celebrate The birthdays of famous people on their real birthdays either.

Where do you get God is human? That's a leap I don't get. Creating something in (His own image doesn't make him human. It means he gave mankind attributes of himself or that he valued. Dolls are created in our image, but that doesn't make us dolls or them human. People draw God as they would see Him. In my mind, I always picture him looking like my grandfather. I know some women who picture God as female.

God listens to prayers, but sometimes the right answer to prayers is to let the person work it out for themselves. It's a lot like being a parent. You have to let your children fail from time to time or they never learn anything. God doesn't attempt to malign anyone. He allows us our choices and expects us to live with the consequences of them. What he does promise through Christ is redemption for those mistakes and choices. No where does the promise of redemption exclude the reality of consequences.

Rather than ask why people lower God's intelligence, which they don't, maybe you should ask why so many raise theirs to his. Scientific evidence and theories answer all the hows, but they don't answer the whys. I've lived in apartments too. I could write quite a bit about what makes a safe apartment because often, it is painfuly obvious. A rotting deck is obviously unsafe. Broken door locks are unsafe. Second floors without adequate support is unsafe. Flimsy materials are unsafe. A cracked foundation is unsafe. Just because God knows all doesn't mean he interferes in our projects and efforts.

Evolution does not preclude at some point something being made or generated. As yet, no one has explained why or how matter came into exisitence. The big bang theory presupposes the existence of matter, but how did that get there? The time scale in the Old Testament of the Bible is vastly different from how we now measure time. There is nothing to say that God didn't create some spark and all the process of evolution isn't the development process he intended. I do think evolution is how we developed, but I also think that was the intent. Everything that is made starts off as smaller bits of existing things that are combined to create something larger, grander or better.

Flaws in evolutionary theory are flaws in a concept created by man. Those flaws are likely to be explained as our capacity to discover and understand expands.

Being omniscient does not mean God is everything. It means he knows everything. Knowing everything doesn't mean he mucks about in every single itty bitty detail. I know what a cookie is. That does not make me a cookie. Knowing and being are two different states altogether.

If believeing in God were a mask for our own fears, we'd not really succeed at anything. We'd never face our fears that way. God and Christ are those intangible, unknowable forces in our lives. It doesn't mask fears, but gives people the courage to face them. Masking them is to deny they exist and I don't know of any Christian that denies being afraid. They readily admit fear, but with their own strength, their faith and God's love, they have the courage to face those fears head on. It is His support that helps us face the hardships. The love and support of family and friends is a lot like that. Having their support doesn't mask being afraid either.

It is special and a lot of people can't do a lot of things without that faith. People need to believe in something, whether it is Christianity or Bhuddism or Druidism or whatever. The human psyche needs the whys addressed as much as the hows.

I think that the presumption that as a non-Christian, you can answer everything a Christian believes is rather arrogant. I can no more answer everything a Jew believes or a Muslim believes than you can answer what I believe. You make a lot of assumptions about the Bible and Christianity that have no basis in Christianity or the Bible. The Bible said God created Earth and man, but where does it say how? It says God knows all, not does all. Where does it say that God replicated cells and mushed DNA around until it changed and evolved into what we see today?

The simple reality is that for most of people who practice Christianity, they are better people for it.

[Komachi Angel]

First of all, I want to thank all of you who have written back with such long and detailed replies about the points I raised. Good or bad, I am happy that there is some discussion going on here, and I think there have been some good points raised.

>Kass

Quite clearly, our positions on this matter differ. However, there are a few things in your post that caught my attention.

>I'll answer, but your post indicates you've already made up your mind just by the

I had hoped to be somewhat rational about my arguments, but naturally it is difficult to see where I am coming from as neither of us knows the other very well. It seems, however, that you yourself have already made up your mind regarding me, but I will try to explain myself anyway.

>Jesus is not counted among the disciples, so it does not make thirteen disciples. He isn't his own disciple

Naturally, it is impossible to be your own disciple. I merely wanted to know about the coincidence of the number and what I had thought to be its common connotation these days. I was incorrect about the origins, but I was interested to see if anyone know about the numerology aspect. It is still the perfect number for a coven, but lets put that aside for now.

>The Vatican is another matter

I agree with you on this point - your choice makes a lot of sense.

>The holiday point is a misconception of most non-Christians

My wording here was a little inept. What I meant to say that the times were originally used for pagan festivals, not the festivals themselves- that doesn't make sense. This was my mistake, however.

>Where do you get God is human?

My argument is that god is *not*. I find it odd that God *is* depicted this way quite often, and the churchs I have been to all supported this ideal. My thought was that if God is a spiritual being, why do is this image applied?

>Rather than ask why people lower God's intelligence

I really have to differ on this point. If God is omniscient (my bad on that - I meant omnipresent ><), then God knows everything, and infintely much more than human beings are even capable of. It is quite common, however, to find people claiming that God feels a certain way or holds certain human-based thought patterns, which jars me. I find it impossible to raise my intelligence to that of God, and the mere thought is boggling.

>Evolution does not preclude at some point something being made or generated.

Neither science nor religion provide satisfactory answers on this point *for me*. Perhaps it is something that is simply beyond the understand of human beings.

>It means he knows everything. Knowing everything doesn't mean he mucks about in
>every single itty bitty detail. I know what a cookie is. That does not make me a
>cookie. Knowing and being are two different states altogether.

I am not sure why you feel God doesn't *muck* around with everything, or by what grounds you can claim this, but if god didn't know every itty bitty detail, he can't possibly know everything. But he does.

>Flaws in evolutionary theory are flaws in a concept created by man

This was my point. My church, however, claimed that due to these flaws in the theory, it was impossible that such a thing could ever exist. They called scientists fools and regularly made fun of intellectuals.

>If believeing in God were a mask for our own fears, we'd not really succeed at anything

A lot of people don't, you know. I have seen a lot of people who become hooked on something and let it trap them for their whole lives. These same people also overcome this through their belief in holy forgiveness and such, but in truth, they were no more capable before than after. The power is within us.

>It is special and a lot of people can't do a lot of things without that faith.

Because it helps them realise that they *can* do things. They can do them without having faith, as well.


>I think that the presumption that as a non-Christian, you can answer everything a Christian believes is rather arrogant

I think that the presumption that I am a non-Christian is arrogant. But you don't know me, so I can see how you might feel that way. I spent most of my life growing up in the church, and always found something lacking. I have travelled many spiritual paths and asked endless questions, but never found answers in religion that satisfied me.

Personally speaking, I found the paragraph you wrote after that to be not only a personal attack, but highly offensive.

I never claimed some knowledge on how God made man, but I do see a lot of sense in the theory of evolution. So, it seems, do you. I never said God does all, although in a way you may take my explanation of spirituality at the end of my post to mean that. I don't even know what you mean about God replicating cells and working with DNA, but I still see all that as the work of 'god' in some sense or another.

>The simple reality is that for most of people who practice Christianity, they are better people for it.

I have seen christianity do wonderful things for some people, but I have also seen it constrain others and their potential. I have seen some sacrifice their lives to help others, but I have seen those that refuse to take medicine because their faith will help them, and then they die.

This is not a discussion on the merit of religion, however.

Peace, girl - I am not here to make enemies. I understand you have a different point of view from me, but in many of your comments you seem to be arguing against me, but in agreeance with the points I was trying to make. Being personally attacked by a Moderator is not something I particularly enjoy, but we are all human, and I hold nothing against you.

[more cheerios]

Kass wasn't personally attacking you. I think she just wrote passionately about her opinions, opposing what she believed to be your's.

[Komachi Angel]

In way of explanation -

>I think that the presumption that as a non-Christian, you can answer everything a
>Christian believes is rather arrogant. I can no more answer everything a Jew
>believes or a Muslim believes than you can answer what I believe. You make a lot of
>assumptions about the Bible and Christianity that have no basis in Christianity or the
>Bible. The Bible said God created Earth and man, but where does it say how? It says
>God knows all, not does all. Where does it say that God replicated cells and mushed
>DNA around until it changed and evolved into what we see today?

In the first line, Kass states that people who act in such a way are arrogant. Her following statements then attempt to prove that I think that way, so basic logic tells me she thinks that -

A: I am ignorant.
B: I am arrogant.

This is aggressive, and is directed at me and\or my post. Azrael's rules and regulations clearly state that:

1. No trolling/attacks on other members. Name-calling, insults, and other such activity will result in a warning/ban. Personal attacks carried out through Private Messaging can also result in administrative action.

But like I said, we are all human and Kass does indeed seem to be passionate about the topic. So, I dismissed it.

[Balain]

Well in my opinion I think Jynx_lucky_j got it right. The moving Christmas and Easter to the same day as pagan rituals. I thought that was first done so the Christians could hide their celebrations from the Romans at first. Then they found it made it easier to convert pagans later on.

[Pierrot le Fou]

In the bible, numerology is incredibly important. Almost all of revelations is based on numbers alone, and I don't think a single one goes without a deeper meaning. Also, if 13 is generally accepted as the devil's number, why then does Jesus and 12 disciples make 13? Also, 13 is the ideal number for a coven in witchcraft (denounced by Christianity), but once again it's smack on.

Covered by Kass.

Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else.

Read the parable of the mustard seed (something actually said by Jesus):

3Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear."
- Matthew 13:3-9

Some seeds (preaching) will simply not have their roots catch. Others will and fade. Others will stick. Constantly replanting them in the same place will not help. Jesus tells us that. If people choose to ignore them, it is not the fault of Christianity, but rather the ignorance towards the words of Christ, eh?

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.

24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
- Matthew 19:24

Hoarding of wealth was never a requirement of Christians. But having wealth simply made it more difficult to enter heaven. The Eye of the Needle was a gate to Jerusalem, which, with a heavily loaded camel, was difficult to enter through because of its small size.

It is possible for the rich to enter heaven, but it is more difficult because wealth breeds selfishness is many people. I am confident that Jesus would likely state something similar in response to the Catholic church were he to come back.

And about Easter, etc. They were originally old Pagan festivals, but Christiantiy used the same dates to compete, and yet most Christians I have spoken to about this get angry at me (again with the tolerance).

Covered by Kass.

And what's this about God being human? They say God made humankind in his image, but if God is a spiritual being and not of the flesh, and that which is eternal about humanity is the spirit, why does God always look like a real person?

Nobody has ever seen God. God cannot be seen. The sight would kill a mortal. As would hearing his voice. I wish I could find the quote I remember, but I don't have my study bible in the Country to help you out. My apologies.

Why do people believe that in some place called heaven, god is looking at people and willfully attempting to malign them? Some ask 'Why does god let bad things happen', but I thought it was clear that God doesn't interfere with our choices and our lives. Which means God doesn't listen to prayers, because that would be taking away our power, in which case God might as well save us from all that sort of thing anyway.

He doesn't interfere, but he does accept prayer and sometimes grant miracles or his help to believers. He just will not randomly intercede in the life of someone who didn't ask for it. There are plenty of examples in the bible of God accepting prayers and granting them.

And why is it so common to lower God's intelligence to our own level? Some talk of flaws in evolutionary theory as though they were flaws in God's creation, but in realtiy, we are talking about a being who is meant to be infinetely smarter and wiser than anyone down here. Yet those that believe in God see fit to detail his every work without even knowing the details.

For example - you don't see me writing books about the construction of apartment buildings and why they are good and bad, because I have never done anything but live in them. I can't tell you about structural theory - just how it feels to live in it.

Why is there the belief that things were actively made? I much prefer the idea of evolution, because to me it makes sense. After all, the concept of evolution is the ultimate in a self-managing process, as everything affects everything around it, achieving balance.

I understand religion's place in society as something to give people identity and so forth, and I also believe I can answer the above sufficiently. Still, I want to open these points to discussion. This is not a discussion of merit of religion, however, but points of theory.

Because people are idiots. Just because something is common doesn't mean it makes sense.

As for my definition of God? If god is omniscient as stated in the bible, then that means god is in fact everything, correct? If there is a God, I don't see it as an active being in some far of destination, but as existence itself. It's hard to explain, but it goes a long way in explaining things, and if that becomes your definition of God, it's hard to refute.

If God is omniscient, it means he knows everything. If he is omnipresent, it means he can exist everywhere. That doesn't mean that he is everything, though he can be IN everything, and it doesn't create any inherent contradictions.

I have met a lot of Christians whose lives grew dramatically better after they joined the church. They became more dynamic and so on, taking risks and so on simply because of their faith. But this is nothing special - it is something we can all do, God or no. What these people have done is simply believe in themselves, using the concept of God to blanket their own fears because they truly believe they will succeed due to that. And so they do.

Disucss!

If they could do it without a belief in God, why didn't they? Doesn't God have its place for that reason? You ask good questions, but you try to undercut the answers.

[Komachi Angel]

Once again, good points being raised.

Yes, I mixed up omniscient and omnipresent - my apologies for that.

>PLF

You have some good points in there. My view on the vatican is that I find it strange that people who devote their lives to God go to such lengths. I suppose it could be said that it is for promoting God in the world and so forth, but it jars me.

As for god and ability, I agree that God does indeed have a place in this. However, I find myself frustrated when people feel this is a special gift from god and something they are incapable of doing alone. When you think of it, perhaps to some it is a gift of faith that would be otherwise unattainable? To me, it is a matter of utilising potential and having drive, which I see as something we can all achieve right this very moment, no matter what our state.

>Because people are idiots

Fair enough.

>If people choose to ignore them, it is not the fault of Christianity, but rather the
>ignorance towards the words of Christ, eh?

A good point. This may be the case, but something I have great trouble understanding is in why a person who actively seeks something may do the very opposite. This may be human nature again, but I tend to think of these things with too much logic...

As for answering prayers, this is a difficult thing for me. I find it hard to say that 'yes, this is because god granted my prayer' on some given subject over many different possible conclusions. When we say a prayer is answered, do we consider this to be God extending some kind of miraculous power to make something a certain way?

From an entirely personal standpoint, I myself do not believe the bible regarding prayers and such to the letter. There seem to be too many possibilities that might affect it as being an accurate source or not.

Thanks for your time in answering - this is all constructive discussion.

[Kass]

In the first line, Kass states that people who act in such a way are arrogant. Her following statements then attempt to prove that I think that way, so basic logic tells me she thinks that -

A: I am ignorant.
B: I am arrogant.

This is aggressive, and is directed at me and\or my post. Azrael's rules and regulations clearly state that:

1. No trolling/attacks on other members. Name-calling, insults, and other such activity will result in a warning/ban. Personal attacks carried out through Private Messaging can also result in administrative action.

But like I said, we are all human and Kass does indeed seem to be passionate about the topic. So, I dismissed it.


Do not mistake passion for being irrelevant. I'm passionate about a lot of things including history and religion, which means I make it a point to know about them. Trolling would mean I meant to piss you off and I didn't. Read cursorily, your initial post comes off as a condescending attack on Christians. It reeks of an attempt to make Christians look stupid. I chose however, to not assume that was your intent. It is absurd to expect that people will not care about a topic that is fundamental to hearts of so many.

God does not muck around in every detail or coerce every outcome. That doens't mean that he doesn't know them all. He did afterall, endow man with free will. Again, knowing and being are two different things, as are knowing and acting.

Pointing out the flaws in man's behavior and theories is not saying God is flawed.

"It is quite common, however, to find people claiming that God feels a certain way or holds certain human-based thought patterns, which jars me. "

This proves my point. They presume to know what God is thinking or what he feels. Why do they presume to know as much as he? No one can know that. We do know what is set forth in the Bible and of what behavior he would or would not approve, but you can't know what he would think of whether you bought a house in one area or another, etc. I don't have as much of a problem with people who felt that God "guided them," in other words the series of events or information led them to a decision and since God enabled the process that put those things into place, it is possible it is his guidance. There have been a number of occasions when I've been at a critical or low point and out of nowhere, I've said a small prayer saying I could really use a break, something comes along that helps me out. There have been other occasions where I've been in similar circumstances, said the same prayer, got no such break and had to really work to get through them. In both cases, I ended up better for it and it is reasonable to believe that that *might* have been what God intended. Of course, I'll never know 100% for sure, but that is exactly what faith is.

It was posted that people have become better people because of Christianity, yet that is something anyone can do. A quick look at any society shows that not to be true. Not everyone is capable of changing their behavior and circumstances without an external motivator and some can't do it even then. If it took faith in whatever religion to do that, obviously that was necessary and they couldn't do it without it. If they could have, they would have.

[Unactuality]

One can be tolerant of others while still believing that they are wrong or misguided about certain things.

I know of no Christians who try to force anyone to accept their ideals. The Inquisition is over. There is often societal pressure to conform in homogenous Christian societies, but that is hardly unique to Christians, nor is it exactly coercion.

As for the exclusivity of Christianity, you again misunderstand the issue. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." What does this mean? Put as simply as I know how, that those who trust their eternal soul to anything except the grace of God will be eternally separated from Him after death.

What does it not mean? That anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is necessarily wrong about anything other than the fate of their eternal soul.

I can't recall if anyone else addressed your concern over God being made human. This is a specific reference to the person of Jesus. The two parts of the Trinity other than Jesus - namely, the Father and the Holy Spirit - have no definite form that anyone knows of. Humans anthromorphize by nature. We attempt to understand the unfamiliar by attributing qualities of the familiar to it. The fact that you've seen drawings of an elderly guy with a big white beard labelled "God" don't mean that God really looks like that - if He looks like anything at all. Jesus, on the other hand, was a real live human being who also happened to be God. He was the unique completion of the Triune Godhead, both fully human and fully deity at the same time. If this seems difficult to comprehend, don't feel alone.

The attribution of human thoughts or emotions to God is similarly anthropomorphic. We do not and cannot know the thoughts of God, except as specifically revealed to us.

As for the Catholic Church and the Vatican - they certainly have their share of problems which arise from their hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions. Yet at the same time, the Catholic Church has done a simply vast amount of good in the world, using those same riches. Popes have collected great libraries, preserving knowledge of Plato, Aristotle, Livy, Cicero, and countless other classical writers whose works would have been otherwise lost. That wealth has been spent improving the lives of millions of people. Of course, wealth and power have also been spent on cruelty and war in the name of God and the Roman pontiff. If you would know the full history, it is available for you to study. Just don't latch onto any one story or incident and presume that it alone characterizes an organization which has been in existence for the better part of two millenia.

The idea of evolution is not incompatible with belief in the Christian God. The only doctrine the Catholic Church requires its believers to adhere to, for example, is that the universe was originally created by God. Catholics are free to believe that it thereafter evolved over a period of eons into what it is today. This is a HUGE debate, obviously, and much more could be said.

The idea you mention - that God is "in everything" - is called pantheism. It is not generally considered a Christian doctrine, except to the extent that God is omnipresent, as PLF explained.

A more difficult question was the one concerning prayer and free will. Yes, humans have free will - that is our blessing and our curse. This fact does not mean that God does not listen to us, nor that He cannot effect changes in our surroundings, or even ourselves. How directly this happens, or even how it happens at all, is something I remain agnostic on. Catholics will tell you that miracles still happen, as will many Protestants. My personal inclination is to believe that God's actions in the world are more subtle than that.

Finally, I must disagree with Jynx. Whether someone is a Christian is impossible to know until after death, but it most certainly is relevant before. Those with faith in Christ will have the ambition and desire to change their lives and live as Christ would want them to. Some will succeed, others not, but Christians are all called to make their faith living, and not dead. One major problem here, of course, is that many people have an incomplete or poor understanding of exactly how that is - which is why Bible study is so important. Ever read The Grapes of Wrath? I can guarantee you that God never told anyone that dancing or playing cards was sinful in and of itself.

Much of what you condemn or find inconsistent in Christianity is the result of human imperfection, arrogance, and sin. Don't mistake human error for divine error.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You have some good points in there. My view on the vatican is that I find it strange that people who devote their lives to God go to such lengths. I suppose it could be said that it is for promoting God in the world and so forth, but it jars me.

Because humans are imperfect and greedy. Because some humans believe that the perception of Christianity as a great enterprise in this life is more important than focusing the message on the next one.

As for god and ability, I agree that God does indeed have a place in this. However, I find myself frustrated when people feel this is a special gift from god and something they are incapable of doing alone. When you think of it, perhaps to some it is a gift of faith that would be otherwise unattainable? To me, it is a matter of utilising potential and having drive, which I see as something we can all achieve right this very moment, no matter what our state.

I have rarely had someone state that, for instance, getting a hole in one is a 'gift from God.' Though I could imagine someone thanking God for the ability to be able to get a hole in one. It is a special gift to be able to do things better than average, I think, whether it's from God or not, what's wrong with acknowledging that?

I will never be able to become an Olympian. Were I to wake up tomorrow and suddenly be able to throw a shotput on a world class level, or even were I to practice for the next 10 years at it and get up that high, I'd be shocked to Hell, and it ain't something that's generally in the potential of a 25 year-old who has never thrown a shotput.
A good point. This may be the case, but something I have great trouble understanding is in why a person who actively seeks something may do the very opposite. This may be human nature again, but I tend to think of these things with too much logic...

Why do men who want to make hot sweet passionate monkey love with a woman shoot themselves in the foot by making themselves seem like spineless sycophants? Why would someone who actively seeks something do the exact opposite of what it takes to actually get it? Humans don't always listen, or do what's best for themselves. Most humans, coincidentally, are pretty spineless too.

As for answering prayers, this is a difficult thing for me. I find it hard to say that 'yes, this is because god granted my prayer' on some given subject over many different possible conclusions. When we say a prayer is answered, do we consider this to be God extending some kind of miraculous power to make something a certain way?

I think the best example of 'prayer' comes from Genesis. God tells Abraham that he's going to torch two cities. Abraham says, "But my half-brother is there, and Lot's my homeboy! He may not be perfect, but he doesn't deserve to have fire rained upon him from above!" They bicker a little bit, and God storms off.

God doesn't kill Lot. He also doesn't tell Abraham that he saved Lot. That's what I see as a prayer answered. You ask God because you know it's beyond your power to change the outcome. Even if you don't know if the outcome has changed, the asking is the important part, and you take faith that God will do his best to aid the situation without doing anything incredibly obvious to alter our perceptions of the divine and eliminate any doubt as far as the existence of God.

From an entirely personal standpoint, I myself do not believe the bible regarding prayers and such to the letter. There seem to be too many possibilities that might affect it as being an accurate source or not.

Thanks for your time in answering - this is all constructive discussion.

I don't believe the Bible either. I think it's a great historical and theological document. I think it has a Hell of a lot of good advice in general, and an equal amount of not-so-good advice. But it's so widespread, and so misunderstood, that I feel the need to defend it a lot of the time (not in this case though) against people who feel that it's garbage despite not having read it.

That applies to both Christians who don't bother to read it, as well as atheists who can't be bothered to read it.

[dama rei]

hahah, since when did the Vatican have anythings to do with the bible?

[Unactuality]

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. I hope it is.

[setrict]

It's important not to get too hung up in the details, because a great many of those are the product of humanity and not Christianity(or God).

Once, in a church group of about 30 people we played a simple 'game'. One person would make up a small story, and whisper it to the person sitting next to them. In turn, that person would pass the story on to the next person... until the final person was told. The last person would standup and recite the story out loud for everyone to hear as they understood it - and finally the originator would tell their version.

The stories were rarely even close to the original meaning or content. People would mix up names, or events, A few of the more creative would just pass on an entirely different story on purpose.

Many Christians believe that the bible is an absolute, and any interpretation by the various authors that comprise the worth was inspired directly by God. I know it's a big step, but just to bypass that debate topic lets assume that they are right... and the bible is an absolute in the right context.

Over the last 2000 years, people have been 'retelling' the story, just like my Church group did only with more people, and more than one group. Some promote thier own interpretations, or take out of context biblical portions to better match what they believe. Some do it for personal gain, others do it because they truly believe they have been 'called' to do so, and still more may simply misunderstand for one reason or another. Meanings can be lost in translation, or obscured without knowing the historical events and culture that set the biblical stage. I stumbled across a book (series) that had about a pages of relevant historic and cultural information on the right, and a page from the bible on the left. Getting some perspective greatly changed many of my own interpretations.

The end result is a number of different beliefs and interpretations with a common basis of a Christian core. You end up with a man-made mess, of which it's entirely possible NONE of them actually have the right answer yet.
Pick a random church, and you'll find a diverse number of viewpoints on various Christian issues. Now look at how many different churches, and denominations there are. It's important not to get too hung up in the details, because a great many of those are the product of humanity and not Christianity(or God). Make up your own mind, don't rely on anyone else. I personally view life as a test, one you can't pass just by copying someone elses work.

[Komachi Angel]

>Kass

My intent in this thread was to discuss these points. They are indeed a more negative view of the situation, but I chose to take that viewpoint in order to stimulate discussion that might provide some intelligent answers to them. Which, it seems to have done.

I agree with your statement regarding knowing all that God does, etc. I also have a problem with people arbitrarily claiming various acts to be those of God, but I was in several churches where this was quite common.

For example, when one person got a Job after their interview, they said God had guided them into it as a new place to grow and learn. Another person who failed to get a job said that God had other plans for them, and was telling them not to give up and to keep trying. I have a problem with this.

However, do you think this could be a part of the process, as it were? That is to say, if God is a positive factor in a person's life, this acceptance of not getting a job allows for a way to pick yourself up and keep going? And if they get the job, they try harder because they feel God gave it to them as chance to grow?

Perhaps this positive attribution of things to God is part of what it is all about? How do you feel about this kind of statement?

>PLF

I have no problems with people with skill being acknowledged. What I do have a problem with is when people tell you that 'whap!' and God suddenly imbued some kind of magical ability into that person, and it is only by this sort of magical presence that they succeed. Once again, this is a human fallacy, but in the churches I went to it seemd fairly widespread, and was preached as such.

Re. shooting oneself in the foot picking up women, the people I know that act that way actually seem to think it's attractive. And I have seen them be quite successful. Really, though, people most definitely do not always work on logic, and even less so when emotions get involved. I think there is some kind of inverse ratio in there.

The bible, to me, is a great source for common sense in treating other people and living decently. And that's important. When it comes down to specific details and such, I find myself becoming more doubtful. Things were a great deal different back then, and belief in the divine seemed incredibly strong. Stories passed on, and written accounts may not always be entirely reliable, and especially considering we know next to nothing about circumstances at the time.

Talking about defending the bible, however, I am unsure if I am included in that statement, but I should clarify things a bit here. I came from a mostly Christian upbringing, going to catholic schools and church every weekend. I have been to several different churches, and several different types of churches, from traditional to more modern style, and have done a lot of bible reading in my time. This doesn't make me an expert, by any means, but I do have some experience with it.



As a final comment, I would like to put this forward to people. Firstly, we have the ideal of what religion should be like - for example, if everyone did everything as they were intended by the bible, etc. and acted in the way Jesus would have wanted (If I can say that...). But, naturally we are human beings, so mistakes are made and logic not always followed.

However, if the latter of the two becomes predominant, is it really possible to say that religion is the former? When we come to define what religion is, not supposed to be, where do we go for our definition? Are human beings capable of the former, or what exactly can we expect from religion?

Then, for those that have the time or interest, what place do you feel religion holds in society? What is it that you feel it gives to us that nothing else can? Belief in the divine, yes, but what effect does this have?

[chilove]

Hi! I'm new here, but I'd like to comment on Komachi's questions.

1st I'd like to say that I did not find your questions to be negative or condescending towards any religion. You brought up valid issues (even if they aren't issues for everyone) that people secure in their faith should be willing to discuss. A lot is lost online w/o tone and expression, and people tend to add their own interpretations to other people's words. That said, I'm not trying to upset anyone either.

I graduated college w/a Bachelor's of Arts in Religious Studies, so you've touched on a subject that I'm very interested in. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I certainly like to discuss when I can.

In the bible, numerology is incredibly important. Almost all of revelations is based on numbers alone, and I don't think a single one goes without a deeper meaning. Also, if 13 is generally accepted as the devil's number...

You're right, but most Christianity doesn't emphasize or teach this. If you're really interested it numerology as it relates to religion, Judaism would be a better place to look. I agree w/the other posts that 13 isn't the devil's number so much as 666.

Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else.

I agree w/others that one can't assume all Christians are pushy or judgemental or intolerant, but from my own experience (and that of some of my friends) I have met w/very judgemental Christians. Perhaps it has something to do w/my location, as Southern Baptists (please don't hate me for this) tend to be a bit more... radical? Not radical in a bad way, but definately more likely to speak out or act against something they disagree with. I grew up going to a Baptist church in the north, then moved to the south w/my family and began going to a Baptist church here. Of course my experience is just that-- mine. I'm sure not all Baptist churches in the south are the same and I try not to judge them as such.

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.

I daresay that most Christians don't associate themselves w/Catholicism. I even had someone tell me, "Oh, I'd love to learn about other religions. You know, like Catholicism and Muslims." (*cringe* so much wrong w/that sentence) You're right that the Bible doesn't mention decoration and expensive articles as necessary, and if anything they are discouraged. I'd chalk this up more to modern invention and preference.

And about Easter, etc. They were originally old Pagan festivals, but Christiantiy used the same dates to compete, and yet most Christians I have spoken to about this get angry at me (again with the tolerance).

One of my favorite topics! The adaption of pagan (and other) symbolism and practice into Christianity. I'll try not to get too involved. Originally, 'pagan' was simply a word that mean 'country person', like a 'country bumpkin.' With the growth of cities, came the growth of Christianity (easy to spread the word, meet w/others, etc). It's well known that city dwellers in Rome thought they were superior to country folk, so pagan came to be derogitory backwards, and it was applied to many things including religion. Paganism is just a word used to describe a range of religious beliefs, it wasn't actually a formal religion. There were common gods and festivals, but it wasn't the same as organized religion now.

So (I do have a point here), when Constantine became emporor, there was a lot of fighting going on between Christians and other religions, and he was forced to pick an official religion to stop the fighting. Since Christianity was on the upswing, he went w/it. Constantine was not a Christian at the time and was actually saved on his death bed when he was too weak to protest against it or ask for it. Obviously, a lot of people were upset by his decision. In order to smooth the transition, he placed Christian holidays on common festival days that seemed to relate. Easter, a celebration of life after death, came around the celebrations of Spring and life returning to earth. Christmas is interesting, b/c Dec. 25 was actually recognized as the birthday of a different god known as "The Son of God" and "The Light of the World" (sound familiar?). It wasn't that Christianity was copying other religions (if you look, they all have similar attributes), merely it was adapted to make the change easier.

The adaptation of symbols is too big for my reply, and was going on long before Christianity came around. It is interesting to note, however, that some irrelevant symbols were kept and prospered (Easter eggs, Christmas trees), while other symbols were 'demonized' and excluded (pentagrams).

And what's this about God being human? They say God made humankind in his image, but if God is a spiritual being and not of the flesh, and that which is eternal about humanity is the spirit, why does God always look like a real person?

I think you're misinterpreting this. I agree w/some of the others that 'in his image' is referring to something inside a person, like a soul or wisdom. I don't know any Christian that truly thinks they know what God looks like. Images of God are just an expression of someone's feelings about or their own interpretation of God.

Why do people believe that in some place called heaven, god is looking at people and willfully attempting to malign them? Some ask 'Why does god let bad things happen', but I thought it was clear that God doesn't interfere with our choices and our lives. Which means God doesn't listen to prayers, because that would be taking away our power, in which case God might as well save us from all that sort of thing anyway.

I'd think most practicing Christians don't think God is trying to work against them. From a Biblical standpoint, God certainly does want us to make our own decisions, but the Bible also makes it clear that God can act in people's lives and make a difference.

And why is it so common to lower God's intelligence to our own level? Some talk of flaws in evolutionary theory as though they were flaws in God's creation, but in realtiy, we are talking about a being who is meant to be infinetely smarter and wiser than anyone down here. Yet those that believe in God see fit to detail his every work without even knowing the details.

This is going to be all my opinion here, but if people do lower God's intelligence, I think it's only so they can understand and discuss it. I personally believe that in reality God is something truly beyond our understanding, and only the simplest pieces can get thru to us. That's why there's so much discussion and disagreement. We can' see it all. We can't comprehend it all. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about it.

Why is there the belief that things were actively made? I much prefer the idea of evolution, because to me it makes sense. After all, the concept of evolution is the ultimate in a self-managing process, as everything affects everything around it, achieving balance.

Even w/in Christianity there is debate as to whether or not the story of creation (and all of the Bible) is supposed to be taken literally or not. People are too prone to rule out all evolution b/c they think it undermines Christianity. I don't think that. Things evolve. I believe that is a fact, and I think the process of evolution is amazing and would be a great credit to God to say he created a world that could change itself. Did people come from monkeys or from God? I can't tell you that.

As for my definition of God? If god is omniscient as stated in the bible, then that means god is in fact everything, correct? If there is a God, I don't see it as an active being in some far of destination, but as existence itself. It's hard to explain, but it goes a long way in explaining things, and if that becomes your definition of God, it's hard to refute.

The Bible does say goes is omniscient, and it does say he can be inside everyone if they let him, but the choice is ultimately theirs. I think it's trying to say that the presence and effect of God is everywhere, not that he is actually everywhere. But that's just my take on it.

I have met a lot of Christians whose lives grew dramatically better after they joined the church. They became more dynamic and so on, taking risks and so on simply because of their faith. But this is nothing special - it is something we can all do, God or no. What these people have done is simply believe in themselves, using the concept of God to blanket their own fears because they truly believe they will succeed due to that. And so they do.

I totally agree that all people do not need church or faith to do great things or to be great people. But most people do need a reason or inspiration, and religion fills that niche for many people. Faith in any religion can give a person confidence, security, ambition, positive morals/ideals. I think the people that achieve great things w/o religion have simply found something else to replace it.

[Joe]

As much as many people would love to debate this, and be right, I just want everyone to realize that, it's pointless to discuss this. Those of us for will be using faith, against will be using a different method of arguing, pprobably logic, or philosophy.

You can't examine christianity through logic, unless the person you're debating with defends with logic, and that rarely happens. Although, when it does happen, the person defending xianity rarely, if ever, wins.

It's like having an apple, and a toy truck. Someone asks you which you like better. Well that's an open ended question isn't it? Some peoples' first thought might be "Well in which way? Taste? Enjoyment?" You don't have common grounds on which to dichotomize these objects. Same thing with debating christianity.

However, the moment the person for christianity debates using philosophy, and logic, than all bets are off, because you've just opened the flood gates.

Here is a few paragraphs on why, it's a bad idea to argue for xianity with logic.

Much of the defense for christianity, is faith, or quoting the bible, and the bible is man-made. Just saying "Well, this person in this passage said this, so that contradicts your arguement."

Nope, you can't just quote jesus saying something along the lines of "There will be people who won't believe." You haven't proven anything other than Jesus, or whoever thought that someone won't believe. And there are a LOT of people who do that. Nor have you disproven what the other person said.

Just because Jesus told a story about some mustard seeds, and someone interpreted it as preaching succesfully and unsuccesfully, doesn't disprove what the other person said in the first place. Such as, if certain christians are preaching this, but people are like this, and it doesn't make sense. Well, you can quote that parable all you want, but it still won't answer the question, and it still won't make any sense! All you've really done, is just agreed with the person, who originally made the case, which was some people say this, and do this, and that doesn't make sense (you said, some people will agree with the teachings, some won't. You didn't defend the teachings, when someone pointed out a flaw, or what they thought was a flaw.).

That example isn't really an arguement, I guess it sorta is, but it's meant to just have everyone go "Oh hey, I remember when something like that happened...." At least in that example, and it's a bad example, so don't use it.

Anyway, yeah, sort of pointless to discuss this, unless we all agree on HOW we want to discuss this.

*Edit* I fucked up in my paragraph, meant to say my example of the parable was a bad one, not that the parable was a bad example.

[Komachi Angel]

>chilove

Thank you for a long and thoughtful reply. I think some of the issues you raised there are very interesting, and hearing about the nature of pagan festivals and so on was a great help.

I'm glad the problem with the number thirteen has been cleared up. I always thought it was a bit odd, but was never sure where the connection lied.

As for God, I dislike the image of God being human. I always considered God to be a spiritual force, and without having physical form. This makes sense to me, but I can also see the reason people wish to form some kind of image to represent God.

I agree also about evolution. Most of the arguments I heard before this centered around an attempt to prove that evolution and the bible contradict one another, but I don't see why this need be.

In the church I was going to, they slammed science and hisotry/ dating methods often, which I never liked. Our same understanding of science and so on runs our cars, makes buildings stand up and so on, and yet they held an incredible double standard on subjects that pleased them.

Anyway...

I see your point about lowering God's intelligence, and I have to agree it makes sense.

And thank you for your first comment - I am glad not everyone has seen this as an entirely negative/ condescending view on christianity. I do remember hearing the comment about those that are secure in their faith would be open to question such things, however, and I think it is an entirely level-headed one.

Good luck with your study - it seems you are enjoying it, and I hope you get a lot out of your time there. Thanks for the input. :)

[chilove]

Joe-

I don't think it's pointless to discuss. The point of discussion is to hear different sides and opinions. Discussion and argument are different. I love to discuss religion, but I don't argue it w/people. If someone truly believes in something, I'm not going to change their mind, and I think it's rude to try (I'd get annoyed if someone was always trying to change my mind). I do, however, love to hear where they're coming from and what their opinions are on things. Religion doesn't have to turn into an argument, but I know that w/an issue so many people are passionate about, it's slippery ground.

And I loved your point about the Bible isn't proof to someone who doesn't believe in it.


Komachi-

Thanks! I enjoyed actually being asked to think. I don't get that much now. I actually graduated in 2004. I got a job as a monkey processing tasks at a computer (I feel like a monkey could do my job anyways), so I'm pretty much brain-dead all day.

I also had some bad experiences w/church. When I was in the 7th grade a sunday school teacher told me "all jews are going to hell." That's harsh! What happened to judge not lest ye be judged? After that I decided I'd figure religion out on my own.

[Joe]

Thank you. I was thinking discussion = debate, I hadn't even thought to differentiate those two words. Anyway, my little essay is about debating religion. Discussing it is one thing, but I've seen it so often turn into a debate, that now I guess I just sort of assume, we're going to start debating.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Joe, I cannot prove that Jesus exists, or that the Bible is correct, or that Christians should believe in the Bible. I can only provide information to people who ask.

Think of it like you think about science. Nobody can prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. But there's plenty of reason to believe it will, as it has every day preceeding this one. In the same sense, there's no way to prove that Christianity is about X Y or Z, but there's plenty of reason to believe it will, based on what's in the Bible.

You seem to be quite baffled about the point of this thread. You seem to think it's about debating the validity of Christianity. Komachi asked many very valid questions about a religion that he is trying to understand. He didn't do it offensively, or ask for absolute proof.

And those of us who are responding to him are trying to provide responses that will allow him to investigate his questions further, and to understand various ways of looking at these things further.

Someone can ask why people preach so vehemently, and I can provide Jesus' parable of the mustard seed to indicate that Jesus never intended to go overboard. That doesn't prove that Christianity is about not going overboard, but it's sure a good indication of what the Christian conception of fostering faith is. The parables are, after all, the only things directly attributed to Jesus as quotes, and tend to be consistent across the synoptic gospels.

Someone can ask whether the sun will rise tomorrow, and I can provide information about celestial movements, the rotation of the earth, and explain how every sunrise has come about so far. That doesn't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's sure a good way to indicate why it likely will rise tomorrow. Celestial movements, after all, are a pretty good indicator of how the universe has been causing this event every day, and tend to be pretty consistent in predicting what's going to happen tomorrow.

He asked a question. I provided information that should indicate what most people's answers may be based on. Sure it's not proof, but not even science requires absolute proof, just enough of a reason to consider something to be good enough for now.

[Frayed]

How is it that in the vatican, a place filled with people devoting their lives to God, they have bought every expensive thing they can and spent ridiculous sums of money on artifice. Nothing was ever mentioned about this being necessary in the bible, and in fact, I thought it was the other way around - giving of oneself for others.


I don't think this question has been adequately addressed from the Catholic perspective.
From the Catholic perspective, supreme authority in interpreting God's word rests with The Pope not with The Bible (this is a major distinction between Catholicism and the Protestant religions). Both The Pope's interpretation of God's word and the actual selection of The Pope is said to come from God. This is what they taught me in highschool anyhow.
I think it therefore follows that if the Vatican spends large amounts on artifice, and such artifice has the sanction of the Pope then such artifice is also said to have the sanction of God.

[Joe]

PLF, you quoted a parable, which is fine, but it didn't answer his question. His question was,
"Second - why is it that in Christianity the ideals of peace and harmony, friendship and such are pushed so strongly, and yet it is so often that someone is trying to force you to accept their ideals. And, for a religion preaching tolerance, why is it that all non-christians are considered entirely wrong, from their beliefs to just about everything else."

To which you said:

"Read the parable of the mustard seed (something actually said by Jesus):

3Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear."

- Matthew 13:3-9

Some seeds (preaching) will simply not have their roots catch. Others will and fade. Others will stick. Constantly replanting them in the same place will not help. Jesus tells us that. If people choose to ignore them, it is not the fault of Christianity, but rather the ignorance towards the words of Christ, eh?"

Your response was, from this, addressing the first question, some preaching will not catch on. Alright, that's fine, but you didn't answer his question. His question was why does some preaching turn into people pressing their religion onto you? You addressed the fact that they do it, with this scentence "Constantly replanting them in the same place will not help." Which I took to mean constantly trying to preach to the person, but all that does it show that yes it happens, not WHY, it happens. See?

And you didn't even touch upon his second question.

And he said he was once a part of a church, and that he wanted to discuss these questions.

Here
"I agree with your statement regarding knowing all that God does, etc. I also have a problem with people arbitrarily claiming various acts to be those of God, but I was in several churches where this was quite common."

And here
"My intent in this thread was to discuss these points. They are indeed a more negative view of the situation, but I chose to take that viewpoint in order to stimulate discussion that might provide some intelligent answers to them. Which, it seems to have done."

If he has insight into the matter to this degree, he already has his own answers to the questions, and is seeking to start a discussion amongst us.

I'm not confused about the thread, I know why It's here, it's a discussion about certain aspects of christianity. These aren't just small aspects either, these are a large part of the culture, such as preaching, holidays and the Vatican, the idea of god, etc... These are subjects that can make or break a religion.

Although, i don't understand why you brought up the scientific evidence, it didn't really matter. I never touched upon science, or even that I wanted to prove or disprove anything.

Now, I thought that after I read through some of this thread, and well, I thought I'd contribute with my "It's not going to work..." pessimistic post.

I've already seen more than one avenue approached in this thread when it comes to discussing the questions, and when communication breaks down, things can get out of control.

PLF, you are truly an intelligent person, and are rather worthy of the Eloquancy title, that I so pretentiously convinced you to take. Please don't patronize me, I am teh smartz :(

[Jynx_lucky_j]

First, thank you to those that liked what I wrote. I'm glad you appreciated it. I just wanted to touch on a few more points that have risen.

Finally, I must disagree with Jynx. Whether someone is a Christian is impossible to know until after death, but it most certainly is relevant before. Those with faith in Christ will have the ambition and desire to change their lives and live as Christ would want them to. Some will succeed, others not, but Christians are all called to make their faith living, and not dead. My point was saying you are a christian, aethist, jew, buddist, or what ever doesn't make you a either a good or bad person. Sure it will matter to the individual (and to a greater or lesser extent those that are close to him). They may do or not do certain things, good or bad, because of their beliefs. But others could easily justify the same action either by or agaisnt thier beliefs. And a christain could justify taking tha same action as the other either by or against his beliefs. Being a christain doesn't make you better than anyone else. Nor does being a non christain make you better than others.

Once, in a church group of about 30 people we played a simple 'game'. One person would make up a small story, and whisper it to the person sitting next to them. In turn, that person would pass the story on to the next person... until the final person was told. The last person would standup and recite the story out loud for everyone to hear as they understood it - and finally the originator would tell their version.

The stories were rarely even close to the original meaning or content. People would mix up names, or events, A few of the more creative would just pass on an entirely different story on purpose.

Many Christians believe that the bible is an absolute, and any interpretation by the various authors that comprise the worth was inspired directly by God. The bible is a bit differant than the telephone game (at least that what we called it i school). The game you played is audio and relies on the memory of the players and depending on who you play it with you may see more of less differance in the original story at the end. To proplerly reproduce the effect that the bible would have in the same situation would be to have some one write a story on some paper hand it off to another person aand have them copy what you wrote on another peice of paper, pass that down, and so on til the end. It will still change an become distorted, but will do so at a much slower rate, and will still likely resemble much the same story at the end regardless of the number of people. However the problem lies in translation so lets throw a few foreign echange students into the game above and have them translate the text into other languages a few times. Now we get even more distortion, but as long as they are doing as direct of a translation as they can it will still largely resemble the original story.

However That doesnt mean that I believe that everything in the bible is exactly true. My biggest concern is the the catholic chuch has all the original, or as close to original text in the worl, and they keep them locked away and only the absolute highest member of the catholic church are premited to even see them. Needless to say they are not availible for retranslation. So many of the translations we have are translations or previous translations, or at best copies of the originals provided by the catholic church. And this just feels just a tad suspisious to me (sorry to any catholics out there but catholoism is just too political to me, and with politics, secrets and conspirasy soon follow...just my personall beliefs).

That said, if there are any changes I belive they are rather minor. After all there are some major things they could have changed they they didn't. For instance they could have made it so Jesus said that everyone should follow the will of the church, instead it says they we must follow the word of god in our hearts. Or I personally feel a major one is how Jesus calls out to god god on the cross and asks why god had forsaken him. If I was going to edit something out to give my religion more powerthat would have be it.

Regardless the bible does say that the word of god is in the heart of everyone in the world, so just temper what you read or hear with what you heart tells you and i think you will do rather well.

I agree with your statement regarding knowing all that God does, etc. I also have a problem with people arbitrarily claiming various acts to be those of God, but I was in several churches where this was quite common.

For example, when one person got a Job after their interview, they said God had guided them into it as a new place to grow and learn. Another person who failed to get a job said that God had other plans for them, and was telling them not to give up and to keep trying. I have a problem with this.

However, do you think this could be a part of the process, as it were? That is to say, if God is a positive factor in a person's life, this acceptance of not getting a job allows for a way to pick yourself up and keep going? And if they get the job, they try harder because they feel God gave it to them as chance to grow?

Perhaps this positive attribution of things to God is part of what it is all about? How do you feel about this kind of statement?The way I look at it is, if i do something and say "Look what I did! I'm so great!" Then I am arrogant and possibly a braggart and arrogance is largely considered to be a vice. However if I do something and say "Look what God did! He is so great!" then I am humble, and humility is largely considered a virtue. It customary that when someone wins a reward they thank everyone that made it possible for them to win the award or at least the top few. How would you feel about someone who resived they're award and said, "I would like to thank myself, because none of you every did anything for me and I don't need any of you." You would probly not be thinking very highly of that person. And if you want to get down to it, since god created the universe, with out him you would literally be nothing, and wouldn't be doing anything.

snip I just wanted the say that it was really nice to hear from someone who has studied the suject far more that I likely with in my entire life. I thought you were very insightful, of course that could just be because I agree with what you said :p Keep up the good work

Just because Jesus told a story about some mustard seeds, and someone interpreted it as preaching succesfully and unsuccesfully, doesn't disprove what the other person said in the first place. Such as, if certain christians are preaching this, but people are like this, and it doesn't make sense. Well, you can quote that parable all you want, but it still won't answer the question, and it still won't make any sense! All you've really done, is just agreed with the person, who originally made the case, which was some people say this, and do this, and that doesn't make sense (you said, some people will agree with the teachings, some won't. You didn't defend the teachings, when someone pointed out a flaw, or what they thought was a flaw.). At least in that example, and it's a bad example, so don't use it. I just thought that I would point out that we DO know what jesus meant by that parrable because after he told it to the crowd his disiples asked him to explain exactly what it meant and he told them.

18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

I belive he also explained a few of he other parables but i forget with ones. But his reason for speaking in parables was so that those that are are ready to hear will understand. The Parables aren't meant to be understood by everybody (he says this in the same chapter). Jesus' parables are alot like Aesob's Fables exept with out the catchy prase at the end to tell you what the moral is. However even if you took the catch phrase off the end you should still be able to tell what the morale of the story is with out it being spelled out for you.

[Joe]

Oh man, total typo on my part, I didn't mean the parable was a bad example, I meant my using the parable as my example was the bad example *goes to fix it*

That aside, I never said you didn't know what he meant. Where did I write "No one knows what Jesus meant." Please show me where I wrote that, I don't think I did, and it wasn't my intent.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Oops my bad I miss read you, my mind kinda mixed it with your previous paragraphs and came up with something totally different, sorry about the mistakes XD

[Kass]

>Kass

My intent in this thread was to discuss these points. They are indeed a more negative view of the situation, but I chose to take that viewpoint in order to stimulate discussion that might provide some intelligent answers to them. Which, it seems to have done.

I agree with your statement regarding knowing all that God does, etc. I also have a problem with people arbitrarily claiming various acts to be those of God, but I was in several churches where this was quite common.

For example, when one person got a Job after their interview, they said God had guided them into it as a new place to grow and learn. Another person who failed to get a job said that God had other plans for them, and was telling them not to give up and to keep trying. I have a problem with this.

Do you have a problem accepting this in your own life or do you take issue with others doing this? Either way, to be blunt, it is your personal dilemma/problem. No one can prove God's intent, nor can they prove he took any actual action or simply allowed something to happen. No one is God. Only he can know. Based on study and faith, it is extremely reasonable for a spiritual person to accept that when these things happen, it is part of the overall design God has for him or her. They need neither your permission, your blessing nor your understanding. The problem is yours and yours alone.

However, do you think this could be a part of the process, as it were? That is to say, if God is a positive factor in a person's life, this acceptance of not getting a job allows for a way to pick yourself up and keep going? And if they get the job, they try harder because they feel God gave it to them as chance to grow?

Yes, I do believe everything that happens is part of some process or plan. I don't believe in coincidences. I've observed that very little actually happens totally through random chance. Some people do require that faith that there is a purpose to everything to sleep comfortably at night and to live a tranquil life. It's very disconcerting to simply think that whatever happens to you is one stupid, freakish coincidence after another. Yes, people do feel that way and do belive those things. Just because you don't does not invalidate their faith.

Perhaps this positive attribution of things to God is part of what it is all about? How do you feel about this kind of statement?


If you are faithful, everything is part of God's design, including allowing his children to have free will, grow, learn, make mistakes, stumble, fall, get up, brush themselves off and succeed. Being a Christian isn't all sweetness and light. It's damned hard work. You have to hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior. You have to be accountable for your actions, not only to yourself and fellow Christians, but to non-Christians for whom you should set an example and to God.

From God, all blessings flow, but don't kid yourself. If you screw up, he'll let you suffer the consequences. Then, like a parent, he'll forgive you. He never stops lovign you. It doesn't take much of a read of the Old Testament to figure out God has no problem allowing the wicked and sinful to suffer. That is the consequence of being wicked and sinful.

Now, I've forgotten who mentioned doing everything that is in the Bible. You cannot be *that* literal about behaving as those in the Bible. If people were, blood would flow in the streets. The Old Testament is exceptionally violent and gory. I can't recall the exact numbers from my Old Testament history class, but more people died in the Bible than the Crusades and several wars combined. Much of it is documentation of one of the most violent times on this planet. The violence of today pales in comparison.

Judges 3:16-23 (background: The Israelites had strayed from God's commandments and were "did evil in the sight of the Lord." Because of this, God strengthened their enemy, Eglon, King of the Moabites. The Moabites smote Israel and the children of Israel were slaves to Eglon for 18 years. The children of Israel prayed and cried to the Lord and he sent Ehud as their deliverer.)

16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh. 17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man. 18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present. 19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him. 20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat. 21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly: 22 And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out. 23 Then Ehud went forth through the porch, and shut the doors of the parlour upon him, and locked them.

Not exactly peaches and cream and sunshine and hugs. I don't think God intends for us to go around gutting our enemies. Jesus's words clarify the those and similar actions as necessary at the time, but as not what God wants. The Pharisees were exceptionally literal about the Law and the books and Jesus destroyed their temple. The spirit of the commandments and God's instructions was more important than whether or not you actually did not do anything workish on the Sabbath.

As well, cultural contexts and definitions change. When translated more accurately and placed in a cultural context, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" takes on a whole new meaning. There's a reason it immediately follows "Thou shalt not steal."

In Old Testament times, women were chattel, property. They had no rights and no standing. They were given by fathers to men to be brides. They pretty much coldn't do anything. A man, married or not, could screw every female in sight as long as she wasn't married. Sleeping with a married woman was stealing from her husband. I'm pretty sure that if you tried this reasoning with a wife today, she'd still cut off your balls and/or divorce you.

That doesn't make the current interpretation wrong. Quite the contrary, it is more in the spirit of treating others as you would want them to treat you than the original interpretation.

It is important to look at the Bible as a whole and realize that about 2/3 of it is a history of the Israelites, not necessarily a behavioral example to follow.

[Komachi Angel]

Once again, thanks for the input and for those of you who have been supportive of the nature of the discussion. It's been good to hear what people have to say about these things, and I can definitely say things have become clearer in my mind regrding quite a few things, as well as hearing some fresh perspectives.

>Kass

Do I have a problem accepting this in my own life? Not in the least - I merely agree with you when you say that 'you can't know what he would think of whether you bought a house in one area or another, etc.' I don't so much mind people who feel they were guided by God, but I dislike when a person may comment that 'God intended this for me' with absolute conviction.

Like you said - 'No one can prove God's intent, nor can they prove he took any actual action or simply allowed something to happen.'

>If you are faithful, everything is part of God's design

I respect you feel this way, but it is not something I personally believe. I do feel nothing happens by chance, in some ways - everything in the world is a chain of action-consequence, so there is always something causing something else to happen.

>The Old Testament is exceptionally violent and gory

Yes, I read it. They stoned a man to death because he was collecting firewood on the sabbath.

>As well, cultural contexts and definitions change.

This is true, I agree.

>That doesn't make the current interpretation wrong.

I am interested in the mode of 'interpretation'. Naturally, as cultural context and so on changes, it falls down to human beings to interpret things according to their surroundings. But, assuming all human beings are capable of faults, does this mean we may incorretly interpret things in the bible, or misunderstand their true meaning? Do you feel it was part of God's plan to be aware of this potential change and make some kind of prevention against it? Perhaps the use of parables was a good way to simplify things into messages that could be translated across different cultural contexts. How do you feel about this?

>Being a Christian isn't all sweetness and light. It's damned hard work. You have to
>hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior.

I do not consider myself a Christian, but I have worked very hard over the years to maintain my principles and beliefs in working hard for others at all times. I felt no especial need to do so any more as a Christian than I did when I was not. I see that Christianity can provide motivation to adhere to good ideals, but I don't see these ideals as specifically Christian.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions - being responsible is very important, no matter who you are. I also see no reason that we, as human beings, should not try and be the best we can and present a good example to others, Christian or no.

>God has no problem allowing the wicked and sinful to suffer. That is the
>consequence of being wicked and sinful.

Once again, this is merely my personal opinion, but I see no correlation between being sinful and suffering. It only takes a quick look around me in daily life to see that some people that cheat and conive live happily, while some people who work their fingers to the bone for the good of others suffer every day. I have seen many examples of this in my life, and have seen many Christians suffer terribly as well.

I realise we do not see eye to eye on several of these issues, but I think we are both free to feel this way. My above comments are merely how I personally feel about the issues mentioned - not how I think others should feel.

[Roxie]

I thought you said "a" question.

That implies one mister, not a tome.

[Kass]

Just because you don't see someone suffering doesn't mean they aren't nor does it mean they won't. No one promised a happy life. A Christian's reward is in heaven. They are supposed to work hard in life. That's the point. Arguing that just because you are good, means you deserve a reward is silly, really. That's like saying "I went to the store today and didn't steal anything. I should be rewarded." You're supposed to be good. You don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. You might get rewards for above and beyond.

People hold Christians to a higher standard than everyone else. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, but if a Christian screws up and does something wrong, people judge them much more harshly than they would a non-Christian.

Of course, Christianity isn't just about being good. It's about faith and about salvation. It's about a feeling. People are "called" (not my favorite word, but it will do because I can't think of a better one at the moment) to Chrisitanity. If there isn't some faith/feeling/belief in a person's heart that this is the path for them, it's all a performance.

But, assuming all human beings are capable of faults, does this mean we may incorretly interpret things in the bible, or misunderstand their true meaning? Do you feel it was part of God's plan to be aware of this potential change and make some kind of prevention against it? Perhaps the use of parables was a good way to simplify things into messages that could be translated across different cultural contexts. How do you feel about this?

I can and do say I belive God intended a certain path for me with conviction because I believe it. Again, if it bothers you when anyone says that, that is your own personal problem. I believe in my heart without a doubt that God has a plan for me and that plan includes any choices I've made. For example, I believe that my guy is the man the path God laid out for me was always supposed to take me to. Meeting him is one of two events in my life that profoundly changed my life for the better. The minutia of how I got here are my doing, but I don't believe it is an accident that things aligned the way they did.

Belief and proof are two entirely different standards, just so we are clear. I can't prove a feeling in my heart anymore than I can prove God's intent. They are intangible.

With regards to the whole intending cultural changes, agan, the Bible was written by man in ancient times. Man. While much of it is the word of God, it is penned by man, who cannot be expected to divine God's intent. God doesn't always share it either. What I feel about God's intent is irrelevant. I choose not to sit around and say, well, he knew we'd end up a world dominated by intolerance and violence. He gave mankind the tools to do good and evil and the guidance to use them wisely. I believe he continues to provide guidance in an intangible way. It's up to people to make use of that guidance. If I had to guess, I'd say he's probably disappointed in how the world has turned out so far. Omniscient is not necessarily prescient. Again, he gave man free will to fail or succeed.

God never said that women were chattel or second class. Quite the contrary, he created woman from Adam's rib--neither below nor above him. Man (and in this case I mean gender, not humanity) decided a woman's role. Free will again. Even so, the cultural changes are pretty good ones. In the context of the times, the original interpretation was correct. Now, the current interpretation is correct. Perhaps he didn't leave "thout shalt not steal" to cover everything because he did suspect things would change. Perhaps he felt that adultery (stealing a man's wife) was sufficiently heinous as to be mentioned specifically. Perhaps he just wanted an even number of commandments and added it to round them out. When I die and get to heaven, I'll ask. That was just an example of why NOT to be so literal about things, the Bible included, lest you get in trouble.

Jesus said he was sent by God to bring people back to what God wanted and his actions and words were all to that end, which means that his parables probably were part of God's plan in that sending his son to live as a man was a deliberate action and he likely intended any acts/words by his son, even if they weren't scripted.

Yes, I also think people should be accountable for their actions, Christian or no, but that doesn't always happen, does it? It happens less and less.

[Unactuality]

Yes, I also think people should be accountable for their actions, Christian or no, but that doesn't always happen, does it? It happens less and less.

As Christians, that's what we believe will happen at the final Judgement.

People have an innate sense of justice. Like Komachi, we want to believe that good will be rewarded and evil punished. How many would actually listen to their conscience if they truly believed that virtue were its own reward, and nothing more?

Human society demonstrates that, I think. Love of self trumps all.

[RDClip]

Seems that our original poster is asking for rational answers to rational questions on a irrational idea. The very idea of religion is irrational blind belief in it; no questions, no doubts, just plain belief.

For your questions on the bible. It was written by dozens of different people over hundreds(ot thousands) of years, so it makes sense that someone would fudge things up.(on a side note, look for all the attempts by christian philosophers to rectify these problems. What they where left with is a hundful of excuses)

Why does that church buy all that treasure and expensive crap? Because they are people with power and people with power become greedy and lose sight of what they started with.

Why "God created man in his image"? Seems that humans have always had a superiority complex and that was just a way to reinfore the belief that humans are 'special'.(we must be if God looks like us, right?)

[Lan]

Seems that our original poster is asking for rational answers to rational questions on a irrational idea. The very idea of religion is irrational blind belief in it; no questions, no doubts, just plain belief.

For your questions on the bible. It was written by dozens of different people over hundreds(ot thousands) of years, so it makes sense that someone would fudge things up.(on a side note, look for all the attempts by christian philosophers to rectify these problems. What they where left with is a hundful of excuses)

Why does that church buy all that treasure and expensive crap? Because they are people with power and people with power become greedy and lose sight of what they started with.

Why "God created man in his image"? Seems that humans have always had a superiority complex and that was just a way to reinfore the belief that humans are 'special'.(we must be if God looks like us, right?)
Hmm, and I was really intrigued by all the thoughtful discussion...til now. (Referring to above post by RDClip)

I don't see how it's an irrational idea. As far as I know, there has been proof of events in the Bible happening. Not irrefutable, but enough to hypothesize. Scientists will hypothesize on events that might've occurred with less information than that. I should try to dig up the proof of Noah's Ark and the flooding and such.

While I'm not sure how long it took to write the Bible (If it was only written after Jesus came, and died, then it definitely did not take thousands of years), the people who transcribed it were touched by God (for non-believers, assume this is so for now). Not only that, but different people wrote the same things. I should look that up as well. My point is, God touched many people to write His Word, and there was enough accuracy for it to become the cornerstone of our belief.

As for the Church buying the 'bling' (as I so rudely put it before...sorry, someone can give me a term to replace this with), firstly you might want to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches, etc. While I disagree with so much material worth, I do see how that can be a way to show that the Church is glorifying God, in that they're giving Him their best, what was their most prized possession (gold) before knowing Him.

Lastly, you interpret that wrongly. We were created in His image, not the other way around. There is no 'superiority complex' in this case. God wasn't modelled after us.

[Xuande]

The saying "virtue is its own reward" bothers me. What's the point of virtue if it doesn't make life better? Even today, medieval monks who flogged themselves bloody for whatever reason are still sometimes considered highly virtuous, when all they really did was contribute to their own misery (and probably pose public health hazards). If you allow that kind of disconnect between virtue and the effects of allegedly virtuous actions, you can easily end up with a morality that promotes suffering for its own sake, which benefits nobody.

Yes, being virtuous often means you have to give up things or otherwise suffer, but at that price greater happiness is bought for other people. Knowing that others are happier thanks to the results of your own actions is a reward in itself if you have a properly-functioning conscience. And enjoying yourself is not necessarily contrary to virtue, especially if in doing so you also enhance the enjoyment of others.

This utilitarian conception of virtue is, of course, completely incompatible with traditional religious morality. It denies what could be called "victimless sin" (such as homosexuality and masturbation) and condemns excessive fasting, autoflagellation, and other demeaning devotions (which mainstream Christianity has fortunately largely cast off in modern times, but some religions are not quite as enlightened). Yet it is in harmony with many of the positive aspects of religious morality, such as charity and love.

[chilove]

I just had to comment on the Bible since so many people are bringing up the book and its origin. The Old Testament and the New Testament are very different books (as has been pointed out). Well, there's a reason. The Old Testament was around way before the New Testament. The Old Testament is what Jews consider their Torah, and we all know Jesus was a Jew. The New Testament, however, was mostly written after Jesus' death by various followers and prophets.

It might interest everyone to know that the New Testament was created b/c of Emperor Constantine (here he is again! he had a huge role in the development of organized Christianity). At the Council of Nicea (Nicene Creed ring a bell?) church leaders were asked to submit all of the texts they used. There were tons! (The Gnostic/Coptic gospels found at Nag Hammadi are some of the most famous and radical.) Everyone decided they had too many to include, so they picked the most common ones along w/the ones that seemed to best fit the image of Christianity. This became the New Testament, which was then added to the Old Testament to make the Bible.

There are so many other gospels that didn't make it into the Bible... it makes me wonder about the gospels that did make the cut. Was it chance that they were chosen? Was it divine intervention? Or was the New Testament "created" to portray a certain image that would promote the leadership of the church and support the government at the time?

Edit** I forgot to add in here that many people/places/events listed in the Bible can be found in history, but that does not guarantee that the specifics are recorded accurately or that everything else in the Bible is historical as well.

[Komachi Angel]

That's the point. Arguing that just because you are good, means you deserve a reward is silly, really. That's like saying "I went to the store today and didn't steal anything. I should be rewarded." You're supposed to be good. You don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. You might get rewards for above and beyond.

As I understood, being rewarded was the point of doing good deeds while you are on earth. Do you mean physical rewards, or rewards in heaven?

When you consider it, morality is also a very difficult thing to define. Even if you really wanted to steal something, but you chose not to, does that make you 'good'? If a person's will is still the same, but all has changed is that they *refrain* from doing things now and then, can we really say they are 'good'?

People hold Christians to a higher standard than everyone else. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, but if a Christian screws up and does something wrong, people judge them much more harshly than they would a non-Christian.

I suppose. I must disagree in some aspects with this, because it seems as though Christians are somehow better than non-Christians. Which brings me back to my initial point about the whole matter.

However, assuming Christians are judged more harshly than normal people, Christians judge normal people much more harshly as well. We are called sinful, wrong, bad, evil, and every small mistake is picked upon to no end.

I can and do say I belive God intended a certain path for me with conviction because I believe it. Again, if it bothers you when anyone says that, that is your own personal problem. I believe in my heart without a doubt that God has a plan for me and that plan includes any choices I've made. For example, I believe that my guy is the man the path God laid out for me was always supposed to take me to. Meeting him is one of two events in my life that profoundly changed my life for the better. The minutia of how I got here are my doing, but I don't believe it is an accident that things aligned the way they did.

I have no problem with that. It's your choice, and your path to walk. However, the reverse is not always true - while normal people are expected to let Christians alone and walk their path, non-Christians are often told many, many times to conform. Indeed, doing so is actively pursued. If Christians are allowed to bothered by our personal choice, then I think it is only fair we are allowed to ask as many questions as possible.

Quite sadly, it seems that asking questions rarely recives a nurturing, patient response, but an angry, righteous one.

Consider this example - Average Bob talks with a Christian, who tells him that he is sinful and bad, and must join their religion or be dammed to eternal torture. Naturally, Bob doesn't particularly like being told he is wrong to his face by someone that barely knows him, and doesn't feel particularly happy about this religion. So, he is fairly skeptical and starts asking questions and acting defensively.

If Christians are, as you say, supposed to be held to higher standards, then I would assume they would not become angry or defensive themselves when questioned in this way. After all, their job is to act as an example and to be nurturing and guide people into their religion.

I will place this back down to human fallacy, but this is something I have seen a lot. When I was in church, I was afraid to question things because it simply wasn't done, and everyone I spoke to got angry at me. This I find hard to understand, as I consider asking questions part of the journey, and a way to get that special feeling you talked about instead of just being a performance.

How do you feel about these statements?

With regards to the whole intending cultural changes, agan, the Bible was written by man in ancient times. Man. While much of it is the word of God, it is penned by man, who cannot be expected to divine God's intent. God doesn't always share it either. What I feel about God's intent is irrelevant. I choose not to sit around and say, well, he knew we'd end up a world dominated by intolerance and violence. He gave mankind the tools to do good and evil and the guidance to use them wisely. I believe he continues to provide guidance in an intangible way. It's up to people to make use of that guidance. If I had to guess, I'd say he's probably disappointed in how the world has turned out so far. Omniscient is not necessarily prescient. Again, he gave man free will to fail or succeed.

Fair enough, but I don't think the world is any worse than before. Intolerance and war were far more prolific in the past than at present.

God never said that women were chattel or second class. Quite the contrary, he created woman from Adam's rib--neither below nor above him. Man (and in this case I mean gender, not humanity) decided a woman's role. Free will again. Even so, the cultural changes are pretty good ones. In the context of the times, the original interpretation was correct. Now, the current interpretation is correct. Perhaps he didn't leave "thout shalt not steal" to cover everything because he did suspect things would change. Perhaps he felt that adultery (stealing a man's wife) was sufficiently heinous as to be mentioned specifically. Perhaps he just wanted an even number of commandments and added it to round them out. When I die and get to heaven, I'll ask. That was just an example of why NOT to be so literal about things, the Bible included, lest you get in trouble.

This is where things get a bit fuzzy for me. The whole creating woman after man *for* man, out of man doesn't suggest equality to me. It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, but it does seem odd.

While it is once again a matter of humans doing what they do, there is still great resistance against women in some churches today. This is due to tradition, which is based on an older cultural context. I believe it is slowly changing, but there seems to be a great deal of pressure to keep things the way they were.

Can we truly say an interpretation is correct or not? After all, this difference in interpretation led to different types of Christianity, and each holds a different view of things. Do you feel they are all correct, or is there one true message from God?

Yes, I also think people should be accountable for their actions, Christian or no, but that doesn't always happen, does it? It happens less and less.

Christian or no, it does indeed happen less and less.

we want to believe that good will be rewarded and evil punished

This is true. After all, if the bible speaks of suffering for rewards in heaven and sticking true to ones belief even if it causes oneself grief, people do this for a reason. Be that salvation or some other form of reward, it is still a reward. Christianity would seem to be entirely based upon these concepts.

firstly you might want to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches, etc. While I disagree with so much material worth, I do see how that can be a way to show that the Church is glorifying God, in that they're giving Him their best, what was their most prized possession (gold) before knowing Him.

I see your point. I understand it is only human nature to glorify things in this manner, but it strikes me that given the message in the bible, it would be better to use these resources to truly help those that need it.

Then again, things such as poverty and famine are difficult problems and don't disappear when you throw money at them. I remember the saying 'catch me a fish, and I eat for a day - teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime'. Ie. we need to get to the root of the problem, and find a way to end the cycle instead of a temporary solution.

But I digress.

It might interest everyone to know that the New Testament was created b/c of Emperor Constantine (here he is again! he had a huge role in the development of organized Christianity). At the Council of Nicea (Nicene Creed ring a bell?) church leaders were asked to submit all of the texts they used. There were tons! (The Gnostic/Coptic gospels found at Nag Hammadi are some of the most famous and radical.) Everyone decided they had too many to include, so they picked the most common ones along w/the ones that seemed to best fit the image of Christianity. This became the New Testament, which was then added to the Old Testament to make the Bible.

There are so many other gospels that didn't make it into the Bible... it makes me wonder about the gospels that did make the cut. Was it chance that they were chosen? Was it divine intervention? Or was the New Testament "created" to portray a certain image that would promote the leadership of the church and support the government at the time?

This is very interesting material. I would be interested in reading more about this kind of thing, as I do not have much knowledge in the history of the matter. I do recall hearing that many gospels did not make it in to the bible, and that in some editions various ones were cut out. I remember one that was said to be extremely sexist regarding women and highly offensive.

Thanks for your input, Chilove - it's quite intriguing material. I really must make a point to find out more.

Thank you, once again, for everyone who has posted so far, and especially for taking the time to write long and thoughtful responses. Much appreciated.

[chilove]

This is where things get a bit fuzzy for me. The whole creating woman after man *for* man, out of man doesn't suggest equality to me. It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, but it does seem odd.

If you look closely at the creation story, there are actually 2 versions in the Bible (so many inconsistencies, so few people who want to hear about it ;) ). There is the 'Woman out of Adam's rib' story that everyone loves to quote (Genesis 2:21-24), but there's also this:

Genesis 1:26-28

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


The first thing you should notice is the repetitive use of the word "our" when talking about God's image. It seems as if God is actually meant to be both male and female, or perhaps neither male nor female. Next, you see that this version actually says God created male and female at the same time. Interesting that this version comes first in the book of Genesis.

While it is once again a matter of humans doing what they do, there is still great resistance against women in some churches today. This is due to tradition, which is based on an older cultural context. I believe it is slowly changing, but there seems to be a great deal of pressure to keep things the way they were.

The Gnostic Gospels actually place Mary Magdalene as the successor to carry on Jesus' message, but we know that's not what made it into the final edition of the Bible. Jesus was very big on equality and unity between the sexes, but that tends to get overlooked...

Originally Posted by Kass
People hold Christians to a higher standard than everyone else. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, but if a Christian screws up and does something wrong, people judge them much more harshly than they would a non-Christian.

I also had trouble w/this statement. It does seem to imply that Christians are superior and held to a higher standard b/c other people are barbarians or heathens, so we shouldn't expect too much out of them in the 1st place. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood here. I'm very big on the idea of respecting all religions even if you don't agree with or follow them, so maybe I'm more sensitive than most. I certainly don't hold Christians any higher than other people. I normally don't ask someone what religion they are before I decide if they've acted inappropriately (of course being in the USA, and especially being in the South, I tend to assume most people I meet are Christians). And as I said before, people tend to put their own feelings w/"disembodied text," and I tend to expect negative comments when it comes to topics like this.

[Lan]

People hold Christians to a higher standard than everyone else. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, but if a Christian screws up and does something wrong, people judge them much more harshly than they would a non-Christian.
I actually do tend to agree with this. Because Christianity is such a prevalent belief in N. America, and some politicians claim to be/are believers, in general, I do see it being attacked often. As high profile Christians show up in the news, and talk about hot issues such as homosexuality and abortion, they spark tempers, and so Christianity does get stepped on quite often. Not to mention, if you're cheating people out of their money using stolen credit card numbers, then you're an evil fraudster. But if you're a televangelist who claims to heal people by touch (something I'm really skeptical about..) and you cheat people out of their money, then you're an evil Christian who's a hypocrite and all that bad stuff. People don't consider the fact that maybe they're not even Christian? Or mislead, like certain people who claim they killed for God. Things like that. I'd love to hear more educated thoughts on this because I'm barely make sense here methinks.


However, assuming Christians are judged more harshly than normal people, Christians judge normal people much more harshly as well. We are called sinful, wrong, bad, evil, and every small mistake is picked upon to no end.
Personally, I don't do that. I don't run down the Eastside of the city pointing at everyone accusing them of being sinful evil people who will go to Hell, etc. And for that matter, I don't run downtown and accuse everyone in the high-rises of being money grubbing capitalist pigs, etc. (This extreme, I know) Most people I know aren't Christian, but I can live with that. You don't need to be Christian to be a good person with a loving heart and just because you're Christian doesn't mean you have a loving heart and are a good person. The people who you might think call every non-Christian (and no doubt, some Christians would be accused as well I think, considering their lack of tact) sinful, wrong, bad, evil, and pick on your every mistake are probably the same people who try to force you to BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE!!! IMO.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The Old Testament is NOT equivalent to the Torah. The Old Testament is referred to as the Hebrew Bible to Jews. The Torah is equivalent to the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses (Gensis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy).

For books that weren't included in what we consider the Bible (for the most part), pick up a bible that includes the pseudepigrapha and the aprocrypha. The former is used by some denominations of Christians, generally not as a whole, and contains a lot of inter-testamental writing (stuff written after the 'other' writings of the Hebrew Bible, but well before the gospels of the New Testament), while the Apocrypha is considered gospel by Catholics.

The inter-testamental writings are by FAR the most interesting of all the books of the Bible. Books such as II Esdras and the various books of Enoch (there are lots of 'em) discuss the change in philosophy and theology that creates the modern concept of the messiah and the apocalypse. It's almost uncanny how easy the development of the messiah is conceptually when reading those books.

As far as the canonized Hebrew Bible, the books are split up into categories:

The Torah/Pentateuch (the first 5 books)

These were brought back from the exile in Babylon in order to make sure that the Hebrews remembered their faith.

The Histories (I, II Kings, Judges, Joshua, etc.)

These are books that are far more historical than they are religious, detailing the history of the chosen people throughout the ages.

The Prophets (Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, etc.)

These books detail warnings to the people about being bad Hebrews, and being called by God to spread new warnings.

The Writings (Daniel, Proverbs, etc.)

These books don't fit into a category. It's theorized that the Prophetic works were all canonized, and while books like Daniel resemble prophetic literature, they came after the cut, so were included in the 'Writings' section because of that fact. This is where you start to see the development of more modern theology, eventually leading to the inter-testamental period.

Then you have the inter-testamental writings (things like Esdras and Enoch, as well as books that weren't selected for the 'writings' and were not canonized), as well as things like the Dead Sea scrolls (which are incredibly interesting in their own right).

Fast-forward to 80CE or whereabouts, and you have Mark, then Matthew and Luke. Each draws from a source which provides a bulk of the parables, and then have other secondary and tertiary sources shared with one other book, or exclusive to that author. Each appeals to a different segment of the population (gentiles, Jews, and early Christians), followed up by John which is not about Jesus as a man, but as Jesus as the Christ.

Finally you get into the Paulian writings, outlining what would develop into Christian theology, and then Revelation.

Interesting stuff religion is.

[RDClip]

Hmm, and I was really intrigued by all the thoughtful discussion...til now. (Referring to above post by RDClip)
Yes, yes leave it to me to destroy a thread with the cynical ramblings of this Clip.

I don't see how it's an irrational idea. As far as I know, there has been proof of events in the Bible happening. Not irrefutable, but enough to hypothesize. Scientists will hypothesize on events that might've occurred with less information than that. I should try to dig up the proof of Noah's Ark and the flooding and such.
You are obviously someone who believes in God and all that Jazz. And say, "good for you'. If it works for you great. I believe God doesn't exist and Judeo-Christianity has about the same credibility as the Greek or Roman Pantheon.

There are various "proof" of events in the Bible occuring, some more true than others. Jesus may have existed; was he a charismatic leader, yes; did he do miracles, no. If the various 'scientific proof' is so credible, why isn't it an accepted truth that there was a great flood or why don't most anthropologist believe there was a great flood?

While I'm not sure how long it took to write the Bible (If it was only written after Jesus came, and died, then it definitely did not take thousands of years), the people who transcribed it were touched by God (for non-believers, assume this is so for now). Not only that, but different people wrote the same things. I should look that up as well. My point is, God touched many people to write His Word, and there was enough accuracy for it to become the cornerstone of our belief.
Touched by God? As I said earier, I don't believe there is a God, so that just doesn't work for me. Yes some wrote the same things because it was not uncommon to first read another work and then elaborate on it.

Accuracy and belief has nothing in common. It just so happens that Christainity has something that non of the other religions at the time had. In a world filled with war, disease, and dominion by a great empire, a message of peace, love, and eternal happiness sounded good. Not to mention the fact the Christianity survived by becoming that state religion for one of the greatest empires of the time. Believe it or not Christianity would either not exist now or would not be the main religion of the west had Rome not adopted it.

As for the Church buying the 'bling' (as I so rudely put it before...sorry, someone can give me a term to replace this with), firstly you might want to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches, etc. While I disagree with so much material worth, I do see how that can be a way to show that the Church is glorifying God, in that they're giving Him their best, what was their most prized possession (gold) before knowing Him.
Yes, yes glorifying God by spending millions on useless treasures and going against what God supposidly told them to do, help the poor.

Lastly, you interpret that wrongly. We were created in His image, not the other way around. There is no 'superiority complex' in this case. God wasn't modelled after us.
Okay then. Try to see it in the perspective of people 5 thousand years ago. The Jew were living in quite crappy circumstances: disease, constant war, famine, etc. Wouldn't it be nice if they could feel better about the human race, that humanity was somehow special. Well then, humanity were created in God's image(although not the humans that they didn't consider to be human) So, we're created in God's image, well that gives us hope that we're not just some short phase in the timeline of the Earth and we are chosen especially out of all the beings in the universe to be God's favourite. Doesn't that seem a little bit like a superiority complex.

As an end note, yes, everyone who believes in God and such will say I am full of it. Yes, I am cynical. Yes, someone may post some good points showing that I am just a moron. Just don't get so pissy about it. It's just a difference of opinion.

[Kass]

First, I'm apologizing for the mash of quotes without attribution. For some reason, I can only use quick reply today.


Originally Posted by Kass
People hold Christians to a higher standard than everyone else. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, but if a Christian screws up and does something wrong, people judge them much more harshly than they would a non-Christian.

I also had trouble w/this statement. It does seem to imply that Christians are superior and held to a higher standard b/c other people are barbarians or heathens, so we shouldn't expect too much out of them in the 1st place. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood here. I'm very big on the idea of respecting all religions even if you don't agree with or follow them, so maybe I'm more sensitive than most. I certainly don't hold Christians any higher than other people. I normally don't ask someone what religion they are before I decide if they've acted inappropriately (of course being in the USA, and especially being in the South, I tend to assume most people I meet are Christians). And as I said before, people tend to put their own feelings w/"disembodied text," and I tend to expect negative comments when it comes to topics like this.

One, I never meant to imply Christians are superior. I mean the exact opposite. Christians are human just like everyone else. They make the same mistakes, have the same frailties, yet, when a Christian does something wrong, they are jusged far more harshly. Jim Bakker defrauded a lot of people. He stole a lot of money from them through the PTL. It was a massive scandal and a case noted worldwide.

On the other hand, we have con artists scamming people with real estate scams every day, often in monetary amounts far exceeding what Jim Bakker stole, but people barely even take note when they go to trial.

So why was the Jim Bakker case so much of a spectacle? Because he was a Christian minister. Well, that and his wife Tammy Faye was a freak of blue eye shadow nature. ;)

Consider this example - Average Bob talks with a Christian, who tells him that he is sinful and bad, and must join their religion or be dammed to eternal torture. Naturally, Bob doesn't particularly like being told he is wrong to his face by someone that barely knows him, and doesn't feel particularly happy about this religion. So, he is fairly skeptical and starts asking questions and acting defensively.

One, the VAST majority of Christians would never, ever tell someone that. Again, less than 2% of Christians in the US are of the harsh, fundamentalist ilk who would behave in that manner. The Christian Coalition has about 2 million members. That is about 1.26% of the 159,030,000 Christians in the US. It is hardly representative. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions -- not a religious website)

The average Christian is more likely to not mention it at all or to invite you to attend chruch with you or ask if you mind if they pray for you if you are in some sort of crisis.

The number of people who feel more than justified in telling Christians they believe in a fairy tale, nothing, that there is no God, that they are irrational, bigots, silly, stupid, irrational, etc. is far higher. This and other religious conversations. In none of the religious conversations on this board has a Christian done antything like you implied, however, numerous people felt the need to declare Christians as irrational, etc.

This is where things get a bit fuzzy for me. The whole creating woman after man *for* man, out of man doesn't suggest equality to me. It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, but it does seem odd.

How exactly do you make the leap to define "for" as translating to subservience? I have friends for company, good times, social outlets, etc. I have a guy for someone to love and love me and companionship, etc. I looked. Nowhere in the definition of "for" is there an indication of possession. Actually, one of the numerous definitions is a. Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action: prepared lunch for us. That seems a pretty positive thing.

I can't even find where it says God created woman "for" man to possess. Gen 2:18-22

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


To help and so that man would not be alone. Gee. How horrible is it that God wanted to give Adam some help and companionship. It's obvious he meant Eve to be a possession.

As I understood, being rewarded was the point of doing good deeds while you are on earth. Do you mean physical rewards, or rewards in heaven?

That is taken completely out of context of the paragraph and put an entirely different meaning to it. Besides, I answered that in the paragraph you misquoted.

>God has no problem allowing the wicked and sinful to suffer. That is the
>consequence of being wicked and sinful.

KA:
Once again, this is merely my personal opinion, but I see no correlation between being sinful and suffering. It only takes a quick look around me in daily life to see that some people that cheat and conive live happily, while some people who work their fingers to the bone for the good of others suffer every day. I have seen many examples of this in my life, and have seen many Christians suffer terribly as well.

Kass:
Just because you don't see someone suffering doesn't mean they aren't nor does it mean they won't. No one promised a happy life. A Christian's reward is in heaven. They are supposed to work hard in life. That's the point. Arguing that just because you are good, means you deserve a reward is silly, really. That's like saying "I went to the store today and didn't steal anything. I should be rewarded." You're supposed to be good. You don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. You might get rewards for above and beyond.


No one was ever promised a happy, suffering-free life. Good people suffer too. You should be a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because someone will reward you. At the end of life, heaven is the reward earned through a lifetime of hard work.

I sincerely hope the formatting on this isn't buggered.

[setrict]

Once again, this is merely my personal opinion, but I see no correlation between being sinful and suffering. It only takes a quick look around me in daily life to see that some people that cheat and conive live happily, while some people who work their fingers to the bone for the good of others suffer every day. I have seen many examples of this in my life, and have seen many Christians suffer terribly as well.

I've often seen this said in various forms, and it's a very convincing argument against the concept of sin. The problem is that the premise is based on a rather small frame of reference, namely yours. And mine. If we limit our frame of reference that of a single person's lifetime, the argument is well supported with that perspective.

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but it really comes down to faith. My personal belief is that there are somethings I just don't understand the reasons for. I believe that many of the things considered sin are detremental to humanity as a whole if not immediately at least over time. As such I have faith that there is a correlation on a macro scale at the very least. In addition I have faith that there is a purpose beyond just living, and that that purpose is something that may require the suffering and inequities that seem to make no sense from my perspective.

[chilove]

One, I never meant to imply Christians are superior. I mean the exact opposite. Christians are human just like everyone else. They make the same mistakes, have the same frailties, yet, when a Christian does something wrong, they are jusged far more harshly. Jim Bakker defrauded a lot of people. He stole a lot of money from them through the PTL. It was a massive scandal and a case noted worldwide.

On the other hand, we have con artists scamming people with real estate scams every day, often in monetary amounts far exceeding what Jim Bakker stole, but people barely even take note when they go to trial.

So why was the Jim Bakker case so much of a spectacle? Because he was a Christian minister. Well, that and his wife Tammy Faye was a freak of blue eye shadow nature. ;)



Ok. I understand what you're saying now. Your examples were good, and I must agree w/your above statements... which now has me trying to rationalize why Christians get so much more hype.

Does the Christian message of love and helping-those-less-fortunate make them an easy target when they goof up? Do people pay more attention b/c Christianity is so well known? Does the media use religion to grab our attention?

Does it make people feel better somehow to know that someone who portrayed themselves as a christian has done something really bad? That way they get to think 'Well, at least I haven't done that!' Or, 'I just knew those Christians weren't who they said they were.' Maybe the stereotype of holier-than-thou-Christians has led to a backlash where people want to see them fail...

[Durandle]

I'll be honest and say I didn't read the whole thread... its 2am and after the first 4 or 5 posts (pretty long!) I had to stop :P

I think there are 2 points that really stick in my mind...

One - is the "pushy" Christian. I know some people like this (and more than 2% you can be sure of that) but by and large, thats not really a problem. However, what *is* annoying is the insulting way I have been treated by over half of the Christians I know when I have refused to conform to their ideas. I have had people act like I must be the village idiot for not just following them. Some people treat me with pity (openly that is) which is pretty rude. One or two even told me that they can't be friends with me anymore (I am guessing on the basis that if they say that, I may change my mind, who knows).

I think this attitude comes about from the idea that Christianity is the only correct way of thinking. A kind of "Either your with us or against us" mentality. I have no real religious belief, but if I had one it would be a belief of human nature. There are many other religions, most say they are the *only* right one, some say that to have other religions is just fine, they can all coexist. So who's right? To claim yours is the *only* correct way of thinking seems to me a bit high-handed... and often results in a closed mindset.

Two - the ability of religion to change so much yet for people to claim it is the same as it always was. This seems so crazy to me... over the years, people in power have edited and changed the bible and its teachings to suit their own needs - for better or for worse. Yet people now will treat is as gods word. Many of the most original bible teachings have the common ground of teaching people to respect each other, and to over simplify, be nice. Then there are the edits that were created by the church/kings/government/people in power, as time went on, such as (and I am paraphrasing this, I don't remember it word for word) a story of a man and his family, who when asked to give his worldly riches to the church/god, he refused. His family was struck down by heavenly lighting/fire/something. So the moral is? Give all your money to the church, or you family will die. I've asked some Christian friends about this, and they say they thinks its true, its a real story and can not be refuted. They get VERY angry when I bring up the fact that King/Queens/etc have made many changes and refuse to speak further on.

I actually think my self there was a man, Jesus, who taught many good teachings and a way of life and such. Personally I don't think he was the son of god and such, but then that's me.

Any opinions on this?

(sorry, I'm not too good at sticking to my own subject of thought)

[chilove]

I actually think my self there was a man, Jesus, who taught many good teachings and a way of life and such. Personally I don't think he was the son of god and such, but then that's me.

I agree w/you. (my thoughts here, no facts) To me, Jesus was a historical person, and most likely a prophet. He did have good teachings, but I don't think he was the Son of God. I think it's more likely he meant we are all sons and daughters of God.

Now I'll go a step further and talk about God. I believe in God. Is it the God from the Bible? No. I don't particularly like that God. I don't think he'd ('he' for lack of a better term) be vengeful, or jealous, or want to be worshipped, or condemn people to hell for all eternity. Also, I don't think God is something we can truly understand. I don't think he's like people, and I don't really think he's 'watching' us or interfering in our lives. I don't think God cares if I'm late to work, or if I failed a test, or whether or not I catch the flu, etc.

*Edit: I do think some things are meant to happen, but those are important life-altering things. I think there's meaning behind life that we can't necessarily see.*

I think all religions ultimately deal w/the same God, and they're all trying to find a way to rationalize it. I like the saying "There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but they all lead the same place." I also don't think organized religion is necessary for all people. A lot of people take comfort in it, but I don't think everyone does (well, I know I don't).

Any thoughts on organized religion? Pros or Cons?

[Komachi Angel]

One, I never meant to imply Christians are superior. I mean the exact opposite. Christians are human just like everyone else. They make the same mistakes, have the same frailties, yet, when a Christian does something wrong, they are jusged far more harshly. Jim Bakker defrauded a lot of people. He stole a lot of money from them through the PTL. It was a massive scandal and a case noted worldwide.



That's fair enough. Your original post gave me to think the former, so thank you for the clarification.



One, the VAST majority of Christians would never, ever tell someone that. Again, less than 2% of Christians in the US are of the harsh, fundamentalist ilk who would behave in that manner. The Christian Coalition has about 2 million members. That is about 1.26% of the 159,030,000 Christians in the US. It is hardly representative. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions -- not a religious website)



The average Christian is more likely to not mention it at all or to invite you to attend chruch with you or ask if you mind if they pray for you if you are in some sort of crisis.



Most of the people I grew up with in the Christian sphere said this kind of thing on a regular basis, in several churches. It was preached in one, as well. Thus, my feelings regarding the issue.



Also, I am not sure what Christian, or person, that would say 'yes' to a question about being a harsh fundamendalist. Also, if you got that data from the link mentioned, could you please clarify where it is coming from? It doesn't strike me as something you can tell by denomination alone.



The number of people who feel more than justified in telling Christians they believe in a fairy tale, nothing, that there is no God, that they are irrational, bigots, silly, stupid, irrational, etc. is far higher. This and other religious conversations. In none of the religious conversations on this board has a Christian done antything like you implied, however, numerous people felt the need to declare Christians as irrational, etc.[QUOTE=Kass]



You have no statistics for this.



Assuming it is true, there are complex social issues relevant to people and their feelings towards the church. Not all of them are justified, but my own personal stance towards the situation is to question as much as possible. I am not trying to push my views on anyone - just find out more about the subject from a different perspective.



When it comes down to it, I have to say that there is a world of difference between belief and non-belief.



[QUOTE=Kass]How exactly do you make the leap to define "for" as translating to subservience? I have friends for company, good times, social outlets, etc. I have a guy for someone to love and love me and companionship, etc. I looked. Nowhere in the definition of "for" is there an indication of possession. Actually, one of the numerous definitions is a. Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action: prepared lunch for us. That seems a pretty positive thing.



I merely wished to express the idea that it is possible for a person to aruge that Eve was created as almost an afterthought. There is the thought that God made woman as he saw man was lonely, etc., which suggests that the purpose of woman was to entertain man. I don't support this view - I merely wished to express that it is a possible interpretation.



You also said that man decided woman's role. I realise this may not have been intended by god, but nevertheless, it strikes me that if they were made even, neither would have the right to choose roles for the other arbitrarily.



Assuming woman was made equal with man, I would expect she were made with the same aims, in the same manner, and with the same prospects. None of these seem apparent.



Once again, let me stress that I merely wish to point out a possible interpretation of the passage. And given that the bible seems to be the subject of many translations, I am sure you appreciate my point on this.



I can't even find where it says God created woman "for" man to possess. Gen 2:18-22 To help and so that man would not be alone.[QUOTE]



If man was created for no reason such as companionship or help, but for existence itself, and yet woman, as you say, was made to serve a purpose for man, can you see how it might be interpreted?



[QUOTE=Kass]No one was ever promised a happy, suffering-free life. Good people suffer too. You should be a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because someone will reward you. At the end of life, heaven is the reward earned through a lifetime of hard work.



But this is my point - you say that heaven is the reward earned through a lifetime of hard work, which is mostly consistent of being good.



Also, if people who sin are punished, I feel it is only natural to believe that the opposite also holds true.



Lastly, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my other statement - if someone still has the desire to do bad things, but merely refrains, are they still a good person? If all that has changed is the outward expression, not the thoughts regarding it, has anything really changed?



've often seen this said in various forms, and it's a very convincing argument against the concept of sin. The problem is that the premise is based on a rather small frame of reference, namely yours. And mine. If we limit our frame of reference that of a single person's lifetime, the argument is well supported with that perspective.



This is true, but is it possible to feel that, seeing many different situations in ones life, that such a trend may not be a universal one? After all, humans base everything around their own personal circumstances. If this is all I see in my life, can I therefore say this idea still holds true? After all, if you hear that X is Y, but all you have ever seen of X is actually B, which do we accept? After all, what we experience and see first-hand may have more impact than being told something is meant to be a different way.



I know you probably don't want to hear this, but it really comes down to faith. My personal belief is that there are some things I just don't understand the reasons for. I believe that many of the things considered sin are detremental to humanity as a whole if not immediately at least over time. As such I have faith that there is a correlation on a macro scale at the very least. In addition I have faith that there is a purpose beyond just living, and that that purpose is something that may require the suffering and inequities that seem to make no sense from my perspective.



I do believe it comes down to faith in some things. My personal belief is that there are causes and effects for all things based in psychology, bilology, and that only the alamgam of all these things that make up our world could be called divine. But this depends on how you define divine, and that is a whole new ballgame altogehter.



I agree that things considered as sin may be detrimental to society. Thinking about it, they would appear to be an attempt to hold back our animal instincts, which is necessary to create the bounds of society as we call it. Still, this is starting to go over into the merits of Christianity, which has been discussed many times before.



I agree with your statements, and I feel I see where you are coming from.



Does the Christian message of love and helping-those-less-fortunate make them an easy target when they goof up? Do people pay more attention b/c Christianity is so well known? Does the media use religion to grab our attention?



Perhaps, but consider this. I walk around all day saying I am an architect, and I know how buildings are made. I don't know everything about making buildings, and while I am learning, I still make it very clear that I am all about being an architect. One day, let's say I make a mistake in building a house, and it falls down, killing some people. People will be up in arms, saying 'you are an arthitect - you said you know how this stuff works!' or 'you say you're an architect, but look at this huge mistake you made!'. If I wasn't an architect, people wouldn't take the same angle, because I don't claim to know anything about it.



If Christians claim to have the knowledge and the answers, it's only natural people will react that way.



Also, given the history and current scope of Christianity, and how many problems surround it, people naturally tend to be quite sensitive to what is going on.



And to the media - what is more juicier than having a holy figure doing something bad to get a reaction out of people? It's emotive gold.

[Enioc]

I just want to mention something:

A lot of people have said that the Bible is based on translations of translations of translations, sort of modeling the game of Telephone. Just to clarify, the New International Version (the version that is probably the most widely used) was actually translated from "the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." The Bible was not translated from the version immediately preceding it, thus eliminating a lot of the potential errors that could have arisen in the process.

[Komachi Angel]

I realise the texts have been translated from various sources, and each will have varying degrees of accuracy with regards to the original text.

Something I do not like so much is when a person uses the exact wording in a text to prove a point. Even very skilled translators cannot replicate wording to such a degree and there is no guarantee that the nuances of each sentence will be passed on as well. Not only do you have to worry about grammar, but how to translate cultural references and choose wording that does not sound very odd. Given these limitations, I find it impossible to believe that you could argue down to a word the meaning of a translation.

It is indeed a problem we are unable to avoid without speaking in the original language whilst using the original texts. It can be a worry when not everyone is sensitive to the problems in translating in general, and may not be aware that translation is not a 100% clear-cut business.

Just a small point, but I felt I put it out there.

[Xuande]

In many cases we're not even sure what, exactly, the original words meant, so translation isn't the only issue. It's tough studying two-millennia-old writings.

[Kuhool]

One of Napoleon's observations:

"Man will believe anything, as long as it's not in the Bible."

The internet has taught me that Christianity, to a large portion of people on the internet, is one of the worst things to hit the world, has little if any credibility, and is illogical in the sense of faith. Or something like that.

You could preach the Bible all day, but because it is the Bible, which is Christian, the mistakes are easily pointed out. That's my little observation.

I'm Christian though... incase anyone got a little confused.