10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[Nagishkaw 510]

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?

His finger and some sand?

[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.

excellent point brother

i thought wacken was a girl?

Indeed, I am equipped with a ovaries. I don't take any offence though. We all screw up on the interwebz.

[Sister Fracas 5]

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.

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

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion.

All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.

We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.

If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it.

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them.

--Dalai Lama

Edited May 29, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[Scott & Lai 12]

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.

Now I can actually respect that position, because you at least know what it is you are rejecting. True, Christians should follow the moral teachings of Jesus, but what Christians do is at best only a secondary aspect of what Christianity is. "Christian" is not a synonym for "good person," and the moral/ethical teachings of Christianity are generally not unique to Christianity. The core of Christianity is the proclamation of who Jesus is and what he did.

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.

No, but his words and deeds are recorded in the Gospels, at least two of which were written by men who were with Jesus throughout his three-year ministry. But if you do not believe that those books actually record what Jesus really said, do you mean to say that if there were a "Book of Jesus," written by his hand, you would accept that as authentic? The fact is, most people in those times did not actually write down their own words directly; the normal practice was to dictate to a scribe who did the actual writing.

[SaadBell 0]

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion.

All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.

We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.

If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it.

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them.

--Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is an amazing human being

We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves.

Dalai Lama

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Are you sure you want to persue that line of reasoning against the notion of Human Rights? The whole post world war 2 to path to justice is fraught with pitfalls as I am sure you are aware.

I am also not sure how open societes can "capably monitor human rights violatations within their borders" if you don't define what human rights are. However, I am sure you have some airy fairy notion of how open societies just 'know' what human rights are, so there is no need to enshrine them in a declaration.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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.

Are you sure you want to persue that line of reasoning against the notion of Human Rights? The whole post world war 2 to path to justice is fraught with pitfalls as I am sure you are aware.

I am also not sure how open societes can "capably monitor human rights violatations within their borders" if you don't define what human rights are. However, I am sure you have some airy fairy notion of how open societies just 'know' what human rights are, so there is no need to enshrine them in a declaration.

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

[jundp 191]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

[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

i thought wacken was a girl?

Indeed, I am equipped with a ovaries. I don't take any offence though. We all screw up on the interwebz.

i am such a chopf##K...............sorry, little sister

[Peikko 1,575]

Educate yourself about the Nuremburg trials, they were not what you seem to think they were.

No, it has nothing to do with Big Brother and has absolutely nothing to do with sovreign nations divorcing themselvers from responsibility.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Educate yourself about the Nuremburg trials, they were not what you seem to think they were.

No, it has nothing to do with Big Brother and has absolutely nothing to do with sovreign nations divorcing themselvers from responsibility.

yawn. this exceeds the lame meter reading.

[chri'stina 190]

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.

Wow, very well written.

I agree there comes a point in threads where instead of just asking what the beliefs are, it becomes a questioning of why are those the beliefs. I could question so many things in this world, in so many religions and philosophies that I see giant holes in, but I don't do so in every thread about such a topic . If it's being discussed I might jump in with an opinion, but I don't go bringing it up myself all the time. My questions are: Why don't people believe there could be a God? Why is that opinion any more valid than believing in God? It's not. There is no proof that there is no God and there is not the kind of proof for a God existing that some people want. I believe there is proof of His existence in my life, certain things don't just happen coincidentally all the time. I have answered questions I have had about my own beliefs, which is why I have them.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

i am such a chopf##K...............sorry, little sister

Hehe, no problem.

[Peikko 1,575]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Educate yourself about the Nuremburg trials, they were not what you seem to think they were.

No, it has nothing to do with Big Brother and has absolutely nothing to do with sovreign nations divorcing themselvers from responsibility.

yawn. this exceeds the lame meter reading.

Is that your code for "I have backed myself into a corner that I can't get out of so instead of admitting that the Declaration of Human Rights might serve some purpose, I'll try to pretend that it's not worth bothering with anymore?"

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Educate yourself about the Nuremburg trials, they were not what you seem to think they were.

No, it has nothing to do with Big Brother and has absolutely nothing to do with sovreign nations divorcing themselvers from responsibility.

yawn. this exceeds the lame meter reading.

Is that your code for "I have backed myself into a corner that I can't get out of so instead of admitting that the Declaration of Human Rights might serve some purpose, I'll try to pretend that it's not worth bothering with anymore?"

no, that's an "i'm tired of reading your drivel." you've still not disproved my earlier assertation that it has no teeth.