What is it to be Christian ?
you're also an asshole. are these things related?
Just because you say you are, doesn't make it so.
Claiming you belong to a certain religious sect is meaningless unless you behave in accordance with the actions expected of such members as taught by the religious leaders of said organization.
I know 'muslims' who do not pray 6 times a day and who scarf porkchops. I know 'christians' who are judgemental, hypocritical, and abusive. I know 'catholics' who do not go to confession or who have been divorced.
Actions speak louder than words.
Stormie
I think that the only common thread among all Christians is the belief that Jesus is on a supernatural level above prophet.
I think that the only common thread among all Christians is the belief that Jesus is on a supernatural level above prophet.
I wonder if that common thread could be defined simply as: believing in the message of Jesus?
That would shift the question of supernatural status to the level personal interpretation.
just say no to spam and trolls
I think that the only common thread among all Christians is the belief that Jesus is on a supernatural level above prophet.
More than that, he's the son of God, and he offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sin. The important distinction is the oneness with God himself.
is he the son of god, or god, or both?
More than that, he's the son of God, and he offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sin. The important distinction is the oneness with God himself.
I don't think all Christian sects agree on that. Mormons certainly don't. Though I don't disagree that many sects who do agree with that would say that those that don't aren't real Christians.
is he the son of god, or god, or both?
Trinity: Son, Father, Holy Ghost
Holy Ghost: The spirit of God that lives within you.
Father: The being in which the holy power is derived or contained.
Son: The sacrifice that opened the connection between humans and the Father.
That the best explanation I know, but they are all three are really one, they are just seperated to show different purposes.
Of the three parts of the Trinity, which one did the "Intelligent Designing" of biological mechanisms?
Of the three parts of the Trinity, which one did the "Intelligent Designing" of biological mechanisms?
Father: The being in which the holy power is derived or contained.
I thought Jesus and the Holy Spirit acted as the agents of the power of which the Father is a vessel.
I am a Christian .
Well, that's helpful. :eyebrow:
Christianity for the Complete Idiot:
As a child, I was forced to make quite the study of Christian theology, and IMO, all Christians believe in original sin (cuz your parents had to do the nasty to conceive you). Christians believe that God sent his son, Jesus to save mankind from the consequences of being born in original sin, and, finally you must be baptized and take Jesus as your savior, otherwise you could get a spanking after you die.
There are eleventy zillion Christian sects who argue the finer points of these details, and each sect is the only true one.
The end.
Original Sin:
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.
Also: Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan's temptation.
I thought Jesus and the Holy Spirit acted as the agents of the power of which the Father is a vessel.
/shrug, does it really matter? doesn't to me. that is just my view of the trinity. the trinity isn't that important to me seeing as how all three are really one anyway and i'm not christian.
@morethanpretty: I'm just exploring the idea here, if one has the Trinity concept in one hand, and Intelligent Design in the other, and they don't fit together well, then that indicates a problem with one or both. Standard rebuttal: "logic doesn't apply to some things" . . .
Right. Logic doesn't apply to things that are rubbish.
marichiko, being baptized has nothing to do with being saved. It's a public ritual that shows others that you have accepted Christ. Original sin is the natural state of humanity, and has nothing to do with the fact that you were conceived via sex. :lol: Only a handful of sects believe that all the members of the others are going to hell. If you believe Jesus is the son of God and that his death pays for your sin, you're a Christian.
When you start getting humans monkeying around with the original message, that's where trouble starts. Catholics say you have to go through a priest to talk to God. Mormons say that God is just a man who's reached a higher plane of existence. Lutherans sprinkle, Baptists dunk, Assembly of God gets hung up on prophecy, faith healing, and speaking in tongues. Some of that stuff is not critical to what they believe re: Christ and salvation. Some of it is. But belonging to one denomination or the other isn't what defines your relationship with God. Being "a good Catholic" is not the same thing as following Christ, although millions use it as a substitute. One branch of the Church of Christ doesn't allow musical instruments in church, and doesn't allow women to wear pants. That has nothing to do with the message of Christ.
There are a lot of people who were raised in religion, but never got around to the actual point of Christ. Religion is a minefield of bad doctrine, legalistic but empty regulations, and self-proclaimed experts. That's what happens whenever you get a bunch of people together -- they want to organize things and micromanage each other.
It's not about religion though. It's about the message of Christ. People should examine what Christ said and did, and decide his validity based on that alone, not on the actions of a bunch of flawed men and women. Christianity is a personal experience. Fellowship and friendship with other Christians is how we strengthen our own faith, hold each other accountable, and help each other through tough times. Unfortunately, "religion" often results.
Flint -- I don't think that the concept of the trinity and the concept of ID have much of anything to do with one another. I'm not much of a biblical scholar, but I think the whole trinity thing is from Catholicism. I'm not convinced that it's anywhere in scripture. I realize you're not really asking, just taking shots, but you should know that it's possible that if there is a God, he might be smarter than you. He might even be capable of doing things that you can't explain. Just saying.
:lol:
I think it would be the Christian thing to do to keep your word
You'd think, wouldn't you?
Go in peace to love and serve the lord...
Flint -- I don't think that the concept of the trinity and the concept of ID have much of anything to do with one another. I'm not much of a biblical scholar, but I think the whole trinity thing is from Catholicism. I'm not convinced that it's anywhere in scripture. I realize you're not really asking, just taking shots, but you should know that it's possible that if there is a God, he might be smarter than you. He might even be capable of doing things that you can't explain. Just saying.
No, I really am asking, not taking shots. If a theoretical person (whoever this may be) believes in the Trinity and they also believe in ID, how would that work? I ask because the way I manage my belief system is by hashing things against one another to find discrepancies, which in turn indicate a resolution is required in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
I guarantee there are forces at work that it is literally impossible for me to ever understand, but, as far as my personal understanding goes, I want to make sure I at least agree with myself.
M. Noodle...the Trinity originated in Catholism when Constantine was the Roman Emperor. He legalize Christianity and held two councils to determine what the basic beliefs of Christanity were. It was decided that Jesus resurected from the dead, Mary was a virgin, and the Trinity was established. The first two are in the Bible but I have never found direct evidence of the Trinity in the Bible, I think perhaps they were tryin to explain how you could have God and the Son of God and they both be God. BTW awesome explanation, reminds me why I love Jesus but hate modern 'christians'.
Flint...Its not a puzzle, there are no "pieces" or comprehesible picture in the end. You don't have to accept the Trinity, and I don't think that it is meant to describe the entire being of God. You have to remember that God is omnisecent, so He doesn't fit within the boundaries we humans place Him in. We place those boundaries so that we are better able to comprehend Him.
I don't see why they are mutually exclusive. If God is all powerful, all things become possible. Trying to figure out "which member of the trinity did the creating" is based on a human construct of the trinity. We think in terms of easily separated, individual parts, or three ingredients of a whole. God's paradigm is likely to be infinitely more complex and/or more simple than our crude attempts at categorizing.
the thing that you have to account for is that human understanding cannot grasp -- or possibly even envision -- the magnitude of God. Even to say that God is in "everything" limits him to the "everything" that we can imagine.
So the issue isn't really the trinity vs. ID. It's whether or not God is God.
edit: morethanpretty beat me, and said it more concisely
Flint...Its not a puzzle, there are no "pieces" or comprehesible picture in the end. You don't have to accept the Trinity, and I don't think that it is meant to describe the entire being of God. You have to remember that God is omnisecent, so He doesn't fit within the boundaries we humans place Him in. We place those boundaries so that we are better able to comprehend Him.
I believe that our philosophy, for what it's worth, should be coherent. It isn't intended as a complete description of reality, but it should be neatly self-contained at a bare minimum. If the boundaries we place, to aid in comprehension, are incongruous, we haven't done ourselves any favors.
Trying to figure out "which member of the trinity did the creating" is based on a human construct of the trinity.
Correct. I am asking specifically about human constructs.
So the issue isn't really the trinity vs. ID. It's whether or not God is God.
That's an interesting issue, but it's not the issue I'm addressing.
Correct. I am asking specifically about human constructs.
That's an interesting issue, but it's not the issue I'm addressing.
It's the answer to your question, actually. Here's the original:
Of the three parts of the Trinity, which one did the "Intelligent Designing" of biological mechanisms?
The answer is that God designed biological mechanisms. "The trinity" is a crude, probably inaccurate reflection of the vast complexity of God. The answer that you're looking for is "the father", but it's not exactly accurate.
Again, this is a crude example. If I asked what held the hammer that pounded in the nail, the answer is, simultaneously:
a person
a carpenter
a hand
a glove
5 fingers
a man (or woman)
Bob (or whatever name is accurate)
Each of these has a different definition, but they're all part of the same. Also, you are probably not asking about a single nail, but about the building itself. Or maybe the entire city. So the answer then expands to include the architect, the planner, the government. Every question you answer reveals a wider scope and changes the question subtly.
God is God. He is the answer to all of the questions. That is, of course, absolute nonsense if it's approached from a direction that, being human, is inherently flawed.
The answer is that God designed biological mechanisms.
"The trinity" is a crude, probably inaccurate reflection of the vast complexity of God.
So would you say that the attempt to hash the concepts of ID and the Trinity together has revealed that the Trinity is the faulty concept?
This is exactly how a productive resolution of cognitive dissonance between man-made philosophical constructs is supposed to work.
Any attempt to cram God into manmade limitations is faulty. But I'm still not sure why the Trinity and ID must be mutually exclusive.
Any attempt to cram God into manmade limitations is faulty.
I agree, and I'm not picky about where I apply that. (Bible, I'm looking at you...)
But I'm still not sure why the Trinity and ID must be mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure they are, but I've never heard an explanation of how they relate to one another.
Ahh, but there's a difference between the bible and selfmade philosophies. The bible is a collection of writings that spans many hundreds of years and purports to be the inspired word of God. People have been tortured and killed for even possessing it. Horrible things have been done in its name, but those things directly contradict the message contained within.
There are older documents and there are other documents that have been the basis for religions. But nothing else has had the longevity and impact combined. In the absence of any quantitative "proof" of God, the fact that so many people have tried to stifle the gospel over the last 2,000 years and failed so miserably to stop its spread is evidence that the message in it contains real power. I hardly think that so many authors over so many centuries could have successfully pulled off a hoax of that magnitude. In the end, the only thing that proves the scripture is itself, and the impact that it has on individuals.
As far as how the Trinity and ID relate to each other, I don't know if they do, or how. I don't know of anything in either concept that precludes the other, nor that proves the other.
What you've said is exactly what most organized religions claim.
And it perpetuates a situation where they are always trying to kill each other.
What you've said is exactly what most organized religions claim.
And it perpetuates a situation where they are always trying to kill each other.
People who pervert and twist their religion for some sort of benefit to themselves are the ones who are always trying to kill others.
With the support of the "moderates" who give them a legitimate platform and foot the bill. - jinx
With the support of the "moderates" who give them a legitimate platform and foot the bill. - jinx
Oh yeah, I forgot about my donation to the Lebanese Forces last month :rolleyes:
What you've said is exactly what most organized religions claim.
And it perpetuates a situation where they are always trying to kill each other.
What I've said is in the bible. People who kill in the name of God are not following Christ. End of point.
Really.
NOTHING in the gospel of Christ perpetuates war among humans. Not a single word.
There's no more to be said about it.
Whenever anyone gets to the point that they have nowhere to look but at the pure doctrine itself, they get nervous and start shotgunning out the atheist talking points about the crusades, witch burning, and all that. Christ forgave. Every time, no matter what was done. That was his example. When confronted with the person of Satan himself, Christ simply resisted. In fact, his peaceful nature is the reason why the Jews didn't believe he was Messiah. They were looking for a Mohammedlike military leader.
And what I said is not said by any other religion. There are messianic figures in several. Lots of origin stories, etc. But only one offers a 1-to-1 relationship with the creator of the universe, without intermediary, without limit, without strings.
I suppose that Americans have heard of metaphors ?
While Christ was remarkably peaceable, he was no pacifist. It's clear He knew perfectly well what He was doing would make serious trouble, and it's evident He thought it worth that trouble; for instance see Luke 21:5-10 and other verses. Luke 22:36 also: "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (RSV) -- though here the context seems more one of armed self defense, with an aside glance at what a sword was going for in the Palestine army-surplus market. And there's Matthew 10:34: "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."
History tells us none of this was exactly metaphorical, but about as bloody a reality as anyone would care to, uh, enjoy. It works as a metaphor, and as well as history.
Give me ONE example of Jesus fighting and drawing blood .
Chucking the traders from the temple doesn't count .
The sword he speaks of is that of a divide. The division of people that follow him, and those that do not. In the end there are only two sides, two camps, just as when a sword cuts it is a clean dividing cut with a clear picture of both halves.
Judas followed him, but did not, all at the same time. Where is the clear divide there?
Give me ONE example of Jesus fighting and drawing blood .
Chucking the traders from the temple doesn't count .
It does too, bloody or not, and I shall not accept arbitrary bullshit from you or anyone. The scene is hardly imaginable without at least one skinned knee. NOT the action of a pacifist. Understandable as the action of one driven by a necessity.
Bullitt, I'd say it's a mistake to insist that this is solely metaphor. I think that does violence to history -- a vandalizing of the Big Picture, as it were (metaphorically illustrating history, yes).
Interesting that the only time he went past words was to separate religion and commerce...
It does too, bloody or not, and I shall not accept arbitrary bullshit from you or anyone. The scene is hardly imaginable without at least one skinned knee. NOT the action of a pacifist. Understandable as the action of one driven by a necessity.
Bullitt, I'd say it's a mistake to insist that this is solely metaphor. I think that does violence to history -- a vandalizing of the Big Picture, as it were (metaphorically illustrating history, yes).
I didn't mean to paint it as soley a metaphor, but I think that part was the majority of his message there. That the people of this world will be greatly divided because of this one man's life and actions. We are each responsible to make our own choice of which side of the divide we are to be on.
Interesting that the only time he went past words was to separate religion and commerce...
Part of the reason that I hate "Christian" music.. rap and rock and whatever. In the end it is people making more than a living off their supposed worship of God. It is disgusting to me.
I think that the only common thread among all Christians is the belief that Jesus is on a supernatural level above prophet.
That is a Christian... a follower of Christ does their VERY BEST to live by his teachings. A very different person all together.
One is the politics of faith, the other is a faithful.
Jesus' word is very clear on many things, but in the US you will find the worst hypocrisy on many levels... most "pro-livers" will line up howling for blood ready to cast that first stone every time there is an execution because they just love to support and sanction state murder. A clear hypocrisy of many of Christ's teachings... but they will always cite the OT, just like with homosexuality, an abomination, not even a sin, same as eating shrimp, wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt or planting peas and corn in the same field.
But, they will wash their car on Saturday, the sabbath, a MORTAL SIN, every damn weekend, without blinking an eye even though Christ clearly stated to obey the Commandments.
I think it's cute, it shows where the priorities clearly lay.
Urbane Guerilla , you know how to make me smile . I bet there was more than one skinned knee when Jesus told his overly-serious disciples to let the children come to him .
Jesus' word is very clear on many things, but in the US you will find the worst hypocrisy on many levels... most "pro-livers" will line up howling for blood ready to cast that first stone every time there is an execution because they just love to support and sanction state murder. A clear hypocrisy of many of Christ's teachings... but they will always cite the OT, just like with homosexuality, an abomination, not even a sin, same as eating shrimp, wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt or planting peas and corn in the same field.
But, they will wash their car on Saturday, the sabbath, a MORTAL SIN, every damn weekend, without blinking an eye even though Christ clearly stated to obey the Commandments.
I think it's cute, it shows where the priorities clearly lay.
You know what bugs the hell out of me? This statement is really, really bad analysis of both the bible, and of the theology that comes out of it. But you won't waste 3 minutes of honest-to-god attention to unravel any of it, because the conclusion you've already come to fits too well with your existing view of the world. Let's start with just this:
!) There are many pro-lifers who are ardently anti-death penalty. You just don't want to see them, because they don't fit your conception of how things are.
2) The injunctions against homosexuality aren't limited to the Old Testament, they are repeated in the New Testament. And just what do you think "abomination" means, that it's somehow a separate category from "sin"?
3) The command to obey the Sabbath was specifically, emphatically overturned by Jesus.
I'm so f*%king tired of being lectured in biblical exegesis by hacks and drive-bys.
You know what bugs the hell out of me? This statement is really, really bad analysis of both the bible, and of the theology that comes out of it. But you won't waste 3 minutes of honest-to-god attention to unravel any of it, because the conclusion you've already come to fits too well with your existing view of the world. Let's start with just this:
!) There are many pro-lifers who are ardently anti-death penalty. You just don't want to see them, because they don't fit your conception of how things are.
2) The injunctions against homosexuality aren't limited to the Old Testament, they are repeated in the New Testament. And just what do you think "abomination" means, that it's somehow a separate category from "sin"?
3) The command to obey the Sabbath was specifically, emphatically overturned by Jesus.
I'm so f*%king tired of being lectured in biblical exegesis by hacks and drive-bys.
Citations? References?
RK probably sees anti-choice and pro-death penalty linked because they are both supported by conservative repubicans.
Hey, if you are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty you are truly pro-life, no sweat.
The reference in Romans was specifically referring to the OT and it is still an abomination and not a sin. Yes, an abomination is separate from sin... I learned that in seminary prep in college, it is pretty basic stuff. I am not a hack. Do you think eating shrimp is a sin? Being in the same house with your wife during her time of the month? Boy, we sure have a lot of stoning to do!
I was not lecturing you or anyone else... I don't know you... who the hell are you? I was addressing common conceptions and nothing else.
If you are so tired of it, leave it alone.
smoothmoniker will pwn you on this. He is better than me at explaining the faith, and from what I can tell, he is much better at walking the walk as well. If he wants to weigh in, and you actually listen to him, you might lurn somethin.
no pressure, sm.
Skeptics annotated bible says in
1 Corinthians 6 says 6:9-10 means
Paul lists ten groups of people who will never enter heaven. These include thieves, along with the "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind."
6:9-10:
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Nor effeminate? Not only are the homosexuals banned from heaven, but the
metrosexuals as well! Pretty harsh.
In that case, nice goin Nood, with your manly approach you are certain to make it.
Oh... it "mean" that in their "translation" does it?
The NIV, that tract, says a lot too.
Skeptics annotated bible says in 1 Corinthians 6 says 6:9-10 means
6:9-10:
Nor effeminate? Not only are the homosexuals banned from heaven, but the metrosexuals as well! Pretty harsh.
In that case, nice goin Nood, with your manly approach you are certain to make it.
You cherry pick out the homosexual reference, but that list included more. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" is important, yes. But so is this passage from Romans (which quotes Psalms), written by the same author (I think).
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
So, although single verses throughout the Bible make convenient strawmen for people to attack faith, it's important to get the whole picture.
edit: also, Galatians 3:10-12
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."
Edit 2:
Thanks for your vote of confidence, btw. But my sins are pretty obvious to anyone, as are everyone else's, and "being manly" isn't going to erase them. It's not the point.
I'm not entirely sure that anything is macho enough to erase the fact that there is a mrnoodle/Ann Coulter fetish pic on the internet.
...I'm not entirely sure that anything is macho enough to erase the fact that there is a mrnoodle/Ann Coulter fetish pic on the internet.
And you said she liked it.
She didn't try to stop me.
Personally, I don't think anyone's going to heaven.
I smell a new tag line - The Cellar - This ain't the way to Heaven
Unless you're planning a trip to Australia of course. :)
End of point.
You haven't understood my point: any "one true book" claim facilitates something that is worth dying for, worth killing for. See: history of mankind.
That's why you shouldn't read!
You haven't understood my point: any "one true book" claim facilitates something that is worth dying for, worth killing for. See: history of mankind.
"one true book" is worth dying to protect. But not to protect the book. God will have his word out there whether you like it or not. If you die because of your faith in God, you are truly a believer. No more doubts about hypocrisy or anything else. What if, in the "possibly nearer than you could imagine" future, it becomes a crime to own a Bible (for bonus points, name one of the 3 places wehre this has occurred in the last 40 years), you are essentially asked to revoke your faith or die. What if those who publicly revoke get a mark of somekind to render them "acceptable" to the government. Now they can go back to work, watch TV, travel around and do the World Beer Tour at Old Chicago. We will finally make ourselves the true secular humanists we were always meant to be.
But there's a vague rumble on the horizon. A sense of impending doom. Finally, after all teh locos on the street corners (funny, haven't seen them lately) have been bugging us about this, you'd think they'd want to come out and prophecy about it.
Rumblerumblerumble.
I would like to say that I truly believe that a similar scenario is set to occur. I don't buy any dates put out by nutbag TV preachers. I don't buy the numerology nor the crystal bullshit. It. Is. Coming. That's the only reason these fucktarded Xtians want anything to do with you -- they're genuinely trying (in ever more annoying ways) to make it so that you will miss the reign of the Antichrist.
Because he (whether he is USA, Israel, Syria, whatever..it doesn't matter. He might be Ronald Reagan popped out of his pez dispenser to battle the mighty zorg. But when God himself comes to smite the ever living SMITATIONS of smite out of him, that's it. End game. If you have the mark, you're gone. And I'm sure there will be many many heartbreaking stories of people who go, "But I never had proof of your existence until now!"
We had proof in many many ways. They were ways only discernable to the heart, so those who discounted such weak emotions missed out. But it was written in the bible for those who read. If the critics of God's word spend a friggin weekend on the Chicago Tribune, The building would be razed within a month. No scrutiny more laserlike has ever been focused on a single document, and had the life sucked out of the text by people seeking to destroy God one snide comment at a time.
Anyway, this doesn't really affect my life. My life is to be good to others in all the little ways that you can. You be her shoulder to cry on , you help move the furniture after his divorce. You write a check that seems unaffordable adn give it to them for their kids' college fund. God blesses that.
You see a man or woman on the street, give em a coat and money for some decent drugs or booze. If you don't want em high, put them in your car and drive to Perkins. They're used to seeing em there anyway, and they know my card is good. Got leftovers? Hand em to the bag lady. What. You're going to eat 3 bites of the sweet and sour pork for lunch and go "meh". That lady is going to eat like a Queen. I'm running out of handme down coats btw. If it's a cold winter, time to go pick some up that are good enough to resist -0 winds.
Do other people who don't believe in God do the same thing? Presumably so. But the selfish satisfaction of "I'm a good person, I did this" and the slightly more palatable buzz of seeing a kid smile at Christmas have one extra benefit for a Christian: I might screw up later tonight, or I might not make it to the car. But I feel the presence of the Lord in my life right now, and it feels GOOD to be doing exactly what he told his disciples to do 1000 years ago. You can see a glimpse of heaven through that stuff.
That's why drugs are bad for me. I tend to see hell. Not "see" as in shrooms-style, but see as in understand. And when that happens, it is a long, long, long time before any but the mildest ganja will give me the slight, comfortable buzz that kills my heart racing at what I feel might be true.
It really is an important issue to me. Personally. You can take your debates about abortion and rights and gays and all that stuff and throw it off a cliff. I don't listen to em except for when I need enough anger to make it up a bad hill when bike riding. I Want to Know the Heart of the Living God, and I Want to Serve Him. I am not after your children or your government.
I'm still bogged down in sin, but God keeps coming back with jjjjjjjjjust onnnnnne more chance. I joke about religion because I want to "be one of the guys". I throw the metal horns at shows and paint a cross on my forehead to look metal, even though doing those things feels like it hurts the spirit living inside of me. Lessens it, perhaps.
So before you come at me for my judgementalist, legalistic, archaic notions about the supreme being, understand that I wage a daily battle with my old nature (which is very, VERY good at things that are not of God), and I fail. Twice before breakfast, some days. I call someone an asshole. I sluff off at work. I keep smoking cigarettes even thuogh it would make my mama happy to know that I quit and will add that many more years to my life. I look at porn on the computer, and it shoots down any and all defenses I have, sexually. I get horny, I have to make out. jSuddenly I'm not keeping my eye on what I feel is good and right. I'm trying to get my horn scratched.
Afterwards, I feel the lapse in judgement I allowed, and am utterly tired. So tired of not being able to say no to (drugs, video games, food, sex, whatever your addiction is). Please help me find a way, God.
Suddenly, the way becomes clear. Oh my God. But it requires sacrifice. You have to put aside your desires and lusts and become a new creature. You don't get to ease in over the course of months or years. Here is your decision time. What do you pick? I pick God, of course, but fail miserably at making the necessary changes in my life. I just can't let go of that control. God, everyone I talk to says you don't exist, and that life is about biting off as much as you can chew in the short time available, and the devil take the hindmost. Wouldn't I like to fuck that guy's wife? He'll never know, and it's just for fun. She even gave you her number. You said something really shitty to your mom again this morning, and you knew she was having a hard time with her best friend's death. You should apologize. But you don't. Hey, weed! I really need a bowl right now, I'm stressing at work.
Rinse, repeat.
If you think actively being a Christian means standing in judgement over OTHER people, you're looking at the wrong people. It's not about guilt, it's about striving for excellence and failing, then letting the grace of God pull you back up. He "saves" you, yeah. But he strenghtens you, comforts you, and teaches you. You can have your Buddhas sitting in temples, your priests in their little...priest box things...and your coldly comforting atheist bible. I am seeking (and, rarely, do find) an actual relationship with the creator of everything in the universe.
That is more hardcore than anything you can think of, and I can think of soem hardcore shit.
That's my personal story as it stands right now. Flamers get a laminated symbol of my utter dismissal of their jibes. I jsut have to eat a can of chili and make some. :)
0. These are not flames.
1. Determining ethical behavior without a God involved is a similar struggle. Perhaps exactly the same struggle. One may have a religious moral center, or one may have a philosophical moral center.
2. Anthropology shows that humankind has a true fascination with apocalypse scenarios. Almost everyone agrees with one or another, at some time in their life. Luckily none of these believed-in scenarios has come true and humankind continues to exist.
3. When atheists talk to you about there not being a God, in increasingly annoying ways, they love you and are merely trying to get you not to waste your time here on Earth. Since they don't believe in an afterlife, this is a mortal struggle.
Oh I'm with you on the second point. I don't pretend to know when it's happening. But because I know the word of God to be true, and I see where prophecies have been fulfilled left and right, it's clear to me that strange things are afoot at the Circle K. It might be tomorrow, it might be in 1000 more years; there's no way for us to know when it's going to happen. But to believe in Christ means believing everything he said, not just some of it.
Determining ethical behavior is only a small part of my struggle, and that of other Christians. Once you have experienced a relationship with God, losing it becomes a terrible thing. When you fight with your wife (all jokes aside here), you feel a gap in your heart until you've made things right with her. She's not "there" until you come back together. Likewise, until you reach a good relationship with your creator, there is an emptiness and a searching that is never fulfilled (hence the constant philosophical meanderings that never reach a destination). Once you've experienced that relationship, it is a horrible thing to lose. That's why struggling with sin is so important to Christians. It's not just some legalistic moral requirement, it's the way to reestablish a connection.
That is why Christians need to worry about that relationship and leave everyone else alone.
That's a popular viewpoint. But it's based on the misconception that this is an atheist country that is somehow being taken over by Christians. Actually, the opposite is more true. The US is founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, plain and simple. No amount of whining can change that. However, we all live together and must get along as best as we know how. That doesn't mean that only the Christians have to keep their opinions private and remove them from the arena of ideas. It doesn't mean that anyone of faith must act as atheistic as possible if they are in public office. Separation of church and state is not a requirement for the eradication of religion in the public square, although that's the atheist wet dream.
You are 100% correct, though. If Christians would worry as much about their own lives as they do the lives of others, it would be a far different world. But not in the way you think. If there were more Christians who actually lived like Christ, the message of hope would spread even further, not be choked off.
I don't see how anyone can look at the state of the country today, with popular music soaked in imagery of ho's, killing, drugs, and decay, with people committing mass murder in schools and businesses, with everything that is evil being propped up and everything that is pure being mocked and derided, and decide that things are better when God is out of the picture. We are so frantic that the government might be listening to our conversations and use them against us, but we're completely ambivalent about saying the most hurtful things we can come up with to damage others. We are so bloody concerned that someone somewhere is cutting down a tree, but we ignore the human being right next to us that is dying inside. We want to steal from the rich to give to the poor, but the poor never get anything, and the Robin Hoods have homes on Martha's Vineyard.
Everything is backwards and wrong on a large scale, and it's not because people are acting too Christian, count on that.
Everything good does not come from Christianity.
Everything bad does not come from a lack of Christianity.
Questioning Christianity does not make you an athiest.
Questioning Christianity isn't bad. You're not supposed to just drink the kool-aid and act like a good boy.
I'm still working on the first 2.
I think it's more that "nothing bad can come from emulating Christ" and "if it's bad, it's not of Christ"
Questioning Christianity isn't bad.
Is there or isn't there an
athiest conspiracy to attack God?I think it's more that "nothing bad can come from emulating Christ" and "if it's bad, it's not of Christ"
I have no problem with the message of Jesus. I've commented on the observable institution of Christianity.
Nood you describe an odd picture of what the culture is; I think it's by your need to paint a picture that redeems your beliefs, instead of the other way around. You're seeing what you want to see.
Either that, or Colorado is totally insane. I'm not ruling that out.
with people committing mass murder in schools and businesses
I attended schools for 18 years and not once did anyone commit a murder at any of them, much less a mass one. I have worked at and consulted for (...counts... aw fuggit) about 30 different companies and not once did anyone commit a murder at any of them. There was a guy who lost it, but he only became convinced that he was working on a super-secret AT&T project, and had to be escorted out.
Don't watch the news and listen to the sermon and take that as your reality. Look around and see the reality for yourself. In the reality I notice, people go to their schools and learn, spend most of ther time working at their jobs, and try in vain to get a little bit of entertainment at the end of the day.
everything that is evil being propped up and everything that is pure being mocked and derided
Everything...! Mocked and derided! Please. I mock and deride this statement as obviously false.
and decide that things are better when God is out of the picture.
What you really want is for people to have a stronger moral basis in general, not specfically your moral basis, right?
Is there or isn't there an athiest conspiracy to attack God?I have no problem with the message of Jesus. I've commented on the observable institution of Christianity.
It's not an atheist conspiracy. It's the culmination of many years of rejecting God on a nationwide scale combined with the hypocrisy of Christians themselves. I switched to the words "emulating Christ" because the word "Christianity" has acquired so much baggage through the years that has nothing to do with its real definition.
Nood you describe an odd picture of what the culture is; I think it's by your need to paint a picture that redeems your beliefs, instead of the other way around. You're seeing what you want to see.
Mmmaybe. I don't think so, though. There has always been good and bad in the world, so it's not as if we are more wicked now than ever before. In that respect, it's true that it's business as usual. However, in this country, we are culturally becoming morally bankrupt. For example, we have eliminated slavery, but what have we replaced it with? Glocks, pimps, and "baby daddies". By "we" I don't mean "whites", I mean the culture as a whole. Freedom of speech is no longer about the right to speak out against government. It's about how offensive you can be without anyone taking you to task on it.
Either that, or Colorado is totally insane. I'm not ruling that out.
I can't argue with this.
I attended schools for 18 years and not once did anyone commit a murder at any of them, much less a mass one. I have worked at and consulted for (...counts... aw fuggit) about 30 different companies and not once did anyone commit a murder at any of them. There was a guy who lost it, but he only became convinced that he was working on a super-secret AT&T project, and had to be escorted out.
Although most kids will never see a murder happen, there is a 100% increase in school shootings nationwide. It was inconceivable at one time that anything like that could possibly occur. Now, you can't go a month without an incident cropping up. What changed between then and now? Guns are harder to get, security is tighter, laws are more strictly enforced. Something has fundamentally changed in the minds of these kids and in the adults that care for them -- what is it?
Don't watch the news and listen to the sermon and take that as your reality. Look around and see the reality for yourself. In the reality I notice, people go to their schools and learn, spend most of ther time working at their jobs, and try in vain to get a little bit of entertainment at the end of the day.
If something occurs and you hear about it on the news, it's reality. It doesn't immediately affect my small bubble of existence necessarily, but it's real. And the problems are growing, not receding. It's nice that most of us are still able to function in our lives without being touched by the worst of these crimes. So were the victims, until it happened to them.
Everything...! Mocked and derided! Please. I mock and deride this statement as obviously false.
It's considered ridiculous for someone to remain a virgin until marriage. Nothing is funnier than mocking someone's religious beliefs -- those sheep. MTV2's icon is Cerberus, the 3-headed guardian of the gates of hades. Truth in advertising, that -- the music that's popular glorifies death, both physical and spiritual. There are still songs about normal things, but they're sharing more and more airtime with odes to suicide, hopelessness, loveless sex, getting and staying high, and telling everyone else to fuck off. I'm in a metal band, I should know. The anger and fear that used to fuel aggression and rebellion in the fringe of the music scene is mainstream now. No one knows what they're rebelling against, they just want to feel the power that comes from anger. Kids cut themselves for no reason. Nothing is shocking -- you can find beheading videos, images of massacre and rape (the real thing), and pedophilia with 5 minutes and an internet connection. I laugh at ytmnd.com, but check out the nsfw version of their forums. These are kids. They haven't even started shaving yet, but they've learned to ridicule the mentally and physically handicapped, where to find the best fisting footage, and what a head looks like after being hit with buckshot. Seriously, go check it out. These are normal kids, just trying to outshock each other, but what are the long term effects of constantly soaking in this imagery and hatred?
What you really want is for people to have a stronger moral basis in general, not specfically your moral basis, right?
I guess not. I think that real morality comes from God. You can approximate it without God in the mix, but at some point it fails to deliver. Like I said, the people who are so concerned that someone is going to "force" God on them might be better served worrying about what is being injected gradually. It's a lot more damaging. There have been superpowers before the USA, and they were just as -- if not more -- powerful, in the context of their time. Eventually they all collapsed under their excesses. We've only been around 200-odd years, and we're already feeling the strain. That's not a good sign.
I switched to the words "emulating Christ" because the word "Christianity" has acquired so much baggage through the years that has nothing to do with its real definition.
I've said this before, ad nauseum, but I'm not
imposing a definition upon Christianity. I'm using the most obvious definition possible. If an institution calls itself Christianity, I take that self-definition
at face value. I don't need to do any semantic trickery. There should be no confusion about whether I am discussing
theoretical Christianity or
actual Christianity. When I say Christianity, I mean simply that. Nothing more, nothing less. Christianity: the actual thing that actually exists.
Accordingly: I'm asuming that any persons who choose to define themselves as Christian will understand that this logically implies membership in the observable institution of Christianity. The
actual Christianity, not the
theoretical one.
The US is founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, plain and simple. No amount of whining can change that.
What's "Judeo-Christian philosophy"? If it's the Old Testament, then it is just Jewish. If it is Old and New Testament, then it's just Christian. Is it bits and pieces taken from philosophers of each persuasion?
As there were more Deists among the Founding Fathers than Jews, I suspect that the "Judeo-Christian philosophy" line is Bill O'Reilly's code word for "the US was founded as a Christian nation".
I've said this before, ad nauseum, but I'm not imposing a definition upon Christianity. I'm using the most obvious definition possible. If an institution calls itself Christianity, I take that self-definition at face value. I don't need to do any semantic trickery. There should be no confusion about whether I am discussing theoretical Christianity or actual Christianity. When I say Christianity, I mean simply that. Nothing more, nothing less. Christianity: the actual thing that actually exists.
Accordingly: I'm asuming that any persons who choose to define themselves as Christian will understand that this logically implies membership in the observable institution of Christianity. The actual Christianity, not the theoretical one.
I'm not accusing you of playing semantics. "Christian" means "Christ-like". No matter how impressive the buildings, the choir robes, the Popemobile, or the rituals, Christianity is the condition of following Christ, not the religious, legalistic accoutrements. I was just clarifying that.
What's "Judeo-Christian philosophy"? If it's the Old Testament, then it is just Jewish. If it is Old and New Testament, then it's just Christian. Is it bits and pieces taken from philosophers of each persuasion?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They're not talking about Vishnu.
They're not talking about Vishnu.
Christianity does not have a patent on God.
"Christian" means "Christ-like". No matter how impressive the buildings, the choir robes, the Popemobile, or the rituals, Christianity is the condition of following Christ, not the religious, legalistic accoutrements.
So, what should I call people who call themselves Christians?
The most respectful thing for me to do is honor their own wishes to be called Christians.
...I'm not imposing a definition upon Christianity.
but what are the long term effects of constantly soaking in this imagery and hatred?
You tell us; you're soaking in it.
You're so fixated on it, you think it's the predominant culture.
Glocks, pimps, and baby daddy. Where do they appear on
Wikipedia's list of the 50 top grossing films in the US and Canada?
In which of those films would you find any one of the three cultural notes you find so significant?
None. Not one. In fact, out of the fifty films, there's really only one that's a big long soak in hatred and violence and ugly subculture.
It's currently #11, "Passion of the Christ".
One more for fun. Is the culture going morally astray?
MTV2's icon is Cerberus, the 3-headed guardian of the gates of hades.
Anyone can define the culture as "evil"
by their definition of evil. In this case, your source is either Greek mythology or Harry Potter. But hey, whatever you hit, call it the target: yeah, yeah, I'm with you man, MTV2's
icon is evil and a sure sign of the coming culture wars! That's where they strike first, you know, MTV2. They don't do it on cable channels with a viewership of over 25,000 because that would be too
obvious.
Feeling mocked and ridiculed? But it isn't, it's just honest conversation.
Maybe the athiest conspiracy erases all evidence of their presence, like ninjas.
Three headed guardian mutt of the gates to Hades?
one... two..
That's a popular viewpoint. But it's based on the misconception that this is an atheist country that is somehow being taken over by Christians. Actually, the opposite is more true. The US is founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, plain and simple. No amount of whining can change that.....
Wrong.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953
None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.
The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era
James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly
Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." -Thomas Paine
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They're not talking about Vishnu.
They're not talking about the Christian god, either. Or they're talking about both. They leave it up to the reader to fill in the blank. This makes sense, as they certainly were not all Christians themselves.
I am not a source for research. I'm just a guy. It's easy to play "battling factoids" and have either side declare themselves the winner. Whoever has the catchiest comeback wins. whatever.
All I'm saying is that there's something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture, and the evidence of it is growing constantly. It wasn't there 50 years ago. You tell me what it is, since I'm so obviously out of touch.
This thread illustrates what I'm talking about in many ways. I'm saying we're losing a connection to something good and necessary, and the responses vary from wise-ass remarks to deliberate misconstruing of what I'm saying. Flint, this means you. I said there's no atheist conspiracy, let it go. I also said that I was not accusing you of semantic games, so don't prove me wrong.
edit: more posts came in while i was typing. The model for the MTV dog is, in fact, cerberus, and it's meant to be "dark", just like the little heavy metal skulls and stuff. Yes, it has 2 heads, hence MTV2.
The majority of the founding fathers identified with the God of Christianity and the moral precepts from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, and they worship the same God. Deism rejected Christianity, but the Providence they believed in was a version of the western God.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson also wrote:
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]
“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]
We can all pull quotes from the bible, from the founding fathers, and from any other text to bolster our own claims and argue against others. But taken as a whole, there is no doubt that the US was a nation of faith at its inception.
That's not fair... Why does Undertoad get to mock and ridicule you, but I get called out for it?
Am I a "wise-ass" for reading "something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture" as "conspiracy" ???
Edit moved to new post...
We can all pull quotes from the bible, from the founding fathers, and from any other text to bolster our own claims and argue against others. But taken as a whole, there is no doubt that the US was a nation of faith at its inception.
I absolutely doubt that. The treaty and first amendment are both very clear.
"The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
All I'm saying is that there's something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture, and the evidence of it is growing constantly. It wasn't there 50 years ago. You tell me what it is, since I'm so obviously out of touch.
It's been there for more than 50 years, and it's called progress. Occasionally there are generations where there's virtually no progress, and one's life is fundamentally the same as one's grandparents', but a period of progress always comes along to make people say "kids these days" or "back in my day".
...All I'm saying is that there's something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture, and the evidence of it is growing constantly. It wasn't there 50 years ago. You tell me what it is, since I'm so obviously out of touch.
...
Here's my take.
Gods were created to explain what we don't understand. Thousands of years ago, we didn't understand thunder, so Thor was the explanation. As we understand more, there is less of a need to rely on a "god". Scientists can explain pretty much everything from nanoseconds after the big bang to the present. Sure there are gaps and sure there are alternative explanations, like religion. But "god" comes down to being that which created matter/energy and caused the big bang. If you want to say that's "god", be my guest. If he designed our unniverse intelligently from the other side of the big bang, go right ahead.
The only real mysteries left are "why are we here?" and "what happens to us after we die". People who are uncomfortable with death want reassurance that we don't just become worm food, so they take solice in religion. I sometimes wish I could do that. I attend church, and feel all warm and fuzzy, and walk out thinking things like "people do not rise from the dead. The story of Saul on the road to Damascus sounds more like a UFO encounter than anything else".
And "God" has printed a manual on how to get to Heaven. It happens to be a self-conflicting book, written by men, but is claimed to be written by/ inspired by God. Some of it is actually a great guide for the survival of a young species, especially Leviticus and the ten commandments. Is it literal, or allegory - life lessons in story form? It can't be both. Until that's decided and the internal conflicts resolved - it's just a book. Fiction, IMHO.
Now-a-days, God becomes this omnipotent being that controls the unniverse. "God willing", God forbid", cause abdication of responsibility. A religious person is not responsible for his circumstances, something happened to them because they didn't go to church, didn't pray, talk to snakes, do the jig, whatever. And if you get on God's bad side, there'll be hell to pay - literally.
What's happened in the last 50 years is that knowledge has increased dramatically. People have more free time. They realize that they don't *want* to follow dogma. And the other side has fought back, trying to force these "non-beleivers" to behave as "good Christians", using legislation. Information spreads quickly, so when Jim Bakker, Pat Robinson, Jimmy Swaggart, or a self-proclaimed "Christian" behaves in a non-Christian way, *all* Christians and Christianity loses creditbility, and more people leave the faith. We also see how world wide, religion has caused conflict, death, destruction, and suffering, and don't want parts of that.
Are we losing a connection with something good and necessary? I don't feel like I am, but I'm not connected with religion, and have'nt been for 35 years.
Sorry for the tw-ish post
That's not fair... Why does Undertoad get to mock and ridicule you, but I get called out for it?
Anyway, how am I a "wise-ass" for reading "something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture" as a "conspiracy" ???
UT had a disclaimer. Plus, a conspiracy requires organization, and I don't think what I'm talking about is a deliberately planned thing, just a decay of some kind.
It's been there for more than 50 years, and it's called progress. Occasionally there are generations where there's virtually no progress, and one's life is fundamentally the same as one's grandparents', but a period of progress always comes along to make people say "kids these days" or "back in my day".
Progress? -- [ IMG=goatse ]
All I'm saying is that there's something that's gradually insinuating itself into our culture, and the evidence of it is growing constantly. It wasn't there 50 years ago. You tell me what it is, since I'm so obviously out of touch.
I swear: things are bad because you perceive them as bad. Let me give you a fresh spin on -- uh, stuff I
think you're trying to worry about --
The culture seems to be becoming more openly sexual. Dwellars are openly posting nipple shots on the forums! Even as the FCC cracks down, wild west broadcasters on satellite and internet find new ways to go past what seems to be any level of decorum!
The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy.
Source (warning: PDF)
Can you explain that? The youth culture is foul beyond belief; they're "soaking" in it. And at the end of the day, their behavior is largely close to, or better than, what it was twenty years ago.
It may be that they already have a different take on the art of their culture than you do: their take is more ironic.
Edit: I really would prefer to discuss this on a rational level, with a minimum of embellishment via impossible-to-verify anecdotal/emotional conjecture, but when a subject drifts into a realm that isn't intelligently debatable, I tend to inject a little humor. It isn't mean-spirited.
I don't think what I'm talking about is a deliberately planned thing, just a decay of some kind.
I see it too, noodle. Mostly I think it's because news travels faster now than it did 50 years ago. Hell, it's even faster than it was when I was a pup. Speaking of when I was a kid, there was a nutjob across the river from us that baked his baby in an oven. That made the local newspaper, but it didn't get on statewide TV, and it didn't get on national television. Today, it would be part of the national news cycle for at least a week. The good old days weren't. We were just ignorant of the evil that was out there.
UT had a disclaimer.
I don't like having to explain everything. I'm too verbose as it is.
Progress? -- [ IMG=goatse ]
Yes. Stretching out your ass isn't something invented in the past 50 years; in fact it has been
official government policy on occasion. At least this guy was probably willing.
I get your point, UT. But we still have the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. Suicide is
the third-leading cause of death for people between the ages of 15-24, despite a slight recent decline and a massive anti-suicide campaign.
Sexual openness isn't necessarily the great progressive windfall you might think, according to
the National Longitudinal Survey of Adoles*cent Health, Wave II, 1996., which shows a link between teenage sexual activity and depression:
And anyway, it's more than just who's having sex or not. It's an attitude. Like glatt said, it may just be that because of improved communication, we can see the bad stuff that's out there more easily. It doesn't mean EVERYone is participating in it. But it's becoming more acceptable, maybe because we're tired of fighting it.
By the way, remember the big stink over abstinence being taught in schools? I'll give birth control its due, but abstinence is a huge factor in the decline in teen pregnancy. That works against my "kids these days are going to hell in a handbasket" theory. But the reaction of the left-wingers who were afraid that teaching abstinence was going to turn us into a theocracy is the attitude I was originally speaking to.
Oh, I forgot to make another point earlier. MY NIPPLE WAS THE FIRST ONE ON THE CELLAR. And it had a porn border. Don't accuse me of being stodgy. I'm just observing.
By the way, remember the big stink over abstinence being taught in schools?
No. I remember a lot of talk about abstinence-
only education, though.
I'll give birth control its due,
Then you're a step beyond the people who were pushing abstinence-
only education, against whom the big stink was raised.
But the reaction of the left-wingers who were afraid that teaching abstinence was going to turn us into a theocracy is the attitude I was originally speaking to.
Again, it was abstinence-
only education that raised the objections.
Dig if you will: it's not a push to eliminate God you observe, it's a push to eliminate God-only (if I may borrow, and extend upon, a device...)
A cultural monopoly cannot claim persecution simply because they are being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. [COLOR="White"]>>>>>>>[/COLOR] :2cents:
Wait.
There's a push to eliminate God-only? I thought there was no conspiracy. I'm taking notes as fast as I can, stop switching up on me.
And what cultural monopoly are you referring to? I thought we were a secular nation. And don't push your rules on me. I'm not a numbah! I am a FREE MAN! :lol:
Thread is dead. It'll come up again in a week or two, let's take a break. Prediction: another school shooting before Christmas. xmas. whatever.
You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.
You say "only the Christians have to keep their opinions private" I say... blah blah blah . . . dinner is ready.
I get your point, UT. But we still have the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death for people between the ages of 15-24, despite a slight recent decline and a massive anti-suicide campaign...
Teen suicide could be high for a couple of reasons
Kids feel like a failure because they don't meet their parents' religious/moral standard.
Pressure to excel, no chance to be a kid.
Over-supervision due to parents fear of abduction.
The disparity between rich and poor. On TV, kids see lifestyles that are way above average, and despair.
Don't feel too bad. In Australia, suicide is the leading cause of death for males in that age group.
If you are Christian you follow the teachings of Christ.
If you are Christian you follow the teachings of Christ.
That seems to be the standard definition. But...
#1: Not everyone who follows the teachings of Christ is a Christian.
#2: Not everyone who is a Christian follows the teachings of Christ.
In both cases, I respect the wishes of the individual, regarding what they define themselves as.
If you are Christian you follow the teachings of Christ.
Then a whole lot of people who call themselves Christian should stop. 'Cause they aren't. And they don't.
If you are Christian you follow the teachings of Christ.
That seems to be the standard definition. But...
#1: Not everyone who follows the teachings of Christ is a Christian.
#2: Not everyone who is a Christian follows the teachings of Christ.
In both cases, I respect the wishes of the individual, regarding what they define themselves as.
#3: Not everyone agrees what the teachings of Christ are, exactly.
Everyone fails to follow the teachings of Christ. Some do better than others, but even the most devoted follower of Christ screws up. Mother Theresa had her own private sins. The idea of being a Christian is to turn from sin and walk the other way instead of continuing in it. But you're right, there are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians but aren't. Or they are, but have fallen so far back into their old nature that they are useless as Christians.
I fear the results of my own hypocrisy every day. I try, but the day never goes by that I don't at least think something wrong about another person, cheat my employer by....oh, say, spending too much time on the web, or do something that leaves a bad example to others. Those are *good* days. But knowing Christ has your back is a good, peaceful feeling. It helps when you're feeling physically sick, when you're watching your dad battle cancer, when the money disappears, when someone cheats or otherwise hurts you, etc. etc., that no matter what happens, you are under the eye and protection of the almighty, and you will get strength to get through it. If I had to gain that kind of strength via "acting moral", I'd be up a creek.
I'm glad you've found something that works for you, mrnoodle.
It's just my opinion, but striving to act moral actually serves humanity, and myself, alot better than simply having a get-out-of-jail free card.
Regarding the original thread subject, the word Christian seems to have a pretty amorphous meaning, to me.
I'm glad you've found something that works for you, mrnoodle.
It's just my opinion, but striving to act moral actually serves humanity, and myself, alot better than simply having a get-out-of-jail free card.
Regarding the original thread subject, the word Christian seems to have a pretty amorphous meaning, to me.
There's a get out of jail card, but it's not free, believe me. Not only did someone die acquiring it, it wasn't even the person who was supposed to die. Beyond that, it was someone who was entirely blameless, even according to the man who gave the execution order. Even according to the murderer being executed alongside him. I did that. I put him there. And he forgave me. And I still do the things that put him there in the first place. And he still forgives.
I dunno, I find that to be a decent reason to strive to be moral.
The meaning of this isn't amorphous, man. Those who don't understand assign their own meanings to the word, but that doesn't define it. The original definition stands, no matter who tries to change it -- neither self-proclaimed Christians or otherwise.
I dunno, I find that to be a decent reason to strive to be moral.
I thought you said it was a
replacement for acting moral... (Otherwise you'd be "be up a creek" remember?) If I misunderstood that, I'm sorry.
The meaning of this isn't amorphous, man. Those who don't understand assign their own meanings to the word, but that doesn't define it. The original definition stands, no matter who tries to change it -- neither self-proclaimed Christians or otherwise.
So, and I've asked this before, what
do we call the
MILLLIONS of people who aren't
real Christians? And, how
do we determine the
real Christians? What if somebody thinks
you aren't a
real Christian, and you think the same of
them? Who is right? In the real world, it isn't cut and dried. At all.
Everyone fails to follow the teachings of Christ. Some do better than others, but even the most devoted follower of Christ screws up. Mother Theresa had her own private sins. The idea of being a Christian is to turn from sin and walk the other way instead of continuing in it. But you're right, there are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians but aren't. Or they are, but have fallen so far back into their old nature that they are useless as Christians.
I fear the results of my own hypocrisy every day. I try, but the day never goes by that I don't at least think something wrong about another person, cheat my employer by....oh, say, spending too much time on the web, or do something that leaves a bad example to others. Those are *good* days. But knowing Christ has your back is a good, peaceful feeling. It helps when you're feeling physically sick, when you're watching your dad battle cancer, when the money disappears, when someone cheats or otherwise hurts you, etc. etc., that no matter what happens, you are under the eye and protection of the almighty, and you will get strength to get through it. If I had to gain that kind of strength via "acting moral", I'd be up a creek.
Striving to be like Jesus is a good thing, even when you fail. It's those so-called Christians who criticise others for acting un-Christian that anger me, especially since they fail, too. And those who try to legislate me into Christianity need to stop.
As for Christ having your back? Sounds like a crutch, to me. He didn't cause those things, and he can't fix them, either, IMHO. I'm glad you get a good, peaceful feeling. Who gives you "the strength to get through it"? You do; it's all you.
So, and I've asked this before, what do we call the MILLLIONS of people who aren't real Christians? And, how do we determine the real Christians? What if somebody thinks you aren't a real Christian, and you think the same of them? Who is right? In the real world, it isn't cut and dried. At all.
Only God knows someone's heart, but by someone's actions you know what they believe. Someone can be a Christian and fail to convince me of the fact by their actions. That doesn't change the whether they are a Christian or not, but it does affect their credibility. At the same time, someone can follow every law in the bible to a T, but not have the love of Christ in their heart. So people's actions in the real world are not cut and dried. But who Christ is doesn't change. To mangle a certain wellknown verse, you can tell what kind of tree it is by the fruit that falls from its branches. That doesn't mean every single piece of fruit is good, unfortunately.
To continue mangling the metaphor, it seems like what you're asking is, "If someone claims to be an apple tree, how do I know if they're telling the truth?" Well, see if there are apples on the ground.
Striving to be like Jesus is a good thing, even when you fail. It's those so-called Christians who criticise others for acting un-Christian that anger me, especially since they fail, too. And those who try to legislate me into Christianity need to stop.
Christians are actually called to hold each other accountable for their actions. To people who aren't Christians, they're supposed to share the gospel. In love, not acting as judges. You're right, Christianity isn't about forcing false morality on people who don't believe it. But, from a human point of view -- this isn't from God, it's just my opinion, which is often wrong -- what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.
In the system of government we've set up, the vote will decide. If not directly, than representationally through the votes of congress. We'll just have to duke it out. This is an entirely secular process, where majority rules. It certainly doesn't favor God in any way.
As for Christ having your back? Sounds like a crutch, to me. He didn't cause those things, and he can't fix them, either, IMHO. I'm glad you get a good, peaceful feeling. Who gives you "the strength to get through it"? You do; it's all you.
Nope, I tried doing things with my own strength and found out it didn't work. I still do try it from time to time, but now that I've thrown in with Christ, the consequences are always the same. It just doesn't work. If that means I use a crutch, then a crutch is what I'll use.
There was a time when I didn't believe. I'm not totally blind to the other point of view. I still doubt. But when God speaks, you know it. It's idiocy to anyone else, but it's life itself to those who believe. It's like trying to explain snow to someone who lives in the Sahara. You can imagine aspects of it, conjure up reasonable fascimiles, and utterly convince yourself that you know all about where the other person is coming from (and be 100% sure that they're full of crap), but until the flakes fall on your face, you don't "get" it. It can't be explained into existence or out of existence, you have to be under it when it falls to know for sure. And you can go for years without ever seeing it again, and begin to doubt that you ever felt it in the first place. The metaphor can go on forever, but I've already taken it too far.
@ mr noodle.
from your photograph I can see you are a sensible and down to earth person who knows what the essense of christianity should be. I am glad you feel christ has your back and can rest in that.:)
As for myself ? To answer the question what is it to be a christian is simply following the golden rule. I try ,,try,,try not to be intolerant of those who are woefully unaware. I try to act in a way I want fellow humans to act toward me. I do fail alot being human.
I only know what being a christian is'nt...... so seven years ago I left organized religion. If I have any religion at all it is kept in my heart. I keep it between me and my conscience since in the end the only thing that will condem me is my own mind.
Just my opinion.
The Golden Rule in all religions
@
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
Ethic of reciprocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Tolerance
Ethical teaching interprets the Golden Rule as mutual respect for one's neighbour (rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule.) Most of us know that different people have different faith or ideological beliefs, different preferences concerning sex or other matters, and may belong to a different cultural heritage. From a "tolerance" perspective, the golden rule depends on everyone's ability to understand and give respect to such difference. George Bernard Shaw once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".
Some hold that the Golden Rule itself gives moral guidance on right and wrong. Others say this guiding rule may or may not explicitly tell one which actions or treatments are right or wrong. e.g., under the ethic of reciprocity, a person of atheist persuasion may have a (legal) right to insult religion under the right of freedom of expression but, as a personal choice, may refrain from doing so in public out of respect to the sensitivity of the other. Conversely, a person of religious persuasion may refrain from taking action against such public display out of respect to the sensitivity of other about the right of freedom of speech. Conversely, the lack of mutual respect might mean that each side might deliberately violate the golden rule as a provocation (to assert one's right) or as an intimidation (to prevent other from making offence).
To continue mangling the metaphor, it seems like what you're asking is, "If someone claims to be an apple tree, how do I know if they're telling the truth?" Well, see if there are apples on the ground.
I'm not really asking that. I can see if there are, in my opinion, "apples on the ground" or not, irrespective of how the person defines themself - as a Christian, or not. And those "apples" are only from my perspective, anyway.
I guess it just seems like to me the word Christian has a personal meaning to each person, based on their interpretation of the message of Jesus. So, that's as many different definitions as there are people in the world. That's not a very useful meaning for the word.
The meaning I use is: people who go to Christian churches, and/or define themselves as Christian, are Christians. Since I can't see into the heart of each and every one of them, I just
respect their personal wishes to be defined however they see fit. That seems like the most fair, and most clear, way to define the word, to me. That's because I am intending this to be a real world definition for an actual, tangible human institution.
Then a whole lot of people who call themselves Christian should stop. 'Cause they aren't. And they don't.
exactly.
But, if we use the word to describe the reality we actually see, it also means those people (which is a group that can't even be specified...)
I
The meaning I use is: people who go to Christian churches, and/or define themselves as Christian, are Christians. Since I can't see into the heart of each and every one of them, I just respect their personal wishes to be defined however they see fit. That seems like the most fair, and most clear, way to define the word, to me. That's because I am intending this to be a real world definition for an actual, tangible human institution.
hey you cheater. I posted that first!
see 'golden rule' of all religions ...posted BEFORE yours. :meanface:
heh heh heh
... what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.
Some legislation is
permissive, and some
restrictive, for want of a better decription. When legislation allows same-gender marriage for example, it doesn't mean that everyone, or for that matter
anyone,
must marry someone of the same gender. It permits behavior. On the other hand, legislation can restrict behavior. Mississippi has banned marital aids. This is very restrictive. Christians, conservatives, repubicans - however you want to label them - want to make everyone have the same values that they do. They rail against sex on TV, in movies and magazines, bad words in songs, calling Christmas anything other than Christmas, and they would be very happy to legislate enforcement of those things. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, too. I'll never force you to have an abortion, ok?
In love, not acting as judges. You're right, Christianity isn't about forcing false morality on people who don't believe it. But, from a human point of view -- this isn't from God, it's just my opinion, which is often wrong -- what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.
Sometimes the choice isn't over which set of values is infringed, but whether either of them are. If gay marriage is allowed, then neither set of values is infringed, any more than allowing televisions infringes on the values of the Amish. But if gay marriage is not allowed, than one set of values is being infringed. If a school organizes prayer, it is pushing that set of values, but they can't (and shouldn't try to) stop students from praying on their own time. If any administrator ever gets overzealous and starts confiscating Bibles, crucifixes, stars of David, pentagrams, etc because "you can't have religion in school", then they should be corrected firmly, but nobody's religion is being pushed either way by a principal failing to read the Lord's Prayer over the PA system.
I think you'll find that with few exceptions (abortion = murder being the big one), the issues that are considered "attacks" on Christianity don't actually affect Christians who weren't relying on the government to prop them up.
Questioning Christianity isn't bad. You're not supposed to just drink the kool-aid and act like a good boy.
Everyone always says this, but, isn't there only a certain amount of questioning that is logistically possible? I mean, at a certain point, your questioning either leads you "back in the fold" or you "jump ship" ...right? If you "jump ship" as a result of your questioning, then that questioning, while it wasn't dis-allowed, simply wasn't possible to carry to fruition, as a Christian. If the conclsuions found you "back in the fold" then it was.
There are only so many questions that can be asked, yes. But the answers you receive are largely a matter of what you're willing to see. If you are determined at the outset that only certain answers will be acceptable to you, or that certain criteria in your own mind must be met -- regardless of their relationship to the actual truth of the matter -- you are 50% less likely to come to the right conclusion. (math isn't my strong point, but you know what I mean)
If I stare at a glass of water and demand that it transplant itself into my stomach in order for me to believe that it quenches thirst, how am I ever going to know for sure?
Are you responding to my last post, right above yours? If so... I'm really confused.
(not directed to anyone in particular)
Why is it that the people who become most strident about discussions over "What it means to be Christian," are usually not Christian?
I can only answer for myself, but I do follow the message of Christ, and I just don't understand what I could possibly have to gain by calling myself Christian. It's fascinating, and a little frustrating, honestly, that I can't seem to get a coherent explanation regarding this. It usually ends up being "something that can't be explained, you just have to feel it in your heart" or whatever. That kind of non-logic just rubs me the wrong way.
A Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as their savior. That's all it means. If you have done this, it will reflect in your life -- but not 100% of the time, because the ever-present condition of sin is too much to be overcome by human willpower. Hence the need for salvation.
What answer are you looking for? What criteria have to be met before you consider the answer complete?
edited for clarity
That isn't exactly what you said it meant before now, so for starters, a criteria would be consistency. Then, we can address the issue that not everyone agrees with your definition, or definitions. So who is right? Not everybody can be right, so there can't be one right answer.
Unless you use the definition I do: Christians are people who choose to call themsleves Christians, and I respect whatever their reasons are.
Next, this would eliminate the sneaky "but those aren't real Christians" excuse which makes it literally impossible to ever criticize Christianity.
It's exactly what I said before. Jesus said he was the son of God and that he was sent to pay for our sins. If you believe the "message of Christ", you believe this. If you believe it, and accept it for yourself, bam! You're a Christian. Convincing anyone else that you are is your own task, of course.
I'm beginning to suspect that you don't want a real answer, you only want someone to agree with you that there is no set definition. But there is. And there are only so many ways to say the same thing.
From
some etymology site:Christian
O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863.
the passage in question:
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
It's exactly what I said before. Jesus said he was the son of God and that he was sent to pay for our sins. If you believe the "message of Christ", you believe this. If you believe it, and accept it for yourself, bam! You're a Christian. Convincing anyone else that you are is your own task, of course.
I'm beginning to suspect that you don't want a real answer, you only want someone to agree with you that there is no set definition. But there is. And there are only so many ways to say the same thing.
No, I believe the message of Christ as I read it, not as a dogmatic construct that has been interpreted by others, and, no I am not a Christian just because you say so. Christianity is a human social institution that I choose not to join, for my own reasons; just like others do choose to join, for their own reasons. And just because you have an answer that you think is right, it doesn't make it right for everybody. It's a real question and it doesn't have an easy answer, even if you keep repeating variations of the same theme.
I'm not convinced that there is a better definition than mine, because it is fair to everybody, and I don't have to impose it on anybody, the way your definition would be imposed on me (if I believed the right things exactly the same way you do). My earth-shattering idea is that if you say you are a Christian I just believe you.
How would you interpret
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father except through me
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father except through me.
I believe he is saying that if you understand his message, really understand it, then you are guaranteed of being on the right path.
(not directed to anyone in particular)
Why is it that the people who become most strident about discussions over "What it means to be Christian," are usually not Christian?
Sometimes it's a tool because they don't have anything smarter to talk about and since it's a good topic to hook someone in. It's whamy. An Instant star is born.
I might be wrong but for as long as I have watched these kind of supposed talks there's never any resolution so it has to be for something other than understanding? * shrug*
OR maybe it's about showing up the supposid lie inherent in it. There's an axe to grind. *shrug*
I wonder why we don't have threads about 'what it is to be a Satanist, witch or Pagan. Christianity is just a soft target. Like political affiliation.
Personally, I've always wanted to do a 'what is a pagan' thread.
I wonder why we don't have threads about 'what it is to be a Satanist, witch or Pagan. Christianity is just a soft target. Like political affiliation.
Personally, I've always wanted to do a 'what is a pagan' thread.
Because Pagans don't get caught doing stupid stuff like
this. And if they do, at least they don't come off as hypocrites.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - The president of America's National Association of Evangelicals, who has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage, resigned on Thursday after an accusation he had a sexual relationship with a male escort.
Ted Haggard, who denied the accusation, also "resigned temporarily" as senior pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, according to a statement from the church.
"I've never had a gay relationship with anyone," Haggard said in an interview with Denver television station KUSA on Wednesday night. "I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife."
The New Life Church statement said Haggard could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
Didn't Mari talk about these guys in a thread somewhere?
This week Bill Maher's joke was "Republicans are against gay marriage, because they know that congressman need to be able to play the field." Maybe that's why this guy was against gay marriage.
I think many so-called Christians pick and choose what they will take literally from the Bible. The parts that are contradictory or impossible are argued to be an allegory or parable. The differences in interpretation are the root of the various religious sects. And each sect insists that they are the ones with the 'truth'. Some say to just live as Christ-like as possible, others say every word in the Bible is accurate. Therefore, I refuse to buy into any one person or group of peoples proclamation that their way is the right way, and that they (and only they) have the correct path to salvation. I submit that I have as much right to my own interpretation as anyone else.
Maybe God is just another name for the 'highest power' (along with Jehovah, Jesus, Yahwen, Elohim, Allah, Brahman, Ekam, Deus, etc.). Maybe the existence of this supreme being is too expansive for our minds to comprehend so we create rules, rituals and symbols to help us feel more in control of our insignificant little lives. Just as with civilization itself, we need for religion to have form and substance. Maybe our narrow-minded views of God and religion stems from the same ignorance and lack of comprehension that spurred the theories of a flat earth, a solitary planet or solar system.
Then again, maybe God did send Christ, his only-begotten son, to die for our sins so that we can gain salvation and go to heaven. Speaking of heaven, what and where is that exactly? Is it a black hole? Another planet? A different plane of existance? Utopia somewhere in space? Or is it a reborn 'earth' (if so, how will we fit generations of the saved on our little earth?)
I find it fascinating that people will put forth impassioned arguements regarding the legalistic interpretation of the Bible and yet expect so much to be taken on 'faith'. How convenient that portions of the Bible such as the Creation or the Flood described in Genesis can be disregarded when it contradicts science or common sense.
apart from transubstantiation, the nature of the trinity has caused more schisms within Christianity than pretty much anything else :P
I think many so-called Christians pick and choose what they will take literally from the Bible. The parts that are contradictory or impossible are argued to be an allegory or parable. The differences in interpretation are the root of the various religious sects. And each sect insists that they are the ones with the 'truth'. Some say to just live as Christ-like as possible, others say every word in the Bible is accurate. Therefore, I refuse to buy into any one person or group of peoples proclamation that their way is the right way, and that they (and only they) have the correct path to salvation. I submit that I have as much right to my own interpretation as anyone else.
This is how we're supposed to look at it, IMO. Religion is not the answer, God is. You can go directly to God, and don't need priests, bishops, preachers, or any other go-between. That doesn't mean that church is a bad thing -- far from it. By associating with other believers, you get lots of benefits. You can hold each other accountable, discuss faith, pray for each other. Flying solo all the time doesn't do much for most people; most often, it occurs because churches or church leaders have failed people. This guy in Colorado Springs is a perfect example. He has 14,000 or something people in his church. I would be willing to bet that half of them never enter a church building again because their faith has been so trampled on. If 500 people show up for services next week, they'll be lucky.
The reason is that people are looking for good examples. Especially when it comes to God stuff, which is so difficult to figure out on your own, people want someone to stand up and say "I have it all figured out, listen to me". Unfortunately, there are all too many people who are willing to step into that position. That makes the churchgoer tend to stop at the preacher. Why study for yourself, or make direct appeals to God, when so-and-so is so obviously better qualified? Catholicism is the most egregious example of this mindset, but it extends to every sect.
But the pastor is only human, too. He or she has the same temptations, weaknesses, and proclivities as anyone sitting in the pews or walking by on the street outside. That's why it's so important for a pastor to be a servant, and not some kind of Moses-like figurehead. When you get too much power, and aren't accountable to anyone, and start telling people you are the final expert on all things moral and ethical, you are already doomed to fail, and spectacularly. And all the people who mistakenly put their faith in a person instead of in God will have that faith shattered, and many never recover spiritually. That makes the CO Springs guy's hypocrisy so damaging.
Maybe God is just another name for the 'highest power' (along with Jehovah, Jesus, Yahwen, Elohim, Allah, Brahman, Ekam, Deus, etc.). Maybe the existence of this supreme being is too expansive for our minds to comprehend so we create rules, rituals and symbols to help us feel more in control of our insignificant little lives. Just as with civilization itself, we need for religion to have form and substance. Maybe our narrow-minded views of God and religion stems from the same ignorance and lack of comprehension that spurred the theories of a flat earth, a solitary planet or solar system.
Mostly agree. God is just another name for someone who we lack the ability to comprehend, and our need to have things neatly tucked into cubbyholes is where most religion comes from.
Then again, maybe God did send Christ, his only-begotten son, to die for our sins so that we can gain salvation and go to heaven.
That's what Jesus said, and unless he was perpetuating a giant fraud or was clinically insane, I have no reason to doubt him.
Speaking of heaven, what and where is that exactly? Is it a black hole? Another planet? A different plane of existance? Utopia somewhere in space? Or is it a reborn 'earth' (if so, how will we fit generations of the saved on our little earth?)
Who knows? Doesn't matter, really, once you have accepted how limited our comprehension of God is.
I find it fascinating that people will put forth impassioned arguements regarding the legalistic interpretation of the Bible and yet expect so much to be taken on 'faith'. How convenient that portions of the Bible such as the Creation or the Flood described in Genesis can be disregarded when it contradicts science or common sense.
The legalism is no longer necessary because of Christ. He fulfilled the law and released us from it by his sacrifice. It's just hard for people to let go of. Does that mean that I can do whatever sin I want without fear of consequences? No, it means that if you've accepted Christ as your lord and king, your spirit changes so that you want to do what is right and acceptable to God.
Did creation occur exactly as we perceive, based on the words in the KJV version of Genesis? 7 calendar days, as measured by the earth's rotation? Not likely. It's a convenient way to discount all things of God for people who like to nitpick. It's a convenient way to discount the natural process of evolution for people who are afraid that to think scientifically is an affront to God. But regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the Genesis account, nature itself points to the hand of a creator. Different thread.
There's quite a bit of evidence for the flood, it's not as popular a whipping boy for atheists as it once was.
I dunno. People are weak, God is strong. Put your faith in the latter, not the former. Serve both. The formula has never failed.
Religion is not the answer, God is. You can go directly to God, and don't need priests, bishops, preachers, or any other go-between.
I agree, and I add that you don't need to call yourself any special words, or join any special clubs.
By associating with other believers, you get lots of benefits.
From my perspective, I see more drawbacks than benefits to approaching spirituality as an organized group activity.
Flying solo all the time doesn't do much for most people; most often, it occurs because churches or church leaders have failed people.
How do you reach your "most often" conclusion? Perhaps some people just do things differently, for their own various personal reasons.
I agree, and I add that you don't need to call yourself any special words, or join any special clubs.
Yep, it's the biggest weakness of "church" -- it tends to become clubbish. But no one ever seems to mind joining any other body; go to a sports bar on Sunday afternoon and there are plenty of people wearing jerseys and quoting statistics at each other who didn't go to church that morning because they were so independent minded. :lol:
From my perspective, I see more drawbacks than benefits to approaching spirituality as an organized group activity.
Agree. But there is a pretty big difference between associating with people who believe like you do (which, again, people do all the time; it's only when the label "church" is applied that they get nervous), and getting your spirituality from someone else. See previous post about trusting God vs. trusting what someone says.
How do you reach your "most often" conclusion? Perhaps some people just do things differently, for their own various personal reasons.
Oh, definitely. This is just personal experience. For every person I've met who says "I don't go to church, I never have and never will," there are a dozen who say "I don't go to church anymore because my parents made me when I was a kid" or "I had a bad experience" or "someone from a church did something bad to me, and therefore I don't trust any of them". It's not universal, just what I've seen in my life.
Point of contention with me: It's okay for people to make a generalization like "Christians just want to force their morals on everyone" -- it's instantly agreed to, or if not, the opposing voice feels he or she has to remain silent so they don't offend, or God forbid, open their mouth and voice their opinion, thus proving the statement. But any generalization that comes from the mouth of a Christian immediately gets a wave of criticism and nitpicking. In milder cases, it's something like "You can't make generalizations like that, see that's what I hate about Christianity".
Occasionally it's more venomous, along the lines of "Oh I suppose you want me to go stone some homosexuals now" or "lol, I saw you sin the other day, hypocrite". That doesn't happen on the Cellar, thankfully. But elsewhere, the argument always plays out the same way: people have done just enough research that the discussion starts with a very few select bible verses that are wielded like foils, used only to parry someone else's out-of-context verses.
Once they've been exhausted, it devolves into, "Well, Christians are narrow-minded, and that's that. I have my own thing, so stop pushing your crutch on me", to which someone replies, "You wouldn't understand, you're hopelessly ignorant of all things spiritual." We work hard to stay civil here and maintain open dialogue, but the phenomenon taints even Cellar discussions. It would be kind of refreshing if people would actually take the time to research the issues beyond trying to bolster their prejudices (both sides). Read the bible, take the whole work in context, and find out if its message is true or false. So few people even attempt it, because they either don't want to be challenged on their faith, are scared of having their mind changed and possibly having to examine their own life, or can't stop being argumentative long enough to be objective.
We work hard to stay civil here and maintain open dialogue, but the phenomenon taints even Cellar discussions. It would be kind of refreshing if people would actually take the time to research the issues beyond trying to bolster their prejudices (both sides). Read the bible, take the whole work in context, and find out if its message is true or false.
I understand what you mean, but you're making an assumption that the criticism is made out of ignorance, aren't you?
It would be kind of refreshing if people would actually take the time to research the issues beyond trying to bolster their prejudices (both sides). Read the bible, take the whole work in context, and find out if its message is true or false. So few people even attempt it, because they either don't want to be challenged on their faith, are scared of having their mind changed and possibly having to examine their own life, or can't stop being argumentative long enough to be objective.
As you said, this holds true for both sides. A great many Christians are adament that they (aka their church) and they alone have the answers and know the 'truth' about God when in fact, they have absolutely no idea (or have a distorted view via their church's teachings) what other churches, religions or faiths believe.
Too many people are quick to judge and condemn anyone who is outside their circle of believers. They wrap themselves up in their piety and feel smugly superior to the 'uninformed'. If they took the time to actually study and research other beliefs with an open mind, they might just find the basis upon which most religions are based has a similar theme and a great many of the differences are merely semantics.
Stormie
Edit:
I think the biggest weakness/strength of the church is that it prays on the lazy... then creates/encourages lazy people.
Faith takes work, VERY HARD, constant, diligent work... "but it you just listen to me I can cut through all of that and give you the inside line, just help us pay for all this stuff, most of it (less than 10% on average in reality) is going to help others!" is religion's line & it is total BS. (Instead of line I wanted to say schpeal but I don't know how to spell it)
If it were, "we are a group of like-minded/faith(ed) people who want to help each other on our path" that would be fine... "we will only take/use as much as it takes to maintain our infrastructure and no more, there will be no associates that work for the institute, as it will be for all our benefit, we will all volunteer...." you get the idea. (The Mormon Church tries to say that they do this, it is a lie, they are, I think, the fourth richest company in the US, if churches were listed in those rankings. With associates intentionally placed in high ranking political positions, both locally and nationally. As opposite from that ideal as you can get).
Also... if that were true, there would be no dogma, especially stuff like some guy in Europe decides to make-up the rapture and everyone buys it. All the descendants of Calvinism with their Dooms Day shit (Though Watchtower is a blast to read) that never comes to pass and takes the focus off of the word.
It is all smoke and mirrors to INTENTIONALLY take the focus off of your personal relationship with your Savior and God so you are dependent/addicted to the fear/salvation cycle that they get you hooked-on.
The pay off is as much as you will shell out to keep from going to hell. I have never met a preacher in a poor neighborhood that did not live twice as well as his flock, & I have known a lot of them and am related to two.
These snake-oil salesmen prey on the fact that it IS scary that your fate is in your hands alone, that you don't have any talismans or magic yellow brick roads laid-out in front of you..."Don't go astray or you will go to hellllllll!"
It is very easy to fall for that comfort, "perhaps they do know what God wants from me and all I have to do is accept their interpretation of the Bible (even though they do not have a thorough understanding of the historical time period in which it is referring to and they always interpret what it says in today's social framework), that way I don't have to feel like I alone in this."
But, they are not if they truly have faith, God is always with them and their heart really, TRULY, knows what is right, what path to take... that is what meditation and prayer are for. If you believe you know that you have a part of God in you... that will show you the way if you learn how to listen to it, really listen with the Word of Jesus as a guide.
Having a supportive community, there to help you as fellow faithful and one that preys on the insecurity of that relationship in a position of authority and dogma, teaching "Us-&-Them", the farthest thing from anything Christ ever stated, are two different things.... I have yet to find the first.
You just can’t put an individual in a position of power like that, especially one that makes people so vulnerable.
Pride is our one great weakness, that pathway to sin that is greased with our most basic animal urges. All of the Seven Deadlies (though not Biblical) are all sins of Pride, in one form or another.
To place an individual where their ego is between the faithful and God is just so much temptation that one cannot expect that most will succumb to some form of pride…
The solution, there is no one individual that is the interpreter, the authority, the final word on the Word but what you know in your heart to be true and right based on the teachings of Christ (not the OT). If a group forms, it is just that…. A GROUP, all equal in discussion and discourse for the purpose of spiritual kinship and learning, never authority, profit, regulation; or, especially, dogma.
I understand what you mean, but you're making an assumption that the criticism is made out of ignorance, aren't you?
Selective hearing and willful ignorance, many times. Perhaps the unwillingness to expand the discussion beyond the framework of one's prejudices. Both sides can be guilty of this, but I make every effort not to be.
There is a point beyond which there are no further points to be made, though -- that's often misconstrued as victory or defeat for one side of the argument or the other. For me, that point in the argument is: "Do you believe Jesus said this, and if so, was he truthful?" One can manufacture all kinds of reasoning that skirts that question or attempts to apply hidden meaning to his words, or tries to dilute them with modern sensibilities. But if I have a cop-out, that's it: At some point, you have to argue with Christ, not with me. I can't make his arguments as eloquently as he can, and I can't explain the things that he didn't explain himself. Otherwise, I'd have my own bible. I haven't fulfilled many 700 year old prophecies lately, though.
At some point, you have to argue with Christ, not with me.
I have nothing to argue with Christ about. I agree with everything he said.
I think the biggest weakness/strength of the church is that it prays on the lazy... then creates/encourages lazy people.
Faith takes work, VERY HARD, constant, diligent work... "but it you just listen to me I can cut through all of that and give you the inside line, just help us pay for all this stuff, most of it (less than 10% on average in reality) is going to help others!" is religion's line & it is total BS. (Instead of line I wanted to say schpeal but I don't know how to spell it)
If it were, "we are a group of like-minded/faith(ed) people who want to help each other on our path" that would be fine... "we will only take/use as much as it takes to maintain our infrastructure and no more, there will be no associates that work for the institute, as it will be for all our benefit, we will all volunteer...." you get the idea. (The Mormon Church tries to say that they do this, it is a lie, they are, I think, the fourth richest company in the US, if churches were listed in those rankings. With associates intentionally placed in high ranking political positions, both locally and nationally. As opposite from that ideal as you can get).
Also... if that were true, there would be no dogma, especially stuff like some guy in Europe decides to make-up the rapture and everyone buys it. All the descendants of Calvinism with their Dooms Day shit (Though Watchtower is a blast to read) that never comes to pass and takes the focus off of the word.
It is all smoke and mirrors to INTENTIONALLY take the focus off of your personal relationship with your Saviour and God so you are dependent/addicted to the fear/salvation cycle that they get you hooked-on.
The pay off is as much as you will shell out to keep from going to hell. I have never met a preacher in a poor neighborhood that did not live twice as well as his flock, & I have known a lot of them and am related to two.
You have just outlined why the first in line for judgement will be the "false prophets" a.k.a most televangelist types.
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
This was before Benny Hinn. This was within 50 years of the death of Jesus.
Regardless of when and under what context, that scripture describes an inevitable aspect of human nature.
This is why the Thomas books were not included in the Nicene Creed. IMO, that it has to to with the divinity of Christ is BS. There are other references in included text to Christ as a man.
The reason was all the referenced to the individual relationship between the individual and God and how all people are to be lead to God, not just a select few or ANY form of specific inclusion.
Really, this is the core of what pissed-off the Jewish authorities. His teaching that they were not special.
The Gospel, on many levels, threatens the Church's role in faith, Paul's legacy, and the true nature of Christ in the Church's view (it must remain as unattainable as possible to keep the rubes payin'-up and the butts in the pews).
Regardless of when and under what context, that scripture describes an inevitable aspect of human nature.
Exactly. And even when the memory of Jesus being alive on earth was still fresh, people were trying to get rich off his religion. But this wasn't a condemnation of the faith then, nor is it now. It's a warning
to Christiansagainst those who warp faith for their own greed. It's a condemnation
from within the church itself, to the church, and not published for view by outside eyes against falsehood. That disproves the assertion that televangelists, et al, are representative of the faith.
This is why the Thomas books were not included in the Nicene Creed. IMO, that it has to to with the divinity of Christ is BS. There are other references in included text to Christ as a man.
The reason was all the referenced to the individual relationship between the individual and God and how all people are to be lead to God, not just a select few or ANY form of specific inclusion.
Really, this is the core of what pissed-off the Jewish authorities. His teaching that they were not special.
The Gospel, on many levels, threatens the Church's role in faith, Paul's legacy, and the true nature of Christ in the Church's view (it must remain as unattainable as possible to keep the rubes payin'-up and the butts in the pews).
By the time we get to Constantinople, the message is already being diluted, and confusion is already setting in because church leaders are already "forgetting where they came from" so to speak. Paul was a well-respected leader in the Jewish community who himself sought out and killed members of this dangerous new sect of Jesus-followers. After his conversion, he continued to follow Jewish law, although he believed that Jesus had eliminated the need for it. He did it so as not to become a stumbling block (his words) for those who followed it themselves. He considered himself a "Jew's Jew" throughout his ministry.
The passage you're referring to does not have anything to do with the divinity of Christ in and of itself, nor was I intending to purport it as doing so. TBH, I'm having a little trouble parsing your post. What are you getting at?
I did wander....
Basically, IMO, the text was removed because it speaks the most about the personal relationship between the individual and God.
Not what most scholars mouth, that it discussed Christ's manhood (as they were deciding on his divinity at Nicene), because other texts that made it in also mentioned his human side.
The text undermines the foundation of the Church, that people NEED it to get to God.
Ironically, it has the most verifiable direct quotations of His from a reliable source than any other text.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm
Range of definitions of "Christian:"
There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:
Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
Been baptized as an infant, or
Gone to church regularly, or
Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.
Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.
Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."
What people can agree on, and what they cannot:
With a bit of effort, one can sometimes collect a random group of adults and have them reach a consensus on a definition of: Who is an Evangelical Christian, or
Who is a Roman Catholic, or
Who is an Eastern Orthodox believer, or
Who follows the Historical Protestant faith, or
Who is a Pentecostal, or
Who is a Mormon, or
Who is a Jehovah's Witness,
etc.
But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.
Problems arising from exclusion and inclusion:
This web site uses an inclusive definition of Christianity -- the same one that is used by public opinion polls and government census offices: Anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian for the purpose of our essays.
The alternative is religious exclusion.
T
he percentage of persons who identify themselves as Christian, currently about 75%, is dropping almost one percentage point per year.
What is interesing about the last bold quote is America is becomming polarized in 'pockets' of Christianity. Typically republican states who the republican party pander too.
btw....which I find interesting
The alternative is religious exclusion.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?
There's nothing wrong with that - except that lots of people who belong to any particular religion think eveyone else should belong to, or at least respect, their religion. That alone is annoying at best - but in this age of nucular weapons and airplanes, its become downright scary.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?
Nothing, religions exclude all the time. It was an emphasis about the article itself.
The article included all people who from the original list who thought of themselves to be Christian otherwise it would be exclusion of which for the most part the opinion polls are not biased toward.
By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.
By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.
And thats the mistake that many many Christians make. They think oh I'm doing x y and staying away from z to get into heaven yayz!!1!, and you aren't so you're doomed to hell you evil person you. When in fact we are not the ones who decide what happens or where we go or whatever. It is truly not our place to judge or make claims to anyone's destination inside or outside our faith. And in my opinion, just like you said rk, those who do need to shut up and focus on other things.
By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.
I am not sure to whom this was addressed. I have to change the 'yourself' to all' institutions of religions' in order to try and put in in the context of my post.
People define themselves by the contraints of thier religion. So when you use the personal 'yourself' as judge I get confused because I was talking about 'religion' as a whole. The original article I refered to did not exclude for purposes of not getting on tangents like this.
I guess I don't know what you are talking about.
Nothing, religions exclude all the time. It was an emphasis about the article itself.
The article included all people who from the original list who thought of themselves to be Christian otherwise it would be exclusion of which for the most part the opinion polls are not biased toward.
But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm& they don't need to... that is not the point. It is a personal relationship, not a group effort.
& they don't need to... that is not the point. It is a personal relationship, not a group effort.
A group effort to find a group consensus on what a christain is. Point of this thread.
end of story. Im done with this [edit] flim-flamery.:rolleyes: