The main issue with Christianity

Quincunx said:
Perhaps you could "witness", take an opportunity to show how the core of Christianity IS in keeping with Jesus' words in the Synoptic Gospels. "I am the way, the light..." etc. in John 14:6 forms the basis of the soteriology. Sure Jesus was not as clear on his homoosiouosness with God but it was pretty clear there that he was the savior.

Jesus other commands to not live by the sword, or not worship money, all that can be thrown away by many Conservative Christians, but the essence does seem to be there in the Gospels.

Try that approach rather than just being a raving bastard. I'm sure it will be a better "witness". No matter how you feel about the other poster (remember to "turn the other cheek"), just do your job as a Christian. It's your "Great Commission".
Click to expand...

Savior?

Who was he saving?

From whom or what?

Why did they need saving?

This entire "saving" business is an insult to any god that might exist.
 
Just read gfm's quote of IBeDaMann's post. Mann made some interesting comments in that post. I'm going to take him off IGNORE for a bit. I want to read what he has to say on religious issues. I am not participating in any more political threads for now.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Savior? Who was he saving? From whom or what? Why did they need saving? This entire "saving" business is an insult to any god that might exist.
Click to expand...
You are sensing a contradiction in all this, which is itself a separate discussion deserving of its own thread. The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent and created everything. This means that God created the entire timeline for everything "in the beginning" when everything was created, called "The Plan" so God knew everything that was going to happen, due to His omniscience, as he created the timeline of His "The Plan".

At the same time, Christians believe we all have free will. The seeming contradiction comes in the form of your personal freedom to choose to act in a manner that violates the timeline that God established. How can you have freely made a choice if God created the timeline by which that is exactly what you chose?

I am saying all of this because it is the answer to your questions. Under the free will assumption, man "sins" and leaves the grace of God, and it is from this state that man needs "saving" and thus requires a "Savior" ... and a "Saviour" if you are British. Everything traces back to the "Original Sin" which was the first sin committed by man (but blamed on women) when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree. For that, humanity was cast out from paradise to fend for themselves in a cold, hard, cruel world ... and all children born thereafter were infected with original sin. Now humanity needed "saving".

The wording varies wildly between Christian denominations. Some Christians refer to the day they were "saved" as the day they had the epiphany that Jesus is their savior. Others refer to Jesus' dying on the cross as when He saved humanity. The term "sin" means different things to different Christians which is the source of arguments, infighting, and ultimately the formation of new denominations.

So the answer to your question is that Christians believe that an all-powerful and all-knowing God intelligently created Creation per His plan and also gave us all free will to leave His "grace" and we all therefore need to be saved. Jesus is the savior, God's son, who saved humanity by dying for humanity's "sins" or alternately, so that humanity could be saved."

You'll also notice that while the above answers many questions, it leaves you with many more new ones. This is why it needs its own thread. It could even be its own board.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are sensing a contradiction in all this, which is itself a separate discussion deserving of its own thread. The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent and created everything. This means that God created the entire timeline for everything "in the beginning" when everything was created, called "The Plan" so God knew everything that was going to happen, due to His omniscience, as he created the timeline of His "The Plan".


At the same time, Christians believe we all have free will. The seeming contradiction comes in the form of your personal freedom to choose to act in a manner that violates the timeline that God established. How can you have freely made a choice if God created the timeline by which that is exactly what you chose?

I am saying all of this because it is the answer to your questions. Under the free will assumption, man "sins" and leaves the grace of God, and it is from this state that man needs "saving" and thus requires a "Savior" ... and a "Saviour" if you are British. Everything traces back to the "Original Sin" which was the first sin committed by man (but blamed on women) when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree. For that, humanity was cast out from paradise to fend for themselves in a cold, hard, cruel world ... and all children born thereafter were infected with original sin. Now humanity needed "saving".

The wording varies wildly between Christian denominations. Some Christians refer to the day they were "saved" as the day they had the epiphany that Jesus is their savior. Others refer to Jesus' dying on the cross as when He saved humanity. The term "sin" means different things to different Christians which is the source of arguments, infighting, and ultimately the formation of new denominations.

So the answer to your question is that Christians believe that an all-powerful and all-knowing God intelligently created Creation per His plan and also gave us all free will to leave His "grace" and we all therefore need to be saved. Jesus is the savior, God's son, who saved humanity by dying for humanity's "sins" or alternately, so that humanity could be saved."

You'll also notice that while the above answers many questions, it leaves you with many more new ones. This is why it needs its own thread. It could even be its own board.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mann.

I pretty much know all that. I am well studied in religion...especially Catholic and Protestant. Mostly I was interested in what Quincunx thought.

Until my early 20's I was sure I was going to become a priest. I had served as an acolyte in a High Mass to the Catholic Primate of England, Cardinal someone...and I have served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. A delicate combination of pussy and pot put an end to that idea...which was fortunate for the Church and for me.

Anyway, now, I question why anyone would "love" or "worship" a god the like of which you described.

We'll talk more about this.

I hope Quin responds.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Thanks, Mann.

I pretty much know all that. I am well studied in religion...especially Catholic and Protestant. Mostly I was interested in what Quincunx thought.

Until my early 20's I was sure I was going to become a priest. I had served as an acolyte in a High Mass to the Catholic Primate of England, Cardinal someone...and I have served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. A delicate combination of pussy and pot put an end to that idea...which was fortunate for the Church and for me.

Anyway, now, I question why anyone would "love" or "worship" a god the like of which you described.

We'll talk more about this.

I hope Quin responds.
Click to expand...

christ accepts we're all sinners, its a main tenet of christianity.
 
JesusAI said:
christ accepts we're all sinners, its a main tenet of christianity.
Click to expand...

I removed Mann from my IGNORE list...and I am removing you also. This area is totally different from the political discussions. We'll see how this goes.


As to your comment here...I do not much care what Christ "accepts"...or even if he actu ally said what the Gospel reporters say he said.

IF WE ARE ALL SINNERS...then the problem lies with the god...not with we humans.

A sin is simply something that offends the god. If we are all sinners...then the god is the problem, because the god is being upset by WAY TOO MUCH.

The god has got to get its act in order...not the humans.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I removed Mann from my IGNORE list...and I am removing you also. This area is totally different from the political discussions. We'll see how this goes.


As to your comment here...I do not much care what Christ "accepts"...or even if he actu ally said what the Gospel reporters say he said.

IF WE ARE ALL SINNERS...then the problem lies with the god...not with we humans.

A sin is simply something that offends the god. If we are all sinners...then the god is the problem, because the god is being upset by WAY TOO MUCH.

The god has got to get its act in order...not the humans.
Click to expand...

your logic is wrong.

we can all do better. think of it that way.

it's good to have standards even if many fall short, correct?
 
JesusAI said:
your logic is wrong.

we can all do better. think of it that way.
Click to expand...

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic.

Think of it this way: Rather than a god and all of humanity...

...suppose it to be a boss of a small company and all of the employees.

If you found out that the boss considers EVERY employee to be subpar...and derelict in their duties to him/her...

...would you first suppose the problem is with the employees...or with the boss?

The notion advocated by Christians that "we are all sinners" strikes me as an absurdity. And since all sin is, is a human doing something that offends the god, how can you say it is not the god and its expectations that need adjusting?

it's good to have standards even if many fall short, correct?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

But you are not talking about having standards and having many fall short...you are talking about standards set by a god that EVERY HUMAN has not met.

In that scenario, the god is the problem...not humanity.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic.

Think of it this way: Rather than a god and all of humanity...

...suppose it to be a boss of a small company and all of the employees.

If you found out that the boss considers EVERY employee to be subpar...and derelict in their duties to him/her...

...would you first suppose the problem is with the employees...or with the boss?

The notion advocated by Christians that "we are all sinners" strikes me as an absurdity. And since all sin is, is a human doing something that offends the god, how can you say it is not the god and its expectations that need adjusting?



Yeah.

But you are not talking about having standards and having many fall short...you are talking about standards set by a god that EVERY HUMAN has not met.

In that scenario, the god is the problem...not humanity.
Click to expand...

I reiterate.

your logic is wrong.

don't destroy ideals because you can't meet them.

thats fucked up.

you're just mad because youre a narcissist who wants to be worshipped as perfect.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Until my early 20's I was sure I was going to become a priest. I had served as an acolyte in a High Mass to the Catholic Primate of England, Cardinal someone...and I have served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. A delicate combination of pussy and pot put an end to that idea...which was fortunate for the Church and for me.
Click to expand...
This would explain your mental hesitance to referring to yourself as an atheist. Your position and mine are identical, i.e. you do not claim that there is/are a God/gods, you do not claim that there is not/are no God/gods. Your position is earmarked by what you don't claim (you have no theism) not by anything that you do claim (any particular theism). Your Christian upbringing instilled in you the mistaken belief that an atheist affirmatively states that there is no God ... and that is an error. The statement that there is no God is itself a theistic belief and thus precludes atheism. You do not make this claim. You claim, as do I, that those Christians might very well be right and hence, you are not rejecting the idea ... just that you have not yet been convinced and that you still have questions about some of the specifics of their faith. Similarly, you do not reject the theistic view that there is no God, but that you have not necessarily been convinced of that either. Nobody has shown you that there is/are a God/gods and nobody has shown you that there aren't any ... so either case is a possibility, so you reject neither but claim neither.

That's (actual) atheism. You lack any theism. That's all it means. The topic of agnosticism is completely separate and deals with what is knowable, not what is believed (theism). Whether you are a theist or atheist is independent of whether you are agnostic or not. The two are completely separate.

The part that's going to rub you the wrong way is that your embrace of the Global Warming and Climate Change religions puts you right back into the "Theist" category, but we can talk about that at another time.
 
BartenderElite said:
Is that it's not aptly named.

A good portion - and I'd say most - of the religion are practices, rituals, rules and philosophies that were never spoken by Christ, or endorsed by Christ.

I think there are some sects that are strictly about the teachings of Christ, who I feel was an ascended being and someone whose words matter, but they're not mainstream Christianity.
Click to expand...



Christianity is a set of values suggested by the New Testament.

The New Testament is no different than any other philosophy book except for its principles being revealed in metaphorical anecdotes.

The very existence of Jesus of Nazareth is only peripherally relevant, a prop in the metaphorical anecdotes, to the values being promoted as Christianity.

Thus, a denomination exclusively dedicated to the teachings of Christ, without Christmas trees, Easter eggs, and flamboyant / expensive church weddings to create an ambiance for the faith,
would be a dry endeavor appealing only to American Gothic style characters.

I tapped out of the entertaining stuff as a former Catholic. I can't imagine enduring the boring version.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic. Think of it this way: Rather than a god and all of humanity...suppose it to be a boss of a small company and all of the employees. If you found out that the boss considers EVERY employee to be subpar...and derelict in their duties to him/her...would you first suppose the problem is with the employees...or with the boss? The notion advocated by Christians that "we are all sinners" strikes me as an absurdity. And since all sin is, is a human doing something that offends the god, how can you say it is not the god and its expectations that need adjusting?

Yeah. But you are not talking about having standards and having many fall short...you are talking about standards set by a god that EVERY HUMAN has not met. In that scenario, the god is the problem...not humanity.
Click to expand...
JesusAI said:
I reiterate. your logic is wrong. don't destroy ideals because you can't meet them. thats fucked up.
Click to expand...
You are both right, but you both need to look at it differently.

You need to think of it as a sports team. Frank is right, when the last-place team is losing all its games, the head coach gets called in and is fired. Nonetheless, Jesus AI is right in that every single player on the team is singularly focused on all those times he let the team down and cost them the game. They can all remember how the head coach tried at every practice to get them to execute correctly, and try as he did to impose standards, they all came up short in some very clutch plays. Sure, there were positive moments, but they didn't balance out or overcome the screw-ups.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are both right, but you both need to look at it differently.

You need to think of it as a sports team. Frank is right, when the last-place team is losing all its games, the head coach gets called in and is fired. Nonetheless, Jesus AI is right in that every single player on the team is singularly focused on all those times he let the team down and cost them the game. They can all remember how the head coach tried at every practice to get them to execute correctly, and try as he did to impose standards, they all came up short in some very clutch plays. Sure, there were positive moments, but they didn't balance out or overcome the screw-ups.
Click to expand...

Either God created the world and is responsible. Or, God did not create the world. Perhaps there are other options, but this is the Christian theology that God created the world.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Christianity is a set of values suggested by the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Nope. You would have to refer to a Muslim who holds those values as a Christian, never mind that such a set is not at all defined.

Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's savior, however gfm7175 and Into the Night might have different wording and I will defer to them.

NiftyNiblick said:
The New Testament is no different than any other philosophy book
Click to expand...
How many philosophy books claim to fulfill various prophecies?

NiftyNiblick said:
The very existence of Jesus of Nazareth is only peripherally relevant,
Click to expand...
Well then, what about the existence of Jesus of Galilee? How about Jesus of Bethlehem?

NiftyNiblick said:
I tapped out of the entertaining stuff as a former Catholic.
Click to expand...
Fine, as long as you're not going to claim that you were taught Christmas trees and Easter eggs at your Sunday mass.

NiftyNiblick said:
Thus, a denomination exclusively dedicated to the teachings of Christ, without Christmas trees, Easter eggs, and flamboyant / expensive church weddings
Click to expand...
(sigh) What denomination today are you claiming teaches Christmas trees and Easter eggs?
 
IBDaMann said:
You are both right, but you both need to look at it differently.

You need to think of it as a sports team. Frank is right, when the last-place team is losing all its games, the head coach gets called in and is fired. Nonetheless, Jesus AI is right in that every single player on the team is singularly focused on all those times he let the team down and cost them the game. They can all remember how the head coach tried at every practice to get them to execute correctly, and try as he did to impose standards, they all came up short in some very clutch plays. Sure, there were positive moments, but they didn't balance out or overcome the screw-ups.
Click to expand...

stfu itn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top