NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: The option "Other" is for people who are Christian for reasons other than those suggested above. Please do not click it if you are not Christian. Since the poll is addressed to Christians, there is, obviously, no poll option for non-Christians (such as myself).

= = = = = =

Call it unhealthy curiosity; I don't know. And feel free to point out I've missed out some vital option on the poll. I'm just curious.

Please note, the question is 'Why are you a Christian?', not 'Why do you believe in God?'.

Please note, the question is 'Why are you a Christian?', not 'Why do you believe in God?'.You mean "why not something else" ? or "what makes Christianity more substantial than other religions" ?

You mean "why not something else" ?

Yes, it can be that. Interpret the question as you like, really. But I do mean why are you specifically a Christian, rather than (for example) just believe in God in general.

Yes, it can be that. Interpret the question as you like, really. But I do mean why are you specifically a Christian, rather than (for example) just believe in God in general.is that not the same as "why are you specifically not something else" ? ;)

out of my experience I would say that most Christians are Christians because they just don't really know the alternatives (or as I state it, don't know any better)

What is this?:headbang:
I'm Agnostic and I'm not saying that I'm insulted but I think it's interesting that you would make something like this. I am impressed at you zeal however I would indeed like this question answered:
Why?:confused:

What is this?:headbang:
I'm Agnostic and I'm not saying that I'm insulted but I think it's interesting that you would make something like this. I am impressed at you zeal however I would indeed like this question answered:
Why?:confused:

by the way: being Christian is the same as believing in God. You can have you cake and eat it to ya know.

Well, so far the results are interesting. Although I'd like to know what "Other" means to those who selected that option.

Because God is there to give you a hand.

If you're lost, if you think everything is over... If you just want it all to end...

Then he's there to give you a hand, to help you out of your misery, to give you hope, to free you of the constraints of your previous life.

Helpful chap, don't you think?

those folks who select "I don't know, really. I just am." are really scary somehow... :(

What is this?
I'm Agnostic and I'm not saying that I'm insulted but I think it's interesting that you would make something like this. I am impressed at you zeal however I would indeed like this question answered:
Why?


Because I'm curious.

The poll is exclusively for Christians. I'm not a Christian myself, so I'm not voting on the poll. Obviously.


by the way: being Christian is the same as believing in God. You can have you cake and eat it to ya know.

You've misread me. It's not "the same", in the sense that you can believe in God without being a Christian; likewise, I assume some people call themselves Christians without believing in God. I know some atheist Jews, for example.

So this is specifically for Christians. Not people who believe in God in general.

Well, so far the results are interesting. Although I'd like to know what "Other" means to those who selected that option.

I voted Other because I'm not Christian.

I'd say the majority are Christian because their parents are/were.

I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus died to save us from sin.

I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus died to save us from sin.And why do you believe thus?

And why do you believe thus?

That's a question for a different thread. I was asked specifically why I'm a Christian as opposed to a member of another religion or no religion at all.

That's a question for a different thread. I was asked specifically why I'm a Christian as opposed to a member of another religion or no religion at all.So you are christian only because you agree with one of the core teachings of christianity. But that does only very superficially answer the question why.

but I'm not a christian.

So you are christian only because you agree with one of the core teachings of christianity. But that does only very superficially answer the question why.

Actually, I can't think of a better answer why.

Call it unhealthy curiosity; I don't know. And feel free to point out I've missed out some vital option on the poll. I'm just curious.

Please note, the question is 'Why are you a Christian?', not 'Why do you believe in God?'.

Poll coming in just a moment.
You know, I actually find this question much more interesting than the usual "Why Are You An Atheist?" threads.

Lack of belief in god is the default. Everybody is born atheist and agnostic, so asking why they remained that way isn't nearly as interesting to me as asking why they would decide to embrace religion. And why their particular religion?

Over 90% of believers belong to the same denomination as their parents. Not just the same faith (i.e. "Christian"), but the same denomination (i.e. "Methodist"). Do 90% of people really believe that they just happened to be born into the One True Faith? Did all those people give any serious thought to their options or alternatives for God-belief? Did they bother to study up on other faiths?

Frankly, I find it shocking how many believers don't do these things. If I really and truly believed there was a God, and that God wanted something from me, I would prioritize that as the most important task in my life: figure out what God really wants. I could NEVER be so lazy and sloppy as to simply assume that the real God is the one I just happened to be taught to worship in the religion I just happened to be born into. That's just way too much of a risk to take, if we're talking about a real-live all-powerful being who wants something from ME, personally.

Well, so far the results are interesting. Although I'd like to know what "Other" means to those who selected that option.

I voted Other because I'm not Christian.

ditto

Actually, I can't think of a better answer why.It does not at all answer why you believe thus (which is pretty equivalent to being Christian).

dittoIf you are not Christian, you are not supposed to answer at all...

That's a question for a different thread. I was asked specifically why I'm a Christian as opposed to a member of another religion or no religion at all.

Isn't believing that Jesus died for your sins the definition of a Christian? It seems like your statement would be like saying "I'm a vegetarian because I don't eat meat". As such, I think it's exactly the question for this thread.

Over 90% of believers belong to the same denomination as their parents. Not just the same faith (i.e. "Christian"), but the same denomination (i.e. "Methodist"). Do 90% of people really believe that they just happened to be born into the One True Faith? Did all those people give any serious thought to their options or alternatives for God-belief? Did they bother to study up on other faiths?

Frankly, I find it shocking how many believers don't do these things. If I really and truly believed there was a God, and that God wanted something from me, I would prioritize that as the most important task in my life: figure out what God really wants. I could NEVER be so lazy and sloppy as to simply assume that the real God is the one I just happened to be taught to worship in the religion I just happened to be born into. That's just way too much of a risk to take, if we're talking about a real-live all-powerful being who wants something from ME, personally.



Quoted for total agreement. You took the words right out of my mouth.

The person who said that it's part of their cuture needs to look at some history books that go back further than 2000 years.

Over 90% of believers belong to the same denomination as their parents. Not just the same faith (i.e. "Christian"), but the same denomination (i.e. "Methodist"). Do 90% of people really believe that they just happened to be born into the One True Faith? Did all those people give any serious thought to their options or alternatives for God-belief? Did they bother to study up on other faiths?

Frankly, I find it shocking how many believers don't do these things. If I really and truly believed there was a God, and that God wanted something from me, I would prioritize that as the most important task in my life: figure out what God really wants. I could NEVER be so lazy and sloppy as to simply assume that the real God is the one I just happened to be taught to worship in the religion I just happened to be born into. That's just way too much of a risk to take, if we're talking about a real-live all-powerful being who wants something from ME, personally.

That's a very interesting point, and one (surprisingly) I haven't heard very often.

I am a Christian because I believe what the gospels say about Jesus is true. Christianity was spread by people who were personal witnesses of who Jesus was; they have no reason to lie about it. In fact their talking about him brought them into countless troubles, persecution and being tortured and executed; and I can't imagine why a bunch of people would make it all up and then undergo all that because of a lie and at the same time know that it was a lie. Also there were lot of other witnesses of Jesus' life still around; they could easily disprove the first Christians by coming with proofs against them.

Denominations and their different traditions don't matter; what matters to me is the person of Jesus.

I just happen to believe.

Hmm... two reasons actually.

While I was raised vaguely Christian, my mother was very careful to NOT try to set any religious ideals for my sister and I, leaving it up to us to choose our path later on. When I was in junior high school, I spent about a year talking to people and reading about other religions before I decided that I felt that the philosophies that Jesus preached (loving one another, caring for the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, reaching out to everyone irregardless of where they came from or who they are, etc.) fit me and my world view far better than anything else I could find, including being atheist or agnostic.

The second reason is just a sense of awe, a feeling that I have that tells me that this is right and correct. I've felt it a number of times in my life so far, it helps me stay with my faith whenever I start doubting it.

The first reason is my more day to day reason though.

I am a Christian because I believe what the gospels say about Jesus is true. Christianity was spread by people who were personal witnesses of who Jesus was; they have no reason to lie about it. In fact their talking about him brought them into countless troubles, persecution and being tortured and executed; and I can't imagine why a bunch of people would make it all up and then undergo all that because of a lie and at the same time know that it was a lie. Also there were lot of other witnesses of Jesus' life still around; they could easily disprove the first Christians by coming with proofs against them.

Denominations and their different traditions don't matter; what matters to me is the person of Jesus.


I agree.

I am called a Christian because that's what someone nicknamed those who believe in Jesus Christ. At the time the term was coined, if I understand correctly, that name was meant as an insult.

However, I am a Christian because God saved me by His grace. I didn't do anything to deserve it; never have, never will, and am no better than anyone else.

Over 90% of believers belong to the same denomination as their parents. Not just the same faith (i.e. "Christian"), but the same denomination (i.e. "Methodist"). Do 90% of people really believe that they just happened to be born into the One True Faith? Did all those people give any serious thought to their options or alternatives for God-belief? Did they bother to study up on other faiths?

Frankly, I find it shocking how many believers don't do these things. If I really and truly believed there was a God, and that God wanted something from me, I would prioritize that as the most important task in my life: figure out what God really wants. I could NEVER be so lazy and sloppy as to simply assume that the real God is the one I just happened to be taught to worship in the religion I just happened to be born into. That's just way too much of a risk to take, if we're talking about a real-live all-powerful being who wants something from ME, personally.


QUOTED FOR TRUTH. I'd like to think the majority of "other" responses is "because mum and dad said so".

I was born to Roman Catholic parents, and followed it until I hit 16, when I had a sudden mental bolt of lightning and thought "Hey, I've been told to follow this religion for all of my life, why don't I do some big research into it?" and well, let's just say I consider myself agnostic now.

Isn't believing that Jesus died for your sins the definition of a Christian? It seems like your statement would be like saying "I'm a vegetarian because I don't eat meat". As such, I think it's exactly the question for this thread.Face it, he has no real reason, he rather chooses to believe just because. :rolleyes:

I just happen to believe.Which is not worth much then.

I just happen to believe.

Not the best reason for a life choice really, is it?

Best thank the lord you're not born to Muslim parents in America, then.

I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus died to save us from sin.Did he? Maybe you were only tricked to believe thus :D

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5997/satanssonmw5.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=satanssonmw5.jpg)

Did he? Maybe you were only tricked to believe thus :D

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5997/satanssonmw5.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=satanssonmw5.jpg)

I'd post the "No More Nails" miracle picture, but I fear that'll be even more offensive!

I'd post the "No More Nails" miracle picture, but I fear that'll be even more offensive!What's the "No More Nails" miracle picture? :eek:

What's the "No More Nails" miracle picture? :eek:

http://www.boreme.com/media/yr2005/no-nails.jpg

*legs it out of topic*

I was debating on how exactly to answer this post because the best answer I could think of was an answer I posted a couple of weeks ago in a different thread. I could link to it, I suppose... but maybe it will be better if I fine-tune my answer to the specifics of this thread.

A couple pieces of necessary information first:

The specific demonimation of Christianity that I subscribe to is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons). There are some who don't believe this to be a truly Christian belief. If that's your view, I'd encourage you to read on anyway. I was not born into the Church, I converted about 9 years ago.

I also believe that individual humans possess a spirit. Each of us has our own and that it is what defines us as a person. (This belief comes from a good bit of reading and observation on my part, and came independently of the Christian application.)

Lastly, I believe that humans have more than 5 senses, in that God can communicate with us by means other than the conventional 5 we all learn about in grade school. (This also came independently of my Christian understanding.)

So it was that I began to read up on several religions, applying my own knowledge an dunderstanding to each. At the time I was a Catholic and was rapidly moving away from Christianity altogether. I looked into other Christian denominations, Wicca, Islam, a hodgepodge of other systems. I wasn't so much shopping around for something to believe in, but rather was trying to see if there were any religions out there that addressed all of the elements I had already come to believe in about the nature of people, spirituality and so on.

About that time I began to learn about the Mormon church, and found it surprisingly open to a lot of those issues and so I looked into it further. It was a matter of curiosity more than anything else, since I still sort of categorized it as JACD (Just Another Christian Denomination).

Well, at about the same time in my life I was struggling with a few issues that I had gotten myself into, and since I still believed in the power of prayer, I said a little prayer to ask God for a hint as to how to handle things. The response was more than I bargained for.

This began a series of revelations from God that pointed me at the LDS church. Remember what I said before about spiritual communication? That was the mechanism. As I opened myself up to it, I became increasingly awar of just how remarkably internally consistent the church is, and how well it answered my questions. That's how I got a testimony if its truth, and why I've stuck with it ever since. I've gone through periods of inactivity and so on, but my belief continues to hold because of the strength of that guidance.

I hope that answers the OP.

Actually, I can't think of a better answer why.

it certainly seemed to me to be the only reasonable answer. to be a christian because you believe in jesus and his teachings. why else? because you like to pretend to fit in?

it certainly seemed to me to be the only reasonable answer. to be a christian because you believe in jesus and his teachings. why else? because you like to pretend to fit in?as someone already said, that statement is like "i'm vegetarian, because i don't eat meat." it does not really hold any additional information. :rolleyes:
why does he believe in jesus and his teachings ?

http://www.boreme.com/media/yr2005/no-nails.jpg

*legs it out of topic*he has a diaper on...

as someone already said, that statement is like "i'm vegetarian, because i don't eat meat." it does not really hold any additional information. :rolleyes:
why does he believe in jesus and his teachings ?

but that wasnt the question.

"because i dont eat meat" is as good a reason for being a vegetarian as any other, if a person doesnt want to go into a deeper explanation, its their business.

I'm a Christian because I am. I also like to help people. And I'm a pacifist. It all fits.

but that wasnt the question.
"because i dont eat meat" is as good a reason for being a vegetarian as any other, if a person doesnt want to go into a deeper explanation, its their business.not eating meat is not a reason for being vegetarian, it is a description. believing in jesus and his teachings is a description of being christian. there is no cause expressed in such a statement. the question is "Why are you a Christian?" and the question why is asked for information about purpose or cause, not description.

I think a big part of it is that I was raised in it. Also, when I go to church I get this feeling of peace and its amazing. I can't really describe it very well.

those folks who select "I don't know, really. I just am." are really scary somehow... :(

You get scared way too easily then. You thought IDF was desgusting and vile simply because she supports Israel (though probably more likely because she is Jewish).

Actually, I can't think of a better answer why.

Actually it's a really bad answer why. Jesus dying for our sins is a central tenant of christianity. I would go so far as to say it's the fundamental theme of christianity.

To say you are a christian because you believe that jesus died for our sins, and that the belief that jesus died for our sins is the fundamental belief that makes one a christian is to say that you are a christian because you are a christian.

Which does absolutly nothing to address the question of WHY you believe that

You get scared way too easily then. You thought IDF was desgusting and vile simply because she supports Israel (though probably more likely because she is Jewish).

....IDF is a she?

Since when?

....IDF is a she?

Since when?

I dunno I just saw him refer to him/her as a she in another thread, maybe it was to be offensive.

....IDF is a she?

Since when?

IDF is a gung-ho who hides behind a female identity when he gets cornered in an argument.

Rather sad, really

not eating meat is not a reason for being vegetarian, it is a description. believing in jesus and his teachings is a description of being christian. there is no cause expressed in such a statement. the question is "Why are you a Christian?" and the question why is asked for information about purpose or cause, not description.

the depth of the answer is implied by the poll options.

what idiot is a christian because jesus was a capitalist instead of because they believe jesus christ is their personal lord and savior?

if the OP wanted a more thoughtful answer he would have put options like "oh i dont know i never thought about it, it was just the way i was raised", "i had a personal conversion experience that i will describe", "ive thought it through and christianity best expresses my understanding of god", or "i cannot be otherwise, jesus died for my sins"

IDF is a gung-ho who hides behind a female identity when he gets cornered in an argument.

Rather sad, really

how does one HIDE behind a female identity?

how does one HIDE behind a female identity?

I would assume the same way that female characters that are convincingly female get free stuff on MMOs.

I would assume the same way that female characters that are convincingly female get free stuff on MMOs.

i tend to stay out of "israel sucks" threads (for obvious reasons). now im imagining IDF (who is a fierce defender of israel) getting caught trying to defend something fairly indefensible and instead of bringing out fact suddenly "he" posts a pic of a big-titted blonde and says that "he" is pouting. suddenly "he" wins the fight.

is that not the same as "why are you specifically not something else" ? ;)

out of my experience I would say that most Christians are Christians because they just don't really know the alternatives (or as I state it, don't know any better)


Well, that may be true for some. However, in my case. My mother was Jewish. and Converted to Paganism and Wiccan. I grew up mostly Pagan. But it didn't quite feel right to me. In my college years, I studied all the relgions. And tried out the Eastern philosophies. Then I was agnostic for a while, then just down right atheist for years. I decided to acedemcally pursue my Jewish background. And oddly enough, came to Christianity. I have been Christian for a year now, and it is the first time in my life, where I feel as though I am on the right path with God and the universe. So, I am definatly not Christian, only because "I don't know any better" I studied this religion and many others for years before I converted.

Anyway, there are many reasons I am Christian, and you haven't listed any of them in your poll. So I put other. Basically, I am Christian, because it is the Truth, as I have come to find it....perhaps one day, I will find out other information that will change my beliefs. And all the reasons you list, are either excuses that you don't know anything else, or are things you might "like" about Christianity. When you are in persuit of the Truth...it isn't about what you like or don't like.....it is just a matter of what IS and what ISN'T.

-Alina

i tend to stay out of "israel sucks" threads (for obvious reasons). now im imagining IDF (who is a fierce defender of israel) getting caught trying to defend something fairly indefensible and instead of bringing out fact suddenly "he" posts a pic of a big-titted blonde and says that "he" is pouting. suddenly "he" wins the fight.

I could actually see that working. And it frightens me.

I could actually see that working. And it frightens me.

lol

now im imagining BOTTLE doing it. not that ive ever seen bottle backed into a corner but the image of her suddenly saying "youre being mean to me, im just a girl, be nice" with a sexy pic added in is pretty funny.

how does one HIDE behind a female identity?

Make the identity have really big thighs...

Nah, Bottle is like...An argumentative wolverine. She rakes, bites and tears apart when she is cornered. Works, although, and as I usually agree with her, I defend her and back her to the death. Even more, when I am going to post something, usually I go by "Oh, Bottle already said that". Blame that on me being less active than she.

Actually posting that pic would destroy her own arguments on femeinity, (or feminity, or how do you spell that?), and her way of life, as far as I know. And my image of her.

I don't get into many "Israel sucks" threads neither, but I sometimes critic the Israeli foreign policy. I have seen IDF going more..."I'm not a fanatic of guns before I am a girl".

Sad, sad. I prefer KimchEve arguments to defend from that (sad too) ad hominem attack. (Not the same person, I know, but the same posture).

Myself, as Bottle, prefer to not use the fact that I am female in arguments, although I get pissed when I get called "Dude", "Pal", "Pussy", or similar peyorative words.

now im imagining BOTTLE doing it. not that ive ever seen bottle backed into a corner but the image of her suddenly saying "youre being mean to me, im just a girl, be nice" with a sexy pic added in is pretty funny.
Naw, when backed into a corner I generally just look over their shoulder, yell "What the hell is THAT?!" and then kick their knees out when they turn to look.

Nah, Bottle is like...An argumentative wolverine.
Snicky, snicky, snoine!!!

Actually posting that pic would destroy her own arguments on femeinity, (or feminity, or how do you spell that?),

The word your looking for is "bullshit." But it's sometimes spelled "femininity." :D


and her way of life, as far as I know.
Not to mention that the universe itself might collapse into a singularity.


And my image of her.
Something like this?
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-2/1103562529.jpg

Nah, Bottle is like...An argumentative wolverine. She rakes, bites and tears apart when she is cornered. Works, although, and as I usually agree with her, I defend her and back her to the death. Even more, when I am going to post something, usually I go by "Oh, Bottle already said that". Blame that on me being less active than she.

Actually posting that pic would destroy her own arguments on femeinity, (or feminity, or how do you spell that?), and her way of life, as far as I know. And my image of her.

I don't get into many "Israel sucks" threads neither, but I sometimes critic the Israeli foreign policy. I have seen IDF going more..."I'm not a fanatic of guns before I am a girl".

Sad, sad. I prefer KimchEve arguments to defend from that (sad too) ad hominem attack. (Not the same person, I know, but the same posture).

Myself, as Bottle, prefer to not use the fact that I am female in arguments, although I get pissed when I get called "Dude", "Pal", "Pussy", or similar peyorative words.

oh im not suggesting that bottle would EVER try that. thats why the image in my head is funny--its the ANTI-bottle. bottle would never ever pull such a stunt.

im with you. bottle covers her points so thoroughly that i hesitate to even jump in to support her position. she really doesnt need my help. i normally only post if i have a different point of view on something (preferably one that doesnt contradict bottle since she's almost always right)

ive never seen idf do that (not that im claiming she hasnt). do the other posters bust her on it when she tries it?

Not all Christians are that because their parents are. My parents are Christian but they never forced it on me. I chose to be one, while, my brother is an atheist. Personally I think the reason most atheist's seems to hate religion is the history of it and the fact that the Bible says they will go to Hell. I also don't understand some arguments. Like one dude said "Who created God" well, that is obviously incomprehensible to the human mind. Well how did science randomly appear? That is equally incomprehensible. personally I believe in every man his own Savior, or not. That is, leave the Christians alone and dont try to convert them, and then leave the atheists alone and don't try to convert them. I hate it when a Christian goes up to an Atheist and starts yelling at them that they are going to hell. Equally, I hate it when an Atheist goes up to my face and says im wrong.

As for why I am a Christian I quite simply believe in it. Sure I am sometimes doubtful and have questions, but thats all apart of the process.

Well how did science randomly appear? That is equally incomprehensible.

Buh?

Buh?

buh?

buh?

the question of "how did science randomly appear" is odd, as science did not randomly appear in the slightest.

Buh?
Yeah, I'm a bit lost on that one, myself.

As somebody who gets paid to make science happen, I'm very interested in this concept of science "randomly appearing." Where and when does this occur?

Yeah, I'm a bit lost on that one, myself.

As somebody who gets paid to make science happen, I'm very interested in this concept of science "randomly appearing." Where and when does this occur?

Thats not what I meant. What I meant to say was "How was science created" according to most atheist they say who created God? All I am saying is that what created science? Did the universe just randomly appear?

Naw, when backed into a corner I generally just look over their shoulder, yell "What the hell is THAT?!" and then kick their knees out when they turn to look.

Foxy-like wolverine?


The word your looking for is "bullshit." But it's sometimes spelled "femininity." :D

"Femininity" doesn't exist?


Not to mention that the universe itself might collapse into a singularity.

For that, I would have to consider the universe spins around you, and that would mean it doesn't spin around me. It would be so hard :D

Something like this?
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-2/1103562529.jpg

Less hairy, and a little bit prettier, but basically that.

Not all Christians are that because their parents are. My parents are Christian but they never forced it on me.

So not all Christians are Christian because their parents are, but you are Christian and your parents are. And you think you are making what point, exactly, by saying this?


Personally I think the reason most atheist's seems to hate religion is the history of it and the fact that the Bible says they will go to Hell.

I'd say you're on to something with that. The history of religion, coupled with the fact that the Bible tells atheists that they deserve to be tortured for the rest of eternity, do tend to give a slightly hostile impression of "faith" to the godless.


I also don't understand some arguments. Like one dude said "Who created God" well, that is obviously incomprehensible to the human mind.

Why? If you can comprehend the idea of God creating EVERYTHING in the universe, why would it be harder to comprehend something creating God?


Well how did science randomly appear? That is equally incomprehensible.

You're right, that question is incomprehensible. What on Earth are you talking about?


personally I believe in every man his own Savior, or not.

Now that's punchy. "I believe in X. Or not. Whatev."


I hate it when a Christian goes up to an Atheist and starts yelling at them that they are going to hell. Equally, I hate it when an Atheist goes up to my face and says im wrong.
It amazes me that people equate these two.

A Christian who tells an atheist, "You are going to Hell" is saying, "You are going to be subjected to the most brutal torture imaginable for the rest of eternity." Seriously, think about that. An atheist will spend maybe 80 years on this Earth being an atheist, but for this they deserve to be tortured FOR ETERNITY. For ever and ever and ever.

And this is somehow supposed to compare to an atheist SAYING YOU'RE WRONG?!

What. The. Fuck.

Forgive me, but on my planet it's a bit worse to tell somebody they will be tortured for the rest of time than it is to tell them that you disagree with them.

The poll option that was closest to me is probably the first, about helping people. I believe that to be tolerant, inclusive, generous (when possible),humanitarian and loving is how God wants us to live, and it is how I want to live. Other important reasons:

Because I have a spiritual belief in Jesus.

The relative universality of Christianity (unlike the ethnocentrism of Judaism and the geocentrism and linguocentrism of Islam).

Well how did science randomly appear?Science, i.e. the process of finding out and making sure, did not randomly appear. It's human nature. Or at least intelligent humans' nature....

Thats not what I meant. What I meant to say was "How was science created" according to most atheist they say who created God? All I am saying is that what created science? Did the universe just randomly appear?
Science =/= the universe.

Science is a particular human means of investigating the universe.

Science is made by humans. Science was created by humans, refined by humans, and is performed by humans.

The universe itself is what science investigates. One of the big questions for science to address is what the universe is and where it came from, and what forces may have contributed to making the universe.

Thats not what I meant. What I meant to say was "How was science created" according to most atheist they say who created God? All I am saying is that what created science? Did the universe just randomly appear?

i think you meant to ask...

who created the big bang? or "what came before the big bang?"


or something like that

Not all christians tell atheists they are going to hell.

Not all christians think sex is a sin.

Not all christians believe the bible says the one and only truth.

Some of us walk through the borderlines, that's why I went through with the...I love my neighbour and I like to help people and sacrifice things for the well being of others.

I'm a catholic, a rather...Variant, or...Uncomformist one, Does that make me a christian? Sometimes people make difference between the american christians and catholics...

So not all Christians are Christian because their parents are, but you are Christian and your parents are. And you think you are making what point, exactly, by saying this?

Because they never took me to Chruch, talked to me about it, or forced me to engage in anything.

I'd say you're on to something with that. The history of religion, coupled with the fact that the Bible tells atheists that they deserve to be tortured for the rest of eternity, do tend to give a slightly hostile impression of "faith" to the godless.

Yes theres beens some bad stuff with religion, but that makes it wrong or untrue? Also as for buring in Hell, why dont you just put faith in Jesus, all you need to do is do that, and repent, and you wont go to Hell. Its not that hard. But thats why I do not force my religion on others.

Why? If you can comprehend the idea of God creating EVERYTHING in the universe, why would it be harder to comprehend something creating God?
Because it has to end somewhere. Maybe your right, I dont know. I'll find out when I die.


You're right, that question is incomprehensible. What on Earth are you talking about?
If you understood the above, you should be able to understand this.

Now that's punchy. "I believe in X. Or not. Whatev."
What's wrong with that? In America we have Freedom of Religion. Its just like someone saying I'm a democrat, or I am a communist, etc.

It amazes me that people equate these two.

A Christian who tells an atheist, "You are going to Hell" is saying, "You are going to be subjected to the most brutal torture imaginable for the rest of eternity." Seriously, think about that. An atheist will spend maybe 80 years on this Earth being an atheist, but for this they deserve to be tortured FOR ETERNITY. For ever and ever and ever.

And this is somehow supposed to compare to an atheist SAYING YOU'RE WRONG?!

What. The. Fuck.

Forgive me, but on my planet it's a bit worse to tell somebody they will be tortured for the rest of time than it is to tell them that you disagree with them.
I don't agree with telling atheist that. I tend to be more moderate than some of my brothers. But an Atheist telling you that you are wrong undermines every belief you have. Its like the Matrix. Neo thought the Matrix was real, but everything was turned upside down when he found out it wanst.

Okay, this dude just can't be for real. That bit about the Matrix...yeah, he's jumped the shark.

Okay, this dude just can't be for real. That bit about the Matrix...yeah, he's jumped the shark.

Explain?

Okay, this dude just can't be for real. That bit about the Matrix...yeah, he's jumped the shark.

Yep, yep.

His brain just...Imploded there. Matrix Teology.

Although well, Plato's "Topos Uranus" idea is quoted several times on the movie. Although the Matrix is compared to true philosophy and teology as normal food compared to dog puke.

Yep, yep.

His brain just...Imploded there. Matrix Teology.

Although well, Plato's "Topos Uranus" idea is quoted several times on the movie. Although the Matrix is compared to true philosophy and teology as normal food compared to dog puke.

I was just using it as an example. Okay, so what if you thought that cheesecake wouldn't give you cancer, and you ate it for 40 years, and then you found out it did

I was just using it as an example. Okay, so what if you thought that cheesecake wouldn't give you cancer, and you ate it for 40 years, and then you found out it didn't.
Um. Good?

Um. Good?

misspell. Meant to put did, I apologize.

I was just using it as an example. Okay, so what if you thought that cheesecake wouldn't give you cancer, and you ate it for 40 years, and then you found out it did

Shit happens?

Cheese happens?

I don't follow, really.

Call it unhealthy curiosity; I don't know. And feel free to point out I've missed out some vital option on the poll. I'm just curious.
I am happy that you are curious. It's not at all unhealthy.

You've misread me. It's not "the same", in the sense that you can believe in God without being a Christian; likewise, I assume some people call themselves Christians without believing in God. I know some atheist Jews, for example.
No, that's different. "Atheist Jew" usually refers to someone of a Jewish family. That's because the word tends to connote Semitic ethnicity. Christianity is not an ethnocentric religion, so there can be no atheist Christians.

Frankly, I find it shocking how many believers don't do these things. If I really and truly believed there was a God, and that God wanted something from me, I would prioritize that as the most important task in my life: figure out what God really wants. I could NEVER be so lazy and sloppy as to simply assume that the real God is the one I just happened to be taught to worship in the religion I just happened to be born into. That's just way too much of a risk to take, if we're talking about a real-live all-powerful being who wants something from ME, personally.
I agree entirely.

Not the best reason for a life choice really, is it?

Best thank the lord you're not born to Muslim parents in America, then.
Or rather, not born to Muslim parents in an America ruled by Eve online!

what idiot is a christian because jesus was a capitalist instead of because they believe jesus christ is their personal lord and savior?
Busheviks. :p

No, you would really have to be a joker to select the capitalist/socialist options. The capitalist one is even less accurate. Remebmer people Jesus predated both economic systems by millenia.

I could actually see that working. And it frightens me.
It worked for FairyTinkArisen.

lol

now im imagining BOTTLE doing it. not that ive ever seen bottle backed into a corner but the image of her suddenly saying "youre being mean to me, im just a girl, be nice" with a sexy pic added in is pretty funny.
I suppose, if Bottle was leaving NS permanently and felt like destroying her credibility!

Something like this?
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-2/1103562529.jpg
cute!

misspell. Meant to put did, I apologize.
Well gee, I guess I'd be pretty bummed that cheesecake could give me cancer, and I'd be pretty pissed off that nobody told me sooner.

[QUOTE=Cogadhar;12485139}by the way: being Christian is the same as believing in God. You can have you cake and eat it to ya know.[/QUOTE]

No it's not. Many people believe in God, but hate him, think he's evil, are satanist, etc. To be a christian, you must A) believe in God, B) Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and C) love your neighbour as yourself.

Edit: The option "Other" is for people who are Christian for reasons other than those suggested above. Please do not click it if you are not Christian. Since the poll is addressed to Christians, there is, obviously, no poll option for non-Christians (such as myself).


Oops.

WTF? When I say "Quote", I mean quote, you f***ed up computer...

Well gee, I guess I'd be pretty bummed that cheesecake could give me cancer, and I'd be pretty pissed off that nobody told me sooner.

My point. If I believed in God for some 40 years, and some atheists shows up and says im wrong, I would be mad. I'll I try to say is for people not to interfere in other peoples religion? that way noone pisses you off by saying your going to hell, and you don't piss me off by claiming im wrong.

So not all Christians are Christian because their parents are, but you are Christian and your parents are. And you think you are making what point, exactly, by saying this?


I think he or she is just trying to point out that the choice to become Christian, in this case, was independent of the Christian beliefs of the parents.

My point. If I believed in God for some 40 years, and some atheists shows up and says im wrong, I would be mad. I'll I try to say is for people not to interfere in other peoples religion? that way noone pisses you off by saying your going to hell, and you don't piss me off by claiming im wrong.

would you be mad because he was right and you had wasted your time in your religious beliefs or would you be mad because he is wrong and your faith is so weak that it was rocked by some guy making a bogus claim?

would you be mad because he was right and you had wasted your time in your religious beliefs or would you be mad because he is wrong and your faith is so weak that it was rocked by some guy making a bogus claim?

Both. But I do not believe I am wasting my time. If God isn't real, but I still follow his teachings, I believe I will live a better "life" if I hadn't.

A Christian who tells an atheist, "You are going to Hell" is saying, "You are going to be subjected to the most brutal torture imaginable for the rest of eternity." Seriously, think about that. An atheist will spend maybe 80 years on this Earth being an atheist, but for this they deserve to be tortured FOR ETERNITY. For ever and ever and ever.


That depends on what type of Christian you are.

would you be mad because he was right and you had wasted your time in your religious beliefs or would you be mad because he is wrong and your faith is so weak that it was rocked by some guy making a bogus claim?

The same reason a homosexual would be mad if a Christian told him that the way he lives his life is wrong.

The same reason a homosexual would be mad if a Christian told him that the way he lives his life is wrong.

But thats why there is Jesus, no?

I hate to be pedantic,but it appears to be called for.

There's a difference between saying to someone "I disagree with you" and saying "You're wrong."

The former is simply stating a fact. What I think and what you think are not the same. There's no attempt to evaluate which is better nor is there an attempt to judge. It's asimple statement. This is also diplomatic because if both parties are intelligent and rational, nobody goes on the defensive or feels attacked.

The latter is making a judgement. It is bringing someone's intelligence/beliefs/understanding into question as well as implicitly attacking something that may mean very much to them. It's also inherently self-serving because it assumes the speaker has a lock on being correct.

It's silly to say "you're wrong" and then try and take the moral high ground by trying to characterize it as nothing but a simple statement of disagreement.

Edit:Obviously the distinction only means something on matters that are up for debate. If you say 5 + 7 = 2 then it's goofy to try to be so overdiplomatic as to say "I disagree."

The same reason a homosexual would be mad if a Christian told him that the way he lives his life is wrong.

actually that comes down to not liking extreme rudeness. if you havent been invited to comment on someone else's life choices you are way out of line getting into their face and telling them what you think.

actually that comes down to not liking extreme rudeness. if you havent been invited to comment on someone else's life choices you are way out of line getting into their face and telling them what you think.

Exactly. It just some Atheists I know get all in my face screaming about how I am wrong, while I don't do that to them. Ive seen Christians do the same thing, and I don't like it. Everybody believes what everybody believes noone should dictate that to them.

Edit: The option "Other" is for people who are Christian for reasons other than those suggested above. Please do not click it if you are not Christian. Since the poll is addressed to Christians, there is, obviously, no poll option for non-Christians (such as myself).

= = = = = =

Call it unhealthy curiosity; I don't know. And feel free to point out I've missed out some vital option on the poll. I'm just curious.

Please note, the question is 'Why are you a Christian?', not 'Why do you believe in God?'.

Because I follow the teachings of Christ above the teachings of anyone else. I clicked the first option because I thought that was what you were going for but I probably should have selected other..

QUOTED FOR TRUTH. I'd like to think the majority of "other" responses is "because mum and dad said so".

I was born to Roman Catholic parents, and followed it until I hit 16, when I had a sudden mental bolt of lightning and thought "Hey, I've been told to follow this religion for all of my life, why don't I do some big research into it?" and well, let's just say I consider myself agnostic now.

Same. Except I was a bit quicker to go over to agnosticism. And I've been researching various other religions and beliefs for years now.:D

would you be mad because he was right and you had wasted your time in your religious beliefs or would you be mad because he is wrong and your faith is so weak that it was rocked by some guy making a bogus claim?

I find it rude. I think Christians that knock on your door to tell you what you're supposed to believe are rude. I think Atheists who tell you you're crazy and dangerous are rude.

The world would be a better place if we had respect for one another and treated each other as we would like to be treated (in public, I don't need to hear how Sin likes to be flogged). I think whether you believe in Jesus or not, that we can all agree that golden rule is a pretty good way to live.

Exactly. It just some Atheists I know get all in my face screaming about how I am wrong, while I don't do that to them. Ive seen Christians do the same thing, and I don't like it. Everybody believes what everybody believes noone should dictate that to them.

that screaming in your face thing would piss anyone off.

doesnt it make you wonder about how secure THEY are in their convictions if they need to be so very rude about it?

Because I follow the teachings of Christ above the teachings of anyone else. I clicked the first option because I thought that was what you were going for but I probably should have selected other..

Though I would argue that simply following the teachings of christ while ignoring the dogma of the bible and the church would simply make you a Deist, or something similar.

Though I would argue that simply following the teachings of christ while ignoring the dogma of the bible and the church would simply make you a Deist, or something similar.

Why? Because they say so? I'm not a Paulian. They don't get to say what I get to call myself because I don't accept the teachings of someone OTHER than Christ. It's like saying that like saying that democracies are republics because we say we're a democracy and we're a republic. Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ as truth.

Deists reject Christianity and that Christ had any special access to truth. I'm not a Deist.

Why? Because they say so? I'm not a Paulian. They don't get to say what I get to call myself because I don't accept the teachings of someone OTHER than Christ. It's like saying that like saying that democracies are republics because we say we're a democracy and we're a republic. Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ as truth.

Deists reject Christianity and that Christ had any special access to truth. I'm not a Deist.

*shrugs* This is true. While similar to deist beliefs, there are critical differences between you and them, I suppose.

Well, that may be true for some. However, in my case. My mother was Jewish. and Converted to Paganism and Wiccan. I grew up mostly Pagan. But it didn't quite feel right to me.

No insult is meant or implied, merely curiosity. What didn't feel right about it?

lol

now im imagining BOTTLE doing it. not that ive ever seen bottle backed into a corner but the image of her suddenly saying "youre being mean to me, im just a girl, be nice" with a sexy pic added in is pretty funny.

Well, she might do it this Sunday but I couldn't see her doing it at any other time.

Myself, as Bottle, prefer to not use the fact that I am female in arguments, although I get pissed when I get called "Dude", "Pal", "Pussy", or similar peyorative words.

When did dude and pal become pejorative?

I don't agree with telling atheist that. I tend to be more moderate than some of my brothers. But an Atheist telling you that you are wrong undermines every belief you have. Its like the Matrix. Neo thought the Matrix was real, but everything was turned upside down when he found out it wanst.

And this is what the Discordians call enlightenment. But seriously, just being told you're wrong turns your whole world upside down? You don't have much faith do you?

Both. But I do not believe I am wasting my time. If God isn't real, but I still follow his teachings, I believe I will live a better "life" if I hadn't.

Including such teachings as are found in Exodus 34 verses 12-13 and 22 verse 18?

Well, she might do it this Sunday but I couldn't see her doing it at any other time.

oh god i forgot sunday is april fools day. i was thinking of making a thread outlining what doesnt make a good online prank. the lame shit that passes as april fools jokes here make me want to stay offline that day.

No it's not. Many people believe in God, but hate him, think he's evil, are satanist, etc. To be a christian, you must A) believe in God, B) Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and C) love your neighbour as yourself.According to what?

Including such teachings as are found in Exodus 34 verses 12-13 and 22 verse 18?The real n commandments?

I'm a christian because I'm stupid and ignorant.

Was that the correct answer? Or were you looking for the "I'm christian because I like being bigoted and telling people that they're going to hell"?

I never do well on these tests.

I'm a christian because I'm stupid and ignorant.so your christianity is only a symptom? :p

The real n commandments?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean . . .

Why? Because they say so? I'm not a Paulian. They don't get to say what I get to call myself because I don't accept the teachings of someone OTHER than Christ. It's like saying that like saying that democracies are republics because we say we're a democracy and we're a republic. Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ as truth.
I don't know that that's entirely true. If you accepted the teachings of Christ (or a particular interpretation of them) but actively refused to call yourself a Christian, no-one would dispute that and try to say that you actually were a Christian. There must be a certain amount of subjectivity involved in the definition of what is "Christian"; otherwise we would be left with at least a small number of Involuntary Christians.

... I'm not..

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean . . .That passage is the one with the commandments that really went into the Ark and were give as law to the Israelites, instead of the more popular ones of Exodus 20 that were trashed.
According to the bible, that is.

Why? Because they say so? I'm not a Paulian. They don't get to say what I get to call myself because I don't accept the teachings of someone OTHER than Christ.

Literally? Does that mean you disregard everything in the Old Testament because Jesus wasn't in it? Yet much of what Christ said depends on the OT.

Whole mixed bag of reasons.

Whole mixed bag of reasons.you mean, you pick what you want?

I don't know that that's entirely true. If you accepted the teachings of Christ (or a particular interpretation of them) but actively refused to call yourself a Christian, no-one would dispute that and try to say that you actually were a Christian. There must be a certain amount of subjectivity involved in the definition of what is "Christian"; otherwise we would be left with at least a small number of Involuntary Christians.

A word has a meaning. I can call myself a caucasoid but unless I fit the definition, I'm not and if I fit the definition, even if I say I'm not, I am. Christian has a definition. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... guess what?

Literally? Does that mean you disregard everything in the Old Testament because Jesus wasn't in it? Yet much of what Christ said depends on the OT.

You misread what I said. I said I can't be excluded from Christianity by rejecting someone OTHER than Christ's teaching, meaning Paul. If I accept Christ's teachings, I'm a Christian, that simple.

... Christian has a definition...
This is my point of contention. Are you suggesting that Christianity has a single and objective definition of its own membership? Or are you just saying that given your own assertion of what Christianity stands for, you can define any given individual as either suiting it or not?

This is my point of contention. Are you suggesting that Christianity has a single and objective definition of its own membership? Or are you just saying that given your own assertion of what Christianity stands for, you can define any given individual as either suiting it or not?

Yes, I'm saying that it has a single definition at it's core. Otherwise, that car over there, Christian, the guy who worships hot dogs, Christian, etc.

Yes, I'm saying that it has a single definition at it's core. Otherwise, that car over there, Christian, the guy who worships hot dogs, Christian, etc.

Indeed. Probably the best definition would be "Follower of Christ". Unfortunately, by that definition, I know an awful lot of 'un-christian' Christians.

Yes, I'm saying that it has a single definition at it's core. Otherwise, that car over there, Christian, the guy who worships hot dogs, Christian, etc.
I hope you'll forgive me for being a little confused (if intrigued). Where does this objective word come from, and what's to stop any given society appropriating the word "Christian" in such a way that it might be appropriate to that car or that hot-dog worshipper?

I hope you'll forgive me for being a little confused (if intrigued). Where does this objective word come from, and what's to stop any given society appropriating the word "Christian" in such a way that it might be appropriate to that car or that hot-dog worshipper?

The definition should be centred around 'christ', otherwise using the term 'christ-ian' in nonsensical.

Aside from it being debatable whether 'Jesus' was 'the christ'... (or even, if that would really mean anything, even if true)... the received interpretation of the phrase 'christian' should be based on 'the christ', no?

Indeed. Probably the best definition would be "Follower of Christ". Unfortunately, by that definition, I know an awful lot of 'un-christian' Christians.Would it not just be "believer-in-the-messiahhood-and-whateverdegreeofdivinity-of-yeshua" ?

Edit: The option "Other" is for people who are Christian for reasons other than those suggested above. Please do not click it if you are not Christian. Since the poll is addressed to Christians, there is, obviously, no poll option for non-Christians (such as myself).

= = = = = =

Call it unhealthy curiosity; I don't know. And feel free to point out I've missed out some vital option on the poll. I'm just curious.

Please note, the question is 'Why are you a Christian?', not 'Why do you believe in God?'.

Other. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

Would it not just be "believer-in-the-messiahhood-and-whateverdegreeofdivinity-of-yeshua" ?

Kind of depends.

Looking at the Hebrew interpretation, no only can 'Jesus' not have been Messiah, but it wouldn't mean anything like what 'christianity' claims, if he was.

So - by those lights, 'Christian' should mean something along the lines of 'follower of the man they called christ"... a teacher (at least) if not more.

Intrinsically, one doesn't have to believe any of the 'supernatural' stuff to follows 'Jesus', or find value in the lesson.

Kind of depends.

Looking at the Hebrew interpretation, no only can 'Jesus' not have been Messiah, but it wouldn't mean anything like what 'christianity' claims, if he was.

So - by those lights, 'Christian' should mean something along the lines of 'follower of the man they called christ"... a teacher (at least) if not more.

Intrinsically, one doesn't have to believe any of the 'supernatural' stuff to follows 'Jesus', or find value in the lesson.So maybe there should be a distinction of Christians from Jesuists ( ;) ) and from Divinists?

I'm not Christian...

So maybe there should be a distinction of Christians from Jesuists ( ;) ) and from Divinists?

I don't know - if they don't 'follow' the character they claim as 'the Christ', they shouldn't really call themselves 'christian'. On the other hand - if they do follow 'the Christ', I don't think it matters what else they call themselves, or whether they believe he was man, guru, ghost or god.

Those who claim to be Christian, but set the words of 'Paul' above those of 'Jesus' should, perhaps, not be referred to as 'Christian'.....

Indeed. Probably the best definition would be "Follower of Christ". Unfortunately, by that definition, I know an awful lot of 'un-christian' Christians.
How do you mean?

How do you mean?

People who follow the teachings of Christ or agree with his message and act accordingly, with the whole "submit and be saved" spiel.

Other. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

This does not answer the question of WHY you are Christian, it merely states that you ARE.

Because Jesus Christ cared enough about me to become a human being and die, and not just die, but die a horrible, shameful, painful, bloody, death that He did not deserve, and take the punishment for my sin on Himself, and He did it for ME personally, so that I would not have to bear it myself for all eternity in hell.

He died in MY place, for ME, on MY behalf.

And I love Him dearly for it. :D

And He did not die for me ONLY, but also for any and all individuals who acknowledge their need of a Savior and accept Jesus Christ as that Savior, as their OWN PERSONAL Savior.

It's true that Jesus died to save ALL members of the human race, but a person must by faith appropriate His sacrifice of Himself on Calvary to him/her self to be saved from hell and go to heaven.

I hope you'll forgive me for being a little confused (if intrigued). Where does this objective word come from, and what's to stop any given society appropriating the word "Christian" in such a way that it might be appropriate to that car or that hot-dog worshipper?

What's to stop me from appropriating 'tree'? Language evolves. You can always create another meaning of a word. However, as long as we have knowledge of 'followers of Christ' we will the meaning associated with that, regardless of what other meanings appear. The meaning we are discussing is 'follower of Christ'

Because Jesus Christ cared enough about me to become a human being and die, and not just die, but die a horrible, shameful, painful, bloody, death that He did not deserve, and take the punishment for my sin on Himself, and He did it for ME personally, so that I would not have to bear it myself for all eternity in hell.

He died in MY place, for ME, on MY behalf.

And I love Him dearly for it. :D

And He did not die for me ONLY, but also for any and all individuals who acknowledge their need of a Savior and accept Jesus Christ as that Savior, as their OWN PERSONAL Savior.

It's true that Jesus died to save ALL members of the human race, but a person must by faith appropriate His sacrifice of Himself on Calvary to him/her self to be saved from hell and go to heaven.


I'm a Christian, but I always find it irrational when people put it this way. So you were going to be condemned to hell and the wages of death. If Jesus took your place, then wouldn't he have to be condemned to hell and the wages of death. That's what I've always found odd about followers of Paul.

I'm a Christian, but I always find it irrational when people put it this way. So you were going to be condemned to hell and the wages of death. If Jesus took your place, then wouldn't he have to be condemned to hell and the wages of death. That's what I've always found odd about followers of Paul.

Well, I also find it irrational when people put their faith in Jesus that way too. But for completely different reasons. Yes, Jesus died for my sins, and I love God for showing that kind of mercy and love, however that just shows God's grace, it isn't why I BELIEVE in Jesus. Jesus died, but then he was ressurected! It is because in my studies and research that I have come to believe that He rose from the dead. That means he truly is the Son of God that he proclaimed to be. That is why I believe in Christianity. The fact that he died for my sins, is just the wonderful bonus I get to enjoy and praise him for. But claiming to die for sins, means nothing if I don't believe in the ressurrection.

Anyway, to respond to this information, Everyone did not die and go to hell before Jesus. Before Jesus was the Jewish Law. It is the long list of things humans were supposed to follow inorder to attempt to be perfect enough for God. In addition to following the Laws, the Jews also did animal sacrafice to make up for their own imperfections. So the bible shows how faithful Jews made it into heaven before Jesus. However, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. He was the ONLY human perfect enough to have followed every law in the Torah (old testiment) and because of that, He freed us from the Law. So we no longer have to attempt to be perfect by following these rules. That is what it means to say that Jesus died for our sins. Not that we all would have gone to hell otherwise...but just that we all would have to live a very strict life of laws and sacrifices in order to hope to be good enough for God. Jesus bridged that gap, and allows everyone access to God. Jesus didn't take our place in Hell. Jesus took our place for the Law and sacrifice. He was the sacrifice to end all sacrfices. This is the main difference between Judiasm and Christianity. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah and following the Law. And the Christians see Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore are already saved from the Law.

Sorry for being wordy, but I am just trying to explain that Jesus dying for our sins, isn't a WHY to believe in Christ, and also explain why his death on the cross didn't result in Jesus Himself ending up in Hell.

Isn't believing that Jesus died for your sins the definition of a Christian? It seems like your statement would be like saying "I'm a vegetarian because I don't eat meat". As such, I think it's exactly the question for this thread.

And your statement is like saying to a vegetarian "I know you don't eat meat because you don't want to eat animals, but why don't you eat meat?"

I am a Christian because of what I believe.

Other - It's a long story.

Other - It's a long story.

Same here, and I am afraid if I told my whole story...well, i'd be locked away for being mad ;)

Well, I also find it irrational when people put their faith in Jesus that way too. But for completely different reasons. Yes, Jesus died for my sins, and I love God for showing that kind of mercy and love, however that just shows God's grace, it isn't why I BELIEVE in Jesus. Jesus died, but then he was ressurected! It is because in my studies and research that I have come to believe that He rose from the dead. That means he truly is the Son of God that he proclaimed to be. That is why I believe in Christianity. The fact that he died for my sins, is just the wonderful bonus I get to enjoy and praise him for. But claiming to die for sins, means nothing if I don't believe in the ressurrection.

Um, you know that Jesus wasn't the only one to die and be resurrected, right? This doesn't seem a rational reason to believe he was God.


Anyway, to respond to this information, Everyone did not die and go to hell before Jesus. Before Jesus was the Jewish Law. It is the long list of things humans were supposed to follow inorder to attempt to be perfect enough for God. In addition to following the Laws, the Jews also did animal sacrafice to make up for their own imperfections. So the bible shows how faithful Jews made it into heaven before Jesus.

Yes, of course they didn't. They were judged another way. However, the claim is that he died in our place because dying is the wage of sin. Except he didn't physically die our place. Because we still physically die. And He was resurrected. And He ascended so he didn't spiritually die in our place either. He came and he taught a message. He changed things and made the religion personal. And in doing so He saved those of us who had ears.


However, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. He was the ONLY human perfect enough to have followed every law in the Torah (old testiment) and because of that, He freed us from the Law.

How is that a sacrifice? I'm not sure that A follows from B. What ultimate sacrifice did he do for us? He was God. He lived briefly on earth just like we're expected to do, only He did it with knowledge of God, something we don't have when we're here. Seems like He made less of a sacrifice than we make.

Now, I'm not saying that He shouldn't be worshipped, obviously. It's just that if Christians want to stop chasing away rational people they need to stop making arguments that don't make any sense.


So we no longer have to attempt to be perfect by following these rules. That is what it means to say that Jesus died for our sins. Not that we all would have gone to hell otherwise...but just that we all would have to live a very strict life of laws and sacrifices in order to hope to be good enough for God. Jesus bridged that gap, and allows everyone access to God. Jesus didn't take our place in Hell. Jesus took our place for the Law and sacrifice. He was the sacrifice to end all sacrfices.

Ah, so you mean by Him "making the ultimate sacrifice", you mean "last sacrifice", because that's not usually what people mean by that. He did end all sacrificies, but playing it like it was such an incredible burden for Him pretty much ignores what He was.



This is the main difference between Judiasm and Christianity. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah and following the Law. And the Christians see Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore are already saved from the Law.

Sorry for being wordy, but I am just trying to explain that Jesus dying for our sins, isn't a WHY to believe in Christ, and also explain why his death on the cross didn't result in Jesus Himself ending up in Hell.

So to be clear, they way that Jesus saved us was, not in living His life, but in dying in a way many men have died, and in being resurrected as others have before Him?

I love Jesus for how He lived and what He taught us. Worshipping death and the lack of corpse seems not only morbid to me, but irrational.

Well, I also find it irrational when people put their faith in Jesus that way too. But for completely different reasons. Yes, Jesus died for my sins, and I love God for showing that kind of mercy and love, however that just shows God's grace, it isn't why I BELIEVE in Jesus. Jesus died, but then he was ressurected! It is because in my studies and research that I have come to believe that He rose from the dead.


And that's where you lose me.

How can your 'studies and research' convince you of anything, when there is no independent, contemporary evidence at all? Even the scriptural evidence was written a half-hundred years after the events it is supposed to record, by people already deeply involved in the religion.


That means he truly is the Son of God that he proclaimed to be. That is why I believe in Christianity.

In all your 'research', you somehow didn't notice that Jesus is not the only figure of religion that 'rose from the dead'?

How do you mean?

Most of the 'Christians' I have ever known have had a variety of different 'spiritual' beliefs, but precious few have followed closely to the words of Jesus, as given in scripture.

Most of the 'Christians' I have known have followed the idea of Christianity as preached by Paul, rather than the message that Jesus preached.

Most of the 'Christians' I have ever known have had a variety of different 'spiritual' beliefs, but precious few have followed closely to the words of Jesus, as given in scripture.
Most of the 'Christians' I have known have followed the idea of Christianity as preached by Paul, rather than the message that Jesus preached.And what is the reason for this attitude in your opinion?

However, the claim is that he died in our place because dying is the wage of sin. Except he didn't physically die our place. Because we still physically die. And He was resurrected. And He ascended so he didn't spiritually die in our place either.

Wow.... headslap moment. Thanks for the epiphany.

The 'flesh' is supposed to have risen again - but, whether or not 'he' physically 'dies'... we still do, so he didn't 'die' to save us from that 'death'.

And, he was always (supposed to be) God in the flesh, immortal and eternal - so he didn't 'spiritually die' either...


I've had problems with the idea of the 'resurrected' flesh before, and skirted around this thought... you just dropped it right in there.

First off, I'm a creationist simply because the more I learn about the complexities of the universe the more I find it increasingly difficult to believe everything could of just 'happened to work out' the way they did. From the cosmos to our DNA, it's impossible for any of this to happen out of random chance. A good example, every animal alive bears the same amino acids - so if there's an amino acid that does something in a human, it does the same thing in a dog, a sheep, a whale. If we evolved in a random way, wouldn't we have developed more, less, or different amino acids? It's extremely difficult to believe that every animal had that one common ancestor who already somehow had this horribly complex physiology already.

Second, I am a Christian because too much has happened to me where I have felt a genuine connection to God and Christ. I'm not saying I sit here and can hear the word of God, but when times come and I feel lost, looking to His comfort always eventually leads to amazing feelings during a moment of epiphany. When I am able to surrender myself like that, everything suddenly becomes clear and it helps in my recovery. Lately, my trust in that

Finally, I guess I see Christ as the quintessential human. I don't necessarily believe that you should go and worship him so much as follow in his footsteps. I believe the goal of Christianity is to overcome your humanity and to be like Christ, and honestly that if you achieved that level there would be nothing stopping you from doing miracles of your own or walking on water. This especially speaks to me when looking into Quantum Mechanics, where they theorize things of reality and mind and how you could essentially do whatever you wanted if you reached the level of mental control. To me, this means to become like Christ, to be in perfect balance with your mind and body, and be able to affect reality. So, from this angle, Christ is still a Messiah in a way regardless of whether or not he came from God. He was a man who reached his potential and if all were like him this highly idealized peace would be achieved.

I'd hardly say I'm a 'good' Christian either... Though life is difficult at times. It's hard to keep to such demands of loving and caring. I often find myself finding humor in hurting other people more than I enjoy helping them. That probably makes me a bad person... But I try to restrain myself at times when I'm reminded of what I should be doing. The fact of the matter is, I shouldn't be forgetting.

Wow.... headslap moment. Thanks for the epiphany.

The 'flesh' is supposed to have risen again - but, whether or not 'he' physically 'dies'... we still do, so he didn't 'die' to save us from that 'death'.

And, he was always (supposed to be) God in the flesh, immortal and eternal - so he didn't 'spiritually die' either...


I've had problems with the idea of the 'resurrected' flesh before, and skirted around this thought... you just dropped it right in there.
If you ask me, he died and was reborn as a symbolic show of his conquering of death.

And what is the reason for this attitude in your opinion?

There are a variety of reasons, perhaps... but perhaps it comes down to this:

The message of Jesus can basically be boiled down to a few concepts: a personal relationship with God, a 'discerned' understanding rather than a preached one, a lifestyle that holds love as the only important virtue.

None of those are good foundations for a church - indeed, they entirely oppose the heirarchical structures that churches before and after 'Jesus' have embraced. Paul managed to overthrow the whole earthly ministry of 'Jesus' by turning the nascent Christian movement into a reflection of temple Judaism.

I think a lot of people also feel more comfortable with Paul because he is 'mortal', and - even if his message is not quite what Jesus preached, people treat Paul as an interpreter... a prophet, perhaps... of Jesus.

Lastly - Jesus' message is simple. But that is a problem for a lot of people. They don't want a few generic rules, and have to make your own decisions - they want a rigid structure you always know you can fall back on. Paul provides that.

If you ask me, he died and was reborn as a symbolic show of his conquering of death.

So did Odin. So did Osiris.

Because I believe what the bible says, and I've seen stuff that backs it up.

Loving one's neighour and socialism are things which follow on from my religious belief, not cause it.

Edit: The option "Other" is for people who are Christian for reasons other than those suggested above. Please do not click it if you are not Christian.
Too bad! I voted anyway! Neener neener neener!

And that's where you lose me.

How can your 'studies and research' convince you of anything, when there is no independent, contemporary evidence at all? Even the scriptural evidence was written a half-hundred years after the events it is supposed to record, by people already deeply involved in the religion.



In all your 'research', you somehow didn't notice that Jesus is not the only figure of religion that 'rose from the dead'?

Or even the only Judeo-Christian figure to rise from the dead. The Bible includes more resurrections that Jesus. Why aren't we worshipping them if THAT is what makes them God?

So did Odin. So did Osiris.
So? That has nothing to do with Christ, and Odin and Osiris didn't do it for the forgiveness of human sins.

May as well just ask why I am a human, or why I'm a woman.

Well Christ was either the son of God or a dangerous madman who deserved to be crucified by the Roman authorities. There is no "oh he was a good man". What kind of good man has the audacity and the arrogance to forgive of his own authority, acting as if he were the principle party involved? Well God would, He is the principle party offended when we sin and thus for Christ to be good he would have had to be God. And of course Christ said he was the "way the truth and the life" , basically if you do not know him believe in him and follow his words you have no life within you (no eternal life).

Or even the only Judeo-Christian figure to rise from the dead. The Bible includes more resurrections that Jesus. Why aren't we worshipping them if THAT is what makes them God?

Indeed. I think the argument would most likely be that only Jesus cause his own resurrection.

Of course, if one allows that 'Jesus' is the material form of God, incarnate - then it is 'god' that did the resurrection, not the artifact we call 'Jesus', at all - so there should be no difference between Jesus and Lazarus.

May as well just ask why I am a human, or why I'm a woman.

Are you arguing that Chritianity is genetic?

So? That has nothing to do with Christ, and Odin and Osiris didn't do it for the forgiveness of human sins.

So? That's not what you said...

Your words: "he died and was reborn as a symbolic show of his conquering of death"... the same can be said of at least two other religious figures, right off the top of my head.

As for the idea that he did it 'for forgiveness of human sin'... you can choose to believe that, but it is not something you'll find in the Hebrew scripture as an attribute of 'messiah', so why would you believe it to be a property of Jesus, as messiah?

May as well just ask why I am a human, or why I'm a woman.

Do you believe that you were born a Christian and you were unable to make a choice in the matter?

If so then that pretty much blows the idea of free will out of the water.

First off, I'm a creationist simply because the more I learn about the complexities of the universe the more I find it increasingly difficult to believe everything could of just 'happened to work out' the way they did. From the cosmos to our DNA, it's impossible for any of this to happen out of random chance. A good example, every animal alive bears the same amino acids - so if there's an amino acid that does something in a human, it does the same thing in a dog, a sheep, a whale. If we evolved in a random way, wouldn't we have developed more, less, or different amino acids? It's extremely difficult to believe that every animal had that one common ancestor who already somehow had this horribly complex physiology already.

And God is the only way you can rectify this belief? Hmmmm... seems rather convenient if it asked me.

Evolution challanges my beliefs. I look at evolution until I find something that, in my mind makes it a little suspect. Reject it. Replace that theory with God did it.

Yep. That seems like a perfectly rational belief. I'll believe God did it is a good reason for something, when someone can show there isn't thousands of other equally plausible explanations.

How about "God did it, but since He gave us science and reason he also expected us to to address it with science and reason, to learn about how things happened even while we accept God as the why"? How about that message. Or is science and reason a tool of the Anti-God?


Second, I am a Christian because too much has happened to me where I have felt a genuine connection to God and Christ. I'm not saying I sit here and can hear the word of God, but when times come and I feel lost, looking to His comfort always eventually leads to amazing feelings during a moment of epiphany. When I am able to surrender myself like that, everything suddenly becomes clear and it helps in my recovery. Lately, my trust in that

Finally, I guess I see Christ as the quintessential human. I don't necessarily believe that you should go and worship him so much as follow in his footsteps.

I can get behind this. I sincerely hope you mean this.


I believe the goal of Christianity is to overcome your humanity and to be like Christ, and honestly that if you achieved that level there would be nothing stopping you from doing miracles of your own or walking on water. This especially speaks to me when looking into Quantum Mechanics, where they theorize things of reality and mind and how you could essentially do whatever you wanted if you reached the level of mental control.

Pardon? Link, please, because I have to see this QM theory.


To me, this means to become like Christ, to be in perfect balance with your mind and body, and be able to affect reality. So, from this angle, Christ is still a Messiah in a way regardless of whether or not he came from God. He was a man who reached his potential and if all were like him this highly idealized peace would be achieved.

I'd hardly say I'm a 'good' Christian either... Though life is difficult at times. It's hard to keep to such demands of loving and caring. I often find myself finding humor in hurting other people more than I enjoy helping them. That probably makes me a bad person... But I try to restrain myself at times when I'm reminded of what I should be doing. The fact of the matter is, I shouldn't be forgetting.

*bows head* It doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you human. However, I do think it's good that you recognize this as a flaw. It's a flaw I have and I agree that it should be restrained.

Well Christ was either the son of God or a dangerous madman who deserved to be crucified by the Roman authorities. There is no "oh he was a good man". What kind of good man has the audacity and the arrogance to forgive of his own authority, acting as if he were the principle party involved? Well God would, He is the principle party offended when we sin and thus for Christ to be good he would have had to be God. And of course Christ said he was the "way the truth and the life" , basically if you do not know him believe in him and follow his words you have no life within you (no eternal life).

Oh no, not 'Mere Christianity', again. This argument has never been effective, because it is insupportable.

Just for starters - can you even prove that 'the Bible' was not written by Satan?

There are dozens of alternatives other than 'madman' or 'messiah'. The fact that you choose to ignore them, doesn't make your argument any stronger.

May as well just ask why I am a human, or why I'm a woman.

Well, I'd say it's pretty obvious that you just accepted you were human and female from birth without examination. I'm hoping you're not saying that's how you came to be Christian.

So? That has nothing to do with Christ, and Odin and Osiris didn't do it for the forgiveness of human sins.

Jesus wasn't resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins. I thought that was why he died according to some and lived according to some others.

So are you saying that NOT having to stay dead was how Jesus paid for our sins? Hmmmm... that seems like a pretty good deal for Him.

Yep. That seems like a perfectly rational belief. I'll believe God did it is a good reason for something, when someone can show there isn't thousands of other equally plausible explanations.

Thousands? Better start listing them.

How about "God did it, but since He gave us science and reason he also expected us to to address it with science and reason, to learn about how things happened even while we accept God as the why"? How about that message. Or is science and reason a tool of the Anti-God?

I never once denied that. I simply said it wasn't random chance, but yes, it happened and can be researched.

Pardon? Link, please, because I have to see this QM theory.

Link? There is no link. I came up with this myself. Edit: Oh wait, You mean the Quantum one. I'd have ot look for it. Dammit.

*bows head* It doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you human. However, I do think it's good that you recognize this as a flaw. It's a flaw I have and I agree that it should be restrained.

Er, thanks.

There are a variety of reasons, perhaps... but perhaps it comes down to this:

The message of Jesus can basically be boiled down to a few concepts: a personal relationship with God, a 'discerned' understanding rather than a preached one, a lifestyle that holds love as the only important virtue.

None of those are good foundations for a church - indeed, they entirely oppose the hierarchical structures that churches before and after 'Jesus' have embraced. Paul managed to overthrow the whole earthly ministry of 'Jesus' by turning the nascent Christian movement into a reflection of temple Judaism.

I think a lot of people also feel more comfortable with Paul because he is 'mortal', and - even if his message is not quite what Jesus preached, people treat Paul as an interpreter... a prophet, perhaps... of Jesus.

Lastly - Jesus' message is simple. But that is a problem for a lot of people. They don't want a few generic rules, and have to make your own decisions - they want a rigid structure you always know you can fall back on. Paul provides that.Hmmm. So what is Christianity based upon really? And what do the individual beliefs have to do with 'Christianity', or with 'Jesus', or with tradition and 'scripture' at all? Isn't it all just pretty arbitrary?

Jesus wasn't resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins. I thought that was why he died according to some and lived according to some others.

From what I now, he died and was resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins.

So are you saying that NOT having to stay dead was how Jesus paid for our sins? Hmmmm... that seems like a pretty good deal for Him.

In my opinion:

Jesus died like he did as a symbol of the animal sacrifices people did before the time of his own self-sacrifice. He did physically die, and was forced to endure hell for several days, until returning to life in a show of his overcoming of death and returned to heaven. It's not so much as "he died for us" as "he was proving his power over Satan and giving hope to the people that they would no longer be plagued with death by their sins". Get it?

Thousands? Better start listing them.

How about we start with one?

We are a seeded planet, seeded by aliens and as such the first life was complex in the way you describe. Now, of course, there is no evidence for this, but it's equally evidenced to "God did it". And no, the aliens didn't design us, but just left some simple lifeform behind.

Oh, I'll throw in another.

We are the result of a supernatural force, that takes chance out of the picture, but also is not intelligent in any way. It's a force, repeatable and constant, but not measurable inside the universe. Of course, it's also not evidenced, but when you're talking about theories lacking evidence or even rejecting evidence, as creation does, then I can list them all day.

Blue magic diamonds that were used up in the creation of life. Yellow magic stars. Green magic cloves. Purple horseshoes. Lucky Charms created life and then life created Lucky Charms (trademark pending).

I never once denied that. I simply said it wasn't random chance, but yes, it happened and can be researched.

Except science doesn't claim it was random. Actually, that's pretty much only claimed by people who can't be bother to understand the theory they are rejecting.



Link? There is no link. I came up with this myself.

Amusing. So according to you Quantum Mechanics proves we can alter reality to our will? I think maybe you don't really understand Quantum Mechanics.

From what I now, he died and was resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins.



In my opinion:

Jesus died like he did as a symbol of the animal sacrifices people did before the time of his own self-sacrifice. He did physically die, and was forced to endure hell for several days, until returning to life in a show of his overcoming of death and returned to heaven. It's not so much as "he died for us" as "he was proving his power over Satan and giving hope to the people that they would no longer be plagued with death by their sins". Get it?

I always got it. I don't think you do, but that's beside the point.

So the way we prove His is God is to accept He's God and then because He's God, He should get credited with the actions of God, because He's God. Uh-huh. I'm pretty sure I get it.

How does any of this make him God? And if He's not God, why are you crediting Him with the actions of God?

So, now let's try again, God is more powerful than Satan, and Jesus, an agent of God defeated Satan (well, escaped Satan), like tons of people blessed by God have done, so therefore he must be God since God defeated Satan and resurrected Jesus, like others before Him.

Wow. I've only gone throught the first 3 or so pages of replies, but I'm suprised that there doesn't seem to be any christians who actually think about what they believe.

What kind of reason is capitalism or socialism to belive in Jesus? Dozens of faiths believe that.

As for myself, I was raised Christian and belived all my life. I didn't have a big converstion experience - I asked Jesus to be my God when I was 7, but I believed in him before then, so I had converted earlier.

As to why I'm a Christian now, well, if all I had was intellectual arguements then I would have been swayed in my beliefs by the first person to come along with a better arguement. If all you know about God if what somebody told you, there's nothing to stop you from changing your mind later.

I believe in Jesus Christ and God because I have a friendship with them. True Christianity isn't a religion - religion is stupid, ugly, and kills people. God hates religion. Jesus didn't come to start just another religion. Jesus came to be friends with us. He calls us his friends. I believe because I've experienced his friendsip. I've felt his presence, I've heard him speak to me (yes, I believe God speaks to people today). I know he exists because my faith goes past intellectual understanding to one-on-one friendship.

Think of it this way. Scientists used to say that the coelocanth was an extinct fish that lived millions of years ago. I could never exist today because they had studied the fossils and KNEW that it was from millions of years ago. Then a fisherman off the coast of Africa caught one. It's hard to argue when you can see it swimming in the tank in front of you.

In the same way, someone who's studied, says they KNOW what they're talking about and Jesus is a myth, Christians are ignorant and naive, and we're stupid for believing can't convince me, because I've "seen the fish", so to speak.

That's why I am a follower of Christ.

How about we start with one?

[QUOTE=Jocabia;12494750]We are a seeded planet, seeded by aliens and as such the first life was complex in the way you describe. Now, of course, there is no evidence for this, but it's equally evidenced to "God did it". And no, the aliens didn't design us, but just left some simple lifeform behind.

Seeded planet or not, that doesn't explain the existence of the 'aliens' or how all of the other intricacies of the universe can be so exact and complex.

We are the result of a supernatural force, that takes chance out of the picture, but also is not intelligent in any way. It's a force, repeatable and constant, but not measurable inside the universe. Of course, it's also not evidenced, but when you're talking about theories lacking evidence or even rejecting evidence, as creation does, then I can list them all day.

I'd believe this before the previous. However, there is not even sufficient evidence to prove many scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't bother you?

Blue magic diamonds that were used up in the creation of life. Yellow magic stars. Green magic cloves. Purple horseshoes. Lucky Charms created life and then life created Lucky Charms (trademark pending).

Rrrright.

Except science doesn't claim it was random. Actually, that's pretty much only claimed by people who can't be bother to understand the theory they are rejecting.

If it's not random, it was designed. If it was designed, then something had to be the designer.

Amusing. So according to you Quantum Mechanics proves we can alter reality to our will? I think maybe you don't really understand Quantum Mechanics.

Read my edit. I didn't know at first you were talking about the QM theory (since I wasn't sure to be honest what QM standed for...) and thought you were talking simply about my just perceived ideas of it. Some of what I understand came from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" and some other readings. I can't find anything on Google about it so far that does it justice, however.

Hmmm. So what is Christianity based upon really? And what do the individual beliefs have to do with 'Christianity', or with 'Jesus', or with tradition and 'scripture' at all? Isn't it all just pretty arbitrary?

What is it based on? Or what should it be?

'Christianity' as a term, used how it is used, is pretty arbitrary. There should be a common link, evidenced in the etymology of the word - there should be a focus on this 'Jesus' fellow, and what it was he did or taught.

I have no problems with where else someone might go with that... 'spiritual' Christian or 'rational' Christian, or 'hedonist' Christian... whatever. But, I'm thinking the one (logical) essential, should be focus on (the one they call) 'Christ'.

So the way we prove His is God is to accept He's God and then because He's God, He should get credited with the actions of God, because He's God. Uh-huh. I'm pretty sure I get it.

How does any of this make him God? And if He's not God, why are you crediting Him with the actions of God?

You are over-complicating things. Hell, I'll make it mathematical for you.

Jesus is God. God is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is also the Holy Spirit.
A = B, B = C, so A = C (Transitive)

That's not that hard to understand. So, Satan is, say, D.

If A > D, then B > D and C > D, since A, B, and C are equal to each other.

Get it?

So, now let's try again, God is more powerful than Satan, and Jesus, an agent of God defeated Satan (well, escaped Satan), like tons of people blessed by God have done, so therefore he must be God since God defeated Satan and resurrected Jesus, like others before Him.

Sure, other people went to heaven before Jesus came around, but they didn't have to go to hell before they could ascend, nor did they do so in a sacrifice for the rest of humanity, nor were they God.

Seeded planet or not, that doesn't explain the existence of the 'aliens' or how all of the other intricacies of the universe can be so exact and complex.


A pile of sand. Pour sand on your desk.

Meditate on it.


I'd believe this before the previous. However, there is not even sufficient evidence to prove many scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't bother you?


No. Science never 'proves' anything. 'Certainty' isn't what the scientist trades in.


If it's not random, it was designed. If it was designed, then something had to be the designer.


If it's not 'random'.... why must it be 'designed'? Why can it not be governed by laws?

You are over-complicating things. Hell, I'll make it mathematical for you.

Jesus is God. God is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is also the Holy Spirit.
A = B, B = C, so A = C (Transitive)


Your math is flawed.

God = A (I wish my keyboard had either the infinity symbol, or Alpha and Omega symbols)

Holy Spirit = B (which must be less than the entire value of A)

Jesus = C + x (the variable value being whatever it is about being 'incarnated' that makes Jesus 'different' to God.

A > B. A > C. We don't know the value of x (even whether it is positive or negative). And we don't know exactly how B relates to C.

A pile of sand. Pour sand on your desk.

Meditate on it.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I pour sand on my desk, it's just a pile of sand. I pick it up and do it again, it's just a pile of sand. No life is going to miraculously spring out from it, and even if I 'seed' it, nothing is going to grow anyway since its sand.

No. Science never 'proves' anything. 'Certainty' isn't what the scientist trades in.

Science must work in proof, since anything that isn't proven cannot be accepted. A certain thing may happen every time you do something, but just because it does it every time doesn't mean it always will unless you find a proof. It's like the math again, you can't assume something will work every time unless you have a mathematically acceptable proof for it.

If it's not 'random'.... why must it be 'designed'? Why can it not be governed by laws?

And who made those laws? They just naturally spring up out of the universe? How do you explain effects of Quantum Theory then which defy many accepted Laws of Physics?

Your math is flawed.

God = A (I wish my keyboard had either the infinity symbol, or Alpha and Omega symbols)

Holy Spirit = B (which must be less than the entire value of A)

Jesus = C + x (the variable value being whatever it is about being 'incarnated' that makes Jesus 'different' to God.

A > B. A > C. We don't know the value of x (even whether it is positive or negative). And we don't know exactly how B relates to C.
No... Your math is flawed. The three of them are equal to each other, no one is 'more God' than the other. Your introduction of 'X' is superfluous. Jesus and God are the same, it's only that Jesus took on a mortal form during his life on Earth, but is still just as much God. Any of the three could take physical form if they really wanted to.

It's the 'Trinity' for a reason. One isn't higher up on some hierarchal list, it's a balanced triangle.

Seeded planet or not, that doesn't explain the existence of the 'aliens' or how all of the other intricacies of the universe can be so exact and complex.

No, but it would explain how the life we seen is. You said the problem is you'd expect to see other types of proteins, but if other life exists, certainly that expectation could be met.

And the intricacies of the universe could be explained by a race of aliens that created the entirety of what we call the universe, which is of course only a relatively limited span.

You haven't mentioned a single issue that can't equally be explained with any number of untestable hypotheses. Actually, the alien is unevidenced, but it's actually MUCH more testable than God.

It's a bit convenient you've managed upon justification for something you already believed, even though your claims don't actually support your belief.




I'd believe this before the previous. However, there is not even sufficient evidence to prove many scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't bother you?

Science doesn't prove things. It supports things. Nothing can be proven absolutely true. There will ALWAYS be things that we don't know and that science hasn't come across. ALWAYS.

However, creation doesn't meet the requirement by science that a theory not reject evidence out of convenience. You've done so as has every creationist.

Creation doesn't meet the scientific requirement for a falsifiable theory (see that means that science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.)

Creation doesn't meet the scientific requirement of explaining an observation and being the simplest available explaination for that observation (meaning no elements are added that don't actually add to the explanation, elements like God).


Rrrright.

Has as much evidence as Creation.


If it's not random, it was designed. If it was designed, then something had to be the designer.

Um, no. Forces are not random and they are also not intelligent.

However, that's a very convenient little made up truth you've created. I declare the law - if it's not designed then I declare it random and as such make it seem like nothing has a cause other than that designer making it impossible to analyze anything without the designer. Don't you love convenient theories?


Read my edit. I didn't know at first you were talking about the QM theory (since I wasn't sure to be honest what QM standed for...) and thought you were talking simply about my just perceived ideas of it. Some of what I understand came from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" and some other readings. I can't find anything on Google about it so far that does it justice, however.

I just want a link to the actual studies. They are peer-reviewed, no? Or are you talking about some wackadoo theory about how quantum mechanics is really magic, instead of the study of a force we discovered and that we don't entirely understand yet.

No... Your math is flawed. The three of them are equal to each other, no one is 'more God' than the other. Your introduction of 'X' is superfluous. Jesus and God are the same, it's only that Jesus took on a mortal form during his life on Earth, but is still just as much God. Any of the three could take physical form if they really wanted to.

It's the 'Trinity' for a reason. One isn't higher up on some hierarchal list, it's a balanced triangle.

Was Jesus human?

You are over-complicating things. Hell, I'll make it mathematical for you.

Jesus is God. God is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is also the Holy Spirit.
A = B, B = C, so A = C (Transitive)

That's not that hard to understand. So, Satan is, say, D.

If A > D, then B > D and C > D, since A, B, and C are equal to each other.

Get it?

Oh, I get it. However, we were talking about what it is that made Jesus special. You claimed it was that He did all these things, that God actually did. Given that, why not just say Jesus is God and leave it at that? Done. You didn't. You claimed that He saved us by doing something that is not even a task for God. No challenge. No nothing. Basically rejecting that the real thing Jesus did was deliver a message to us that saved us from the Pharisees of that time. (Before Paul installed new ones).



Sure, other people went to heaven before Jesus came around, but they didn't have to go to hell before they could ascend, nor did they do so in a sacrifice for the rest of humanity, nor were they God.
Um... they did die and were resurrected. The did so by the hand of God, just like Jesus. Many of them went through horrible trials.

And if we extend it past Christianity, many people like Hercules, were a god, defeated the elements of evil and the underworld and delivered mankind from all sorts of evils. You see, none of what you mention is particularly unique.

This is why it helps to focus on the message.

Was Jesus human?

In appearance.

No... Your math is flawed. The three of them are equal to each other, no one is 'more God' than the other. Your introduction of 'X' is superfluous. Jesus and God are the same, it's only that Jesus took on a mortal form during his life on Earth, but is still just as much God. Any of the three could take physical form if they really wanted to.

It's the 'Trinity' for a reason. One isn't higher up on some hierarchal list, it's a balanced triangle.

Okay, so then given that God defeated Satan and placed Satan in Hell, then why is it such a benefit to us to prove that He has power over Satan? Didn't we already know that. Now if Jesus and God are not equal, well, then that's a task, but since they are this seems like just more of the same. Nothing to consider new or special.

Oh, and since Jesus and God are exactly equal, then God is immortal. Bye-bye, resurrection. Bye-bye, sacrifice.

So all we're left with is what really stands out. An earthly ministry. Which is what we started with and where Jesus told us what is expected of us and how to live.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I pour sand on my desk, it's just a pile of sand. I pick it up and do it again, it's just a pile of sand. No life is going to miraculously spring out from it, and even if I 'seed' it, nothing is going to grow anyway since its sand.


I think you misunderstand. I think you also didn't meditate on the concept I gave you.

You said: "...that doesn't explain... how... the universe can be so exact and complex".

The pile of sand is an example of exact and complex. Yet also 'simple', and requiring no 'designer'.


Science must work in proof, since anything that isn't proven cannot be accepted. A certain thing may happen every time you do something, but just because it does it every time doesn't mean it always will unless you find a proof. It's like the math again, you can't assume something will work every time unless you have a mathematically acceptable proof for it.


You don't understand science, do you?

Science never 'proves' anything. The commodities of science are observation, repetition and hypothesis. Science offers mechanisms, that are always open to revision. Things are only assumed to be acceptable until evidence conflicts it.


And who made those laws? They just naturally spring up out of the universe? How do you explain effects of Quantum Theory then which defy many accepted Laws of Physics?

I don't explain Quantum Mechanics. And... why shouldn't universal laws just be 'part of' the universe?

In appearance.

So no. Okay. Interesting take there. Grave, I think we've taken this argument to a path where I friend here isn't going to be able to follow.

In appearance.

But, you do not believe he was 'very human' and 'very god'?

So no. Okay. Interesting take there. Grave, I think we've taken this argument to a path where I friend here isn't going to be able to follow.

I'm hopeful, actually. These aren't the deep questions... but they are an example of the 'unannounced traditions' I was talking about earlier.

Oh, I get it. However, we were talking about what it is that made Jesus special. You claimed it was that He did all these things, that God actually did. Given that, why not just say Jesus is God and leave it at that? Done. You didn't. You claimed that He saved us by doing something that is not even a task for God. No challenge. No nothing. Basically rejecting that the real thing Jesus did was deliver a message to us that saved us from the Pharisees of that time. (Before Paul installed new ones).[QUOTE]
I did claim Jesus was God, so I don't know where the hell you're coming up with some of this. God works in ways that best connects with the people of time, and the thing of the time, like I had already stated before, was the idea of forgiveness of sins by animal sacrifice. Jesus was a way for the people to be taught of God's will and intention through personal, physical relationships. When Jesus died, it was symbolic to the people of the animal sacrifice (which because of Jesus became uneccessary. God did what he did for the sake of the people's understanding.

[QUOTE=Jocabia;12494865]Um... they did die and were resurrected. The did so by the hand of God, just like Jesus. Many of them went through horrible trials.

But were they God? No. You're just picking out things that happened to your own convenience without really reading what I'm saying.

And if we extend it past Christianity, many people like Hercules, were a god, defeated the elements of evil and the underworld and delivered mankind from all sorts of evils. You see, none of what you mention is particularly unique.

This is why it helps to focus on the message.
Hercules was a only a half-god, and definitely without the level of power seen in God. He also didn't do so for the forgiveness of sins. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over.

But, you do not believe he was 'very human' and 'very god'?
I believe Jesus is God.

Hercules was a only a half-god, and definitely without the level of power seen in God.

Hercules was the son of a god, born of a mortal mother. Sound familiar?

I am a christian because I believe in Jesus christ and the existence of god. After many years of searching I havent found anything that actually disporves the existence of god, nor anything that specifically proves his existence either however I have faith. For example after Jesus was captured all of his desciples denied him and fled. How can the christian faith carry on when the very desciples that have been recorded through history for spreading the word didnt want to have anything to do with jesus after his capture. If Jesus hadnt ressurected and came to the desciples there would be no christian faith. I also believe that christianity as well as any other faith can bring peace to those who do not wish to use their faith as a tool for war and corruption. Faith allows people to feel safe and protected in what is a large and lonely universe.

I think its a shame that so many who choose to use their faith as a way to instigate hatred and inferiority among their peers. In fact in a way we are all christians, not in the sense that you believe in Jesus's love and god's existence but that its there. The word Christian was a derogative term given to those who followed the ways of Jesus. People forget that Jesus died for every single human being on this earth. Jesus spread his love to everyone and did not force it upon them as we mere men are attempting to do. Jesus saw no infidels, he only saw his brothers and sisters and he made it possible for all of them to live their lives without having to fear god. It was man who put the fear of god into our hearts not Jesus. Jesus taught forgiveness and acceptance. Desptite many peoples bold claims, Jesus was not a warrior of the faith, he was quite the pacifist. He told his desciples that he would not take arms against the Romans, or any other oppressor, because in time peace and understanding must find its own way. That was the whole reason Judas Conspired against him in the first place. When you see how much love and understanding that Jesus tried to spread to the world I have to say I am proud to be a christian.

I believe Jesus is God.

Then you believe something about Jesus, that Jesus did not believe.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I pour sand on my desk, it's just a pile of sand. I pick it up and do it again, it's just a pile of sand. No life is going to miraculously spring out from it, and even if I 'seed' it, nothing is going to grow anyway since its sand.

It will however, be complex in much the same way the universe is. It also will not prove that you pouring it there is the only way to get a pile of sand.




Science must work in proof, since anything that isn't proven cannot be accepted. A certain thing may happen every time you do something, but just because it does it every time doesn't mean it always will unless you find a proof. It's like the math again, you can't assume something will work every time unless you have a mathematically acceptable proof for it.

Okay. So we get it. You're in high school. Not that this is a bad thing, but it's pretty frequent that they teach people science works this way in high school.

Math deals in proofs. Science deals in disproving theories. A theory must be the simplest available explanation for the evidence we have and then we set about to create tests designed to make the hypothesis fail or possibly fail. The more tests it passes, the more substantiated the theory is.

Think of science as an training course, where each successive week of training is meant to weed out the week and unacceptable. The tests weed out those we already know are wrong, but they cannot weed out the ones we don't know are wrong yet.

Any accepted theory or law is simply something that has stood up to numerous, numerous tests on varying levels. They are not proven. They are simply supported.


And who made those laws? They just naturally spring up out of the universe? How do you explain effects of Quantum Theory then which defy many accepted Laws of Physics?

Who made God? He just naturally sprang up out of nothing?

And as we learn new things we often have to adjust our old thinking. Micro forces work in ways that are more intricate than macro forces. What we discovered is our understanding of the universe was still insufficient. You know what that's called. Science. Science expects this discovery and it's exactly why don't call things proven. We recognize that as we learn more that we will have to adjust our theories and laws.

It doesn't defy the Laws of Physics. They Laws of Physics were insufficient. Any laws that were not in line with this new evidence either are amended to incorporate this evidence or is no longer a law.

I think you misunderstand. I think you also didn't meditate on the concept I gave you.

You said: "...that doesn't explain... how... the universe can be so exact and complex".

The pile of sand is an example of exact and complex. Yet also 'simple', and requiring no 'designer'.

A pile of sand is not complex. Exact? Perhaps. Simple? Yes. Designer? Well... who made the sand, and who put it there? There is still some design to it, if you ask me.


You don't understand science, do you?

Science never 'proves' anything. The commodities of science are observation, repetition and hypothesis. Science offers mechanisms, that are always open to revision. Things are only assumed to be acceptable until evidence conflicts it.
If science doesn't prove anything, how can you come to me and ask me to 'Scientifically Prove the Existence of God'? If you can't prove any of the scientific theories you believe in, how can you believe in them? How can you criticize my belief in something that also cannot be proven? You may say you believe in what you do because of experience, and I can say the same.

I don't explain Quantum Mechanics. And... why shouldn't universal laws just be 'part of' the universe?

I don't believe something can just come out of nothing.

And blah, I have a busy day ahead of me. This is my last post I believe.

I did claim Jesus was God, so I don't know where the hell you're coming up with some of this.

That's not the point. You were asked why believe in him and what it is that was special and you listed things that simply aren't special for God.


God works in ways that best connects with the people of time, and the thing of the time, like I had already stated before, was the idea of forgiveness of sins by animal sacrifice. Jesus was a way for the people to be taught of God's will and intention through personal, physical relationships. When Jesus died, it was symbolic to the people of the animal sacrifice (which because of Jesus became uneccessary. God did what he did for the sake of the people's understanding.

Jesus was God. Everything is necessary or unnecessary because of God. If they are one in the same, all that needed be done is for God to say *waves hand* "personal relationshps with me for all. That's the path to heaven. Have a nice day."

Any requirement God had to meet, God set himself.

Now, if you're claiming this was all an elaborate show for God to help man understand, I can buy that. That still doesn't explain how this makes Jesus so special.




But were they God? No. You're just picking out things that happened to your own convenience without really reading what I'm saying.

Again, it comes back to them being God. If that's your argument, then stop there. However, as mentioned, not seeing how it's special for God to defeat Satan, a lesser being that is a servant of God.


Hercules was a only a half-god, and definitely without the level of power seen in God. He also didn't do so for the forgiveness of sins. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over.

Jesus was half-god in the same way. Mortal mother, God father. Hercules held the earth on his shoulders. Yeah, not god-like powers there. And he did what he did for the salvation of mankind.

i am a christian. as to why i am a christian i'm not exactly sure. certainly i believe everything the bible says about the man/god jesus, that he was incarnated in the flesh, died on the cross for my sins, and was resurrected from the dead by God to give me hope of an eternal life. this makes me a christian but it doesn't really answer the why. am i a christian because i was raised in a christian home? am i a christian because i chose to become one? am i a christian because God chose me to become one? i don't know. in fact i won't even know if my faith is justified till my death. that is what makes it faith i suppose. i can tell you why i think i am a christian; i am a christian because God in his mercy showed me grace and gave me the faith necessary to believe what i believe. i'm sure people will disagree with me but it doesn't really matter i guess. anyway, enjoy life.

Now, if you're claiming this was all an elaborate show for God to help man understand, I can buy that. That still doesn't explain how this makes Jesus so special.
I don't understand what you don't understand about Jesus. Like I had said earlier, Jesus to me is a quintessential human.


Jesus was half-god in the same way. Mortal mother, God father. Hercules held the earth on his shoulders. Yeah, not god-like powers there. And he did what he did for the salvation of mankind.

That, I suppose, depends on your way of viewing things. I don't see it exactly that way.

Jesus was half-god in the same way. Mortal mother, God father.

TG

A pile of sand is not complex. Exact? Perhaps. Simple? Yes. Designer? Well... who made the sand, and who put it there? There is still some design to it, if you ask me.

How convenient? Oops, they're poking holes in my theory. Um.... well, nevermind if I just claim that no matter how simple or complex it is it's evidence of design then I'll always be right. Like I said, I love them convenient theories.

God is the most complex. If complexity means designed is less exact and complex than sand? Who designed God?

If science doesn't prove anything, how can you come to me and ask me to 'Scientifically Prove the Existence of God'? If you can't prove any of the scientific theories you believe in, how can you believe in them? How can you criticize my belief in something that also cannot be proven? You may say you believe in what you do because of experience, and I can say the same.

I can come to you and ask you to scientifically support the existence of God. However, anyone who asked you to prove it, misworded their question.

Not proven, does not mean not evidenced. Theories are evidence. Your belief isn't.


I don't believe something can just come out of nothing.

Except God, of course.

It will however, be complex in much the same way the universe is. It also will not prove that you pouring it there is the only way to get a pile of sand.






Okay. So we get it. You're in high school. Not that this is a bad thing, but it's pretty frequent that they teach people science works this way in high school.

Math deals in proofs. Science deals in disproving theories. A theory must be the simplest available explanation for the evidence we have and then we set about to create tests designed to make the hypothesis fail or possibly fail. The more tests it passes, the more substantiated the theory is.

Think of science as an training course, where each successive week of training is meant to weed out the week and unacceptable. The tests weed out those we already know are wrong, but they cannot weed out the ones we don't know are wrong yet.

Any accepted theory or law is simply something that has stood up to numerous, numerous tests on varying levels. They are not proven. They are simply supported.




Who made God? He just naturally sprang up out of nothing?

And as we learn new things we often have to adjust our old thinking. Micro forces work in ways that are more intricate than macro forces. What we discovered is our understanding of the universe was still insufficient. You know what that's called. Science. Science expects this discovery and it's exactly why don't call things proven. We recognize that as we learn more that we will have to adjust our theories and laws.

It doesn't defy the Laws of Physics. They Laws of Physics were insufficient. Any laws that were not in line with this new evidence either are amended to incorporate this evidence or is no longer a law.

God is a constant force like gravity, or time. These things werent created they were always there. God doesnt even defy our laws of physics either. Everything God has done is entirely possible. Lets think of God as THE Scientist, he knows everything,botany, astrology, geology, physics, the works. Its the beginning, God decides to put millions of anti particles and particles in the same space, BAM The big bang happens, a scientific theory. So the anti-particles collide with particles resulting in total anhilation of both converting the matter into pure energy which makes enough heat for compound molecules to form from the simple particles resulting in mass, the explosions push the mass further and further into the universe resulting in stars planets asteroids whatever. Then God goes to one planet which has just finished errupting and forming. We call this planet Earth. On the Earth he plants a garden, and creates a perfect ecosystem for life to form. If you want to scientifically analyze that humans came from dust. well sure think about it do you know how much life can be found in a handful of dirt. Yeah.

Um, you know that Jesus wasn't the only one to die and be resurrected, right? This doesn't seem a rational reason to believe he was God.




Yes, of course they didn't. They were judged another way. However, the claim is that he died in our place because dying is the wage of sin. Except he didn't physically die our place. Because we still physically die. And He was resurrected. And He ascended so he didn't spiritually die in our place either. He came and he taught a message. He changed things and made the religion personal. And in doing so He saved those of us who had ears.




How is that a sacrifice? I'm not sure that A follows from B. What ultimate sacrifice did he do for us? He was God. He lived briefly on earth just like we're expected to do, only He did it with knowledge of God, something we don't have when we're here. Seems like He made less of a sacrifice than we make.

Now, I'm not saying that He shouldn't be worshipped, obviously. It's just that if Christians want to stop chasing away rational people they need to stop making arguments that don't make any sense.




Ah, so you mean by Him "making the ultimate sacrifice", you mean "last sacrifice", because that's not usually what people mean by that. He did end all sacrificies, but playing it like it was such an incredible burden for Him pretty much ignores what He was.





So to be clear, they way that Jesus saved us was, not in living His life, but in dying in a way many men have died, and in being resurrected as others have before Him?

I love Jesus for how He lived and what He taught us. Worshipping death and the lack of corpse seems not only morbid to me, but irrational.

Jesus wasn't the only one to be ressurrected. But everyone else who was ressurrected was ressurrected BECAUSE of Jesus. So the power to bring others back from the dead, and the power to come back yourself....yes...to me..means that he is God.

And when I say that Jesus was the ultimate sacrfice...I was never talking about it being a sacrfice to Him. I wasn't never implying that it was a burden for him at all. That isn't what it means. He was the perfect unblemished Lamb. He was the sacrifice to God, the perfect sacrifice, unlike all the animals and attempts at being perfect that man has made before him. It has nothing to do with His own personal suffering.

I do not worship death. In fact,I think the cross is a bad symbol for Christianity. And I certainly do not like how the Catholics praise a cruxificed Jesus. But an empty tomb....that is something wonderful, because the ressurrection is the crux of the faith.

Anyway, we are on the same side my friend and I am not trying to argue. Just trying to explain how I see God, and what Christianity means to me. I took a long time studing Christianity before I converted, because like you said.....there are many Christians who make irrational arguements that can turn away logically thinking people. I am glad you dive deeper into the knowledge and question what is seemingly flawed. There are too many Christians who stop at "love God and love my neighbor". Those are good things to know...but it is hardly all we should know. So to see a Christian like you, who demands more, expects more......even if we don't agree 100% on things...is very very refreshing.

A pile of sand is not complex. Exact? Perhaps. Simple? Yes. Designer? Well... who made the sand, and who put it there? There is still some design to it, if you ask me.


A pile of sand is not complex? I think you didn't meditate closely enough.

The arrangement of the sand grains forms an effective perfect regular shape, but their interfaces are almost perfectly irregular and complex.

Perfect order, and perfect complexity - no deisgner needed.

Who made the sand? Who put it there? Irrelevent - you can do the same experiment with an imagined material with the same properties as sand. Is it design? Only if you allow for a definition of 'design' that doesn't require any actual 'designing' to be done.



If science doesn't prove anything, how can you come to me and ask me to 'Scientifically Prove the Existence of God'? If you can't prove any of the scientific theories you believe in, how can you believe in them? How can you criticize my belief in something that also cannot be proven? You may say you believe in what you do because of experience, and I can say the same.


I haven't asked you to prove god. I don't care either way.

I don't believe science could ever prove god, or disprove god - because god is not falsifiable, and thus cannot ever truly be addressed scientifically.


I don't believe something can just come out of nothing.


Except God?

...i am a christian because God in his mercy showed me grace and gave me the faith necessary to believe what i believe.

But in his mercy denied grace to all the "pagans" and athiests?

I don't understand what you don't understand about Jesus. Like I had said earlier, Jesus to me is a quintessential human.

Then He and God cannot be the same, since God isn't. You don't understand what I DO understand about God and Jesus is what you should say.

You're not seeing that there are fundamental differences between God and Jesus or the entire thing falls apart. Does that mean Jesus wasn't divine or an aspect of God? No, of course not. However, to say they are exactly the same is to misrepresent even your own beliefs and we are simpy exposing that.



That, I suppose, depends on your way of viewing things. I don't see it exactly that way.

I notice you don't see it that way. However, your view of it doesn't actually change what the mythology said.

However, you realize that when you focus on what Jesus taught, all this difficult and confusion drops away, no? You can then stop turning Jesus into something He wasn't and you can stop trying to alter scientific understanding of the universe to support your own belief, because there will no longer be a conflict.

God is a constant force like gravity, or time. These things werent created they were always there. God doesnt even defy our laws of physics either. Everything God has done is entirely possible. Lets think of God as THE Scientist, he knows everything,botany, astrology, geology, physics, the works. Its the beginning, God decides to put millions of anti particles and particles in the same space, BAM The big bang happens, a scientific theory. So the anti-particles collide with particles resulting in total anhilation of both converting the matter into pure energy which makes enough heat for compound molecules to form from the simple particles resulting in mass, the explosions push the mass further and further into the universe resulting in stars planets asteroids whatever. Then God goes to one planet which has just finished errupting and forming. We call this planet Earth. On the Earth he plants a garden, and creates a perfect ecosystem for life to form. If you want to scientifically analyze that humans came from dust. well sure think about it do you know how much life can be found in a handful of dirt. Yeah.

In a handful of dirt? More than there are humans in Chicago.

If God created all of these sciences and studies then why is God so hamstringed that He is unable to create a universe that obeys the laws within it? Why must it exist in such a way that there is a gap in the explanation that can only be filled by God?

I find it odd how many people who are Christian here claim that it IS simply a belief in God, when in actuality, that is not what makes it "Christianity."
Christianity, as it says plainly in the name, is the belief that Jesus Christ was the savior (as opposed to other belief systems.) For example, Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, but not the savior. According to them, the savior came after the death of Christ. The Jewish, for another example, believe that the savior has yet to come (aka, that Christ was not the savior).
If you are Christian, you believe that Christ was the savior. The Christians before Jesus came were Jewish (Christ himself was Jewish). For those of you who do not fit that category, but still believe in God, you may want to consider that you are Agnostic.

*(Agnostics believe in there being a God but believe you must learn and figure it out through life rather than from a book or other source.)

In a handful of dirt? More than there are humans in Chicago.

If God created all of these sciences and studies then why is God so hamstringed that He is unable to create a universe that obeys the laws within it? Why must it exist in such a way that there is a gap in the explanation that can only be filled by God?

If I may add on to your statement, was it not also God who in Genesis stated that man should not puck or eat the apple (AKA the apple of knowledge) and therefore did not intend for mankind to further develop in that direction. Was it not man (going off of the Bible) that ate the apple, became intelligent, and was thrust out of paradise. Then it was man who created the sciences and math and so forth ("cursed" with knowledge that God never intended them to have).

I find it odd how many people who are Christian here claim that it IS simply a belief in God, when in actuality, that is not what makes it "Christianity."
Christianity, as it says plainly in the name, is the belief that Jesus Christ was the savior (as opposed to other belief systems.) For example, Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, but not the savior. According to them, the savior came after the death of Christ. The Jewish, for another example, believe that the savior has yet to come (aka, that Christ was not the savior).
If you are Christian, you believe that Christ was the savior. The Christians before Jesus came were Jewish (Christ himself was Jewish). For those of you who do not fit that category, but still believe in God, you may want to consider that you are Agnostic.

*(Agnostics believe in there being a God but believe you must learn and figure it out through life rather than from a book or other source.)

Hard to know where to start...

First: Agnostics do not 'believe there is a god'... some of them do, adn some of them don't. There are Agnostic Atheists, and Agnostic Theists - since 'agnostic' just means you think it is imposisble to 'know' if there is a god. It doesn't affect whether or not you 'believe'.

Second: Marxism doesn't require that one beleive Marx was the saviour. It just means following Marx, following his teaching. 'Christianity' (as a term) doesn't automatically imply Jesus as saviour - it just means you follow Christ.

Third: You are confused about Judaism. Where do you get this assertion 'they' are waiting for a 'saviour'? If you mean 'messiah', you might want to look into what 'messiah' might mean to the Hebrew scripture.

If I may add on to your statement, was it not also God who in Genesis stated that man should not puck or eat the apple (AKA the apple of knowledge) and therefore did not intend for mankind to further develop in that direction. Was it not man (going off of the Bible) that ate the apple, became intelligent, and was thrust out of paradise. Then it was man who created the sciences and math and so forth ("cursed" with knowledge that God never intended them to have).

First: the text doesn't specify an apple.

Second: the fruit was the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"... there was no fruit of a tree of just 'knowledge'. One could read this as 'god' saying we weren't to know good and evil... no comment about being 'intelligent'.

And that's where you lose me.

How can your 'studies and research' convince you of anything, when there is no independent, contemporary evidence at all? Even the scriptural evidence was written a half-hundred years after the events it is supposed to record, by people already deeply involved in the religion.



In all your 'research', you somehow didn't notice that Jesus is not the only figure of religion that 'rose from the dead'?


Actually, I think there is some independent and comtemporary evidence, however, most of my reserach of course, is from the Jewish scripture, the Greek scripture and the Latin Scripture. I am also very aware of other religious figures who have claimed to have risen from the dead and other miricles. I was in this forum to answer the question of Why I am Christian. Not to preach or attempt conversion. If you, or anyone, is interested in the what and why of what I beleive, feel free to IM me or telegram me in NS. Or start a forum that is to debate Christianity. Not just ask WHY someone is Christian. And I will be glad to get to discuss it in great lengths, and hear your side as well. But if you are already firm in your beliefs, and have no interest to know why I am firm in mine. Then us just arguing on this forum, is not going to amount to anything. I am not here to preach to the rightious,

If I may add on to your statement, was it not also God who in Genesis stated that man should not puck or eat the apple (AKA the apple of knowledge) and therefore did not intend for mankind to further develop in that direction. Was it not man (going off of the Bible) that ate the apple, became intelligent, and was thrust out of paradise. Then it was man who created the sciences and math and so forth ("cursed" with knowledge that God never intended them to have).

I don't get that from the message. I think eating the 'apple' was a choice. God knew that once we'd accessed this type of knowledge that it would be a path we'd have to stay on, however, every part of that path was created by God. It was a sort of birth, really.

You read the apple as a curse, I read the entire thing as a blessing. Hardship gives us access to a particular kind of wisdom that would not exist without it.

However, dropping the literal reading, as an allegory it's just an understanding that once we understood good and evil, we could never go back. We can't live simple like the animals, because we understand more about our actions that can be addressed by anything without an idea of morality. I'd say it's a blessing and a curse depending on how you look at it, and the authors of the text seemed to view it badly. Some days I think it would be nice to live the life of those that cannot understand a consequence to their actions beyond survival. Other days, most days, I love that we are offered the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

You are simply stating different interpretations of the same thing. And though no, not all Agnostics believe in God, many do. Agnostic Atheists are just that, another branch, the Atheist branch of being Agnostic. Much of the Agnostic, simply Agnostic, believe in a Deity.
Marxism is not a religion and so I do not find that comparison valid. It is a way of economic and political thought.
I also do know what a messiah is, literally it is a deliverer, and by my (and many other's interpretations) this means a savior much like Jesus Christ is for the Christians... one to deliver them. Jesus, in the Bible, is written as the Messiah, the deliverer of the Jewish people. At that time, they were Jewish, and converted to Christianity after Christ believing he was the Messiah. Those who did not believe he was the Messiah remained Jewish and continue waiting for the Messiah.
I used "apple" because most versions of the Bible today do state apple. I understand that it can be read different ways, as can any piece of literature. I think that knowledge is a blessing, but I do not like the story of the forbidden fruit. I also do not believe in it, so my interpretation reflects that. How I see it, as I have studied it, is that the Christian God is a jealous, spiteful, hot-tempered deity. I do not see it as him simply giving the choice of paths. As placed in the Bible, God sicks his wrath upon those who do not follow his orders by burning down cities, flooding the world, destroying the only home they ever knew, punishing generations for the actions of one and much more hateful, terrible things.
While I view your interpretation as quite beautiful, I cannot simply look at that one story to interpret what it meant. Though I wish I could see it that way, I cannot. The Bible stories invoke fear... you will go to hell or heaven... two extremes... paradise v. torture.... hmmm.... I'm pretty sure most would choose paradise... and what better way to get people to behave then the threat that even after death they can be punished. I know it is very negative, but that is how I see it.I am not saying that a belief in something is bad, but looking back on the history of Christianity and the stories in the Bible itself, I feel that I cannot help but think that way.

You are simply stating different interpretations of the same thing. And though no, not all Agnostics believe in God, many do. Agnostic Atheists are just that, another branch, the Atheist branch of being Agnostic. Much of the Agnostic, simply Agnostic, believe in a Deity.


Not only have I never seen any definition that comes close to your assertion, I have seen it directly conflicted.

Religioustolerance.org explicitly states the exact opposite:

"Agnostics are not Theists. Agnostics do not believe in a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists...

...An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists...

As currently defined, an agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future.

...George Smith, the author of "Atheism" divides agnostics into two types:

Agnostic theists: those who believe that a deity probably exists;
Agnostic atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists

Houghton Mifflin: "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

Columbia encyclopedia: "[A belief] that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism which asserts that there is no God."

Wikipedia: ['A belief] that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life."

Merriam-Webster: "A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

Die.net: "One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc."


http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm



Marxism is not a religion and so I do not find that comparison valid. It is a way of economic and political thought.


But it is still a movement following a man. Christianity follows Jesus, Marxism follows Marx.


I also do know what a messiah is, literally it is a deliverer, and by my (and many other's interpretations) this means a savior much like Jesus Christ is for the Christians... one to deliver them. Jesus, in the Bible, is written as the Messiah, the deliverer of the Jewish people. At that time, they were Jewish, and converted to Christianity after Christ believing he was the Messiah. Those who did not believe he was the Messiah remained Jewish and continue waiting for the Messiah.


You claim to understand - but you really don't.

The Hebrew people were awaiting a mortal king, who would return the exiles, rebuild the temple, and bring in a time of peace and prosperity. 'Messiah' is not a biblical construct, it is an artifact of Hebrew oral traditions - which is why so many of the supposed 'prophecies of messiah' in the Hebrew scripture, are actually not about 'messiah' at all.

The Christian concept of 'messiah' is not compatible with an accurate understanding of the canonical Hebrew concept.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Messiah.htm


I used "apple" because most versions of the Bible today do state apple. I understand that it can be read different ways, as can any piece of literature.

Actually - in the Hebrew, the best translation of it is either as 'fruit' or as 'offspring', both of which have related meanings, but neither of which are close to being specific as to the 'type' of the fruit.

As for the assertion that 'apple' is a common translation...

My KJV says "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

My New King James says: ""but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

My New Living Translation says: ""It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die.""

My New International Version says: "but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”"

My English Standard Version says: "“but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”"

My New American Standard Bible says "but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " "

My Revised Standard Version says "but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'""

My Robert Young Literal Translation says "and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.'"

My J. N. Darby Translation says "but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not touch it, lest ye die."

My Noah Webster Version says "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

My Hebrew Names Version says "but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'""

Jerome's Latin Vulgate says "de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus et ne tangeremus illud ne forte moriamur".

Where do you find your 'apple' translation?

Hercules was the son of a god, born of a mortal mother. Sound familiar?In ancient times quite a number of Zeus' (alleged) offspring walked the earth, including Alexander. However, their divinity or semi-divinity was 'declared' by others. And Jesus' case is no different.

*snip*

Soheran's Five-Second Version:

Umipri ha-etz

"From the fruit of the tree...."

There's no serious question about that one.

Me, I think it was a canteloupe.

First: the text doesn't specify an apple.wasn't the apple introduced because in latin the word for apple malum and for evil malus,-a,-um are so similar?

In ancient times quite a number of Zeus' (alleged) offspring walked the earth, including Alexander. However, their divinity or semi-divinity was 'declared' by others. And Jesus' case is no different.

Indeed. Being 'popped-out' by a god was a fairly standard explanation for anyone that climbed head and shoulders above the morass.

Really strong? His dad must have been a god. Could really run? His dad must have been a god. Great military leader? His dad must have been a god.


For me - the amusing thing is, the understanding of genetic inheritance that often occurs in these stories - the fast offspring descended from the fast god-parent, the strong from the strong, etc.

As currently defined, an agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future.Then that's what I am. ;) although I would change the wording to gods

Soheran's Five-Second Version:

Umipri ha-etz

"From the fruit of the tree...."

There's no serious question about that one.

Me, I think it was a canteloupe.

Do cantaloupes grow on trees?

Aren't they kind of like deer?

Do cantaloupes grow on trees?

Aren't they kind of like deer???
doubtful

http://www.wegmans.com/kitchen/ingredients/produce/fruit/images/canteloupe.jpg

that's not antelope... ;)

Then that's what I am. ;) although I would change the wording to gods

I'm an Implicit Atheist - It's not that I believe there is NO god (a staement of faith in lack of gods), but I simply lack faith that there ARE any gods. Sometimes, this position is also referred to as 'Agnostic Atheism', but that isn't strictly accurate - since an Implicit Atheist might believe it is possible to know... but that they just don't know yet.

I'm not convinced it is possible to know, and I'm not convinced enough by the absence of evidence to 'believe' there can be no gods - so I'm an Implicit Atheist, leaning towards Agnosticism.

Do cantaloupes grow on trees?

I don't think so.

I just chose the first fruit that came to mind.

Aren't they kind of like deer?

Deer?

wasn't the apple introduced because in latin the word for apple malum and for evil malus,-a,-um are so similar?

That is one theory - the idea that it was a kind of religious joke.

Hebrew sources vary, suggesting tamarinds, figs, even wheat. Some have argued the 'fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' was wine, which would make it a 'grape' tree, one assumes.

I'm an Implicit Atheist - It's not that I believe there is NO god (a staement of faith in lack of gods), but I simply lack faith that there ARE any gods. Sometimes, this position is also referred to as 'Agnostic Atheism', but that isn't strictly accurate - since an Implicit Atheist might believe it is possible to know... but that they just don't know yet.

I'm not convinced it is possible to know, and I'm not convinced enough by the absence of evidence to 'believe' there can be no gods - so I'm an Implicit Atheist, leaning towards Agnosticism.I am convinced it is possible to know. That is when any god gives an interview on Larry King...

I hold the position that there might be gods, and I tend to believe ( ;) ) very ancient accounts of encounters with these gods (when there was only one religion and folks didn't feel the urge to boast about their god(s)). I do also hold the position, that since the biblical god has been artificially fabricated out of bits and pieces of other gods, he's not even worth considering as an option.

You are simply stating different interpretations of the same thing. And though no, not all Agnostics believe in God, many do. Agnostic Atheists are just that, another branch, the Atheist branch of being Agnostic. Much of the Agnostic, simply Agnostic, believe in a Deity.
Marxism is not a religion and so I do not find that comparison valid. It is a way of economic and political thought.
I also do know what a messiah is, literally it is a deliverer, and by my (and many other's interpretations) this means a savior much like Jesus Christ is for the Christians... one to deliver them. Jesus, in the Bible, is written as the Messiah, the deliverer of the Jewish people. At that time, they were Jewish, and converted to Christianity after Christ believing he was the Messiah. Those who did not believe he was the Messiah remained Jewish and continue waiting for the Messiah.
I used "apple" because most versions of the Bible today do state apple. I understand that it can be read different ways, as can any piece of literature. I think that knowledge is a blessing, but I do not like the story of the forbidden fruit. I also do not believe in it, so my interpretation reflects that. How I see it, as I have studied it, is that the Christian God is a jealous, spiteful, hot-tempered deity. I do not see it as him simply giving the choice of paths. As placed in the Bible, God sicks his wrath upon those who do not follow his orders by burning down cities, flooding the world, destroying the only home they ever knew, punishing generations for the actions of one and much more hateful, terrible things.
While I view your interpretation as quite beautiful, I cannot simply look at that one story to interpret what it meant. Though I wish I could see it that way, I cannot. The Bible stories invoke fear... you will go to hell or heaven... two extremes... paradise v. torture.... hmmm.... I'm pretty sure most would choose paradise... and what better way to get people to behave then the threat that even after death they can be punished. I know it is very negative, but that is how I see it.I am not saying that a belief in something is bad, but looking back on the history of Christianity and the stories in the Bible itself, I feel that I cannot help but think that way.

Ah you are speaking of the old testament. The old testament was The Law, Where as the New Testament is the grace. As there are two sides to man there are two sides to God. The bible describes the two parts of God the wrath and the forgiveness. When your parents are angry you are punished in ways you do not deem fair. Such is when God punished the entire human race, the humans looked up and said "But thats not fair." As for the flooding, such a thing will never happen again as a result of God, and you cant say God wasnt caring, because he punished the egyptians for opressing the Jews. God took an active role in shaping our lives back then. for instance when the tower of babel was being built God destroyed it to save mankind from its own arrogance. The only drastic measure that God ever took was the flood.

I am convinced it is possible to know. That is when any god gives an interview on Larry King...


There's a problem here, though... since I can't see how we can envision something different enough from 'us' to be 'a god' - so I can't see how we could actually conceptualise a 'god' if we met one.

At best, we could only encounter 'aspects' of 'god'... and then, how would we know that 'god' was what we were seeing?


I hold the position that there might be gods, and I tend to believe ( ;) ) very ancient accounts of encounters with these gods (when there was only one religion and folks didn't feel the urge to boast about their god(s)). I do also hold the position, that since the biblical god has been artificially fabricated out of bits and pieces of other gods, he's not even worth considering as an option.

I agree, there could be gods. But I can't find one consistent source that is any more reliable than any other, no matter how old. And - even where I find old sources, why should I assume they are discussing a 'real' god, any more than merely recounting encounters with other peoples.

If one studies the 'mythology' of the Celts, the various gods and monsters can often be seen to be real people. The consecutive waves of Fir Bolg invasion match closely with evidences of successful waves of Celtic immigration - the 'gods' and 'monsters' are just opposing human factions in a real, historical interaction.

So - where is this one 'account' that predates all others? Where is this 'first' religion? Everything I find shows (what looks like) evidence of being a retelling of something earlier.

My reason: You can't argue with being promoted five times in three years, to now stand as a lieutenant colonel in the God squad. ;)

(I don't know exactly what my reason is, to be fair.)

Ah you are speaking of the old testament. The old testament was The Law, Where as the New Testament is the grace. As there are two sides to man there are two sides to God. The bible describes the two parts of God the wrath and the forgiveness. When your parents are angry you are punished in ways you do not deem fair. Such is when God punished the entire human race, the humans looked up and said "But thats not fair." As for the flooding, such a thing will never happen again as a result of God, and you cant say God wasnt caring, because he punished the egyptians for opressing the Jews. God took an active role in shaping our lives back then. for instance when the tower of babel was being built God destroyed it to save mankind from its own arrogance. The only drastic measure that God ever took was the flood.

Or, alternatively, all those tales are either people trying to explain natural phenomena, or metaphors...?

Ah you are speaking of the old testament. The old testament was The Law, Where as the New Testament is the grace. As there are two sides to man there are two sides to God. The bible describes the two parts of God the wrath and the forgiveness. When your parents are angry you are punished in ways you do not deem fair. Such is when God punished the entire human race, the humans looked up and said "But thats not fair." As for the flooding, such a thing will never happen again as a result of God, and you cant say God wasnt caring, because he punished the egyptians for opressing the Jews. God took an active role in shaping our lives back then. for instance when the tower of babel was being built God destroyed it to save mankind from its own arrogance. The only drastic measure that God ever took was the flood.See, I really hate these over-simplistic approaches...

My reason: You can't argue with being promoted five times in three years, to now stand as a lieutenant colonel in the God squad. ;)

(I don't know exactly what my reason is, to be fair.)

Of course - maybe 'satan' was giving you earthly rewards to send you down the wrong path....

I'm not a Christian, so I didn't vote in the poll, but I suppose I'm partial to Christianity because I live in a Christian culture.

Because God is there to give you a hand.

If you're lost, if you think everything is over... If you just want it all to end...

Then he's there to give you a hand, to help you out of your misery, to give you hope, to free you of the constraints of your previous life.

Helpful chap, don't you think?So...God is Dr. Kevorkian?

There's a problem here, though... since I can't see how we can envision something different enough from 'us' to be 'a god' - so I can't see how we could actually conceptualise a 'god' if we met one.

At best, we could only encounter 'aspects' of 'god'... and then, how would we know that 'god' was what we were seeing?

Yes, and such a thing actually would rectify why we might see each of these aspects as an individual and looking from a different angle we might envision a single god and neither would be made-up or incorrect. They would be a simply an embodiment of our understanding.

I've asked myself before why I am a Christian, and moving beyond that, why I have decided to remain a Catholic and not chose another denomination.

I ask such questions not out of some introspective need, but because it should be addressed.

I believe there is a god, in fact, I will go so far to say that THERE IS a god, that this higher being created the universe and all things in it, and then gave his children the tools to discover for themselves their own world. I find it somewhat arrogant to think that we are the pinacle.

BUT...I have very little faith in religion. I am not so cynical to think that religion breeds conflict, but if one examines history, one will find that many wars have had some religious aspect: because one faith did not have the same beliefs as another, because a leader saw the members of another faith as inferior, etc. etc.

Even beyond conflict, religion on a whole just seems to limit. Even Buddhism does this, in believing that desire is somehow tainted. Some religious leaders even invent limitations that were not even mentioned by the founder. I find it very disconcerting that religion sees fit to rob people of their wants.

But I digress...

I'm not going to lie to you and say that I haven't thought about my immortal soul: whether it will ascend to the heavens or be damned to hell. I wonder to myself, "am I a Christian because if I'm not I'll go to hell". Though in my mind I find that idea totally ridiculous (the universe is not so poorly designed), it is hard to ignore, especially with the number of fearmongers contaminating the Earth. That's simple fear, something which everyone has. The challenge for me is to rise above this thinking.

I think today I am still a Catholic Christian because that is where the heart is. My family is Catholic, and many of my friends are of other denominations. I like being able to relate to them. I like the sense of fellowship and community that it provides.

Also, I have found faith to be a very comforting thing. When I was hospitalized, one of the first things I did was ask to talk to a priest. Even though I don't remember much of our conversation, I knew I was facing surgery, and even though there was little chance of any life-threatening complications, talking to that man about life and what comes after was very helpful to me. He even understood my feelings about the faith at large. Indeed, a good priest, one who is understanding and open-minded, more concerned about the individual than dogma, is someone to be cherished.

That is not to say that I agree with the dogma. In fact, there is very little I have in common with the "true believers", beyond Christ's teachings. I look at the Bible as a "guidebook" rather than a "rulebook": it is written by men, not by God, and therefore it has human biases.

I don't consider myself a devout Catholic, in fact, I am what some of the faithful would deridingly call a "supermarket Catholic": a person who picks and choses what to believe within the faith...but isn't that what some religious leaders are doing today when they condemn homosexuals while ignoring the Christ's teachings of love?

Long story short...I believe in God, but I just wish there was a faith out there that wasn't so diluted...

I've asked myself before why I am a Christian, and moving beyond that, why I have decided to remain a Catholic and not chose another denomination.

I ask such questions not out of some introspective need, but because it should be addressed.

I believe there is a god, in fact, I will go so far to say that THERE IS a god, that this higher being created the universe and all things in it, and then gave his children the tools to discover for themselves their own world. I find it somewhat arrogant to think that we are the pinacle.

The kind of view that suggests we are His children and that the universe was created with the intention of us as its masters?

I don't consider myself a devout Catholic, in fact, I am what some of the faithful would deridingly call a "supermarket Catholic": a person who picks and choses what to believe within the faith...

Based on my reading of the Bible, this would seem to be the best approach, actually. What I take from Jesus is that he preached love above all things, a personal relationship with God (rather than through mediators), and a personal understanding of God's will (rather than a 'taught' version).

Yes, and such a thing actually would rectify why we might see each of these aspects as an individual and looking from a different angle we might envision a single god and neither would be made-up or incorrect. They would be a simply an embodiment of our understanding.

So - why does God show himself to different cultures as a different God?

Answer: He doesn't... we just can't fully conceive him in any other way.

So - why does God create these conflicting religions and ideas?

Answer: He doesn't... we just can't fully realise his messages objectively.

So - why does God show himself to different cultures as a different God?

Answer: He doesn't... we just can't fully conceive him in any other way.

So - why does God create these conflicting religions and ideas?

Answer: He doesn't... we just can't fully realise his messages objectively.

Beyond that, that man has this flawed need to not just hold their faith as right but to attack people of any other faith. So rather than rectify ideas we attempt to destroy them.

There's a problem here, though... since I can't see how we can envision something different enough from 'us' to be 'a god' - so I can't see how we could actually conceptualise a 'god' if we met one.

At best, we could only encounter 'aspects' of 'god'... and then, how would we know that 'god' was what we were seeing?If Yah, Enanna, or Osiris were to give an interview, I am confident we would know...
As a trick they could move Greenland to the central Pacific Ocean...

I agree, there could be gods. But I can't find one consistent source that is any more reliable than any other, no matter how old. And - even where I find old sources, why should I assume they are discussing a 'real' god, any more than merely recounting encounters with other peoples.Could gods not be be other people?

If one studies the 'mythology' of the Celts, the various gods and monsters can often be seen to be real people. The consecutive waves of Fir Bolg invasion match closely with evidences of successful waves of Celtic immigration - the 'gods' and 'monsters' are just opposing human factions in a real, historical interaction.There is an awful large number of people who have been deified over time (Utu/SHamash/Ham, Seth/Cush, Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim/Noah, etc, etc...). I.e. people who have not really died but live on as gods. Are they gods? Or are they only seen as such?

So - where is this one 'account' that predates all others? Where is this 'first' religion? Everything I find shows (what looks like) evidence of being a retelling of something earlier.That is true. However, the earlier the texts are, the more similar their stories are...

... a personal relationship with God (rather than through mediators), and a personal understanding of God's will (rather than a 'taught' version)....that reminds me of the mormons who now frequently approach people around here. they like to start conversations with the question, whether the addressed believed in god speaking to humans via prophets (and it's pretty clear where that is supposed to lead). i tend to answer then that i believe that a real god needs no intermediaries, and that he/she could establish contact directly. and off they go... ;)

that reminds me of the mormons who now frequently approach people around here. they like to start conversations with the question, whether the addressed believed in god speaking to humans via prophets (and it's pretty clear where that is supposed to lead). i tend to answer then that i believe that a real god needs no intermediaries, and that he/she could establish contact directly. and off they go... ;)

The thing is, you're a pain in the ass. Even to atheists like me.

On Jesus being God, which Grave doesn't seem to agree with:
"I and the Father are one." - John 10:30

Jocabia and Grave, both of you as I continue to read the things you say prove to me that you're too narrow-minded to even understand what I say. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Both of you, I notice, stereotype an entire religion based on personal beliefs you have developed. Each and every person has their own interperatation, and it doesn't mean that they are wrong just because they don't perceive things to be as you have perceived them. I notice Grave in particular doing this, with his interperatation of Jesus being "less God" than God, among other things.

Jocabia as well, you tend to make assumptions that don't necessarily have any grounds with my own beliefs. You like to bring up unrelated issues that only succeed in causing confusion in people than proving any point, and when they give the "wrong" answer to your trivia you try to use it against them as being wrong.

I do believe I'm done with this thread. You're causing more hostility than finding answers.

The thing is, you're a pain in the ass. Even to atheists like me.Thank you.

Beyond that, that man has this flawed need to not just hold their faith as right but to attack people of any other faith. So rather than rectify ideas we attempt to destroy them.

The 'faith' becomes part of the tribe, and then is used as part of the measure of tribal interaction. The tribe 'less-like-us' has their brains bashed in, and that dimension can be their height, skin tone, eye colour, worshipped gods... whichever.

And, since we make our faith part of our 'tribe', we can't change faiths without changing tribe - so the ideas become rigid and 'traditional', rather than adaptive.

The kind of view that suggests we are His children and that the universe was created with the intention of us as its masters?

I think it is arrogant to believe that we are the apex of existance. Just as I think it is arrogant to assume that we are the only sentient life in the universe (though the latter is supported my the sheer magnitude of the universe as a whole).

By that same principle I would even go so far as to say that there is not ONE god, but many.

...and I have just confused myself.

On Jesus being God, which Grave doesn't seem to agree with:


Note how Jesus says "I and the Father..."?

Clearly they may be unified, but they are not the same entity. It's right there in the quote you posted.

You should try reading the scripture again, and this time, look at examples where Jesus is talking about God as his father, or talking about God as someone he represents.... or even - where he talks TO God.

I'm sorry you think me narrow-minded. I actually find that quite humourous. Especially since I haven't actually said that Jesus was 'less than' God - just different.

I was baptized. I had First Communion.

Why wouldn't I be Christian?

Note how Jesus says "I and the Father..."?

Clearly they may be unified, but they are not the same entity. It's right there in the quote you posted.

You should try reading the scripture again, and this time, look at examples where Jesus is talking about God as his father, or talking about God as someone he represents.... or even - where he talks TO God.

I'm sorry you think me narrow-minded. I actually find that quite humourous. Especially since I haven't actually said that Jesus was 'less than' God - just different.the whole jesus-god thing is confusing...
if jesus were god, then god died as the sacrifice to appease himself with death for sins he knew his own creation would commit before he created them...