What do you object to about Christianity?

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Yes I'm referring to the trinity. I've also read a lot about religion as it interests me. No matter how many articles I read, or defense of Trinitarian view of Christianity, it seems clear to me that the trinity isn't real monotheism, but was made as a compromise between the competing views of God as Christianity was solidifying its hierarchy under the direction of Empire (Go and Read about the Aryan Controversy, excuse my spelling)


And if you had a specific sect (for example: Catholicism, Evangelicals, etc.) I'd probably bring up a few points. But when you make it non denominational the way you do, one really has to know your beliefs before anything can be addressed.

I'm just trying to figure out why there is so much hatred for Christianity here. I'm not sure why you think that my beliefs are relevent to the discussion.

 

[TridenT]

lol the crazy in this thread just proves the lack of credibility for many posters in this forum. :awe:

 

[magomago]

It's true.

And they didn't use "bible" or "Jesus"...they used "Creator".

Do some research on the people who wrote the documents, it's all easy to find. It's based on Christian principles, yet the gov't isn't allowed to interfere in Church affairs, and everyone is free to believe/practice what they want. Great system.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Good examples are there.

Is Christianity's spirit within American government? Yes, by simple virtue that vast majority of people here were/are Christian. A government is made up of people and I do not pretend to exist in a vacuum where Christianity has had no impact on this country (good or bad)

Is Christianity what the government was originally founded on? No.

 

[Miramonti]

Particularly annoying are the christians who think they are 'cool' christians because they aren't like the 'others', they are 'real' people and have 'real faith'...not like the 'others' who are into 'religiosity'.

These people look can't look into the mirror without seeing the back of their heads.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Yes I'm referring to the trinity. I've also read a lot about religion as it interests me. No matter how many articles I read, or defense of Trinitarian view of Christianity, it seems clear to me that the trinity isn't real monotheism, but was made as a compromise between the competing views of God as Christianity was solidifying its hierarchy under the direction of Empire (Go and Read about the Aryan Controversy, excuse my spelling)


And if you had a specific sect (for example: Catholicism, Evangelicals, etc.) I'd probably bring up a few points. But when you make it non denominational the way you do, one really has to know your beliefs before anything can be addressed.

Some of the greatest minds in the world have wrestled with the trinity. It's a tough concept to get your head around.

 

[magomago]

I'm just trying to figure out why there is so much hatred for Christianity here. I'm not sure why you thinkl that my beliefs are relevent to the discussion.

Topic Title: What do you object to about Christianity?


I'm responding to the topic. If there was one big 'Christianity' that existed, with the list of all beliefs stated out in easy to read format, then this would be simpler. That is not the case.
I could cite issues that you could respond with, "Not all Christian believe this, and I don't either" and you would be right. This really just reveals the flaw of the original question: this thread should really be called, "What do you object to about my interpretation of Christianity".

 

[TheVrolok]

marked for later

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Particularly annoying are the christians who think they are 'cool' christians because they aren't like the 'others', they are 'real' people and have 'real faith'...not like the 'others' who are into 'religiosity'.

These people look can't look into the mirror without seeing the back of their heads.

Do you think it's logical to reject a whole belief system just because of the way some proponents of that belief system behave?

 

[TridenT]

Do you think it's logical to reject a whole belief system just because of the way some proponents of that belief system behave?

Depends on belief system and the reasons they have for rejecting it. If I am rejecting it because those people are acting out because of their religion and the ways it says it needs to be done... yep, logical to reject it all.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's true.

And they didn't use "bible" or "Jesus"...they used "Creator".

Do some research on the people who wrote the documents, it's all easy to find. It's based on Christian principles, yet the gov't isn't allowed to interfere in Church affairs, and everyone is free to believe/practice what they want. Great system.

Which "principles" do you think that these are, and do you wanna bet that I can find those principles in other religions older than Christianity?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Topic Title: What do you object to about Christianity?


I'm responding to the topic. If there was one big 'Christianity' that existed, with the list of all beliefs stated out in easy to read format, then this would be simpler. That is not the case.
I could cite issues that you could respond with, "Not all Christian believe this, and I don't either" and you would be right. This really just reveals the flaw of the original question: this thread should really be called, "What do you object to about my interpretation of Christianity".

Okay, I see your point. I should have worded the question this way: Based on your understanding of the Christian faith, what do you find objectionable?

 

[Miramonti]

Do you think it's logical to reject a whole belief system just because of the way some proponents of that belief system behave?

What judgment did you just make that led you to believe I'm not a christian?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Do you think it's logical to reject a whole belief system just because of the way some proponents of that belief system behave?

If they are acting in strict accordance with that belief system, then yes.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Depends on belief system and the reasons they have for rejecting it. If I am rejecting it because those people are acting out because of their religion and the ways it says it needs to be done... yep, logical to reject it all.

What if people who are proponents of a belief system act in ways that are contradictory to the belief system? It would be illogical to reject the belief system based on those people's actions, woudn't it?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What judgment did you just make that led you to believe I'm not a christian?

I didn't make any judgement at all. I have no ideas what your beliefs are.

 

[magomago]

Some of the greatest minds in the world have wrestled with the trinity. It's a tough concept to get your head around.

Because it involves a game of over elaborate circular logic that cannot be grasped. I remember listening to Pastor Chuck on The Word for Today (Evangelical) answer a question related to this where he said (roughly, not exact), "And I thought about it for several hours, and in the end, I just screamed and said 'Dammit I don't understand' and threw my Bible across the room. In the end, we must understand there are things that we don't understand and must simply believe in".
Religion is about faith, which relies on a belief in the unknown, but we can still be logical about it.
The trinity is something that is derived from Bible interpretation. Because it is interpretation, it should stand on its own (haha go laugh at me atheists - talking about logic within a religious argument). If we are going to come out with this concept based on a reading of the Bible, then that position better make some sense, else it is not a tenable position to take. I can't come up with a position by reading any holy script and tell people, "Just have faith, believe it, and know that its not easy to understand".

 

[TheVrolok]

Which "principles" do you think that these are, and do you wanna bet that I can find those principles in other religions older than Christianity?

This.

 

[enwar3]

What if people who are proponents of a belief system act in ways that are contradictory to the belief system? It would be illogical to reject the belief system based on those people's actions, woudn't it?

I believe the issue is that, even within one religion, there are disagreements on how to live life based on that religion. For most extremists in nearly every religion, you can find another interpretation of that religion that condemns them, so it's difficult to argue for or against based on the actions of people.

Also, some religions are held precisely because people cannot be perfect and need something greater to strive for, which is another reason religion is hard to argue based on the actions of people.

 

[Miramonti]

I didn't make any judgement at all. I have no ideas what your beliefs are.

Then why did you ask me if it's logical to reject a whole belief system because of the way some proponents of that belief system behave...what is the relevance of that to what I said if you haven't made any judgments already?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Possibly, but I haven't found a religion that I consider to have a rational world view.

What do you find irrational about the Christian world view?

 

[Pacfanweb]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Good examples are there.

Is Christianity's spirit within American government? Yes, by simple virtue that vast majority of people here were/are Christian. A government is made up of people and I do not pretend to exist in a vacuum where Christianity has had no impact on this country (good or bad)

Is Christianity what the government was originally founded on? No.

Incorrect. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

John Adams:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.

Benjamin Franklin
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.

John Jay
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; DIPLOMAT; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Thomas Jefferson

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.64

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.65

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.66

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ

James McHenry
REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. Without the Bible, in vain do we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.

Gouverneur Morris
REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; “PENMAN OF THE CONSTITUTION”; DIPLOMAT; U. S. SENATOR

There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish… [T]he most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion.

Benjamin Rush
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [Revelation 22:20]98

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament

And I could keep going and going. Read the link.

All the founding fathers were Christians, and our government is ABSOLUTELY based on Christian principles, as it was intended. There is not even a sliver of room for debate of this fact. The more you research it, the more evidence you'll find to back up what I'm saying. It's overwhelming, really.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Which "principles" do you think that these are, and do you wanna bet that I can find those principles in other religions older than Christianity?

See my post just above. And our founding fathers were Christians. Whether other religions had some/all of the same principles is irrelevant.

 

[OCGuy]

Fuck the OP, Fuck Religion Threads, and Fuck Religion.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Because it involves a game of over elaborate circular logic that cannot be grasped. I remember listening to Pastor Chuck on The Word for Today (Evangelical) answer a question related to this where he said (roughly, not exact), "And I thought about it for several hours, and in the end, I just screamed and said 'Dammit I don't understand' and threw my Bible across the room. In the end, we must understand there are things that we don't understand and must simply believe in".
Religion is about faith, which relies on a belief in the unknown, but we can still be logical about it.
The trinity is something that is derived from Bible interpretation. Because it is interpretation, it should stand on its own (haha go laugh at me atheists - talking about logic within a religious argument). If we are going to come out with this concept based on a reading of the Bible, then that position better make some sense, else it is not a tenable position to take. I can't come up with a position by reading any holy script and tell people, "Just have faith, believe it, and know that its not easy to understand".

I would summarily reject any belief system that forbade to use my logic. I believe in the trinity because based on my reading and study, I thinks it biblical. Do I completely understand it? No.

 

[enwar3]

Fuck the OP, Fuck Religion Threads, and Fuck Religion.

Religion is a fact of life.. science is a religion too, but most people don't take time to think about it.

Nihilism and agnosticism can be valid, consistent worldviews though.