How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I know personally know christian women who have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships by their christian church, and not just one church/denomination, or one woman. It has gotten better, but it’s still happening today. Islam is 600 years younger, so one can only guess that it’s going to take them at least a few more years to figure out the “correct translation” of their texts concerning women. Hopefully it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did for the christians or we may not survive that.
[/quote]

Oleena, I don’t really have a dog in the Christianity fight (being one of Pushharder’s uncertain poltroons) but I work occasionally with abused women and I can tell you that atheists and agnostics frequently pressure them to stay in abusive relationships as well. It’s a crazy, fucked up world, I have noticed. From where I stand, the Christians seem to do far more good than harm for women in need (and their children). Perhaps that’s their paternalistic bent, I don’t know, but when I’m referring a woman and her children out to a shelter or for clothing or free food, very often it is to a faith-based organization of one sort or another.

I can also say with some certainty that the women I work with are not necessarily abused by Christian men. Most of my people claim no religious affiliation (it is standard in mental health settings to ask).

862

Wow. Hundreds of posts in this thread, and STILL nobody has answered Oleena’s original question.

Benevolent:

How, in any sense, is god benevolent assuming that a) being omniscient, god knows which of his creations will suffer in horrible agony for all eternity, and b) being omnipotent, god could choose not to create these people?

How could you possibly call someone benevolent who knowingly creates a person that WILL suffer in unrelenting torment FOREVER?

863

IrishSteel, I’m curious if you can provide a nutshell summary of why you believe there is incontrovertible evidence for the Christian god? I’m not looking for specifics at this point, but the 2-3 most compelling reasons you chose to believe in this god. For example, “Prophecies in the old testament were fulfilled in the new testament, and couldn’t possibly be explained in any other way.”

864

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I know personally know christian women who have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships by their christian church, and not just one church/denomination, or one woman. It has gotten better, but it’s still happening today. Islam is 600 years younger, so one can only guess that it’s going to take them at least a few more years to figure out the “correct translation” of their texts concerning women. Hopefully it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did for the christians or we may not survive that.

Oleena, I don’t really have a dog in the Christianity fight (being one of Pushharder’s uncertain poltroons) but I work occasionally with abused women and I can tell you that atheists and agnostics frequently pressure them to stay in abusive relationships as well. It’s a crazy, fucked up world, I have noticed. From where I stand, the Christians seem to do far more good than harm for women in need (and their children). Perhaps that’s their paternalistic bent, I don’t know, but when I’m referring a woman and her children out to a shelter or for clothing or free food, very often it is to a faith-based organization of one sort or another.

I can also say with some certainty that the women I work with are not necessarily abused by Christian men. Most of my people claim no religious affiliation (it is standard in mental health settings to ask).[/quote]

I’ve worked on both sides (in christian ministry helping people and in unaffiliated non-profits helping people) and have seen all sorts of abuse from all angles. What I was pointing out was that there is a long history of biblical verses being used by different societies at different points in time to support the abuse of women.

It might have been your experience that there was more help coming from the church than harm, but I know of people who have had the opposite experience.

My larger point was- what rational do agnostics and atheiests use to encourage women to stay in abusive relationships? How is that different than the rational used by god-fearing religions?

865

Don’t worry. Irishsteel and the others are preparing ways to avoid specifically answering these last two posts while arguing that they already have, and that you must be retarded for missing it :smiley:

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel, I’m curious if you can provide a nutshell summary of why you believe there is incontrovertible evidence for the Christian god? I’m not looking for specifics at this point, but the 2-3 most compelling reasons you chose to believe in this god. For example, “Prophecies in the old testament were fulfilled in the new testament, and couldn’t possibly be explained in any other way.”[/quote]

866

Does the catholic church hate women?-Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers

A letter of pope john paul II to women-http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

Some reading that might help answer some questions.

867

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
Its the only way I can portray my extreme level of excitment/arousal while reading these arguments. My nipples are hard.

The Great Satin makin’ ye hard again, eh?

[/quote]

To summarize a lot of medival views on the devil- yes I am :wink:

868

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Oh good, so you admit that christianity wasn’t the first monotheistic religion. When I said traits, I wasn’t referring to a definition of the word itself, but a definition of the society’s traits which turn monotheistic.

Good job researching that one on wikipedia, but you missed the biggest defining factor of monotheism. What does monotheism historically come after and in contrast to (and we can clearly see how god as portrayed in the bible told early believers to deal with this)?

[/quote]

there you go talking out your ass again . . .anyone who knows me knows that I cannot stand wikipedia - worse possible source material for any intelligent discussion - I prefer original source material - preferably a book . . .

If your argument is that monotheism came after polytheism - you’re off base again. Other than that I’m not sure what your point is . . . . so state your point already . . .

869

Ah. More PC church propoganda.

[quote]AllerCuzine wrote:
Does the catholic church hate women?-Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers

A letter of pope john paul II to women-http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

Some reading that might help answer some questions.[/quote]

870

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Oh good, so you admit that christianity wasn’t the first monotheistic religion. When I said traits, I wasn’t referring to a definition of the word itself, but a definition of the society’s traits which turn monotheistic.

Good job researching that one on wikipedia, but you missed the biggest defining factor of monotheism. What does monotheism historically come after and in contrast to (and we can clearly see how god as portrayed in the bible told early believers to deal with this)?

there you go talking out your ass again . . .anyone who knows me knows that I cannot stand wikipedia - worse possible source material for any intelligent discussion - I prefer original source material - preferably a book . . .

If your argument is that monotheism came after polytheism - you’re off base again. Other than that I’m not sure what your point is . . . . so state your point already . . .[/quote]

Show me some good resources that show that monotheism came before polytheism.

Edit: and it shouldn’t be on Urmonotheismus, as that is pure speculation, much like animism.

871

[quote]Oleena wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
Its the only way I can portray my extreme level of excitment/arousal while reading these arguments. My nipples are hard.

The Great Satin makin’ ye hard again, eh?

To summarize a lot of medival views on the devil- yes I am :wink:

[/quote]

Your boyfriend cracks me up! LOL! Satin! I think he meant S-A-T-A-N.

Anyway, funny you should mention “medieval views on the devil” - did your pop-up history book tell you that those views equated women with the devil? Or was that your Scratch 'n Sniff book of history? You really must start referencing that extensive library of yours.

872

The last book I read on it had 12 pages of references in the back. Anything else?

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Oleena wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
Its the only way I can portray my extreme level of excitment/arousal while reading these arguments. My nipples are hard.

The Great Satin makin’ ye hard again, eh?

To summarize a lot of medival views on the devil- yes I am :wink:

Your boyfriend cracks me up! LOL! Satin! I think he meant S-A-T-A-N.

Anyway, funny you should mention “medieval views on the devil” - did your pop-up history book tell you that those views equated women with the devil? Or was that your Scratch 'n Sniff book of history? You really must start referencing that extensive library of yours.
[/quote]

873

[quote]Oleena wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I know personally know christian women who have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships by their christian church, and not just one church/denomination, or one woman. It has gotten better, but it’s still happening today. Islam is 600 years younger, so one can only guess that it’s going to take them at least a few more years to figure out the “correct translation” of their texts concerning women. Hopefully it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did for the christians or we may not survive that.

Oleena, I don’t really have a dog in the Christianity fight (being one of Pushharder’s uncertain poltroons) but I work occasionally with abused women and I can tell you that atheists and agnostics frequently pressure them to stay in abusive relationships as well. It’s a crazy, fucked up world, I have noticed. From where I stand, the Christians seem to do far more good than harm for women in need (and their children). Perhaps that’s their paternalistic bent, I don’t know, but when I’m referring a woman and her children out to a shelter or for clothing or free food, very often it is to a faith-based organization of one sort or another.

I can also say with some certainty that the women I work with are not necessarily abused by Christian men. Most of my people claim no religious affiliation (it is standard in mental health settings to ask).

I’ve worked on both sides (in christian ministry helping people and in unaffiliated non-profits helping people) and have seen all sorts of abuse from all angles. What I was pointing out was that there is a long history of biblical verses being used by different societies at different points in time to support the abuse of women.

It might have been your experience that there was more help coming from the church than harm, but I know of people who have had the opposite experience.

My larger point was- what rational do agnostics and atheiests use to encourage women to stay in abusive relationships? How is that different than the rational used by god-fearing religions?
[/quote]

Oleena, I’m not going to fall into the trap of trying to convince you of anything. I’m simply not that motivated and frankly don’t care where you stand on the matter of Christianity.

My point was simply that not all people who would urge women to stay in abusive relationships are Christian. Atheist rationale? No. Or maybe, I’m not a mind reader. i would guess instead that they have some notion that the relationship is the more secure place for one reason or another, as do the Christians. Are they mistaken? I would be inclined to think so. But that is neither here nor there, unless I am discussing the issue with someone trying to make a personal decision of their own.

874

Also, is anyone going to directly answer forlife?

In addition, no one addressed my question about animals having souls:

If animals have souls but not the spirit where do their souls go when they die?

And What makes the cut for getting a soul? Do amoebas have souls? When is something too much like a plant to have a soul, or do plants have souls?

875

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Oleena wrote:
would guess instead that they have some notion that the relationship is the more secure place for one reason or another, as do the Christians. Are they mistaken? I would be inclined to think so. But that is neither here nor there, unless I am discussing the issue with someone trying to make a personal decision of their own.

[/quote]

My point was simply that an atheist or an agnostic will only be able to offer their best advice regarding relationships, and they wont be able to back themselves up as an authority by saying “Well the Bible says this, so therefore the all powerful creator of the universe also thinks you should stay with so and so”. This makes it easier for the abused person to question them and seek a second opinion without questioning whether or not they are going against the creator of the universe’s will.

876

[quote]forlife wrote:
Wow. Hundreds of posts in this thread, and STILL nobody has answered Oleena’s original question.

Benevolent:

Characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings.

How, in any sense, is god benevolent assuming that a) being omniscient, god knows which of his creations will suffer in horrible agony for all eternity, and b) being omnipotent, god could choose not to create these people?

How could you possibly call someone benevolent who knowingly creates a person that WILL suffer in unrelenting torment FOREVER?[/quote]

And I keep bringing you guys back to the heart of that question - if the only reason you think God is not benevolent is because of the level of punishment applied to those who sin, your problem is not with the concept of God creating man knowing that he would have to punish some - but the actual punishment itself. For example - if all hell really is is a plainer version of heaven but just no presence of God - is that not benevolent? Giving those people exactly what they want - separation from him? After all - Christ on the cross experienced that very thing - and that was the true torment of the crucifixion for him!

But let’s deal with another aspect of your question that i tried to raise many pages back. Without a punishment for sin - moral choices would have no value. If there was no punishment - choosing to kill, rape and murder and on and on - would be just as viable an option as not doing those things. If there was no torment - then doing evil would be just as good as doing good - there has to be consequence to action. Everywhere you look in the physical universe this law plays out - jump off of a building and you can yell “God is love” all the way to the ground - but your choice to jump off of the roof will still result in you hitting the ground.

This is where you guys get off track again by focusing on a single attribute of God while ignoring the others. God set the laws both natural and spiritual of the universe - for every choice (moral and physical) there will be a consequence (right or wrong). God is holy and and righteous - if you choose to become unholy and unrighteous of your own free will - he will punish you for that . . . .BUT, and here is the important part . . . HE DEMONSTRATES HIS LOVE BY PROVIDING A WAY FOR YOU TO AVOID ANY PUNISHMENT AT ALL WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE TO!

He does not save us from our wrong choices in the physical world - jump off the building - you hit the ground - but HIS GREAT LOVE compels him to try to save you from your moral choices which bear eternal consequences. But this logic you have already rejected - so let’s see if you’re ready for the big league . . .

And now the answer you have all been waiting for . . .

You say that a loving God would not have created you if he knew you were going to sin and be punished for it . . . but that is not a choice at all because if he had not created you there would be no choice to make since there would have been no you to love enough to not create. . .how can I dumb this down for you . . . . You are asking why God did not love something that did not exist enough to not make it . . . it is illogical on its face . . . He could not have loved you if you did not exist, so the choice to not make you because he loved you when you did not exist is patently absurd! He could not love you until you existed, now that you exist - he loves you unconditionally and is trying to save you from the consequences of the decisions you made of your own free will!

877

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel, I’m curious if you can provide a nutshell summary of why you believe there is incontrovertible evidence for the Christian god? I’m not looking for specifics at this point, but the 2-3 most compelling reasons you chose to believe in this god. For example, “Prophecies in the old testament were fulfilled in the new testament, and couldn’t possibly be explained in any other way.”[/quote]

well of all the bullshit questions . . . you want me to give to you the personal rationale that I needed (and worked incredibly hard for) to accept the Christian God as my own? And do all of your work for you? I don’t think so . . . as you know - i did not arrive at my faith by an easy road -if you want to follow the same path - you’ll have to do the same work . . .

besides - the evidence I needed is probably not be the evidence that you would need and I would not want to cloud an opportunity for salvation by giving you a false reason to reject him . .

tell you what - i’ll give you the basics . … . easy stuff . . . I’ll even do it in rational order for you - I’ll even give you the secret to my faith . . .

here’s the basics:

The perfection of mathematics . . .
The design of the universe . . .
the nature of man . . .
the historical record . . .
the validity of scripture . . .

Here’s the secret - I started from absolute zero - started discovering what was true/what was false - found evidence of God and kept tracking him down - starting from the base of mathematics through many fields and disciplines and theories and faiths and then finally to scripture where the God I saw evidence for throughout my other studies was waiting with loving arms to welcome me. You see, I didn’t start with the Bible - that was where I ended. And oh what an incredible day when I found Him - I cannot describe for you the joy of that journey or the amazing overwhelming wonder when i stepped through from seeking to knowing who God really is . . .

878

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Don’t worry. Irishsteel and the others are preparing ways to avoid specifically answering these last two posts while arguing that they already have, and that you must be retarded for missing it :smiley:

forlife wrote:
IrishSteel, I’m curious if you can provide a nutshell summary of why you believe there is incontrovertible evidence for the Christian god? I’m not looking for specifics at this point, but the 2-3 most compelling reasons you chose to believe in this god. For example, “Prophecies in the old testament were fulfilled in the new testament, and couldn’t possibly be explained in any other way.”

[/quote]

still talking out your ass . . .

879

[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Oh good, so you admit that christianity wasn’t the first monotheistic religion. When I said traits, I wasn’t referring to a definition of the word itself, but a definition of the society’s traits which turn monotheistic.

Good job researching that one on wikipedia, but you missed the biggest defining factor of monotheism. What does monotheism historically come after and in contrast to (and we can clearly see how god as portrayed in the bible told early believers to deal with this)?

there you go talking out your ass again . . .anyone who knows me knows that I cannot stand wikipedia - worse possible source material for any intelligent discussion - I prefer original source material - preferably a book . . .

If your argument is that monotheism came after polytheism - you’re off base again. Other than that I’m not sure what your point is . . . . so state your point already . . .

Show me some good resources that show that monotheism came before polytheism.

Edit: and it shouldn’t be on Urmonotheismus, as that is pure speculation, much like animism.
[/quote]

sunshine - if you haven’t done your homework before you got here - don’t presuppose that I am going to do it for you . . . if you have not thoroughly studied out religious thought from the beginning of recorded history, don’t try to make an asinine statement about what did or did not come first . . . get some facts, learn some things and then form some opinions - quit trying to it back-ass-wards . . .

880

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You see, I didn’t start with the Bible - that was where I ended. [/quote]

Nice post sir. I think this ^^ is what Oleena/Forlife keep missing.