Misconceptions of Christianity

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
More importantly: If the bible was perfect, there wouldnt be two versions. There would be one. The perfect one.[/quote]

What? Or, gee, there could be one perfect one, and more imperfect ones. Leave the atheistic arguments to someone else.

Forget the bible for a second. There could one true ‘thing,’ and many imperfect (though some might get very close) versions of that thing. Come on…[/quote]

Then the christians using the imperfect version have lost all legitmacy in saying that their bible is right because it says so and is perfect.[/quote]

Hi, welcome to something we’ve been aware of–sectarian/denominational disagreement…
[/quote]

Nice place.

Also grounds for my stance that neither are perfect and the circular tautological argument is bs and should be rejected.[/quote]

Your argument is fallacious, just because one is wrong does not make evidence that the other is wrong since they are not the same thing.[/quote]

Ya know, to be honest, I cant say that the bible is right or wrong.

I can point out the things in the bible that I can’t accept as being true, and hence explain my refusal to accept “the bible is perfect”.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< What seems lost on you is that I was being sincere when I said “Fair enough.” >>>[/quote]
Then I misunderstood you to be accusing him of copping out. A thing you must admit would not be unreasonable. In any case “fair enough”[/quote]

I dont blame you. I’m just not in the mood to be an asshole tonight. :)[/quote]

Hate to see you when you are in the mood! Ziiiiiiiing![/quote]

LMA–wait. no. Not at all. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]NAUn wrote:
I know some of this has probably been covered throughout this thread, and I’ve read a lot of it, but the bickering and pointless arguing tires me…

So do the christians participating in this thread believe we have evolved from single-celled organisms over a few billion years? And if so, why did God only reveal Himself as He did in the bible during that extremely microscopic interval of our history?

Also, if you guys could be kind enough to entertain another question sincerely and with an open mind: How would you feel if you found out there was no God and your life was essentially meaningless and the influence of all of your good works and sins would eventually die out into irrelevance? I know that you know that’s not true, but try to imagine that for me with as much conviction as you can to give me an answer.
[/quote]

Sorry, can’t do that for you. For obvious reasons.

Are you really asking us to take 73 books and tell you how to give you a general summary of how we accept what is fact and what is metaphorical? Well, I can tell you this, I tell by asking the Church.

No. Because it took a long period of time to figure it out, with lots of debate, and revelation + discernment. Plus the Catholic Church says so.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<<< That was Tirib that said that about Ghandi, and if you knew Catholic Doctrine and Cannon Code Law, and the CCC you would know that well saying anyone is going to Hell will get you excommunicated. However, those that know the Truth and are not part of the one true Church, they’ll go to Hell. Now, whoever is included in that, it is not my duty to judge, as only G-d can Judge.[/quote]
Awww man, now you had to go n do that didn’t ya. It’s too late tonight, but I am not going to be able to leave this alone.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey wait. Fuck you.

Your “literal” translation uses the word water, REPEATEDLY. Now, when I call that to task, suddenly you want to play the “Well, um, they just mean liquid of some sort.”

If the bible is -word for word- infallible, there should be no need for creative interpretations such as “Well, by water they actually meant matter which includes water, and other liquids, and solids, and gasses, etc.”

So, is it water, or were they incorrect in calling it water? [/quote]

inerrant =/= infallible[/quote]

Semantics =/= good debate[/quote]

That’s not semantics, that is difference between black and white. Or, at least black and gray.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Anyone who would worship a god that would send ghandi to hell is a sick person.

Just my humble opinion.[/quote]

Yes, declaring someone is sick is humble.

[quote]StrawmanAndPlanIt wrote:

Which just serves to discredit all of you.

If it was “The truth” like you’re saying, then all the christians would agree on it.

Since your “truth” has no more firm ground than Tiribs “truth”, I see no reason to believe either.

But…but… MY bible says this… and mine is the right one…NO MY bible says THIS and MINE is the right one…[/quote]

My Church created the Bible, I win. My Bibles inerrancy comes from the fact that the Holy Ghost is with my Church, same for it’s doctrines. Happy? Stop using Straw-man and know who you are talking to.

Just because their is absolute truth, and some people might not believe it does not mean that we are all wrong.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<<< That was Tirib that said that about Ghandi, and if you knew Catholic Doctrine and Cannon Code Law, and the CCC you would know that well saying anyone is going to Hell will get you excommunicated. However, those that know the Truth and are not part of the one true Church, they’ll go to Hell. Now, whoever is included in that, it is not my duty to judge, as only G-d can Judge.[/quote]
Awww man, now you had to go n do that didn’t ya. It’s too late tonight, but I am not going to be able to leave this alone.[/quote]

As far as I am concerned Tirib, you are part of Catholic Church, you just don’t know it. :wink: Have a goodnight, I have to go find more fallacious arguments in a Popular Source, wouldn’t happen to have any on hand would you?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Anyone who would worship a god that would send ghandi to hell is a sick person.

Just my humble opinion.[/quote]

Yes, declaring someone is sick is humble.[/quote]

Sarcasm is never lost on you.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Sorry, can’t do that for you. For obvious reasons.[/quote]

I must say it’s not obvious to me. Are you not mentally capable of doing that? I’m not asking you to blaspheme if that’s what you mean. I’m not saying reject God, I’m saying entertain a situation which is as far as you are concerned, completely false. You should be capable of doing that, no? “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” and all that jazz. If that is really something you are not religiously allowed to do I find that pretty shocking.

For example, I know exactly how I would feel if I believed in Christianity without being a Christian.

Wow that’s a lot of books. No, saying you go by what the church tells you is enough of an answer.

[quote]
No. Because it took a long period of time to figure it out, with lots of debate, and revelation + discernment. Plus the Catholic Church says so.[/quote]

Fair enough, that’s your call. If you’ve been raised as a Catholic, do you think you would have ended up as Catholic even if you had been raised Protestant? Do you attribute any of your religion leanings to your upbringing, or is it Catholic Church or bust because you are entirely and independently convinced that Catholicism is the most righteous form of Christianity?

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Sorry, can’t do that for you. For obvious reasons.[/quote]

I must say it’s not obvious to me. Are you not mentally capable of doing that? I’m not asking you to blaspheme if that’s what you mean. I’m not saying reject God, I’m saying entertain a situation which is as far as you are concerned, completely false. You should be capable of doing that, no? “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” and all that jazz. If that is really something you are not religiously allowed to do I find that pretty shocking.

For example, I know exactly how I would feel if I believed in Christianity without being a Christian. [/quote]

No, it is just hard for me to comprehend G-d not being real, and imagining how I would react. I could speculate that, I would be upset and just go on living my life with the same virtues, although my life would seriously be out of order/wack since I spend 5x20 minutes reading the Divine Office, pray when I wake up/go to sleep, before I eat/after I eat, go to daily mass, go to confession, pray to St. Mary and take care of her statue, &c. All of a sudden I would have a lot of time filled with nothing, and I wouldn’t get as much done since I wouldn’t have a very structured day.

[quote]

Wow that’s a lot of books. No, saying you go by what the church tells you is enough of an answer.[/quote]

That is about as general as I can get it, otherwise I am just going to be typing up what the CC says about it on every book. There is not really two different types (literal and metaphorical) of books in the Bible, so there is different ways of looking at each Bible.

[quote]

[quote]
No. Because it took a long period of time to figure it out, with lots of debate, and revelation + discernment. Plus the Catholic Church says so.[/quote]

Fair enough, that’s your call. If you’ve been raised as a Catholic, do you think you would have ended up as Catholic even if you had been raised Protestant? Do you attribute any of your religion leanings to your upbringing, or is it Catholic Church or bust because you are entirely and independently convinced that Catholicism is the most righteous form of Christianity?[/quote]

I will not at this point post my testimony, but I’ll give you my general outline as a Christian.

  1. Baptized in the Catholic Church
  2. Raised out of the Catholic Church or any Church for that matter.
  3. Went to Presbyterian Church.
  4. Went to a non-denominational Church.
  5. Went to Baptist Church.
  6. Knew something was missing, found it in the Catholic Church.
  7. Joined the Catholic Church fully.

So to answer your question Catholic Church or Bust.

(Interesting side note: I’ve had everyone from JW and Mormons (I actually work with the latter) come to my door, and it is interesting, before I became a Catholic I would tell them I was a Christian and they would still keep talking to me. Now, if I say I was already a Catholic they would turn around and walk away, of course I am a hospitable and generous man, so I offer them some beverages and ask them to continue discussing what they have to say while we sit in my lounge and have a smoke and some lemonade.)

[quote]NAUn wrote:
I know some of this has probably been covered throughout this thread, and I’ve read a lot of it, but the bickering and pointless arguing tires me…

So do the christians participating in this thread believe we have evolved from single-celled organisms over a few billion years? And if so, why did God only reveal Himself as He did in the bible during that extremely microscopic interval of our history?

Also, if you guys could be kind enough to entertain another question sincerely and with an open mind: How would you feel if you found out there was no God and your life was essentially meaningless and the influence of all of your good works and sins would eventually die out into irrelevance? I know that you know that’s not true, but try to imagine that for me with as much conviction as you can to give me an answer.

Can you give me a general summary of what Christianity accepts as fact/what is metaphorical in the bible and the evolution of those differences, as well? I assume you see this evolution as a clearer understanding of what God revealed in the bible in the same way a child doesn’t always understand his father’s advice until he grows older?

One more if you’ll be so kind… as for the makeup of the bible: If everyone can agree that the bible (their version) is inerrant, then that means that over a period of time God revealed His Truth to a select group of people who recorded this Truth without fault. The fundamental difference lies in 1)the period of time this covers 2) who those people are. If God didn’t reveal which scriptures were the Truth, but it was instead determined by some form of church, does anyone think it’s possible that some of God’s Truth was omitted from the bible or that something was included which shouldn’t have been? If so, why do you think that, and what gives you conviction over your human beliefs in that sense compared to what someone else thinks does or doesn’t belong in the bible?

[/quote]
Idk how to split your post into sections so I will try my best.
To your first question, no but I do not know what position other Christians here hold on that issue. If I “found out” God doesn’t exist and had to live out the rest of my life I believe the only honest outlook one can have on life is nihilism, if this happened at the end of my life I would have been happy with how I lived my life more than another way.
What Christians accept as literal vs metaphorical depends on their hermeneutics I happen to lean on the literal side of that scale while others are in between or lean to the allegorical side. Those on the literal side will take a certain passage (for example genesis) as casually having happened while those on the allegorical side will say that while it didn’t happen literally it, it has some other purpose(moral values/lesson etc…).
As for the scriptures I view them in awe as great evidence of God preserving his message throughout the centuries and are the best preserved historical documents that I know of. For example a silver scroll of Numbers from the time of Jeremiah or about 700-800 BC even older than the DSS and is basically the same book of Numbers we have today so that is a big gap in the documentary hypothesis. I accept the autographs as inerrant even though there may be small translation errors throughout the century, and even a few books it mentions that aren’t here anymore to my knowledge(i.e. the book of Jasher). This isn’t a big deal because Truth is found in Jesus Christ.
John 16:12-15 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what does that mean, “seen”? Before you can start to “see” you need to believe, right?
[/quote]

Um, no. If you know that Jesus is Truth and you see Jesus’ works and you say it’s not Jesus.

Example, if I see a miracle, or I see grace working, and I say that it’s the Devil working or it is just chemicals or something like that when I know better. That is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.[/quote]

…just to get this clear: only a person like you, who is a devout catholic, could blaspheme against the holy ghost because you believe it’s all true and have seen Jesus’ works?
[/quote]

Nope, a self-proclaimed atheist can do it. Knowledge transcends establishments.

The Jewish Pharisees did it. [/quote]

…but the pharisees believed, i do not. I’ve never seen the truth as you’ve seen it. I’ve never seen a miracle i knew was god’s doing and denied he did it. I guess it’s simply knowing about the church’s dogma and rejecting it that’s enough to blaspheme?

Is this christian v. non-christian, protestant v. catholic or atheist v. believer? I want to jump into the fray, but I can’t decide where y’all are.

Some thoughts on what I’ve seen so far;

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

I’ve also found that people that want to tell you all about their faith, rarely want to hear about yours.

And I do have faith, so this position is established.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hymns, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, incense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like? [/quote]

Nope, not at all. In fact there is a really good Monty Python sketch where they parody Hymns that points out how totally ridiculous the words to hymns are. Does God really want that level of fawning and cringing?

It is a strange coincidence that most of the common practices in all religions are designed to put you in a trance like malleable state, no? And again, I am not claiming that people deliberately came up with these to control people. It happened by evolution.[/quote]

Natural selection you say? Well, I guess we’re the best adapted for orderly propagation. You guys better get busy making babies. Oh, but just make sure to do it in intact homes. The social consequences and all, you know? You’re just not birthing enough native labor to prop up the social welfare system needed to satisfy the gray and barren citizen. Of course, those heavily secular nations you guys favor could just keep importing those fertile religious folk to replace themselves with. ;p
[/quote]

Import them, educate them then send them back to spread the good news :wink:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< a long post >>>
[/quote]I (and others) have addressed all this already elsewhere in this thread. If you are interested in Christian views please peruse. If not then why are you here? Not that I’m sorry in the slightest that you are, but I’m curious. I have to say again that it’s been like a couple decades since I’ve heard a new argument against the Christian faith. They’re all the same argument in different packages anyway.
[/quote]

You’re right, I don’t get what a person in the modern world would still believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. I could see how a person could be a Deist. For a while I had somewhat of a Deistic belief based mainly on the cosmological argument that the universe required some sort of prime mover. But I never understood the Jesus story. If God wanted to forgive humans, why not just do so? Why the need for what was essentially a human sacrifice of his son no less? I could also see how the Abrahamic religions fulfilled a need to impose law, order, and a sense of morality during the Bronze Age and into the Middle Ages. But why these beliefs survive into the 21st century is a mystery.[/quote]

Because the Jesus story is a made up story taken from a collection of stories and was designed to ‘fulfill’ various conflicting prophesies.[/quote]

I’m sure you know how arguments go, you have to premises AND conclusions with evidence to back up your premises.[/quote]

So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ll say this again that the majority of atheists don’t say that they are 100% certain there is no God, only that there is no good evidence that supports a belief in one. There is a difference.
[/quote]

Then they are not atheists. Atheists are persons who deny the existence deities.[/quote]

No, atheist means without religion. Nothing more.

serious question i was asked by a atheist i had no answer-Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers. So when Jesus died and was resurrected who looked after the world in the period in between?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I gotta tell ya man. I wrote a post a long long time ago about escalating societal promiscuity, the breakdown of the family and the central role that has and is playing in the demise of this nation.[/quote]

It is the cornerstone, isn’t it? So much so that I can barely tolerate anti-nanny state talk, anymore. I just roll my eyes and sigh.

[quote] You were the only one that responded with simply “good post”. I don’t know if you remember. I’ll say again. Whatever else we may disagree on (which I’m thinking is quite a bit), my hat is off to you for your insight in this all important area. I’ve seen some of your posts lately and you are one of the very few people I have ever met who has the clear thinking view here that you do. I am being deadly serious.
[/quote]

Yeah, I didn’t have much to add at the time, because you hit it out of the park. As to where we disagree…now that you’ve said something, I’m not sure. I mean, I’m sure there are issues we’d part ways on, but I just can’t recall any such disagreements.

However, now I’m intrigued with your aside, “which I’m thinking is quite a bit.” Wondering what impressions, on what topics, has led you to believe so.[/quote]
We’ll leave our disagreements for later if you don’t mind and I’m somewhat gratified you remember that post. I put a lot of work into it actually. Consider these observations by de Tocqueville in the 1830’s as you know:

[i]<<< "Again, it may be said that in our morals we have reserved strange immunities to man, so that there is, as it were, one virtue for his use and another for the guidance of his partner, and that, according to the opinion of the public, the very same act may be punished alternately as a crime or only as a fault.

The Americans do not know this iniquitous division of duties and rights; among them the seducer is as much dishonored as his victim. <<<>>> their conduct to women always implies that they suppose them to be virtuous and refined; and such is the respect entertained for the moral freedom of the sex that in the presence of a woman the most guarded language is used lest her ear should be offended by an expression.

In America a young unmarried woman may alone and without fear undertake a long journey. <<<>>> the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman’s honor<<< >>> As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence,

I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women."[/i]

He was merely observing. THAT is the moral foundation this country was built on and it came from Christianity and laid the bedrock for everything else. It bred faithfulness, self sacrifice, self control and just plain moral decency into the very fabric of this nation. THAT is also what we surrendered in the 60’s and THAT is the disease of which all else is merely symptomatic.

Are you kidding me? Men assuming women are virtuous and refined and considering nothing more precious than her honor? Guarding their language lest they offend her? A long journey!!! HAR DEE HAR HAR!!! Today women AND CHILDREN can barely leave their house unarmed for fear some degenerate may brutalize them and throw them in a river somewhere.

How far we have fallen while we fund monstrously expensive and useless studies and programs trying to figure out where we went wrong. This country is now an unbridled whorehouse that de Tocqueville would not even recognize as that shining beacon in the world we once were due to the superiority of our women resulting from the towering virtuous respect with which they were treated.

We are rotting from the inside out and nothing but a revival of the grace of God on this nation will make a speck of difference.[/quote]Minor detail but all violent crime as well as violent crime against women is at a far lower level in the US than it was when he wrote that. You should try looking at the facts not the flowery language (but I could say the same about your Bible knowledge) ;-)[/quote]
I’ve come to expect nothing less from you than some sort of source for an assertion like this? Since there were no hard stats at that time and a man like De Tocqueville, who’s professional mission was observing just those types of things was in a position to have unusually reliable observations. Crime was only a relatively small part of my point anyway and you’ll forgive me if I’m not readily humbled by your estimation of my bible knowledge.[/quote]

Criminology By Larry J. Siegel

And actually there were hard stats. The police Bureaus in major US cities started keeping detailed records of crime rates just about the time that De Tocqueville was writing.