How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

TO ALL INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION:

I am not making up the fact that not many will get into the kingdom of heaven.

Let’s look back. In the old tesiment, numerous peoples and eventually the whole world save Noah and his family were destroyed and sent to burn in hell because they were not god’s chosen (I don’t capitalize god because I don’t believe it’s a more important word than the others). So basically, just in the time before Jesus arrived, more people were destroyed and went to hell than went to Heaven. It’s rehashed in 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 4-10 (which for those of you who aren’t familiar, is the new testiment under the new covenent:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on the unglodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of the lawless men… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrigtheous for the day of judgement, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true for those that follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.”

It will take a second, but there are many other examples, some with actual numbers, of how few choose god and how many others die. I will continue to post them as I refind them.

Also, I used to pray that God would help me find the answers to these questions. I have followed the inital route of prayer. It was a pretty silent way to go.

To Pushme: I don’t capitalize some of the time because I’m a lazy typer. I mis-spell for the same reason.

182

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
^^ this is your dogma. You BELIEVE it - and you’ll hold onto that belief for dear life. And yet you have no proof for it. And you have no proof, nor reason to believe, that you will ever have proof for it. It is your Orthodoxy. Should anyone questions it, you’ll unleash the “Holy Office of the Secular Inquisition” on the unbeliever.[/quote]

First of all, is isn’t dogma. If someone manages to prove that sentience cannot be explained just from the material brain and can back it up, I’ll accept it.

As for the rest of your spiel, you seem desperate to attribute all of the ridiculousness of religion’s belief in the nonexistent to every one else. Amusing to a point, but rather ineffective as far as arguments go.

The claim that sentience is a function of the material brain is a pretty run-of-the-mill one. There’s a concept we call sentience, and we know that thinking and such occurs in the brain, which is composed of matter. To conclude that sentience comes from that same material brain requires no big leap. It’s the opposite view - that sentience somehow transcends the brain and comes from some supernatural source - that requires faith and that most likely will never be able to show evidence because - guess what - as far as all the evidence we have tells us, Nature is all there is.

The point that keeps eluding you is that one side of the claims have no need of any supernatural elements. You’re the one with the funny views who require various beliefs in things no one has ever seen for them to make sense. Yes, cognitive dissonance is annoying and makes people angry. Just don’t take it out on those who’s world view fits together without magic involved.

183

Sir, the definition of agnostic, if you will, is exactly what you described:

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνÏ?Ï?ιÏ? gnÅ?sis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims â?? particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality â?? is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and it is occasionally argued that the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.

Congradulations, it would appear that you just found a word for what you are :slight_smile:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Give me a god-fearing person who tries to prove their religion wrong every day and I will give you an eventual agnotistic or atheist.

No, you wouldn’t, because a “god-fearing person” who tried to “prove their religion wrong every day” would come to the only conclusion available, assuming intellectual honesty - that there is no proof either way. And a lack of proof either way does not logically conclude at either atheism or agnosticism - both “disbeliefs” are choices made from evaluations via inductive philosophy.

The absence of proof doesn’t command a result of “erego, no God”, even as atheists would love it to be true. It merely demonstrates that we have no proof.[/quote]

184

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No one and mean no one on this thread has done as much of the above as you have. Whining about “scientific standing”, dismissing a view/books by a knowledgeable author, complaining that old dead guys’ views on the matter are antiquated, etc.

I believe it’s evident who the fearful one is.[/quote]

Alrighty then, surely that means you’ll finally post those ideas you were worried to fucking death of discussing a short while ago.

185

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Right, so you must know who’s made that claim. [/quote]

Actually, no one has claimed that there’s no connection between soul and flesh. It’s the OPPOSITE claim of a soul-body connection who led to my suggesting we could test for it and prove/disprove the existence of the soul.

186

[quote]pookie wrote:
Do you have a religion that can be tested through experiment? A religion that’s amenable to change when it is discovered that a current technique is wrong, or even just suboptimal? That is ready to revise its core values following a breakthough?

Please, tell me of this fascinating religion. It seems so much better than all the other ones I know of.
[/quote]

Seriously. I might even join one like that.

187

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Do you have a religion that can be tested through experiment? A religion that’s amenable to change when it is discovered that a current technique is wrong, or even just suboptimal? That is ready to revise its core values following a breakthough?

Please, tell me of this fascinating religion. It seems so much better than all the other ones I know of.

Seriously. I might even join one like that.
[/quote]

The Dalai Lama depicted his sector of buddhism as one that wants it’s members to question it and find answers for themselves.

I’m not totally sold on buddhism, but many social workers use their body-calming and thinking practices to work with troubled individuals. Living in the moment is an invaluable skill.

As a taoist, I hold some of the same ideas for myself, but I generally trekk around in the woods more to accomplish it :slight_smile:

188

God this thread is too interesting. Must go workout!!!

190

[quote]Oleena wrote:
This is an old answer, which feels good to the person who considers themselves Christian. The thought process goes something like this “It is amazing that god has chosen to give me life and to give me an opportunity to live this amazing existance in his service. He is wonderfully compassionate. It is not his fault that some people will choose, of the free will that he gave them, to not take his offer of eternal life. But that’s just the way it is. In order for us to live, others had to be created who would die.”

It makes you feel good to think that the omnipotent and omniscent creator created all of humanity so that he could have a special relationship with you, and so that you could live forever with him. You say ‘this would not be possible if he’d done it any other way’. This is actually a one-sided, very selfish perspective when you look at several other implications of it.

God did know that many more would choose, of their own free will that he gave them, not to follow him, than would choose him. He has no problem with this. In the story of Noah, he apparently wiped out the entire planet of sinners, save about ten people and all the animals. All of those people went to hell, as they chose not to listen to him. Apparently, he also knew before he created them that they were going to do this. From the perspective above you would think “well that’s too bad. I am so thankful that God has chosen me and has amazing plans for my life.” Which is in essense saying “I am more important than those other people because I choose to be with God and he chose me from before I was born”. I can’t believe that I’m more important than anyone else, no matter what my beliefs, so this is a problem for me religiously.

People like to dismiss Revelations and parts of the Bible that do not fit into their own concept of what a compassionate God should be like. I don’t consider myself a wise enough person to readily pick and choose the parts of god’s book that he meant to be interpretted one way or another.

Do you consider yourself wise enough to pick and choose which parts meant what? Why? Can you 100% say that your cultural upbringing had less to do with the way you pick than what god has told you? How do you know?

[/quote]

PLEASE do not resort to transference of other people’s thoughts to me. If you are not going to discuss with me and with my statements directly, this conversation will go nowhere. You are overlooking my entire line of reasoning and cherry-picking the few comments that fit with your pre-determined line of reasoning on this issue and then launching your tried and true over-used rebuttal. You understand very little about my beliefs - yet that is what you asked for and are now overlooking and lumping me in with those who do not share my beliefs. You have obviously misjudged me and my compassion - if I could damn myself to hell in place of every person who ever lived - I would.

I do not consider myself special and the thought that others are going to be punished while I enjoy heaven is heart breaking to me.

Where in the hell do you get off telling me that I am picking and choosing scriptures? Show me once in my explanation where I did that - you need to either discuss this with me - or go off on your own bully pulpit which it seems is all you wanted to do anyway.

So much for an honest and open discussion . . . if you are not willing to actually listen to what I said - then what is the point of talking with you about this?

191

[quote]pookie wrote:

Would you read the Torah to better understand Jesus? [/quote]

Why not?

192

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I was not implying that all christians know nothing about their faith. Obviously, from the first paragraph, I have met some that do. I have more respect for those ones.

Religion, like many other social structure, is a product of society that reinforces behavors that at one point and time helped survival.
[/quote]

I’m going to disagree on this and get nerdy. I like to make a distinction between spirituality = your relationship or lack thereof to God (or Gods, or…) and religion. Religion is an institution of people, by people and for people to help them with their spirituality. It therefore suffers from all the shortcomings of any other social organization. What strikes us as so terrible about some religions is simply the fact that the faithful are often unwittingly put in service for other ends.

I’m not replying to a lot of posts on this thread because they are drivel. Yup. I mean that. There are millions of Christians (and Muslims, Hindus etc.). The questions is why. What is it that makes people want to join them in the first place? Before one can form a cogent criticism, one must be able to articulate that. Assuming they are all stupid or imputing simply unspeakable motives is not enough. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the public tone against Christianity. Were someone to make the same statements about another religion, that would be considered rude at best and pretty blockheaded.

Oh pu-leeze. Nature is sexist. Religions and older societies reflect this. It is our modern, heavily automated & service-oriented society that lets us entertain thoughts about equality. (The bespectacled, pot-bellied Scientist who invented the birth control pill did a Hell of a lot more for women’s rights than all the feminists who ever lived.) The reality a few centuries back was that women pretty much always pregnant (out of necessity, since kids were your only real retirement plan and infant mortality was very high) and the work of raising children then (as now) fell disproportionately on them. That women now have a choice seems to be lost on everyone and there has been a large amount of, well. forgeries, about older matriarchal societies and Mother Earth cults that seem to be what white, middle-class, middle-aged women do for conspiracy theories (the guys just postualte about the grassy knoll).

Mind you, I’m all for women’s rights, equality and such because these are fundamentally ethical positions about how we should value people. I refuse to swallow pablum about it, because it really is important and unusual. I really don’t think women’s rights would survive outside of a modern society and if you want to see them in other countries, you will have to be an imperialist pig. Go there, trash their traditions and modernize them to the point that we are. Now, I don’t advocate that either, but do be clear on it, ok?

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

193

I was doing neither. Whether or not they “deserved it from god’s perspective” is irrevelant to the argument that I’ve been standing behind. I’m not talking about what you or I think, I’m talking about the fact that God apparently knew which way the entire “first” earth was going to decide before he created it. He apparently knew that he was going to destroy it and banish all those people to hell, along with the angels before he created them, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and yet he still created them.

Since the point of the ones that survived is to go to heaven and praise him for the rest of eternity, it can only be concluded that God created 1000s which would be banished to hell so very small portion could praise him. He knew what each person would choose with their free will before he ever created them. Therefore, he created the majority of people knowing that they would burn in hell because they chose it.

People were arguing that god did not create the majority to burn in hell. However, after reading the passage that I provided, there is clear proof that he did- several times infact.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
TO ALL INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION:

I am not making up the fact that not many will get into the kingdom of heaven.

Let’s look back. In the old tesiment, numerous peoples and eventually the whole world save Noah and his family were destroyed and sent to burn in hell because they were not god’s chosen (I don’t capitalize god because I don’t believe it’s a more important word than the others). So basically, just in the time before Jesus arrived, more people were destroyed and went to hell than went to Heaven. It’s rehashed in 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 4-10 (which for those of you who aren’t familiar, is the new testiment under the new covenent:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on the unglodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of the lawless men… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrigtheous for the day of judgement, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true for those that follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.”

It will take a second, but there are many other examples, some with actual numbers, of how few choose god and how many others die. I will continue to post them as I refind them.

Also, I used to pray that God would help me find the answers to these questions. I have followed the inital route of prayer. It was a pretty silent way to go.

To Pushme: I don’t capitalize some of the time because I’m a lazy typer. I mis-spell for the same reason.

And what do you know about those who died in the Flood and their relationship with their God? How are you able to judge them and assign innocence to them?
[/quote]

194

That decides it. We should segregate. Taking the bio-chem “free will is illusory” view, we are no more than what our chems allow. So, why try to force the lion and the heyena, the mongoose and the cobra, Pelosi and Cheney, to live together in harmony? I don’t know how other nations would do it, but I hope my team gets Florida. Did I tell you guys I saw a manatee in it’s natural enviroment recently? And the alligators down here, my gosh!

198

You should note that half of the time in my arguments I use the world god-fearing instead of christian. This is because I’m addressing all of the other monotheistic belief systems as well.

Also, I was using the word religion in the same context that you are “nerdily arguing” so no real argument exists there.

Finally, the importance of men over women is not the same in all societies around the globe today. Gender lines are not always clear cut, in the past there have been matriarchies, and there is every imaginable way of marrying people off; from tribes where a woman takes several husbands to tribes where everyone sleeps with everyone else even if they are married.

It is also inaccurate to state that males are always dominant over females in nature. Here’s a quick, short list of species I can think of off the top of my head where the female is head of the society:

bees
ants
elephants
orca whales
hyenas
certain bird species

and bonobos, which are some of our most biologically close relatives. Here’s a nice little rant by someone who’s mad about the “west’s slutty feminism” and “the evils of porn leading to matriarchy”. Hillariously, I read a book a while back on the same ideas. However, the book was more excited about the idea than this guy. http://antimisandry.com/male-rights-network/matriarchal-polygamy-vs-patriarchal-monogamy-15555.html

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Oleena wrote:

I’m going to disagree on this and get nerdy. I like to make a distinction between spirituality = your relationship or lack thereof to God (or Gods, or…) and religion. Religion is an institution of people, by people and for people to help them with their spirituality. It therefore suffers from all the shortcomings of any other social organization. What strikes us as so terrible about some religions is simply the fact that the faithful are often unwittingly put in service for other ends.

There is a flip side. Christianity is a very patriarchal religion, and reinforces over and over again the superiority of men over women, starting with the very first human story in genesis. In the christian religion, the men are the head of the women and if all goes well the man will make loving decisions for his wife.

Oh pu-leeze. Nature is sexist. Religions and older societies reflect this. It is our modern, heavily automated & service-oriented society that lets us entertain thoughts about equality. (The bespectacled, pot-bellied Scientist who invented the birth control pill did a Hell of a lot more for women’s rights than all the feminists who ever lived.) The reality a few centuries back was that women pretty much always pregnant (out of necessity, since kids were your only real retirement plan and infant mortality was very high) and the work of raising children then (as now) fell disproportionately on them. That women now have a choice seems to be lost on everyone and there has been a large amount of, well. forgeries, about older matriarchal societies and Mother Earth cults that seem to be what white, middle-class, middle-aged women do for conspiracy theories (the guys just postualte about the grassy knoll).

Mind you, I’m all for women’s rights, equality and such because these are fundamentally ethical positions about how we should value people. I refuse to swallow pablum about it, because it really is important and unusual. I really don’t think women’s rights would survive outside of a modern society and if you want to see them in other countries, you will have to be an imperialist pig. Go there, trash their traditions and modernize them to the point that we are. Now, I don’t advocate that either, but do be clear on it, ok?

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

199

Basically, you put me down while you avoided directly addressing the issues I brought up. Instead, you implied that you can’t question your god because he is omniscent and that I’m a cheeky little girl for trying to hold him to the same standards that I would hold the most developmentally challenged human.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I was doing neither. Whether or not they “deserved it from god’s perspective” is irrevelant to the argument that I’ve been standing behind. I’m not talking about what you or I think, I’m talking about the fact that God apparently knew which way the entire “first” earth was going to decide before he created it. He apparently knew that he was going to destroy it and banish all those people to hell, along with the angels before he created them, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and yet he still created them.

Since the point of the ones that survived is to go to heaven and praise him for the rest of eternity, it can only be concluded that God created 1000s which would be banished to hell so very small portion could praise him. He knew what each person would choose with their free will before he ever created them. Therefore, he created the majority of people knowing that they would burn in hell because they chose it.

People were arguing that god did not create the majority to burn in hell. However, after reading the passage that I provided, there is clear proof that he did- several times infact.

You struggle greatly with the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and free will. That’s OK. We all have or do. But because you and others can’t wrap your minds around it and make it as simple as choosing a Baskins Robbins flavor you dismiss it all and say, “I can’t quite fathom it so I aint a-gonna believe in it no matter what.” Then you pull the ostrich routine. And do things like not capitalizing a proper noun so you can “git back” at that “complicated god” who won’t make it all easy and peachy-keen for me.

[/quote]

200

So at least we both agree that the way things are spelled out for a lot of people in the Bible sucks.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
This is an old answer, which feels good to the person who considers themselves Christian. The thought process goes something like this “It is amazing that god has chosen to give me life and to give me an opportunity to live this amazing existance in his service. He is wonderfully compassionate. It is not his fault that some people will choose, of the free will that he gave them, to not take his offer of eternal life. But that’s just the way it is. In order for us to live, others had to be created who would die.”

It makes you feel good to think that the omnipotent and omniscent creator created all of humanity so that he could have a special relationship with you, and so that you could live forever with him. You say ‘this would not be possible if he’d done it any other way’. This is actually a one-sided, very selfish perspective when you look at several other implications of it.

God did know that many more would choose, of their own free will that he gave them, not to follow him, than would choose him. He has no problem with this. In the story of Noah, he apparently wiped out the entire planet of sinners, save about ten people and all the animals. All of those people went to hell, as they chose not to listen to him. Apparently, he also knew before he created them that they were going to do this. From the perspective above you would think “well that’s too bad. I am so thankful that God has chosen me and has amazing plans for my life.” Which is in essense saying “I am more important than those other people because I choose to be with God and he chose me from before I was born”. I can’t believe that I’m more important than anyone else, no matter what my beliefs, so this is a problem for me religiously.

People like to dismiss Revelations and parts of the Bible that do not fit into their own concept of what a compassionate God should be like. I don’t consider myself a wise enough person to readily pick and choose the parts of god’s book that he meant to be interpretted one way or another.

Do you consider yourself wise enough to pick and choose which parts meant what? Why? Can you 100% say that your cultural upbringing had less to do with the way you pick than what god has told you? How do you know?

PLEASE do not resort to transference of other people’s thoughts to me. If you are not going to discuss with me and with my statements directly, this conversation will go nowhere. You are overlooking my entire line of reasoning and cherry-picking the few comments that fit with your pre-determined line of reasoning on this issue and then launching your tried and true over-used rebuttal. You understand very little about my beliefs - yet that is what you asked for and are now overlooking and lumping me in with those who do not share my beliefs. You have obviously misjudged me and my compassion - if I could damn myself to hell in place of every person who ever lived - I would.

I do not consider myself special and the thought that others are going to be punished while I enjoy heaven is heart breaking to me.

Where in the hell do you get off telling me that I am picking and choosing scriptures? Show me once in my explanation where I did that - you need to either discuss this with me - or go off on your own bully pulpit which it seems is all you wanted to do anyway.

So much for an honest and open discussion . . . if you are not willing to actually listen to what I said - then what is the point of talking with you about this?[/quote]