NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, you clicked on this thread thinking that I was going to ask questions concerning Christian beliefs. Wrong! I want you, especially if you are an atheist, to ask me questions about my Christian beliefs.

Note: I do not pretend to represent all Christians. I am of the Roman Catholic denomination, so please do not ask any questions that apply only to Protestant Christians. (I don't pretend to represent all Roman Catholics either.)

Looking for attention are we?

Looking for attention are we?
arent, deep down, all extremist libertarians?

no

arent, deep down, all extremist libertarians?

Hmmmm not so sure about that one mate...

Essentially, yes I am looking for attention. I think that unreasonable Christians get a great deal of attention on this forum. That is entirely unfair to more reasonable Christians. I will, of course, have to proove that I am reasonable.

BTW My political spectrum is now centrist on economic issues. I just haven't updated my sig.

Stealing the title of my thread, are we? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418325) :)

How does that authoritarian nature of Christianity mesh with your libertarian political views? Do you have little ideology wars in your head?

Why do you think I am interested in your religious beleif? It only matters to me if you try to have it codified into law or taught as fact in public schools.

BTW, I'm an atheist.

What do ya think of Benedict XVI? I have no problem with him; but I've heard some dissent among Catholics....

Ah, you clicked on this thread thinking that I was going to ask questions concerning Christian beliefs. Wrong! I want you, especially if you are an atheist, to ask me questions about my Christian beliefs.

Note: I do not pretend to represent all Christians. I am of the Roman Catholic denomination, so please do not ask any questions that apply only to Protestant Christians. (I don't pretend to represent all Roman Catholics either.)

Do you believe human tradition, science or anything else of human origin to have superior authority to the Bible?

How does that authoritarian nature of Christianity mesh with your libertarian political views? Do you have little ideology wars in your head?
As I have said before, I am no longer Libertarian economically. The difference between Christianity and political authoritarianism, however, is that (according to my personal Christian beliefs) noone should be forced, in any way, to live a Christian life. Anyone who does, does so out of their own free will.

Please explain how you come to terms with this;

Humans have free will
Humans (including christians) sin, even after forgiveness, and are incapable of living without sinning
Heaven is free from sin

Therefore
Heaven is free from humans - it is pointless being christian or obeying god
or heaven is free of free will - why must we have free will on earth?
or there is a way for humans to exist without sin - why did god make an earth for us to suffer on?

What do ya think of Benedict XVI? I have no problem with him; but I've heard some dissent among Catholics....
I heard he wrote a paper on how non-Catholics can not get to Heaven while he was still a Cardinal. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however, I think that he will not dogmify this, or any other, extremist opinion.

Do you believe human tradition, science or anything else of human origin to have superior authority to the Bible?
Since I believe that the Bible is always correct, I believe it is impossible for anything to have higher authority than the Bible.

Please explain how you come to terms with this;

Humans have free will
Humans (including christians) sin, even after forgiveness, and are incapable of living without sinning
Heaven is free from sin

Therefore
Heaven is free from humans - it is pointless being christian or obeying god
or heaven is free of free will - why must we have free will on earth?
or there is a way for humans to exist without sin - why did god make an earth for us to suffer on?
Free Will is the ability to make choices (in this case concerning good and evil), but is limited by our natural limitations as Humans in this life. In the next life, if we are good, we will desire to do good. Being in Heaven, we will have a perfect image of good and will, therefore, always be able to do good. There is suffering in the world because it is good for us to be able to effect each others' happiness. Although evil people negatively effect their acquaintances' happiness, it is necessary for us to be able to effect each others' happiness in order that there may be community. We do not have the perfect image of good because it is impossible to separate the knowledge of perfect goodness from the bliss that comes with it. Evil, people, of course, do not deserve this bliss.

Stealing the title of my thread, are we? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418325) :)
Oops! I didn't know there was another thread with essentially the same name. I don't suppose that we should ask the mods to merge our threads, since the topics are essentially different. I don't really know what we should do about this.

Free Will is the ability to make choices (in this case concerning good and evil), but is limited by our natural limitations as Humans in this life. In the next life, if we are good, we will desire to do good. Being in Heaven, we will have a perfect image of good and will, therefore, always be able to do good. There is suffering in the world because it is good for us to be able to effect each others' happiness. Although evil people negatively effect their acquaintances' happiness, it is necessary for us to be able to effect each others' happiness in order that there may be community. We do not have the perfect image of good because it is impossible to separate the knowledge of perfect goodness from the bliss that comes with it. Evil, people, of course, do not deserve this bliss.

but if god skipped out earth and put everyone straight in heaven, we'd all be good and there would be no evil.

If one cannot be evil in heaven, one does not have free will

So you were an "anarcho"-capitalist (a historical oxymoron) and are now ?

Since I believe that the Bible is always correct, I believe it is impossible for anything to have higher authority than the Bible.


Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.

Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.

or indeed that 30 cubits go round a circle of diameter 10 cubits

(psst, that's wrong by the way)

Most people don't know this, but the bible actually ends with Vin Diesel showing up at the crucifixion with a pair of Uzi's and kicking some Roman ass. Vin Diesel was all like, "Jesus, I totally saved you." Then, off on the horizon, a bunch of Romans show up riding dinosaurs led by Mecha Pontious Pilate. Jesus busts out this sweet ninja sword and says, "Now it's my turn to save you." Then Jesus and Vin Diesel run towards the Romans in slow motion. That's how the bible ends. It's a cliff-hanger. I can't wait for the sequel, "The Bible 2: Water...Into Blood".

Clearly this person is insane. Christians reject science and logic, so trying to argue against them with sciencce and logic will not help.

My mother was always a little crazy, and a little prodestant. About 5 years ago she started getting realy, realy hard core catholic. about 3 years ago, she was put in a high security mental institution in Ottawa by my father- I havnt taken the time to see her in the last six but from what ive been told by my family I wouldnt want to. Christians are insane

Since I believe that the Bible is always correct, I believe it is impossible for anything to have higher authority than the Bible.

So you believe that the many, many people who created the Bible (whichever version you prefer) managed to not make one mistake?

Why do you think I am interested in your religious beleif? It only matters to me if you try to have it codified into law or taught as fact in public schools.

BTW, I'm an atheist.
Ah, but whatever happened to you being a drunk communistic christian? Haha... *sigh*

I have no questions of you. I am simply happy to find another Catholic on this site, one who is eager to stand for the Faith. Good luck!

Christians are insane
Hmm, actually, yes. Because we live according to a different standard than everyone else, so that would make it seem like insanity. I'm not saying anything against your mum cause I don't know her case, but I seriously doubt that being a Christian put her in a mental hospital.

I have two questions.

1. What makes you believe in God despite a total lack of objective evidence concerning his existence and the fact that such a belief is irrational? And what makes believing in the Christian God any different than believing in Zeus or Thor? Or unicorns and fairies?

2. What makes you feel the Bible is true, when there are a great many other religious texts also claiming to be true?

Ah, you clicked on this thread thinking that I was going to ask questions concerning Christian beliefs. Wrong! I want you, especially if you are an atheist, to ask me questions about my Christian beliefs.

Note: I do not pretend to represent all Christians. I am of the Roman Catholic denomination, so please do not ask any questions that apply only to Protestant Christians. (I don't pretend to represent all Roman Catholics either.)

bait-and-switch tactics are low, my man!

I have two questions.

1. What makes you believe in God despite a total lack of objective evidence concerning his existence and the fact that such a belief is irrational? And what makes believing in the Christian God any different than believing in Zeus or Thor? Or unicorns and fairies?

2. What makes you feel the Bible is true, when there are a great many other religious texts also claiming to be true?

I'll help:

1. Could it not be said that there is a total lack of objective evidence that God does not exist?

As for the difference between Yahweh and Zeus/Thor etc... Zeus and Thor are mythical. hehe No, seriously, I don't know enough about Norse or Greek mythology to know the aspects of these gods, but I would imagine that believing in the Christian God is different because of the different belief system and how it affects actions and thoughts of the believers to meet the demands of God. Hence, one main difference would be how people act to please their g/God, and how that reflects on the perceived or demonstrated nature of said g/God.

2. Faith in the total irrepressible power of God, Jesus Christ.

Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.

If one studies the Bible, one realizes that the verse you are quoting is from the old testament which was under the old Jewish law. With Jesus, man/woman no longer was held accountable to the old law. Therefore the working on the Sabbath became a mute point. Besides, one was man's interpretation that they made law and the other was from the Big Guy himself.

I'll help:

1. Could it not be said that there is a total lack of objective evidence that God does not exist?

As for the difference between Yahweh and Zeus/Thor etc... Zeus and Thor are mythical. hehe No, seriously, I don't know enough about Norse or Greek mythology to know the aspects of these gods, but I would imagine that believing in the Christian God is different because of the different belief system and how it affects actions and thoughts of the believers to meet the demands of God. Hence, one main difference would be how people act to please their g/God, and how that reflects on the perceived or demonstrated nature of said g/God.

2. Faith in the total irrepressible power of God, Jesus Christ.

1. That's not the point. The burden of proof lies on the theist, who makes the claim that God exists; to prove there is no God, one would have to be omniscient and search the entirety of existence with a fine-tooth comb. But God supposedly revealed himself a few thousand years ago, so where's all the evidence?

And I didn't literally mean what are the differences between worshipping God and worshipping Thor, I meant why do people scoff at the old gods and consider them myths when they have the same amount of evidence attached to them as the gods we follow now? I.e., none?

2. All you have to go on about Jesus is the word of the Bible. I'm asking what makes the Bible a good source of knowledge. I don't see the difference between it and any of the other myriad semihistorical religious texts.

The old testament when compared to the new Testament is wrong.

Jesus brought along the New Law.

Don't be ignorant.

but if god skipped out earth and put everyone straight in heaven, we'd all be good and there would be no evil.

If one cannot be evil in heaven, one does not have free will
One cannot get to heaven if one is evil. Not the other way around.

Once you realise evil is just that, there is no point.

Why be evil when you could live with God?

So you were an "anarcho"-capitalist (a historical oxymoron) and are now ?
Now, I would describe myself as "Anarcho-Centrist" as I am entirely unsure of the optimum level of collectivization.

If one studies the Bible, one realizes that the verse you are quoting is from the old testament which was under the old Jewish law. With Jesus, man/woman no longer was held accountable to the old law. Therefore the working on the Sabbath became a mute point. Besides, one was man's interpretation that they made law and the other was from the Big Guy himself.

An Archy stated that he or she believes the bible is always correct, in common withmany misguided people who call themselves Christians. I want to know which bit is correct, the bit that says those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death or the bit that says thou shalt not kill. It's quite simple really.

Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.

get it right:

Exodus 20:13 -- You shall not murder.

next "contradiction"?

Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.
The difference is that putting someone to death for breaking the law is not exactly the same as murder. It is capital punishment. In that time, capital punishment was certainly not seen as the same as murder. Both the commandments and your quote are in Exodus. Thus, whoever wrote the book of Exodus did not see the two as the same.

Prove to me Abraham Lincoln Exists.

Did you see him?
Can you use the scientific method to prove he existed?
Can you trust the documents saying he existed?
Does oral tradition hold any gravity?

No, no

Yes, yes.

The Bible is a documentation of history.
That is easy to see.

Yet, the only proof is from oral tradition and documentation.

I have never seen Mount Everest, yet, I beleive it is real.

Also, it was "not murder."

It was not "not kill."

The ignorance is the birthplace of "contradictions."

Can you get HIV from drinking the blood of christ?

get it right:

Exodus 20:13 -- You shall not murder.

next "contradiction"?

Au Contaire Monsieur

Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt not kill.

King James or American Standard Version bibles. I don't have any others handy to check, but I'm sure the Internet can help.

I presume by your questioning of the validity of my argument that you consider it acceptable to kill people for working on a Sunday.

Prove to me Abraham Lincoln Exists.


Don't even go there. Descartes showed that the foundation of epistemology is simply cogito ergo sum, or as revised by some modern philosophers, "I think, therefore something exists." If you wish to pursue the trademark argument, go ahead.

That aside, you'd be irrational NOT to believe in God. Consult Pascal's wager. Which denomination though, is entirely up to you.

1. That's not the point. The burden of proof lies on the theist, who makes the claim that God exists; to prove there is no God, one would have to be omniscient and search the entirety of existence with a fine-tooth comb. But God supposedly revealed himself a few thousand years ago, so where's all the evidence?

And I didn't literally mean what are the differences between worshipping God and worshipping Thor, I meant why do people scoff at the old gods and consider them myths when they have the same amount of evidence attached to them as the gods we follow now? I.e., none?

2. All you have to go on about Jesus is the word of the Bible. I'm asking what makes the Bible a good source of knowledge. I don't see the difference between it and any of the other myriad semihistorical religious texts.

1. If you make the statement that God does not exist, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. It is impossible, given our earthly limitations (limited knowledge, limited reasoning, limited sight, etc...), to prove the existence or non-existence of God.

Why do people scoff at the Norse gods? Who knows?

Probably some big marketing pluses for christianity are these:

a)It is free
b)It is without prejudice as to salvation -- anyone may be saved
c)It provides a strong, positive moral framework -- honesty, integrity, perseverance, kindness, etc.
d)Some "feel better/happier/more carefree" walking with God than they did before knowing Him... and the communication of this -- also seeing it in people -- has led some to Christ.
e)It provides defense against hell.. the possibility of going to hell.

All of it is based on faith. IF you don't believe in hell, then you won't be afraid of it and move toward God for that reason. If you don't believe that Jesus was righteous, you will not want to follow his ways. etc.

Got to go now. Thanks for the thoughtful questions. I hope I helped a little bit.

I have two questions.

1. What makes you believe in God despite a total lack of objective evidence concerning his existence and the fact that such a belief is irrational? And what makes believing in the Christian God any different than believing in Zeus or Thor? Or unicorns and fairies?

2. What makes you feel the Bible is true, when there are a great many other religious texts also claiming to be true?
I entirely agree with you that there is no evidence that God exists. I believe in God because of hope. Since I believe that God should exist, and since I am an optimist, I believe that God does exist. This is not quite the same as believing that one owns an expensive red sportscar because one wants to own one. I honestly feel a need for God to exist. I really don't care how pathetic that is. Why the Christian God? I like the idea of salvation through the undeserved sacrifice of the Lord. I believe in the Bible because I believe in Christianity.

An Archy stated that he or she believes the bible is always correct, in common withmany misguided people who call themselves Christians. I want to know which bit is correct, the bit that says those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death or the bit that says thou shalt not kill. It's quite simple really.

So which other bits of the Bible can you pick and choose to believe or not believe?

Thou Shalt Not Kill is pretty straightforward to my view. Either it is all the word of God or it isn't. If it isn't how do you know which bits are and which bits aren't? Do you decide which bits to believe? Can I decide? I quite like the water into wine bit, and that samaritan seems a sound bloke, but I draw the line at the virgin birth.

Au Contaire Monsieur

Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt not kill.

King James or American Standard Version bibles. I don't have any others handy to check, but I'm sure the Internet can help.

I presume by your questioning of the validity of my argument that you consider it acceptable to kill people for working on a Sunday.
See my previous post on the author of Exodus. It definitly shows that the two were considered different. I don't think it's o.k. to kill someone for working on Sunday. The Sabbath is Saturday. Duh! :D
Honestly though, that is a difference between the New Covenent and the Old Covenen.

Exodus 20:13, despite what you may have read in your immediate translation, is best translated "Thou Shalt Not Murder," which carries a different connotation than "Kill." To murder is to take the life of a human being who has done no wrong, and presents no immediate threat to another person or society, where as killing includes in its definition capital punishment, war, and self-defense.

I have two questions.

1. What makes you believe in God despite a total lack of objective evidence concerning his existence and the fact that such a belief is irrational? And what makes believing in the Christian God any different than believing in Zeus or Thor? Or unicorns and fairies?

2. What makes you feel the Bible is true, when there are a great many other religious texts also claiming to be true?

I'll take a stab at this. If I don't believe in God (actually the demons and devil believe in God but that's another story) and I'm wrong, I'm up the spiritual creek without a paddle. If I don't believe in unicorns and I'm wrong, sin't much repurcussion. As far as the Bible being true or not, there are many denominations that are arguing that very same point. Bottom line is you are asking for proof of something that is accepted on faith and can't be proven (however many of the scientists and mathematician are beginning to admit there is a supreme power with their intellignt design theories). I find it odd that you are having such a hard time believing in God but I'm assuming you believe that we got here by sludge evolving - yet there is no proof of that either.

See my previous post on the author of Exodus. It definitly shows that the two were considered different.

And I'll refer you to my last post.

So which other bits of the Bible can you pick and choose to believe or not believe?

Thou Shalt Not Kill is pretty straightforward to my view. Either it is all the word of God or it isn't. If it isn't how do you know which bits are and which bits aren't? Do you decide which bits to believe? Can I decide? I quite like the water into wine bit, and that samaritan seems a sound bloke, but I draw the line at the virgin birth.
I'm a Roman Catholic, so I just go with the Church's interpretation of the Bible.

Which bit of the bible is correct when it is self contradictory, as for example Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death versus Thou shalt not kill.

The Bible correctly states the law as it was during the Old Testament times in Israel. The law was that if one worked on the Sabbath, they were to be executed. Unlike Israel, the church is not a nation. Therefore, it does not have a set of laws with crimes and punishments. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean that it is God's law. As Christians we believe the Bible is accurate. That was the law back then.

Exodus 20:13, despite what you may have read in your immediate translation, is best translated "Thou Shalt Not Murder," which carries a different connotation than "Kill." To murder is to take the life of a human being who has done no wrong, and presents no immediate threat to another person or society, where as killing includes in its definition capital punishment, war, and self-defense.

So your argument against an obvious contradiction in the Bible is to move the goal posts and say that the translator of the Bible got it wrong, and that it is acceptable to kill people for working weekends. My wife's a nurse, I must increase her life insurance.

So your argument against an obvious contradiction in the Bible is to move the goal posts and say that the translator of the Bible got it wrong, and that it is acceptable to kill people for working weekends. My wife's a nurse, I must increase her life insurance.

I don't see the contradiction.

So your argument against an obvious contradiction in the Bible is to move the goal posts and say that the translator of the Bible got it wrong, and that it is acceptable to kill people for working weekends. My wife's a nurse, I must increase her life insurance.

Probably a good idea to increase the life insurance anyway. One of the last few ways to get tax-free dollars in the U.S.

I'm a Roman Catholic, so I just go with the Church's interpretation of the Bible.

You don't think I'll let you get away with that do you?

You started this thread calling for questions about your christian beliefs, and went on to say I don't pretend to represent all Roman Catholics either and yet when the going gets tough you plainly do not think for yourself, and hide behind a facile statement like that.

I don't see the contradiction.

OK. I'll spell it out.

My copy of the Bible says "thou shalt not kill"

My copy of the Bible says working on the sabbath carries a death sentence.

You then say "ah but they didn't mean Thou shalt not kill, they meant Thou shalt not Murder".

To which I say, "My copy of the Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill" and any attempt by you to change the wording is a transparent attempt to evade a clear and obvious contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction.

The contradiction was dismissed as a matter of semantics, apparently; the issue here is that it still means working on the Sabbath is punishable by death (which by the above definition appearsidentical tomurder, but with the say-so of the councilor whoever making it okay).

Probably a good idea to increase the life insurance anyway. One of the last few ways to get tax-free dollars in the U.S.

Fine in theory but for two major problems.

Firstly We live in the UK and Secondly we live in the UK.

Now I know TECHNICALLY that's only one problem, but I thought it was such a biggy it was worth mentioning twice :D

Fine in theory but for two major problems.

Firstly We live in the UK and Secondly we live in the UK.

Now I know TECHNICALLY that's only one problem, but I thought it was such a biggy it was worth mentioning twice :D

Which is why I'm nw going to bed as it's 12.40am and I have to be at work tomorrow, well today now.

So your argument against an obvious contradiction in the Bible is to move the goal posts and say that the translator of the Bible got it wrong, and that it is acceptable to kill people for working weekends. My wife's a nurse, I must increase her life insurance.
My two part argument is that it is an error in translation and that stoning for working on the Sabbath is part of the Isreal's (not necessarily perfect) interpretation of the Old Covenent.
Also, I said that I do not pretend to represent all Roman Catholics, not that I do not hold the same beliefs as many Roman Catholics. I follow official Roman Catholic teaching because I like the claim that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. These are my personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic. My statement at the beggining was meant to emphasize the fact that none of my beliefs can necessarily be applied to all Christians or Roman Catholics. When I envoked my Roman Catholicism to explain my belief concerning the interpretation of the Bible I was reffering to official Roman Catholic Church teaching. It was a bad choice in wording by me. I should have began: Since I believe in the official Roman Catholic Church doctrine...

My two part argument is that it is an error in translation and that stoning for working on the Sabbath is part of the Isreal's (not necessarily perfect) interpretation of the Old Covenent.

Exactly how much of the Bible is "not necessarily perfect"?

I'll take a stab at this. If I don't believe in God (actually the demons and devil believe in God but that's another story) and I'm wrong, I'm up the spiritual creek without a paddle. If I don't believe in unicorns and I'm wrong, sin't much repurcussion. As far as the Bible being true or not, there are many denominations that are arguing that very same point. Bottom line is you are asking for proof of something that is accepted on faith and can't be proven (however many of the scientists and mathematician are beginning to admit there is a supreme power with their intellignt design theories). I find it odd that you are having such a hard time believing in God but I'm assuming you believe that we got here by sludge evolving - yet there is no proof of that either.

I'm about done with this since my questions were answered, but I'd like to say a few more things.

Firstly, the vast, vast majority of 'scientists and mathematicians' that promote intelligent design are pseudoscientists like Kent Hovind who got their credentials from diploma mills. I'm not saying that the existence of a god is impossible, but I don't like it when people try to portray the science world as slowly realizing the 'truth' of intelligent design or something.

And don't assume things about other people on the internet. I don't believe we got here by 'sludge' evolving, nor do I know anyone who does. It is a scientific fact that organisms can evolve, but you're right that there's no evidence for abiogenesis (which is what I think you're trying to describe--life coming from nonlife). However, experiments with materials believed to have been in the primordial earth's composition have proven that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can be generated from nonlife via electric charge. The hypothesis is that a lightning strike could have created simple proteins in the primordial seas of earth, which then grew into more complex organisms. I don't believe that, but I'm interested in seeing how things turn out with that line of thought.

No offense, but I find the idea of gods a little silly. Theism doesn't have a very good track record; people created religion to explain natural phenomena, and as we come to explain those phenomena through scientific observation and establish that they are natural processes, the gods fade away. I think religion can provide hope and other positive things for people, but it's not for me.

[QUOTE=Frangland]
Probably some big marketing pluses for christianity are these:

a)It is free
b)It is without prejudice as to salvation -- anyone may be saved
c)It provides a strong, positive moral framework -- honesty, integrity, perseverance, kindness, etc.
d)Some "feel better/happier/more carefree" walking with God than they did before knowing Him... and the communication of this -- also seeing it in people -- has led some to Christ.
e)It provides defense against hell.. the possibility of going to hell.
[QUOTE]

I don't mean to be a bone of contention, but I've had this question for a while: how is (b) - that fact that anyone may be saved - rectified with the dogma I've heard so often that those who have not heard of Christ (say, the ancient Chinese) or die unbaptized (i.e. innocent babies) are damned automatically?

Exactly how much of the Bible is "not necessarily perfect"?
I said that Isreal's interpretation of the Old Covenent was "not necessarily perfect." The Bible perfectly portrayed this imperfection.

Probably some big marketing pluses for christianity are these:

a)It is free
b)It is without prejudice as to salvation -- anyone may be saved
c)It provides a strong, positive moral framework -- honesty, integrity, perseverance, kindness, etc.
d)Some "feel better/happier/more carefree" walking with God than they did before knowing Him... and the communication of this -- also seeing it in people -- has led some to Christ.
e)It provides defense against hell.. the possibility of going to hell.


I don't mean to be a bone of contention, but I've had this question for a while: how is (b) - that fact that anyone may be saved - rectified with the dogma I've heard so often that those who have not heard of Christ (say, the ancient Chinese) or die unbaptized (i.e. innocent babies) are damned automatically?
I simply do not believe that nonbelievers go to Hell.

I simply do not believe that nonbelievers go to Hell.

Actually, acceptance of God's love, grace, etc., is the [i]only[/] condition for entry, and precludes nonbelief. A popular stance is that you have a chance to decide when/just after you die.

So your argument against an obvious contradiction in the Bible is to move the goal posts and say that the translator of the Bible got it wrong, and that it is acceptable to kill people for working weekends. My wife's a nurse, I must increase her life insurance.

I'm gonna hop in here and present this from the Protestant viewpoint. No offense to my Catholic brother. Also, I don't claim to be representing all Protestants, but this is the view I've heard the most and researched for myself.

It is wrong to murder. That is what the correct translation from the Hebrew and Greek versions is. However, the verse to which you're referring has several problems, not with the verse but with people's interpretations and a lack of exogesis, or studying the Bible in context.

The Mosaic law was given to Israel with two purposes. The first was as a law that they had to keep. However, provisions were provided for those who broke the law (sacrifice of animals, as the shedding of blood is for remission of sins, as Romans says). The second purpose of the law was to show that no one is perfect. Mosaic law is so stringent that it is impossible to keep. The second part of this purpose is that sacrifice was the "way out," so to speak. If you broke a law, a certain sacrifice was required for the cleansing of that sin. Therefore, the law's second purpose is to point the way to the coming Messiah, who would not merely keep the law, but would fulfill the law. Orthodox Jews still look for the Messiah today.

However, the belief of Christianity is that the Jewish Messiah has already come. That story can be found in the Gospels (I would especially recommend John). Several things Jesus said, though, stand out for this argument in particular. First, in Matthew 12, Jesus' disciples were hungry and began to pick food to eat. It was the Sabbath. The Pharisees (religious leaders) got angry and came to Jesus. He rebuked them and said that (1) David is an empirical example of breaking the Sabbath lawfully, (2) the priests can profane the Sabbath in the temple and be blameless, (3) There is one greater than the Sabbath (Jesus is referring to Himself), (4) Jesus desires mercy over sacrifice, and (5) the Son of Man (Jesus) is Lord of the Sabbath. Later, he adds (6) that it is acceptable to do good on the Sabbath (that would answer you're "My wife's a nurse" argument.

Another argument is found in Mark 2:27-28. Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Sone of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." The verses are self-explanatory, but if you want more, just ask. I have to study for finals now, so if you need more, I'll be back on later.

Please explain how you come to terms with this;

Humans have free will
Humans (including christians) sin, even after forgiveness, and are incapable of living without sinning
Heaven is free from sin

Therefore
Heaven is free from humans - it is pointless being christian or obeying god
or heaven is free of free will - why must we have free will on earth?
or there is a way for humans to exist without sin - why did god make an earth for us to suffer on?


Philippians 1:6
And I am sure that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on that day when Christ Jesus comes back again.

My understanding is that when Jesus comes again, we shall all be changed.. in the twinkling of an eye, to be perfect just as He is perfect. Perfect the way Adam and Eve were created perfect. We shall still have freewill just as Adam and Eve had freewill. how will we not sin in Heaven? we will not sin in Heaven because by that time we will have lived on earth and seen what it was like when there was sin. and this proof, of what a planet could be like if it had sin in it, would certainly deter us from sinning ever again. the saved humans who go to heaven in the end times would be so grateful for having been saved, and seen how just and kind God is, that they would not want to sin anymore. it is said that humans are incapable of living without sin.. .in the context of the present life they live on earth... but it will not be so when the end of the world comes and Jesus finishes His work on us and we enter Heaven with Him.
God did not create an earth just for us to suffer on. He created an Earth for us to live in, so that He could commune and mingle with us. True love sets us free, it is said. and so, for there to be true love between us and God, there had to be freewill given to Adam and Eve, the first humans ever created. They sinned because they were deceived by Satan, and did not realise the terrible consequences of their sin. Now, though, we KNOW the consequences of sin, and so when Jesus returns to Earth and creates it anew, we will have the chance to 'try again' and live on the beautiful Earth God created for us in the first place.. and this time we can enjoy it fully without sin, because by then (even now) we will know the terrible conseuqnces of sin, and will then not want to sin anymore, and Earth will indeed be the Paradise it was meant to be in the first place.

did i lose anyone in that speel above? ;)

Free Will is the ability to make choices (in this case concerning good and evil), but is limited by our natural limitations as Humans in this life. In the next life, if we are good, we will desire to do good. Being in Heaven, we will have a perfect image of good and will, therefore, always be able to do good. There is suffering in the world because it is good for us to be able to effect each others' happiness. Although evil people negatively effect their acquaintances' happiness, it is necessary for us to be able to effect each others' happiness in order that there may be community. We do not have the perfect image of good because it is impossible to separate the knowledge of perfect goodness from the bliss that comes with it. Evil, people, of course, do not deserve this bliss.

Well, this sounds pretty much like GOOD vs EVIL (TATATATA *loud drums*)
And "If you're not with us, you're against us." is a pretty fanatic statement.

I think that you can't part the two up in this way there is no way.
Maybe you should read Faust.



I simply do not believe that nonbelievers go to Hell.


So you set your mind higher than the bible? You're probably not such a true christian... sounds reasonable to me:>


Probably some big marketing pluses for christianity are these:

a)It is free
b)It is without prejudice as to salvation -- anyone may be saved
c)It provides a strong, positive moral framework -- honesty, integrity, perseverance, kindness, etc.
d)Some "feel better/happier/more carefree" walking with God than they did before knowing Him... and the communication of this -- also seeing it in people -- has led some to Christ.
e)It provides defense against hell.. the possibility of going to hell.


This was already brought up by South Park (I agree to this) ;)

What's with all the "Ask me stuff - I'm a christian" threads on NS? Is this a loophole so that you can prosthelytise without appearing to do so?

I think if you have the self-importance to think you can explain your faith on behalf of all christians, you'd better be Jesus himself. Or at least John Safran. If people want to know, they'll ask. And with the glut of "Ask a Christian" threads at the moment, there's no desperate shortage of conflicting information.

I only answer questions about my beliefs if asked, or if they have an immediate bearing on my perspective on other issues. I would really appreciate if people of other faiths did the same.

What's with all the "Ask me stuff - I'm a christian" threads on NS? Is this a loophole so that you can prosthelytise without appearing to do so?

I think if you have the self-importance to think you can explain your faith on behalf of all christians, you'd better be Jesus himself. Or at least John Safran. If people want to know, they'll ask. And with the glut of "Ask a Christian" threads at the moment, there's no desperate shortage of conflicting information.

I only answer questions about my beliefs if asked, or if they have an immediate bearing on my perspective on other issues. I would really appreciate if people of other faiths did the same.

As to your first question about being able to proselytize someone, if my posts cause someone to consider becoming a Christian then yes I am proselytizing. I don't need a loophole. Last time I checked, it wasn't mandatory to come to this thread.

Re: your second point, I can explain my faith because it's mine. I don't have all the answers, I don't pretend to be Jesus, and from what I know about him, John Safron has some personal issues that he needs to deal with.

Per your third point, seems to me that there were quite a few questions being asked about different peoples beliefs. If you don't want to discuss your beliefs that's your choice. Why do you feel the need to try and silence others?

As to your first question about being able to proselytize someone, if my posts cause someone to consider becoming a Christian then yes I am proselytizing. I don't need a loophole. Last time I checked, it wasn't mandatory to come to this thread.

Re: your second point, I can explain my faith because it's mine. I don't have all the answers, I don't pretend to be Jesus, and from what I know about him, John Safron has some personal issues that he needs to deal with.

Per your third point, seems to me that there were quite a few questions being asked about different peoples beliefs. If you don't want to discuss your beliefs that's your choice. Why do you feel the need to try and silence others?
Hi Urubu. My comment was to An archy, but thanks for your two cents. It's not mandatory to read this thread, agreed. Don't you think you would be better to contribute to the already existent "Ask me - I'm a Christian" threads instead of opening another? Also, I find An archy's first, deceptive entry rather grating. I'm quite happy to ask questions about things I'm curious about, and if someone has questions about Christianity that pique my interest, I'm more than willing to learn from their answers. I find those who start threads to elicit attention for themselves are purely self-serving, for their own self-esteem needs, rather than for their faith or any semblance of mature debate. If the thread is motivated by that person's need to feel appreciated, rather than the subject of beliefs or the like, then that person should probably examine why they need other people's acknowledgement of their faith, rather than using the guise of belief to fulfil a personal need. Such behaviour I think trivialises genuine discussion. I don't mean to silence anyone. I'm quite open to other beliefs, and I respect your right to be a Christian. I have, however, very little respect for self-advertisement masquerading as religious discussion, and I think An archy's first entry is such.

Actually, acceptance of God's love, grace, etc., is the [i]only[/] condition for entry, and precludes nonbelief. A popular stance is that you have a chance to decide when/just after you die.
Well yes of course you have to be willing to accept God's grace and therefore must believe at least after you die. I only meant that those who do not express belief in this life will not be doomed to eternity in Hell.

What's with all the "Ask me stuff - I'm a christian" threads on NS? Is this a loophole so that you can prosthelytise without appearing to do so?

I think if you have the self-importance to think you can explain your faith on behalf of all christians, you'd better be Jesus himself. Or at least John Safran. If people want to know, they'll ask. And with the glut of "Ask a Christian" threads at the moment, there's no desperate shortage of conflicting information.

I only answer questions about my beliefs if asked, or if they have an immediate bearing on my perspective on other issues. I would really appreciate if people of other faiths did the same.
As I said in my first post, I don't pretend to represent all Christians. Also, I felt the need to explain my beliefs because I felt that many of the Christians on this forum, the ones who draw the most attention to themselves, have beliefs so different from my own that I really want to emphasize my perspective on Christianity.

As I have said before, I am no longer Libertarian economically. The difference between Christianity and political authoritarianism, however, is that (according to my personal Christian beliefs) noone should be forced, in any way, to live a Christian life. Anyone who does, does so out of their own free will.

Authoritarian governments do not forbid people from oppositional views, they just punish them severely if they do. God doesn't forbid people from oppositional views, it just punishes people severly for them.

Enforcing views and lifestyle through fear of great punishment is authoritarian.