10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[jundp 191]

This is why I say I see christians use the bible all the time to justify just about anything. It's all over the place. There's something for everyone and every ideology in there. I don't think there is one way of thinking as a christian. Certainly here in the US the bootstraps Christianity-as-excuse-to-ignore-poverty viewpoint is popular.

You are correct, and that drives me crazy too. That's why I would zone out during Basic Christian Thought class in university (my minor is Biblical Studies) because theological debates do nothing but divide people, IMHO. If Christians focused on their personal relationship with God and stopped using the Bible for their own means and started doing what God wanted them to do, things would be a whole lot better and unified.

But then why do we need organized religion? Can't people just love God or whatever they interpret to be The Unknowable and try to live honestly and act out of love?

As I understood it, one of the obligations of being a christian is outreach. Another obligation is to come together as a congregation and worship god. I am not sure whether these are manmade obligations or 'godmade' ones though.

I don't see outreach or community or worship to be an obligation, but rather a privelege that I have because of what I've been given in this life.

And for those "Christians" you are referring....I don't think those people are true Christians. What is the Golden Rule? Love one another as I have loved you.

[Cassie 8]

This is why I say I see christians use the bible all the time to justify just about anything. It's all over the place. There's something for everyone and every ideology in there. I don't think there is one way of thinking as a christian. Certainly here in the US the bootstraps Christianity-as-excuse-to-ignore-poverty viewpoint is popular.

You are correct, and that drives me crazy too. That's why I would zone out during Basic Christian Thought class in university (my minor is Biblical Studies) because theological debates do nothing but divide people, IMHO. If Christians focused on their personal relationship with God and stopped using the Bible for their own means and started doing what God wanted them to do, things would be a whole lot better and unified.

But then why do we need organized religion? Can't people just love God or whatever they interpret to be The Unknowable and try to live honestly and act out of love?

As I understood it, one of the obligations of being a christian is outreach. Another obligation is to come together as a congregation and worship god. I am not sure whether these are manmade obligations or 'godmade' ones though.

I don't see outreach or community or worship to be an obligation, but rather a privelege that I have because of what I've been given in this life.

And for those "Christians" you are referring....I don't think those people are true Christians. What is the Golden Rule? Love one another as I have loved you.

Aye. Worship for me is a natural outpouring of how I feel about God. It's nice to share in corporate worship with others, as well as learning together, sharing, encouraging, etc. When we get bogged down with rules and regs outside of what God wants for us, that's when things get legalistic and God's message gets obliterated -- Jesus was very specific about doing things from the heart.

Outreach for me is the same, I like doing practical things to help others. My church doesn't make me do it, they do encourage us to go out into the community and show love through every day actions. If someone asks me about my faith or why I do the things I do, I tell them, but I am not an in your face type of person.

[Pooky 3,784]

But then why do we need organized religion? Can't people just love God or whatever they interpret to be The Unknowable and try to live honestly and act out of love?

My favourite point so far in this discussion. My answer is that we don't.

The Bible, to pick on Christianity as an example, is offered up as the Word of God. Yet it was written by the hand of man and man is notorious for not being truthful. So how can we trust the Bible to be an accurate representation of history? My answer is that we can't.

But the Church, and I include every denomination in that "C" word, uses the Bible as a tool of power. Power of the Church to guide, persuade and often dictate to their followers how to behave and how to act.

When the Bible was written, and especially the Old Testament, it is entirely possible that it was intended as an allegory, to guide, in a way that was understandable in those times, over 2,000 years ago, peoples' behaviour. Written as the "Word of God", to represent an absolute code of conduct and example, few would have questioned its veracity, as science was in its infancy and lines of communication were extended. As such, it may have been very useful in keeping the population in line. Judging by the way certain denominations have used the Bible since, this practice continues to this very day.

I know I have used Christianity as an example, but it is the religion I am most familiar with. I have no intention of being exclusive here. All organised religion bears the same traits, to exert power and influence over its followers.

But the root of all faith must be personal. Whatever the faith to which you belong, your beliefs come from within you. Your church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or whatever, is merely a symbolic representation that you belong somewhere. Take away the place and your faith remains, if you truly have faith.

So, I say no, we don't need organised religion.

P

[SaadBell 0]

The Homosexual Movement And Pedophilia

The homosexual activist movement and organized pedophiles are linked together by a common goal:

To gain access to children for seduction into homosexuality.

Homosexual activists deny that they target children for seduction into the homosexual lifestyle, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is a lie.

That is pretty interesting, where the overwhelming evidence they speak off, I is worked in the field of counseling pedophilias in prison and the majority are heterosexuals, most are married men with children or their own. So that agreement doesn’t hold water.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

It's voluntary. No usurpation involved.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it become part of American law, enforceable by American courts. What I wouldn't want to see are foreign courts prosecuting Americans for things they did in America.

ah, good point, so maybe better to say the nations abdicated their responsibility.

Anyone who said that would be talking out of their proverbial behind. No nation can or should have the responsbility to adjudicate Human Rights - It's like you think that just because Human Rights is independantly monitored and adjudicated somehow individual countries abdicate all responsibility to their citizens. What leads you such an idea is anybody's guess.

regarding "No nation can or should have the responsbility to adjudicate Human Rights" - be sure to tell that to those who held the nuremburg trials. and i think they did a pretty good job of it. so toss that opinion of yours where it belongs and flush it.

modern, open societies are quite capable of monitoring any "human rights" violations that occur within their borders. to think they can't is a slap in the face of civilization.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's voluntary. No usurpation involved.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it become part of American law, enforceable by American courts. What I wouldn't want to see are foreign courts prosecuting Americans for things they did in America.

ah, good point, so maybe better to say the nations abdicated their responsibility.

Anyone who said that would be talking out of their proverbial behind. No nation can or should have the responsbility to adjudicate Human Rights - It's like you think that just because Human Rights is independantly monitored and adjudicated somehow individual countries abdicate all responsibility to their citizens. What leads you such an idea is anybody's guess.

regarding "No nation can or should have the responsbility to adjudicate Human Rights" - be sure to tell that to those who held the nuremburg trials. and i think they did a pretty good job of it. so toss that opinion of yours where it belongs and flush it.

modern, open societies are quite capable of monitoring any "human rights" violations that occur within their borders. to think they can't is a slap in the face of civilization.

Well said, charles

[EKO1 0]

He gives no proof that God is imaginary. It sure appears his faith is strong that God is imaginary. Could he be delusional, could we all be delusional?

Just some thoughts from a spiritual being having an earthly experience.

[SMOKE 1,426]

he believes god is imaginary. i believe he is a dipsh!t.

Edited May 29, 2008 by SMOKE

[Nasturtium 500]

GG, I've answered you now 3 times over differing months/weeks, but you have yet to acknowledge me once. So. Here's the thing-- I don't think you actually want an answer, even though you asked me yourself. I don't think you will ever actually accept an answer either, and it shouldn't matter to you as you do not believe in G-d anyway. I'm not really sure why you won't accept any of the answers given; you are using some circular logic, but that in itself wouldn't really prevent you from accepting an answer.

If I ask a question about Islam and I am given an answer I find absurd, I accept it as being valid within the framework of their belief system. Being that you do not hold that G-d is really there anyway, isn't it logical to do the same?

Because you have been asking a question which presupposes a belief in G-d in the first place and also that gives authority to your assertion of what the Bible says as His words.

I would like to point out that you still ignored context and chose to do pick and choose. If I write a sentence, and I say "I think it is OK to kill someone in self-defence" and then you cut my sentance to say I said it is OK to kill someone and use it to justify murder, then how is that taking my thought in context? You are choosing to do the same thing here. That is fine if you wish to pick and choose, but you cannot say that it means what you assert then at that point.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it appears, and I could be wrong, that you are presupposing that G-d is fair. G-s is not fair and never has been and never will be. If G-d were fair, we would all go to hell.

Edited May 29, 2008 by julianna

[Dr. Obvious 49]

And for those "Christians" you are referring....I don't think those people are true Christians. What is the Golden Rule? Love one another as I have loved you.

To me, a true Christian would be the person who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior who died on the cross for the world's sins and was resurrected three days later. That is all there is to it. Without this belief, you cannot be Christian. Therefore, everything else is gravy and has no real bearing on the definition of true or real Christian to me.

The main reason I cannot be a Christian is that I can't accept that central tenant. It is truly the sine qua non of Christian belief. I can't believe that it makes any real sense what is going on there once you involve the Holy Trinity into it. It all goes downhill from there for me. There are a lot of Christians I like as people and some I don't. Same for everyone. That has no bearing to me though on whether or not they are true adherents Christianity because they all are as long as they accept JC as Lord and Savior. I think anything else is moving the goalposts too much.

[almaty 19]

to me a true chrisitan ..is someone who believes and lives jesus (pbuh) teachings......not just quotes them to served a self-centered interest

[Dr. Obvious 49]

The problem for me though becomes the question 'What did Jesus really say?'. Jesus never bothered to write down anything himself. There is no Book of Jesus in the NT.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The problem for me though becomes the question 'What did Jesus really say?'. Jesus never bothered to write down anything himself. There is no Book of Jesus in the NT.

wwjww..........what would jesus write with?

[almaty 19]

The problem for me though becomes the question 'What did Jesus really say?'. Jesus never bothered to write down anything himself. There is no Book of Jesus in the NT.

excellent point brother

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The problem for me though becomes the question 'What did Jesus really say?'. Jesus never bothered to write down anything himself. There is no Book of Jesus in the NT.

excellent point brother

i thought wacken was a girl?