Christ Would Oppose USA?

Cockney_Blue · February 9, 2009, 11:05pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which is exactly why the Roman Catholic church resisted having Bibles printed in the common tongue, they wanted to retain the control of not just the words but how they were interpreted.

We aren’t a “bible church,” we’re much more apostolic. But even so, what time period are you talking about here?

Protestants have gone a step in the right direction by working out that everyone should have the direct link with God. Unfortunately they are still using the same source material so they haven’t quite questioned deeply enough.

I was under the impression you were an atheist. Have I misread you? [/quote]

Time period from 500 years ago up to present in terms of Catholic church wanting to control people’s understanding of the bible not just the content of the bible.

Yes I am an atheist. I think Protestants have taken a step in the right direction by saying they want to have a personal relationship with God through the Bible, the problem is that they don’t go the next step and question the Bible itself.

I have far more time for deists than for protestants as there is no way to prove there is no god however as far as I have seen everything can be pretty well explained with no recourse to a god so I see no need to add one to the model

(I fully accept that I may be wrong though but it would need to be a pretty capricious and devious god to fit the available data.)

Cockney_Blue · February 9, 2009, 11:08pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Do evangelicals really teach that you just have to say some words? I had the impression that for them repentance and conversion had to be true in the mind, heart, and soul (however you want to put it), also.

Well, yeah you’re supposed to believe what you are saying of course. Still, it’s pretty much the act of actually voicing that repentance/conversion that gets you the ticket in though (at least from my understanding).

Hmm. Maybe I’ll look it up myself later. However, even from just what you’re saying here, we’re talking about a true repentance. And not simply saying some words, just in case. [/quote]

The Catholic Church during the middle ages had the right idea, live a sinful life yourself then pay the church for a get out of hell card, set up a fund to pay for people to pray for you after you die and you are golden!

Sentoguy · February 9, 2009, 11:20pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Do evangelicals really teach that you just have to say some words? I had the impression that for them repentance and conversion had to be true in the mind, heart, and soul (however you want to put it), also.

Well, yeah you’re supposed to believe what you are saying of course. Still, it’s pretty much the act of actually voicing that repentance/conversion that gets you the ticket in though (at least from my understanding).

Hmm. Maybe I’ll look it up myself later. However, even from just what you’re saying here, we’re talking about a true repentance. And not simply saying some words, just in case. [/quote]

Yes, we are talking about a change of heart, realizing that you have done wrong and being sorry about it. That doesn’t require a belief in Jesus though. And it goes back to my other point that the person who commits unspeakable evils and repents does not deserve to go to heaven more than the person who never commits those acts.

By suggesting that God sees thinking about hurting someone out of rage, and actually torturing, murdering or raping them as being equal (as that passage that was quoted earlier suggests) people imply some really messed up priorities on God’s part.

Again, this is in my belief something that was added later on to ensure that everyone would consider themselves guilty and therefore feel the need to follow the church leaders rules for living in hopes of avoiding hell.

Think about it, why would God give humans emotions and instincts if he didn’t want us to use them/feel them? Actions can of course be controlled and the old testament was very much about not acting on homicidal thoughts, or adulterous urges.

But, to suggest that even feeling these natural urges damns you, well that means that the very act of being human is a damning one, and we are all doomed from birth. Sorry, but I just refuse to believe that/live life that way. And I doubt that Jesus really would have said such a thing either.

Cockney_Blue · February 9, 2009, 11:25pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Do evangelicals really teach that you just have to say some words? I had the impression that for them repentance and conversion had to be true in the mind, heart, and soul (however you want to put it), also.

Well, yeah you’re supposed to believe what you are saying of course. Still, it’s pretty much the act of actually voicing that repentance/conversion that gets you the ticket in though (at least from my understanding).

Hmm. Maybe I’ll look it up myself later. However, even from just what you’re saying here, we’re talking about a true repentance. And not simply saying some words, just in case.

Yes, we are talking about a change of heart, realizing that you have done wrong and being sorry about it. That doesn’t require a belief in Jesus though. And it goes back to my other point that the person who commits unspeakable evils and repents does not deserve to go to heaven more than the person who never commits those acts.

By suggesting that God sees thinking about hurting someone out of rage, and actually torturing, murdering or raping them as being equal (as that passage that was quoted earlier suggests) people imply some really messed up priorities on God’s part.

Again, this is in my belief something that was added later on to ensure that everyone would consider themselves guilty and therefore feel the need to follow the church leaders rules for living in hopes of avoiding hell.

Think about it, why would God give humans emotions and instincts if he didn’t want us to use them/feel them? Actions can of course be controlled and the old testament was very much about not acting on homicidal thoughts, or adulterous urges.

But, to suggest that even feeling these natural urges damns you, well that means that the very act of being human is a damning one, and we are all doomed from birth. Sorry, but I just refuse to believe that/live life that way. And I doubt that Jesus really would have said such a thing either. [/quote]

It’s worse than that, if you read the Bible, God actually controls those emotions to force situations to happen. He hardened Pharoe’s heart for instance. Later he forces Judas to betray his son in order to set up the basic premise of Christianity. Judas had no choice in the matter but was forced into the situation of betraying his friend and then being the blame figure for the death of the son of God forever.

Pretty sick if you ask me.

Sloth · February 10, 2009, 1:42am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Which is exactly why the Roman Catholic church resisted having Bibles printed in the common tongue, they wanted to retain the control of not just the words but how they were interpreted.

We aren’t a “bible church,” we’re much more apostolic. But even so, what time period are you talking about here?

Protestants have gone a step in the right direction by working out that everyone should have the direct link with God. Unfortunately they are still using the same source material so they haven’t quite questioned deeply enough.

I was under the impression you were an atheist. Have I misread you?

Time period from 500 years ago up to present in terms of Catholic church wanting to control people’s understanding of the bible not just the content of the bible.

Yes I am an atheist. I think Protestants have taken a step in the right direction by saying they want to have a personal relationship with God through the Bible, the problem is that they don’t go the next step and question the Bible itself.

I have far more time for deists than for protestants as there is no way to prove there is no god however as far as I have seen everything can be pretty well explained with no recourse to a god so I see no need to add one to the model

(I fully accept that I may be wrong though but it would need to be a pretty capricious and devious god to fit the available data.)[/quote]

Ah, ok. You’re stance is that Protestants are a step closer to atheism, though not as close as the Deists. Just to be clear, I’m not the one saying this.

And yeah, like I said, the RC is an apostolic church. We’re not a “bible church.”

Gkhan · February 9, 2009, 11:47pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I was referring more to things like the Egyptian Book of the Dead but thats cool.
[/quote]

Why your at it, why not add Gilgamesh?

Gkhan · February 9, 2009, 11:52pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
If christianity is suggesting that the deeds committed in life have no bearing on where one goes in the afterlife, and the single determining factor is simply whether or not that individual utters a specific phrase…

It isn’t.

I don’t believe it is either, but that’s the way that a lot of religious officials paint things (especially evangelicals).[/quote]

I agree also, it seems like a loophole to me. Christ said getting to Heaven was like eyeing an needle, so I would hope it isn’t that easy…

The way Catholics get around someone like Hitler repenting at the last second is Purgatory. His soul would be purified in fire, somewhat like Hell, though it would not last for eternity.

Anyone here an authority who would possibly like to chime in?

Sloth · February 10, 2009, 1:57am

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
If christianity is suggesting that the deeds committed in life have no bearing on where one goes in the afterlife, and the single determining factor is simply whether or not that individual utters a specific phrase…

It isn’t.

I don’t believe it is either, but that’s the way that a lot of religious officials paint things (especially evangelicals).

I agree also, it seems like a loophole to me. Christ said getting to Heaven was like eyeing an needle, so I would hope it isn’t that easy…

The way Catholics get around someone like Hitler repenting at the last second is Purgatory. His soul would be purified in fire, somewhat like Hell, though it would not last for eternity.

Anyone here an authority who would possibly like to chime in?[/quote]

I think there’s a bit much being made over this. I don’t know of any denomination (but hey, I could be wrong) that teaches forgiveness without a truly repentent heart. Actual sorrow for the sins that one has committed. And not a, “just in case I’m going to burn in hell for killing all those folks, I better ask a possible creator for forgiveness.” I’d imagine the latter death-bed “conversion” is whole heck of alot more common than a genocidal maniac actually feeling ashamed of his sins in the last minute of his life.

Sentoguy · February 10, 2009, 2:54am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
If christianity is suggesting that the deeds committed in life have no bearing on where one goes in the afterlife, and the single determining factor is simply whether or not that individual utters a specific phrase…

It isn’t.

I don’t believe it is either, but that’s the way that a lot of religious officials paint things (especially evangelicals).

I agree also, it seems like a loophole to me. Christ said getting to Heaven was like eyeing an needle, so I would hope it isn’t that easy…

The way Catholics get around someone like Hitler repenting at the last second is Purgatory. His soul would be purified in fire, somewhat like Hell, though it would not last for eternity.
[/quote]

Semantics aside, my point was that the evil person who repents does not deserve paradise more than the good person who never has to repent because they lived a “righteous” life. Obviously my perspective is one that doesn’t jive with organized religion.

[quote]
I think there’s a bit much being made over this. I don’t know of any denomination (but hey, I could be wrong) that teaches forgiveness without a truly repentent heart. Actual sorrow for the sins that one has committed. And not a, “just in case I’m going to burn in hell for killing all those folks, I better ask a possible creator for forgiveness.” I’d imagine the latter death-bed “conversion” is whole heck of alot more common than a genocidal maniac actually feeling ashamed of his sins in the last minute of his life.[/quote]

I agree, they would truly need to feel sorry for their sins. But would they deserve heaven more so than someone who lived a more morally just and humanely kind life simply because they claim Christ is their lord and savior?

Gkhan · February 10, 2009, 5:03am

I agree with you. I don’t think the repetent sinner deserves it more, but if he is truely sorry to the bottom of his soul our God forgives him.

And that may well be the point. Our God isn’t a God of vengance, or of fire and brimstone.

Therefore when a child dies or some criminal goes unpunished in this world, a believer can say, “God understands how I feel because he lived life.”

By coming down to earth, living with man, feeling the pressures of sin and dying a slow and painful death, he can empathatize with humanity and thus forgive.

And it forfills the bottom line of religion: to make mankind feel better and add some meaning about living in an uncertain shit-hole of a world.

Sloth · February 10, 2009, 6:18am

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

I agree, they would truly need to feel sorry for their sins. But would they deserve heaven more so than someone who lived a more morally just and humanely kind life simply because they claim Christ is their lord and savior? [/quote]

Oh, I see. You’re asking more about the situation of the non-christian. That can be a little complicated, depending on who you’re talking too. I’m hesitant to even get into that on a forum, lol.

Even so, I’ll say this much. I’m only now going through RCIA (Catholic initiation). However, from what I understand the Church recognizes “invincible ignorance.” Such as a man whose conscience leads him to a, um, Christian-like morality–best way I could put it in my own words, while keeping it brief–but who, through no fault of their own, knows little to nothing about this ‘someone’ called Christ. Such a person wouldn’t be in a position to knowingly reject Christ. What the protestants might say, I’m honestly not sure. I can’t recall ever discussing this specific issue with one.

“We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”
-CS Lewis-

orion · February 10, 2009, 11:50am

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
There are no atheists in fox holes…[/quote]

But there were quite a few new ones in concentration camps.

Sentoguy · February 10, 2009, 5:12pm

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I agree with you. I don’t think the repetent sinner deserves it more, but if he is truely sorry to the bottom of his soul our God forgives him.

And that may well be the point. Our God isn’t a God of vengance, or of fire and brimstone.

Therefore when a child dies or some criminal goes unpunished in this world, a believer can say, “God understands how I feel because he lived life.”

By coming down to earth, living with man, feeling the pressures of sin and dying a slow and painful death, he can empathatize with humanity and thus forgive.

And it forfills the bottom line of religion: to make mankind feel better and add some meaning about living in an uncertain shit-hole of a world.
[/quote]

Oh, I’m definitely not against forgiveness, nor do I think that if someone is truly sorry to the bottom of their heart for what they have done that they shouldn’t be forgiven.

My objection is to the idea that the one sin that is so bad that it can’t be forgiven is not taking Jesus to be one’s lord and savior. Murder/genocide, forgivable. Rape, forgivable. Torture, forgivable. Not accepting Jesus as the one and only son of God, unforgivable

Now, honestly to me that sounds more like a man made construct than one created by a perfect being.

Basically it’s saying that you must convert to the religion (which as has been stated several times now would make more sense from the viewpoint of trying to control people than it would for the viewpoint of an all powerful being) or else you will suffer for eternity. But all other sins are easily forgiven.

Think about it, who would stand to gain from people converting to a religion? God? No. An all powerful God wouldn’t be reliant on the actions of humans for personal gain. But church leaders, now they would certainly have something to gain, wouldn’t they?

And just to be fair, I know that there are plenty of sincere and good hearted pastors, preists, and ministers out there who truly believe that they are doing/teaching the right thing and have no ulterior motives or deceitful intents in their hearts. I’m talking more from the historical standpoint of who actually is responsible for the words we read in our bibles today.

If you want to talk about moral issues, like not killing, stealing, lying, etc… (basically ten commandments type things), well then I can understand because adhering to such a morality will improve the quality of life on earth.

The “heavenly father” comparison is a fairly common one, but what good earthly father teaches his children that they must worship him and him alone? And if they don’t, he will punish them severely. Now, teaching them good moral behaviors knowing that adhering to such behaviors will have an improvement on the quality of that child’s life, yeah that sounds more like it.

Varqanir · February 10, 2009, 5:27pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

“We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”
-CS Lewis-

[/quote]

That reminds me of something amusing I found a few years ago. Identify the speakers of these two quotes:

1. "Union with Christ imparts an inner elevation, comfort in affliction, tranquil reliance, and a heart which opens itself to everything noble and great not for the sake of ambition or desire for fame, but for the sake of Christ.

"Union with Christ produces a joy which the Epicurean seeks in vain in his shallow philosophy, which the deeper thinker vainly pursues in the most hidden depths of knowledge.

“It is a joy known only to the simple and childlike heart, united with Christ and through Him with God, a joy which elevates life and makes it more beautiful.”

2. "You know, I think, that I believe in no religion.

There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s invention–Christ as much as Loki.

"Primitive man found himself surrounded by all sorts of terrible things he didn’t understand–thunder, pestilence, snakes, etc: what more natural then to suppose that these were animated by evil spirits trying to torture him. These he kept off by cringing to them, singing songs and making sacrifices etc.

Gradually from being mere nature-spirits these supposed beings were elevated into more elaborate ideas, such as the old gods: and when man became more refined he pretended that these spirits were good as well as powerful.

"Thus religion, that is to say mythology, grew up. Often too, great men were regarded as gods after their death-such as Heracles or Odin:

Thus after the death of a Hebrew philosopher Yeshua (whose name we have corrupted into Jesus) he became regarded as a god, a cult sprang up, which was afterwards connected with the ancient Hebrew Yahweh-worship, and so Christianity came into being-one mythology among many.

“Of course, mind you, I am not laying down as a certainty that there is nothing outside the material world; considering the discoveries that are always being made, this would be foolish. Anything MAY exist.”

Hint: one of the speakers is C.S. Lewis.

Sloth · February 10, 2009, 5:34pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:

“We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”
-CS Lewis-

That reminds me of something amusing I found a few years ago. Identify the speakers of these two quotes:

1. "Union with Christ imparts an inner elevation, comfort in affliction, tranquil reliance, and a heart which opens itself to everything noble and great not for the sake of ambition or desire for fame, but for the sake of Christ.

"Union with Christ produces a joy which the Epicurean seeks in vain in his shallow philosophy, which the deeper thinker vainly pursues in the most hidden depths of knowledge.

“It is a joy known only to the simple and childlike heart, united with Christ and through Him with God, a joy which elevates life and makes it more beautiful.”

2. "You know, I think, that I believe in no religion.

There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s invention–Christ as much as Loki.

"Primitive man found himself surrounded by all sorts of terrible things he didn’t understand–thunder, pestilence, snakes, etc: what more natural then to suppose that these were animated by evil spirits trying to torture him. These he kept off by cringing to them, singing songs and making sacrifices etc.

Gradually from being mere nature-spirits these supposed beings were elevated into more elaborate ideas, such as the old gods: and when man became more refined he pretended that these spirits were good as well as powerful.

"Thus religion, that is to say mythology, grew up. Often too, great men were regarded as gods after their death-such as Heracles or Odin:

Thus after the death of a Hebrew philosopher Yeshua (whose name we have corrupted into Jesus) he became regarded as a god, a cult sprang up, which was afterwards connected with the ancient Hebrew Yahweh-worship, and so Christianity came into being-one mythology among many.

“Of course, mind you, I am not laying down as a certainty that there is nothing outside the material world; considering the discoveries that are always being made, this would be foolish. Anything MAY exist.”

Hint: one of the speakers is C.S. Lewis.[/quote]

And what a reversal of roles that turned out to be!

Varqanir · February 10, 2009, 6:10pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And what a reversal of roles that turned out to be![/quote]

Indeed.

For those who don’t know about this, the speaker of quote number 2 is C.S. Lewis, obviously before his conversion to Christianity.

The speaker of quote number 1is Karl Marx, obviously before his conversion to atheism.

Which only proves that changing one’s mind is not exclusively a woman’s prerogative.

Cockney_Blue · February 10, 2009, 7:45pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Which is exactly why the Roman Catholic church resisted having Bibles printed in the common tongue, they wanted to retain the control of not just the words but how they were interpreted.