How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Have you tried seeking fellowship in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?

Their version of Christianity is much different than the fire-n-brimstone, medieval barbarism most of us grew up with – with a few strict difficult lifestyle choices that are not a part of Christianity.

For one, you don’t get to burn in hell you just get ostracized and then you are left out of the Kingdom of God – which to them is their own form of hell.

I think the Polygamy aspect of it is great…as a man.

:slight_smile:

Mormons do have a more generous view of heaven, since Joseph Smith said even the lowest degree of glory is something a man would kill himself for in order to enter. However, they do believe in fire and brimstone, via Satan, his followers, and the sons of perdition that are sent to Outer Darkness. They also believe that people who don’t accept the atonement of Christ must ultimately suffer for their own sins. Not exactly a generous afterlife, in that sense.
[/quote]

But you cannot drink coffee…I have a problem with that.

What else could I possibly conclude from your response? You said that it makes you sad every day that people are going to hell and you wish it was you.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
So at least we both agree that the way things are spelled out for a lot of people in the Bible sucks.

IrishSteel wrote:

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?

??? - ummm, wow . . .I guess I am not in this conversation at all . . . Push, Katz, good luck with this one . . . I’m going to go mess with Lixy again since I am not needed here. . . [/quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Why are you seeking to mock Christianity? A bible quiz from an atheist website, really? Seems a transparent effort to bash religious folk. I guess if you need to do so to feel better about yourself, go ahead. I will not play.

You can look up every freaking verse from that “atheist website” and…wait for it…ITS ALL TRUE. Its not a transparent effort to bash religion. I find it more along the lines of ‘how in the hell can people believe this’. I for one pray to the flying spagetti monster, or the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater. They seem nicer than the vengeful god described in that book.

I hope that works out for you.

Im thinking it will. God has chosen not to “speak to me” and correct me in my flawed ways so ill go this route.

Maybe cause you act like a know it all asshole who won’t listen.
[/quote]

Oh so now im not listening? Huh…you would think that an all powerful all knowing being would have no difficulties getting his or her point across to a lowly mortal such as myself. I mean he did create heaven and earth right? Why cant a booming voice from above speak to me? Oh wait…that must be gods will again right? He moves in mysterious ways. I also think its funny how I am taking a light hearted aproach to the whole thing and suddenly im a know it all asshole. You are really making a great case for yourself. What other amazing bits of knowlege are you going to hit me up with to prove your case? Or are you just going to keep up the juvenile name calling? You wouldnt happen to be affiliated with the Westboro baptist church would you?

[quote]pat wrote:
Oleena wrote:

But in the end is still sounds like your just mad at God for being a big meany. It sometimes bothers me too, but sometimes I get a glimpse of the purpose and order of it all. It’s a tiny glimpse but I admit I need it to keep goingâ?¦
[/quote]

I’m more upset by the fact that you cannot hold God to the same standards he holds you to (see above post to Push).

Saying that god, as described in the Bible, is a big meany, is putting it lightly IMO. Irresponsible and selfish by regular human standards might be more accurate. Here’s why I think that:

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.”

So basically, many, many more were created than ever got into the kingdom of Heaven. Since the point of getting into the Kingdom of Heaven is to serve god, what else can be concluded but that he created millions which he knew beforehand that he would destroy just so a few could praise him?

If your own child did this, you would be very upset with them for their lack of responsibility and obvious selfishness. Unfortunately, according to the bible, we are not allowed to hold God to the same standards that we hold men. That’s good for him because he would look horrible.

Your point is completely irrevelent and evading the entire point of my argument.

The judge in your scenario did not create the murderer. Not only that, but one can surmise that in most cases the judge would not have created the murderer had he been omniscient and realized that the murderer was going to be a murderer.

Edit: this is why many people now believe in birth control. We don’t like idea that a bunch of drug addicts and low-income, under educated people might have children in those situations, and the chances of those children growing up to be the same are huge.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Olee, you’re struggling with the concept of a loving God who also judges sin. Let me turn the tables on you and make YOU do the thinking here. I want you to play devil’s advocate and argue the case from the other side.

You like the father/child analogy but I want you to try out the righteous judge/murderer defendant analogy. Can you possibly envision a scenario where a judge must sentence a guilty murderer but at the same time love him? Or in your mind are all judges hypocrites? Is a judge incapable of love if he ever sentences a guilty party? Is he always a big meanie?[/quote]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:

Would you read the Torah to better understand Jesus?

Why not?

Allow me to elaborate: Given limited reading time, do you believe that reading the Torah would be the best bet for getting to know Jesus, or might more recent works have a better time spent to knowledge gained ratio?[/quote]

I think that reading not only the Torah, but also the histories, prophesies and other pieces of Hebrew folklore are vital to understanding the Jesus legend. Without Exodus and Judges, for example, you don’t get acquainted with Moses, Joshua (the “original Jesus” also named Yehoshua), and Sampson, who were the prototypical Hebrew supermen, and in the legends of whom can be found many parallels in the Jesus story. Without Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you don’t have any idea of the number and complexity of the commandments and rituals the Hebrews were expected to follow, the abolition of the mindless following of which being a central theme in the Jesus message.

Without the many books of the prophets, one may have little idea how much the Hebrew religion was influenced by exposure to Babylonian and Persian thought (just as Exodus shows that it had been influenced by Egyptian thought). And you can’t comprehend how much it had been influenced by Greek thought (and how much that influence had been resisted by traditionalists) unless you read Maccabees. The prophets also let you know how closely the Jesus story aligns with earlier predictions. Too closely to be coincidental. Which means that either Jesus actually was the fulfillment of those prophesies, or else his story was thoughtfully edited so that he appeared to be so.

The book of Daniel is particularly helpful in this respect, for Daniel himself is very much a prototype of Jesus, and the story of Daniel echoes loudly throughout the story of Jesus.

Of course, at some point one needs to look beyond the five-thousand year evolution of Hebrew folklore, and go right to the source of many of their influences. Reading Egyptian, Persian, and Greek mythology is very helpful in putting the idea of a demigod Savior figure who changes water to wine, casts out devils, walks on water, heals the sick, raises the dead, has twelve apostles, is crucified to atone for the sins of humanity, rises the third day, and ascends into heaven into its proper context.

I’d say that it’s something akin to the value of reading Alfred Russel Wallace’s The Malay Archipelago in order to gain understanding of On the Origin of Species. I’d consider it no more or less valuable than reading, say, Dawkins or Leakey.

Of course, if one is convinced that it’s all bullshit at the outset, then perhaps not reading anything at all might be the best use of his time.

Um no. I did not say I expected god to “fix” anything. Fix is a word that implies correcting a mistake after it is made. Why would God need to fix something, considering that he’s all knowing and therefore shouldn’t be making a mistake? The entire sending Jesus to earth to die for our mistakes is a little backwards. In essense, he created us knowing that we would choose to make those mistakes, so he basically created mistakes through creating us, and then sent Jesus to fix it like a computer programmer fixing a virus. This is proclaimed as a miracle. However, it seems like a pretty insignificant miracle when you step back and look at the fact that god created the problem, and then touted himself as amazing for fixing it.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Your point is completely irrevelent and evading the entire point of my argument.

The judge in your scenario did not create the murderer. Not only that, but one can surmise that in most cases the judge would not have created the murderer had he been omniscient and realized that the murderer was going to be a murderer.

Edit: this is why many people now believe in birth control. We don’t like idea that a bunch of drug addicts and low-income, under educated people might have children in those situations, and the chances of those children growing up to be the same are huge.

pushharder wrote:
Olee, you’re struggling with the concept of a loving God who also judges sin. Let me turn the tables on you and make YOU do the thinking here. I want you to play devil’s advocate and argue the case from the other side.

You like the father/child analogy but I want you to try out the righteous judge/murderer defendant analogy. Can you possibly envision a scenario where a judge must sentence a guilty murderer but at the same time love him? Or in your mind are all judges hypocrites? Is a judge incapable of love if he ever sentences a guilty party? Is he always a big meanie?

It was relevant. Alright then, let’s mix the two analogies to see if we can “come together” (no pun intended): - YouTube

So click on that link while you read this…OK, anyway, let’s go with the righteous judge who has his own son before him in the courtroom for sentencing. His son has been convicted of murder but the judge still loves him.

I know you’re still going to toss out the omniscience thing. You might always get hung up on that. You might always strut off mad because in your little world of logic you can’t make all the pieces fit because God knows everything and therefore you think God is under a moral obligation to “fix” everything so nothing “bad” ever happens.[/quote]

Whew, finally caught up after reading the deluge of posts since yesterday.

Unfortunately, after 10 pages of discussion, I haven’t seen anybody answer Oleena’s question yet.

For those that are claiming god doesn’t really plan to send the majority of people to hell, and that scriptures like the 144,000 in Revelation are purely figurative, here’s another good one from the mouth of Jesus himself:

Matthew 7:13-14

[quote]
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.[/quote]

So Jesus himself said that more people would be destroyed than would be saved.

How do you reconcile that with the idea that god is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient? Something has to give, because clearly damning the majority of his creations to hell doesn’t fit the definition of benevolence. Or maybe he is benevolent, but doesn’t know which of his creations are bound for hell? In that case, he isn’t omniscient. Or maybe he is benevolent and omniscient, but is unable to save the majority of his creations from hell? In that case, he is not omnipotent.

So which is it?

This whole thread is a waste of time . . . you guys are not looking for anyone to answer the question, you are waiting for someone to post anything so you can run of on your own little diatribe about how hateful, mean, horrible the god you find in scripture is.

None of you are actually seeking to know what I believe or what Push believes or anyone else - you have already determined for yourself that the god you see in the Bible is all of those horrible things - and then try to get us to prove your version of god wrong. That’s all you care about.

So good luck with the rest of this thread, but it is a colossal waste of time for anyone who does not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. As is the case with any of these types of discussions you all start - like I said, you’re just looking for an opportunity to spill your hatred regardless of what anyone else has to say.

IrishSteel, are you saying that you don’t believe god will send the majority of people to hell or that you don’t believe doing so displays a lack of benevolence?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Whew, finally caught up after reading the deluge of posts since yesterday.

Unfortunately, after 10 pages of discussion, I haven’t seen anybody answer Oleena’s question yet.
[/quote]

What is her exact question? All I’ve read are a series of silly hypothetical situations. Like most amateur critics of Christianity, she creates a series of silly “christian” postures that no theologian would ever adopt and then proceeds to attack them. First, the Bible is not what the Church was founded upon; the Bible does not = Christianity. Second, there seems to be confusion about free will. Who ever in the Christian tradition said that we are robots? Most people - it is true - will choose to worship themselves, their own egos, needs and values. True, they do act like robots. Witness many in this thread. And true, they may not get to enjoy eternal life. But I hardly see that as anyone’s fault but their own. Free will is necessary for love and choice to have any meaning. What is so hard to understand about this?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are definitely one of those angry people that IrishSteel referred to. I’ve seen it in your posts for a long time. The anger has created a mocking, scornful, bitter person. I don’t envy you at all.[/quote]

In other words, you don’t have a substantive response to the points made in my post, and are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks?

Or are you attacking me because I’m not as pretty as Oleena? :slight_smile:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
pat wrote:
Oleena wrote:

But in the end is still sounds like your just mad at God for being a big meany. It sometimes bothers me too, but sometimes I get a glimpse of the purpose and order of it all. It’s a tiny glimpse but I admit I need it to keep goingÃ?¢?Ã?¦

I’m more upset by the fact that you cannot hold God to the same standards he holds you to (see above post to Push).

Saying that god, as described in the Bible, is a big meany, is putting it lightly IMO. Irresponsible and selfish by regular human standards might be more accurate. Here’s why I think that:

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.”

So basically, many, many more were created than ever got into the kingdom of Heaven. Since the point of getting into the Kingdom of Heaven is to serve god, what else can be concluded but that he created millions which he knew beforehand that he would destroy just so a few could praise him?

If your own child did this, you would be very upset with them for their lack of responsibility and obvious selfishness. Unfortunately, according to the bible, we are not allowed to hold God to the same standards that we hold men. That’s good for him because he would look horrible.[/quote]

You still stuck on the strict Biblical interpretation, that’s what is discouraging you. I don’t subscribe to it as a book of facts and history. It’s a book of truth, a philosophical book if you will. It uses various methods of getting it’s point across. You have to take into account the time in which some of there books were written, the people it was written for. I mean we’re talking 1800 B.C. and older here. These are ancient texts that have been translated many times. The same things occur in literature. The older the text the more gradious and elaborate the story. But the stories basically conveyed to messages to the Jews of the time. That God loves them and will do anything for them, but they too need to act right. That was the basic message of the old testament. The delivery being perhaps unsavory to us more civilized and educated folk, but back then, people were the opposite. Uncivilized and uneducated, so it worked for them then.
Just take a step back and relax for a minute. It is just not that doom and gloom. In my opinion all the measuring and begetting is far more agonizing than the wars and Armageddon. At least those stories are entertaining.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
This whole thread is a waste of time . . . you guys are not looking for anyone to answer the question, you are waiting for someone to post anything so you can run of on your own little diatribe about how hateful, mean, horrible the god you find in scripture is.

None of you are actually seeking to know what I believe or what Push believes or anyone else - you have already determined for yourself that the god you see in the Bible is all of those horrible things - and then try to get us to prove your version of god wrong. That’s all you care about.

So good luck with the rest of this thread, but it is a colossal waste of time for anyone who does not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. As is the case with any of these types of discussions you all start - like I said, you’re just looking for an opportunity to spill your hatred regardless of what anyone else has to say.[/quote]

QFT

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel, are you saying that you don’t believe god will send the majority of people to hell or that you don’t believe doing so displays a lack of benevolence?[/quote]

Are you saying you even care about what I believe . . . .

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
What is her exact question? [/quote]

It’s similar to a core issue I remember struggling with as an undergraduate at BYU (the Lord’s University):

If god created all things, then god is ultimately responsible for all things. We tell ourselves that god created us with free will. But if that is the case, why did god create some people who would choose to use their free will to worship him, while others would choose to use their free will to defy him? That special quality, which causes certain people to choose righteousness, was given by god to those people and not to others. How is that benevolent? Why would god not give that special quality to all of his creations, and instead only give it to some of them?