NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently confirmed and have since started on a bit of soul-searching. You know what I've discovered?

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.

And now...we have people like Pat Robertson going around calling for the assassination of leaders, Catholic priests who had covered up a ring of corruption within the church, leaders in office calling for the withdrawl of basic human rights, and people around the world killing one and other because they don't believe as they do. No matter what you believe in, the majority of the world probably disagrees.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?

I'm convinced that there is still some good in my Catholic upbringing and Christianity in general, and that is why I will continue to search for the answers and fight for change.

I just felt like putting this out there.

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?
Worked for me.

Keep going. I lost faith with stuff like this too. But I keep going and it's all worthwhile.

I don't really lose faith at (those) facts [evolution can be another story that I like to read often] but I do lose faith at hypocrites and all the splintering and misinterpretations of Jesus. I wish it was all just once church. We have enough problems being different parts of the body, lets atleast be unified by universal truth and belief

the more i studied christianity the more i seperated myself from it...

We have enough problems being different parts of the body, lets atleast be unified by universal truth and belief
Different sects think different things, personally I'm a Pentecostal Christian, but who's to say I'm right, and another sect of Christianity (discluding Catholics) are wrong? It's just what I believe, and I wouldn't attend a church if I didn't believe what they preach. Having just one church, believing one thing, would create more problems than it solves.

Jesus told me he wants us all to be atheists.



http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8273/hahaimusingtehinternet267767px.jpg

Different sects think different things, personally I'm a Pentecostal Christian, but who's to say I'm right, and another sect of Christianity (discluding Catholics) are wrong? It's just what I believe, and I wouldn't attend a church if I didn't believe what they preach. Having just one church, believing one thing, would create more problems than it solves.

I do find it disheartening that we all cannot get along, even if we do believe in the same god. But then again, I remind myself that people find god in different ways.

the more i studied christianity the more i seperated myself from it...

Hear, hear.

Jesus told me he wants us all to be atheists.

...Muh?

Jesus told me he wants us all to be atheists.

Seriously? That dog! I saw him at the club last nigh an' was all up ...crap this is blasphemy isn't it?

organised religion is hypocrital bullshit, but then we already knew that.

Belief is one thing but relgion is run for the benefit of a few especially very centralised religions like christianity

god made me an atheist. i cant question his wisdom, because he rolls with chuck norris...

god made me an atheist. i cant question his wisdom, because he rolls with chuck norris...

Wait...Chuck Norris?

I thought he was still doing shitty infomercials...

Wait...Chuck Norris?

I thought he was still doing shitty infomercials...

he has to sell his Total Gym somehow. infomercials were the only choice...

Jesus told me he wants us all to be atheists.



http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8273/hahaimusingtehinternet267767px.jpg

int netto
o
tsu te i ro ?

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

int netto
o
tsu te i ro ?
What? I don't speak whatever language that is.

Different sects think different things, personally I'm a Pentecostal Christian, but who's to say I'm right, and another sect of Christianity (discluding Catholics) are wrong? It's just what I believe, and I wouldn't attend a church if I didn't believe what they preach. Having just one church, believing one thing, would create more problems than it solves.
Out of curiousity why are you discluding catholics from your statment?

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...
No, that's illogical unless you can be sure that believing in god doesn't arouse the anger of other gods, doesn't cost you anything, and that god will definately reward you for paying attention to him. It's called Pascal's wager and everyone's sick of it.

Jesus isnt the problem, humans are
as DCtalk (awesome) quoted before 'what if i stumble' on the Jesus Freak record;

“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

it is us, Christians that are the problem, not Christ who is perfect

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

*buzzer* im sorry the correct answer we were looking for was, 'god does not exist'

Jesus isnt the problem, humans are
as DCtalk (awesome) quoted before 'what if i stumble' on the Jesus Freak record;

“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

it is us, Christians that are the problem, not Christ who is perfect

the problem is that god cant prove his own religion. thats the leading cause of atheism...

*buzzer* im sorry the correct answer we were looking for was, 'god does not exist'

Well that's pretty obvious... lol!

*passes out due to an overdose of cynicism*

Jesus isnt the problem, humans are
as DCtalk (awesome) quoted before 'what if i stumble' on the Jesus Freak record;

“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

it is us, Christians that are the problem, not Christ who is perfect
Actually I'm an atheist and it's not because there are some hypocritical christians, it's because I can't buy a supernatural sky wizard without some evidence. No offense, but it's kinda hard to believe in a guy who creates universes, has a set of rules for all of us to follow, but can't or won't leave behind evidence to prove he's for real.


Anyway, [/hijack]

the whole point of Christianity is faith and belief-if God proved himself to be God we'd all be Christians wouldnt we? faith and belief would not exist. in the beggining God was there, we screwed up-this is the result.

at the end of the day you can challenge Christianity (and indeed any religion) all you like, its getting to be a trend at the moment i feel, but all we do is argue back and disconnect,thank God for giving us another chance to talk about him and pray we made a good impact-mibbe we did mibbe we didnt, but you're thinking about God now aren't you?(yes i know you'll prolly reply with 'no, no im not' but then you'd be a smartass and no one likes a smart ass;) )
Lx

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

Depending on which denomination you pick, that second statement is false, as is the third.

Oh GADD!! Quadruple post!

*dies*

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?


Your faith ideally should be based on God, not on what other people do.

the whole point of Christianity is faith and belief-if God proved himself to be God we'd all be Christians wouldnt we? faith and belief would not exist. in the beggining God was there, we screwed up-this is the result.
Faith in the belief of a diety is fine. Using that faith and belief which isnt grounded in physical evidence to perpetuate a lifestyle, moral, and social code which impacts others can be dangerous.

at the end of the day you can challenge Christianity (and indeed any religion) all you like, its getting to be a trend at the moment i feel, but all we do is argue back and disconnect,thank God for giving us another chance to talk about him and pray we made a good impact-mibbe we did mibbe we didnt, but you're thinking about God now aren't you?(yes i know you'll prolly reply with 'no, no im not' but then you'd be a smartass and no one likes a smart ass;) )
Lx
Just because your thinking about it doesn't mean your any more likely to acknowledge it. Hell we could get into a discussion about Odin all day but at the end of it your thinking about Odin now. Your not more inclined to believe in Odin now because of that statement are you?

im more likely to read about it though and be interested in it. it all has to start somewhere sure?

Your faith ideally should be based on God, not on what other people do.
If that was the case, you wouldn't be a Christian. You'd be... well, Spiritual. It's impossible to arrive at Christian faith as the outcome of your musings on existence unless you're told it by either person or book; both of which have a human element that needs to be factored into your analysis.

Sure, a man completely isolated from Christianity and its history might end up believing in God, but he certainly wouldn't identify Jesus Christ by sheer reasoning or contemplation.

Actually I'm an atheist and it's not because there are some hypocritical christians, it's because I can't buy a supernatural sky wizard without some evidence. No offense, but it's kinda hard to believe in a guy who creates universes, has a set of rules for all of us to follow, but can't or won't leave behind evidence to prove he's for real.
Given how often this was posted, I have to quote it at least once. =p

Why does the idea of God need to be a supernatural Sky Wizard, as you put it? Would an impersonal, evolution-formed God Force that has been consistently misquoted throughout the ages be any less irrational?

Honestly, I would say that the biggest problem with Christianity today is that it is dominated by a message that helped sell it in the past, but only serves to crush its membership today. Specifically, if we got rid of the whole original sin doctrine, it would do so much to 1) defang the "religious" right (to be honest, Pat Robertson is far more out to fill his own coffers and sate his own ego than he is to serve the Lord, and what is worse, I'm not sure that his brand of Christianity even makes a distinction between the two), 2) stop putting the world on Christian's shoulders, and 3) help deflate the notion of God to a more manageable and more truthful level.

Original sin doctrine comes out of the works of one St. Augustine. Personally, I used to rant about how his very existence was an affront to Christianity, but I've mellowed in my age, and I've come to the realization that some of what Augustine said has merit. To be honest, if more Christians bothered to read him, we might be better off: he was a fairly large proponent of the idea that the state should be seperate from the faith, for instance, for no other reason than because religion poses some things as immoral (fantasizing about your neighbor's wife, for instance) that the state simply is unable to punish or even know about, so it makes no sense to make the state an arm of enforcement for the perfection of the Christian soul. Now some might argue that said stance takes an overly coercive view of the law (education, for instance, might be able to condition out those naughty impulses), but that idea right there is both extremely logical and deflates about 90% of what Christians in this country are trying to do.

But the buck stops with the doctrine of original sin; it is the one thing I absolutely cannot accept, and with it, I find myself unable to accept a great deal of Christian theology.

Augustine was a man who by his admission had a fondness for the ladies: basically, he slept around on his fiance. This is a bit of a misnomer, however, because while it is by his admission that he slept around, what is left out is the fact that he had a long-standing, monogomous relationship with a single woman dating from a period well before he was engaged. So the idea that he was a man of loose morals is somewhat untrue or at least misleading: by our standards, he is positively quaint with his definition of philandering, and one wonders why the hell he didn't just marry what in our standards would be a common-law wife. While he was soul-searching for the reason that he was unable to stop doing this to his fiance, he came to the realization that it was in his nature to do so; part of his essence. But did not God create his essence? This was a troubling prospect, so Augustine went to the Bible, and came to the realization that while this sinful licentiousness was part of his nature, God had nothing to do with it: it was Adam and Eve who were at fault. They were the ones who brought sin into the world by disobeying God, and in so doing, they fundamentally changed and warped what God had created. This warping was then passed down to their children through sexual intercourse (hence the misused term "born into sin"; I say misused because it isn't the sex that is the sin per se, although it is an act of lust which is sinful, but merely the conduit to pass sinful tendencies from one generation to another). So it wasn't really his fault that he was guilty, but now that he had this realization, he felt that he had the power to change his life. Thus he became one of the first "born-again" Christians, although ironically through the act of reason rather than direct revelatory experience.

Anyone who looks at this writing from an external perspective can see a striking similarity between his line of thinking, and lines of thinking that you now see in books that Dr. Phil produces (I'm not yet using this in the pejorative sense; just run with me here for a moment) for the self-help movement. In each case, you have a series of steps:

Step 1: You have a problem (You shop too much, for instance)
Step 2: That problem is not your fault (You actually have a disease called shopoholism)
Step 3: I know, I've been in your position (I once was a shopoholic, and it nearly ruined my life, aside from the ingenious reinvention as a writer)
Step 4: You are powerless to stop yourself in the face of your problem (you cannot simply moderate your shopping)
Step 5: The solution is to abstain completely and trust in a power higher than yourselves to keep you on the right track (God help me, I'm going by a Gucci store--yes, I've made it)

Now, my problem with this is not a priori, in the sense that if Dr. Phil uses this technique, it must be inherently bad. Just to be clear, the idea may have merit, even if Dr. Phil is inherently bad. My problem, rather, is that ignores a fundamentally alternate and ultimately better explanation of the problem, one that a man by Aristotle (whom Augustine to his detriment never was able to read) originally came up with. His argument was that people do bad things not because they are bad by nature, but because in the absense of knowledge about what is good or bad, people will sometimes develop habits that they think will make them happy but ultimately do not. As such, it is the obligation of men to 1) know what the good is, and 2) use practical wisdom to develop virtuous habits to act in accord with it.

Note that nowhere in this discussion of Aristotle did I mention God. This was deliberate: you don't need God to change bad habits, because ordinarily you should be able to do it yourself. For some people like Augustine, this undermines our faith in God. I disagree vehemently; in fact, I think my view lends itself to a much better interpretation of God than his does. Specifically, you can easily question why a just God would leave twisted men to their fates instead of stepping in, especially if you have in mind the idea that God knew what the serpent would do (as he must have were he omniscient). In mine, God gave us from the beginning the capacity to deal with the damage that the possibility of wrong choice has: he gave us reason to see what the wrong choice is and how to avoid it. He gave us the choice because 1) we are more perfect if we do have choice, and 2) our actions are more perfect if we do them because they are right than because we could do no other than what God commanded. In short, it becomes much easier to explain why God did what he did if you drop the notion of original sin.

But something it does do is put a hefty dent in the coffers of people like Pat Robertson. People who live in constant fear of damnation are a twitchy bunch, which leaves them open to people like Robertson, who are calm, soothing, and reassuring, primarily because they console the fearful that God has somebody else in his crosshairs. This soothes nervous Christians, and it puts a lot of money in Robertson's pocket, to say nothing of swelling an already excessive head (okay, I admit, cheap shot). With an Aristotelian view, however, you don't need people like Robertson: you only need your own natural sense of practical wisdom and reason, the latter to tell you what the Good is, and the former to tell you how to make virtuous habits that achieve it.

So what was my objective in this massive treatise? Basically, it was to point out that while Augustine had some good ideas, his notion of original sin was effective only in making people dependent upon the church for soothing their fear, not for making them good Christians, good people, or have a good understanding of what Jesus was about. Really good people don't need to worry if the homosexuals are going to give you gay, because really good people realize that what matters is virtue and love, not whether you like men or women. The idea should have been put to rest long ago, and would have had the existing power structure not found it so useful to keep the populace in check and direct rage and someone other than those who manipulate God's words to their own ends. As such, Augustine's ideas time has come and gone, while Aristotle's views have never ceased being relevant. It naturally follows that we'd be better off with a different conception of sin than what Augustine gave us.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...
I hate this concept. You know why? Because it assumes that all that is important is what we get out of it. Because it thinks we can all be bought by either promise of reward or threat of eternal anguish. Because it applies a perspective that we're all ultimately self-serving. And that affects greatly your own standing; we guess that your assumption comes from personal stance.

Our own integrity can't be acquired by riches or torture. We live our lives as best we can with the intention of making the connection with those around us and doing our part to make their lives more worth living. If I succeed at this, afterlife is but an afterthought; I could die and be eternally savaged for all I care as long as I know I've made a difference for the better in the world. All I know is that it's considerably harder for a Christian to help someone simply for the sake of that person without feeling the need to also apply pressure to them in other areas that are probably ultimately unimportant.

I hate this concept. You know why? Because it assumes that all that is important is what we get out of it. Because it thinks we can all be bought by either promise of reward or threat of eternal anguish. Because it applies a perspective that we're all ultimately self-serving. And that affects greatly your own standing; we guess that your assumption comes from personal stance.

Our own integrity can't be acquired by riches or torture. We live our lives as best we can with the intention of making the connection with those around us and doing our part to make their lives more worth living. If I succeed at this, afterlife is but an afterthought; I could die and be eternally savaged for all I care as long as I know I've made a difference for the better in the world. All I know is that it's considerably harder for a Christian to help someone simply for the sake of that person without feeling the need to also apply pressure to them in other areas that are probably ultimately unimportant.

Aren't we?

The way to innocence, to the uncreated and to God leads on, not back, not back to the wolf or to the child, but ever further into sin, ever deeper into human life.

—Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.
....
For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?


I agree with you and while I am very opposed to religious fundamentalists, I still have not lost my faith.

But then I've studied a lot of other religions, Buddhism for one quite extensively, also Sufism which is the esoteric branch of Islam.

There is such a thing as Progressive Christianity, which allows for doubt, debate and questions, and also investigates the origins, and derivations and historical connections of the sacred texts.

Honestly, I would say that the biggest problem with Christianity today is that it is dominated by a message that helped sell it in the past, but only serves to crush its membership today. Specifically, if we got rid of the whole original sin doctrine, it would do so much to 1) defang the "religious" right (to be honest, Pat Robertson is far more out to fill his own coffers and sate his own ego than he is to serve the Lord, and what is worse, I'm not sure that his brand of Christianity even makes a distinction between the two), 2) stop putting the world on Christian's shoulders, and 3) help deflate the notion of God to a more manageable and more truthful level.

Original sin doctrine comes out of the works of one St. Augustine. Personally, I used to rant about how his very existence was an affront to Christianity, but I've mellowed in my age, and I've come to the realization that some of what Augustine said has merit. To be honest, if more Christians bothered to read him, we might be better off: he was a fairly large proponent of the idea that the state should be seperate from the faith, for instance, for no other reason than because religion poses some things as immoral (fantasizing about your neighbor's wife, for instance) that the state simply is unable to punish or even know about, so it makes no sense to make the state an arm of enforcement for the perfection of the Christian soul. Now some might argue that said stance takes an overly coercive view of the law (education, for instance, might be able to condition out those naughty impulses), but that idea right there is both extremely logical and deflates about 90% of what Christians in this country are trying to do.

But the buck stops with the doctrine of original sin; it is the one thing I absolutely cannot accept, and with it, I find myself unable to accept a great deal of Christian theology.

Augustine was a man who by his admission had a fondness for the ladies: basically, he slept around on his fiance. This is a bit of a misnomer, however, because while it is by his admission that he slept around, what is left out is the fact that he had a long-standing, monogomous relationship with a single woman dating from a period well before he was engaged. So the idea that he was a man of loose morals is somewhat untrue or at least misleading: by our standards, he is positively quaint with his definition of philandering, and one wonders why the hell he didn't just marry what in our standards would be a common-law wife. While he was soul-searching for the reason that he was unable to stop doing this to his fiance, he came to the realization that it was in his nature to do so; part of his essence. But did not God create his essence? This was a troubling prospect, so Augustine went to the Bible, and came to the realization that while this sinful licentiousness was part of his nature, God had nothing to do with it: it was Adam and Eve who were at fault. They were the ones who brought sin into the world by disobeying God, and in so doing, they fundamentally changed and warped what God had created. This warping was then passed down to their children through sexual intercourse (hence the misused term "born into sin"; I say misused because it isn't the sex that is the sin per se, although it is an act of lust which is sinful, but merely the conduit to pass sinful tendencies from one generation to another). So it wasn't really his fault that he was guilty, but now that he had this realization, he felt that he had the power to change his life. Thus he became one of the first "born-again" Christians, although ironically through the act of reason rather than direct revelatory experience.

Anyone who looks at this writing from an external perspective can see a striking similarity between his line of thinking, and lines of thinking that you now see in books that Dr. Phil produces (I'm not yet using this in the pejorative sense; just run with me here for a moment) for the self-help movement. In each case, you have a series of steps:

Step 1: You have a problem (You shop too much, for instance)
Step 2: That problem is not your fault (You actually have a disease called shopoholism)
Step 3: I know, I've been in your position (I once was a shopoholic, and it nearly ruined my life, aside from the ingenious reinvention as a writer)
Step 4: You are powerless to stop yourself in the face of your problem (you cannot simply moderate your shopping)
Step 5: The solution is to abstain completely and trust in a power higher than yourselves to keep you on the right track (God help me, I'm going by a Gucci store--yes, I've made it)

Now, my problem with this is not a priori, in the sense that if Dr. Phil uses this technique, it must be inherently bad. Just to be clear, the idea may have merit, even if Dr. Phil is inherently bad. My problem, rather, is that ignores a fundamentally alternate and ultimately better explanation of the problem, one that a man by Aristotle (whom Augustine to his detriment never was able to read) originally came up with. His argument was that people do bad things not because they are bad by nature, but because in the absense of knowledge about what is good or bad, people will sometimes develop habits that they think will make them happy but ultimately do not. As such, it is the obligation of men to 1) know what the good is, and 2) use practical wisdom to develop virtuous habits to act in accord with it.

Note that nowhere in this discussion of Aristotle did I mention God. This was deliberate: you don't need God to change bad habits, because ordinarily you should be able to do it yourself. For some people like Augustine, this undermines our faith in God. I disagree vehemently; in fact, I think my view lends itself to a much better interpretation of God than his does. Specifically, you can easily question why a just God would leave twisted men to their fates instead of stepping in, especially if you have in mind the idea that God knew what the serpent would do (as he must have were he omniscient). In mine, God gave us from the beginning the capacity to deal with the damage that the possibility of wrong choice has: he gave us reason to see what the wrong choice is and how to avoid it. He gave us the choice because 1) we are more perfect if we do have choice, and 2) our actions are more perfect if we do them because they are right than because we could do no other than what God commanded. In short, it becomes much easier to explain why God did what he did if you drop the notion of original sin.

But something it does do is put a hefty dent in the coffers of people like Pat Robertson. People who live in constant fear of damnation are a twitchy bunch, which leaves them open to people like Robertson, who are calm, soothing, and reassuring, primarily because they console the fearful that God has somebody else in his crosshairs. This soothes nervous Christians, and it puts a lot of money in Robertson's pocket, to say nothing of swelling an already excessive head (okay, I admit, cheap shot). With an Aristotelian view, however, you don't need people like Robertson: you only need your own natural sense of practical wisdom and reason, the latter to tell you what the Good is, and the former to tell you how to make virtuous habits that achieve it.

So what was my objective in this massive treatise? Basically, it was to point out that while Augustine had some good ideas, his notion of original sin was effective only in making people dependent upon the church for soothing their fear, not for making them good Christians, good people, or have a good understanding of what Jesus was about. Really good people don't need to worry if the homosexuals are going to give you gay, because really good people realize that what matters is virtue and love, not whether you like men or women. The idea should have been put to rest long ago, and would have had the existing power structure not found it so useful to keep the populace in check and direct rage and someone other than those who manipulate God's words to their own ends. As such, Augustine's ideas time has come and gone, while Aristotle's views have never ceased being relevant. It naturally follows that we'd be better off with a different conception of sin than what Augustine gave us.

original sin has always existed tho- he just gave it a name. whatever way u look at it eve and adam ate the apple and were thrown out of eden. mans relationship with God was damaged and carried on like this because perfection was no longer attainable- except through Christ whether it be through looking fwd to him or looking back.

I was recently confirmed and have since started on a bit of soul-searching. You know what I've discovered?

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.

And now...we have people like Pat Robertson going around calling for the assassination of leaders, Catholic priests who had covered up a ring of corruption within the church, leaders in office calling for the withdrawl of basic human rights, and people around the world killing one and other because they don't believe as they do. No matter what you believe in, the majority of the world probably disagrees.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?

I'm convinced that there is still some good in my Catholic upbringing and Christianity in general, and that is why I will continue to search for the answers and fight for change.

I just felt like putting this out there.


Mat 7:22-23 Remember who Jesus critisized the most. Not the common people trying to do their best. The conservative religious leaders of the day. Jesus said that conservative religious leaders had killed all ot the prophets and they would kill him. In his case they hired soldiers to do the dirty work as they do today.

The fact is Jesus was a raving liberal. Not worried about position or wealth. Jesus worried about the poor, weak, ill, powerless. Certainly not what the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Fallwells are saying. Of course it was the same in Jesus time when Pharasees, Sadducees, scribes and other conservative preachers were telling the people the same things Robertson and Fallwell are saying today. Read what Jesus had to say to them.

The problem is---People make Christianity too complicated. Christianity only has TWO RULES. 1. Love God. 2. Love everyone else.

If you follow those two rules, everything else is commentary. My advice, Find a group that shows it's LOVE for the bottom of mankind by working to make their lives better. Not out of obligation, but out of LOVE.

I don't really lose faith at (those) facts [evolution can be another story that I like to read often] but I do lose faith at hypocrites and all the splintering and misinterpretations of Jesus. I wish it was all just once church. We have enough problems being different parts of the body, lets atleast be unified by universal truth and belief

I think I've heard something about this frustration...

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Kephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

We have a lot of work to do, but we're getting closer, I think. We may have all killed each other back in the day, but that's generally not the case anymore. And I think it is thanks to a growing prevalence in atheism.

I mean, I certainly feel a strong affinity with Orthodox and Protestant Christians, especially here on NSGeneral. :D

original sin has always existed tho- he just gave it a name. whatever way u look at it eve and adam ate the apple and were thrown out of eden. mans relationship with God was damaged and carried on like this because perfection was no longer attainable- except through Christ whether it be through looking fwd to him or looking back.
That's only true it you take a literal approach to the creation story. Which, if you do, you must then take a literal approach to Leviticus.

Man had no choice in the matter. He gained the knowledge of good and evil through nature's own devices; an action that separated him from nature irreparably. But with that knowledge, he could go on to live a new kind of life that could ultimately become more fulfilling than that he previously lived. God doesn't hate him for that; all he dislikes is when man knows what is evil and does it anyway.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

Is that supposed to be a trick question? What's with the 2nd and 3rd statements? Am I hallucinating or are they essentially the same? Also, you forgot one: If I do not believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I have not wasted my time and lose nothing.

I was recently confirmed and have since started on a bit of soul-searching. You know what I've discovered?

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.

And now...we have people like Pat Robertson going around calling for the assassination of leaders, Catholic priests who had covered up a ring of corruption within the church, leaders in office calling for the withdrawl of basic human rights, and people around the world killing one and other because they don't believe as they do. No matter what you believe in, the majority of the world probably disagrees.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?

I'm convinced that there is still some good in my Catholic upbringing and Christianity in general, and that is why I will continue to search for the answers and fight for change.

I just felt like putting this out there.

Finally a Christian with some sense! This is exactly what the problem is -- extremists giving you a bad name. I'm sorry to say that whenever I hear the word 'Christian', other than thinking about someone I once knew at school who was actually called Christian, I generally think of a bunch of spiteful, hateful people who want to impose their beliefs on everyone. I know it isn't entirely true, but thanks to those extremists that's what first pops up into my head. After Christian Leighton, that is. That dude was awesome...

What you need is someone to get yourselves a good reputation again. Someone like Jesus, except not quite so 'dead'.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

Firstly, I find it extremely insulting that you think we can just 'try out' Christianity for a while and see how it goes, as though we can just 'decide' to believe. Secondly I find it extremely insulting that you think our 'faith' can be 'bought' in such a way. Thirdly, I feel sorry for you that you are so naive that you actually think that it would work.

I wonder, would Christians be able to turn their faith off just because an atheist suggested they give it a try? Because, that's what you're asking of us, so it should work the other way. If not, stop using Pascal's Wager. You do nothing but insult the people you're trying to convert. You're part of the problem that Bolol was talking about.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...


You know, the really ironic thing about this is, the exact same is true for all and every religion on this planet.
Just substitute "god" with Allah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster...
And then show me a feasible way of believing in all of them simultaneously, just to be on the safe side.
:D

Why do I lose by trying christianity?

How about my precious time?

I would never ask to have proof of god shown to me....

Just prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you, or anyone else, has ever had a "personal relationship" with god.

original sin has always existed tho- he just gave it a name. whatever way u look at it eve and adam ate the apple and were thrown out of eden. mans relationship with God was damaged and carried on like this because perfection was no longer attainable- except through Christ whether it be through looking fwd to him or looking back.

Unless, of course... the whole 'garden' thing is a metaphor...

And, what theya re really talking about is how we were innocents, and 'in a state of grace', until we became AWARE of our own capacity to do 'evil'?

You know, the really ironic thing about this is, the exact same is true for all and every religion on this planet.
Just substitute "god" with Allah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster...
And then show me a feasible way of believing in all of them simultaneously, just to be on the safe side.
:D
"You know what, God is everywhere, there's proof in the Bible, there's proof in the Koran, there's proof in the world, there's proof in science, and everyone just worship's him his own way! Jesus was a really great guy. I think I'll eat his flesh and blood (read: take part in the Eurcarist) because someone says that salvation can occur out of the church(es) but not without Christ, and since Christianity is the only religion saying that, that makes it all the easier."
--- The Book of Mariehamn Chapter 15: Versus 1-14

Bask in my wisdom and knowledge! Bask in it! Hahahahahaha! *insaine kackle*

better to rule the hell with satan than serving god in heaven

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.
Was he? I don't think we know that for sure. The accounts of his teachings are in the gospels, which were written by people whose identities we don't know for sure, and who were writing between 40 and 90 years after the crucifixion was supposed to have happened. 40-90 years of potential myth-making.

The first-hand historical evidence that Jesus even existed is non-existant. The record is completely silent until the letters of Paul, written 20+ years later, and Paul never met Jesus and tells us next to nothing about the man.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...
It's always been this way. Christians have been killing and silencing their detractors ever since they acquired to power to do so. So have Muslims, Jews and other religious groups.

I'm just gonna chime in here.

First, I take issue with the labelling of people more certain in their beliefs than "I sorta believe in something like God, maybe. Just be nice to people, right?" a zealot or a "fundy".

Second, Are some Christians annoying? Sure, they can be. Are they more annoying than the atheists who see a Christmas tree in a public school and screech about the Dark Shroud of Theocracy about to descend o'er the land? I would argue no.

You know, the really ironic thing about this is, the exact same is true for all and every religion on this planet.
Just substitute "god" with Allah, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster...
And then show me a feasible way of believing in all of them simultaneously, just to be on the safe side.
:D
I did, a couple of months ago. =p

Of course, you don't do it to be on the safe side. You just do it because it makes sense.

*Shrug*

better to rule the hell with satan than serving god in heaven
Pfft. If Hell exists, Satan probably doesn't consider you or most other humans worth elevating to any sort of status. Anyone who can be so easily driven by power has more use as a minion than a right-hand man. I reckon the only ones he would offer real power to would be those whom he perceived as a threat - whose spiritual strength would have the capacity as a Jehovan to annihilate his influence. Keep your friends close; your enemies, even closer, and all that.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism?
The ability to search for truth without it being distorted by irrational beliefs. Freedom from manipulation by people claiming divine authority. Freedom from fear of the afterlife ... and plenty more.

Not that it makes any difference whether we gain anything or not. Objectively, either god exists or he doesn't, and whether that's of benefit to human beings or not is irrelevant. If simply believing something, regardless of verifiable evidence, gave one the benefits which the belief claims, I'd start believing that I could fly and that there's no such thing as disease and poverty :)

Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...
This is Pascal's Wager, and it's a logical fallacy, primarily because there isn't a simple choice between "God" and "No God". If you believe in God and there are actually dozens of Gods who all demand belief, then you lose. If you believe in the Christian God, and the creator is actually Allah or one of the hundreds of other versions of God, then you lose. If you believe in god(s), and the world was created by aliens who demand obedience, then you lose.

Everybody disbelieves in thousands of gods (including gods who haven't been thought of yet). The difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that an Atheist believes in just one less god.

If you do not believe in God and in the end he exists and condemns you for not believing (when he's never provided absolute proof), then he is a cruel, unjust and vindictive being.

Second, Are some Christians annoying? Sure, they can be. Are they more annoying than the atheists who see a Christmas tree in a public school and screech about the Dark Shroud of Theocracy about to descend o'er the land? I would argue no.

A radical bunch of atheists trying to remove religion from public schools pales in comparison to a much, much larger bunch of radical Christians stopping you in the streets every five minutes, calling you a moron for not believing in their god, and then ending with 'you're an evil sinner who'll burn in hell!!!'. I'm yet to be stopped in the streets by a preaching atheist.

And the Christmas tree was invented a hundred years or so ago; it isn't an essential part of your beliefs. Besides, all the atheists I know, including myself, quite like Christmas actually -- brings some colour and good spirits to an otherwise depressing time of the year.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

God doesn't ask for your logic, he asks for your FAITH... and 'faith' is not something you can arrive at by adding up numbers in columns.

Seriously... if Pascal's Wager is what makes you a Christian... then you aren't REALLY a Christian.

The ability to search for truth without it being distorted by irrational beliefs. Freedom from manipulation by people claiming divine authority. Freedom from fear of the afterlife ... and plenty more.

Not that it makes any difference whether we gain anything or not. Objectively, either god exists or he doesn't, and whether that's of benefit to human beings or not is irrelevant. If simply believing something, regardless of verifiable evidence, gave one the benefits which the belief claims, I'd start believing that I could fly and that there's no such thing as disease and poverty :)


This is Pascal's Wager, and it's a logical fallacy, primarily because there isn't a simple choice between "God" and "No God". If you believe in God and there are actually dozens of Gods who all demand belief, then you lose. If you believe in the Christian God, and the creator is actually Allah or one of the hundreds of other versions of God, then you lose. If you believe in god(s), and the world was created by aliens who demand obedience, then you lose.

Everybody disbelieves in thousands of gods (including gods who haven't been thought of yet). The difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that an Atheist believes in just one less god.

If you do not believe in God and in the end he exists and condemns you for not believing (when he's never provided absolute proof), then he is a cruel, unjust and vindictive being.

This is roughly the same as I was going to post. You saved me a lot of time trying to phrase it right ;)

The ability to search for truth without it being distorted by irrational beliefs. Freedom from manipulation by people claiming divine authority. Freedom from fear of the afterlife ... and plenty more.

Not that it makes any difference whether we gain anything or not. Objectively, either god exists or he doesn't, and whether that's of benefit to human beings or not is irrelevant. If simply believing something, regardless of verifiable evidence, gave one the benefits which the belief claims, I'd start believing that I could fly and that there's no such thing as disease and poverty :)


This is Pascal's Wager, and it's a logical fallacy, primarily because there isn't a simple choice between "God" and "No God". If you believe in God and there are actually dozens of Gods who all demand belief, then you lose. If you believe in the Christian God, and the creator is actually Allah or one of the hundreds of other versions of God, then you lose. If you believe in god(s), and the world was created by aliens who demand obedience, then you lose.

Everybody disbelieves in thousands of gods (including gods who haven't been thought of yet). The difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that an Atheist believes in just one less god.

If you do not believe in God and in the end he exists and condemns you for not believing (when he's never provided absolute proof), then he is a cruel, unjust and vindictive being.

Excellent post.

A radical bunch of atheists trying to remove religion from public schools pales in comparison to a much, much larger bunch of radical Christians stopping you in the streets every five minutes, calling you a moron for not believing in their god, and then ending with 'you're an evil sinner who'll burn in hell!!!'. I'm yet to be stopped in the streets by a preaching atheist.

And the Christmas tree was invented a hundred years or so ago; it isn't an essential part of your beliefs. Besides, all the atheists I know, including myself, quite like Christmas actually -- brings some colour and good spirits to an otherwise depressing time of the year.

Actually, the Christmas tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree) has been around a lot longer than that, only as a pagan symbol, not christian.

The ability to search for truth without it being distorted by irrational beliefs. Freedom from manipulation by people claiming divine authority. Freedom from fear of the afterlife ... and plenty more.

Not that it makes any difference whether we gain anything or not. Objectively, either god exists or he doesn't, and whether that's of benefit to human beings or not is irrelevant. If simply believing something, regardless of verifiable evidence, gave one the benefits which the belief claims, I'd start believing that I could fly and that there's no such thing as disease and poverty :)


This is Pascal's Wager, and it's a logical fallacy, primarily because there isn't a simple choice between "God" and "No God". If you believe in God and there are actually dozens of Gods who all demand belief, then you lose. If you believe in the Christian God, and the creator is actually Allah or one of the hundreds of other versions of God, then you lose. If you believe in god(s), and the world was created by aliens who demand obedience, then you lose.

Everybody disbelieves in thousands of gods (including gods who haven't been thought of yet). The difference between an Atheist and a Christian is that an Atheist believes in just one less god.

If you do not believe in God and in the end he exists and condemns you for not believing (when he's never provided absolute proof), then he is a cruel, unjust and vindictive being.

Hear, hear.

I was recently confirmed and have since started on a bit of soul-searching. You know what I've discovered?

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.

And now...we have people like Pat Robertson going around calling for the assassination of leaders, Catholic priests who had covered up a ring of corruption within the church, leaders in office calling for the withdrawl of basic human rights, and people around the world killing one and other because they don't believe as they do. No matter what you believe in, the majority of the world probably disagrees.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?

I'm convinced that there is still some good in my Catholic upbringing and Christianity in general, and that is why I will continue to search for the answers and fight for change.

I just felt like putting this out there.


Pat Robertson does not equal Jesus.

Pat Robertson is nowhere near as influential or popular as you imagine. Nor do most Christians even care what Pat Robertson says.

You're building a strawman.

original sin has always existed tho- he just gave it a name. whatever way u look at it eve and adam ate the apple and were thrown out of eden. mans relationship with God was damaged and carried on like this because perfection was no longer attainable- except through Christ whether it be through looking fwd to him or looking back.

Uh. . .no it doesn't. It never says anywhere that Adam and Eve committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden by eating the fruit of the tree, and further that this sin was thereby passed down to Cain and Abel through the act of sexual intercourse. It only says that, by eating the fruit, God (in a fairly dubious act of "justice", owing to the fact that at the time Adam ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he had no knowledge of good and evil as it were, and therefore could not be considered morally culpable for an immoral act) cast them out of the Garden, they had sex, and Cain was born.

The overlying theme of original sin is all interpretation of what the Bible means by Augustine, an interpretation that is neither shared by other faiths (the Jewish religion, for instance, has no conception of original sin), nor is the only way of interpreting how sin originated; there is an older version developed by a theologian named Irenicus in the 3rd century A.D., for instance. At the Council of Nicea, quite a few people vehemently protested putting original sin in as doctrine among the Church, because it damn near completely undermines the concept of free will. All I am saying is that history has shown that this idea is not a good one, because 1) it damages humans who follow the religion by convincing them that their natural urges are perverse and tainted, 2) because the idea lends itself too easily to the unChristian notion of despising outsiders as a way of relieving guilt, and 3) it produces an irreconcilable conflict in how God acts (abandons a faulty man, through no fault of his own, to his fate and condemns him to eternal hell because of it) and how we are supposed to perceive him (i.e. infinitely just). Aristotle's conception of sin and virtue has proven superior. Ergo, we should use Aristotelian logic in our church tradition rather than Augustinian logic.

I lost faith years ago, so any err of Chrisitanity makes me laugh.

I don't have anything against Christians personally, just the religion itself.

Sad... I agree with Bolol. So anyone of the athiest tell me what you gain via your athism? Should we look at belief in God as a logic problem? Maybe:

If I believe in God, and in the end He exists, then by believing I gain all.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then I lose nothing.
If I believe in God, and in the end He does not exist, then by believing I lose nothing.
If I do not believe in God, and in the end He exists, I lose all.

There is only one logical choice, friends...

So you advocate self delusion? If you don't believe in God you will then try to force yourself? One cannot force themselves to believe something. Or do you mean to act as if you believe while you truely don't. Do you think God can't tell if you really believe or not?

It doesn't matter if you believe or not for it is not belief by which you are saved but by faith. Even the demons believe but they don't recieve salvation. Faith is complete trust. Now trust requires belief since trusting something that you think is fictional is lunacy. Faith is trust that is so deep that it leads to action. Just as if you trust a man you will follow his advice, if you trust God you will also follow him. If you truely have complete trust in God you will follow him nomatter the risk.

For the Christian God:
If one has faith in God and He exists then he gains all.
If one has faith in God and He does not exist then he could lose all (depending on where his faith leads him).
If one does not have faith in God and He exists then he loses all
If one does not have faith in God and He does not exist then he neither gains or loses.

the whole point of Christianity is faith and belief-if God proved himself to be God we'd all be Christians wouldnt we? faith and belief would not exist. in the beggining God was there, we screwed up-this is the result.


I'm not sure where this argument comes from. If it has Biblical support please post it. This is a common reason given to explain why God isn't more demonstrative of his existance. But here is my problem with your statement:

Sorry I'm not making a proper argument with versus and such because I don't have the time to find them all (but maybe I will post them later):

The point of Christianity is salvation. The requirement of salvation is faith. Faith is more then belief. Faith means complete trust. Now faith requires belief, for one does not trust what one does not believe but it is not belief alone. Faith is not believing in things for no reason/without evidence. I think you will find the Bible speaks against believing in things without evidence that would be stupid. There is nothing in the definition of faith that would make it cease to exist if God gave evidence of His existance. Instead the Bible says that God has given us reasons to believe. It says that all of creation demonstrates His existance. Besides, the biggest problem with saying what you did is that God did come down and demonstrate his existance. God came down as a man, Jesus Christ. He then proceded to perform miricles such as walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, and rising from the dead. God was being pretty evident of His existance. This did not destroy faith. It made faith stronger. For faith is strengthened, not weakened, by evidence. Otherwise the appostles would be said to have no faith.

So why isn't God more demonstrative of His existance now, when He clearly has been in the past? I won't claim to know. Perhaps he is only as demonstrative as He needs to be to save those who can be saved, but that's only speculative. There is a verse (can't recall where its from) that said something to the extent that God does not perform more signs, because even given signs people wouldn't believe. There are a few people that I think might be convinced by signs, but there was a thread a while back that pretty much proved this verse true. Someone asked that if you could definetively prove the resurection really occured would that affect your belief. Most people said no. So even if a major sign like that was given it wouldn't convert most people.

Pat Robertson does not equal Jesus.

Pat Robertson is nowhere near as influential or popular as you imagine. Nor do most Christians even care what Pat Robertson says.

You're building a strawman.

This isn't really a strawman... the poster is telling us how the actions of SOME religious people are making him/her FEEL.

You can't really honestly address and emotional response in terms of 'strawman'... it is ASSUMED that 'feelings' are going to be subjective, and that any conclusion is going to be based entirely on subjective interpretation.

This poster says that they are dismayed at the actions of a particular person (who is pretty much exemplary of a TYPE of person)... and that, the fact that THOSE people associate themselves with something the poster identifies with, makes the poster uncomfortable.

Also - perhaps... the fact that those people include themselves in that arena, and then seem to flagrantly oppose the 'spirit' of that arena... might make the poster feel out-of-place. It might even make one wonder HOW there can be a God, when they try to reconcile it with what that God ALLOWS in his name.

I was recently confirmed and have since started on a bit of soul-searching. You know what I've discovered?

Jesus was a man who preached tolerance, goodwill, charity, kindness, brotherhood and ethics.

And now...we have people like Pat Robertson going around calling for the assassination of leaders, Catholic priests who had covered up a ring of corruption within the church, leaders in office calling for the withdrawl of basic human rights, and people around the world killing one and other because they don't believe as they do. No matter what you believe in, the majority of the world probably disagrees.

For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth. That extremists envoke his name when preaching intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time filling their coffers with ill-gotten funds...

Kinda makes you lose faith doesn't it?

I'm convinced that there is still some good in my Catholic upbringing and Christianity in general, and that is why I will continue to search for the answers and fight for change.

I just felt like putting this out there.


Cool man...at heart all religions in truth preach a message of peace and tolerance..but to quote someone..."they've forgotten the message and worship the creeds"

So long as your life is used to put some goodness into the world you can add your light to the greater light...never lose heart, whatever your faith.

I For being such a peaceful man, I find it dumbfounding that more people have died in the name of Christ than anyone else on Earth.

In you die in the name of Christ it's rarely your fault. It's called being a Martyr. (sp?)

Do you mean people killing in the name of Christ?

Who's this Pat Robertson?

Who's this Pat Robertson?

A crazy bible-basher. I pray you never have occasion to learn more.

Unlikely if you stick around, idiot can't keep his mouth shut.

If that was the case, you wouldn't be a Christian. You'd be... well, Spiritual. It's impossible to arrive at Christian faith as the outcome of your musings on existence unless you're told it by either person or book; both of which have a human element that needs to be factored into your analysis.

I think you misunderstood what I am saying. You shouldnt base whether or not the Christian faith has validity upon the actions of those who claim to practise it.

Cool man...at heart all religions in truth preach a message of peace and tolerance..but to quote someone..."they've forgotten the message and worship the creeds"
And they always will, until we lose the creeds and just keep the message! You don't need a creed in order to understand and practise peace and tolerance.

I'm not sure where this argument comes from. If it has Biblical support please post it. This is a common reason given to explain why God isn't more demonstrative of his existance. But here is my problem with your statement:

Sorry I'm not making a proper argument with versus and such because I don't have the time to find them all (but maybe I will post them later):

The point of Christianity is salvation. The requirement of salvation is faith. Faith is more then belief. Faith means complete trust. Now faith requires belief, for one does not trust what one does not believe but it is not belief alone. Faith is not believing in things for no reason/without evidence. I think you will find the Bible speaks against believing in things without evidence that would be stupid. There is nothing in the definition of faith that would make it cease to exist if God gave evidence of His existance. Instead the Bible says that God has given us reasons to believe. It says that all of creation demonstrates His existance. Besides, the biggest problem with saying what you did is that God did come down and demonstrate his existance. God came down as a man, Jesus Christ. He then proceded to perform miricles such as walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, and rising from the dead. God was being pretty evident of His existance. This did not destroy faith. It made faith stronger. For faith is strengthened, not weakened, by evidence. Otherwise the appostles would be said to have no faith.

So why isn't God more demonstrative of His existance now, when He clearly has been in the past? I won't claim to know. Perhaps he is only as demonstrative as He needs to be to save those who can be saved, but that's only speculative. There is a verse (can't recall where its from) that said something to the extent that God does not perform more signs, because even given signs people wouldn't believe. There are a few people that I think might be convinced by signs, but there was a thread a while back that pretty much proved this verse true. Someone asked that if you could definetively prove the resurection really occured would that affect your belief. Most people said no. So even if a major sign like that was given it wouldn't convert most people.

ok ok i take that comment back. yes the whole point is salvation however faith is also a large part of our religion- many argue we dont evne have a religion- we have a faith. and again youre right God gave us reasons to believe- he may not be here like he was when Jesus was around but he still shows himself, miracles still happen. i apologise-i was wrong

Who's this Pat Robertson?
Robertson and Jerry Fallwell are two US TV preachers. The ultimate example that there are still pharasees in the world. The "conservative christian" movement think they speak the very word of God through a direct phone line.