NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a serious question. I cannot understand how so many can claim to be Christian...and then act in such an un-Christian manner to so many people, particularly, people in certain hated groups.

And how can they do this...and then act astounded when christianity acquires a bad name, and how can they claim to feel so "persecuted" when they are among some of the most avid persecutors on the planet?

To set the stage for this, know that I am a Unitarian Christian. I truly believe that I do have Jesus and God in my HEART. No, i'm not perfect, I'm human, and I screw up, just like everyone else does. But the point is, I don't WANT to screew up, and I'm genuinely remorseful when I do screw up and fall short. the difference is...there are some things evangelicals and fundamentalists feel falls under the definition of "falling short" that I don't feel falls under that definition.

I have made this thread in order to ask some very specific, pointed questions...and my apologies if anyone takes personal offense. It isn't my inetion to offend anyone, though I'm sure that the sharp tone...and nature of some of my questions...are sure to offend some people. So be it. I cannot control how someone reacts to my words...and my legitimate questions. Know only that I have entered into this with no malicious intent...but rather, an intent to understand exactly what drives and motivates these people, because they are so alien to me, as to be beyond my comprehension.

First...why does there seem, among evangelicals...to be a "heirarchy" of sin...that some sins are worse than others? Particularly, in my experience, evangelicals seem to classify VISIBLE sin as far worse than sin that isn't visible, and thus, can be ignored or swept under the rug?

The Bible I have read indicates that there is no "worse" sins...that all sins are equally bad, and all sins separate us from God. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God," does not the Bible contain these very words?

This leads to my second question. Why are the fundamentals and evangelicals so all-fired up about my supposed "sins" and yet, seem to have no concern over their own? "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye," admonishes the Bible. Yet, the evangelicals and fundamentalists seem determined to worry more about the speck in my eye.

Do they truly believe themselves to be, in some way, BETTER than the rest of us? If so, they are guilty of the sin of pridefulness...the very sin for which Moses was denied Paradise.

Why do they so concern themselves with the sins of others? God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of others...He will not punish YOU if you fail to keep ME from sinnning. Yes, in the Old Testment, the entire house was held accountable for the sins of the one, this is true....but we no longer are bound, as Christians, by the Old Testament. Jesus blood was the New Covenant. He gave us the New Testament, because we had proven ourselves unable to live up to the standards of the Old Testament, and we had proven ourselves incapable of our own salvation.

Thus it was that God, for the only time ever...asked someone to take accountability for sins not his own. for that very purpose, God sent His only son, Jesus...with the express purpose that He pay the price for our sins. His doing so removed the need for anyone, ever agian, to have to take accountability for any sins not their very own. So why are fundamentalists and evangelicals all worked up over the sins...or so-called sins...of others?

And, in seeking to bring people to God and to Jesus...why do these people resort to a message almost guaranteed to drive people away...rather than bring them in? I mean...would you be more insipred to follow a God who showed patience, love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy and joy...or one who is wrathful, vengeful, and angry...full of fire and brimstone and damnation? One who is full of threats?

I don't know about most people, but I know threats sure turn ME off! It's almost as if they come to us with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, and then expect us to somehow embrace their God, and give up on all hopes of peace, joy, love, tolerance, mercy...and commit ourselves to a lifetime of walking on eggshells. I just don't get it.

Fortunately for me...God HIMSELF showed me as much of the nature of God as I am capable of accepting, as a human being. I asked...and I was shown. So call me Doubting Thomas. But, nevertheless, it is because I was shown...that I came around to faith in God. I have my own personal relationship with God and with Jesus...and no man....nor any man's church nor dogma...will ever insinuate itself into that relationship.

I just totally do not understand how so many so-called Christians can proclaim Christianity....and then turn around and act in such an un-Christian manner towards their fellow man. I do not recall the Bible ever telling mankind that they should exact punishment from "sinners" in His name! That is to be left up to God and Jesus.

The only conclusion I can come to is that many so-called Christians have God and Jesus in their HEAD....but not in their HEART. And, I believe that, when the final Judgement comes...many are going to be completely surprised by the verdict that comes down in their case!

This is all assuming they follow YOUR view of God. Their understanding of what God is and what he expects is what prompts their actions, and what justifies their views. You can't prove THEIR folly with YOUR God, it doesn't work that way.

As for the comment about whether fire and brimstone style stuff drives people away, you forget that hatred has been the most powerful means of bringing people together since the dawn of time. I would bet that 80% of conversions to Christianity were done via hate.

Let me preface this with a little background of my own. I was raised an evangelical christian, and remained one until about ten years ago. Now I would describe myself as one the fence between atheism and agnosticism, but with a deep and abiding love for the teachings of Jesus--yes, it is possible to love and accept what Jesus stood for without accepting his divinity.

I think the things you describe, Lyric, can be traced back to a flawed understanding of grace. It has been a tenet of many Protestant churches for hundreds of years that financial success, wealth, was a sign of god's approval of your life style. I don't know where it came from, because Jesus was always more of a "store up treasures in heaven" and "sell all you have and give it to the poor and continue following me" kind of guy, but somewhere, somehow, at least 300 years ago, it crept into Protestant teaching, because the Puritans brought it to America with them.

Now consider--generally speaking, to become wealthy, you have to be either 1) dishonest, 2) so ambitious that you ignore family and church, or 3) lucky. Notice I'm leaving out inherited wealth, and that I used the conditional word "generally." Surely, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking loosely here.

Now of those three conditions, two are certainly at odds with the life of a godly person, because they're based in greed. Obviously not every rich christian isn't just lucky, but if you're a publicly christian person, you can't admit to being overly ambitious or dishonest, so it's easier to say you've been blessed, even though there's no scriptural backup for it.

But this becomes a vicious cycle--in order to prove that you're blessed, you have to be financially successful, even if it means breaking a few commandments along the way or that you only show up at church once a year for show.

Even if you're not financially successful, though, this root cause can still have an effect on a church. Can't compete financially? Prove you're the better christian by being a public moralist. Proclaim your faith to the rafters publicly, even though Jesus told you to pray privately. Make as ostentatious a show as possible to prove to everyone that you're the best christian in the congregation.

And soon what happens is that a congregation ceases to be a place of worship and becomes a jousting pit, filled with people who are each trying to prove their superior christianity.

Now of course, this isn't the case for all churches, not even for all evangelical churches, but it does happen, and guess what--the very nature of these churches is such that you're going to be more likely to see their actions because they have to make a big show in order to prove their holiness.

In the end, it comes to this--one of the qualities Jesus valued most was modesty. If a group is making a big deal of their holiness, you can bet they're putting on a show for the neighbors, because if they were really acting spiritually, they'd believe that God knew what they were up to, and they wouldn't feel the need to show off.

I dunno why that is...a lot of people miss the point of a lot of things, I guess.

Let me preface this with a little background of my own. I was raised an evangelical christian, and remained one until about ten years ago. Now I would describe myself as one the fence between atheism and agnosticism, but with a deep and abiding love for the teachings of Jesus--yes, it is possible to love and accept what Jesus stood for without accepting his divinity.

I think the things you describe, Lyric, can be traced back to a flawed understanding of grace. It has been a tenet of many Protestant churches for hundreds of years that financial success, wealth, was a sign of god's approval of your life style. I don't know where it came from, because Jesus was always more of a "store up treasures in heaven" and "sell all you have and give it to the poor and continue following me" kind of guy, but somewhere, somehow, at least 300 years ago, it crept into Protestant teaching, because the Puritans brought it to America with them.

Now consider--generally speaking, to become wealthy, you have to be either 1) dishonest, 2) so ambitious that you ignore family and church, or 3) lucky. Notice I'm leaving out inherited wealth, and that I used the conditional word "generally." Surely, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking loosely here.

Now of those three conditions, two are certainly at odds with the life of a godly person, because they're based in greed. Obviously not every rich christian isn't just lucky, but if you're a publicly christian person, you can't admit to being overly ambitious or dishonest, so it's easier to say you've been blessed, even though there's no scriptural backup for it.

But this becomes a vicious cycle--in order to prove that you're blessed, you have to be financially successful, even if it means breaking a few commandments along the way or that you only show up at church once a year for show.

Even if you're not financially successful, though, this root cause can still have an effect on a church. Can't compete financially? Prove you're the better christian by being a public moralist. Proclaim your faith to the rafters publicly, even though Jesus told you to pray privately. Make as ostentatious a show as possible to prove to everyone that you're the best christian in the congregation.

And soon what happens is that a congregation ceases to be a place of worship and becomes a jousting pit, filled with people who are each trying to prove their superior christianity.

Now of course, this isn't the case for all churches, not even for all evangelical churches, but it does happen, and guess what--the very nature of these churches is such that you're going to be more likely to see their actions because they have to make a big show in order to prove their holiness.

In the end, it comes to this--one of the qualities Jesus valued most was modesty. If a group is making a big deal of their holiness, you can bet they're putting on a show for the neighbors, because if they were really acting spiritually, they'd believe that God knew what they were up to, and they wouldn't feel the need to show off.


You have touched on PRECISELY WHY I'm a Unitarian Christian, and choose to do my worship in a Unitarian...rather than a Christian church. I find all the demonstrative bullshit to be hypocritical, stupid...and designed to show off for other men. I do not feel the need to show off for others. God knows full well what is in my heart.

The problem with many fundamentalists (which I consider myself to be) and evangelicals, is that they were raised in a Christian home. They have known God for as far back as their memory’s go. They don’t truly know life without Him, so they take Him for granted and make Him out to be who they say He is, not who He says He is. I am one of those people who has no memory of life without God, and I try to be very careful not to be arrogant about my faith, and understand that something I have always simply known, others can not comprehend until He reveals Himself to them.

I have no doubt that those Christians who become hateful will be in heaven. All who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savoir go to be with Him in Heaven. That can not be taken away, but there, they will be ashamed of their actions before God.

This is all assuming they follow YOUR view of God. Their understanding of what God is and what he expects is what prompts their actions, and what justifies their views. You can't prove THEIR folly with YOUR God, it doesn't work that way.

As for the comment about whether fire and brimstone style stuff drives people away, you forget that hatred has been the most powerful means of bringing people together since the dawn of time. I would bet that 80% of conversions to Christianity were done via hate.

you make a valid point here...one which I failed to consider...and I failed to consider it BECAUSE it is such an alien concept to me...but, historically speaking, you're quite correct that hatred...and feeding the fires of hatred HAS brought many people together.

Again, that is an alien concept to me. Though I DO freely admit that I DO hold hate in my heart for people like that...generally, hatred towards another group of people, turns me off. I wish I didn't have this shortcoming in myself...but my anger towards people like this leads to the hate that I know I feel...and is a shortcoming I need to overcome.

Which reminds me of an old Tom Lehrer quote, from "National Brotherhood Week:" We should all love one another...and I know there are people out there who do not love their fellow human beings and I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!!
Ok, now that was MEANT to be funny when Lehrer said it...but the is a certain element of truth in it for me...as paradoxical as it sounds, I really DO hate people like that! and that, as I said...is a shortcoming I must work to overcome. But how to not let my anger metastasize into hatred??

First...why does there seem, among evangelicals...to be a "heirarchy" of sin...that some sins are worse than others? Particularly, in my experience, evangelicals seem to classify VISIBLE sin as far worse than sin that isn't visible, and thus, can be ignored or swept under the rug?

The Bible I have read indicates that there is no "worse" sins...that all sins are equally bad, and all sins separate us from God. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God," does not the Bible contain these very words?
There is a hierarchy of sins. Jesus set a hierarchy of commands to follow ("Love God with all your mind, heart and soul first, then love other people"), so there is also a hierarchy of sins. All sins will land us in Hell, but there are also worse sins than others. Many crimes will land you in jail, but there is also a term to it.


This leads to my second question. Why are the fundamentals and evangelicals so all-fired up about my supposed "sins" and yet, seem to have no concern over their own? "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye," admonishes the Bible. Yet, the evangelicals and fundamentalists seem determined to worry more about the speck in my eye.
Yes, but nobody can be sinless for any prolonged period. Does it mean that nobody can teach anybody anything? That's more individualist and individualism today.

Do they truly believe themselves to be, in some way, BETTER than the rest of us? If so, they are guilty of the sin of pridefulness...the very sin for which Moses was denied Paradise.
No. The point of a church is so that Christians can advice each other, not to compete to become "the best".

Why do they so concern themselves with the sins of others? God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of others...He will not punish YOU if you fail to keep ME from sinnning. Yes, in the Old Testment, the entire house was held accountable for the sins of the one, this is true....but we no longer are bound, as Christians, by the Old Testament. Jesus blood was the New Covenant. He gave us the New Testament, because we had proven ourselves unable to live up to the standards of the Old Testament, and we had proven ourselves incapable of our own salvation.

Thus it was that God, for the only time ever...asked someone to take accountability for sins not his own. for that very purpose, God sent His only son, Jesus...with the express purpose that He pay the price for our sins. His doing so removed the need for anyone, ever agian, to have to take accountability for any sins not their very own. So why are fundamentalists and evangelicals all worked up over the sins...or so-called sins...of others?
Because of love. If I love somebody, I would hate to see them sin (according to God's Words) and ultimately experience the wrath of God. Therefore I feel obliged to advice those people. Whether they take the advice is a different matter, of course. I can't force them to.

And, in seeking to bring people to God and to Jesus...why do these people resort to a message almost guaranteed to drive people away...rather than bring them in? I mean...would you be more insipred to follow a God who showed patience, love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy and joy...or one who is wrathful, vengeful, and angry...full of fire and brimstone and damnation? One who is full of threats?

I don't know about most people, but I know threats sure turn ME off! It's almost as if they come to us with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, and then expect us to somehow embrace their God, and give up on all hopes of peace, joy, love, tolerance, mercy...and commit ourselves to a lifetime of walking on eggshells. I just don't get it.

The threat is a reality. If you sin, you quit your relationship with God and will ultimately arrive in Hell. HOWEVER, the good news is that God has come down Himself to rescue you. Everybody is under threat of ending up in Hell, but everybody also has the chance to go to Heaven.

Fortunately for me...God HIMSELF showed me as much of the nature of God as I am capable of accepting, as a human being. I asked...and I was shown. So call me Doubting Thomas. But, nevertheless, it is because I was shown...that I came around to faith in God. I have my own personal relationship with God and with Jesus...and no man....nor any man's church nor dogma...will ever insinuate itself into that relationship.

I just totally do not understand how so many so-called Christians can proclaim Christianity....and then turn around and act in such an un-Christian manner towards their fellow man. I do not recall the Bible ever telling mankind that they should exact punishment from "sinners" in His name! That is to be left up to God and Jesus.

The only conclusion I can come to is that many so-called Christians have God and Jesus in their HEAD....but not in their HEART. And, I believe that, when the final Judgement comes...many are going to be completely surprised by the verdict that comes down in their case!
It is truly difficult to put God in the first place, but life is all about trying, and God knows when you're trying.

The problem with many fundamentalists (which I consider myself to be) and evangelicals, is that they were raised in a Christian home. They have known God for as far back as their memory’s go. They don’t truly know life without Him, so they take Him for granted and make Him out to be who they say He is, not who He says He is. I am one of those people who has no memory of life without God, and I try to be very careful not to be arrogant about my faith, and understand that something I have always simply known, others can not comprehend until He reveals Himself to them.

I have no doubt that those Christians who become hateful will be in heaven. All who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savoir go to be with Him in Heaven. That can not be taken away, but there, they will be ashamed of their actions before God.
Wow. I am amazed here. If only other Christians were like you, the world would be so much better. If in the future, you hear me rant about how I hate evangelicals and fundamentalists (of all religions) include yourself out! :D

The problem with many fundamentalists (which I consider myself to be) and evangelicals, is that they were raised in a Christian home. They have known God for as far back as their memory’s go. They don’t truly know life without Him, so they take Him for granted and make Him out to be who they say He is, not who He says He is. I am one of those people who has no memory of life without God, and I try to be very careful not to be arrogant about my faith, and understand that something I have always simply known, others can not comprehend until He reveals Himself to them.

I have no doubt that those Christians who become hateful will be in heaven. All who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savoir go to be with Him in Heaven. That can not be taken away, but there, they will be ashamed of their actions before God.

See, this is where I differ. Because those who become hateful seem to REVEL in their hatefulness...and thus, it would seem...they have turned away from God...and Jesus. Certainly, they have turned away from the TEACHINGS of Jesus. I admit to my share of hatefulness, too...but I also recognize it as a shortcoming I wish to overcome. My problem is not knowing how to not let my anger metastasize into hatred! It is very, very difficult to not hate the things that anger you. That said...I second the comment made by ??? about counting yourself out when I'm speaking of fundamentalists and evangelicals, because at least you seem a little different from most of them (at least in my experience) as most of them HAVE seemed very arrogant and self-righteous.

You have touched on PRECISELY WHY I'm a Unitarian Christian, and choose to do my worship in a Unitarian...rather than a Christian church. I find all the demonstrative bullshit to be hypocritical, stupid...and designed to show off for other men. I do not feel the need to show off for others. God knows full well what is in my heart.
And that's the problem with so many evangelical groups today--whether protestant or catholic--they seem to think that there's a benefit to showing off how holy they are. There are posters on this forum who are like that--and no, I'm not going to name anyone and neither should anyone else who follows this post--who twist Jesus's parable about removing the rafter from your own eye before removing the straw from your brother's into meaning that if you believe youself sufficiently righteous, then of course you're right to judge the actions of others. How wrong can you possibly be?

Here's the other thing--a showy display of faith feeds into one's vanity. It makes you feel better about yourself, superior to all the other sinners that surround you. But again, if you return to what Jesus taught, he said "you should not pray in the synogogues as the Pharisees do saying, 'Lord, I thank you that I am not as the rest of these sinners,'" and then the Pharisee goes on to recite this litany of good works. Jesus said "let not your left hand know what your right is doing." The ostentatious display of holiness ought to be a warning sign that a church is in deep spiritual trouble.

And if they really believed, they'd know better, because they'd believe that God knows they're full of shit and they're just in it for the pat on the back they get from the pastor, and as long as they're filling the collection plate, the pastor gives them their pats.

A lot of people think being a certain religion is all about passing on a tradition. There are so many people who say "I am baptist" or "I am catholic" but never actually go to church. They seem to think its a birthright kind of thing. Obviously God will have no impact in their life through birthright alone.

A lot of people think being a certain religion is all about passing on a tradition. There are so many people who say "I am baptist" or "I am catholic" but never actually go to church. They seem to think its a birthright kind of thing. Obviously God will have no impact in their life through birthright alone.
I can actually respect that to a certain extent because those people have no illusions about the role religion plays in their lives. It's the holier-than-thou types who presume to judge for others and who want to determine what is acceptable behavior for everyone regardless of their beliefs and do it in the name of God who piss me off to no end.

A lot of people think being a certain religion is all about passing on a tradition. There are so many people who say "I am baptist" or "I am catholic" but never actually go to church. They seem to think its a birthright kind of thing. Obviously God will have no impact in their life through birthright alone.

I go to church...but not every week...though I always take the time to remember God and to worship Him and thank Him. Part of the problem, for me is...gasoline being so expensive, and the church of my choice being so far away...it is just not economically feasible for me to go to church every week, and so I don't.

But it isn't, in my mind, about going to church. Keep holy the Sabbath, said the Lord...but He never said you had to do it in His house! Besides, I think it's more about walking the walk...rather than talking the talk!

It's a lot easier to SAY you are a Christian...than it is to actually BE and LIVE as a Christian ought.

And I will say, too, that it is very likely that God, as I understand Him....is very different from God as the evangelicals and fundamentalists understand Him. It is very likely that the God I am worshipping is not the same God they are worshipping. Becuse the God that I understand and love and worship...couldn't be more diametrically opposite the God they worship if He tried!

I try to walk what I talk...not always with success, for I am all too human, and I stumble...and I need Him to clean up my mess sometimes.

Now, I was raised Catholic, and quit the Catholics over what I perceived as the disparity between their words and their actions. I witness the same thing in many evangelicals and fundamentalists.

I can actually respect that to a certain extent because those people have no illusions about the role religion plays in their lives. It's the holier-than-thou types who presume to judge for others and who want to determine what is acceptable behavior for everyone regardless of their beliefs and do it in the name of God who piss me off to no end.

BINGO! You just got to the meat of the central issue my original post was dancing around.

You have touched on PRECISELY WHY I'm a Unitarian Christian, and choose to do my worship in a Unitarian...rather than a Christian church. I find all the demonstrative bullshit to be hypocritical, stupid...and designed to show off for other men. I do not feel the need to show off for others. God knows full well what is in my heart.

Much like today’s churches, the members of the Corinthian church were worldly in that they conducted themselves in ways that were not Christ-like. After receiving salvation, they figured they were done and had assurance that they were free to act as they pleased. They, like many of the churches today (on both sides of the conservative or liberal fence) did and do whatever they want.

There was/is unrestrained sexually immorality, a loss of the understanding for commitment as spouses, a forgetfulness of the need to be servants (for examples).

Then, like now, there were immoral brethren worshiping with them, and nobody did anything about it. In fact, the same as today, they were flaunting about it. Brothers and sisters filed lawsuits against each other. Believers caused each other to stumble. There was much jealousy and quarreling. Many people continue to have spiritual gifts, but the gifts of the spirit aren’t shinning through the darkness we hang around it and over it with our secular outlooks. Evangelicals and all Christians should do all that they can to ask the for the help they need to daily remember and live to promote love, truth, hope and to edify Jesus, to become servants to God by being servants to their families, to their Churches to their neighbors and they should be actively support the church and serve their part in being and living as the bride of Christ (the church).

Who amongst us lives as he should at home? Could you bear that the angel who visits your house should publish, before the great cloud of witnesses, all that he has seen there? In your shops, in your businesses, you professors, are you always upright and straightforward as Christians should be! You merchants on the Exchange, are not some of you, who profess to be Christians, as greedy and as overreaching as others?

I charge you, if you have any respect for Christ, lay down his name if you will not endeavor to honor it you will be lost, you covetous money-grubbers, you earth-scrapers, who live only for this world, you will be lost; you need not doubt of that, you will be lost sure enough; but why need you make the assurance of your condemnation doubly sure by the base imposture of calling yourselves Christians. Meanwhile, let the Ethiopian call himself white, if he will; let the leopard declare that he has no spots; these things shall not matter; but the falsehood of a man who lives without Christ, while calling himself a Christian, brings such dishonor upon him who was nailed to the tree, and whose religion is that of holiness, that I beseech you, by the living God, give up your profession, if you do not endeavor to make it true. If you are not living as you should, do not pretend to be what you are not. Seek ye unto God, that the life of Christ being in you, you may manifest it in your conversation.

Without Christ ye are nothing, though ye be baptised, though ye be members of churches, though ye be highly esteemed as deacons, elders, pastors. Oh, then, have Christ everywhere in all things, and constrain men to say of you, "To that man Christ is all in all: I have marked him; he has been with Jesus, he has learned of him, for he acts as Jesus did. God grant a blessing on these words, for Christ's sake. Amen.
August 20th, 1871, by
C. H. SPURGEON

But, even after all my agreement with you, you really need to be reminded that what you are doing by damning them is what you were accusing them of doing to you. Christians need to be long suffering, especially with other Christians, but all others as well.

But it isn't, in my mind, about going to church. Keep holy the Sabbath, said the Lord...but He never said you had to do it in His house!

Yes he did. When he instructed his people on how to worship him (in the Old Testament) he established the tradition of the temple. First it was the mobile temple when they were going through the desert, then Herod's temple, followed by Solomon's Temple. Judaism always focused on the temple. When they set up camp while travelling through the wilderness, the temple was always set up at the center with the entire camp facing the temple. The temple as the central meeting place has a long tradition in Judaism and Christianity.

In the New Testament you have only to look at the structure of the New Testament to see the importance that worshipping God in his house has. The New Testament is composed of 4 gospels, 1 acts, 1 book of prophecy, and 21 epistles. Examine these books and you find that the book of acts tells the story of the forming of the first church and the 21 epistles all deal with how to properly run a church. In number of words, this accounts for fully 50% of the New Testament. In number of books this accounts for 78% of the New Testament. So, depending on how you look at it, anywhere from half to 2/3 of the New Testament is dedicated to instructing churches on proper worship or instructing leaders on properly running a church.

It is very difficult to look at the bible and find any support for the idea that God approves of lone wolf Christians.

I find many Christians nowadays to be disgusting and morally reprehensible. WE've become far to lax in our standards of decency and morality. We tolerate far too much......

I find many Christians nowadays to be disgusting and morally reprehensible. WE've become far to lax in our standards of decency and morality. We tolerate far too much......I agreed with you until I got past the first sentence...then it became clear we don't find the same group of Christians "disgusting and morally reprehensable". Somehow I find it hypocritical to think you can "tolerate far too much..." when you're following the teachings of a man who was all about tolerance, understanding and forgiveness...

Personally I think the biggest problem is fire and brimstone talks in which priest talk about hell and pretty much scare people into becoming Christains

A lot of Christians out their are only Christians because they think it'll keep them out of hell when in truth they don't care

Sigh its sad that some priests aren't teaching love and peace but fire and never ending damnation

Lyric, I think you know where I may lie on all of this after our discussion a week or so ago, right? ;)

But for others, and maybe or you, Lyric, in case I need to further clarify, I feel that all sins are inherently damnable, as the entire meaning of sin is "separation from God". All sins are thus equal. Stealing candy from the convenience store separated you just as much as killing a random person on the street.

HOWEVER.

It is not my duty to damn others. I may find sinful living inherent in others but it is not my place to condemn them. "Judge not lest ye be judged." I leave that up to God. If asked about it I'll be honest and tell them what I disagree about, but I'll recognize that they too are human, and I too am a sinner, thus being as open and loving about it as possible.

I also see a major difference between fundamentalism and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists is a Protestant sect that focuses on proselytising and, when it comes down to it, extremism. Those who are fundamental in their Christian beliefs, however, (like me) are merely those who wish to adhere to God's Word and claim it as God's Truth. No condemnation to others, no Bible-bashing. Just understanding, accepting, and honoring God's Truth in his written word.

When it comes to church, LazyHippies was correct about the New Testament and its instruction to establishing proper places of worship and communion. The apostle Paul stressed that there should be both harmony and edification within the body of Christ (aka the Church). To do so, we need to be with our bretheren in worship, communion, and instruction to live better for them, ourselves, and God. Unfortunately, most churches have fallen into dissent and have forgotten what it has meant to be a body of Christians. The Church (as a whole) needs a complete revamp.

So... yeah. I still love ya, Lyric. Because Jesus loves me, so too do I try to show His love to others.

But, even after all my agreement with you, you really need to be reminded that what you are doing by damning them is what you were accusing them of doing to you. Christians need to be long suffering, especially with other Christians, but all others as well.
Even I have admitted as such, have I not? I have admitted holding hatred in my heart for those people, because they so anger me. I have also admitted holding this hatred to be a shortcoming, and expressed a desire to overcome that hatred. However, I do not know how to not allow my anger to not metastasize into hatred. It is my own human failing, and it is where I stumble...and where I need Christ's help. If only God and Jesus understood how HARD it is to not hate the people who persecute you!!

Yes he did. When he instructed his people on how to worship him (in the Old Testament) he established the tradition of the temple. First it was the mobile temple when they were going through the desert, then Herod's temple, followed by Solomon's Temple. Judaism always focused on the temple. When they set up camp while travelling through the wilderness, the temple was always set up at the center with the entire camp facing the temple. The temple as the central meeting place has a long tradition in Judaism and Christianity.

In the New Testament you have only to look at the structure of the New Testament to see the importance that worshipping God in his house has. The New Testament is composed of 4 gospels, 1 acts, 1 book of prophecy, and 21 epistles. Examine these books and you find that the book of acts tells the story of the forming of the first church and the 21 epistles all deal with how to properly run a church. In number of words, this accounts for fully 50% of the New Testament. In number of books this accounts for 78% of the New Testament. So, depending on how you look at it, anywhere from half to 2/3 of the New Testament is dedicated to instructing churches on proper worship or instructing leaders on properly running a church.

It is very difficult to look at the bible and find any support for the idea that God approves of lone wolf Christians.


Someone help me out here, I don't have my Bible in front of me...please find me the chapter and verse where it says about worshipping in your closet??

Also, about how when any number of people are together, and talking about Him, there is He present?

See, I don't feel any need to go to a specific BUILDING to worship God or Jesus. And I certainly will not allow any religion nor any church...to interpose itself into my relationship with God or Jesus. all churches were created by imperfect men...therefore, it follows that they must also all be imperfect.

I will not allow any man...any man's church....or any man's dogma...interpose itself into MY relationship with Jesus...and through Him...God.

I find many Christians nowadays to be disgusting and morally reprehensible. WE've become far to lax in our standards of decency and morality. We tolerate far too much......

Now see...therein lies the problem. You believe that we tolerate far too much. I may be reading somewhat into your words, but what I'm HEARING there is..."we tolerate far too much in OTHER PEOPLE." I don't hear enough concern for WHAT WE TOLERATE IN OURSELVES!!

Personally I think the biggest problem is fire and brimstone talks in which priest talk about hell and pretty much scare people into becoming Christains

A lot of Christians out their are only Christians because they think it'll keep them out of hell when in truth they don't care

Sigh its sad that some priests aren't teaching love and peace but fire and never ending damnation

As a professor of mine said once, "Fire insurance is only good if you keep the card in your wallet."

Those who stick to their beliefs and mean it when they convert, as in, they convert not for the "Get out of jail free" card but rather for God's edification will be the ones who benefit. Those who convert to turn it into an excuse to sin is leaving their card wide and vulnerable to the flames. And what good is a card if it burns up? ;)

Someone help me out here, I don't have my Bible in front of me...please find me the chapter and verse where it says about worshipping in your closet??

Also, about how when any number of people are together, and talking about Him, there is He present?

See, I don't feel any need to go to a specific BUILDING to worship God or Jesus. And I certainly will not allow any religion nor any church...to interpose itself into my relationship with God or Jesus. all churches were created by imperfect men...therefore, it follows that they must also all be imperfect.

I will not allow any man...any man's church....or any man's dogma...interpose itself into MY relationship with Jesus...and through Him...God.

Well, the point isn't that you have to meet in this building at that time, but rather you join with your brothers and sisters in Christ in order to 1)edify Christ as the whole Body and 2)edify each other. It can be a church building, a school, houses, even the street. Walls don't make the church. The people do. But you can't have a church with just one person. At least... not a very edifying one, anyway.

Lyric, I think you know where I may lie on all of this after our discussion a week or so ago, right? ;)

But for others, and maybe or you, Lyric, in case I need to further clarify, I feel that all sins are inherently damnable, as the entire meaning of sin is "separation from God". All sins are thus equal. Stealing candy from the convenience store separated you just as much as killing a random person on the street.

HOWEVER.

It is not my duty to damn others. I may find sinful living inherent in others but it is not my place to condemn them. "Judge not lest ye be judged." I leave that up to God. If asked about it I'll be honest and tell them what I disagree about, but I'll recognize that they too are human, and I too am a sinner, thus being as open and loving about it as possible.

I also see a major difference between fundamentalism and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists is a Protestant sect that focuses on proselytising and, when it comes down to it, extremism. Those who are fundamental in their Christian beliefs, however, (like me) are merely those who wish to adhere to God's Word and claim it as God's Truth. No condemnation to others, no Bible-bashing. Just understanding, accepting, and honoring God's Truth in his written word.

When it comes to church, LazyHippies was correct about the New Testament and its instruction to establishing proper places of worship and communion. The apostle Paul stressed that there should be both harmony and edification within the body of Christ (aka the Church). To do so, we need to be with our bretheren in worship, communion, and instruction to live better for them, ourselves, and God. Unfortunately, most churches have fallen into dissent and have forgotten what it has meant to be a body of Christians. The Church (as a whole) needs a complete revamp.

So... yeah. I still love ya, Lyric. Because Jesus loves me, so too do I try to show His love to others.


romanore...you know that you are one of the few who define themselves as "fundamental" that I really think I can LIKE?? Though we may not agree on everything, I think both of us are able to respect each other...and each other's rights to live as we best see fit, so long as we are not hurting others.

The very problem I have with Church worship is exactly that which you express in your last sentence about how most of them have forgotten what it means to BE a body of Christians. I find I cannot worship amongst a bunch of people who are false not only to others...but who are false to God...and false to their own selves. And I know...it is not for me to judge them, and I don't....but that doesn't mean I should have to want to keep company with them...or worship with them. even the Bible says "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And it is by their fruits that I make a decision that I do not wish to worship with them, for I feel that they are not worshipping the same God I am.

As a professor of mine said once, "Fire insurance is only good if you keep the card in your wallet."

Those who stick to their beliefs and mean it when they convert, as in, they convert not for the "Get out of jail free" card but rather for God's edification will be the ones who benefit. Those who convert to turn it into an excuse to sin is leaving their card wide and vulnerable to the flames. And what good is a card if it burns up? ;)

Exactly. A good metaphor. I have said...becuase I have accepted Jesus, my sins...past, present, and future...are paid for. However, this does NOT give me carte-blanche to go around sinning! I truly do not WANT to sin. I know that I will...I will screw up, I will stumble and fall short, for I am an imperfect human being. The difference being that I do not WISH to sin, and I am remorseful when I do. Many evangelicals actually REVEL in their sin of hating their fellow man.

Me, I confess to holding hatred in my heart for those who anger me and those who persecute me. I also acknowledge it as a shortcoming for which I pray for deliverance. But it is so damn hard to NOT hate the people who want to hurt you, and want to try to control every tiniest aspect of your life...and who want to persecute you.

Well, the point isn't that you have to meet in this building at that time, but rather you join with your brothers and sisters in Christ in order to 1)edify Christ as the whole Body and 2)edify each other. It can be a church building, a school, houses, even the street. Walls don't make the church. The people do. But you can't have a church with just one person. At least... not a very edifying one, anyway.

I'll concede that point. However...where does one FIND the sort of Christian that I am? It seems we are becoming a rarer and rarer breed! I mean...I seek to worship with those who understand God in the same way I do...you know, full of peace, love, tolerance, mercy, forgiveness...THAT is the God I worship. The GENTLE Father. Not the angry, wrathful, threatening Father.

the angry, wrathful, threatening Father scares me away, and makes me want to run as fast as possible to get AWAY from Him. I want to worship God the Father - BECAUSE I WANT TO...NOT BECAUSE I'M AFRAID NOT TO!!

romanore...you know that you are one of the few who define themselves as "fundamental" that I really think I can LIKE?? Though we may not agree on everything, I think both of us are able to respect each other...and each other's rights to live as we best see fit, so long as we are not hurting others.

Aww, I'm flattered. People generally find me easily likable. I'm just that kinda cuddly type of guy. ;)

But in all seriousness, I respect you too. I don't say that all too often. Now, I like many, mind, but it takes a hard effort to earn my respect. Go ahead and give yourself a big ole' pat on the back. :p

The very problem I have with Church worship is exactly that which you express in your last sentence about how most of them have forgotten what it means to BE a body of Christians. I find I cannot worship amongst a bunch of people who are false not only to others...but who are false to God...and false to their own selves. And I know...it is not for me to judge them, and I don't....but that doesn't mean I should have to want to keep company with them...or worship with them. even the Bible says "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And it is by their fruits that I make a decision that I do not wish to worship with them, for I feel that they are not worshipping the same God I am.

Very true. I find it hard to find a church that I can "fit" into. Mostly because many seem to be all for show rather than content. Now, I'd consider myself a "Spirit-filled" Christian (in a very limited sense of the term, mind--nothing like charismatics), but when I see others whooping and hollering and jumping all around, I get disrupted from my own worship and find myself wondering who they're trying to impress: God or those around them.

I find it perfectly suitable, mind, to worship as you see fit. However, if it's done right and in obedience to God's movement among the congregation, it won't be disruptful. It will all be harmonious and saw as one unit of worship. Chaos in harmony, if you will.

I've found a church that was exactly that, thank God. I've never been happier. I'm sure you'll find one to your liking too, Lyric, if you let God's Swift Sure Hand guide you to it. ;)

I think this discussion applies just as much to non-christians.

I'm not sure if God exists, but either way, I'm still going to try to live my life as well as I can, try to leave the world a better place than when I arrived.

I'm not going to worry about what's written down in a list of sins, I'm going to make up my own mind about what I think is right or wrong, and use the intelligence and insight that I believe God (or random chance) has given me. I completely recognize that the list of sins is useful to people who might not be able to make their own judgements in these matters.

If God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off, as I genuinely want to be a moral person, and do the right thing wherever possible. If God does exist, I truly don't believe that He would mind if I turn up to church on Sunday, pray to him, or not. He will know that I've done my best to live my life as correctly as I can. At any point He can give me guidance in how to live my life. (Yes, part of my moral framework was formed from discussions with christians).

Lyrics point still stands....everyone wants to think they are a good person, but how many people actually try to do good in all things, and hold that ideal in their hearts? I know I often fall short.


----


Incidentally, my biggest problem with being a Christian (and worshipping among others) is exactly what Lyric is complaining about, I dislike it when other members of the congregation would act all mighty and tell me how I should be living my life.
-"Do this. the bible says so"
-"well, I think it's more *moral* and *right* do do this."
-"Don't be so arrogant as to presume what God wants. It's written down here in this book"
-"I'm listening to my heart, and what I feel to be right. Your book also tells me to do that"
...

and so on. it usually degrades from there. As a child I was often banned from talking during bible discussions. Honestly. Banned from speaking during a so-called discussion about the bible. When I would be asking genuine questions, just ones that were uncomfortable for the discussion leader.

Like the rest of you here, I am a Christian. I try not to do wrong, but (again, like the rest of you) I sometimes fail. Now, I don't believe that Christ was all about tolerance, but I also don't think that he wants us to have an attitude of superiority. I think that it is right to point out others' sins (at times that won't embarrass them) so that they don't continue in sin. Hate is a sin, (sermon on the mount), but Christians who hate and still rely on Christ for their salvation will be saved. I am a Baptist. Pride, the attitude of superiority, is also a sin, so that attitude is a sin. It doesn't matter if any sin is worse than any other, because each sin is enough to send you to Hell. I am a fundamentalist Christian, I believe that God's word is Truth, and I believe that Christ, who is God, died on the Cross to save us. The loving God is just as much a facet of God as the wrathful God is. If God were just wrathful, he would never have sent Christ. If God were just a tolerant guy, there would be no Hell. How touching. My beliefs in one small, bite-sized packet for just $16.99! ;)

Like the rest of you here, I am a Christian. I try not to do wrong, but (again, like the rest of you) I sometimes fail. Now, I don't believe that Christ was all about tolerance, but I also don't think that he wants us to have an attitude of superiority. I think that it is right to point out others' sins (at times that won't embarrass them) so that they don't continue in sin. Hate is a sin, (sermon on the mount), but Christians who hate and still rely on Christ for their salvation will be saved. I am a Baptist. Pride, the attitude of superiority, is also a sin, so that attitude is a sin. It doesn't matter if any sin is worse than any other, because each sin is enough to send you to Hell. I am a fundamentalist Christian, I believe that God's word is Truth, and I believe that Christ, who is God, died on the Cross to save us. The loving God is just as much a facet of God as the wrathful God is. If God were just wrathful, he would never have sent Christ. If God were just a tolerant guy, there would be no Hell. How touching. My beliefs in one small, bite-sized packet for just $16.99! ;)

I'll take two! I don't care if they go on backorder, I gotta have them! :D

You really like them that much?

Like the rest of you here, I am a Christian. I try not to do wrong, but (again, like the rest of you) I sometimes fail. Now, I don't believe that Christ was all about tolerance, but I also don't think that he wants us to have an attitude of superiority. I think that it is right to point out others' sins (at times that won't embarrass them) so that they don't continue in sin. Hate is a sin, (sermon on the mount), but Christians who hate and still rely on Christ for their salvation will be saved. I am a Baptist. Pride, the attitude of superiority, is also a sin, so that attitude is a sin. It doesn't matter if any sin is worse than any other, because each sin is enough to send you to Hell. I am a fundamentalist Christian, I believe that God's word is Truth, and I believe that Christ, who is God, died on the Cross to save us. The loving God is just as much a facet of God as the wrathful God is. If God were just wrathful, he would never have sent Christ. If God were just a tolerant guy, there would be no Hell. How touching. My beliefs in one small, bite-sized packet for just $16.99! ;)

Well, actually I was wondering, where does this whole Hell thing come from anyway? Did Jesus ever speak of that (and I'm talking about what the man himself said, not what other people added to the Bible later)?

I could start a business: Christian Belief Pills! Take one with every meal for a wholesome, balanced diet. ;) ;) ;)

You really like them that much?

Ah, I have my own actually. But you've summed mine up quite nicely.

...

Perhaps too nicely...

*considers copyrighting his beliefs*

Well, actually I was wondering, where does this whole Hell thing come from anyway? Did Jesus ever speak of that (and I'm talking about what the man himself said, not what other people added to the Bible later)?

Christianity is based on the whole Bible, not JUST what Jesus said.

Christianity is based on the whole Bible, not JUST what Jesus said.

But doesn't Christianity comes, at its very basis, from what Jesus Christ said? I mean, isn't the Old Testament about Jewish history? It's because of what Jesus said that we now have Christianity, else, there would only be Jews, no?

Christianity is based on the whole Bible, not JUST what Jesus said.

True, but it seems that something as important as...oh, I don't know....potentially being sent to a place of torment and suffering for all eternity with no hope of redemption....

you'd think he'd at least mention something like that, at least in passing. Right?

Surely someone said something like:
Guy: "Hey, Jesus, this hell thing, is it really such a big deal?"
Jesus: "Well, sure, but don't stress. I mean, it's just like heaven, but without so many christians. Oh, and no harps or wings, but *shrug* eh."

or...

Guy: "Hey, Jesus, this hell thing, is it really such a big deal?"
Jesus: "Yeah man, Hell is a real bad deal. Look, it's a good idea to worship god, you *really* don't want to end up there. Oh, but worship God from love, not fear. Got that?"


Incidentally, it's not a sin to paraphrase "things Jesus might have said", right? If so, I'm in a lot of trouble, and really hoping the first potential-paraphrasing was the more accurate one :)

How about : "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
From this statement (made by Jesus) we see that, if we can only get to the Father through Jesus, another path must be open for travel. If we choose the "Jesus path" we get to the Father. If we choose the other path, call it "Man's path", we can't get to the Father because we can only get to the father through Jesus. "Man's path" MUST lead to something other than the father, and this is the definition of Hell.

And as God is the source of all good things, separation from Him is, by its very nature, horrible.

Guy: "Hey, Jesus, this hell thing, is it really such a big deal?"
Jesus: "Yeah man, Hell is a real bad deal. Look, it's a good idea to worship god, you *really* don't want to end up there. Oh, but worship God from love, not fear. Got that?"

Oh, the irony! :) Good one, really.

I thought the equation was simple enough:

*Christianity* comes from what Jesus *Christ* (surprise, surprise) said.
Jesus never said anything about Hell.
So, how can some Christians say that we should be fearful of Hell?

Actually, Jesus does mention Hell. Look up Luke 16:19-31. It's the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. It's not widely mentioned by him as it wasn't his focus, however. It's there though.

There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Forgot about that one. Nice point.
By the way: Hell is a Bad Place. However, mature Christians worship Christ, God, out of their love for him.

How about : "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
From this statement (made by Jesus) we see that, if we can only get to the Father through Jesus, another path must be open for travel. If we choose the "Jesus path" we get to the Father. If we choose the other path, call it "Man's path", we can't get to the Father because we can only get to the father through Jesus. "Man's path" MUST lead to something other than the father, and this is the definition of Hell.

Talk about interpretation... how about this, then: Let's admit there's the "good path" and the "bad path". Think about it. How can one someone truly know that they are on the good path if they haven't experienced the bad path? People learn through their mistakes. Doesn't that mean that in fact the "bad path" is part of the "good path"? So then, what's the use for Hell, if in the end, even the "bad path" can lead you to the "good path"?

And, through more searching (yay e-Sword), I found several mentionings of Hell straight from Christ's mouth:

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell

Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Actually, Jesus does mention Hell. Look up Luke 16:19-31. It's the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. It's not widely mentioned by him as it wasn't his focus, however. It's there though.

Guess you got me... but I still think it is ironic that we are taught to love through fear...

Talk about interpretation... how about this, then: Let's admit there's the "good path" and the "bad path". Think about it. How can one someone truly know that they are on the good path if they haven't experienced the bad path? People learn through their mistakes. Doesn't that mean that in fact the "bad path" is part of the "good path"? So then, what's the use for Hell, if in the end, even the "bad path" can lead you to the "good path"?

Do you need to touch the boiling pot to know not to touch it? Can you rely on your parents/authority figures to tell you not to touch the pot for it will burn you?

That's what the Bible is: God's instruction to living on the "good path". We don't need to live the bad path to know that it is bad.

Talk about interpretation... how about this, then: Let's admit there's the "good path" and the "bad path". Think about it. How can one someone truly know that they are on the good path if they haven't experienced the bad path? People learn through their mistakes. Doesn't that mean that in fact the "bad path" is part of the "good path"? So then, what's the use for Hell, if in the end, even the "bad path" can lead you to the "good path"?
False axioms can lead to a true conclusion
axiom one: the sun is cold.
axiom two: the earth is not cold
conclusion: the earth is not the sun.

One axiom is bad. You can get all sorts of wrong places with it. It can, however, lead to a true conclusion. The same is true in relation to the paths: the bad path can lead you to some points on the good path, but unless your world view is Christian, you end up on the end of the bad path: Hell.

Guess you got me... but I still think it is ironic that we are taught to love through fear...

Of which I completely condemn. There is no love in intimidation. There is love, however, in the glory of Christ's works. This is why his focus was kept more on grace and temperance than "if you don't do what I say you'll burn burn BURN!"

Which is exactly why he's such a cool guy. ;)

EDIT: I feel that I must expand on this and explain that prophetic warning (Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) is not something that I condemn. If those that should know better are warned of an impending doom should they not turn from their wicked ways, (and these warnings are inherent from God, as in the cases of said prophets) then there is no problem. It's things like that that are eye-openers.

It's just giving the DOOM speach to the ignorant of the Word and those that don't know any better. Do we have that cleared? Good. :)

Heh. I love philosophy.
I think that I will go stick my head under a cement mixer to see if it will hurt me.

But my other point might still stand: doesn't one has to experience what is bad so that he can truly understand what is good? If so, doesn't that mean that what is seen as the bad path is in fact part of the good path? It's just that some people are stuck longer on the bad part of the path.

I dunno, just my thoughts on that.

But my other point might still stand: doesn't one has to experience what is bad so that he can truly understand what is good? If so, doesn't that mean that what is seen as the bad path is in fact part of the good path? It's just that some people are stuck longer on the bad part of the path.

I dunno, just my thoughts on that.

Not if your faith in your authority is strong enough. If you believe God to be all-knowing and all-loving, then you'd deduce that what He tells you will be truthful and what he says is for your own betterment. Experience is a way to learn, yes, but you don't need to learn all things by actually living them. If you have faith enough in God's word, you can know that what he promises is Good and what is "outside" God is Bad.

You aren't born Christian. You live without God for a time, then you either give your life to him before you die, or you die without God and end your journey on the Bad Road, and thus in Hell.

False axioms can lead to a true conclusion
axiom one: the sun is cold.
axiom two: the earth is not cold
conclusion: the earth is not the sun.

One axiom is bad. You can get all sorts of wrong places with it. It can, however, lead to a true conclusion. The same is true in relation to the paths: the bad path can lead you to some points on the good path, but unless your world view is Christian, you end up on the end of the bad path: Hell.

Erm, wouldn't it rather be along the lines of: you might not follow the "Christian" path (I'll define this as: just following what the Bible says), but still end up with the same results, therefore Heaven, not necessarily Hell?

Maybe in the end, it's just a question of semantics. I don't believe in God, and you do. Yet, we try to love and help other people as much as we can. Doesn't that mean that, even though we use different mediums, we still walk down the same road?

Edit: there was help instead of Hell. Stupid typo...

Heh. I love philosophy.
I think that I will go stick my head under a cement mixer to see if it will hurt me.

:p Thanks, that was funny! Not everything is black and white, you know? What bothers me is that people are kept at some infantile stage. When you are a child, you only abide by what your parents tell you. However, how can you be *certain* that your parents tell you the truth if you haven't developped your judgement in some way? After all, some parents tell their children not to play with the neighbors' kids because they are of a different skin color or the like, and their childs will do so just because "their parents said so". However, if they experienced something else, like "hey, no matter what his skin color is, he's still nice and I like to play with him", don't you think they might change mind? It's just that they only knew what their parents told them.

At some point or other, even to truly decide to trust your parents, you have to experience some of the rest to see if they told you the truth or not.

Erm, wouldn't it rather be along the lines of: you might not follow the "Christian" path (I'll define this as: just following what the Bible says), but still end up with the same results, therefore Heaven, not necessarily help?

Maybe in the end, it's just a question of semantics. I don't believe in God, and you do. Yet, we try to love and help other people as much as we can. Doesn't that mean that, even though we use different mediums, we still walk down the same road?

Doing good deeds is always commendable. However, Christ does not look for what you did, per se. He looks for why you did them. Christians should do good not because they're forced to. Nor because they want to make themselves look better. They should do good because it would edify Christ and His image, better portraying His love for the world.

Those who do inherent good for the sake of doing good, of which I assume is what you're speaking of, is still not in the purpose of edifying Christ. While better than doing it for your own betterment, it still doesn't fit directly on the path Christ would rather have us walk on.

Is that clear at all, or am I rolling about in mud?

Doing good deeds is always commendable. However, Christ does not look for what you did, per se. He looks for why you did them. Christians should do good not because they're forced to. Nor because they want to make themselves look better. They should do good because it would edify Christ and His image, better portraying His love for the world.

Those who do inherent good for the sake of doing good, of which I assume is what you're speaking of, is still not in the purpose of edifying Christ. While better than doing it for your own betterment, it still doesn't fit directly on the path Christ would rather have us walk on.

Is that clear at all, or am I rolling about in mud?

Well, that's funny then: doing good for edifying Christ is better than just so that the world is a better place? Talk about irony. The Christ was a modest person, doing things *for the sake of good*, not so to edify himself!!! Else, wouldn't that have been pride and therefore a sin?

Then, I ask you, isn't what matters really is *doing good for the sake of good* rather than for the purpose of edifying Christ, when even he wouldn't have done such a thing?

:p Thanks, that was funny! Not everything is black and white, you know? What bothers me is that people are kept at some infantile stage. When you are a child, you only abide by what your parents tell you. However, how can you be *certain* that your parents tell you the truth if you haven't developped your judgement in some way? After all, some parents tell their children not to play with the neighbors' kids because they are of a different skin color or the like, and their childs will do so just because "their parents said so". However, if they experienced something else, like "hey, no matter what his skin color is, he's still nice and I like to play with him", don't you think they might change mind? It's just that they only knew what their parents told them.

At some point or other, even to truly decide to trust your parents, you have to experience some of the rest to see if they told you the truth or not.

You speak more wisdom than you may know. ;)

As Christians, when we approach our views on certain matters, we're to actually stop and see if they are right with the Lord's own views. How do we determine what His views are? Reading, praying, rereading, discussing, etc, etc, and so forth. We may never get our interpretations right, but the point is that we try and that we do so in true edification of Christ. We're meant to think, not be mindless robots. (God gave us free will for a reason, donchaknow)

However, it's when we actually turn to God and wish to approach him do we approach "as a child". We get lost in his love for us and we discover him for who he really is and who he really wants to be: Father. Or, in better terms: Daddy. We are his children and he wants nothing more than for us to cawl up in his lap and have a good snuggle with him. I don't think there's anything more beautiful than that...

Someone help me out here, I don't have my Bible in front of me...please find me the chapter and verse where it says about worshipping in your closet??


I can help you with that:

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


If its still not obvious to you what the verse is about Ill explain quickly. It is saying, dont pray for others to hear, pray for God to hear. If you pray so that others will hear you praying and will admire your holiness then you already recieved your reward (the admiration of others), but if you pray for God to hear rather than others then he will reward you. This has more to do with the attitude under which you are praying. The hypocrites did not need to stand at the foot of the temple praying out loud so people would admire their oratory skills and holiness, they did it out of pride. This is what Jesus criticized.


Also, about how when any number of people are together, and talking about Him, there is He present?

That's a great verse, that's what church is all about.


See, I don't feel any need to go to a specific BUILDING to worship God or Jesus. And I certainly will not allow any religion nor any church...to interpose itself into my relationship with God or Jesus. all churches were created by imperfect men...therefore, it follows that they must also all be imperfect.

I will not allow any man...any man's church....or any man's dogma...interpose itself into MY relationship with Jesus...and through Him...God.

Its not about the building, its about the church (which is composed of people). It doesnt matter whether they meet in their own building, someone's house, a school, a park, someone else's building, or whatever. A church is composed of people, not buildings.

Well, that's funny then: doing good for edifying Christ is better than just so that the world is a better place? Talk about irony. The Christ was a modest person, doing things *for the sake of good*, not so to edify himself!!! Else, wouldn't that have been pride and therefore a sin?

Then, I ask you, isn't what matters really is *doing good for the sake of good* rather than for the purpose of edifying Christ, when even he wouldn't have done such a thing?

How is edification a display of pride? He was sent not to do good for doing good, but rather to prepare the world for the coming kingdom--His kingdom. All miracles had a reason, most importantly that of the resurrection. He didn't do good "just because". He did good because that's who He is and that's what he is wanting us to prepare the world for. So too should that be our reasoning. To prepare the world for Christ and his love for us.

I can help you with that:


If its still not obvious to you what the verse is about Ill explain quickly. It is saying, dont pray for others to hear, pray for God to hear. If you pray so that others will hear you and think you are so holy then you already recieved your reward (the admiration of others), but if you pray for God to hear then he will reward you.


That's a great verse, that's what church is all about.



Its not about the building, its about the church (which is composed of people). It doesnt matter whether they meet in their own building, someone's house, a school, a park, someone else's building, or whatever. A church is composed of people, not buildings.
You and I are on the same page, methinks. Or close enough. *hands a cookie of your choice*

How is edification a display of pride? He was sent not to do good for doing good, but rather to prepare the world for the coming kingdom--His kingdom. All miracles had a reason, most importantly that of the resurrection. He didn't do good "just because". He did good because that's who He is and that's what he is wanting us to prepare the world for. So too should that be our reasoning. To prepare the world for Christ and his love for us.

Ah, so here we come to the crucial point: let's admit that what you say is true, and that all of that is indeed done for the coming kingdom. Here's the question: what's the purpose of this kingdom? I think you will agree when I say that it is supposed to be a better world that the one we currently live in, right? So, that means that in the end, edifying the Christ boils down to this: *to strive for a better world*, one free of corruption, hatred and pain and so on and so forth, no?

So, in the end, is doing it "in the name of Jesus/God/whatever" is so important? Doesn't just working for a better world is all that matters, since you say that we are supposed to do all of this to edify the Christ, which is in turn to bring the new kingdom, which purpose is *to be a better a world*?

In the end, God doesn't matter that much. You try to build a better world. I try to build a better world. I just decided to skip all the God and Jesus thing and get to the point, because "divinity" is an alien concept to me.

We're brothers, fighting for the very same cause, why are we fighting amongst each others?

Ah, so here we come to the crucial point: let's admit that what you say is true, and that all of that is indeed done for the coming kingdom. Here's the question: what's the purpose of this kingdom? I think you will agree when I say that it is supposed to be a better world that the one we currently live in, right? So, that means that in the end, edifying the Christ boils down to this: *to strive for a better world*, one free of corruption, hatred and pain and so on and so forth, no?

So, in the end, is doing it "in the name of Jesus/God/whatever" is so important? Doesn't just working for a better world is all that matters, since you say that we are supposed to do it to edify the Christ, which is in turn to bring the new kingdom, which purpose is *to be a better a world*?

In the end, God doesn't matter that much. You try to build a better world. I try to build a better world. I just decided to skip all the God and Jesus thing and get to the point, because "divinity" is an alien concept to me.

We're brothers, fighting for the very same cause, why are we fighting amongst each others?

I certainly don't wish to fight or throw mud. Forgive me if you saw any of that in my explanations. I all intended to do was to show you the difference between what Christians perceive and what others may perceieve on doing good.

The Christian purpose of bringing in the new Kingdom is not just to make the world a better place, but to make the world a better place under God. He has already promised his return, so we're not pretending to believe that if we don't do good, he won't come. Instead we want the world to get ready. By seeing our good works, they will see, in turn, the good works and love of the God that created them.

But I certainly don't object to those who intend good will for the sake of good will. I won't stop you from your works. In fact, here's a cookie for them *gives cookie* ;)

EDIT: Anyway. Off to bed. Goodnight, Wolverine and everyone else. Don't go careening this thread into chaos while I'm gone. That's my job. :p

Theres a Chinese proverb that I will now slaughter.

"When you spend your life fighting a dragon...you risk becoming the dragon."

I think so many Chrstians keep Jeebus on the lips, and not on the brain, is becuase they simply lose sight of what it was all about.
They get too wrapped up in making sure everyone gets treated to thier own brand of whats right.

When they lose the message of peace, and doing well towards others, they really arent "following the path" anymore.

I certainly don't wish to fight or throw mud. Forgive me if you saw any of that in my explanations. I all intended to do was to show you the difference between what Christians perceive and what others may perceieve on doing good.

The Christian purpose of bringing in the new Kingdom is not just to make the world a better place, but to make the world a better place under God. He has already promised his return, so we're not pretending to believe that if we don't do good, he won't come. Instead we want the world to get ready. By seeing our good works, they will see, in turn, the good works and love of the God that created them.

But I certainly don't object to those who intend good will for the sake of good will. I won't stop you from your works. In fact, here's a cookie for them *gives cookie* ;)

EDIT: Anyway. Off to bed. Goodnight, Wolverine and everyone else. Don't go careening this thread into chaos while I'm gone. That's my job. :p

Hmm... does God matters that much? What's the purpose of all he's doing? Why are we supposed to follow him? Because doing that is supposed to make the world a better place. Whatever the angle you look at it from, it still ends like this, making the world a better place. God, in himself, isn't important. It's his message that is. Else, we wouldn't be following him, right? God doesn't matter. Nor the Church, for that matter. It's the values we uphold that really mean something.

No, I don't think you were trying to throw mud, I just think it's sad that most people just bicker among themselves for semantics. "God" (in this precise matter, things like the world creation is a whole other story, I'm talking about the "God" that teaches us about how we should live) is nothing more than a set of values. Love, tolerance, forgiveness, that's what matters.

And, finally, there's something that bothers me. Church as it is, so stuck up on semantics and forgetting what this all really meant in the first place. By doing so, people are to be forever in the infantile stade of "let's follow blindly our parents". There's some point where a child has to grow up and become an adult. When you are aware enough of our world to decide for yourself if your parents told you the truth or not, doesn't this mean that you might not need them so much to tell you what's right and what's wrong? After all, you're already able to question things and see for yourself if they're moral or not.

When you reach this point, God isn't needed that much anymore. When you reach that point, you can already tell with or without him if what you're doing is right or wrong. When you reach this point, you are not a children anymore, you don't just say "well, it's good because my parents told me so", you're actually able to prove *why* it is so good (after all, that's how you came to agree with your parents, no?). You are an *adult*, capable of thinking all by yourself.

If "God" or whatever truly exists and has given us free will, why is the Church still arguing just by saying "well, Jesus said this so it's true", like li'l good children? If "God" truly exist and has given us free will, doesn't that means he believes in our potential to become adults, to eventually be able to live all by ourselves in peace and harmony *without* him?

In the very end, God doesn't matter and Church even less. What matters is that we strive to develop our judgement to tell apart right from wrong, and thus ultimately, work for a better world. If the values are the same, who cares whether we call it "divine", "humanist", "buddhist" or I don't know what else. When you've become an adult, you're able to understand that these are all just words, that whatever name you give these values, they are still the same.

I think that's about all I had to say on the subject.

Good night to you!

so to summarise: god is pointless; let go and be your own person; celebrate life for the wonder and sake of life instead of creating a mythical being to give you meaning; find your own morality that makes sense to you; don't revolve your life around a book of anecdotal metaphors badly written by peasants a long time ago.

</rant>

so to summarise: god is pointless; let go and be your own person; celebrate life for the wonder and sake of life instead of creating a mythical being to give you meaning; find your own morality that makes sense to you; don't revolve your life around a book of anecdotal metaphors badly written by peasants a long time ago.

</rant>Or how about a better way: If God works as a motivation for your good deeds, you might as well use it.

The message is not "Don't worship God"; the message is simply "Empathise with your fellow man". If you can worship God and still be a good person, then you can be free to love and keep your deity.

Of course, the second faith encourages you to bring harm or bear ills against another, drop it. But if it brings you inspiration to act kindly to those around you, then go ahead and believe the ancient book or aspire to the metaphysical being.

You are free to believe whatever you want as long as I am free to believe that.

so to summarise: god is pointless; let go and be your own person; celebrate life for the wonder and sake of life instead of creating a mythical being to give you meaning; find your own morality that makes sense to you; don't revolve your life around a book of anecdotal metaphors badly written by peasants a long time ago.

</rant>

yes. we should all go out and do whatever we want. who gives a damn about what who others and god thinks? we could do our own stuff and we are able to take care of ourselves. those who can't take care of themselves should perish! what a great idea!!

[/sarcasm]

yes. we should all go out and do whatever we want. who gives a damn about what who others and god thinks? we could do our own stuff and we are able to take care of ourselves. those who can't take care of themselves should perish! what a great idea!!

[/sarcasm]That's not what he meant. I hope. <_<

Ultimately, he's saying that respect for life and others is paramount to all other aspirations; including God. Being Moral, Empathetic and Good is more important than adhering to religious doctrine. Which seems sensible enough.

Though yeah, he is missing the point that for some, faith in God provides that.

That's not what he meant. I hope. <_<

Ultimately, he's saying that respect for life and others is paramount to all other aspirations; including God. Being Moral, Empathetic and Good is more important than adhering to religious doctrine. Which seems sensible enough.

Though yeah, he is missing the point that for some, faith in God provides that.

What's the difference between "being moral, empathetic and good" and "adhering to religious doctrine"?

*reads first page*
*skips to page five*

I agree with you, Lyric. Luckily, living in Britain I don't get much of that unChristian BS you were talking about. If only more "born-again" Christians stood back and realised that all that separates them from the "immoral" people they talk about is their faith.

Sounds trite, but What Would Jesus Do? :D

What's the difference between "being moral, empathetic and good" and "adhering to religious doctrine"?
Depends on the religious doctrine. "You keep what you kill".

:p Thanks, that was funny! Not everything is black and white, you know? What bothers me is that people are kept at some infantile stage. Kept at an infantile stage, eh? Well, you must have heard the phrase "children of God"!

I could start a business: Christian Belief Pills! Take one with every meal for a wholesome, balanced diet. ;) ;) ;) Neurochemical mind control?

we could do our own stuff and we are able to take care of ourselves. those who can't take care of themselves should perish! what a great idea!!

[/sarcasm]

"The Lord helps those, who help themselves."

And as God is the source of all good things, separation from Him is, by its very nature, horrible.

Now that's interesting... I don't believe in your God, yet I am happy.

Strange, that...

Now that's interesting... I don't believe in your God, yet I am happy.

Strange, that... But you're on Earth, where God is everywhere.

But you're on Earth, where God is everywhere.


Was God in Thailand, when that Tsunami hit it?

Was God in Thailand, when that Tsunami hit it? Would you have been happy there?

Not if your faith in your authority is strong enough. If you believe God to be all-knowing and all-loving, then you'd deduce that what He tells you will be truthful and what he says is for your own betterment. Experience is a way to learn, yes, but you don't need to learn all things by actually living them. If you have faith enough in God's word, you can know that what he promises is Good and what is "outside" God is Bad.

Even if god is omniscient people are not. The Bible was written by people. It has been interpreted and edited by people. So you can't use the Bible as an accurate reflection of god's word.

What does that leave? A personal relationship with Jesus/god where you believe he speaks to you directly and tells you his plans for you. Leaving aside the possibility that you may need psychological counseling if you're hearing voices, you cannot escape the fact that you, as a mere human, cannot hope to understand god's design.

So anyone... ANYONE... telling you that they know how god wants you to live is selling something. In his mind he sees himself as your master, not only able but determined to tell you how to live.

Even if god is omniscient people are not. The Bible was written by people. It has been interpreted and edited by people. So you can't use the Bible as an accurate reflection of god's word.

What does that leave? A personal relationship with Jesus/god where you believe he speaks to you directly and tells you his plans for you. Leaving aside the possibility that you may need psychological counseling if you're hearing voices, you cannot escape the fact that you, as a mere human, cannot hope to understand god's design.

So anyone... ANYONE... telling you that they know how god wants to to live is selling something. In his mind he sees himself as your master, not only able but determined to tell you how to live. There is truth in what you say, but you are going a little bit overboard. For instance, Jesus trusted his disciples to write down his words and actions, so those accounts are trustworthy.

But you're on Earth, where God is everywhere.

Oh? Where? I'd like to talk to him.

If, however, you're talking not about an anthropomorphized god figure and are instead saying that god, as the sum total of all life, matter and thought is here on Earth then I agree with you.

Thing is, I don't call that god. I call that existence. And as part of that existence I am inseparable from "god" and therefor he is as dependent upon me (and others like me) to compose him. If this is so, we are all pieces of god and he cannot exist without us.

There is truth in what you say, but you are going a little bit overboard. For instance, Jesus trusted his disciples to write down his words and actions, so those accounts are trustworthy.

Jesus trusted his disciples. Good for him.

His disciples were still human and wrote what they did based on their own personal biases and interpretations of what Jesus stood for.

That's not what he meant. I hope. <_<

Ultimately, he's saying that respect for life and others is paramount to all other aspirations; including God. Being Moral, Empathetic and Good is more important than adhering to religious doctrine. Which seems sensible enough.

Hmm, that's a good summary, I would say.

Though yeah, he is missing the point that for some, faith in God provides that.

No, no, what I'm saying is that at some point, if you've experienced "God" to be right and true all by yourself, one could say that you don't have faith that much in God as "your omnipotent parent", but more in the core values that he is supposed to teach: Love, Peace, Forgiveness, and so on.

It is faith to these things that truly inspire you and not the fact that some guy called God/Jesus/something else just said so.

Faith in "God" rather than directly in those values is a very dangerous thing, for one might not see what is at the essence of God, just stop at the "let's follow blindly our supposedly omnipotent father" thing, and history has proven that stopping there can lead to disaster (Crusades, Inquisition, and even today, people like George Bush -- no offense meant to anybody -- say things like "God is on our side" when *starting a war* -- talk about Love and Forgiveness).

If God is Love, why not just say you have *faith in love*?

Christians act this way b/c they are still human, which by nature is imperfect and sinful. Not that this is a valid excuse for a Christian to be a hater in any situation, but it just explains why they are capable of it. But dont worry, the bible says that God will discpline and punish his own children (Christians, ie believers) who disobey him. To obey God is to love Him and to love others.

oh my, did Bush really say that?!
shame.

"The Lord helps those, who help themselves."

That's actually not found in scripture... ;)

Even if god is omniscient people are not. The Bible was written by people. It has been interpreted and edited by people. So you can't use the Bible as an accurate reflection of god's word.

What does that leave? A personal relationship with Jesus/god where you believe he speaks to you directly and tells you his plans for you. Leaving aside the possibility that you may need psychological counseling if you're hearing voices, you cannot escape the fact that you, as a mere human, cannot hope to understand god's design.

So anyone... ANYONE... telling you that they know how god wants you to live is selling something. In his mind he sees himself as your master, not only able but determined to tell you how to live.

So God isn't omnipotent enough to keep His message from being distorted?

There's a belief most adhere two when it comes to explaining how God's Word was kept from being corrupted. It's called the "God-breathed" canon. It's the belief that not only did God, be it through audible word or spritual divination (or both), speak His word through the authors to have them passed down--orally and literatively--through the generations quite literally unaltered and incorrupted. The same belief befalls how the books were chosen to become the authoritive Scripture in the Council of Nicaea.

New Testament scripture was transcribed for nearly two-thousand years unaltered in terms of canon, and any possible mistakes through these years may equate to nothing more than a typo, and that wouldn't have been until the Gutenburg Press, when they needed to break up scripture with chapters and verses. Isn't it strange how one is more prone to mess up with a machine than by hand?

So, should one believe in "God-breathed" canon, why not adhere to it as Truth? We recognize that it was written by human hand, but we also believe it to be inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient God. That should make such a feat possible, don't you think? ;)

This is a serious question. I cannot understand how so many can claim to be Christian...and then act in such an un-Christian manner to so many people, particularly, people in certain hated groups.

And how can they do this...and then act astounded when christianity acquires a bad name, and how can they claim to feel so "persecuted" when they are among some of the most avid persecutors on the planet?

To set the stage for this, know that I am a Unitarian Christian. I truly believe that I do have Jesus and God in my HEART. No, i'm not perfect, I'm human, and I screw up, just like everyone else does. But the point is, I don't WANT to screew up, and I'm genuinely remorseful when I do screw up and fall short. the difference is...there are some things evangelicals and fundamentalists feel falls under the definition of "falling short" that I don't feel falls under that definition.

I have made this thread in order to ask some very specific, pointed questions...and my apologies if anyone takes personal offense. It isn't my inetion to offend anyone, though I'm sure that the sharp tone...and nature of some of my questions...are sure to offend some people. So be it. I cannot control how someone reacts to my words...and my legitimate questions. Know only that I have entered into this with no malicious intent...but rather, an intent to understand exactly what drives and motivates these people, because they are so alien to me, as to be beyond my comprehension.

First...why does there seem, among evangelicals...to be a "heirarchy" of sin...that some sins are worse than others? Particularly, in my experience, evangelicals seem to classify VISIBLE sin as far worse than sin that isn't visible, and thus, can be ignored or swept under the rug?

The Bible I have read indicates that there is no "worse" sins...that all sins are equally bad, and all sins separate us from God. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God," does not the Bible contain these very words?

This leads to my second question. Why are the fundamentals and evangelicals so all-fired up about my supposed "sins" and yet, seem to have no concern over their own? "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye," admonishes the Bible. Yet, the evangelicals and fundamentalists seem determined to worry more about the speck in my eye.

Do they truly believe themselves to be, in some way, BETTER than the rest of us? If so, they are guilty of the sin of pridefulness...the very sin for which Moses was denied Paradise.

Why do they so concern themselves with the sins of others? God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of others...He will not punish YOU if you fail to keep ME from sinnning. Yes, in the Old Testment, the entire house was held accountable for the sins of the one, this is true....but we no longer are bound, as Christians, by the Old Testament. Jesus blood was the New Covenant. He gave us the New Testament, because we had proven ourselves unable to live up to the standards of the Old Testament, and we had proven ourselves incapable of our own salvation.

Thus it was that God, for the only time ever...asked someone to take accountability for sins not his own. for that very purpose, God sent His only son, Jesus...with the express purpose that He pay the price for our sins. His doing so removed the need for anyone, ever agian, to have to take accountability for any sins not their very own. So why are fundamentalists and evangelicals all worked up over the sins...or so-called sins...of others?

And, in seeking to bring people to God and to Jesus...why do these people resort to a message almost guaranteed to drive people away...rather than bring them in? I mean...would you be more insipred to follow a God who showed patience, love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy and joy...or one who is wrathful, vengeful, and angry...full of fire and brimstone and damnation? One who is full of threats?

I don't know about most people, but I know threats sure turn ME off! It's almost as if they come to us with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, and then expect us to somehow embrace their God, and give up on all hopes of peace, joy, love, tolerance, mercy...and commit ourselves to a lifetime of walking on eggshells. I just don't get it.

Fortunately for me...God HIMSELF showed me as much of the nature of God as I am capable of accepting, as a human being. I asked...and I was shown. So call me Doubting Thomas. But, nevertheless, it is because I was shown...that I came around to faith in God. I have my own personal relationship with God and with Jesus...and no man....nor any man's church nor dogma...will ever insinuate itself into that relationship.

I just totally do not understand how so many so-called Christians can proclaim Christianity....and then turn around and act in such an un-Christian manner towards their fellow man. I do not recall the Bible ever telling mankind that they should exact punishment from "sinners" in His name! That is to be left up to God and Jesus.

The only conclusion I can come to is that many so-called Christians have God and Jesus in their HEAD....but not in their HEART. And, I believe that, when the final Judgement comes...many are going to be completely surprised by the verdict that comes down in their case!

Lyric

I don't know anyone who believes in a hierarchy of sin... that's a Catholic thing, if memory serves. I was raised in a Protestant family.

your second point is apropos... and a lot of people do it:

judging others

we are not to judge each other... we might point out things in an effort to help others, but we're not supposed to be like, "You are sinning profusely and i'm perfect and i'm going to heaven and you're not"

hehe that sounds absurd.

Most of the rest of what you say is cool... but i wouldn't go jumping to conclusions about whether or not Jesus is in someone's heart... because we can't know that. Some people are just naturally persnickety (LOL!), uptight, etc... so they'll point out things to you and maybe they mean to be mean about it (in which case it's really wrong) but in some cases, they mean to help.. and it comes out as sounding mean or intrusive. Probably something we can all do to tell the two apart is to ask follow-up questions to find the motive for the person's lecture.

Most of the rest of what you say is cool... but i wouldn't go jumping to conclusions about whether or not Jesus is in someone's heart... because we can't know that. Some people are just naturally persnickety (LOL!), uptight, etc... so they'll point out things to you and maybe they mean to be mean about it (in which case it's really wrong) but in some cases, they mean to help.. and it comes out as sounding mean or intrusive. Probably something we can all do to tell the two apart is to ask follow-up questions to find the motive for the person's lecture.

I don't think that a debate can be taken seriously any longer once "persnickety" enters the foray. :p

I don't think that a debate can be taken seriously any longer once "persnickety" enters the foray. :p "She's taking the whole Catholic thing a bit seriously, Ted. It's just a bit of a laugh".
Replace Catholic with Christian and Dougal's right for this thread.

To me it all comes down to:

Were Right Your Wrong!
Were Smart Your Dumb!
Our God is Stronger Than Your God!!!

Christians are a odd lot. That is why I left. When they say to love yet preach hate I decided it was time to look elsewhere.

Aww, I'm flattered. People generally find me easily likable. I'm just that kinda cuddly type of guy. ;)

But in all seriousness, I respect you too. I don't say that all too often. Now, I like many, mind, but it takes a hard effort to earn my respect. Go ahead and give yourself a big ole' pat on the back. :p



Very true. I find it hard to find a church that I can "fit" into. Mostly because many seem to be all for show rather than content. Now, I'd consider myself a "Spirit-filled" Christian (in a very limited sense of the term, mind--nothing like charismatics), but when I see others whooping and hollering and jumping all around, I get disrupted from my own worship and find myself wondering who they're trying to impress: God or those around them.


Exactly!! And I find myself convinced more and more, that they are trying to impress those around them...or the pastor. God already knows what is in your heart, and if they were true believers, they would know this...and they would therefore know that such theatrics were not necessary to impress God, for God already knows what is in your heart. so it only makes sense that these people are trying to impress those around them, and that makes me exceedingly uncomfortable...and makes me wonder if they, themselves, even BELIEVE what they profess to believe.

"She's taking the whole Catholic thing a bit seriously, Ted. It's just a bit of a laugh".
Replace Catholic with Christian and Dougal's right for this thread.

"Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy."

;)

Like the rest of you here, I am a Christian. I try not to do wrong, but (again, like the rest of you) I sometimes fail. Now, I don't believe that Christ was all about tolerance, but I also don't think that he wants us to have an attitude of superiority. I think that it is right to point out others' sins (at times that won't embarrass them) so that they don't continue in sin. Hate is a sin, (sermon on the mount), but Christians who hate and still rely on Christ for their salvation will be saved. I am a Baptist. Pride, the attitude of superiority, is also a sin, so that attitude is a sin. It doesn't matter if any sin is worse than any other, because each sin is enough to send you to Hell. I am a fundamentalist Christian, I believe that God's word is Truth, and I believe that Christ, who is God, died on the Cross to save us. The loving God is just as much a facet of God as the wrathful God is. If God were just wrathful, he would never have sent Christ. If God were just a tolerant guy, there would be no Hell. How touching. My beliefs in one small, bite-sized packet for just $16.99! ;)

But do you not think...by the words in the Gospels...that God and Jesus would have you OVERCOME your hate...and if not, to at least not ACT on that hate in a way that hurts others (specifically, the hate that seems directed at, say, homosexuals, comes to mind here.) And don't give me crud about hating the sin and loving the sinner. That's a cop-out and full of horse-shit. And I know that to be true, because I was one of the people on the forefront of the civil rights movement for gay rights, in Louisville, Kentucky, in the late 90's. We finally gained our rights to not be discriminated against, in 1999.

In 1997, however, we lost the vote on the same legislation. A bunch of us Fairness supporters came out of City Hall, to a thronging of so-called Christians chanting "we love you! we love you!" They didn't love us, they were TAUNTING us! further proved by the fact that not ten seconds after I came out of city Hall, I was belted over the left eye by a thrown rock, that came from that group of thronging Christians.

I went down like a ton of bricks, spurting blood from a gash less than a quarter-inch over my eye....(in fact, it's in the middle of my eyebrow) that took four stitches to close, and to this day, I have a prominent scar as a reminder, and I now wear bangs to conceal the scar.

Later, when the local paper interviewed me over my ordeal, I gave them a world-famous quote that turned my name into a household name throughout the community. I said, and I quote..."If they love us, I'm sure glad they DON'T hate us!!"

compare now, to 1999. That was the year we won. The so-called Christians got on their busses and got out of town as fast as their wheels would take them! They didn't hang around, that time...to tell us how much they loved us! so what does THAT tell you about their actions in 1997? It only further serves to confirm that they didn't love us, they were TAUNTING us. In 1999, they didn't even hang around to say, you know,we still love you but we do not agree with this legislation. Nothing. They just went away.

Actions speak louder than words.

They didn't love us, they were TAUNTING us! further proved by the fact that not ten seconds after I came out of city Hall, I was belted over the left eye by a thrown rock, that came from that group of thronging Christians.

I went down like a ton of bricks, spurting blood from a gash less than a quarter-inch over my eye....(in fact, it's in the middle of my eyebrow) that took four stitches to close, and to this day, I have a prominent scar as a reminder, and I now wear bangs to conceal the scar.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." Man, that must've been Jesus Himself if them lovin', God-abidin' Christians we're followin' their own beliefs! :rolleyes:

Well, you won't ever find any stones on me. I know a bit better than that, or so I'd like to believe anyway.

But doesn't Christianity comes, at its very basis, from what Jesus Christ said? I mean, isn't the Old Testament about Jewish history? It's because of what Jesus said that we now have Christianity, else, there would only be Jews, no?

Exactly. the Old Testament is no longer binding on us, as Christians. We proved, as humans, unable to live up to the 630 laws of Moses, and Jesus came to take that away from us. The New Testament is what we are supposed to live by today. The Gospels, and Acts forward. The rest of it is a history lesson, and not intended to be applied or enforced in the modern age.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." Man, that must've been Jesus Himself if them lovin', God-abidin' Christians we're followin' their own beliefs! :rolleyes:

Well, you won't ever find any stones on me. I know a bit better than that, or so I'd like to believe anyway. They'll be judged as they judged.

Forgot about that one. Nice point.
By the way: Hell is a Bad Place. However, mature Christians worship Christ, God, out of their love for him.

Exactly. As I, myself said earlier...

I want to worship God BECAUSE I WANT TO...not because I'm afraid not to!

That's actually not found in scripture... ;)



So God isn't omnipotent enough to keep His message from being distorted?

There's a belief most adhere two when it comes to explaining how God's Word was kept from being corrupted. It's called the "God-breathed" canon. It's the belief that not only did God, be it through audible word or spritual divination (or both), speak His word through the authors to have them passed down--orally and literatively--through the generations quite literally unaltered and incorrupted. The same belief befalls how the books were chosen to become the authoritive Scripture in the Council of Nicaea.

New Testament scripture was transcribed for nearly two-thousand years unaltered in terms of canon, and any possible mistakes through these years may equate to nothing more than a typo, and that wouldn't have been until the Gutenburg Press, when they needed to break up scripture with chapters and verses. Isn't it strange how one is more prone to mess up with a machine than by hand?

So, should one believe in "God-breathed" canon, why not adhere to it as Truth? We recognize that it was written by human hand, but we also believe it to be inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient God. That should make such a feat possible, don't you think? ;)

Is god omnipotent enough to keep his scriptures from being corrupted?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is indeed a god in the way Christians believe in one. And assuming, again for the sake of argument, that he "breathed" his scripture and it is impossible to corrupt it...

How do you explain the Crusades?

Or the Spanish Inquisition?

Or the burning/hanging of "witches"?

Or the "cleansing" of the Native American tribes?

Or the Holocaust (which, I would argue, was more or less allowed to happened based upon the longstanding "They killed Jesus" antipathy)?

All of these things were done in the name of the Christian god using his "divine" book as backing.

You must either conclude that your god is a vengeful, petty, bloodthirsty god or that his "divine" word is susceptible to misinterpretation or outright misrepresentation.

And, through more searching (yay e-Sword), I found several mentionings of Hell straight from Christ's mouth:

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell

Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.


Okay, now to quibble a point, though, Romanore...isn't there something about anyone who has an imperfection in their vision cannot get into Heaven? And so...if you pluck out an eye...are you not creating an imperfection in your vision, and damning yourself to Hell?

For that matter, I wear glasses. Have since I was five. Does that mean i'm damned?

And another thing. As you well know, Romanore, I have undergone sex-reassignment surgery. Those who would damn me to Hell for it say that I have "desicrated the temple" or some such shit...by getting my operation. I'm not going into my reasons for it here, because it's a whole different topic....BUT...wouldn't cutting off a hand...or a foot...or plucking out an eye...also cause you to be desecrating the temple? And, what if it was the appendage I got rid of that was leading ME into sin...and I had it, for lack of better terminology....CUT OFF?!?!

See, there's a lot of interpretation there, don't you think?

My bottom line is...I have done what I have done....in my time, I will answer to Him for what I have done in this life...as will all others. And in the end, I believe that, since Jesus paid for all my sins...and because I truly do not WANT to sin anymore, and because I ask His help to not sin...in the end, I will be judged worthy. maybe I won't...but I think I have done what it is I am suppoed to do, and I have tried to lead a good, honest life as best I can.

Okay, now to quibble a point, though, Romanore...isn't there something about anyone who has an imperfection in their vision cannot get into Heaven? And so...if you pluck out an eye...are you not creating an imperfection in your vision, and damning yourself to Hell?

For that matter, I wear glasses. Have since I was five. Does that mean i'm damned?

And another thing. As you well know, Romanore, I have undergone sex-reassignment surgery. Those who would damn me to Hell for it say that I have "desicrated the temple" or some such shit...by getting my operation. I'm not going into my reasons for it here, because it's a whole different topic....BUT...wouldn't cutting off a hand...or a foot...or plucking out an eye...also cause you to be desecrating the temple? And, what if it was the appendage I got rid of that was leading ME into sin...and I had it, for lack of better terminology....CUT OFF?!?!

See, there's a lot of interpretation there, don't you think?

My bottom line is...I have done what I have done....in my time, I will answer to Him for what I have done in this life...as will all others. And in the end, I believe that, since Jesus paid for all my sins...and because I truly do not WANT to sin anymore, and because I ask His help to not sin...in the end, I will be judged worthy. maybe I won't...but I think I have done what it is I am suppoed to do, and I have tried to lead a good, honest life as best I can. Sex… reassignment… I thought you were asexual? How's that a sin, anyway?
Sorry, it's very hard to concentrate, I've got one of Phelps' sermons on. No, seriously, I have.

Guess you got me... but I still think it is ironic that we are taught to love through fear...

I do not love through fear or threats. that turns me off. My God is the God of compassion, mercy, love, tolerance, peace, and understanding. He knows we will all fall short. He knows we will all screw up, because we are imperfect human beings. The point is...do you truly WANT to not screw up? Are you truly remoseful when you DO screw up? Do you TRY to not screw up in the same way again? Do you ask for His help to not screw up again? If so, then I believe you will be saved...if you can TRULY answer all the above questions with a "yes."

And you don't need to convince me. Or yourself. And you don't need to convince God, either, for He already knows what is in your heart.

Is god omnipotent enough to keep his scriptures from being corrupted?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is indeed a god in the way Christians believe in one. And assuming, again for the sake of argument, that he "breathed" his scripture and it is impossible to corrupt it...

How do you explain the Crusades?
People are stupid.

Or the Spanish Inquisition?
People are stupid.

Or the burning/hanging of "witches"?
Again, stupid people.

Or the Holocaust (which, I would argue, was more or less allowed to happened based upon the longstanding "They killed Jesus" antipathy)?
Stupid, stupid people.

All of these things were done in the name of the Christian god using his "divine" book as backing.

You must either conclude that your god is a vengeful, petty, bloodthirsty god or that his "divine" word is susceptible to misinterpretation or outright misrepresentation.

You misunderstand me. We are indeed capable of misreading his wisdom, but that does not change the original content. There are many interpretations of His Word, some of which may not be so good. This, however, is not because the Word is faulty, but rather that our minds aren't fully capable of divining everything we come to see and attempt a comprehending.

We can take a very intelligent piece of text and, with our finite capabilities, gather a very stupid interpretation from it. People like the Crusaders, the Catholics, Puritans, Nazis, etc. are all examples of these. They all did bad things in the name of God, but this does not make God Himself (or His Word) inherently bad. It makes their interpretations bad.

I can help you with that:


If its still not obvious to you what the verse is about Ill explain quickly. It is saying, dont pray for others to hear, pray for God to hear. If you pray so that others will hear you praying and will admire your holiness then you already recieved your reward (the admiration of others), but if you pray for God to hear rather than others then he will reward you. This has more to do with the attitude under which you are praying. The hypocrites did not need to stand at the foot of the temple praying out loud so people would admire their oratory skills and holiness, they did it out of pride. This is what Jesus criticized.

Its not about the building, its about the church (which is composed of people). It doesnt matter whether they meet in their own building, someone's house, a school, a park, someone else's building, or whatever. A church is composed of people, not buildings.

The first paragraph, I'll respond to by saying this is precisely what makes me uncomfortable in literally every Christian church I've experienced. It always seems to me like the vast majority of them are there to be seen by others...and are in constant competition with one another to OUTDO one another. and that isn't what worship is suppoed to be about. Which is why i'm much more comfortable in my Unitarian church, and my small circle of fellow Unitarian Christians. We get together for a Bible Study in what we call a "covenant group" once a month. THAT is my "church." That cirle of fellow Unitarian Christians, when we get together to talk about the Bible, and about Jesus. And, as the Bible says...when any number of people gather together, and speak of Him...there is He present. Which dovetails into the second paragraph. And you nailed precisely my very point, that it is not about buildings...it's about people. and I don't feel a need to go to a specific building, on a specfic day, at a specific time...to worship our Lord. I can worship Him and think of Him at any time, in any place, of my choosing...either by myself, or with a group of like-minded Christians.

Christian obedience cannot not be forced by the government. If there is legislation regarding an issue such as homosexuality, every qualified citizen has the right to privately vote according to his or her preference, but it is not right to judge and condemn another person for his or her decision.

Okay, now to quibble a point, though, Romanore...isn't there something about anyone who has an imperfection in their vision cannot get into Heaven? And so...if you pluck out an eye...are you not creating an imperfection in your vision, and damning yourself to Hell?
Umm.. not that I know of. Let me check with my Biblical professors about this, but my initial instinct is to say no.

For that matter, I wear glasses. Have since I was five. Does that mean i'm damned?
I wear glasses too. I guess we're both screwed then, eh? ;)

And another thing. As you well know, Romanore, I have undergone sex-reassignment surgery. Those who would damn me to Hell for it say that I have "desicrated the temple" or some such shit...by getting my operation. I'm not going into my reasons for it here, because it's a whole different topic....BUT...wouldn't cutting off a hand...or a foot...or plucking out an eye...also cause you to be desecrating the temple? And, what if it was the appendage I got rid of that was leading ME into sin...and I had it, for lack of better terminology....CUT OFF?!?!

See, there's a lot of interpretation there, don't you think?
Verily. But here is a commentary on the Mark 9 verses by Martin G. Collins:

"A Christian's potential is so fabulous that he must do whatever he can to ensure it. No matter how important they are to us, we must abandon any worldly attachments, friendships, and employments that will lead us into sin, or we will receive eternal judgment. Of course, Jesus' illustrations of cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye are not literal, but He wants us to understand the stakes. It is far better to attain to eternal life without enjoying the pleasures of sin than to enjoy them here in this life and be lost. Thus, Jesus emphasizes that we must remove temptation and avoid sin at all costs."

There were plenty of maimed people who were followers of the Lord and Jesus Christ. I seriously doubt he'd count that against them. As for the body as a temple, again, even if what you did was a sin, you profess yourself forgiven. Do you not think that would be covered by Christ's grace? Anyway, the temple refers more to your spirit and its condition. Do you clutter the temple with harmful thoughts, deeds, and habits, or do you try to keep it clean to honor God's perfection and love? If you believe yourself to "sweep up" regularly, then you're fine.

My bottom line is...I have done what I have done....in my time, I will answer to Him for what I have done in this life...as will all others. And in the end, I believe that, since Jesus paid for all my sins...and because I truly do not WANT to sin anymore, and because I ask His help to not sin...in the end, I will be judged worthy. maybe I won't...but I think I have done what it is I am suppoed to do, and I have tried to lead a good, honest life as best I can.

Then so long as you stay in that line of thinking, I don't think you have much to worry about. ;)

Ah, so here we come to the crucial point: let's admit that what you say is true, and that all of that is indeed done for the coming kingdom. Here's the question: what's the purpose of this kingdom? I think you will agree when I say that it is supposed to be a better world that the one we currently live in, right? So, that means that in the end, edifying the Christ boils down to this: *to strive for a better world*, one free of corruption, hatred and pain and so on and so forth, no?

So, in the end, is doing it "in the name of Jesus/God/whatever" is so important? Doesn't just working for a better world is all that matters, since you say that we are supposed to do all of this to edify the Christ, which is in turn to bring the new kingdom, which purpose is *to be a better a world*?

In the end, God doesn't matter that much. You try to build a better world. I try to build a better world. I just decided to skip all the God and Jesus thing and get to the point, because "divinity" is an alien concept to me.

We're brothers, fighting for the very same cause, why are we fighting amongst each others?


Ah. I've gotten this very same argument from some of my fellow Unitarian Universalists who are NOT Christian. and i'd like to address it before reading anyone else's answers to it...I want to see if we are on the same page.

We Christians know that we cannot bring about a perfect world. We aren't capable of it. All we can do is prepare ourselves, and as many as we can...for GOD to bring that perfect world...and He will.

Our goal, thus, in doing good deeds, and in trying to make the world a better place...is to show others the love, the compassion, and the mercy of Christ, and thus bring them into a right relationship with Jesus. That is our purpose in doing the good deeds. We want no credit for that which we do, for God and Jesus gave us the abiloity, the time, the resources...with which to do it.

Our purpose is different. We are trying to prepare the world for GOD to bring about the promised perfect world, and we have faith that, in His time, He will do so. Our job, therefore, is to prepare as many as we can...for that coming world. But...to what purpose are you trying to do good deeds or "make the world a better place?" Are you trying to bring the perfect world to us? You can't. Only GOD can. We humans are not capable of our own salvation, hence the need for Jesus.

I think many non-christians misunderstand what we do, because they see what we do as a "sloughing off" of responsibility to do good deeds, after all, God's gonna fix it all, right...so why should I do anything? But that isn't the way we are, and it is a common misunderstanding among non-christians...and even some who profess to be Christians.

Whereas, I believe, many Christians misunderstand the "committment-based" lifestyle you have chosen...as being a way to immediately cast aside any obligation that you find inconvenient. Also not true.

Having been steeped in both the Christian...and the Unitarian Universalist traditions, has given me a unique perspective on both, and has enabled me to build my own right path, as a blending of both. Some things I do out of obligation, others I do out of committment. But my committments are as binding on me as my obligations are...except that I CHOSE the committments. The obligations were chosen FOR me. But I don't resent the obligations, either.

I suspect you are every bit as strong in your committments as many of the UU's I worship with. But many Christians do not understand that your committment, and even mine...can be every bit as strong as obligations. that we can stand as firmly behind our committments...and responsibilities we CHOSE to accept...as they can stand behind their obligations...and the responsibilities they are EXPECTED to accept, like it or not.

I feel that many Christians would question the strength of your committments, not understanding they can be every bit as strong. And I feel many non-Christians are insulted by the insinuation that committments that we choose for ourselves cannot be a strong as obligations froced onto us.

Am I in the right neighborhood here?

Ah. I've gotten this very same argument from some of my fellow Unitarian Universalists who are NOT Christian. and i'd like to address it before reading anyone else's answers to it...I want to see if we are on the same page.

We Christians know that we cannot bring about a perfect world. We aren't capable of it. All we can do is prepare ourselves, and as many as we can...for GOD to bring that perfect world...and He will.

Our goal, thus, in doing good deeds, and in trying to make the world a better place...is to show others the love, the compassion, and the mercy of Christ, and thus bring them into a right relationship with Jesus. That is our purpose in doing the good deeds. We want no credit for that which we do, for God and Jesus gave us the abiloity, the time, the resources...with which to do it.

Our purpose is different. We are trying to prepare the world for GOD to bring about the promised perfect world, and we have faith that, in His time, He will do so. Our job, therefore, is to prepare as many as we can...for that coming world. But...to what purpose are you trying to do good deeds or "make the world a better place?" Are you trying to bring the perfect world to us? You can't. Only GOD can. We humans are not capable of our own salvation, hence the need for Jesus.

I think many non-christians misunderstand what we do, because they see what we do as a "sloughing off" of responsibility to do good deeds, after all, God's gonna fix it all, right...so why should I do anything? But that isn't the way we are, and it is a common misunderstanding among non-christians...and even some who profess to be Christians.

Whereas, I believe, many Christians misunderstand the "committment-based" lifestyle you have chosen...as being a way to immediately cast aside any obligation that you find inconvenient. Also not true.

Having been steeped in both the Christian...and the Unitarian Universalist traditions, has given me a unique perspective on both, and has enabled me to build my own right path, as a blending of both. Some things I do out of obligation, others I do out of committment. But my committments are as binding on me as my obligations are...except that I CHOSE the committments. The obligations were chosen FOR me. But I don't resent the obligations, either.

I suspect you are every bit as strong in your committments as many of the UU's I worship with. But many Christians do not understand that your committment, and even mine...can be every bit as strong as obligations. that we can stand as firmly behind our committments...and responsibilities we CHOSE to accept...as they can stand behind their obligations...and the responsibilities they are EXPECTED to accept, like it or not.

I feel that many Christians would question the strength of your committments, not understanding they can be every bit as strong. And I feel many non-Christians are insulted by the insinuation that committments that we choose for ourselves cannot be a strong as obligations froced onto us.

Am I in the right neighborhood here? I like you. :)

*snippey*

Am I in the right neighborhood here?

I think you hit the ball out of the park. Kudos. Nearly my sentiments exactly. :)

Hmm... does God matters that much? What's the purpose of all he's doing? Why are we supposed to follow him? Because doing that is supposed to make the world a better place. Whatever the angle you look at it from, it still ends like this, making the world a better place. God, in himself, isn't important. It's his message that is. Else, we wouldn't be following him, right? God doesn't matter. Nor the Church, for that matter. It's the values we uphold that really mean something.

No, I don't think you were trying to throw mud, I just think it's sad that most people just bicker among themselves for semantics. "God" (in this precise matter, things like the world creation is a whole other story, I'm talking about the "God" that teaches us about how we should live) is nothing more than a set of values. Love, tolerance, forgiveness, that's what matters.

And, finally, there's something that bothers me. Church as it is, so stuck up on semantics and forgetting what this all really meant in the first place. By doing so, people are to be forever in the infantile stade of "let's follow blindly our parents". There's some point where a child has to grow up and become an adult. When you are aware enough of our world to decide for yourself if your parents told you the truth or not, doesn't this mean that you might not need them so much to tell you what's right and what's wrong? After all, you're already able to question things and see for yourself if they're moral or not.

When you reach this point, God isn't needed that much anymore. When you reach that point, you can already tell with or without him if what you're doing is right or wrong. When you reach this point, you are not a children anymore, you don't just say "well, it's good because my parents told me so", you're actually able to prove *why* it is so good (after all, that's how you came to agree with your parents, no?). You are an *adult*, capable of thinking all by yourself.

If "God" or whatever truly exists and has given us free will, why is the Church still arguing just by saying "well, Jesus said this so it's true", like li'l good children? If "God" truly exist and has given us free will, doesn't that means he believes in our potential to become adults, to eventually be able to live all by ourselves in peace and harmony *without* him?

In the very end, God doesn't matter and Church even less. What matters is that we strive to develop our judgement to tell apart right from wrong, and thus ultimately, work for a better world. If the values are the same, who cares whether we call it "divine", "humanist", "buddhist" or I don't know what else. When you've become an adult, you're able to understand that these are all just words, that whatever name you give these values, they are still the same.

I think that's about all I had to say on the subject.

Good night to you!
i agreed with some of what you were saying, and could at least see the logic up till the bolded paragraph. But we cannot loive without Him. And that is where you lost me. We humans are not capable of our own salvation. That is the whole point of Christianity. We know that we are imperfect...we will stumble, we will sin and fall short of the grace, and the glory of God. We need HELP. It is not a sign of weakness to ask for help. To us, it is a sign of STRENGTH...to ask for His help. Because we have to admit we aren't capable of saving ourselves, and we need His help. Takes strength to admit you are weak. Does that make any sense to you?

Or how about a better way: If God works as a motivation for your good deeds, you might as well use it.

The message is not "Don't worship God"; the message is simply "Empathise with your fellow man". If you can worship God and still be a good person, then you can be free to love and keep your deity.

Of course, the second faith encourages you to bring harm or bear ills against another, drop it. But if it brings you inspiration to act kindly to those around you, then go ahead and believe the ancient book or aspire to the metaphysical being.

You are free to believe whatever you want as long as I am free to believe that.

You and I are MOSTLY on the same page, here. The difference is that I think some people really DON'T have faith, even though they claim to...and it is that disparity that causes them to lash out and hurt others...and to justify it in the name of that which they lack in their own selves.

I do not believe that TRUE FAITH can ever encourage anyone to bring harm or bear ills against another person. I think a lot of people USE religion, and lay claim to faith they do not have...to excuse these acts. And thus, they are not TRULY people of faith.

Tis much easier to SAY you are a Christian...than it is to actually BE a Christian. But, in my book...actions always speak louder than words. And it is by their fruits ye shall know them. Says so in the Bible. And, what specifically does that mean if not...you will know them by their ACTIONS!!

What's the difference between "being moral, empathetic and good" and "adhering to religious doctrine"?

The difference is that much religious doctrine is contaminated by man-made dogma that leads others towards acts of injustice toward their fellow man.

As I have explained before, when you allow religious doctrine to take the place of your FAITH...and what you know to be right, and what Jesus would really want...you are no longer truly a person of faith. You're more interested in rules and regulations, than you are in FAITH.

Too many so-called christians stumble on this particular block. They get hung up on the rules and regulations.

what annoys me is that so many of these so-called Christians are SO CLOSE...but yet so far....from what they ought to be. The question What Would Jesus Do? is a GREAT question. But ask it HONESTLY...and from a perspective of faith...not one of religious doctrine and man-made dogma.

Now that's interesting... I don't believe in your God, yet I am happy.

Strange, that...

God is working in your life, and God loves you, whether you know it or not...whether you believe in Him or not...and whther you accept Him or not. He will never turn His back on you until you enter the gates of Hell. And that, too, is in the Bible.

Have you ever heard the story of the footprints in the sand?

what annoys me is that so many of these so-called Christians are SO CLOSE...but yet so far....from what they ought to be. The question What Would Jesus Do? is a GREAT question. But ask it HONESTLY...and from a perspective of faith...not one of religious doctrine and man-made dogma.

Assassin: *thinking while eyeing the gun's scope*Hmm... I wonder what Jesus would do: hit the head or the heart? Man, this WWJD business is tough stuff!

:D

Was God in Thailand, when that Tsunami hit it?
Sure was. And it might've been worse for many if He wasn't. God was there in New York on 9/11. God cannot stop all tragedies. but He can comfort those who have suffered tragedies...and maybe, sometimes, He can make sure YOU don't end up in a place where a tragedy happens.

Many people who were supposed to be in the Twin Towers on 9/11, for example...were not there that day for a host of mundane reasons, including missing a train, a malfuntioning alarm clock...a day-care teacher arriving late, bad traffic...God works in mysterious ways at times. It is very hard to see God in the tragedies that make up a part of human existence. It is during our times of trial and tribulation that our faith seems hardest to hold onto.

People are stupid.


People are stupid.


Again, stupid people.


Stupid, stupid people.



You misunderstand me. We are indeed capable of misreading his wisdom, but that does not change the original content. There are many interpretations of His Word, some of which may not be so good. This, however, is not because the Word is faulty, but rather that our minds aren't fully capable of divining everything we come to see and attempt a comprehending.

We can take a very intelligent piece of text and, with our finite capabilities, gather a very stupid interpretation from it. People like the Crusaders, the Catholics, Puritans, Nazis, etc. are all examples of these. They all did bad things in the name of God, but this does not make God Himself (or His Word) inherently bad. It makes their interpretations bad.

No, I haven't misunderstood you.

The Bible itself is BASED on the interpretations of man. The original texts were written by men. Whether divinely inspired or not, the writers were fundamentally incapable of understanding your god's intent and therefor could not possibly have been putting his word into paper in an accurate fashion.

Then you need to acknowledge that the choice of what books to put into the Bible in the first place was made by men. They CHOSE which of the works of men were the "word of god".

Then the Bible itself has been translated, interpreted, copied, edited and proliferated by men. Even if it STARTED divine, it has been subject to the interpretation of men for centuries.

And let us not forget... a huge portion of the Old Testament was lifted nearly verbatim from older, well established stories and folktales. Why would your god steal stories from pagans? Unless, of course, he had nothing to do with it and it was man who co-opted the stories. In either case, your "god breathed" hypothesis doesn't stand up.

Even if god is omniscient people are not. The Bible was written by people. It has been interpreted and edited by people. So you can't use the Bible as an accurate reflection of god's word.

What does that leave? A personal relationship with Jesus/god where you believe he speaks to you directly and tells you his plans for you. Leaving aside the possibility that you may need psychological counseling if you're hearing voices, you cannot escape the fact that you, as a mere human, cannot hope to understand god's design.

So anyone... ANYONE... telling you that they know how god wants you to live is selling something. In his mind he sees himself as your master, not only able but determined to tell you how to live.

Precisely why I never presume to tell others how God wants them to live. I know how He wants me to live. I terach by example...by living my life as best I can. I don't badger people, and I don't threaten people...because I know from personal experience that such tactics do not work...and in fact, often drive people further away from God and Jesus.

It is up to JESUS to tell people how He wants them to live. If you want to know how Jesus would have you live, ASK HIM. don't let any human speak for Jesus and tell you...ASK HIM.

Hmm, that's a good summary, I would say.



No, no, what I'm saying is that at some point, if you've experienced "God" to be right and true all by yourself, one could say that you don't have faith that much in God as "your omnipotent parent", but more in the core values that he is supposed to teach: Love, Peace, Forgiveness, and so on.

It is faith to these things that truly inspire you and not the fact that some guy called God/Jesus/something else just said so.

Faith in "God" rather than directly in those values is a very dangerous thing, for one might not see what is at the essence of God, just stop at the "let's follow blindly our supposedly omnipotent father" thing, and history has proven that stopping there can lead to disaster (Crusades, Inquisition, and even today, people like George Bush -- no offense meant to anybody -- say things like "God is on our side" when *starting a war* -- talk about Love and Forgiveness).

If God is Love, why not just say you have *faith in love*?


Hey, if that is what works for you, then I'm all for it. If the God you know and understand is simply LOVE...then I say run with that. We all have our own understanding of God. If your understanding is that God=Love...then you run with that. I think you and I are close to the same page, but we may have used different paths to arrive here.

Lyric

I don't know anyone who believes in a hierarchy of sin... that's a Catholic thing, if memory serves. I was raised in a Protestant family.

Maybe noone you know CLAIMS to believe in a heirarchy of sin...but their ACTIONS...and the way they react to certain sins, leads one to believe that, in their heart of hearts, many so-called Christians DO believe in a "heirarchy of sin."

First of all, I haven’t read through all of this thread yet, so forgive if I covered points others did.
This is a serious question. I cannot understand how so many can claim to be Christian...and then act in such an un-Christian manner to so many people, particularly, people in certain hated groups.Unfortunatly, that is the nature of man. To say one thing and do another. That is one of the many failings of Humanity.

And how can they do this...and then act astounded when christianity acquires a bad name, and how can they claim to feel so "persecuted" when they are among some of the most avid persecutors on the planet?basically the one bad apple syndrome. Not all Christians act that way and the 'bad' ones get all the publicity. Think of Islam. The majority of the people have only UBL, the Ayatollah and Saddam as examples of how the Islamic religion operates, thus the claim that Islam is 'Ebil.’

To set the stage for this, know that I am a Unitarian Christian. I truly believe that I do have Jesus and God in my HEART. No, i'm not perfect, I'm human, and I screw up, just like everyone else does. But the point is, I don't WANT to screew up, and I'm genuinely remorseful when I do screw up and fall short. the difference is...there are some things evangelicals and fundamentalists feel falls under the definition of "falling short" that I don't feel falls under that definition.Sin is defined differently by many people. the only person who you should be concerned about the definition of Sin is God, and that's where prayer comes in.

I have made this thread in order to ask some very specific, pointed questions...and my apologies if anyone takes personal offense. It isn't my inetion to offend anyone, though I'm sure that the sharp tone...and nature of some of my questions...are sure to offend some people. So be it. I cannot control how someone reacts to my words...and my legitimate questions. Know only that I have entered into this with no malicious intent...but rather, an intent to understand exactly what drives and motivates these people, because they are so alien to me, as to be beyond my comprehension.I find you likable when you aren’t YELLING YOUR POINTS ACROSS. So I will endevor not to be insulted or Offended if you also realize it is not my nature to purposely offend.

First...why does there seem, among evangelicals...to be a "heirarchy" of sin...that some sins are worse than others? Particularly, in my experience, evangelicals seem to classify VISIBLE sin as far worse than sin that isn't visible, and thus, can be ignored or swept under the rug?don’t know about the Visible or Invisible sins, but there is a Heirarchy. The first is to love God and Jesus, and not to place any other god between you and them. The next is to Love your Neighbor as yourself.

Another key point however, is Forgiveness. Thus, can you truly say that it’s being swept under the rug, or they are just being forgiven. Of course, I am talking between the sinner and God, there is still the laws of man that must be considered. Thus I was appalled that the Catholic Church only ‘Shuffled’ the offending priests around and not having them seek counsiling or help of any kind. Guess they forgot that they also need to seek forgiveness from those whom they wronged. And for that, I do blame the Church.

The Bible I have read indicates that there is no "worse" sins...that all sins are equally bad, and all sins separate us from God. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God," does not the Bible contain these very words?All have sinned, but there are some sins that are worse, like placing your own importance over God. To worship Idols and other ‘gods.’ Take the Laws of Man. You have Misdemeanors and you have Felonies, all are crimes, but some are worse in nature.

This leads to my second question. Why are the fundamentals and evangelicals so all-fired up about my supposed "sins" and yet, seem to have no concern over their own? "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye," admonishes the Bible. Yet, the evangelicals and fundamentalists seem determined to worry more about the speck in my eye.How do you know they are not? Granted I cannot speak for all “Fundamentals nor Evangelicals,” but the ones I see on tv preaching, they sometimes tell of their failings, of their own struggles with sin. As you say, everyone sins, but some also see it as their duty to help others from sin.

Do they truly believe themselves to be, in some way, BETTER than the rest of us? If so, they are guilty of the sin of pridefulness...the very sin for which Moses was denied Paradise. One might point out that many here see themselves better than them, Liberals, Conservatives; Republicans/Democrates. So that sin of Pride is everywhere. Why would they be any different? They to are human, and when you realize that, you’ll find them much easier to deal with.

Why do they so concern themselves with the sins of others? God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of others...He will not punish YOU if you fail to keep ME from sinnning. Yes, in the Old Testment, the entire house was held accountable for the sins of the one, this is true....but we no longer are bound, as Christians, by the Old Testament. Jesus blood was the New Covenant. He gave us the New Testament, because we had proven ourselves unable to live up to the standards of the Old Testament, and we had proven ourselves incapable of our own salvation. Jesus did say to Go Forth and Preach to all Nations. Now, unfortunatly, HE never really stated how that preaching should go. Some go by how Jesus did, with Parables, stories and even life accounts to teach, encourage and warn. Others find it easier to do the whole “this is what you are doing wrong” bit. And some preach by example, by living life in Gods name and letting their actions speak for them. And of course, the “Fire And Brimstone” people, unfortunatly, I haven’t really run into any of them.

Thus it was that God, for the only time ever...asked someone to take accountability for sins not his own. for that very purpose, God sent His only son, Jesus...with the express purpose that He pay the price for our sins. His doing so removed the need for anyone, ever agian, to have to take accountability for any sins not their very own. So why are fundamentalists and evangelicals all worked up over the sins...or so-called sins...of others?Interesting Interpretation. However, it’s the Christian’s duty to spread the word of God, and to do so, you do need to let others know what is sin. Of course there are ways this can be done without the finger pointing also. I always thought that Jesus was the Final Sacrifice, so that to gain forgiveness for our sins, we now can pray to God and be forgiven. No longer do we need the Alters, the First born Calves, the best of the Harvest, the fires and the Ritual oils. Now all you need is prayer.

And, in seeking to bring people to God and to Jesus...why do these people resort to a message almost guaranteed to drive people away...rather than bring them in? I mean...would you be more insipred to follow a God who showed patience, love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy and joy...or one who is wrathful, vengeful, and angry...full of fire and brimstone and damnation? One who is full of threats? as you say, the “Wages of sin is Death.” There are many examples of both in the Bible, a kind and loving God, but also a God who is stern and will deal punishment to sinners. One must take both into accounts, but some like to focus on one or the other. Me, I think of God as a Parent, one who will nurture and guide you through life, but will also warn you away from sin and punish you when you do.

I don't know about most people, but I know threats sure turn ME off! It's almost as if they come to us with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, and then expect us to somehow embrace their God, and give up on all hopes of peace, joy, love, tolerance, mercy...and commit ourselves to a lifetime of walking on eggshells. I just don't get it. That’s up to you. I hope, however, you do not ignore the warnings that God does give. Remember, he destroyed cities that were sinful in HIS eyes, but HE also spared Cities that repented. And he does punish those who walk his path but stray.

Fortunately for me...God HIMSELF showed me as much of the nature of God as I am capable of accepting, as a human being. I asked...and I was shown. So call me Doubting Thomas. But, nevertheless, it is because I was shown...that I came around to faith in God. I have my own personal relationship with God and with Jesus...and no man....nor any man's church nor dogma...will ever insinuate itself into that relationship. Good sentiment, but how do you know the difference of what you are capable of accepting from what you are willing to accept? You asked and were shown, but did you only see what you wanted to see? I believe God is still showing you his Nature.

As for Church, Church is also a place for fellowship. To converse and to celebrate Him with others. As you like to have your friends and Family over to your place, God likes to have his family and followers over to his.

I just totally do not understand how so many so-called Christians can proclaim Christianity....and then turn around and act in such an un-Christian manner towards their fellow man. I do not recall the Bible ever telling mankind that they should exact punishment from "sinners" in His name! That is to be left up to God and Jesus. agreed, God is the only one who can Judge sin. But it’s Man’s duty to help guide and assist their fellow man. To help them remove as much sin from their lives. Again, and unfortunatly, the methods are varying as well as the people. I agree that a lot of people choose to hate the sinner as well as the sin. But remember, Even Jesus showed kindness to the prostitutes, the Romans who were sent to arrest him, even Pilot, who had to judge him. But he also showed anger at the merchants who defiled God’s home, and also disappointment towards his Disciples when they were weak.

The only conclusion I can come to is that many so-called Christians have God and Jesus in their HEAD....but not in their HEART. And, I believe that, when the final Judgement comes...many are going to be completely surprised by the verdict that comes down in their case! all I can say is I believe there will be surprises all around.

You know Lyric, I like it when you aren’t taking personal insults from everything being said.. I would rather converse like this, when you are not going on a rant.

To me it all comes down to:

Were Right Your Wrong!
Were Smart Your Dumb!
Our God is Stronger Than Your God!!!

Christians are a odd lot. That is why I left. When they say to love yet preach hate I decided it was time to look elsewhere.

But, see...that is just the problem. It's easier to SAY you are Christian than to really BE one. And those who preach hate...are not Christian, for Jesus never preached hate. You'll never see ME preaching hate. I battle with the hatred I hold in my heart for certain people and certain groups. I ask Jesus to help me with this shortcoming and to overcome it. I ask Him to help me...and to show me how to not allow my jusifyable anger towards certain groups metastasize into hatred.

i agreed with some of what you were saying, and could at least see the logic up till the bolded paragraph. But we cannot loive without Him. And that is where you lost me. We humans are not capable of our own salvation. That is the whole point of Christianity. We know that we are imperfect...we will stumble, we will sin and fall short of the grace, and the glory of God. We need HELP. It is not a sign of weakness to ask for help. To us, it is a sign of STRENGTH...to ask for His help. Because we have to admit we aren't capable of saving ourselves, and we need His help. Takes strength to admit you are weak. Does that make any sense to you?

The problem I have with most Christians is this sort of bred-to-the-bone belief that people who do not believe as they do NEED Christian salvation.

I've read your posts, Lyric. I greatly respect your personal faith and your eloquence. But you just cannot seem to comprehend that people may not need or want the so-called salvation you believe in.

Me, I live a life that I consider to be moral. I do as best I can to treat people fairly. I am kind when a person warrants it and temperate (mostly) when they don't. I abhor violence for violence's sake and generally have a smile for anyone who wants one.

Thing is, I firmly believe that personal Faith is far more important than any religious dogma. I understand and appreciate the idea that people want to gather together to share a similar Faith, but churches are almost always not about simply sharing. They tend to be places where people go to feel better about themselves, not to share their Faith.

Churches also espouse a certain dogma and expect you to believe it. That is just someone trying to control your life. You don't need a Church to tell you how to live righteously.

People can love without Jesus. It happens all the time. Perhaps YOU can't love without Jesus, and that's your prerogative, but others are quite happy without him in their life. That you can't understand it does not invalidate it. It simply makes you closeminded in the sense that you assume something that disagrees with your belief is somehow objectively wrong.

Is god omnipotent enough to keep his scriptures from being corrupted?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is indeed a god in the way Christians believe in one. And assuming, again for the sake of argument, that he "breathed" his scripture and it is impossible to corrupt it...

How do you explain the Crusades?

Or the Spanish Inquisition?

Or the burning/hanging of "witches"?

Or the "cleansing" of the Native American tribes?

Or the Holocaust (which, I would argue, was more or less allowed to happened based upon the longstanding "They killed Jesus" antipathy)?

All of these things were done in the name of the Christian god using his "divine" book as backing.

You must either conclude that your god is a vengeful, petty, bloodthirsty god or that his "divine" word is susceptible to misinterpretation or outright misrepresentation.

Absolutely His word is susceptible to misinterpretation and/or outright misrepresentation. Did you not get that much out of my initial post that started this very thread?

Sex… reassignment… I thought you were asexual? How's that a sin, anyway?
Sorry, it's very hard to concentrate, I've got one of Phelps' sermons on. No, seriously, I have.
Ok...let's not get too far off topic. But I'll try to quickly clear this up for you. Asexual refers to my sexual orientation. In that, I have absolutely no sex drive whatsoever.
I'm a transgender person who had a sex reassignment surgey, so that my physical body would match my GENDER IDENTITY (as in how I see myself) and gender identity has nothing, whatever, to do with sexual orientation. Does that help?

God is working in your life, and God loves you, whether you know it or not...whether you believe in Him or not...and whther you accept Him or not. He will never turn His back on you until you enter the gates of Hell. And that, too, is in the Bible.

Have you ever heard the story of the footprints in the sand?

Argh...

You know, you just lost a ton of respect with the "You're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior" stuff.

And yes, I've heard that story. I was raised Christian. I just grew out of it.

No, I haven't misunderstood you.

The Bible itself is BASED on the interpretations of man. The original texts were written by men. Whether divinely inspired or not, the writers were fundamentally incapable of understanding your god's intent and therefor could not possibly have been putting his word into paper in an accurate fashion.

Sure they could. Some even expressed that they didn't know what on earth they were putting down (i.e. Revelation), but put it down anyway because they were pressed by God to do so. Or, it could be safe to assume that for a time, God inspired them enough to understand his word in order to convey it to others. In most instances, the stories, laws, and prophesies told were told by those who received direct influence from God. They weren't possessed, per se, but they were pressed. There are some possible exceptions, one perhaps being the scribe of King David, who wrote down the accounts of the life of David in the courts. His accounts are all based on interviews, previously existing documents, and eyewitnessing events himself.

Then you need to acknowledge that the choice of what books to put into the Bible in the first place was made by men. They CHOSE which of the works of men were the "word of god".
Chosen by men physically, perhaps, but as I said, the "God-breathed" approach encompasses even the Council of Nicaea, when the heads of the church first got together to see what was an authoritive book and what wasn't. Many hold to the belief that God moved through them and their decisions in aiding the choice of what went into the completed texts.

Then the Bible itself has been translated, interpreted, copied, edited and proliferated by men. Even if it STARTED divine, it has been subject to the interpretation of men for centuries.
And as I said before, the closest one could come to finding any inconsistancies with older more original documents adds up to the equivalent of a typo. Scribes and monks were very particular when it came to copying the Word page after page. Were there a single error, the entire page was discarded and they started over. They were under intense scrutinization as well, so it would be extremely hard for a mistake to get by unnoticed. Modern translations may be the closest thing to having poor interpretation, but if one looks at the newest copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts and compares them with the oldest known copy intact, it would be hard to spot any continuity errors.

And let us not forget... a huge portion of the Old Testament was lifted nearly verbatim from older, well established stories and folktales. Why would your god steal stories from pagans? Unless, of course, he had nothing to do with it and it was man who co-opted the stories. In either case, your "god breathed" hypothesis doesn't stand up.
Unless of course the "original" folk tales were deviations from the Biblical accounts of creation and all that followed suit. Just because the Hebrew accounts didn't begin to be passed down until after Abram doesn't mean that they are unoriginal.

Think of it from a Christian or Hebrew's point of view: God created the world and man. After man's fall, they continued to believe in God, and told of the family's history down the line of generations. As mankind fell deeper into sin and further from God, however (and this includes after the time of Noah), the stories began to deviate, warping and distorting into mythos and lore. Since the Flood, it wasn't until Abram (Abraham) did God step back into the realms of men and reestablish a covenant with mankind. Even further along the lines came Moses, whom God retold the accounts of creation all the way up to his times so that he may keep the accounts alive and within His people. However, since it was only a select few who held the true account once again, others still had warped perceptions, ignorant blanks of history, and even completely made up accounts.

It's all a matter of perception as to whom has the "original" story, really. We just happen to believe that its us. :D

Absolutely His word is susceptible to misinterpretation and/or outright misrepresentation. Did you not get that much out of my initial post that started this very thread?

That post was in response to someone else saying that the Bible is god's inspired word and is incapable of being corrupted.

There were plenty of maimed people who were followers of the Lord and Jesus Christ. I seriously doubt he'd count that against them. As for the body as a temple, again, even if what you did was a sin, you profess yourself forgiven. Do you not think that would be covered by Christ's grace?

Of course I do. But there are many poisonous people, like my brother, for example...who claim to be Christian...and yet damn me to eternity in Hell for having that operation done...saying there is no forgiveness for what I have done. That was my point. My point was to point out that many so-called Christians claim I can NEVER be forgiven for what I did (because it so offends THEIR sensibilities...)

Me, I merely remind them they do not speak for Jesus...and so therefore, they must be telling me that THEY, personally cannot forgive me for what I have done (as if I needed their forgiveness, anyway...since I never harmed them by doing it) and, since they are unable to forgive ME...how can they expect JESUS to forgive THEM of their sins?

Even the Bible says there is no forgiveness for those who never show it to others.

Sure they could. Some even expressed that they didn't know what on earth they were putting down (i.e. Revelation), but put it down anyway because they were pressed by God to do so. Or, it could be safe to assume that for a time, God inspired them enough to understand his word in order to convey it to others. In most instances, the stories, laws, and prophesies told were told by those who received direct influence from God. They weren't possessed, per se, but they were pressed. There are some possible exceptions, one perhaps being the scribe of King David, who wrote down the accounts of the life of David in the courts. His accounts are all based on interviews, previously existing documents, and eyewitnessing events himself.


Chosen by men physically, perhaps, but as I said, the "God-breathed" approach encompasses even the Council of Nicaea, when the heads of the church first got together to see what was an authoritive book and what wasn't. Many hold to the belief that God moved through them and their decisions in aiding the choice of what went into the completed texts.


And as I said before, the closest one could come to finding any inconsistancies with older more original documents adds up to the equivalent of a typo. Scribes and monks were very particular when it came to copying the Word page after page. Were there a single error, the entire page was discarded and they started over. They were under intense scrutinization as well, so it would be extremely hard for a mistake to get by unnoticed. Modern translations may be the closest thing to having poor interpretation, but if one looks at the newest copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts and compares them with the oldest known copy intact, it would be hard to spot any continuity errors.


Unless of course the "original" folk tales were deviations from the Biblical accounts of creation and all that followed suit. Just because the Hebrew accounts didn't begin to be passed down until after Abram doesn't mean that they are unoriginal.

Think of it from a Christian or Hebrew's point of view: God created the world and man. After man's fall, they continued to believe in God, and told of the family's history down the line of generations. As mankind fell deeper into sin and further from God, however (and this includes after the time of Noah), the stories began to deviate, warping and distorting into mythos and lore. Since the Flood, it wasn't until Abram (Abraham) did God step back into the realms of men and reestablish a covenant with mankind. Even further along the lines came Moses, whom God retold the accounts of creation all the way up to his times so that he may keep the accounts alive and within His people. However, since it was only a select few who held the true account once again, others still had warped perceptions, ignorant blanks of history, and even completely made up accounts.

It's all a matter of perception as to whom has the "original" story, really. We just happen to believe that its us. :D

I envy you. It must be so easy to argue when you don't have to rely on common sense, logic and evidence.

That post was in response to someone else saying that the Bible is god's inspired word and is incapable of being corrupted.

Perhaps I should be more clear on the matter, or try to be anyway. God's word, so far as original intent, displayed meaning, and Holy commands were not corrupted. Smaller details, such as historical (in)accuracies and anything that may not directly pertain to God's "bottom-line" intent are free to scrutinization, and have been for quite some time. I'm not so ignorant to believe that man is perfect in his recordkeeping, however, I am one bold enough to declare that whatever intent God had, His "bottom-line", has remained as it was when it was first inspired.

Does that help clear things, I hope?

Assassin: *thinking while eyeing the gun's scope*Hmm... I wonder what Jesus would do: hit the head or the heart? Man, this WWJD business is tough stuff!

:D
Oh, Romanore....I'm so trying to withhold my judgement here... :D

ON EDIT: Damn...I couldn't manage it. I just HAD to go ahead and make a snarky Pat Robertson/Hugo Chavez reference here...

I envy you. It must be so easy to argue when you don't have to rely on common sense, logic and evidence.

It's not as easy as relying on a God who surpases our finite logic and skepticism, who can display common sense in a neatly bound book for all to see. :D

Oh, Romanore....I'm so trying to withhold my judgement here... :D

:D I do my best to make it hard for everyone, including those I respect. ;)

And, through more searching (yay e-Sword), I found several mentionings of Hell straight from Christ's mouth:

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell

Mark 9:47-48 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.It's alternative interpretation time, with your ever-irritating host: Kamsaki!

Let's take a look at the scriptural origins of the word Hell in Jesus's time. You look at every single instance of Hell in Gospel Scripture and you'll notice it is accompanied by a recurrent concept. Every time, without fail, it is joined by a couple of defining words; such consistency cannot be mere coincidence. And those words are these:

"Thrown Into".

Taken in a christian context, this may not mean a lot. In fact, if you look at it as most Christians view the concept of hell, it would seem as though God is making an active effort to forcibly relocate people into this eternal abyss of pain and suffering.

However, this is a mistaken take on what Jesus meant by Hell. The word from which the translation of "Hell" is made is Greek: Gehenna. This is an actual physical location; a valley south of Jerusalem, also known as the Valley of Hinnom. In a rather obscure reference, this place is pointed to twice in Jeremiah, notably chaper 19 and verse 6 (the other somewhere in chapter 7), as the Valley of Slaughter.

Have a guess as to what happened here. Yup; people were "thrown into" Hell as sacrifices to "Pagan" gods (or, rather, whatever gods the Ammonites worshipped; the term Pagan is probably a misnomer) and the place became a perpetual, burning dumping ground for both garbage and human sacrifice.

The key thing here is symbolism. Gehenna symbolised the ultimate vision of pain and disgrace; thrown as a sacrifice to another God to a refuse pit where your remains would be burned away. Lonliness, physical pain, disgust at those who did this to you, disgrace at being used to further another's cause and the complete helplessness of being unable to escape it... What it symbolises is the epitome of Earthly Misery.

That is Hell, and that is all of Hell. It is the ultimate image of Earthly suffering, and the inevitable consequence of living a life of Sin. You live a life of nothing but self-fulfilment and you will be left a broken hulk of a human being at the end of it all.

That is also Jesus's teachings. If you find parts of you want to Sin, you should overcome them, because letting them do what they want to will inevitably have horrendous earthly consequences on both you and those around you. It's not some threat of eternal punishment; it is a simple warning that immorality has serious consequences.

This is all assuming they follow YOUR view of God. Their understanding of what God is and what he expects is what prompts their actions, and what justifies their views. You can't prove THEIR folly with YOUR God, it doesn't work that way.

As for the comment about whether fire and brimstone style stuff drives people away, you forget that hatred has been the most powerful means of bringing people together since the dawn of time. I would bet that 80% of conversions to Christianity were done via hate.

Well does one's view of God somehow change Him? That is what you are suggesting. I would put forth that God, as depicted in the Christian Bible, does prove their folly and that this guy is on the right track in a lot of what he said, although there were a few things I disagreed with him on. Many Christians have gotten off base in a lot of their theology and need to go back and fix quite a bit of it.

And, in seeking to bring people to God and to Jesus...why do these people resort to a message almost guaranteed to drive people away...rather than bring them in? I mean...would you be more insipred to follow a God who showed patience, love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy and joy...or one who is wrathful, vengeful, and angry...full of fire and brimstone and damnation? One who is full of threats?

He will never turn His back on you until you enter the gates of Hell.

Wow. Talk about infinite love and forgiveness and a message free of threats...

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one pass.

Yes, we're almost on the same page. However, hasn't God supposedly created us in his image? Wouldn't that make us able to love as much as himself, or at the very least to some extent?

We are born in the image of our parents, but does that mean we stay children, inferior to them in every way, forever? Isn't there a time where you must stop doing things just because it pleases your parents?

Yes, I fear that God is too often used as an excuse for people not to take responsibility for our actions. Even you say this: we cannot save ourselves, we need God, doesn't that mean "well, it's no prob if we can't improve, only God can do that anyway". Admitting weakness isn't the problem. Reveling in that weakness and always turning to someone else to compensate is.

If God is so perfect, why would have he created us so imperfect that we have no hope of improvement all by ourselves?

It's not as easy as relying on a God who surpases our finite logic and skepticism, who can display common sense in a neatly bound book for all to see. :D

A book defined by its rambling prose, naked inconsistencies and being infamously prone to misinterpretation?

No thanks. I'll stick with actually investigating the universe I live in and coming to my own conclusions. I may end up being wrong, but at least I'll have come by my mistakes honestly trying to learn instead of blindly following a book.

If there really is a Christian god he knows that I will never believe in him unless he taps me on the shoulder and provides incontrovertible proof that he not only exists but cares about what happens to me.

It's alternative interpretation time, with your ever-irritating host: Kamsaki!

Let's take a look at the scriptural origins of the word Hell in Jesus's time. You look at every single instance of Hell in Gospel Scripture and you'll notice it is accompanied by a recurrent concept. Every time, without fail, it is joined by a couple of defining words; such consistency cannot be mere coincidence. And those words are these:

"Thrown Into".

Taken in a christian context, this may not mean a lot. In fact, if you look at it as most Christians view the concept of hell, it would seem as though God is making an active effort to forcibly relocate people into this eternal abyss of pain and suffering.

However, this is a mistaken take on what Jesus meant by Hell. The word from which the translation of "Hell" is made is Greek: Gehenna. This is an actual physical location; a valley south of Jerusalem, also known as the Valley of Hinnom. In a rather obscure reference, this place is pointed to twice in Jeremiah, notably chaper 19 and verse 6 (the other somewhere in chapter 7), as the Valley of Slaughter.

Have a guess as to what happened here. Yup; people were "thrown into" Hell as sacrifices to "Pagan" gods (or, rather, whatever gods the Ammonites worshipped; the term Pagan is probably a misnomer) and the place became a perpetual, burning dumping ground for both garbage and human sacrifice.

The key thing here is symbolism. Gehenna symbolised the ultimate vision of pain and disgrace; thrown as a sacrifice to another God to a refuse pit where your remains would be burned away. Lonliness, physical pain, disgust at those who did this to you, disgrace at being used to further another's cause and the complete helplessness of being unable to escape it... What it symbolises is the epitome of Earthly Misery.

That is Hell, and that is all of Hell. It is the ultimate image of Earthly suffering, and the inevitable consequence of living a life of Sin. You live a life of nothing but self-fulfilment and you will be left a broken hulk of a human being at the end of it all.

That is also Jesus's teachings. If you find parts of you want to Sin, you should overcome them, because letting them do what they want to will inevitably have horrendous earthly consequences on both you and those around you. It's not some threat of eternal punishment; it is a simple warning that immorality has serious consequences.


Well, I'm with you all the way there!

The problem I have with most Christians is this sort of bred-to-the-bone belief that people who do not believe as they do NEED Christian salvation.

I've read your posts, Lyric. I greatly respect your personal faith and your eloquence. But you just cannot seem to comprehend that people may not need or want the so-called salvation you believe in.

Me, I live a life that I consider to be moral. I do as best I can to treat people fairly. I am kind when a person warrants it and temperate (mostly) when they don't. I abhor violence for violence's sake and generally have a smile for anyone who wants one.

Thing is, I firmly believe that personal Faith is far more important than any religious dogma. I understand and appreciate the idea that people want to gather together to share a similar Faith, but churches are almost always not about simply sharing. They tend to be places where people go to feel better about themselves, not to share their Faith.

Churches also espouse a certain dogma and expect you to believe it. That is just someone trying to control your life. You don't need a Church to tell you how to live righteously.

People can love without Jesus. It happens all the time. Perhaps YOU can't love without Jesus, and that's your prerogative, but others are quite happy without him in their life. That you can't understand it does not invalidate it. It simply makes you closeminded in the sense that you assume something that disagrees with your belief is somehow objectively wrong.


I believe you are taking offense where none was intended. Let me see if I can clear some of this up. It may well be that some of my words were not expressed in the most comprehensible manner possible, and that could have led to misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

I believe all people need salvation...and that people are not capable of their own salvation. That means you, me, and everyone else. We are not capable, by ourselves...to save our own selves. But, you draw strength from whatever it is that gives you strength. I have no desire to force you to draw strength from that which gives me strength. I perfectly comfortable to let you choose for yourself, and I've no interest in stopping you from doing so. you'll notice I have made some choices myself...choices that would seem to go against the "traditional" Christian grain. and I would be very angry with anyone who tried to take my ability to choose away from me. Thus, I understand your defensive tack. Know only that you needn't use that tack on me, as I've no interest in taking your ability to choose away from you.

You and I are both on the same page when you say that you believe personal faith is more important than religious dogma. Have you not read my other posts throughout this thread, where I, too, rail on man-made dogma?

As to churches being a place to share faith...I couldn't agree more! and one of the very reasons I'm not comfortable in a traditional Christian church is that very thing which you cite: "They tend to be places where people go to feel better about themselves, not to share their Faith." And I have said so in other postings throughout this thread. In fact, this discomfort with the traditional Christian church is the very reason I even define myself as a Unitarian Christian. And why I choose to worship in a Unitarian Universalist church.

You further state "Churches also espouse a certain dogma and expect you to believe it. That is just someone trying to control your life. You don't need a Church to tell you how to live righteously." No disagreement here! We are, once again, on the same page! It is another of the problems I have with the "traditional" Christian church. You'll see me say so in several other postings throughout this thread.

Now, I wish to make special note of this statement of yours...and address it, so I'm cutting-and-pasting here, and bolding your words...

People can love without Jesus. It happens all the time. Perhaps YOU can't love without Jesus, and that's your prerogative, but others are quite happy without him in their life. That you can't understand it does not invalidate it. It simply makes you closeminded in the sense that you assume something that disagrees with your belief is somehow objectively wrong.

Never did I say that one could not love without Jesus. I said I cannot LIVE without Jesus. But I think I noticed a typo in the posting to which you refer, so I understand your misinterpretation. Look at your computer keyborad and you will see that I is right next to O, so you can understand how such a typo could happen. And I never said I couldn't understand how someone could be happy without Him in their lives. Please show me where I said that. Lastly...I feel you are attacking me, by calling me closeminded, when, in fact, I am anything BUT closed-minded, which I think you would discover for yourself if you read my postings. I have never assumed that someone's religious beloief that does not match mine is objectively wrong. Please tell me where and how you came to the conclusion that I felt that way...or that I stated any such thing.

I think you are looking for an enemy in the wrong place, because I think we share more ideas than not.

Lyric

I don't know anyone who believes in a hierarchy of sin... that's a Catholic thing, if memory serves. I was raised in a Protestant family.

To be fair, a "Catholic thing" with a very explicit Scriptural basis:

"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." (1 John 5:16-17)

On that basis, Catholicism classifies sins, based on their severity (as well as the knowledge and will of the sinner) as either venial or mortal.

Argh...

You know, you just lost a ton of respect with the "You're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior" stuff.


Well, sorry. But that IS what I believe. And if stating that belief caused me to lose your respect, then I have to consider if your respect was something I ever really wanted in the first place.

I would still respect YOU...even if your beliefs are different than mine. My faith commands this of me. And even if it didn't, I would still respect you...and your beliefs...and your right to have and share them...because that is the right thing to do, according to my own moral code.

Therefore, know that, even while you no longer respect me...I still respect you. I, on the other hand, need to consider whether your respect was of any value to me, if merely stating my own beliefs...which differ from yours...could cause me to lose that respect.

That post was in response to someone else saying that the Bible is god's inspired word and is incapable of being corrupted.

that's right. and the Word never was corrupted. It means what it always meant. The interpretation, and usage of the word certainly was corrupted, but the Word never was corrupted.

Nice try.

I envy you. It must be so easy to argue when you don't have to rely on common sense, logic and evidence.

Hmmm...one could certainly take such words as being a personal attack. Since when did Romanore attack you?

seems to me that SOMEONE isn't too sure of his position, else he wouldn't need to resort to ad hominem cheap shots.

that's right. and the Word never was corrupted. It means what it always meant. The interpretation, and usage of the word certainly was corrupted, but the Word never was corrupted.

Nice try.

I think his point was that we can hardly know what the "Word" is, since it has been interpreted so many times throughout history. How are we supposed to know that what we have nowadays *is* the Word itself, and not one of its interpretation?

I'm sure someone would say "well, because I believe it is". Well, surprise, surprise, people before Christianism thought they had it right just because "they believed it" too. Believing isn't worth much if you can't prove why your beliefs are better, else, it's just like saying "my daddy is stronger than you, so I win!"

I believe you are taking offense where none was intended. Let me see if I can clear some of this up. It may well be that some of my words were not expressed in the most comprehensible manner possible, and that could have led to misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

I believe all people need salvation...and that people are not capable of their own salvation. That means you, me, and everyone else. We are not capable, by ourselves...to save our own selves. But, you draw strength from whatever it is that gives you strength. I have no desire to force you to draw strength from that which gives me strength. I perfectly comfortable to let you choose for yourself, and I've no interest in stopping you from doing so. you'll notice I have made some choices myself...choices that would seem to go against the "traditional" Christian grain. and I would be very angry with anyone who tried to take my ability to choose away from me. Thus, I understand your defensive tack. Know only that you needn't use that tack on me, as I've no interest in taking your ability to choose away from you.

You and I are both on the same page when you say that you believe personal faith is more important than religious dogma. Have you not read my other posts throughout this thread, where I, too, rail on man-made dogma?

As to churches being a place to share faith...I couldn't agree more! and one of the very reasons I'm not comfortable in a traditional Christian church is that very thing which you cite: "They tend to be places where people go to feel better about themselves, not to share their Faith." And I have said so in other postings throughout this thread. In fact, this discomfort with the traditional Christian church is the very reason I even define myself as a Unitarian Christian. And why I choose to worship in a Unitarian Universalist church.

You further state "Churches also espouse a certain dogma and expect you to believe it. That is just someone trying to control your life. You don't need a Church to tell you how to live righteously." No disagreement here! We are, once again, on the same page! It is another of the problems I have with the "traditional" Christian church. You'll see me say so in several other postings throughout this thread.

Now, I wish to make special note of this statement of yours...and address it, so I'm cutting-and-pasting here, and bolding your words...

People can love without Jesus. It happens all the time. Perhaps YOU can't love without Jesus, and that's your prerogative, but others are quite happy without him in their life. That you can't understand it does not invalidate it. It simply makes you closeminded in the sense that you assume something that disagrees with your belief is somehow objectively wrong.

Never did I say that one could not love without Jesus. I said I cannot LIVE without Jesus. But I think I noticed a typo in the posting to which you refer, so I understand your misinterpretation. Look at your computer keyborad and you will see that I is right next to O, so you can understand how such a typo could happen. And I never said I couldn't understand how someone could be happy without Him in their lives. Please show me where I said that. Lastly...I feel you are attacking me, by calling me closeminded, when, in fact, I am anything BUT closed-minded, which I think you would discover for yourself if you read my postings. I have never assumed that someone's religious beloief that does not match mine is objectively wrong. Please tell me where and how you came to the conclusion that I felt that way...or that I stated any such thing.

I think you are looking for an enemy in the wrong place, because I think we share more ideas than not.

Couple things here...

My post wasn't actually meant as an attack against you. As I said, I respect your personal Faith greatly and admire that you are able to express yourself so well. I think perhaps I've had too many people who take their faith in the Christian god as a mandate to bring that "light" unto others. If I have misrepresented you that was never my intent. Indeed, I hate it when others misrepresent me.

You believe that all people need salvation. But salvation from WHAT? Hell? I don't believe there is a Hell. So do I still need salvation? And if so, from what?

I acknowledge the possibility of typo and apologize if I misread you. I've seen the same "love" argument from Christians too, though, so it wasn't too far of a stretch for me to think that's what you were saying. hehehe Still, sorry for misrepresenting you.

Please allow me to clear up the "Closeminded" thing. I tried to put that remark into a specific context to show that I didn't consider it a general condemnation of you. I wanted to say that in that particular instance it was a blind spot for you, or seemed to be. I suppose the problem arises when you fail to realize that I was using "closeminded" in the most literal sense and not in an insulting way. I was using it strictly connotatively, not denotatively, if that makes sense?

I think that, for whatever reason, there has been misunderstanding on both sides. In another post, for instance, you certainly sounded like you thought I would be going to Hell for not accepting Jesus as my savior. To me, that is tremendously offensive. It "put my hackles up", if you will. And I think you can see with my last post how I react with my hackles up.

Wow. Talk about infinite love and forgiveness and a message free of threats...

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one pass.

Lyric Replies: fair enough. But I never said he or anyone else, would go to Hell for failing to believe in Jesus. Nor should avoidance of Hell be the main reason for you to accept Jesus. That last bit is a direct quote from the Bible...about Him not turning from you until you enter the gates of Hell, that is. I have no right, nor authority, to say what will condemn one to Hell...nor what will save one from it. That's Jesus's job.

Yes, we're almost on the same page. However, hasn't God supposedly created us in his image? Wouldn't that make us able to love as much as himself, or at the very least to some extent?

We are born in the image of our parents, but does that mean we stay children, inferior to them in every way, forever? Isn't there a time where you must stop doing things just because it pleases your parents?

Yes, I fear that God is too often used as an excuse for people not to take responsibility for our actions. Even you say this: we cannot save ourselves, we need God, doesn't that mean "well, it's no prob if we can't improve, only God can do that anyway". Admitting weakness isn't the problem. Reveling in that weakness and always turning to someone else to compensate is.

If God is so perfect, why would have he created us so imperfect that we have no hope of improvement all by ourselves?

Well, my answer to that might not be something you would like to hear, but....
God DID create us perfect. We CHOSE to cast aside that perfectness in the Garden of Eden. We therefore made ourselves imperfect. GOD did not make us imperfect, WE made ourselves imperfect. And perfection cannot arise from imperfection, and this is why we are incapable of saving our own selves. Of course there is hope for...and room for IMPROVEMENT. But PERFECTION is not something we can achieve on our own.

A book defined by its rambling prose, naked inconsistencies and being infamously prone to misinterpretation?

No thanks. I'll stick with actually investigating the universe I live in and coming to my own conclusions. I may end up being wrong, but at least I'll have come by my mistakes honestly trying to learn instead of blindly following a book.

If there really is a Christian god he knows that I will never believe in him unless he taps me on the shoulder and provides incontrovertible proof that he not only exists but cares about what happens to me.

First...we do not blidly follow a book. At least I don't. I question things all the time.

Second...fair enough. Let me pose a question to you then...What form would you like God to take when He taps you on the shoulder? How would you KNOW it was Him, and not someone just claiming to be Him? And what would serve as incontrovertible proof to you?

These questions were put to me by my cousin, back in my days when I, too, was agnostic. And you know, I couldn't answer her questions. For all you know, the guy in front of you in line at Wendy's may well be God. so how would that guy then have to prove to you that he was? What would you accept as proof?

I can only tell you that I asked for proof, too. and I was shown. I was given proof. I can tell you that the proof did not come in any form I would have expected.

As I told my cousin, when she posed the very same questions to me...I do not know...all I know is that when...and if...I see it, I will know it. Well, I was shown. I saw. And I recognized it for what it was. I was shown as much as I was capable of accepting at that time.

I can only hope that you, too, will be shown...and that you will know...when you are shown. May your life be filled with peace, joy, love and happiness...regardless of whether or not you ever come to believe as I do.

Well, my answer to that might not be something you would like to hear, but....
God DID create us perfect. We CHOSE to cast aside that perfectness in the Garden of Eden. We therefore made ourselves imperfect. GOD did not make us imperfect, WE made ourselves imperfect. And perfection cannot arise from imperfection, and this is why we are incapable of saving our own selves. Of course there is hope for...and room for IMPROVEMENT. But PERFECTION is not something we can achieve on our own.

We *chose* it? Hey, nobody ever asked me! You know, order can arise from chaos. Why couldn't perfection arise from imperfection?

You're talking about Adam and Eva, right? Then here's something interesting: according to this story, God created them "perfect", but without knowledge of good nor evil. How could they then be blamed, since when they disobeyed God *they had no knowledge of good or evil*, so they couldn't know that disobeying God was bad, could they? It's only after their disgrace that this sense of awareness to morality came to be. Isn't this unfair? It was a no-win situation!

Couple things here...

My post wasn't actually meant as an attack against you. As I said, I respect your personal Faith greatly and admire that you are able to express yourself so well. I think perhaps I've had too many people who take their faith in the Christian god as a mandate to bring that "light" unto others. If I have misrepresented you that was never my intent. Indeed, I hate it when others misrepresent me.

You believe that all people need salvation. But salvation from WHAT? Hell? I don't believe there is a Hell. So do I still need salvation? And if so, from what?

I acknowledge the possibility of typo and apologize if I misread you. I've seen the same "love" argument from Christians too, though, so it wasn't too far of a stretch for me to think that's what you were saying. hehehe Still, sorry for misrepresenting you.

Please allow me to clear up the "Closeminded" thing. I tried to put that remark into a specific context to show that I didn't consider it a general condemnation of you. I wanted to say that in that particular instance it was a blind spot for you, or seemed to be. I suppose the problem arises when you fail to realize that I was using "closeminded" in the most literal sense and not in an insulting way. I was using it strictly connotatively, not denotatively, if that makes sense?

I think that, for whatever reason, there has been misunderstanding on both sides. In another post, for instance, you certainly sounded like you thought I would be going to Hell for not accepting Jesus as my savior. To me, that is tremendously offensive. It "put my hackles up", if you will. And I think you can see with my last post how I react with my hackles up.


I can certainly respect that...especially since my entire original post was about things that put MY hackles up, about many self-proclaimed Christians!

Well, my answer to that might not be something you would like to hear, but....
God DID create us perfect. We CHOSE to cast aside that perfectness in the Garden of Eden. We therefore made ourselves imperfect. GOD did not make us imperfect, WE made ourselves imperfect. And perfection cannot arise from imperfection, and this is why we are incapable of saving our own selves. Of course there is hope for...and room for IMPROVEMENT. But PERFECTION is not something we can achieve on our own.

Let us not forget what the imperfection was...

It was the curiosity and pursuit of knowledge that he (ostensibly) gave us to begin with. God set us up to fail, in that scenario.

O, what a forgiving, kind god...

All Adam and Eve did was prove that we were imperfect FOLLOWERS, not that we were fundamentally flawed. And if your god is omniscient he would have known that.

Sounds like your god is pretty petulant to me. "Oh, so you're not content just being my follower? You want knowledge, huh? FINE! No forgiveness for joo! I'm taking my ball and going home! If you want to play from now on you'll have to be a good little sheep and play by MY rules!"

Me: Umm... no thanks. You can keep your ball. I'm having a lot more fun making my own.

We *chose* it? Hey, nobody ever asked me! You know, order can arise from chaos. Why couldn't perfection arise from imperfection?

You're talking about Adam and Eva, right? Then here's something interesting: according to this story, God created them "perfect", but without knowledge of good nor evil. How could they then be blamed, since when they disobeyed God *they had no knowledge of good or evil*, so they couldn't know that disobeying God was bad, could they? It's only after their disgrace that this sense of awareness to morality came to be. Isn't this unfair? It was a no-win situation!

Interesting interpretation...and one I never before considered. However, God did say to them DON'T...and they did, anyway. so, whether or not they knew it was evil...they still knowingly and willfully disobeyed God...and expulsion from Paradise, and the loss of their perfection was the price of that disobedience.

That price eventually was paid by Jesus. Becuase of Jesus, we now have the ability to regain that which was lost in the Garden....a right relationship with God. But we cannot do it ourselves. Because first, the sin of disobedience must be paid for. JESUS paid it.

This, at least, is my belief...and is what Christians believe...and is the foundation of the Christian faith.

You did ask.

And I do acknowledge you had a very interesting interpretation, and an angle on it that I had never before considered.

Don't forget, Catholicism is the oldest form of Christian belief that is still alive today. People who are Protestant than you are basically following a tampered with form of Christianity. I mean the only reason Protestants ever came to be was so the King could stop beheading his wives and get a divorce..lol

I mean when push comes to shove it's ALL been tampered with. So if you do believe in god (which I don't) but if you do, the only true way to know you're doing the right thing is to do the right thing and have a "relationship" with the god of your belief on a personal level, not on an organized religion level. And heck, you may still be all wrong. But the best of luck to you.

I'm an atheist, but I have a good heart and I do no harm to anyone. I am married and will never get a divorce and I have never had an abortion even though I'm pro-choice, my choice was to have my children, I'm a good mother and I never think of myself first. I will help anyone who I think needs my help without a second thought.. you don't need god and all that to be a good person.

Of course most of this is just my opinion.. but to each their own. ;)

First...we do not blidly follow a book. At least I don't. I question things all the time.

Second...fair enough. Let me pose a question to you then...What form would you like God to take when He taps you on the shoulder? How would you KNOW it was Him, and not someone just claiming to be Him? And what would serve as incontrovertible proof to you?

These questions were put to me by my cousin, back in my days when I, too, was agnostic. And you know, I couldn't answer her questions. For all you know, the guy in front of you in line at Wendy's may well be God. so how would that guy then have to prove to you that he was? What would you accept as proof?

I can only tell you that I asked for proof, too. and I was shown. I was given proof. I can tell you that the proof did not come in any form I would have expected.

As I told my cousin, when she posed the very same questions to me...I do not know...all I know is that when...and if...I see it, I will know it. Well, I was shown. I saw. And I recognized it for what it was. I was shown as much as I was capable of accepting at that time.

I can only hope that you, too, will be shown...and that you will know...when you are shown. May your life be filled with peace, joy, love and happiness...regardless of whether or not you ever come to believe as I do.

All I can answer with is:

"If your god is omniscient he will know what I need to see/hear/feel to convince me"

If you are asking me what I THINK would do the trick it's pretty simple. He has to make me believe. He would, for the sake of argument, know all of the questions I have and would have answers that would satisfy me. He would know all of my fears and be able to assuage them. He would know what makes me the person I am and encourage me to use those tools to further my understanding of the universe and of him.

If god exists and made me, he knows me better than I myself do. Therefor if he exists only he knows what would ultimately convince me.

I am happy for you that you have found your answers. I, too, am seeking answers but not in the pursuit of god. If I find him on the way, so much the better. I'd love to have a talk with someone who can answer my questions. But until then... I'll keep trying to find out the answers myself.

Second...fair enough. Let me pose a question to you then...What form would you like God to take when He taps you on the shoulder? How would you KNOW it was Him, and not someone just claiming to be Him? And what would serve as incontrovertible proof to you?

Hahah, but one could turn the question back to you easily.

These questions were put to me by my cousin, back in my days when I, too, was agnostic. And you know, I couldn't answer her questions. For all you know, the guy in front of you in line at Wendy's may well be God. so how would that guy then have to prove to you that he was? What would you accept as proof?

I can only tell you that I asked for proof, too. and I was shown. I was given proof. I can tell you that the proof did not come in any form I would have expected.

As I told my cousin, when she posed the very same questions to me...I do not know...all I know is that when...and if...I see it, I will know it. Well, I was shown. I saw. And I recognized it for what it was. I was shown as much as I was capable of accepting at that time.

Here we go: How would you KNOW it was Him, and not someone just claiming to be Him? And what serves as incontrovertible proof to you?

See? That's so easy! You can answer "but I BELIEVE" all you want, I still can throw back this question at you! If God is so incredibly beyond our understanding and imagination, that means we don't know what he is. If we don't know what he is, we can't be 100% certain that it is truly him we "see".

We *chose* it? Hey, nobody ever asked me! You know, order can arise from chaos. Why couldn't perfection arise from imperfection?

You're talking about Adam and Eva, right? Then here's something interesting: according to this story, God created them "perfect", but without knowledge of good nor evil. How could they then be blamed, since when they disobeyed God *they had no knowledge of good or evil*, so they couldn't know that disobeying God was bad, could they? It's only after their disgrace that this sense of awareness to morality came to be. Isn't this unfair? It was a no-win situation!

They were created perfect followers of god, not perfect humans. A perfect follower is one who does not know of any alternatives. One who has no desire to further their own knowledge, as that will potentially cast doubt on any preconceived beliefs.

Objective Perfection is impossible without knowledge because there is nothing to judge said perfection against.

Interesting interpretation...and one I never before considered. However, God did say to them DON'T...and they did, anyway. so, whether or not they knew it was evil...they still knowingly and willfully disobeyed God...and expulsion from Paradise, and the loss of their perfection was the price of that disobedience.

Well, that's the point! He said "DON'T", but they couldn't know if it was truly bad or not to disobey, he had given them no knowledge of such things! This knowledge only came *after*, when it was already too late!

Let us not forget what the imperfection was...

It was the curiosity and pursuit of knowledge that he (ostensibly) gave us to begin with. God set us up to fail, in that scenario.

O, what a forgiving, kind god...

All Adam and Eve did was prove that we were imperfect FOLLOWERS, not that we were fundamentally flawed. And if your god is omniscient he would have known that.

Sounds like your god is pretty petulant to me. "Oh, so you're not content just being my follower? You want knowledge, huh? FINE! No forgiveness for joo! I'm taking my ball and going home! If you want to play from now on you'll have to be a good little sheep and play by MY rules!"

Me: Umm... no thanks. You can keep your ball. I'm having a lot more fun making my own.

Tis your right to do that. and, may I state, once again...it is not my intent, or desire...to take that right to choose away from you? you're looking for an enemy in the wrong place. I would never seek to force you to believe as I do...or seek to take your choices from you. Your choices affect you, and you alone. God will not punish me for failing to keep you from sinning, or failing to make a believer of you. since I truly believe that, and have faith in that...I'm perfectly comfortable to allow you to come to God or not...on your own choice. In fact...BY YOUR OWN CHOICE is exactly how God WANTS you to come to Him. He doesn't want people dragged, kicking and screaming, to Him. He wants you to come of your own free will. I certainly would have no part of interfering with that. Or, for that matter, interfering with your free will not to come to Him. It's only sincere if you come of your own free will. I can only lead you to water. I can't make you drink it.

Tis your right to do that. and, may I state, once again...it is not my intent, or desire...to take that right to choose away from you? you're looking for an enemy in the wrong place. I would never seek to force you to believe as I do...or seek to take your choices from you. Your choices affect you, and you alone. God will not punish me for failing to keep you from sinning, or failing to make a believer of you. since I truly believe that, and have faith in that...I'm perfectly comfortable to allow you to come to God or not...on your own choice. In fact...BY YOUR OWN CHOICE is exactly how God WANTS you to come to Him. He doesn't want people dragged, kicking and screaming, to Him. He wants you to come of your own free will. I certainly would have no part of interfering with that. Or, for that matter, interfering with your free will not to come to Him. It's only sincere if you come of your own free will. I can only lead you to water. I can't make you drink it.

The implication is still there that I need to be led to the stream.

The Christian god is not the only stream anyway. Besides, I believe that the "water" in this scenario is all around you and does not require the intervention of a "god" to drink it.

They were created perfect followers of god, not perfect humans. Perfection is impossible without knowledge because there is nothing to judge said perfection against.

Ah, there we are. "Perfection is impossible without knowledge because there is nothing to judge said perfection against." So maybe we WERE created imperfect humans (according to the Adam and Eva story), since they had no knowledge, no judgment, and that, thanks to them, we now have the chance to become "adults", "perfect", since it has given us that knowledge...

Hey, why not? What's the use of being created perfect? We wouldn't have a thing to do! :)

All I can answer with is:

"If your god is omniscient he will know what I need to see/hear/feel to convince me"

If you are asking me what I THINK would do the trick it's pretty simple. He has to make me believe. He would, for the sake of argument, know all of the questions I have and would have answers that would satisfy me. He would know all of my fears and be able to assuage them. He would know what makes me the person I am and encourage me to use those tools to further my understanding of the universe and of him.

If god exists and made me, he knows me better than I myself do. Therefor if he exists only he knows what would ultimately convince me.

I am happy for you that you have found your answers. I, too, am seeking answers but not in the pursuit of god. If I find him on the way, so much the better. I'd love to have a talk with someone who can answer my questions. But until then... I'll keep trying to find out the answers myself.


I was not in pursuit of God when I found Him either. Just in pursuit of answers. I did not have a pre-set destination or goal in mind. I encourage you to keep searching for those answers! I always respect the spiritual paths of others...particularly, those who are engaged in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

We may find that what has truth and meaning for me....has no value for you. and what has truth and meaning for you...has no value for me. But we can still respect each other, right?

My only prayer for you is that you do find truth and meaning...whatever form that takes for you. And that your life be filled with peace, joy, and happiness...no matter where your spiritual path may take you.

The implication is still there that I need to be led to the stream.

The Christian god is not the only stream anyway. Besides, I believe that the "water" in this scenario is all around you and does not require the intervention of a "god" to drink it.

If that is what you get of my words, then I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that mine was the only stream from which you may drink. I meant only that I could just lead you to my stream. I couldn't make you drink from my stream. and I certainly never meant to imply that you might not find a different stream on your own. Or that you might not find my stream on your own. why are you so determined to make an enemy of me?

Why are you so determined to close off an entire avenue of potential, just because you do not like some of the messengers?

I did that for ten years. I closed off God and Jesus BECAUSE I didn't like many of His messengers. My own original posting would tell you as much.

by all means, search for your own answers. I would never seek to take that from you. Why must you persist in seeing me as an enemy? I don't seek to impugn your path...why do you seek to impugn mine?

The Adam and Eve story is Poetic Rhetoric. It's a simple explanation for the evolution of Man that has an important message to tell the world about our Separation from Nature. The simple similarities to the Creation story and Evolutionary Theory have been made several times, but it's the other aspect of the story that I want to focus on; namely, Eden, apple and eviction.

Eden is not a physical location, just as the Kingdom of God and Hell are not locations. Eden is a state of being - a oneness with nature. Once, long ago, Mankind was part of this state. We were a part of natural process and felt no sense of evil or good, only doing what the system led us to do.

Within the system of Eden however lay a simple vice. Evolution allowed us to continuously change by natural genetic processes. By following through with this entirely natural train of evolving, possibly even aided by potential predators/competitors like the snake, mankind eventually stumbled upon the fruit of Good and Evil: Self Awareness.

From there, it soon became painfully obvious that man could no longer harmoniously live alongside nature. Thus were we ejected from Eden; not by our own choice, nor by the creator God, but by the mere necessity of our separation from it.

The point of the story, as well as being a nice little narrative, is that our sense of self is what separates us from nature. Furthermore, it's impossible for us to regress to such one-ness with evolution again; hence the angels with flaming swords guarding the entrance.


There could be several meanings for this; read into it what you like. I believe that it shows that we are not separated from God by choice or due to temptation by outside factors as some literal interpretation of the story would say. It does, in my opinion, suggest that we are separated from God simply because we have a sense of self, and also that this is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing. Now, rather than just a couple more parts of a big block, we see that man has learned to break away and form shapes of its own; he is a Self, and someone with whom God can interact on an individual level.


Basically, it's a fictional story that has a deeper meaning philosophically that you can read into it and that could be entirely valid. Or so I think, anyway.

The Adam and Eve story is Poetic Rhetoric. It's a simple explanation for the evolution of Man that has an important message to tell the world about our Separation from Nature. The simple similarities to the Creation story and Evolutionary Theory have been made several times, but it's the other aspect of the story that I want to focus on; namely, Eden, apple and eviction.

Eden is not a physical location, just as the Kingdom of God and Hell are not locations. Eden is a state of being - a oneness with nature. Once, long ago, Mankind was part of this state. We were a part of natural process and felt no sense of evil or good, only doing what the system led us to do.

Within the system of Eden however lay a simple vice. Evolution allowed us to continuously change by natural genetic processes. By following through with this entirely natural train of evolving, possibly even aided by potential predators/competitors like the snake, mankind eventually stumbled upon the fruit of Good and Evil: Self Awareness.

From there, it soon became painfully obvious that man could no longer harmoniously live alongside nature. Thus were we ejected from Eden; not by our own choice, nor by the creator God, but by the mere necessity of our separation from it.

The point of the story, as well as being a nice little narrative, is that our sense of self is what separates us from nature. Furthermore, it's impossible for us to regress to such one-ness with evolution again; hence the angels with flaming swords guarding the entrance.


There could be several meanings for this; read into it what you like. I believe that it shows that we are not separated from God by choice or due to temptation by outside factors as some literal interpretation of the story would say. It does, in my opinion, suggest that we are separated from God simply because we have a sense of self, and also that this is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing. Now, rather than just a couple more parts of a big block, we see that man has learned to break away and form shapes of its own; he is a Self, and someone with whom God can interact on an individual level.


Basically, it's a fictional story that has a deeper meaning philosophically that you can read into it and that could be entirely valid. Or so I think, anyway.


I like you. :)

I like you. :)Thanks. Having been immersed in Christian Culture for the better part of two decades, you learn to pick out some of its scripture's more interesting interpretations. ^^

Alright, Lyric. In response to your physical maiming question, I found only one source.

The LORD said to Moses,
Lev 21:17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God.
Lev 21:18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;
Lev 21:19 no man with a crippled foot or hand,
Lev 21:20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.
Lev 21:21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.
Lev 21:22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food;
Lev 21:23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. ' "
Lev 21:24 So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

And to quote both my Old and New Testament professors,

Old Testament Prof.: "Nothing about getting into heaven. Under the Sinai covenant, the priests could not have any sort of physical defect if he were going to serve in the Tabernacle. Just as the sacrifice had to be without defect, so too the priest (Lev. 21:16-24). However, the defect did not exclude the priest from partaking of the sacrifice or being a full member of the covenant community, he just could not officiate. Now to get from that to excluding people from heaven is totally without warrant."

And the New Testament Prof.: "First, intentional bodily mutilation was prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lev. 21), so NONE of Jesus' hearers would have thought this is what he was recommending with this hyperbole [of Mark 9]. Bottom line, for the text is Jesus' call to a radical response to temptation that leads to sinful behavior. Don't let your eye linger on temptation--turn away radically, don't look, don't allow darkness to compromise who you are as a child of the Light. Same with behavior, especially sexual behavior that often begins with the hand. So, don't touch! Keep your zipper up and your hands to yourself, to be blunt."

Both pretty much say the same thing: There is no scriptural evidence that physical deformity bars you from Heaven. The key is making sure you're not deforming and maiming your spirit.

Hope that helps, Lyric! :)

(And sorry that took so long. I was in class for the better part of an hour and a half _-_)

Alright, Lyric. In response to your physical maiming question, I found only one source.



And to quote both my Old and New Testament professors,

Old Testament Prof.: "Nothing about getting into heaven. Under the Sinai covenant, the priests could not have any sort of physical defect if he were going to serve in the Tabernacle. Just as the sacrifice had to be without defect, so too the priest (Lev. 21:16-24). However, the defect did not exclude the priest from partaking of the sacrifice or being a full member of the covenant community, he just could not officiate. Now to get from that to excluding people from heaven is totally without warrant."

And the New Testament Prof.: "First, intentional bodily mutilation was prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lev. 21), so NONE of Jesus' hearers would have thought this is what he was recommending with this hyperbole [of Mark 9]. Bottom line, for the text is Jesus' call to a radical response to temptation that leads to sinful behavior. Don't let your eye linger on temptation--turn away radically, don't look, don't allow darkness to compromise who you are as a child of the Light. Same with behavior, especially sexual behavior that often begins with the hand. So, don't touch! Keep your zipper up and your hands to yourself, to be blunt."

Both pretty much say the same thing: There is no scriptural evidence that physical deformity bars you from Heaven. The key is making sure you're not deforming and maiming your spirit.

Hope that helps, Lyric! :)

(And sorry that took so long. I was in class for the better part of an hour and a half _-_)

don't be sorry, and thanks for doing the research for me, and gathering the opinions you did from theology professors. Their input on this is quite valuable.

As I would say, what I did...IN NO WAY deformed or maimed my spirit...in fact, what I did set my spirit free. My spirit was suffering by being trapped in a body that did not feel right. So, if anything, I improved my spirit by what I did.

At any rate, it is not up to men to judge me for what I have done in this life...particularly when it hurt no one else, and was not against any law. I'll answer to Him in the end, and in the end, I will, as will everyone else...have to give an accounting for my life and my deeds. I'm far from perfect, I know it, but, in the end, I have asked for forgiveness...I have asked for help, I have truly tried to live the best life I can, and I have truly been remorseful when I fell short. For these reasons, I believe I'm doing okay for now. Not to say there isn't room for improvement...because there is room for improvement in everyone.