NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.
2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.
3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!
4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.
5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.
6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.
7.) Think that God is actually male.
8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.
9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.
12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.
13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.
14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.
15.) Think that God likes my group best.

Actually, that makes you both a Good Christian, and a member of the majority of Christians AFAIK. It's only the loons in the fundamentalist extreme right who believe that, and if they're Christians, then I'm an astronaut.

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.
2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.
3.) Believe that most people are going to [color=redHELL!![/color]
4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.
5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.
6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.
7.) Think that God is actually male.
8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.
9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.
12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.
13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.
14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.
15.) Think that God likes my group best.

I'm not a Christian myself (Agnostic/Atheist), however, I go to a church school and thus after years of having it forced down my throat I know a reasonable amount about it.

The fact that you refrain from the above, to me, indicates you are a far better Christian than those that believe you should. I sincerely wish other Christians (and to be fair, those with similiar, fanatical mindsets from other Religions) would adopt your open minded position.

No, you're a good Christian because you don't do those things. It's your faith that makes you a good Christian.

No, you're a good Christian because you don't do those things. It's your faith that makes you a good Christian.
Wow, I'm an American and I saw that sarcasm...

Wow, I'm an American and I saw that sarcasm...

Don't be a dick

Landover Baptist (www.landoverbaptist.org) anyone?

ya i dont know why the three biggest religions in the world (Christianity, Judism, Islam) like hate eachother becuase all three of them beleive in the god of Abraham.

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.
2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.
3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!
4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.
5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.
6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.
7.) Think that God is actually male.
8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.
9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.
12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.
13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.
14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.
15.) Think that God likes my group best.
1. Nope...ok, yeah, there was that one time, but I don't make a habbit of it.
2. Right now I'm trying to get the government to stop imposing their views on me.
3. Eh, well, you got me there. I do think most people are going to Hell. It's a very sad thought.
4. Eh, depends on how "mini" we're talking, and if you're only wearing to show off the thong underneath.
5. Whoa, most definitely do not think that. Bible specifically says that Jesus is what's important, not the law.
6. I only preach when the opportunity arises, like now, for instance. I don't walk up to random people and preach. And hey, friends don't let friends go to hell.
7. Bible never says. I think God has no gender, but that's me. Well, Jesus was a guy and Jesus is God, but let's not get into metaphysics.
8. No, but being pro-life, then having an abortion is just a tad hypocritical.
9. Bible doesn't say, but it says that lusting is a sin, and since it's quite hard to masturbate without lusting...
10. Only fools follow blindly. I have questioned the Bible, I just haven't found any problems.
11. ??? I don't, but I'm not entire sure what I believe that my church doesn't.
12. Ok, yeah I do believe that...Eh, so far no one's been able to prove otherwise, so I see no reason not to believe it.
13. Not at all...I believe it's wrong, but that doesn't mean they're sluts.
14. God doesn't have any prejudices, except he doesn't like Satan or sin. On that note, hate the sin, love the sinner.
15. Nope. See above.


So it would seem you're not as bad a Christian as you thought.
I would question you this, however: Are you really a Christian? Not trying to criticize, simply curious.

Yeah, I get it. A little kid starts to think about religion, goes on to think about how much he hates Bible Thumpers. Great. Listen, Christianity and most religions are based on ethics. A few wackos get a nice media spotlight, but that doesn't mean they (Christians) are all like that. So I don't care about your little sardonic comments about religion.

Yeah--what they said. You're a better Christian than most who claim to be. Hell, I'm a better Christian than most of the ones you describe, and I'm an agnostic. :D

Actually, that makes you both a Good Christian, and a member of the majority of Christians AFAIK. It's only the loons in the fundamentalist extreme right who believe that, and if they're Christians, then I'm an astronaut.
you could be an astronaut, are you talking to dan quayle?

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things: [. . .]
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.[. . .]

You forgot that you were negating all the statements for these two. At least, I think so.

I'm not a Christian myself (Agnostic/Atheist), however, I go to a church school and thus after years of having it forced down my throat I know a reasonable amount about it.

The fact that you refrain from the above, to me, indicates you are a far better Christian than those that believe you should. I sincerely wish other Christians (and to be fair, those with similiar, fanatical mindsets from other Religions) would adopt your open minded position.

Well said! I agree with you and the person who started this thread. Here's how I measure up to the list:

1) Nope, don't do that.
2) Don't do that either, and it really bugs me when it happens. I don't think the government has any business imposing any religious views on people.
3) Um, well, yeah, they are unless they believe in Jesus. (Which does *not* mean they have to subscribe to the narrow fundamentalist set of beliefs. There are many Christian denominations one can choose to belong to that are much more open-minded, and they're all good too.)
4) Nope.
5) Definitely not.
6) No... but I might, IF I had a really good opportunity.
7) Uh... I don't know. I have really mixed feelings about feminism, but I won't go into that. That's another thread.
8) Agree with what Rhyno D said.
9) Ditto.
10) No, I believe that people should be allowed to use their own powers of reason and really think about their beliefs.
11) See above. Yes, dissent should be tolerated.
12) Nope.
13) I do believe that sex before marriage is wrong. That doesn't mean I hate everyone who does that, or call them sluts. That would be a bad thing to do, too.
14) Nope.
15) Nope.

Wow, I'm an American and I saw that sarcasm...
And here's the ironic part, I'm NOT being sarcastic! :D

You're not a very good Christian, strictly speaking.

If you mean the values that the "modern" Christian churches teach, then for the most part, you would be a good Christian.

Still, if you mean strictly speaking of every single thing a Christian should do, then no, you really aren't.

Thanks for actually responding politely Rhyno D.

1. Nope...ok, yeah, there was that one time, but I don't make a habbit of it.

LOL!

2. Right now I'm trying to get the government to stop imposing their views on me.

Amen to that.

3. Eh, well, you got me there. I do think most people are going to Hell. It's a very sad thought.

I'm sure it is. It would be for me too. Why don't you trust God to save His people?

4. Eh, depends on how "mini" we're talking, and if you're only wearing to show off the thong underneath.

So there's a point at which a miniskirt becomes sinful? What is it? I'd love to hear the Theology of the Skirt. ;)

5. Whoa, most definitely do not think that. Bible specifically says that Jesus is what's important, not the law.

It's not a question of whether you think that, it's your actions.

6. I only preach when the opportunity arises, like now, for instance. I don't walk up to random people and preach. And hey, friends don't let friends go to hell.

That's a good policy.

7. Bible never says. I think God has no gender, but that's me. Well, Jesus was a guy and Jesus is God, but let's not get into metaphysics.

Good for you! You actually seem familiar with the Scriptures. I like that.

8. No, but being pro-life, then having an abortion is just a tad hypocritical.

Is it now? In all cases? What if the pregnant mother has three children to take care of already and if she doesn't abort she will die, leaving her children without a mother and female role-model? Would it not be "pro-life" in that case to abort the baby and be a good steward of what God has already given you? And if you are thinking of saying that decision is not up to me and you, why did God bother to give us free will?

9. Bible doesn't say, but it says that lusting is a sin, and since it's quite hard to masturbate without lusting...

Not hard at all, actually. Not to be offensive, but on what basis do you claim that masturbation is hard without lust?

10. Only fools follow blindly. I have questioned the Bible, I just haven't found any problems.

None at all? I don't either. The only thing I find problems with are erroneous interpretations of the texts.

11. ??? I don't, but I'm not entire sure what I believe that my church doesn't.

OK.

12. Ok, yeah I do believe that...Eh, so far no one's been able to prove otherwise, so I see no reason not to believe it.

Ah. Noone has been able to prove that there are no invisible elves flying around me, so I should believe that they are. Thanks for the tip.

13. Not at all...I believe it's wrong, but that doesn't mean they're sluts.

Good for you! Once again I have to say I appreciate your candor. :)

14. God doesn't have any prejudices, except he doesn't like Satan or sin. On that note, hate the sin, love the sinner.

1.) "Doesn't have...except" means He does.
2.) Good policy.

So it would seem you're not as bad a Christian as you thought.

I don't think I'm a bad Christian.

I would question you this, however: Are you really a Christian? Not trying to criticize, simply curious.

Yes. Have been for a very long time, in my scale of things.

Don't be a dick
Cheney!

You're not a very good Christian, strictly speaking.

If you mean the values that the "modern" Christian churches teach, then for the most part, you would be a good Christian.

Still, if you mean strictly speaking of every single thing a Christian should do, then no, you really aren't.

So you know what a Christian should do. That's good. Would you like to elaborate more fully on that point?

Yeah, I get it. A little kid starts to think about religion, goes on to think about how much he hates Bible Thumpers. Great. Listen, Christianity and most religions are based on ethics. A few wackos get a nice media spotlight, but that doesn't mean they (Christians) are all like that. So I don't care about your little sardonic comments about religion.

1.) I forgive you for your snide comment.
2.) I was not making sardonic comments about religion. I have done so, but not in this topic...yet.
3.) I'm well aware that mainstream Christians aren't like what I described, what with being a lifelong Christian myself and being acquainted with many traditions, but such people do exist.

Strictly speaking if you were 100% Christian you would follow the New and Old testament to the letter.

Of course this is relatively impossible, since certain parts contradict eachother, which makes it pretty hard to be strictly 100% Christian and all.... but hey, theoretically that's how it's done.

You also can't pick and choose what part of the religion you like and then say you belong to it. Well alot of people do, but it makes no sense. If you truly believe in the religion, why do you question parts of it? Do you presume to know better than the almighty Lord you believe in?

Naturally I think Christianity is a load of BS ... but yeah...

1. Nope...ok, yeah, there was that one time, but I don't make a habbit of it.
2. Right now I'm trying to get the government to stop imposing their views on me.
3. Eh, well, you got me there. I do think most people are going to Hell. It's a very sad thought.
4. Eh, depends on how "mini" we're talking, and if you're only wearing to show off the thong underneath.
5. Whoa, most definitely do not think that. Bible specifically says that Jesus is what's important, not the law.
6. I only preach when the opportunity arises, like now, for instance. I don't walk up to random people and preach. And hey, friends don't let friends go to hell.
7. Bible never says. I think God has no gender, but that's me. Well, Jesus was a guy and Jesus is God, but let's not get into metaphysics.
8. No, but being pro-life, then having an abortion is just a tad hypocritical.
9. Bible doesn't say, but it says that lusting is a sin, and since it's quite hard to masturbate without lusting...
10. Only fools follow blindly. I have questioned the Bible, I just haven't found any problems.
11. ??? I don't, but I'm not entire sure what I believe that my church doesn't.
12. Ok, yeah I do believe that...Eh, so far no one's been able to prove otherwise, so I see no reason not to believe it.
13. Not at all...I believe it's wrong, but that doesn't mean they're sluts.
14. God doesn't have any prejudices, except he doesn't like Satan or sin. On that note, hate the sin, love the sinner.
15. Nope. See above.


So it would seem you're not as bad a Christian as you thought.
I would question you this, however: Are you really a Christian? Not trying to criticize, simply curious.

Generally I'm aggreed with Rhyno on this one. One note, I wouldn't say that God doesn't like Satan. There is still the possibility of Satan returning to God. Whether that will happen or not, I dunno. God still loves Satan, but hates his actions.

So anyways, I'd say there are plenty of stereotypes about Christians that need correcting. It's the same with Southerners. We are just as smart as anybody else in the country. We just can't keep the most ignorant among us off the television. The north has a similar problem. it's why Dan Rather is on TV.

Strictly speaking if you were 100% Christian you would follow the New and Old testament to the letter.

Accurately speaking, you don't know what you are talking about. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Christians are not held accountable under the Old Law of the Old Testament. We follow the words of Jesus Christ. We do not follow the Old Testament. Jesus himself proclaimed this. So, do more research next time.

Not hard at all, actually. Not to be offensive, but on what basis do you claim that masturbation is hard without lust?

So, what exactly are you thinking about when you choke the chicken then? Cheese dip? I know I'm remembering that hot blond from last weekend, but that's just me maybe...

Strictly speaking if you were 100% Christian you would follow the New and Old testament to the letter.

Not the old testament, and not to the letter. Jesus himself warned against such things.

Of course this is relatively impossible, since certain parts contradict eachother, which makes it pretty hard to be strictly 100% Christian and all.... but hey, theoretically that's how it's done.

Ah. "Theoretically." It's amazing how many people who reject orthodox Christianity will hold people to the standard of orthodoxy.

You also can't pick and choose what part of the religion you like and then say you belong to it. Well alot of people do, but it makes no sense.

You're absolutely right. How ridiculous is it that, upon viewing a highway system, I should choose the road best suited to me and my master?

If you truly believe in the religion, why do you question parts of it?

I don't follow a religion. Religions are made up of humans. I follow God, not humans.

Do you presume to know better than the almighty Lord you believe in?

No, I presume that I know better than most humans. Not all, but most. It's a much safer presumption. ;)

Naturally I think Christianity is a load of BS ... but yeah...

It shows. LOL!

So, what exactly are you thinking about when you choke the chicken then? Cheese dip? I know I'm remembering that hot blond from last weekend, but that's just me maybe...

I just had an urge that needed satisfying. I satisfied it. It's that easy, unless you are masturbating so often that in oreder for it to work you have to have a visual stimulus.

i would prefer not to know about y'all's masturbation practices

i would prefer not to know about y'all's masturbation practices

Then don't read the thread further. That's the only help I can offer. Sorry. :)

i would prefer not to know about y'all's masturbation practices
Good point. There's already a thread for it. Now where the hell did it go...

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.

Me either.

2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.

Nope.

3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!

Nope.

4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.

Nope, although putting one on makes me so uncomfortable I immediately take it off and buy the longer one instead.

5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.

Nope, and I wish other people would stop doing it. The important rule is "Love God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's it. The rest are all open for debate, and are not necessarily central to the core of Christianity anyways.

6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.

I don't have a sect, really - but I will discuss my beliefs with anyone who wishes to hear them.

7.) Think that God is actually male.

Actually, you're in good company here. It is pretty much unacceptable in theological writing these days to refer to God as male. It is also pretty unacceptable to use the term mankind. Of course, not referring to God with a pronoun gets really hairy. I mean, when my prof started saying something like "Can God change God's mind?" I almost started laughing.

8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.

Well, the conotation of pro-life is "person who wants to force their religious beliefs on others." I think you can be pro-choice and pro-life. I also think, in certain circumstances, you can have an abortion and be pro-life.

9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.

Nope.

10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.

Absolutely not. Failing to question dogma simply shows a lack of faith.

11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.

No problem.

12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.

Considering that to do so would be a literal contradiction at every turn... (Not to mention that a loving God would never condone genocide and slavery).

13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.

I hope not. My boyfriend and I are going to get married, but at the moment neither of us meet that criteria (and I don't think we will when we get married either LOL).

14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.

Nope. Although, I do try and get rid of said silly prejudices.

15.) Think that God likes my group best.

Nope.

Well, if you're a bad Christian, so am I. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I'd heard that...

You realise hell was made up to keep you all in line when the church actually had a decent amount of control?

It worries me that there are people out there who think that over 5/6ths of the worlds population are going to 'hell' (whatever that is)

Well, if you're a bad Christian, so am I. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I'd heard that...

Me neither, sadly. Living according to the Gospel rather than the rules the institution that sprung up around Christianity made up is difficult.

. The important rule is "Love God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's it. The rest are all open for debate, and are not necessarily central to the core of Christianity anyways.

nor are the details central to ANY religion. Every philosophical/ethical paradigm known to exist among civilized humans includes at its core this very principle of The Golden Rule. We ALL agree on , except for bigots

To apply the rule, you must ask yourself how you would want to be treated, not anything else like what does the third book of the blahblahblah tell me i should do? That's where the infighting comes.

note to Dempublicents: i have a dinosaur computer with out of date software, and the result is that i can't adjust the page to fit the whole thing in my screen. So i read all the replies without knowing who is making them. This works out to my advantage, because that way i am focusing on the argument and not the personalities. I only look at who the poster is if i agree strongly or disagree strongly,or if they have made a particularly eloquent point. We seem to think alike. I find you posting almost the exact things i was just thinking. You have saved me a lot of breath! anyway, Cheers!

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.

No. I enjoy a good religious chat, but I don't think that's the same as bashing people over the head with it.

2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.

Well, I'd certainly like the government to enforce the rules against murdering people, and stuff like that (I think that for the most part that's a universal value!)...but I don't want the government into certain other issues.

3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!

I don't know how on Earth I'm supposed to know who's going to Hell and who isn't. When I read St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, for instance, he seemed VERY insistent that people not get cocky and not make assumptions that they know who is and who isn't. Maybe a majority will, or a majority will not. I think that as soon as human beings decide this is their business, and obsess on it, that's extremely dangerous to them.

4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.

No...simply wearing a miniskirt is not a sin. It could not be, on its own...I think that if it were PART of misusing sexuality, that would be different, but even then, just wearing the short skirt wouldn't be a sin.

5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.

They are not all that's important. To act as if they are is to fall into the same trap the Pharisees did, and it seems that Jesus directly warned against this stuff. I do think you should make an effort to behave morally, and while rules can help with that, the MOST important thing is the internal moral center, which exists even beyond rules.

6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.

Two different answers. Preaching at random people uninvited--no. If someone expresses an interest in faith, and is actively searching, I would certainly encourage them to consider my sect as an option. I wouldn't beat them over the head, but I'm not afraid to answer questions from the curious.

I do wear a crucifix, and that's one way of showing that I am approachable for questions, if someone wishes. But it is not there to shove it in people's face. And another major reason (actually the larger one) that I am wearing it is for a personal reason that I don't want to discuss here. But I would not ever tell anybody else they needed to do that.

7.) Think that God is actually male.

From St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, he states quite clearly that in God there is "neither male nor female"...while I think this might've referred to distinctions between human beings that do not need to exist, I think this could also be evidence that God is beyond gender. And that makes sense--in order for Him to create both genders, He would have to be beyond the concept. (I still refer to Him as male, but that's a matter of convenience because no suitable pronoun exists in English that isn't demeaning.)

As for Jesus being male, I think this was out of necessity. Men were who were listened to in society then, and who held the power. So in order for God to get His message across, Jesus had to be male. This doesn't say that God is necessarily male.

8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.

I don't really have a stance on abortion except for my own personal one pertaining to my own body. (Which perhaps makes me pro-choice.) And I would have a very hard time psychologically with having an abortion...maybe even if my life were in danger. I do not know that as a fact because I've not been in the situation, though.

9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.

I'm not exactly sure on this one, but I do think there's a risk entailed in masturbation--the risk being that it is decontextualized sexual activity. I think sex is intended to be something more than this...and that kind of sex is actually a high gift. What I mean by that is that masturbation lacks the same kind of spiritual and emotional value as does sex shared by a married couple. One risks becoming fixated upon the physical only, and thinking this will suffice, and never seeking to go beyond that to the full potential given to us.

10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.

I don't...I think some questioning is actually healthy for a church institution to guard it against stagnation and corruption.

11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.

I don't have any major bones to pick with my particular church, but I would certainly speak up if I thought it was doing something wrong. See what I said about #10, about healthy questioning.

12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.

No. I think the Bible is divinely inspired, but when you factor in human writers and human translators, that means things can get messed up in places. Even St. Paul (yeah, I'm a big fan of his) in the book of Acts gets quite upset in one instance where he is mistaken by the Greeks for deity, and he cries out that he is only a man. I bear this in mind when I read his works, or those of any other Biblical author. I have no doubt that God inspired them to write what they did...but I think there were times when they could not see past the confines of their societies, or perhaps could see something further, but didn't know how to implement it, and in those cases ended up only reflecting their societies rather than showing how to move past them.

13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.

Well, see what I said in #9 about decontexualized sexual activity, which I think is a similar risk in this case--to have sex without the committment of marriage may have a bit more emotion involved, but not the degree of spiritual value that sex within marriage does. But where I differ from some is that I apply the same standard to men that I do to women. It doesn't matter if you were born male or female--you own 50% of the share of the responsibility when it comes to sexual activities you engage in.

Condemnation of such men and women is arrogant, of course...I am simply saying why I feel such activities are sinful.

14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.

No, certainly not. I expect I've gotten many things wrong, including what prejudices I have, and I actually look forward to being set straight on them and told where I've been wrong. It will be a very nice learning experience, actually. :-)

15.) Think that God likes my group best.

If you mean my particular sect, no. If you mean Christianity, I highly doubt it, especially when you consider that many people claim the name "Christian" and don't act it, and that others act it even if they don't use the name. I also cannot believe God is capricious--I cannot accept that He would damn people simply by virtue of the time and place where they were born. This also rules out (in my mind) the idea that only Christians go to Heaven and so on. Something else has GOT to be in play, and I think it has a lot to do, personally, with the mindset one has...whether it is a "godly" one or not. Again, I could be wrong, and could be corrected, but I anticipate learning the truth once and for all. For now, I will act on what my conscience and my readings suggest to me, which is this.

While I can't quite agree to ALL 15 points, I think you sound like a pretty decent Christian to me. Don't let others get you down! I think that we would definitely have enough common ground for a friendship, even if we did argue over a few small things. :-)

While I can't quite agree to ALL 15 points, I think you sound like a pretty decent Christian to me. Don't let others get you down! I think that we would definitely have enough common ground for a friendship, even if we did argue over a few small things. :-)

Thanks. :) I appreciate it.

As an aside: I also appreciate everyone else who was supportive and or responsive.

Thanks. :) I appreciate it.

As an aside: I also appreciate everyone else who was supportive and or responsive.

You're welcome. BTW, I expanded my response, so you'll see the points of agreement and disagreement. We don't agree on everything, and I don't mean my disagreements as flaming, just some food for thought. :-)

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.
2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.
3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!
4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.
5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.
6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.
7.) Think that God is actually male.
8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.
9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.
12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.
13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.
14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.
15.) Think that God likes my group best.

Apparently you, your detractors, and your supporters all have misconceptions about what it is to be a Christian.

1) For Christians, the Bible ought to be the rule of life and faith. This does not mean that we go about shouting at everyone what the Bible says, but it does mean that we are to look at the world through a biblical paradigm. It also means that we should not be afraid to use the Bible to explain our beliefs and to correct the misconceptions of others.
2) Unless you are an anarchist, this is, strictly speaking, untrue. Most likely you support the government's prohibitions against murder, rape, and robbery, and its provisions for the common defense of the nation. This means you do use the government to enforce your values on others. That most everyone agrees with you in these matters doesn't change the reality of what you use the government to do. Everyone who uses the government uses it to enforce some amount of his own values on others. Government is force.
3) If you believed the words of Jesus, most people are indeed going to hell. This should not spur Christians on toward hatred of them, but rather toward service and witness to them.
4) I don't believe that wearing a mini-skirt is inherently sinful. However, it can certainly be immodest, and Christians are called by the Apostle Paul to modesty.
5) Rules are not all that's important in Christianity; however, that doesn't nullify them entirely. As Christians we are not to be comformed to the sinful ways of the world, and rules help us to discern what is and what is not sinful. Many Christians fall into a kind of legalism, setting up a barrage of regulations on Christian freedom that are extra-biblical, in an attempt to curb sinful behavior. Still many others fall into libertinism, ultimately rejecting self-control and refusing to be free from sin. The Christian must recognize that he is a sinner and incapable of saving himself, no matter how strictly he adheres to rules; at the same time, he must also know that saving faith produces good works and a godly lifestyle.
6) Again, you must not believe the words of Jesus, who commanded His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Now, it is one thing to stand on a street corner with a sign that says, "Trust JESUS or BURN IN HELL!," and it is another thing to offer oneself as a living sacrifice to God through service to others and devotion to the truth. LOVE and TRUTH must go hand in hand, and the Christian who truly loves his neighbor ought not to fail to minister to that neighbor in BOTH word and deed.
7) I should seriously doubt whether many Christians believe that God is a male, i.e., having male genitals. That would be heresy.
8) I don't see how you can have an abortion and maintain an unhypocritical "pro-life" stance. Either the fetus is a human life or it is not. If it is, than to abort is to take innocent human life. There are no two ways around it.
9) Masturbation is nowhere specifically condemned in the Bible, but its sinfulness can be inferred. How many people masturbate without gratifying sexual lust? I know I never have.
10) Neither should you nor any Christian. All men are fallible.
11) I don't see how this in itself could qualify you as a "bad Christian." I'd have to know what policies, in particular, you disagree with, and whether your disagreement has biblical foundation.
12) I don't even think most fundamentalist think that every part of the Bible is LITERALLY true. There are areas that, in context, can only be read as symbolic. But the Bible is entirely true; that is, there is not a doctrine taught in it that is false.
13) Again, no Christians should believe this. We are all sinners.
14) No, he's not limited to your silly prejudices, but that doesn't mean he's limited to some vague "Force" which we can never attempt to explain or describe in any meaningful way. God has characteristics and attributes which we can understand, although we can never fully grasp the entirety of His Being (otherwise, we'd be God Himself).
15) Well, I don't see how this could get you called a "bad Christian" as I think most of your detractors would agree that God does not like your group the best. ;-P

So if god's not male, do they get penis envy?

My physics teacher said she did, and she was fairly close to a god for getting me through and passing her class...

So if god's not male, do they get penis envy?

My physics teacher said she did, and she was fairly close to a god for getting me through and passing her class...

I realize your post was in jest, but I felt like answering seriously anyway.

If you think of God as "everything", it obviously doesn't have a sex. If you relate God to "father time and the grand creator", he's male. His female counterpart would then be Gaia or Mother Earth. This mythological viewpoint basically states that the "male" part of the universe infuses life, or creates it. The "female" part then sustains and nutures it. It kind of makes sense if you think as Earth and the planet's life as one big child.

I realize your post was in jest, but I felt like answering seriously anyway.

If you think of God as "everything", it obviously doesn't have a sex. If you relate God to "father time and the grand creator", he's male. His female counterpart would then be Gaia or Mother Earth. This mythological viewpoint basically states that the "male" part of the universe infuses life, or creates it. The "female" part then sustains and nutures it. It kind of makes sense if you think as Earth and the planet's life as one big child.


The males job in most species is to pass on the best genes possible to their children. If god is male, then he hasn't passed on his best aspects very well.

I realize your post was in jest, but I felt like answering seriously anyway.

If you think of God as "everything", it obviously doesn't have a sex. If you relate God to "father time and the grand creator", he's male. His female counterpart would then be Gaia or Mother Earth. This mythological viewpoint basically states that the "male" part of the universe infuses life, or creates it. The "female" part then sustains and nutures it. It kind of makes sense if you think as Earth and the planet's life as one big child.

It's not well remembered, anymore, but I think that even in Judeo-Christian traditions, there has been a past history of thinking of God as having female characteristics as well--the nurturing traits you mentioned, and also, the component of "sophia", or wisdom, was considered a female trait. (I don't have the research to back this up myself, but I have heard this.)

I'm afraid I'm not a very good Christian.

I don't believe in God. :(

Am I going to Hell?

I'm afraid I'm not a very good Christian.

I don't believe in God. :(

Am I going to Hell?
All the cool people will be there. After all, only the Mormons go to heaven (at least that's what they said on Southpark.) :D

It's not well remembered, anymore, but I think that even in Judeo-Christian traditions, there has been a past history of thinking of God as having female characteristics as well--the nurturing traits you mentioned, and also, the component of "sophia", or wisdom, was considered a female trait. (I don't have the research to back this up myself, but I have heard this.)

Well, God is neither male nor female in orthodox Christian traditions. He has feminine characteristics, but He transcends sex.

Well, God is neither male nor female in orthodox Christian traditions. He has feminine characteristics, but He transcends sex.

You're preaching to the choir...see what I originally said when I responded to Texas Hotrodder's question. This was one way I had of providing evidence. ;-)

It's not well remembered, anymore, but I think that even in Judeo-Christian traditions, there has been a past history of thinking of God as having female characteristics as well--the nurturing traits you mentioned, and also, the component of "sophia", or wisdom, was considered a female trait. (I don't have the research to back this up myself, but I have heard this.)

Yeah, I heard that too. God, in very anchient communities, was fully female. I forgot the name of that particular incarnation of God.

Yeah, I heard that too. God, in very anchient communities, was fully female. I forgot the name of that particular incarnation of God.

Unless you're thinking of the Gnostic Sophia, you're not thinking of anything even remotely related to Christianity.

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.

Baseball bats work better anyway.

2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.

See #1.

3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!

Oh why not? It seems to be a lot more fun of a place. :D

4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.

You're right ... naked is better anyway.

5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.

Well that makes you a bad Baptist. ;)

6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.

That makes you a bad Evangelist.

7.) Think that God is actually male.

That makes you a bad Muslim.

8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.

That makes you a bad Republican.

9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.

See #4. :D

10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.

That makes you a bad Catholic.

11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.

Wait ... you don't do this? hehehe ... I know what you meant. Just messin'.

12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.

Well you won't be getting your Jehova's Witness decoder ring, then.

13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.

Well I guess you're just off to Hell for that one ... like the rest of us sluts. :D

14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.

:eek: He's not?!? :eek: ;)

15.) Think that God likes my group best.

Oh ... you'd be surprised ... I think God likes you best.

Were you joking there? Slaggin' off every religion in the world?

Were you joking there? Slaggin' off every religion in the world?

That's the second time that someone has mentioned religion in a broader sense when I was under the impression that Christianity was specified. What's up with that?

Because Kervulia mentioned many other religions, ergo Islam. Basically implying that all Catholics follow the church blindly, all Muslims are sexist, etc....

Because Kervulia mentioned many other religions, ergo Islam. Basically implying that all Catholics follow the church blindly, all Muslims are sexist, etc....

Ah. The srereotypes. Good point.

Generally I'm aggreed with Rhyno on this one. One note, I wouldn't say that God doesn't like Satan. There is still the possibility of Satan returning to God. Whether that will happen or not, I dunno. God still loves Satan, but hates his actions.

So anyways, I'd say there are plenty of stereotypes about Christians that need correcting. It's the same with Southerners. We are just as smart as anybody else in the country. We just can't keep the most ignorant among us off the television. The north has a similar problem. it's why Dan Rather is on TV.

Assuming this fairy tale were true, then God really sounds like a control freak, doesn't he?
Why is there a being somewhere above the clouds that is deeply concerned about my sex-life?
Does it hate my "actions"?

Oh...and North or South, both American... The one I see on TV the most is your president.

Assuming this fairy tale were true, then God really sounds like a control freak, doesn't he?
Why is there a being somewhere above the clouds that is deeply concerned about my sex-life?
Does it hate my "actions"?

Oh...and North or South, both American... The one I see on TV the most is your president.

Is that you under a slightly different name, Tumaania? Or are you an impersonator? Or neither?

Is that you under a slightly different name, Tumaania? Or are you an impersonator? Or neither?

Tumaania!
New formula!
New and improved!
Less healthy, more delicious!
Now with less a and added i.

So, what exactly are you thinking about when you choke the chicken then? Cheese dip? I know I'm remembering that hot blond from last weekend, but that's just me maybe...

i lack a chicken to choke... but when i'm masturbating, usually i don't think about anything but my current physical pleasure.

Were you joking there? Slaggin' off every religion in the world?


Well ... yeah ...

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.*thank you*
2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.*again*
3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!*been ther done that*
4.) Believe that wearing a miniskirt is a sin.*Damn i'm going to Hell*
5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.*"be you wise as serpentts, but gentle as lambs*
6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.*Meh, its all a lie anyway*
7.) Think that God is actually male.*goddess, we forget the goddesses that actually give birth** MORONS *
8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.*saddest tears*
9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.*well I'm going to hell anyway...*
10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.*Sheep! *drools**
11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.*what,myou don't get to molest kids? Damn I was hoping to convert*
12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth. *as told to you*
13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.* hmm... hmm...*
14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.*yours? not mine?*
15.) Think that God likes my group best.*he hates me so we're even*
__________________
The Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders

Ambassador to the U.N.
- Edward "Speed Demon" Jones

Who is this Texan Hotrodders fellow?

ya i dont know why the three biggest religions in the world (Christianity, Judism, Islam) like hate eachother becuase all three of them beleive in the god of Abraham.

I didn't know that Christian/Jewish relations were bad...where have I been?!
:confused:

In my city, the Jewish and Muslim comunities have been very supportive of each other recently..

The entire basis of this post confuses me anyway :confused: because all Christians know that one doesn't go to Heaven because of his/her works but because of Faith. So isn't the list sort of irrelevant? Christianity is not a Faith of the Law.

The entire basis of this post confuses me anyway :confused: because all Christians know that one doesn't go to Heaven because of his/her works but because of Faith. So isn't the list sort of irrelevant? Christianity is not a Faith of the Law.

However, if you have faith, are good works not a "symptom"? It seems to me you can't really have one without the other.

By these "symptomatic" good works, I don't necessarily mean acting according to the "letter of the law", but in its spirit. When you act in the spirit of the law, that may even mean disobedience at times, but it seems like if one does have faith, then acting in the spirit of the law...being good with reason (and not just fear...it has to be genuine caring) follows.

Thanks for actually responding politely Rhyno D.

LOL!
Hey, it was the only weapon I had on me...

Amen to that.
Public schooling...*shakes head*


I'm sure it is. It would be for me too. Why don't you trust God to save His people?
It's not that I don't trust God to save them, it's that I don't trust the people to be smart enough to be saved.


So there's a point at which a miniskirt becomes sinful? What is it? I'd love to hear the Theology of the Skirt. ;)
It's not the skirt, it's the idea behind the skirt. If you dress to look good, that's cool. But if you're dressing to look like a slut and show off your "bits," then it is sin.


It's not a question of whether you think that, it's your actions.
Actions do speak louder than words, eh? But, following the rules is a consequence of being a Christian, not the other way 'round. Too many people have their cause and effect mixed up.


That's a good policy.
Eh, i'm too lazy to follow through with it. I really should preach more. I've been given the opportunity to, but things get in the way, right? Guess I'm not such a good friend eh?



Good for you! You actually seem familiar with the Scriptures. I like that.
That, and I have biblegateway.com, and a really good canadian friend who knows a lot more than I do. :D



Is it now? In all cases? What if the pregnant mother has three children to take care of already and if she doesn't abort she will die, leaving her children without a mother and female role-model? Would it not be "pro-life" in that case to abort the baby and be a good steward of what God has already given you? And if you are thinking of saying that decision is not up to me and you, why did God bother to give us free will?
Ah, see, I thought you were refering to just plain, "I don't want this baby" abortion...If the mother is in mortal danger, I think that all attempts should be made to save both mother and child. After that, you have to look at each case individually. Rather, you should pray about each case individually and listen to what God tells you.
As to why we have free will...I could go on for hours. The short version is this: A decision to follow God isn't a decision if it's the only option.



Not hard at all, actually. Not to be offensive, but on what basis do you claim that masturbation is hard without lust?
Because I've tried, and found it to be very hard, and have heard other testimonies from people who say the same. If you can, good for you. I personally think that it's ok, as long as you're not lusting. But, like I said, the Bible never says conclusively.



None at all? I don't either. The only thing I find problems with are erroneous interpretations of the texts.
Far too many of those around, eh? Refer to #1... :D



OK.
Yeah, I'm SB, but only because that's what I've always attended. As for the knitty-gritty, haven't a clue. I already know I disagree with my dad on original sin (my dad being a SB preacher), among other things involving how one should disciplin a teenager like myself ;)



Ah. Noone has been able to prove that there are no invisible elves flying around me, so I should believe that they are. Thanks for the tip.
Touche. Can you prove they do exist?



Good for you! Once again I have to say I appreciate your candor. :)
I've known my fair share of "sluts." Don't hate them, but I disagree with their lifestyle. On that note, forgive and forget.



1.) "Doesn't have...except" means He does.
2.) Good policy.
Again, touche. But I'd hardly count hating sin and the Devil as prejudices.
I'd equate it to hating people who drive slow in the left lane and hating that smelly, annoying kid who picks his nose and flicks it at you. I wouldn't call that prejudice.


I don't think I'm a bad Christian.
Indeed, you don't seem to be.
And in the end, does it matter? The point is, you're a Christian.



Yes. Have been for a very long time, in my scale of things.
*high five*
It's just that I usually expect posts like this to come from nonChristians.

However, if you have faith, are good works not a "symptom"? It seems to me you can't really have one without the other. I agree that faith in a loving God will produce good works (provided that faith is acted on, which i think you would do if you truly had it), but you're implying there that you cannot commit good works without aquiring faith. Most people would disagree with that.

The thing that gets me about Christianity is that someone who lives a sinless life (well, theoretically, see below), out away from other people, never harming a living thing but doesn’t believe in Jesus will be damned for all eternity, whereas the perpetual sinner who does nothing but backstab and screw everyone else over his entire life, but on his deathbed “sees the light” and repents his sins and really means it, gets into heaven. This strikes me as a teensy bit unjust. The standard response is the peaceful hermit is human and therefore inherently sinful by virtue of existing, but it still seems pretty unfair.

Landover Baptist (www.landoverbaptist.org) anyone?
That site is hilarious.

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=landoverbaptist.3948982


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dumbasses! All of them.

And here's the ironic part, I'm NOT being sarcastic! :D

well, he's an American for sure!

A few notes, Ordon. . .


2) Unless you are an anarchist, this is, strictly speaking, untrue. Most likely you support the government's prohibitions against murder, rape, and robbery, and its provisions for the common defense of the nation. This means you do use the government to enforce your values on others. That most everyone agrees with you in these matters doesn't change the reality of what you use the government to do. Everyone who uses the government uses it to enforce some amount of his own values on others. Government is force.

Unless you're one of those goofy Randian libertarians, this is incorrect (and mind you, if you are one of those goofy Randian libertarians, you need to reevaluate your political philosophy, because Rand's conception of morality is almost completely at odds with Jesus') on several levels. First of all, establishing a defense of property and life is not an imposition of my values on anybody. It is a rational response to the "inconvenience" found within the state of nature, to use Lockean terminology. Insofar as the rest of the people also in civil society are also rational, they also agree to collectively allow the government some regulation over their lives, and some restriction of their own private action, in exchange for the protections afforded by a legitemate government. My "values" don't enter anywhere into the equation.

Second of all, government is not force. Government the most secure means of protection of your property, life, and liberty from force, an action far more likely to be instigated in the state of nature than in civil society.


9) Masturbation is nowhere specifically condemned in the Bible, but its sinfulness can be inferred. How many people masturbate without gratifying sexual lust? I know I never have.

And where, pray tell, did Jesus ever say that sexual lust was an a priori evil? He said that certain actions were sinful, such as lusting after someone's wife, or engaging in sexual intercourse outside of the bounds of wedlock (although it should also be noted that on this count, he objected strongly to the traditional social response to such sexual immorality, which was to beat the person's head in with a rock). He criticized Sodom and Gamorrah for their unspecified sexual immorality. But he never once said (AFAIK) that to have sexual longings of any kind automatically made you a sinful person. That is far more the result of St. Augustine's influence on the church than it is Jesus'.


12) I don't even think most fundamentalist think that every part of the Bible is LITERALLY true. There are areas that, in context, can only be read as symbolic. But the Bible is entirely true; that is, there is not a doctrine taught in it that is false.


So the doctrine of killing all the men and children, and taking all the women as slaves in the wake of a successful military campaign is not a false doctrine?

I say this partly in jest, but there does seem to be an underlying theme, especially in the Old Testament, that whatever God says goes and is moral. That doctrine is precisely the same doctrine that wacko's who pervert and sully the name of Jesus believe in. Even more, it is also a doctrine that was demolished by Socrates in the Euthyphro 500 years before the New Testament was even written. If you believe this doctrine, then you have to believe that indiscriminate slaughter, even up to the point of genocide, can be justified under certain circumstances, namely when God gives the OK signal. Just from the results, and the fact that it is a doctrine which yields bad fruit, in Jesus' words, we know that it is a doctrine that must be cast aside.

Unless you're one of those goofy Randian libertarians, this is incorrect (and mind you, if you are one of those goofy Randian libertarians, you need to reevaluate your political philosophy, because Rand's conception of morality is almost completely at odds with Jesus') on several levels.

I'm not a Randian.

First of all, establishing a defense of property and life is not an imposition of my values on anybody. It is a rational response to the "inconvenience" found within the state of nature, to use Lockean terminology. Insofar as the rest of the people also in civil society are also rational, they also agree to collectively allow the government some regulation over their lives, and some restriction of their own private action, in exchange for the protections afforded by a legitemate government. My "values" don't enter anywhere into the equation.

Yes, your values do enter into the equation. You consider it your right to protect your property, and that is a value. You use the government to secure that right, and the government uses force against those who would deny you that right.

Second of all, government is not force. Government the most secure means of protection of your property, life, and liberty from force, an action far more likely to be instigated in the state of nature than in civil society.

Protection against outside unlawful aggression, not force in the general sense. Force can be and is used defensively. For example, if someone comes into your home and threatens to kill you, and you use a gun to kill him, you've used lethal force to defend your life. Force is also used to enforce laws.

And where, pray tell, did Jesus ever say that sexual lust was an a priori evil? He said that certain actions were sinful, such as lusting after someone's wife, or engaging in sexual intercourse outside of the bounds of wedlock (. . .). He criticized Sodom and Gamorrah for their unspecified sexual immorality. But he never once said (AFAIK) that to have sexual longings of any kind automatically made you a sinful person. That is far more the result of St. Augustine's influence on the church than it is Jesus'.

I don't see how you can have sexual lust without an object of that lust. If lusting after anyone is to commit adultery in the heart, sexual lust is inherently sinful. (Or, if you're being picky, it is to commit fornication in the heart for those who are unmarried, and thus it is still inherently sinful.) Lust, however, is not "sexual longings of any kind." It is specifically to covet another person (or, er, . . . thing) as a sexual object.

(although it should also be noted that on this count, he objected strongly to the traditional social response to such sexual immorality, which was to beat the person's head in with a rock.

Actually, the punishment was for the community to throw stones until the person died, not for someone to use a single rock to bash in the person's head. But on this count, Jesus did not object to the punishment, but to self-righteous and hypocritical judgement. Not to mention the legal trickery with which the Pharisees were attempting to trap Him: if He said they should stone her, He would be inciting rebellion against Rome; if He said they should not stone her, He would be denying the Law of God. Besides all this, the adulterous MAN should also have been brought forward for punishment.

So the doctrine of killing all the men and children, and taking all the women as slaves in the wake of a successful military campaign is not a false doctrine?

It's not a doctrine. It was a command given by God to the Israelites for certain wars which Israel was directed to engage in.

I say this partly in jest, but there does seem to be an underlying theme, especially in the Old Testament, that whatever God says goes and is moral. That doctrine is precisely the same doctrine that wacko's who pervert and sully the name of Jesus believe in. Even more, it is also a doctrine that was demolished by Socrates in the Euthyphro 500 years before the New Testament was even written. If you believe this doctrine, then you have to believe that indiscriminate slaughter, even up to the point of genocide, can be justified under certain circumstances, namely when God gives the OK signal. Just from the results, and the fact that it is a doctrine which yields bad fruit, in Jesus' words, we know that it is a doctrine that must be cast aside.

Whatever God says is, indeed, moral, right, true, and just. And I certainly believe that God's commandments to the Israelites regarding their enemies were moral, right, true, and just. The reason that the Euthyphro does not come into play here is because God is not arbitrary. He does not determine one day that such-and-such is inherently sinful, and then on another day decide that the very same thing is not inherently sinful. Those things which are inherently sinful---that is, inherently opposed to the nature of God---have always been sinful, and will always continue to be such.

...

Actually, the punishment was for the community to throw stones until the person died, not for someone to use a single rock to bash in the person's head.

....



An important distinction.

ya i dont know why the three biggest religions in the world (Christianity, Judism, Islam) like hate eachother becuase all three of them beleive in the god of Abraham.

Lol, the 3 biggest are Christianity, Islam and Hindu, Judaism comes in quite a distance after that.

I agree that faith in a loving God will produce good works (provided that faith is acted on, which i think you would do if you truly had it), but you're implying there that you cannot commit good works without aquiring faith. Most people would disagree with that.

I'm afraid I won't be posting here anymore for personal reasons after this, but I thought I would answer this. I can see that I didn't explain my answer thoroughly enough, and that's my fault.

The way I see it is that faith and action are intertwined, and cannot be separated. If a person does good works out of a good heart, then even though that is not necessarily faith in a particular religion, it's certainly faith in the PRINCIPLES that are the centerpiece of religions ("Love one another as you love yourself," for instance). This leads into what I'll say in the next part...

It's almost a chicken-or-the-egg thing...it seems at times as if either can give birth to the other, so I don't want to say which comes first--but I hope this might help explain where I was coming from a little better.

The thing that gets me about Christianity is that someone who lives a sinless life (well, theoretically, see below), out away from other people, never harming a living thing but doesn’t believe in Jesus will be damned for all eternity, whereas the perpetual sinner who does nothing but backstab and screw everyone else over his entire life, but on his deathbed “sees the light” and repents his sins and really means it, gets into heaven. This strikes me as a teensy bit unjust. The standard response is the peaceful hermit is human and therefore inherently sinful by virtue of existing, but it still seems pretty unfair.[/QUOTE]

I've never accepted this strict interpretation. It's possible that perpetual sinner who repents and really means it will get into Heaven. But it is also possible, to me, that the peaceful hermit will, too. This ties to what I said earlier about "faith" and "belief". Perhaps his form of belief--through his actions--is worth something, too. Personally, I think it is. I do try to stay away from acting like I know who is or is not going to Heaven or Hell, as I have many personal reasons for thinking as I do.

Unfortunately, after this post, I will be leaving this forum for personal reasons. If you wish to continue this discussion, please TG me because I won't see it otherwise.

Apparently I'm not a very good Christian because I don't do these things:

Nope, guess you're not.

1.) Thump people over the head with a Bible.

Apparently I'm not a very good person because I don't exaggerate like that...

2.) Try to use the government to impose my values on other people.

The government is there to impose values on people. Murder is outlawed. Why should it be? I think it's alright! Why do people impose their values on me?

3.) Believe that most people are going to HELL!!

Well, people who aren't Christians will (which you believe if you are one), and >50% of the world is not Christian...

5.) Act like rules are all that's important in Christianity.

No one does...

6.) Preach at people and try to get them to convert to my religion/sect.

So you're insulting missionaries and other people?

7.) Think that God is actually male.

I repeat: who does? Did God ever reproduce?

8.) Think that being "pro-life" means that you can never have an abortion.

...then what does it mean?

9.) Believe that masturbation is a sin.

Masturbation is a sin. It's sexually immoral, and it's lust. Which is considered to be sin. It's hard to masturbate unless you picture a hot naked woman in your head...

10.) Do not blindly follow every doctrine of my church like a sheep.

Not everyone does. Good Christians have questioned their beliefs, and found that they were true.

11.) Disagree with my church's policies openly.

What?

12.) Believe that every bit of the Bible is literal truth.

No one does.

13.) Believe that all women who were not virgins at the time of their marriage are sluts.

If you're implying sex before marriage is okay, then you're wrong.

14.) Think that God is limited to my silly predjudices.

No one does.

15.) Think that God likes my group best.

no one does.

Yes, your values do enter into the equation. You consider it your right to protect your property, and that is a value. You use the government to secure that right, and the government uses force against those who would deny you that right.

1) Survival is not a value. Rational self-interest is not a value. They are the underlying operating assumptions for any rational creature. No creature could be rational without them. If they were values, then you would also have to say that carbohydrates are values too, because we couldn't operate in a rational manner without them either (owing to the fact that glucose is what the brain runs on).

2) How exactly does the government force something upon a population that willingly accepts it (in this case, order)? It's logically impossible to coerce the willing.


Protection against outside unlawful aggression, not force in the general sense. Force can be and is used defensively. For example, if someone comes into your home and threatens to kill you, and you use a gun to kill him, you've used lethal force to defend your life. Force is also used to enforce laws.

Well, that is true, but it's a far cry from traditional conservative argumentation. That sounds far more like a liberal conception of how the government can help you than the indifferent at best, tyrannical at worst monolith that you hear on the AM radio stations.


I don't see how you can have sexual lust without an object of that lust. If lusting after anyone is to commit adultery in the heart, sexual lust is inherently sinful. (Or, if you're being picky, it is to commit fornication in the heart for those who are unmarried, and thus it is still inherently sinful.) Lust, however, is not "sexual longings of any kind." It is specifically to covet another person (or, er, . . . thing) as a sexual object.


To which I repeat the question: where did Jesus say that sexual lust was an a priori evil? He said that lusting after someone's wife was sinful, but not all people can be wives (namely men), nor are all women wives, or even future wives, if you want to be really goofy about it. As such, there seems plenty of give in Jesus' conception of sexual morality for lust. It's that wacky Augustinian notion of Original Sin, coupled with Aquinas' equally bonkers conception of natural law that you are reading into the Gospels here, not anything explicitly laid out by Jesus.


Actually, the punishment was for the community to throw stones until the person died, not for someone to use a single rock to bash in the person's head. But on this count, Jesus did not object to the punishment, but to self-righteous and hypocritical judgement. Not to mention the legal trickery with which the Pharisees were attempting to trap Him: if He said they should stone her, He would be inciting rebellion against Rome; if He said they should not stone her, He would be denying the Law of God. Besides all this, the adulterous MAN should also have been brought forward for punishment.


For any poetic liscence on my part, I beg my apologies. But as for the main thrust, I'm curious to know how any person in the Christian account, especially considering Augustine's notion that we are born into sin, could ever stone the woman without incurring Jesus' wrath as a hypocrite? It seems to me that it is impossible, and from that it seems as if Jesus was indeed making an assault on the Jewish law of the day. It might have been an end-around assault, but rest assured that it was still an assault.

Additionally, I think you're confusing two different stories: the story of the villagers stoning the prostitute and the Pharisees' questioning of Jesus about taxes. I'll admit that I could be wrong on this, but I was fairly sure that there was no mention of the Pharisees at that point in Mark.


It's not a doctrine. It was a command given by God to the Israelites for certain wars which Israel was directed to engage in.


. . .And that command was followed because of the doctrine that anything God says is just. You're just mincing words here, Ordon.


Whatever God says is, indeed, moral, right, true, and just. And I certainly believe that God's commandments to the Israelites regarding their enemies were moral, right, true, and just. The reason that the Euthyphro does not come into play here is because God is not arbitrary. He does not determine one day that such-and-such is inherently sinful, and then on another day decide that the very same thing is not inherently sinful. Those things which are inherently sinful---that is, inherently opposed to the nature of God---have always been sinful, and will always continue to be such.

. . .You're joking, right? How could you look at:

A) The Golden Rule, stating that one should always do unto others as you would have do unto you, and then go even further to say that this statement sums up the spirit of the Law

And:

B) The wanton slaughter of Jericho and several other cities, in which the men and children were "put to the sword", while the women were put into permanent servitude as household servants at best, sexual playthings for rapists at worst.

. . .and not conclude that the two are incompatible, and from that that God as described in the Old Testament is not only arbitrary in his judgements of right and wrong, but downright capricious as well. Rape is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. Murder is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. Robbery is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. And yet, all were not only condoned by God in the Old Testament; they were mandated. As such, the Euthyphro decidedly does come into play when you are talking about the God of the Old Testament, and the conclusion (either that we should throw away our idea of both reason and a loving God in the face of a monster you would exalt, or we should raise up a God who simply didn't do most of the things attributed to him in the Old Testament, with the latter being a decidely better choice) comes with it. There are no ways around such a conclusion, Ordon.

Actually, the punishment was for the community to throw stones until the person died, not for someone to use a single rock to bash in the person's head.

An important distinction.

Moreso than you realize.

1) Survival is not a value. Rational self-interest is not a value. They are the underlying operating assumptions for any rational creature. No creature could be rational without them. If they were values, then you would also have to say that carbohydrates are values too, because we couldn't operate in a rational manner without them either (owing to the fact that glucose is what the brain runs on).

2) How exactly does the government force something upon a population that willingly accepts it (in this case, order)? It's logically impossible to coerce the willing.

1) There are some things which are both values and within the realm of rational self-interest. The right to life and the right to property are among these.

2) Unless you think that 100% of any given population is willing to accept the policy of its government, at some point the government must force its policy on unwilling people. In representative government, citizens use the government to enforce some of their values on others; if the majority of citizens agree on a particular value, that value will most likely be enforced.

Well, that is true, but it's a far cry from traditional conservative argumentation. That sounds far more like a liberal conception of how the government can help you than the indifferent at best, tyrannical at worst monolith that you hear on the AM radio stations.

Well, I don't listen to AM radio, but I don't see how my argument is "a far cry from traditional conservative argumentation." I'd be interested to hear the argument of a conservative who doesn't think that there are legitimate uses to government force, such as in the protection of basic human rights like life and property, or in the protection of the nation against foreign attack. Also consider that I am arguing about government largely in the abstract, not about the federal government in Washington, D.C.

To which I repeat the question: where did Jesus say that sexual lust was an a priori evil? He said that lusting after someone's wife was sinful, but not all people can be wives (namely men), nor are all women wives, or even future wives, if you want to be really goofy about it. As such, there seems plenty of give in Jesus' conception of sexual morality for lust. It's that wacky Augustinian notion of Original Sin, coupled with Aquinas' equally bonkers conception of natural law that you are reading into the Gospels here, not anything explicitly laid out by Jesus.

Well, since you take the Golden Rule as the center of Jesus' teachings, perhaps you'll explain to me how coveting a person as a sexual object for one's own gratification is not failing to look at the other person as a human being made in the image of God.

For any poetic liscence on my part, I beg my apologies. But as for the main thrust, I'm curious to know how any person in the Christian account, especially considering Augustine's notion that we are born into sin, could ever stone the woman without incurring Jesus' wrath as a hypocrite? It seems to me that it is impossible, and from that it seems as if Jesus was indeed making an assault on the Jewish law of the day. It might have been an end-around assault, but rest assured that it was still an assault.

They can do so in accordance with the law of the land and the law of God, with neither of which the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus were in accord. That we are all sinners does not mean that no one deserves punishment at the hands of other sinners. (Otherwise, how could we imprison or fine anyone for committing a crime?) However, God has ordained the civil government, not just anybody, to carry out such punishment.

Additionally, I think you're confusing two different stories: the story of the villagers stoning the prostitute and the Pharisees' questioning of Jesus about taxes. I'll admit that I could be wrong on this, but I was fairly sure that there was no mention of the Pharisees at that point in Mark.

The story of the Adulterous Woman is found only in the Gospel of John: "The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery" (John 8:3).



. . .And that command was followed because of the doctrine that anything God says is just. You're just mincing words here, Ordon.

No, I'm not mincing words. There is no general principle (i.e., DOCTRINE) established that upon the successful completion of a military campaign, all enemy men and children must be killed and all enemy women enslaved.

. . .You're joking, right? How could you look at:

A) The Golden Rule, stating that one should always do unto others as you would have do unto you, and then go even further to say that this statement sums up the spirit of the Law

And:

B) The wanton slaughter of Jericho and several other cities, in which the men and children were "put to the sword", while the women were put into permanent servitude as household servants at best, sexual playthings for rapists at worst.

. . .and not conclude that the two are incompatible, and from that that God as described in the Old Testament is not only arbitrary in his judgements of right and wrong, but downright capricious as well.

Um, actually, all people in Jericho were killed (except for Rahab and her family), and the entire city was burnt down. You can read about it in Joshua 6. But for a more in-depth consideration of the morality of the wars of Israel, read this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html), this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html), and this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html).

Rape is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. Murder is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. Robbery is a universal wrong, and it is a universal violation of the Golden Rule. And yet, all were not only condoned by God in the Old Testament; they were mandated.

Wrong, absolutely wrong. WAR was generally condoned in certain circumstances, and occasionally mandated with strict regulations. In effect, war is a way for one nation to punish the evils of another. Rape, murder, and robbery, however, were never condoned nor mandated, unless you think any war is murder and thusly think that taking the spoils of war is robbery. As far as rape goes, you are making unnecessary and unsubstantiated assumptions.

As such, the Euthyphro decidedly does come into play when you are talking about the God of the Old Testament, and the conclusion (either that we should throw away our idea of both reason and a loving God in the face of a monster you would exalt, or we should raise up a God who simply didn't do most of the things attributed to him in the Old Testament, with the latter being a decidely better choice) comes with it. There are no ways around such a conclusion, Ordon.

The dilemma is false. That you can't accept that a loving and merciful God can also be a wrathful and judging God has nothing to do with reason. Love, wrath, mercy, and judgement are not mutally exclusive.