Well, I got this itching to start a thread about this, since lately I've had the subject barging into my life a lot. So here it is, the topic that will (probably inevitably) offend someone on some side of the whole thing no matter how hard I try to stop it. But oh, am I going to try. I'm just going to start off by saying, obviously, that I'm not going to tolerate trolling or flaming in this thread, since it's not tolerated anywhere on the forums, but I'm going to be a nazi about this thread. So before you say something, make sure it's not rude. You can disagree with people without being a total jerk. You get one warning maximum, and if the offense is blatant enough, no warnings. Second, we are following the principle of falsifiability in this thread. In basic terms, "A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false". I'm making this thread for learning and debate purposes, not for people to say "i belev in God an ur a mofo bish cuz u dont" or "scinse is da best an it sez no God, if u don like sicence den u a stopid bakwerds persin". Every person who has at least a little common sense should know that there is no proof for or against the existence of God. So that's not the discussion here. 'What is the discussion?' you may ask. The discussion is Christian theology and beliefs, the Bible and its contents, and maybe just the different concepts of what it means to be 'Christian'. It's surprising how many people have different ideas of what Christians are supposed to be or what they are trying to be, actually. I consider myself very well-learned in this area, so I'll answer questions or clear up confusion wherever I can. Of course, some of what I say may not mesh with what other Christians say, or what you think you know about Christians, but I have a very solid argument for almost everything, or at least I like to think so. So go ahead! Questions, comments, ideas, anything? Edit: If it wasn't clear, this thread isn't just for people who are Christians Anybody can post here, of course.
To be Christian is to be like Christ, following his example. Be kind and treat your fellow being as humanely as possible. And as much as I don't care to say this, Love and tolerate. No, don't just tolerate, accept. Be an example of a person that shows compassion for other people. The Christ was a person who stood up to defend those without a defense.(He who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.) I'm not religious, but if there were more people who lived like he did. We'd have a lot less to complain about.
Alternatively, to advertise oneself as Christian is, via the association with Christian doctrines, to apply the beliefs contained within those doctrines to oneself in everyday conversation. There's this huge idea in America (and a few other countries, too, but I'm familiar with the American perspective due to our history with the various waves of Christian "enlightenment" and the kind that have swept through our history) that being a Christian is to be like Jesus Christ. That's all well and good, but Jesus Christ endorsed Peter as the foundation of the church that would follow and in saying "Be like Jesus" one casually insinuates that to be Christian is, ultimately, to be Catholic. One can see how this would be politically incorrect. Many wars have been fought over this distinction, so obviously there is a perceived difference. It is also worthy of note that there have been many people throughout history who have garnered followings and spoken of teachings comparable to those of the storied Jesus Christ. Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, Mohammed and Gandhi are good comparisons. If one is a follower of Gandhi, a man who preached the same teachings of love and tolerance that some Christians say are the only necessary Christian teachings, is a follower of Gandhi always a Christian? It is easy to say they are not. This, too, introduces a problem in the "to be a Christian is to follow Christ" belief. Furthermore, it is especially important to all Christians that there also be a God acknowledged as the creator of mankind and the universe (although the context and limits of such things are debated, and that debate belongs elsewhere). Therefore, all Christians must at least believe in their unique interpretation of the Abrahamic God (differing from the Jewish and Muslim perception of what is often considered to be the same God by some scholars). There are also certain qualifiers within the Bible, the main Christian religious text, for determining whether or not a person is adhering to Christian doctrine; some examples include the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. There is also a problem with ignoring those parts of the Bible while accepting the stories of Jesus Christ as being an accurate description of his character, primarily because those stories of Jesus are also contained within the Bible, and so some weighty argument must certainly be put forth for not adhering to the aforementioned doctrines (Ten Commandments, et cetera). I hope that this commentary on the matter might at least cast into doubt the relevance of the "to be Christian is to follow Christ" statement. I have found that this statement is profoundly inaccurate in addition to being an oversimplification of the more complex Christian doctrines, likely born out of western cultural perceptions and misconceptions of Christianity. I do enjoy Christianity (and all religion) as philosophical commentary, so this post has been a joy to write.
Hmmm, I would say it is perhaps an oversimplification, but not particularly inaccurate. Simply incomplete. Just because you follow Christ does not mean you cannot also follow the rest of the bible, but it would be folly to assume that one ONLY must follow Christ to be a Christian.
I'm going to start with the first inconsistency in the Bible. "On the seventh day, God rested." The entire basis of Judeo-Christian religion is that God is omnipotent. The "God rested" bit calls this into question, because a truly omnipotent being would have no need for rest.
Well, bringing back what we discussed before, Ridley, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) does not have to be taken literally. A good number of Christians do take it literally, but I don't think that's the way it was meant to be. A lot of the old testament is comparable to parables, stories that aren't always accurate or even true at all, but are in the Bible to make a point or teach you something. The biggest indicator of this: look up the translations of the names of a lot of people in the old testament, and their names will correlate with their character; amusingly similar to MLP characters. How is this possible? Did their parents somehow know what they would be like before they named them? Did they all turn out that way by mere coincidence? I think that many of them are simply characters in a story that was written to teach a lesson. That is not to say the whole old testament is a fabrication, because there are obviously a lot of things that correlate with historical records, but it does mean that everyone reading the bible, Christian or not, should make sure they look into things a little deeper than taking it word-for-word. The Israelites were not exactly concerned with keeping accurate historical records; the old testament, for them, was most likely a way to teach right and wrong through storytelling. Whether those stories had a little fluff added throughout the ages to keep them interesting didn't really matter to them, as long as the morals were still there. My guess would be that God 'resting' on the seventh day is simply symbolic of their belief - that they were to have one day of rest. If even God obeyed that rule, then who would dare to think they were high enough not to follow it, right? Secondly, a much more simple counter to your point is that just because he does not need to rest does not mean he cannot rest.
I don't have much time to post. What I believe is that Jesus is our savior. He died so that we may live. He is the son of God. Anyone can gain eternal life. There are no exceptions or exclusions in that. As long as you accept Him as your savior, repent of your sins and do what He commands then you can be saved. God is love.
Well i would like to say as a Mormon that The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus for those who didn't know And question: Why do Christians hate on bisexual and homosexuals as the bible clearly says "Judge not, and thou shall not be judged?"
The bible describes it as sinful. But as you said, judging people is a sin in and of itself. My former preacher spoke on this and said that even if our beliefs see it as being wrong, it's also wrong to pass judgement on those who are involved in it.
Is he? Why would a loving god give mankind free will, and then punish those who choose to think for themselves?
Agreed, although in some cases to be incomplete is to represent an inaccuracy. I want everyone to address this question thoughtfully, as it is actually a real problem in many philosophical accounts of Christian texts.
Rockout has got it right. Well, actually, first of all I'd like to point out that the passage stating that it's sinful to lie with another man is in the old testament. Make of that what you will. Secondly, yes. Christians judge about an awful lot of things, not just this, and they forget that they sin too. The bible talks so many times about this, such as "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" or "remove the plank from your eye before you point out the speck in another's eye". It's pretty amazing how many people have managed to completely overlook it. To be totally honest, the whole flexible gender thing weirds me out. But that doesn't mean I think that people who are like that are inherently any worse than me, or anyone else. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", right? Relative to God, it doesn't matter how much we've sinned, because the ratio of 1:0 is the same as 100:0. We're all infinitely more sinful than God, so how can we judge each other? I have plenty of friends who are not straight, and although it just seems wrong to me, they're still great people. I love them tons. I do plenty of things that are wrong too, things that people see and things nobody knows about but me and God. I'm no better than the rest of us. Here's another misconception, I think. Well, this is what I believe, at least. I'm sure there are some people (namely baptists) who would disagree with me. First, let me remind you that we all have free will and we all will make wrong choices. It's inevitable and it means that everyone would be going to Hell if it wasn't for Jesus taking our place. So once again, even though 'sinners go to Hell' is accurate, it implies that there is actually a group of people who are NOT sinners, which is untrue. Now, with that said, imagine you are a 'god'. You create a bunch of little people. Do you make them so that they love you unconditionally no matter what? Or do you give them the choice to choose not to? If you choose the former, does that love really mean anything if they didn't choose it? God isn't punishing us for thinking freely. You can make any choice you want, one just results in happiness and the others result in the opposite. Just as in real life, you can choose to love people around you or to shun them. Are they punishing you by not giving you love, attention, or gifts, even though you avoid them and ignore them? Of course not. It is a consequence of your own choice.
Think about this, God sent his only son, to die in an extremely awful and horrible way, with the weight of all the sins of everyone throughout all of time and history. All of the murder, lies, betrayal, etc. Jesus died so that those sins would be forgiven. Why does god let bad things happen to good people? Because of the consequences and because he uses those experiences to strengthen us. I went to Paraguay last summer with my church youth group. While we were there we gave bullying presentations in schools and shared the gospel to around 3,000 children. During these presentations we did skits. I was set to play the role in a skit but due to accident, I was injured and was unable to perform the role. The girl who replace me was a really good friend of mine. I found myself becoming angry and jealous because I felt she had stolen my spotlight. She was receiving the praise that I thought I deserved. My youth pastor and his wife noticed, and brought me aside to discuss the issue. God showed me through that discussion that because of my lack of self confidence and selfishness I was hurting my friend. I realized that because I had never noticed this, I was ruining relationships with others and ultimately ruining my relationship with God. God allowed me to get a concussion and be sidelined in order to teach me, and for that I am forever thankful.
[video=youtube;-suvkwNYSQo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo[/video] I'm with Steven Fry on this one. If God really loved us (let alone existed), why would he create creatures and diseases that cause suffering for millions across the earth? To say it's a way of strengthening us as people is a crock of **** and quite frankly only a person who hasn't got all their faculties in the right place.
Without disease, we would not die from aging. The world would overpopulate, resources would deplete, and we would suffer regardless. Think of those who endure such diseases and, while they may lose their battles, think of the ones they inspire along the way. We are not promised tomorrow so we should live for today.
I'm not a Christian but doesn't God love everything? Maybe he loves the cancer cells as much as he loves us? Why would he only love us out of everything he created?
Well, what he says makes a great lot of sense at first glance. In fact, I think everyone thinks that at least once in their lives. And it's probably the most commonly made point against God, whether he exists or not, as well as one of the strongest ones. Why would God create horrible things in the world, such as parasitic insects, diseases, killer animals, and other things that cause us suffering? Well, I obviously don't have a direct line to Him, but I can tell you what I think about it. It's not exactly about strengthening us as people, though hardships do strengthen us as people. It's not about being selfish or cruel or maniacal, either. Think about it for a second. Imagine for a minute that there was nothing bad in the world. No sickness, or parasites. Just us people and the beneficial things in the world. Sounds great, right? But it's not. Because nobody would think they needed God then. Nobody would come to him seeking help. People would think they could make it on their own. People would say, "screw God, my life is fine, I don't need him". And the thing about the world being perfect is that it wouldn't change the fact that we do need God, if we want to live happily after we die, which is what really matters. I've thought a lot about this, and I have come to a conclusion. I will be honest, it's not really provable, it's just conjecture. But it would explain an awful lot of things. I think that God has quite little free will of his own when it comes to us. Here's an example. If God is truly a 100% just and fair God, he cannot 'fudge it' to let someone through to Heaven because he wants to, even though he is omnipotent. To abuse his omnipotence would be for him to become imperfect, and since he is by nature perfect, he cannot choose to do that, even though he would be able to if he COULD make that choice. So, God cannot let someone who sins through just cause he's a nice guy, at least not directly. He's boxed in by his own rules. So what does he do? He creates a loophole: Jesus. In a big symbolic gesture, God puts a human version of himself into the world, who is at the same time not God, and Jesus sacrifices himself, dying in our place, goes to Hell instead of us for three days even though he never sinned, and then comes back. And God says, hey, now all you have to do is a) believe that Jesus did this for you, and b) love me enough to follow me, and you 'cheat' the system in a way, because all of your sins are then transferred to Jesus, making you without sin, de facto. God's gift to us, because he loves us. An escape from eternal torment. Why do you have to believe that Jesus did this for you to get into Heaven? Why do you have to love God to get into Heaven? Why are there such 'stringent' restrictions on who gets in? Why do I have to do what God says? Why can't he just give it to me? (Yeah, it sounds pretty selfish when you put it that way, huh?) It's because you can't receive a gift you don't accept. If you don't accept the gift he's giving you, it's your choice, and not God's, where you're going. I know that was a crap ton of text. I know it's probably hard to follow. If you have any questions about it, or think you found a hole in my logic, go ahead and reply to it. I'm probably not gonna get insulted. :3
