I am a Christian

[sonambulo]

Two prawns were swimming around in the tropical sea. One was called Justin and the other called Christian.

They were always being threatened by the sharks that patrolled the area.

One day, during a storm, Justin said to Christian, "I'm bored with being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have to worry about being eaten."

Just at that moment, a huge flash of lightning hit the water above them and, lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old friend.

Time went by and Justin found himself bored and lonely as a shark. All his old mates swam away whenever he came close to them. He didn't realise that it was his menacing appearance which was the cause of his sad plight.

The next time there was a storm, Justin wondered if that the same lightning force could change him back into a prawn.

Whilst he was deep in thought about being a prawn once more, another flash of lightning struck the water above him and, lo and behold, he turned back into prawn.

With tears of joy in his eyes, Justin swam back to all his old friends.

Looking around the gathering that greeted him, he searched for his old best friend. "Where's Christian?" he asked the others.

"He's at home, distraught that his best friend changed sides and became a shark", was the reply.

Eager to put things right again with his friend, Justin set off to Christian's house. He banged on the door and shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend, come out and see me again."

Christian replied "No way man, you'll eat me. You're a shark, the enemy and I'll not be tricked."

Justin shouted back "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed."

Wait for it......................









wait for it................................................................................













WAIT FOR IT............................................................................................................

"I'm a prawn again Christian."

 

[n7]

That's horrible.
:/

 

[sjwaste]

I think that we've had thousands of years to overthink the situation. I personally believe the foundations of Catholicism, but I think that we've also built a lot on top of that, purely out of human contemplation. I also think that the Bible, through centuries of translation and revision by interested parties, is probably fair bit different than the original message.

I believe in prayer of a personal nature, but I'm not 100% sure of the necessity of attending church. At the same time, I still go (irregularly), but try not to make my visits out of guilt. If I feel like I'm going because I'll feel guilty for not, I usually don't go.

I really don't like people taking up judging others in the name of their religion. I think that if most people spent more time looking within and analyzing their own actions against the standards they set for others, they'd have a lot of work to do -- myself included.

The commonality in the message is to not do for yourself at the expense of others, and I think you can find that in all religions. I have a hard time believing that God is looking for a lot more than that. If you go out and do the right thing, recognize the areas where you're more fortunate than others, and try to help out a little, then from the perspective of just about any religion, you're doing what God wants. I think we've thrown a lot of human technicalities on top of that to suit our own needs, and I try to ignore that.

I don't have anything against the concept of the Church. For many, it's helpful to be around other like-minded people, and hear inspiring words. For others, they accomplish more thinking about it alone. I try to do a little bit of both. My best ideas and plans come usually when I'm left alone to think for a while, but sometimes the inputs need to come from a different setting. I have enough faith to think that I'm not going to hell because of that, because the bottom line is that God allowed us rational thought, and I think that he's most interested in the execution.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: actuarial
You say that the would-be priest class is insubstantial, but are the teachings in the bible not the written word of the would-be priest class of the past? Or is it that a number of years must pass before a teaching goes from the interpretation of man to words which our lives should be based around?

What is your position actuarial? Understanding that would help me to phrase my replies for your perspective.

My position is simple and natural. I put greater emphasis on the words of Jesus than the words of his apostles, and the words of latter members of the religious hierarchy or following. I do this within the limits of the available texts and records, and concede that ultimately there is no real proof of even the accuracy of the words, only some tests of whether or not they agree with my set of formed and forming beliefs and understanding. It is "confirmation bias" if you understand that one finds faith within and then seeks to find what if anything informs or "confirms" that faith, and rejects what contradicts that faith and understanding, but be careful to distinguish interpretation of fact from interpretation of words. If you think that this position amounts to rejection of facts on the basis of preconception, you'd be wrong. But it would amount to rejection of the attribution of some words and interpretations to even Jesus were those words and interpretations inconsistent with a broader personal understanding. This approach is natural and self-consistent, but does have an element of faith and bias. That's a given. It is sound for yourself to the level of your personal integrity and information you have to work with as a matter of approach, and there is no real alternative to personal faith informed by some religious texts.

Personal faith or non-faith informed by nothing other than personal knowledge is greater, and is a goal, but is very hard to sustain without any guidance.

Originally posted by: actuarial
Now if we're going to go with the whole "the bible is God's teachings spoken through man" than why aren't today's priest speaking God's words also? Why aren't the teachings of those who practice Judaism, Islam, or Scientology the words of God? Screams of confirmation bias to me.

I didn't say any such things. You're putting words and opinions into my mouth and then disputing them.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Look at the vatican. Do you think even for a second that is what Jesus had in mind?

Christ was a good guy, it's many people who claim to be His followers that are the problem.

Fixed.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Look at the vatican. Do you think even for a second that is what Jesus had in mind?

Christ was a good guy, it's many people who claim to be His followers that are the problem.

Fixed.

When all denominations of christianity takes liberties with the interpretation of the holy writ, and all believe equally that their interpretation is true; I can't see how one can have a stronger claim over the title than another.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Look at the vatican. Do you think even for a second that is what Jesus had in mind?

Christ was a good guy, it's many people who claim to be His followers that are the problem.

Fixed.

When all denominations of christianity takes liberties with the interpretation of the holy writ, and all believe equally that their interpretation is true; I can't see how one can have a stronger claim over the title than another.

There are many "Christians" who do not belong to any denomination at all.

 

[huberm]

I am a Christian. I also thank God regularly for the wonderful gift of beer.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: The Sauce
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: HotChic
I don't believe in evolution and I don't think that makes me a moron.[/L]</blockquote>

Well it does.

</blockquote>

Well ...to be fair it may only make her ignorant. And that is certainly not a distinguishing characteristic in the US. It would make her a moron only if she has studied it and has a true understanding of it and then rejects it for a sky farie, a dead man who rose from his grave and a pregnant virgin... Then, yes. Perhaps she is a moron.

Her reasoning for not believing in evolution is pretty flimsy from what I read. Her only explanation was "theories change so much, why should I believe in this one." Doesnt really make sense why she would single out the theory of evolution when shes essentially discounting the whole scientific process

 

[zerocool84]

I just think it's funny that if someone gets pregnant they say they don't want to have an abortion cus they are Christian but then it's ok to have premarital sex obviously. I don't buy the mistakes happen cus you willingly have sex and it's obviously premeditated cus it doesn't happen in 10 seconds.

What pisses me off with so called Christians now-a-days is that most say they are Christian and only follow the parts they want to. You are either Christian and follow it all or don't be Christian and do what you want.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
What pisses me off with so called Christians now-a-days is that most say they are Christian and only follow the parts they want to. You are either Christian and follow it all or don't be Christian and do what you want.

Do you say this as a devout practicing Christian who has personally struggled with the teachings, their understanding and practice, or as an armchair theorist?