A thread about Christianity

[Davegod75]

very good post. no ones yelling at each other and it's very educational, at least i think so. I'd love to see responses for Astaroth33's questions.

 

[Amorphus]

I know, I'm amazed this has remained civilized. everyone, pat on the back.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: petrek

actually that comic is almost correct. except for the acceptting Jesus and be saved part. you have to be baptized as well as was the example of Christians in the early Church.

What about the thief on the cross beside Jesus? Did Jesus lie when he said that he (the thief) would be with him in Heaven that day?

The baptism referred to then, cannot mean a physical water baptism, but must refer to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is part and parcel of the act of Salvation.

Dave

the common example used to try to excuse water baptism. fact. you don't know if the theif was a Christian prior to his conviction or not. in fact, what he stated almost leads you to believe he was one (and had been baptized). This is heresay either way though and can not be used as an argument either way on the matter since it is not known if he was baptized.

Actually, there's no way he could have been a Christian before he was on the cross. There was no such thing as a Christian before Jesus (Christ) died on the cross. Hence the term Christian.

Personally, I agree with petrek that baptism is merely an outward expression of your internal decision, and it is the internal decision that is important. What if someone got in a car accident on the way to their baptism? I guess they'd go to hell... (sarcasm)

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33


Then I would gain the benefit of your interpretation.

Well... yeah I guess. Like you said, you're not a Bible scholar. I have studied the Bible quite a bit. My point was that while people can TRY to twist the Bible to fit what they want it to mean, you can usually find evidence against that interpretation. The Bible has been studied for 2000 years; there are some things that are not explicitly clear (predestination vs. election), but most of it is pretty clear.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: petrek

actually that comic is almost correct. except for the acceptting Jesus and be saved part. you have to be baptized as well as was the example of Christians in the early Church.

What about the thief on the cross beside Jesus? Did Jesus lie when he said that he (the thief) would be with him in Heaven that day?

The baptism referred to then, cannot mean a physical water baptism, but must refer to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is part and parcel of the act of Salvation.

Dave

the common example used to try to excuse water baptism. fact. you don't know if the theif was a Christian prior to his conviction or not. in fact, what he stated almost leads you to believe he was one (and had been baptized). This is heresay either way though and can not be used as an argument either way on the matter since it is not known if he was baptized.

Actually, there's no way he could have been a Christian before he was on the cross. There was no such thing as a Christian before Jesus (Christ) died on the cross. Hence the term Christian.

Personally, I agree with petrek that baptism is merely an outward expression of your internal decision, and it is the internal decision that is important. What if someone got in a car accident on the way to their baptism? I guess they'd go to hell... (sarcasm)

point taken. New Testaments was not in full effect yet....But I still can't see how you can believe that baptism is an outward sign of inward grace given the eunich example. wouldn't the eunich want to wait until he got to wherever he was headed to show the outward grace? nope. he wanted to be saved right then and there, found water and became saved.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

This is not necessarily directed at you, but rather at anyone who would like to answer. Again I must apologize for not being a Bible scholar (perhaps I should become one, though I am agnostic)..

Why would an all-powerful God create angels? What purpose do they serve, and after they were created, what was the reason for creating Man?
How was it that Lucifer was able to rebel against such an all-powerful God? Why did God kick Lucifer out of heaven instead of merely destroying him?
Is Lucifer "evil"? What, exactly, is evil?
Is God powerless to remove evil from Creation? If not, why does evil exist?
Lucifer made a decision to rebel against God in the (distant?) past. Is it possible that in the future a different angel might also make such a choice?
Is it possible that a different angel might rebel against God, but not side with Lucifer? If so, where would that angel go? Would a "new" place, neither heaven nor hell nor the physical world, be created? Would anyone "go" there after death?
Would such an angel also be considered "evil", even if its reasons were different than those of Lucifer?
Or... Do angels exist in a static realm which never changes? Do they no longer have free will? Did they ever?

I'll do my best, but I don't have all the answers.
Lucifer is evil. Evil is the opposite of good? I'm not sure how to answer that one. It's an abstract concept. It is possible that a differnt angel could rebel against God. That angel would go to hell as well I believe. The fact that Lucifer rebelled against God means that angels have free will, as does man. I have no reason to believe that they do not still have free will.

The Bible doesn't really directly address these issues, but I answered your questions based on my understanding of the Bible and the nature of God. The Bible doesn't necessarily have ALL of the answers.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Davegod75
very good post. no ones yelling at each other and it's very educational, at least i think so. I'd love to see responses for Astaroth33's questions.

alright. I'll give it a shot. I must have missed his post the first time around...

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Why would an all-powerful God create angels?
To serve him. He likes to be worshipped and served.

What purpose do they serve, and after they were created, what was the reason for creating Man?
They are messengers of God, do tasks for God, etc. Reason for man was to create something that had the choice to do it, and be rewarded excessively if they do, punished eternally if they don't

How was it that Lucifer was able to rebel against such an all-powerful God?
unknown

Why did God kick Lucifer out of heaven instead of merely destroying him?
for a source of evil in the world, to tempt his new creations (humans). If there were no temptation, there would be no evil which was needed for choice.

Is Lucifer "evil"? What, exactly, is evil?
Yes. Going against God's will and persuading others to do the same

Is God powerless to remove evil from Creation? If not, why does evil exist?
No, I already answered above why it exists

Lucifer made a decision to rebel against God in the (distant?) past. Is it possible that in the future a different angel might also make such a choice?
Is it possible that a different angel might rebel against God, but not side with Lucifer? If so, where would that angel go? Would a "new" place, neither heaven nor hell nor the physical world, be created? Would anyone "go" there after death?
I think what happened was Lucifer made the choice, and many angels were with him. These became demons, Lucifers servants. The ultimate battle for good and evil where only the all powerful God can win. As for things that may happen, nothing is said about that. Unknown.

Would such an angel also be considered "evil", even if its reasons were different than those of Lucifer?
Either you go with God's will or you don't. There is no gray here.

Or... Do angels exist in a static realm which never changes? Do they no longer have free will? Did they ever?
They exist with God, whatever realm that can be. They can also come into our realm and have done so many times as stated in the Bible

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
I have no problem with Christianity. My best friend of about six years has been a Catholic his whole life (I am agnostic). As others have said, though, there are many Christians who have problems with non-Christians. I can think of many examples in my own life. There was a girl who I was real close friends with for about a year, but then she "discovered" that hanging out with me was, as she put it, "spitting in the face of God," and that was that.

understandable. if what you were doing was of such magnitude, she has a right to cut off the relationship to prevent you from being an adverse influence upon her relationship with God. don't take it personally, we're all imperfect.

I don't take it personally, seeing as that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An adverse influence? Because I'm not Christian? Are you/she suggesting that I might "convert" her to the ways of sin? Hell, she and I never even talked about religion. Even if we had, if she's so convinced of her beliefs, why would she be scared that I'm going to change them? By being a nice guy and good friend?

I also don't like how defensive some Christians are about their belief, and how they think non-Christians just "don't understand." A friend of mine got very angry at me once, the conversation going something like this:

Her: Man, I'm so tired, I just have no energy, I feel sick (etc etc)...and to top it off I have to help out at [my church] every night this week.

Me: Well, your time at the church is voluntary, right?

Her: Yeah.

Me: So, why don't you just take a few days off to catch a breather?

All hell broke loose, as she informed me that I was never again to "tell her to turn her back on her faith," and that as an agnostic, "I just don't understand."

now, THIS friend flipped out. She needs to be of sound mind and body to help properly, and taking one or two days off is perfectly acceptable if the reason and motive is valid, and in this case, it definitely seems valid. in fact, I believe that she was naive in her faith. I'm giving her the benifit of the doubt, though, in that I hope she's gained some more wisdom and knowledge since then. I would recommend apologising for offending her (you offended her, but thats about it. apologising for that doesn't mean you made a mistake) and trying to rebuild the friendship.[/quote]
Already happened, we're buds again.

I also hate what people have done with Christianity, or rather, what they use the faith as an excuse for. They use "God" as means for getting power, starting wars, and as an excuse for biggotry, and all forms of hatred. Just look at Ireland.

Anyway, gotta run, but that sums up my general sentiment. Again, I have no problem with religion, it's more what *some* people choose to do with it that irks me.

Edit Grammar

Have a nice day. [/quote]

Don't wanna touch this one, eh? Understandable, seeing as you know I'm right.

 

[mugs]

I don't take it personally, seeing as that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An adverse influence? Because I'm not Christian? Are you/she suggesting that I might "convert" her to the ways of sin? Hell, she and I never even talked about religion. Even if we had, if she's so convinced of her beliefs, why would she be scared that I'm going to change them? By being a nice guy and good friend?

Did you ever do anything immoral? If not, then she's misguided. If so, then she's still misguided. She ought to have at very least invited you to church or something, not run away from you because you're not a Christian.

I also hate what people have done with Christianity, or rather, what they use the faith as an excuse for. They use "God" as means for getting power, starting wars, and as an excuse for biggotry, and all forms of hatred. Just look at Ireland.

Don't wanna touch this one, eh? Understandable, seeing as you know I'm right.

You are right - evil people will use anything for their purposes. It's unfortunate that they use religion and give it a bad name. Muslims are not bad, but terrorists have given them a bad name. Christians are not bad, but racists have given them a bad name. It's unfortunate.

You suck at quoting.

 

[petrek]

Can't a person be a Christian and a thief? And if not, where in the bible does it state that?

KJV I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Dave

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: petrek

Can't a person be a Christian and a thief? And if not, where in the bible does it state that?

KJV I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Dave

So if someone steals something and asks for forgiveness for their sin, are they not still considered a thief? If not, then that is a very important distinction to make. What about an oppressed person in a fascist state who needs to steal food to stay alive. That person has accepted Christ but her most basic needs are not being provided for by society. She must steal food to survive... she steals constantly but yet acknowledges it as sin and asks for forgiveness. Is she a thief? a Christian?

Very interesting discussion folks. Amazed (and glad) it's staying civil.

l2c

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: luv2chill

Originally posted by: petrek

Can't a person be a Christian and a thief? And if not, where in the bible does it state that?

KJV I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Dave

So if someone steals something and asks for forgiveness for their sin, are they not still considered a thief? If not, then that is a very important distinction to make. What about an oppressed person in a fascist state who needs to steal food to stay alive. That person has accepted Christ but her most basic needs are not being provided for by society. She must steal food to survive... she steals constantly but yet acknowledges it as sin and asks for forgiveness. Is she a thief? a Christian?

Very interesting discussion folks. Amazed (and glad) it's staying civil.

l2c

Since you are proposing a hypothetical situation in which God exists, you'll understand that the reply has to assume this also. When sin is forgiven it is forgotten by God, so he would no longer look at a person as something they had done in the past and been forgiven of. As for being forced into a situation of sinning, assuming God exists and keeps true to bible, he'd provide an alternative to stealing.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: luv2chill

Originally posted by: petrek

Can't a person be a Christian and a thief? And if not, where in the bible does it state that?

KJV I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Dave

So if someone steals something and asks for forgiveness for their sin, are they not still considered a thief? If not, then that is a very important distinction to make. What about an oppressed person in a fascist state who needs to steal food to stay alive. That person has accepted Christ but her most basic needs are not being provided for by society. She must steal food to survive... she steals constantly but yet acknowledges it as sin and asks for forgiveness. Is she a thief? a Christian?

Very interesting discussion folks. Amazed (and glad) it's staying civil.

l2c

Since you are proposing a hypothetical situation in which God exists, you'll understand that the reply has to assume this also. When sin is forgiven it is forgotten by God, so he would no longer look at a person as something they had done in the past and been forgiven of. As for being forced into a situation of sinning, assuming God exists and keeps true to bible, he'd provide an alternative to stealing.

Well I think you make a lot of assumptions . I can guarantee you that somewhere, some time, there has been such a person in such a predicament. What if the alternative is death? What is so wrong with that? Perhaps God is providing another alternative to stealing--starvation. This shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? Because if she is truly a Christian then her death means ultimately going to heaven where she won't want for anything. And yes, she will suffer and endure great pain in such a death, but since when are Christians exempt from pain and suffering?

So maybe you're right... she shouldn't steal food to stay alive. God's alternative would be for her to die and as a result become closer to him.

Or were you thinking along the lines of another alternative? A wealthy benefactor? Do you think this happens in 100% of these "hypothetical" cases?

l2c

 

[petrek]

Why would an all-powerful God create angels? What purpose do they serve, and after they were created, what was the reason for creating Man?

Both man and angels were created for the purpose of fellowship with God.

How was it that Lucifer was able to rebel against such an all-powerful God? Why did God kick Lucifer out of heaven instead of merely destroying him?

Free will. Destroying Lucifer and anyone who rejects God would negate the existance of free will.

Is Lucifer "evil"? What, exactly, is evil?

With evil referring to an action or thought that goes contrary to the will of God, yes Satan is evil.

Is God powerless to remove evil from Creation? If not, why does evil exist?

Theoretically no. Technically yes.

Lucifer made a decision to rebel against God in the (distant?) past. Is it possible that in the future a different angel might also make such a choice?

According to scripture the Angels were created during the six days of creation. NO.

Is it possible that a different angel might rebel against God, but not side with Lucifer? If so, where would that angel go? Would a "new" place, neither heaven nor hell nor the physical world, be created? Would anyone "go" there after death?

NO.

Lucifers side is opposition to the will of God. Thus anyone who opposes the will of God is by definition evil and subsequently, in cahoots with Satan.

Would such an angel also be considered "evil", even if its reasons were different than those of Lucifer?

Yes, even though such is not a possibility.

Or... Do angels exist in a static realm which never changes? Do they no longer have free will? Did they ever?

I'm not sure what you mean by static realm. Currently angels exist in Heaven, Hell, and on Earth.
Angels always had and always will have free will because they always were and always will be separate from their creator (God), just like man.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Well I think you make a lot of assumptions . I can guarantee you that somewhere, some time, there has been such a person in such a predicament. What if the alternative is death? What is so wrong with that? Perhaps God is providing another alternative to stealing--starvation. This shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? Because if she is truly a Christian then her death means ultimately going to heaven where she won't want for anything. And yes, she will suffer and endure great pain in such a death, but since when are Christians exempt from pain and suffering?

Good point. You are of course correct in pointing out that men, even if they are Christians, fail to place their complete trust in God all of the time. Thus, even though God provides for them an alternative to taking food that doesn't belong to them (stealing) they still take the food that doesn't belong to them.
Consider this. When a person accepts Christ, their sins are forgiven. Which sins? All their sins (past, present, and future), after all Christ died 2,000 years ago for all sins for all time, thus one need only believe in him according to the Scriptures and the debt for that individuals sins is paid in full.
So while theoretically a person is still capable of sinning after they are saved, technically they do not sin because the debt has been paid prior to the occurence of the offense.
This is why in the verse concerning the thief that gets Saved on the cross, the thief could not have been Saved prior to his conversion on the cross otherwise God would be deceiving us by referring to him as a thief (one who is damned, one who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven) if he was already a believer.

Dave

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: luv2chill

Originally posted by: amcdonaldSince you are proposing a hypothetical situation in which God exists, you'll understand that the reply has to assume this also. When sin is forgiven it is forgotten by God, so he would no longer look at a person as something they had done in the past and been forgiven of. As for being forced into a situation of sinning, assuming God exists and keeps true to bible, he'd provide an alternative to stealing.

Well I think you make a lot of assumptions . I can guarantee you that somewhere, some time, there has been such a person in such a predicament. What if the alternative is death? What is so wrong with that? Perhaps God is providing another alternative to stealing--starvation. This shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? Because if she is truly a Christian then her death means ultimately going to heaven where she won't want for anything. And yes, she will suffer and endure great pain in such a death, but since when are Christians exempt from pain and suffering?

So maybe you're right... she shouldn't steal food to stay alive. God's alternative would be for her to die and as a result become closer to him.

Or were you thinking along the lines of another alternative? A wealthy benefactor? Do you think this happens in 100% of these "hypothetical" cases?

l2c

I'll just let the bible speak for itself on this subject. God promises to look after his flock in Luke 12:22-31

Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

 

[fonzinator]

Great discussion everyone!! No flaming yet...I dig it.

One request though...If you are answering someone's question/prooving a point of view, and are using the Bible as your source, please quote the Biblical passages where appropriate. This will be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[imported_Papi]

Are you able to go to church and paticipate with your own personal beliefs or must you follow their way of the church.

I'm not a religious person and when these type of topics come up I usually am one to argue my point of view.

I'd say go to church, have fun, give all that you are able to give but not any more than that. If they expect more from you than you have to offer than perhaps find a different parish.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

I don't take it personally, seeing as that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An adverse influence? Because I'm not Christian? Are you/she suggesting that I might "convert" her to the ways of sin? Hell, she and I never even talked about religion. Even if we had, if she's so convinced of her beliefs, why would she be scared that I'm going to change them? By being a nice guy and good friend?

Did you ever do anything immoral? If not, then she's misguided. If so, then she's still misguided. She ought to have at very least invited you to church or something, not run away from you because you're not a Christian.

I also hate what people have done with Christianity, or rather, what they use the faith as an excuse for. They use "God" as means for getting power, starting wars, and as an excuse for biggotry, and all forms of hatred. Just look at Ireland.

Don't wanna touch this one, eh? Understandable, seeing as you know I'm right.

You are right - evil people will use anything for their purposes. It's unfortunate that they use religion and give it a bad name. Muslims are not bad, but terrorists have given them a bad name. Christians are not bad, but racists have given them a bad name. It's unfortunate.

You suck at quoting.

Sorry for the misquoting


I guess I just don't like how people take this book and build their entire lives around it. It's like they can't even think for themselves. I'm not saying the bible doesn't teach a lot of great things, it really does. I have actually studied the bible-I was raised Lutheran for a number of years, and even after I decided I wasn't Christian I still read the bible because there are some really great messages in it. But, as you know, people take their interpretation of this book full of stories and use that to dictate who they like, how they act, what music they listen to, etc.

That paragraph didnt make much sense, so let me try and just summarize in one sentence: I think you should be a good person because you feel it's the right thing to do, not because a book told you to. Same goes for all actions you take. Do it because it's within YOU.

 

[Rayden]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

I do, however, believe in Creationism to some degree because I think evolutionary theory doesn't properly account for the start of the earth.

Not to harp on you or anything, but in my opinion the choice to ditch evolutionary theory entirely on whatever inconsistency for Creationism (which is supported mostly, if not completely, by words written in the Bible) doesn't strike me as completely logical. It would make more sense to modify evolutionary theory as needed based on any new facts that arise. It is also perfectly acceptable to simply say that you don't know, and to not have a personal belief as to how the earth was formed and how humans got here.

What is a "Hell House"?

The problem that I have with Christianity is the same that I have with Islam: It's largely intolerant of people who don't see eye to eye.

most evolutionists dont change their view of evolution based on new finding. they fit the new finding into their view of evolution.
perhaps he sees creation as a logical example?

Christianity is intolerant, but not always the way people define it. Christianity says there are ABSOLUTES (people today hate absolutes). There IS ONE TRUE GOD and all others are idols. Whatever the Bible says IS the truth. Its stupid to pick and choose which parts you WANT to be true. Who cares if you think homosexuality is fine. The absolute truth in the Bible says its wrong. You ARE sinful, you WILL go to hell unless you repent and give your life to Christ. This isn't because Christians are man and we want to exclude people, but that's the way it is. It's the same way that gravity is very intolerant of people trying to fly. But Christianity is also very welcoming. It is only open to sinful people though. If you are perfect then it isn't the religion for you. But no one is perfect and therefore Christianity is for everyone.


about an earlier post saying God shouldn't care if we believe in Him, He should only care about if we were "good."
God is a personal god. He wants to have a relationship with you. It doesn't matter what you believe He should be like. He IS that way.

and the guy who said he'd rather go to hell than live forever... i have heard nothing more IDIOTIC in MY ENTIRE LIFE! I am sorry but to say you would prefer to suffer eternally rather that have an intimate, wonderful relationship with your creator who loves you and live forever... nothing could be more stupid.

**********
Everything i said in this post states that Christianity is true. I am not going to sugar coat it all with "I believe." Because it is the truth, whether you agree with it or not. You can disagree. But i will not make it conditional in order to prevent offending people.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

I guess I just don't like how people take this book and build their entire lives around it. It's like they can't even think for themselves. I'm not saying the bible doesn't teach a lot of great things, it really does. I have actually studied the bible-I was raised Lutheran for a number of years, and even after I decided I wasn't Christian I still read the bible because there are some really great messages in it. But, as you know, people take their interpretation of this book full of stories and use that to dictate who they like, how they act, what music they listen to, etc.

That paragraph didnt make much sense, so let me try and just summarize in one sentence: I think you should be a good person because you feel it's the right thing to do, not because a book told you to. Same goes for all actions you take. Do it because it's within YOU.

You're basically talking about different people's sets of morals. Christians base their moral system on the dictates of the Bible. You believe in relative morality. Christians do not believe that morality is dependent on the person; man is inherently immoral (or so we believe, and I believe there is much empirical evidence to support that), an immoral person is not fit to decide what is moral and what is not.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Amorphus
long post coming, watch out.

Ditto.

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Here is my basic take on Christianity copy/pasted from my post in reitz's "deconversion" thread:


I suppose the only place to start would be to paint somewhat of a picture of my childhood. I was raised by two parents who had been religious their entire lives, raised by two sets of grandparents who were as well. I'm not talking about just on Sundays and not in a strictly ceremonial fashion, but I believe that they both honestly believed in what they embraced as faith and made it the basis of their lives to the best of their abilities. I grew up in a Baptist church until the age of 12 or so, where upon moving we joined the Evangelical Free denomination of church. Neither were particularly consipicuous as far as denominational deviances go, both pretty much run of the mill protestant flavor. I attended that church until I was 17, moving out on my own shortly thereafter.

What caused you to question your beliefs?

It was not so much one event in particular, but more so the culmination of a lifetime up until that point of having dwelt on the facts, the nature of the people who embraced what I believed, my own experience with God, the church, and the life that had been chosen for me up to that point, and a chain of events with the "leadership" of the church body with which I was affiliated with when my dissent began to outweigh my belief, so to speak.

Firstly, I have been a person of inquisitive nature from birth, like a child to this day in the respect that my curiousity often gets away with me. Always the asker of questions, I had tendency to pose conundrums to those, much more learned that myself in the ways of Religion and the world with questions that build the very foundation of a concrete belief system like that of a child.

Having mustered the necessary "faith" (with doubt as my predecessor) to cross the gap and simply turn a blind eye to the earlier riddles of religion that had failed to make sense to me as a child, I began grasping for an understanding of basic premises upon which my beliefs were founded. Take, for example, that which proclaims we are all born sinners, guilty from birth and predestined to stay that way, only to be redeemed by the grace of God should we accept. Several points about this philosophy bothered me, aside from the more obvious that I had conquered with feats of faith pertaining to the existence of God himself and the legitimacy of his sovreignty upon this place.

- First, the idea that we are created in God's image, yet it is destined that none should live up to his standards. From God's perspective, why? You'd have to be an egomaniac to create the sort of scenario where you have billions of impaired versions of yourself utterly dependent on you to be saved from certain death that you've made for them. Not to imply that I could ever fathom the mind of an omnipotent diety, that was just my take as a mere human. Beyond that, there is the classic debate of free will vs. predestination and I am convinced after much study that they indeed cannot coexist because they are in direct contradiction.

first point of mine - we ARE created in God's image. however, the original man, Adam, who was a perfect image of God, sinned, because he could not control himself, and neither could his wife, Eve. It's not God's fault that WE screwed up, it's like blaming your parents for getting in trouble, because they gave birth to you. however, redemption is quite available, and easy to attain.

as for free will vs. predestination - God knows what's going to happen. it could be called a "prediction", but He is 100% sure of it, because quite simply, He is God.

I was not contesting your theory that Christianity asserts we are created in God's image, and in fact I do understand it. However if God is without capacity for sin (which of course he would be as he defines what is and is not sin, Judge/Jury/Executioner) and Adam was created in the image of God, was Adam's nature (to sin of course) present in God as Adam was merely created of an image of God, or are we speaking on much more superficial terms here? You are being myopic in asserting that it is not God's fault we screwed up. Certainly our choices are not his to make or to blame upon, however he was the one who set what was fault and what was not, and he placed fault in things that were common to the nature of man. Redemption is merely a man implemented vice for shaping the actions of a group in this sense--the illusion that it is neccesary to be redeemed in the first place.

Again if you've studied the ideas that present themselves in the case of free will vs. predestination, it is in clear contradiction unless God does not exist in the dimension of time as in the other 3 that we cannot prove his existence, in which case why would God confine us in a physical world composed of dimensions with hard and fast unalterable rules (physics) when he himself need not conform to these rules, having us rely on magic as an explanation rather than our understanding of the world in which he has "created" us? What is the point of being an Omnipotant being who, knowing the actions and choices of every person until the end of time before they happen, in going through the charade? If everything that is yet to happen has already happened, in a sense, what is the point?

- Second, if our nature is to blame for our sinfulness, what does that say about God's own image? What does that say about the impact of our choices as to our character? Sin is our nature, but it is also a conscious choice we must make in order to receive punishment for it, no? And why is so much that is in our nature to be called sin? Rationally, our nature lends itself toward our survival, our procreation, and our advancement. Why call that which is seemingly virtuous our vice so to have us deny ourselves in hope that our reward lay in an afterlife we cannot be wholy assured of? Who benefits from this? Would it be wise to wish to serve a God with this agenda? The Catholic church in times long past (and perhaps some not so long past) used traits of our nature as cause for guilt, so as to govern the population as they saw fit and much destruction came of it. Why should we be guilty for something that not only we cannot change, but is logically something we should cherish and take pride in?

We cannot change our sinful nature, but you cannot argue that those who give into their sinful desires can take pride in their actions. Hitler. Stalin. The average drunkard/wino on the street.

Killing millions of people is not human nature. That sounds more Godlike to me (great flood for instance). People are convinced to go against their nature for a variety of reasons, religion being among the most frequent. Having pride in one's actions is not innately evil, that depends on the merrit of the action objectively.

However, I must side with you in that I do not believe making people feel guilty for their actions is an effective way to make them change it. Change their mentality, their outlook to coincide with God's, and they will revert to what is right.

- Lastly on this subject, how can we accept the sacrifice of a man 2000 years ago who was without what we deem to be sin as payment for our own? How does that absolve my wickedness and my deviance should I just choose to accept something that was never mine to give? Where is my responsibility for my own?

Christ was sinless. keep that in the back of your head.

Before Christ, we were a sinful race, much like after. The price of sin is death - blood must be spilled, to make up for the sin. Thus, the Israelites sacrificed an innocent animal, spilling its innocent blood, as an offering to God, hoping for his forgiveness.
Of course, the animal was innocent, because it had not commited sin. It has no soul, no capacity to relate to God, or to commit evil, to intentionally cause harm.

When Christ came, He did not commit sin. He was innocent, He did not have to die. However, He did - the equivalent of a sacrificial lamb, and the spilling of His blood atoned for our sins. It does not make you innocent of your sin, nor does it erase the fact that you DID sin. However, His innocent shed blood is accompanied the forgiveness of God, if you should so accept it.

I understand the religious implications Christ dying for our sin, redemption, etc; but it does not hold up logically. An innocent person taking the penalty to excuse a guilty person is not a logical idea and does not embrace responsibility for one's actions. If nothing else it merely encourages ill behavior. The customs of primitive people thousands of years ago are not basis for justice, logic, or a belief system that governs one's life anymore. Again God creates a standard for sin, God creates race of people (in his image) whose nature it is to sin, God sends sinless version of himself to excuse all of this trespassing over the rules he has created for the people who cannot help but break the rules as it is their nature; it's on big, convinient circle jerk.

Then, there was the perverse sense of justice that prevailed throughout everything that I knew about the God that I tried to love and fear at the same time, for we were taught to desire a personal relationship with our creator who had infinite love for us. I never questioned why God would let tragedy happen, that was just the nature of life and part of a plan I could not see wholly nor understand. However, these ideas nagged at the back of my mind relentlessly, though I was not always aware of them their presence weighed greater on me than I knew at the time:

Why is there evil in the world? Quite simple. Because God's medium for spreading good, people, have not reached it yet. If you think about it, cold is just the absence of molecular activity, dark is the absence of light. cold and dark are not entities in themself, can cannot "create" cold or dark, you can only remove heat and light. likewise, evil is the name we give to the absence of good.

I did not ask why their was evil in the world. There is evil in the world where God's influence resides and where it does not. The absence of an objective "good" will exist everywhere when whoever engineers a good that requires people to go against their nature spreads their ideas. It's about control.

- There is an incalculable amount of people who have never heard the Christian gospel, because they existed before Christ, because they were geographically isolated, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do all of these people go to Hell because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Before Christ, redemption was gained through sacrifice and moral living, abiding by Jewish law. Christ came, and he changed all that - the laws of old were no longer absolutely necessary to be saved.

And what of those geographically isolated? And why would God, in his infinite knowledge, go from a system of living by works so to speak to one of redemption by belief if he knew it would fail before it started?

- Expanding upon the first point, what of all the other religions, some of them strikingly similar in moral premises to Christianity, were they merely incarnations of the same to cater to those who were not privy to the the "good news" because of afformentioned issues? If so, why does one religion condemn the next? Why does the good man go to Hell and the evil man reformed not? Was the conivery of man present in the history of all these reilgions that caused them to schism into rival factions only to end up debating the unimportant details until they had atrophied into blasphemous machines that missed the entire point?

No religions are the same as Christianity. Look at all other religions. All state that "to get to heaven, you must follow this set of rules: ____". Christianity states "If you wish to go to heaven, just ask, and it shall be given to you". no other religious figure, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not any Hindu god, died for the people they were trying to save, none of them took pain upon themself to DIRECTLY save people.

And this was different from the system God implemented before the arrival of Christ how?

- The Bible says to rely not upon your own understanding but to trust in God. Following this train of logic, assume you are presented with 3 different religions that all tell you that, only with a different God at the head of each. If your own understanding, provided you in creation by God himself, who must have given us the power of logic, reason, epistemology, and perception, is not to be relied upon, then how am I to decide which religion is correct? They all tell me to believe blindly but without proof, I am at an impass. Why give us the basis to form knowledge logicaly if it is only to go to waste so we may play roulette with our very souls?

You're missing the point of the Bible, and as such, this paragraph is superfluous, and your argument is invalid.

You did not contest my argument with any logic whatsoever. If I missed the point of the Bible, would that point contradict the passage I mentioned above? If not, looks like my argument is valid. If so, looks like the Bible is invalid.

- On Heaven and Hell. From my personal experience, the biggest motivator in my religious life was aversion of Hell. Sure, I wanted to be like Jesus because he was a pretty cool guy and loving my neighbor was something to strive for for certain, but as they say, fear is the greatest motivator. In honest consideration, I would not really want to go to heaven either. Living enternally is something too vast for me to even contemplate, and I am not sure that I would want that "gift" were it offered to me. Life is a beautiful thing, partly so because of the perceived brevity. And were I to go to heaven, what would there be for me? If all that my body and mind which are inseperable in this place desire are denied me in heaven because they are vice, and so if I am to enter heaven I should not desire them any longer, what is my motivation? To worship someone for eternity? Selflessness looks nice at a glance but practically speaking it does not work. People look out for themselves, they work for themselves, they achieve for everything that represents themselves and what they love which is a reflection of the value of the self, so what then do we seek with an eternity of serving our brothers and our masters if not for the mere pleasure of doing so? It does not add up.

The greatest motivation to do what is right should not be to avoid punishment - if you accidentially hit someone, most people would go to help them. not because they want to avoid being prosecuted, but because they know that if they do, good things will come about. However, I cannot change the fact that the former was what you believed as a child, because the Catholic church has such widesread influence. it's more or less tradition to tell people about Hell before Heaven.

I disagree, I think fear is the greatest motivator. If somebody hits a car in a parking lot and nobody sees, most people flee the scene. I was not Catholic by the way.

as for not wanting to live forever - if you believe that life is more valuable because you have a finite amount, then so be it. However, I for one, relish the experience of living enough that if I coudl live forever, with friends and family, then I would take it up immediately. being with them, and worshipping the One who created me would only be a plus. I already know the feeling of joy that comes from worship, and I can only look forward to the manyfold more joyful experience of Heaven.

How did you arrive at atheism [edit] (or your new set of beliefs)?

The straw that broke the camel's back in my life was the administration of the church which I was a member of toward the end of my teen years. Many events took place that added to the camel's load and soiled the view of organized religion's plausible benefits in my eyes. For one, the youth pastor who had been at the church for the entire time that I had been there was a man who had earnestly earned my respect. He carried himself in a way that did not ask nor demand it, yet it was impossible for me not to. He was probably more like Jesus Christ than any other man I'd known; but he was still human. Had a good heart, was an excellent teacher, and very good at his job. He however developed feelings for one of the women who also worked in youth at that church, and although it never led to anything he was a married man. He repented this publicly to the pastor and the church and the woman involved and was forgiven by some, detested by others. He was an honest man yet he was cast out because he was trying to live what he believed and they were too blind and righteous to accept that. That allowed me to see a peice of what little faith I had in men to begin with crumble away.

In this case, your congregation failed to live up to what they preached. I'm sorry for you, really. They lost sight of the theme that runs throughout all of Christianity - that the blood of Christ forgives all.

That is true, and this has been my impression of every organized religious group I've ever encountered, especially the Christians. They cannot live up to thier creed, and some don't even try; they still bother with the pretense though.

I began to realize that was merely a reflection of what little faith I had in the whole system which the very basis of reeked of the invention of man in the first place, but alas I did not see the whole picture then as I still probably do not.

After the youth pastor was gone, a good percentage of the congregation left with him, as they were divided over the issue and niether side was satisfied with the other's conclusion. What was left was no more than a conglamoration of modern day Pharisees now that I mull it over, and I did not fit in. They did not approve of my questions, my budding philosophy as a result of those questions, the way I dressed, the music I listened to, the people with whom I would associate (those whom Jesus had in mind when he told his buddies to become fishers of men...well, those were the men, we were the men) and most of all, my relationship with my girlfriend who also attended the church at the time. Her parents were a set of completely ignorant zealots who used the religious angle as nothing more than a crutch on which to lean in order to keep their archiac way of life and family structure inline. Sexist, racist, abusive idealists who considered themselves ordained because of the luck of the draw, you know the type. I am amazed such an amazing woman managed to grow out of that household after years of healing the damage that it caused, and I am with her still today.

Good job, I wish you the best. I have my opinions of your wife/fiance/girlfriend's parents, but as it is based on hearsay, I will not express them.

Please do, I would like your insight.

Back to the subject at hand, her parents and the church could not come to terms with the fact that her and I loved one another and did not intend to disband at their whim. This only made things infinitely more complicated and members of the church administrative body tended to become involved where they had no business being. More of my (and her) faith seeped away but there was nobody there to care where it was going as they all had their ulterior motives for the most part.

After that, upon graduating high school I moved out, worked hard, built a life for myself, and devoted a great deal of my time to reading and indepedent study. I will not say that I am an Atheist for I am not one to come to a conclusion which cannot be proven, I suppose Agnostic fits better but not in the cliche sense of the term. It is not a clause I put myself under to avoid the hard questions, to avoid thinking, to avoid choosing. We are little more than the sum of our choices after all. I merely hope that if there is some sort of all powerful all knowing force behind this broken mess that those of us who are meant to portray it are not accurate. I will say that logically every fibre in my body leans toward the conclusion that God is merely man's scapegoat for the results of one scheme or another gone awry, and has little more use in modern day life than to sway people politically or to give hope to those with little understanding and lots of imagination. If it works for you, more power to you but let me tell you brother I've been there and I earnestly tried with every drop of blood in my viens to seek what there was to be sought and I came away empty.

What was the transition like? Was it stressful? Was it difficult? Was it a long, drawn-out process, or a quick epiphany?

Long perhaps. Strenuous emotionally at times. Not completely over with for better or for worse. I would not change a thing in hindsight however.

How did your family, friends, and loved-ones react to your newfound [dis]belief?

My better half was very understanding as she is at perhaps a different place of the same journey herself partly as a result of our shared experience and partly as a result of her's growing up. We do the best to support one another and I try as honestly as I know how to answer her questions in the matter. She has become a very mature person and none the less loving for certain as a result of shying away from long held beliefs. My friends are for the most part open minded if they don't share similar beliefs which many don't and we generally have discussions that we both come away from the better as a result of it. My immediate family on the other hand, I never told them directly of my decisions in this matter, although it is no doubt my life reflects it in many ways. They must know, but they are probably afraid to admit it as it might seem to be failure on their part, however I feel it is the opposite. They helped me keep a level head growing up, and I'm using it. I think they will understand one day. Perhaps this life has worked for them and that is what matters.

How has it impacted your outlook on life?

Vastly is the only way I have of describing it. I thought I'd become more of a cynic but since I've always been such a cynic that hasn't really changed. Everything else has, though. I have hope now that I hadn't before. I have confidence in myself that I had not previously known. I realize that I love my life, I enjoy it immensly, and that is not worth trading in for a life of misery in hopes that the afterlife will see me in a better position. I rely on myself and that is enough. I give faith no longer, but trust on a value for value basis. I realize that dissent is not by nature something to fear and to forget, but to embrace and dig for the root of. I also understand now that I can not hold contradicting ideas in my mind without being mislead as to the premise of one or the other, for contradictions do not occur naturally. That gives me a great deal of peace of mind, and I celebrate that mind not as a gift but as something that I have earned of my own accord.

This has probably been my longest post ever on these forums and I hope only that it can help one of you. I do not aim to change you or to make you like me, this is just my expereince and how it has worked for me, take it as you will for whatever it is worth. Good thread, reitz.

meh. I don't know what to say in conclusion, but I hope I've answered at least some of the issues brought up here.[/quote]

I think you've regurgitated what I've heard my whole life while missing the questions. Thanks for taking the time though, I appreciate it.

 

[petrek]

point taken. New Testaments was not in full effect yet....But I still can't see how you can believe that baptism is an outward sign of inward grace given the eunich example. wouldn't the eunich want to wait until he got to wherever he was headed to show the outward grace? nope. he wanted to be saved right then and there, found water and became saved.

KJV Acts 8:35-37

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The question the eunuch asks is "what doth hinder me to be baptized?", not "what doth hinder me to be saved?". Before one can be baptized, an outward sign of Salvation, one must first Believe (be Saved). While this may sound obvious to you, as it does to me, a little thought will lead you to understand why God choose to include this event in His Word.

Keep in mind KJV II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Dave

 

[Kadarin]

I'm going to do something a bit different here and simultaneously quote both GtPrOjEcTX and petrek in my post here, and hope that it's not too confusing. My original questions will be italicized, GtPrOjEcTX's answers will be in bold, and petrek's answers will be in normal text. Please bear with me!

Why would an all-powerful God create angels?
To serve him. He likes to be worshipped and served.

I hate to say it, but that answer is somewhat insufficient. God, who is capable of creating the universe with all its uncounted trillions of stars and galaxies, "likes to be worshipped and served". Does He enjoy being "served"? Does he get off on it? Why would he care? What could we, in our relative insignificance, possibly do that would concern Him in any way? Not saying you're wrong, but that your answer needs a bit more fleshing out.

What purpose do they serve, and after they were created, what was the reason for creating Man?
They are messengers of God, do tasks for God, etc. Reason for man was to create something that had the choice to do it, and be rewarded excessively if they do, punished eternally if they don't
Both man and angels were created for the purpose of fellowship with God.

What exactly is "fellowship" with God? We all hang out and metaphorically drink beers together, us humans and God? Bask all together in Glory? What would be the point? And regarding the angels, does God need slaves or errand boys to do grunt work for Him?

How was it that Lucifer was able to rebel against such an all-powerful God?
unknown

Why did God kick Lucifer out of heaven instead of merely destroying him?
for a source of evil in the world, to tempt his new creations (humans). If there were no temptation, there would be no evil which was needed for choice.
Free will. Destroying Lucifer and anyone who rejects God would negate the existance of free will.

Did Lucifer rebel of his own free will? If so, this indicates that angels have free will and sort of indicates that there is no reason for humans to exist (according to GtPrOjEcTX's answer to a previous question). Or did Lucifer not have free will; was his rebellion scripted by God as God's means of creating evil?

Is Lucifer "evil"? What, exactly, is evil?
Yes. Going against God's will and persuading others to do the same
With evil referring to an action or thought that goes contrary to the will of God, yes Satan is evil.

Intuitively, I have trouble reconciling this. We all know evil when we see it, yet many people who are not evil in their hearts reject God. An evangelistic athiest, who otherwise leads a good life, is by definition then, evil? How do you compare such a person to, say, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al?

Is God powerless to remove evil from Creation? If not, why does evil exist?
No, I already answered above why it exists
Theoretically no. Technically yes.

God wants evil to exist. Check.

Lucifer made a decision to rebel against God in the (distant?) past. Is it possible that in the future a different angel might also make such a choice?
Is it possible that a different angel might rebel against God, but not side with Lucifer?
According to scripture the Angels were created during the six days of creation. NO.

As far as I can tell, your answer doesn't address my question. Ok, so the angels were created during the six days of creation. So what's stopping Gabriel or some other angel from giving God the middle finger, as Lucifer did? If God is preventing it, then that indicates that angels do not have free will, and that God indeed wishes evil to exist. If angels do have free will, I can intuitively imagine (hypothetically) Gabriel rejecting God but also viewing the actions and attitude of Lucifer with distaste. Instead of looking at everything as either good or evil or somewhere inbetween, why can there not be a third point of view?

If so, where would that angel go? Would a "new" place, neither heaven nor hell nor the physical world, be created? Would anyone "go" there after death?
I think what happened was Lucifer made the choice, and many angels were with him. These became demons, Lucifers servants. The ultimate battle for good and evil where only the all powerful God can win. As for things that may happen, nothing is said about that. Unknown.
NO.

Shrug. These questions are speculation dependent on the last question anyway. Not really answerable.

Would such an angel also be considered "evil", even if its reasons were different than those of Lucifer?
Either you go with God's will or you don't. There is no gray here.
Yes, even though such is not a possibility.

If you reject the Good vs. Evil paradigm in favor of a paradigm with three points of view... But such a thing is not in the Bible and is pure speculation because it has not happened as yet that we know of.

Or... Do angels exist in a static realm which never changes? Do they no longer have free will? Did they ever?
They exist with God, whatever realm that can be. They can also come into our realm and have done so many times as stated in the Bible
I'm not sure what you mean by static realm. Currently angels exist in Heaven, Hell, and on Earth.
Angels always had and always will have free will because they always were and always will be separate from their creator (God), just like man.

Again my questions regarding free will come to mind. If angels have free will, what's the difference between us and them? Why create two separate groups of entities?