To C’jais,

I’m sorry about offending you in my post (if I did. I’m not sure you are really offended, but I apologize just the same.) Please don’t take what I said to heart if you don’t want to. I’m not saying you have to believe what I wrote. Did you ever see that Sienfeld where Elaine was mad at her boyfriend for not trying to convert her to Christianity, even though she didn’t believe him? It was funny.
If you don’t mind I’d love to address some of your responces to my original post. If you don’t want to read it then please don’t.

Originally posted by C'jais
So being a Good Christian is irrelevant, as long as you're Christian?

Let me get this: It doesn't matter if I'm an abusive alcoholic who likes to rape little puppies, as long as I believe in Christ? Wow. I never thought it worked that way.

So all the stuff about us being weighed and measured when we're dead, to see if we're "worthy" of standing next to Jesus doesn't really matter?


On a purely hypothetical level, you understand what I said correctly. Your actions do not determine your eternal fate if you accept Jesus. However, if you truly believe that what the Bible says about Jesus is true, you won’t have the desire to rape puppies. I was trying to say that “good” behavior comes natually out of thankfulness for what God has done. Obviously I din’t make myself too clear. Sorry.

Originally posted by C'jais

That'd be all well and good as long as we actually knew that was what happened. We don't.

What we've got is a collection of scriptures (most written by the same, one man), all claiming the authors recieved divine inspiration. They're telling us that the Bible is right because it's divine. But who wrote the Bible? People did. People claiming divine intervention did. I could make the same statement:

I'm right because I say I am. I have the mandate to say I am right, because I am divine. Yet, I'm still just an ordinary human as far as we all know, so there's no way to test this statement.

Thus, it is circular reasoning, and thus we can discard this hypothesis (it's not even a theory) as we see fit. Thus your entire argument falls. Case closed.


You don’t have to believe anything you don’t want to. It’s all up to you what you want to do with your life. We are not robots. (Well you’re not a robot, I may be. *thinks* yeah I’m a robot.) But you did say case closed so maybe I shouldn’t even be typing this :eek:

Originally posted by C'jais
Now this is interesting. What if we found life on other planets? Would you then start reading the Bible as a bunch of metaphors, not to be taken literally? Would the whole Genesis fall on its behind because it's only dealing with this planet? Because, as you know, you can't add to the Bible...


I think you might have misunderstood that part. I really wasn’t saying he made only one planet.
For the record, I don’t believe there is life on other planets that will greatly affect our existence on earth.

Originally posted by C'jais
On the contrary, believing is an active feat of imagination, so that point is pretty moot.


I didn’t quite understand what you meant here. Bear in mind I’m not the brightest light bulb in the pack.

Originally posted by C'jais
If only you had to believe in hard data and tested theories, this statement would be somewhat true.

No. You cannot believe in the theory of gravity, nor the theory of evolution, the atomic theory or the big bang theory for that matter.


I have yet to see “hard data" on the big bang theory.
Gravity is something I experience everyday while I have never experienced the big bang theory.
Actually the probability that all the prophecies in the Bible that came true could be predicted beforehand is greater than the law of thermal dynamics. I trust I’m not going to burst into flames at any minute (trusting the law of thermal dynamics) so I don’t have a hard time believing the Bible.

Originally posted by C'jais
Are you too proud to think that your fate is not utterly insignificant and that the universe's pityless indifference doesn't care what happens to you, and excuse this lack of realization by inventing something imaginary to look after you?


I do believe I am utterly insignificant. I don’t believe the univese’s pityless indiffernce cares what happens to me, but God does.
I didn’t invent Christianity.

Originally posted by C'jais
Your fate is determined by everything.


That sounds interesting. It seems like you have your own religion.

Originally posted by C'jais
No.

We are raised to see that our species can only prosper in a peaceful, calm environment. "Being nice" is not only a moral, it is downright evident that it is one of the better ways to survive.


I disagree. I worked with and studied chimpanzees for almost two years. They are not peaceful, calm or nice to each other. Theirs species prospers just fine.

I think we are nice to each other because deep down we know it brings us peace.

Originally posted by C'jais
Sadly, some Christians in here are of the notion that it is "not enough just to believe". Preach to them instead.


Well, most of my post was intended for Christians. I’m sorry you had to read it.

Originally posted by C'jais
And those good-behaviour religions are the ones I'd like to live next door to - definately some zealot who thinks it's okay to do whatever he wants as long as he'll get to heaven anyway.

The crusades, the priest-supported slavery in the States, the eradication of farming communities in the Philipines, The dark ages, the killing of abortion-practicing doctors, Bush Jr.'s religious mandate to wage a war and the overpopulation in Africa doesn't ring the slightest bell?


As I have stated above, good morals come with truly believing in the Bible. My point was that most Christians get the order reversed.

Grouping the worst acts that have been associated with Christianity together and calling it all of Christianity is as narrow minded as calling all Muslims terrorists. I know you are more intelligent than that.

Originally posted by C'jais
Not open to interpretation. I'll remember that.

Tell me, was the earth created 6000 years ago? Does the Bible objectify women and condemn homosexuals? Is abortion murder?


I’m not sure but I think those are rhetorical questions you are asking me.

Like a lot of Christians, you are trying to bring it back to a question of actions and what is right and wrong. You are missing the point of the Bible if you get stuck on those few things that offend you.

Originally posted by C'jais
Only by realizing that you are truly insignificant will you come to terms with your finite existence. Only by realizing that beliefs will bow before data will you discover the inner mechanics of everything.

Only by realizing that all religions are built on the same principles of circular reasoning will you open your mind.


I do believe I am insignificant. Although it hasn’t helped me “come to terms with my finite existence.”

As far as circular reasoning, I don’t believe that all religions are based on it. I see the circle you are talking about and many religions follow that formula. You gave the example of you saying you are divine and how that would be a your-word-against-mine sort of circle (if I understood your point.) However many people wrote the Bible who are from different cultures and backgrounds. It’s not just one main guy as put it, with everyone else willing to perpetuate a hoax through torture and persecution.

Originally posted by C'jais
That's an irresponsible way of explaining how your religion is morally superior.


You took that out of context. I said a true Christian can’t be a hypocrite because he or she doesn’t pretend to be perfect in the first place. Morality has nothing to do with that statement.

Originally posted by C'jais
Explain the case called Mandalorian54, please.


LoL

Originally posted by C'jais
That gift is in your mind alone.


Actually I’m not the only one who believes what I do.

Originally posted by C'jais
Wanting eternal bliss is about as selfish as it gets.


You have a point there.
I admit that I am an evil, selfish, contemptible bastard. That is why I need Jesus:)

I read this post the other day and found it a great read. So many opinions. For the record, I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior and will continue to know this regardless of what anyone here posts.

Now on with my info... I'm an IT Consultant, and I was working in a clients lab today and noticed an interesting sign by one of the desks. It read:


In God we trust... all others bring data.


I could not help but think back on this thread and decided to post it. I do not believe in coincidence, most things happen for a divine reason. I do believe that we as humans are permitted the ability to intervene/"stray the course" and royally muck things up (call it the proverbial "give us enough rope to hang ourselves with").

As a student of Anthropology, I'm fascinated by all religions of the world. In recent discussion at work with some co-workers, I attempted to describe some religions of other cultures when one of my co-workers asked, "how can people believe that stuff?"

It so happened that he is a devout christian... doesn't even work on Wednesday nights so he can go to bible study.

My first thought was that these same people with these "strange" beliefs would have hard time understanding the belief that three persons were really one person while being three persons. They would find it odd that we pray to a wooden dummy nailed to two crossed timbers. But I held my tounge..... gotta work there and all.

Instead, I've been focusing on that question... actually I re-phrased it slightly: why do people believe?

In looking at people in westernized nations, there is a trend of belief that goes beyond religion. People believe in alien visitations merely by hearing or reading stories of government cover-up of UFO landings or crashes. People believe that they are being actively abducted by these aliens. People still believe in Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster, though both have been proven to be frauds. People still believe in the Shroud of Turan. People believe in ghosts that haunt old houses and people believe in goat sucking creatures called Chupacabras in Texas/Mexico/Guatamala. And the list goes on, and on, and on....

I believe that there is something psychological about all of this, to include belief in religious doctrine. There is some feature in our brains that makes belief a natural state of being. I must admit, I find all of the above examples very alluring and, in my youth, I explored each of them. I was obsessed (when I was very young) with UFO's, aliens, Big Foot, etc. I also subscribed to the religious doctrines handed down to me by my family and neighbors through oral tradition and biblical study.

It has taken an epiphany to break free of this mental trapping. Which now leads to the questions: which is normal? People who believe or those that don't. Is the other abnormal?

We see examples of religion gone extreme even in contemporary times. Jim Jones in Guyana, the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Aum Shinri Kyo, etc. In looking at these examples, one must ask, "how can people believe that stuff?"

I think we could all ask that. But if it is just the extreme religion that is questioned, does that validate or invalidate the less extreme religions. Could not the same processes of "belief" be at work in mainstream religions?

It seems apparent that how we believe must also have its roots in how we learn and how we make inferrances based on limited data. If I tell you that a Jilatwee is an animal, you immediately understand that it has certain characteristics: it feeds, needs water, reproduces with its own species, etc. If I get more specific and tell you it's a bird, you assign even more characteristics.

If I say there are aliens visiting Earth, you think "yeah, right... good movie." But toss in "and the government has been covering it up" and you start seeing the "logic" in it. That's just like the government, afterall.

If you grow up and all your life you hear people around you talking about "god" and how he's watching everything, doesn't like this, doesn't like that, made this and that.... you can't help but make unconscious inferrances as soon as a diety is discussed.

This is all really just some loose babble and I'm starting to ramble... it really is about midnight.

But these are the types of thoughts that I've had the last week or two on the subject of why people believe. I just find it interesting that christians (I'll use that example, since it was the topic of the thread) can analyse beliefs other than christian (UFOs, BigFoot, "pagan" religions, etc.) but not wonder about their own beliefs. Something about pots and kettles should apply there.

I've wondered about this some time ago:

When I watch a good movie, I can occasionally lose myself in it - suspension of disbelief, I'm sure you've tried it some time. When watching it, I can accept the outrageous as possible, and the unreal as real. But when the movie is over, I'm perfectly clear that while fascination, it wasn't real. When finished, I immediately try to work that which I saw into my universe.

But where do Christians stand on this?

For example, you are sitting watching X-men. It's a film about people with "mutant powers". Would you, during the movie, think to yourself: "There's no way this could exist in a universe made by God. Such mutant powers are a disgrace to the work God works his ways. It cannot be." Or, would you simply not think about how this would impact a God-controlled "real" universe while watching it?

Now, the movie is finished. Would you then start thinking of ways this movie's fiction could be realized in the real world - how such mutant people are prophets of God's powers (or spawns of Satan)? If, for example, seeing a movie about a girl with telepathic powers, would you try to work that into your universe when the movie is finished, such as seeing her telepathic powers as a sign of God?

Or would you throw the entire movie aside as fiction not to be concerned with in the end?

As for Skin's question: Yes, I think it's natural to believe in something. Both as a child and when seeing a movie, I and many others are willing to forgo natural conclusions in order to accept the realistically impossible.

But again, it'd be interesting to see whether religious people would be more inclined to accept fiction as reality (albeit a reworked one, to make it fit their universe).

Some random commentary to C'jais...

For example, you are sitting watching X-men. It's a film about people with "mutant powers". Would you, during the movie, think to yourself: "There's no way this could exist in a universe made by God. Such mutant powers are a disgrace to the work God works his ways. It cannot be." Or, would you simply not think about how this would impact a God-controlled "real" universe while watching it?

I think most Christian's would see this as a miracle and thus is proof of the presence of a force greater than man in the universe.


As for Skin's question: Yes, I think it's natural to believe in something. Both as a child and when seeing a movie, I and many others are willing to forgo natural conclusions in order to accept the realistically impossible.

But again, it'd be interesting to see whether religious people would be more inclined to accept fiction as reality (albeit a reworked one, to make it fit their universe).

Every coin has two sides, and therefore I understand why it's natural for the rest of the world to accept the impossibly realisitic. (I know that doesn't make sense at first glance, I had to review the meanings also before posting. But transposing the words do make a slightly different meaning even if it is splitting hairs. I hope my meaning is understood.) It's in our nature, hence the expression "seeing is believing".


Now please bare in mind, I'm not a hellfire n brimstone literalist in my beliefs. My faith is strong based on what I have been through in life. Yet I'm open-minded enough to consider alternative explanations that lend themselves to explaining both sides.

Example... Creation vs. Evolution?

Is it not possible that the process of Creation was simplified for our simple human minds (simple back then compared to now, if you don't believe that just look at the idiots who lead the Crusades. "I'll go to heaven by killing people who don't believe my message about God and his boundless love and acceptance." Boy they couldn't see the forest for all the trees). Is it not possible that each day of the 7 days of creation were really 1,000's upon 1,000's of years in man's time? Is it really so unbelievable that a supreme diety functions in a manner incomprehensible to a man? With a speed and deliberance immeasurable to man? (again, at the minimum consider man of that timeframe that the stories were originally told). Is it not possible that because these details don't "jive" with our calculations and predispositions that we are unable to be open to alternate explanations?

(Please bare in mind that I do not wish to put down anyone's beliefs. I would be offended if anyone tried to do this to me. I rather would like to further the intellectual parts of this conversation that I have observed and enjoyed in the 6+ pages of this thread.)

"Are you too proud to think that your fate is not utterly insignificant and that the universe's pityless indifference doesn't care what happens to you, and excuse this lack of realization by inventing something imaginary to look after you?"

I ask you this: what is pride in a universe where there is no eternal moral code, and therefore definition of right and wrong? With no moral code, who is to say drowning puppies and raping children is wrong? In a universe that doesn't care what happens to us, why should we as a race care what we do to each other and what is done to oneself? Running with your logic everything is subjective, even right and wrong and existence itself: you obviously do not believe in an eternal moral entity, so how can you therefore use morals as a way of insulting the Christians here, calling them proud, when pride itself is subjective and may not even exist.


"Wanting eternal bliss is about as selfish as it gets."

Again you are using morals as a way to debunk religion, when morals themselves are a creation of religious doctrine. In a universe that has no eternal moral code, morals do not exist and neither does selfishness, because everything we can comprehend is subjective, even our conscience is subjective.

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
I ask you this: what is pride in a universe where there is no eternal moral code, and therefore definition of right and wrong? With no moral code, who is to say drowning puppies and raping children is wrong? In a universe that doesn't care what happens to us, why should we as a race care what we do to each other and what is done to oneself?

So, you're saying that if there's no God, I can't be a moral person? I can't have morals?
You're saying religion created morals?

Running with your logic everything is subjective, even right and wrong and existence itself

No it isn't. You believe in something subjective, whereas I and others see the need for a definition of the objective.

because everything we can comprehend is subjective, even our conscience is subjective.

Our conscience and the universe are very real.

Originally posted by Arrok
Is it not possible that the process of Creation was simplified for our simple human minds (simple back then compared to now, if you don't believe that just look at the idiots who lead the Crusades. "I'll go to heaven by killing people who don't believe my message about God and his boundless love and acceptance." Boy they couldn't see the forest for all the trees). Is it not possible that each day of the 7 days of creation were really 1,000's upon 1,000's of years in man's time? Is it really so unbelievable that a supreme diety functions in a manner incomprehensible to a man?

No, it isn't impossible. I'm an agnostic, but I still want some proof. The Bible isn't proof. On the other hand, what you personally believe is proof enough for you, and who am I to say that isn't good enough?

;)

Fair enough, just creating something to talk about.

"So, you're saying that if there's no God, I can't be a moral person? I can't have morals?
You're saying religion created morals?"

If there is no God (or gods, whichever tickles your fancy) there are no such things as universally established morals. Man is the only animal on Earth to have created religion: and we are the only animal with moral codes. C.S. Lewis would argue that they were built into us by God upon birth and that we can nurture them or reject them, whether or not he is right doesn't matter.

Religion created morals, and they have been handed down through cultures and civilisations over many millenia. Without religion, there would be no morals i.e murder is wrong: because there would be nothing really wrong about it: as there would be no wrong, as all is subjective.

A definition for the objective? What are you looking for a definition for? Any definition is subjective if you try hard enough. I could argue that we don't exist (stupid but I can argue it) and you cannot prove me wrong with any definition, as a definition is making an assumption of some sort as a basis for the definition itself.

"No, it isn't impossible. I'm an agnostic, but I still want some proof. The Bible isn't proof. "

Don't get me wrong C'Jais, I understand what you are talking about completely. I was an atheist for many, many years and an agnostic for just as long. My problem was I was looking for concrete proof of a God and, of course, I never found it. Looking for definitive proof of a God is only tricking yourself and, to me, I was creating a safety blanket using it: for example, if I do die and come mano e mano with a God, then I can just say there was no proof he existed and, y'know, that's reasonable enough, he can't punish me for being stubborn, can he?

The Bible is as close as you are going to get for proof of God without actually making that infamous leap of faith. There is alot of proof in favour of Christian history and doctrine, and there is more than enough to atleast create in ones mind a stern possibility that it is the true religion (if you believe there is such a thing). And from there one must make the leap of faith, cross the bridge, and just believe and give it a try. You may scoff at the idea and say you cannot just make yourself believe something, but trust me, you can.

If you read the New Testament, you may find some things that really surpise you: things that contradict common myths concerning Christian doctrine.

Anyway if you are agnostic then that is more than fine and I respect you no matter what. Part of being a Christian is to accept those with differing beliefs and not patronise and insult them, it is actually part of being just a kind person. But if you are agnostic and looking for definitive proof of God, then you may have to die first and perhaps face the consequence of your fence sitting. Because I do not think you are ever going to find a universal proof of God: it must be personal.

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
"So, you're saying that if there's no God, I can't be a moral person? I can't have morals?
You're saying religion created morals?"

If there is no God (or gods, whichever tickles your fancy) there are no such things as universally established morals. Man is the only animal on Earth to have created religion: and we are the only animal with moral codes. C.S. Lewis would argue that they were built into us by God upon birth and that we can nurture them or reject them, whether or not he is right doesn't matter.

Religion created morals, and they have been handed down through cultures and civilisations over many millenia. Without religion, there would be no morals i.e murder is wrong: because there would be nothing really wrong about it: as there would be no wrong, as all is subjective.


Morals have always been an important part of human society, all the way since we came down from the trees. What chance would a pack of humans have of survival if they were constantly murdering and stealing from their own people? Not much.

And morals have always excisted, and it will always excist, religion or no religion. Religion is just a way to promote a fixed set of morals (do this, do that, don't do that, or else you will be tortured forever).

"Morals have always been an important part of human society, all the way since we came down from the trees."

What? You have made way too many assumptions for your argument to become valid. Firstly it can be argued that we did not come from chimpanzees (I personally think we may have, but again you are making an assumption) and you are also making the assumption that apes and chimpanzees have morals when I have not seen a study that shows they posess these "qualities".

They may have to work together and form alliances to be able to survive as a species and as individuals, but that is hardly displaying morals: it merely displays ambition and intelligence.

You say there is a difference between religious morals and "common" morals, I think I'll dub them. Fine. Where did these "common" morals come from? If they have always existed then you are admitting the existence of an eternal entity, morality. You are contradicting yourself, you obviously do not believe in a god, but you seem to believe that morals are eternal, and eternal entities are impossible, scientifically, so you believe in a supernatural entity that has the power to influence our thoughts and decisions: a fair description of a god.

"What chance would a pack of humans have of survival if they were constantly murdering and stealing from their own people? Not much."

Amorality does not imply stupidity. They may work together as a team, but it is for their own personal gain and not for the preservation of others. If stealing or killing a member of the tribe, perhaps a crippled or mentally challenged member, will help the group thrive as a whole, then it would be the smart thing to do, and it would be done in an amoral world. But if one posesses morals, then this handicap on the group would be allowed to live due to the sanctity of human life, causing the group to have achieved morals but to have slowed down social and economic progression.

So I ask you this: what chance would a pack of humans have of progress and ergo success if they were constantly sacrificing their own ability to become successful by living under a moral code that contradicts selfishness, arguably the very reason for the success of the human species? Not much.

The way I see it, morals were passed on to us via religion through the Bible (other religions may reference their spiritual doctrines in the Bible's place). If this had not occured, we would not believe that the given example of murder was wrong. It would simply be "survival of the fittest" and we just dropped a rung back to the animal kingdom.

Having said that, I believe there is only one God. He may have many names, but if this is true then he is misunderstood in many cultures/religions. Only Christianity shows us the way to salvation through faith and grace. Not to be mistaken with "works" or "good deeds".

When I reference grace, I reference it via it's root meaning of the latin word gratia. (The exercise of love, kindness, mercy, favor; disposition to benefit or serve another; favor bestowed or privilege conferred) and the theological definition (The divine favor toward man; the mercy of God, as distinguished from His justice; also, any benefits His mercy imparts; divine love or pardon; a state of acceptance with God; enjoyment of the divine favor).

Originally posted by BrodieCadden

I ask you this: what is pride in a universe where there is no eternal moral code, and therefore definition of right and wrong? With no moral code, who is to say drowning puppies and raping children is wrong? ....

when morals themselves are a creation of religious doctrine. In a universe that has no eternal moral code, morals do not exist and neither does selfishness, because everything we can comprehend is subjective, even our conscience is subjective.

Consider this: In no society is it considered acceptable to kill your siblings in order to obtain favor or attention from your parents. In no society is it the norm to sit idly by and do nothing while a member of your group is in need of your help (while this happens, it definately is not the norm).

Now, having said this, you have to consider too that with the number of religions in the world, these are universal understandings regardless of your "doctrine." That would indicate that people are capable of forming moral codes without religion. Even chimpanzees (since you mention them in another thread) have "boundaries" that they do not cross among each other and have their own culture.

Most people only assume that religion is the source of morality... that simply cannot be true. I say that morality is the source (one of them, at least) of religion.

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
So I ask you this: what chance would a pack of humans have of progress and ergo success if they were constantly sacrificing their own ability to become successful by living under a moral code that contradicts selfishness, arguably the very reason for the success of the human species? Not much.

There is actually quite a bit of evidence to indicate that early hominids did, in fact help each other out. When you think of Neanderthal and Cromagnon man, you often think of living in harsh conditions, expect the strong to survive, the weak to perish, etc. Often this was the case and probably the hominids prior to these two "species" did perish if weak, causing natrual selection to favor the more resourceful of their groups.

However, there are many examples of forensic evidence to suggest that sometimes the "weak" survived. By studying bone fragments, teeth, skulls, etc., many injuries and illness could be deduced. One case I remember in particular involved a broken fibula that undboubtedly caused the victim much pain in a world without modern conveniences. Indications were that the fracture healed poorly and occurred many years prior to death.

Therefore, some moral code must have existed that allowed this person's mates to care for him. Since it was many thousands of years before the period of the alleged burning bush, we have to assume that these morals were developed independently. It is possible that a religion was present, and some would say probable, however.

I think we differ on what stage of evolution does an ape become a human. Your examples of the weak surviving in early homonic society is not evidence to the contrary of my statement concerning apes: as I do not consider that stage of human developement to be without morals, as I am aware that there is some evidence to support their posessing morals, but there is also evidence, as you said, to support the existence of a religion. I believe that if one is able to question his existence, to philosophy (however simply), then he or she is human. I suppose I gauge humanity on a spiritual sense rather than a scientific.

I have an inkling we also differ on our respective definitions of morality.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/afa/22003mc.asp)

" - Are you a good person? Some contend that it's possible to be good without religion. The premise is absurd, but many would agree. People say, "Oh, he was such a good man. He wasn't spiritual. He didn't attend church, read the Bible, or pray. But he had high moral standards."

It is true that some people who are irreligious can live seemingly decent lives, but when they do, they merely borrow from Christian ethics. Moreover, the Bible teaches that the "Lord seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart" (I Sam. 16:7).

What constitutes genuine goodness? John Stuart Mill's famous definition was "that which does the greatest good to the greatest number." This is called utilitarianism. But then, Hitler was a utilitarian. Certainly he thought Nazism was providing the greatest good to the greatest number. Others say, "Good is whatever is right for me." The problem with this philosophy, however, is whatever may seem good for the individual may not be good for another. Without a point of reference for morality, we are constantly pitted against each other in an effort to determine whose values will ultimately prevail.

There are a couple of ways to determine what is good. The first way is to determine whether the act is sanctioned or commanded by God. Down through the centuries various religions have claimed certain works are pleasing to God. But it doesn't matter how zealous or how sincere a work, if God hasn't commanded it, then it isn't good. All that is good must be conformable to divine law.

God's Holy Word tells us what He expects of us. Of course, someone will respond, "Oh, you Christians -- you're all alike! You're so dogmatic. You think you alone are right and everyone else is wrong. How can you possibly be certain what the Bible says is true?" Well, I could answer that question by discussing the remarkable historical, scientific, and prophetical accuracy of the Scriptures. I could talk about its amazing unity, indestructibility and universal appeal. These factors led the great archaeologist, W.F. Albright, to conclude: "The Bible towers in content above all earlier religious literature; and it towers just as impressively over all subsequent literature in the direct simplicity of its message and the catholicity of its appeal to men of all lands and times." No other book has such credentials. The Bible is God's Word and it contains the only transcript of the immutable will of God. Without it, we cannot know or do what is good.

The second way to determine what is good is to check the motive. You see it is possible to do much of what God commands without ever performing one good work because what was done was not properly motivated.

I'm going to say something striking. It's not possible for the human heart in its natural, depraved, sinful condition to produce anything good in the sight of God. The apostle Paul affirms this point concerning the unregenerate when he says, "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12).

The human heart must first be purified by faith in Christ. Dr. D. James Kennedy says it this way: "Faith is that which lays hold of the justifying and sanctifying grace of God. Faith brings the Holy Spirit into the heart to cleanse, wash, purify, and work within us those holy inclinations and dispositions to do those things which are truly pleasing to a Holy God."

In other words, a good work must proceed from a purified source -- a heart cleansed by faith in Jesus Christ and transformed with a genuine love for God.

People perform a number of so-called "good works" for all sorts of reasons. But unless the act is done out of a heart purified by faith and solely for the glory of God, it doesn't pass the test for what is good. This is why the great cry of the Protestant Reformation was soli deo gloria -- solely for the glory of God. The motive makes all the difference, and the non-Christian doesn't have the spiritual capacity to meet this standard.

Therefore, the reason unsaved people can't get into heaven by their good works is not because they don't have enough, but because they don't have any!!! They are spiritually and morally bankrupt!!!

Let me illustrate the point in this manner. My son, Matthew, is in the United States Coast Guard and is assigned to the United States Coast Guard Cutter the "Eagle". The Eagle is a three-masted sailing ship with 21,350 square feet of sail. This magnificent vessel is 295 feet long and has five miles of rigging. Her hull is built of steel, four tenths of an inch thick, and has two full-length steel decks with a platform deck below and a raised forecastle and quarterdeck. The weather decks are three-inch-thick teak over steel. She sports a crew of 12 officers, 38 enlisted personnel, and 150 cadets from the United States Coast Guard Academy. She is a glorious site to behold.

Nevertheless, it matters not how magnificently equipped, how full her sails, how great her speed, or with what beauty she may travel the seas; unless the rudder properly directs the ship, she will end up on the rocks of disaster.

The same is true for our good works. Beneath the waves of life, unseen by men, is the rudder of the human heart. It either directs our works to the glory of God or turns them back to something else. It doesn't matter how tremendous the work or how seemingly exquisite, we either seek to magnify the Lord or we seek our own advancement and praise. It's the rudder -- the heart's motive -- that makes the difference.


How foolish for people to believe that they can be good without God! How foolish for people to believe that they can be good enough to go to heaven! We are saved by faith in Christ alone -- absolutely nothing else! Until we come to Christ, we don't even possess one good work. But when our hearts are changed by faith in Him, then we are able to perform many good works.

Are you a good person?"

As far as circular reasoning, I don’t believe that all religions are based on it.

If you have no outside confirmation, then you have to resort to sef-referencing, which leads to circular reasoning. And if you have outside confirmation, then it's science, not religion. Therefore all religions are based on circular reasoning. q.e.d.

Originally posted by Arrok
For the record, I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior and will continue to know this regardless of what anyone here posts.

Then I have no further reason to discuss these matters with you.

Skin: You oughtta read Shermer's Skeptic: "Why smart people believe wierd things" collumn in Sciam sometime. I think that it may prove useful to you... Or at least interesting.

I think most Christian's would see this as a miracle and thus is proof of the presence of a force greater than man in the universe.



In the fictional context of the movie, there is a power greater than man: The Scriptwriter. It's rule zero of all RPGs: The GM is God. Enter the suspense of disbelief. While watching a movie, or playing an RPG, I suspend my skepticism.

For a few hours gray-haired men with silly-looking sticks can actually throw fireballs at each other, and The Terminator is actually after Conner, and more than capable of surviving a shotgun round in the chest. And the USS Enterprise can certainly break each and every law of nature. But when you turn off the TV or pack away your Character Sheets your skepticism comes back in full measure (mine does at least).

Example... Creation vs. Evolution?

Is it not possible that the process of Creation was simplified for our simple human minds

Aah. By saying so you open a veritable mine of arguments for why the Bible is a rather useless source of information. Y'see, if the Bible is adapted, whether by God or man, to fit a tribal, nomadic, desert society that doesn't even exist anymore, then it cannot logically hold any validity outside of that society (even in the places where it is correct (hell, blind hen can also find a grain, as we say in Denmark), it will not be correct because it is the Bible, but because it is correct (nope, that probably didn't make much sense)).

(Please bare in mind that I do not wish to put down anyone's beliefs. I would be offended if anyone tried to do this to me. I rather would like to further the intellectual parts of this conversation that I have observed and enjoyed in the 6+ pages of this thread.)

Lol. As for C'Jais and myself, you'll be hard pressed to find any beliefs to insult...

May this debate be mind-broadening.

With no moral code, who is to say drowning puppies and raping children is wrong?

The strong. The strong will always enforce his will upon the weak. Is this right? Not if you ask me. Is it just? Not if you ask me. Is it the way the world works? Yes, according to all available evidence, it is.

Why is it wrong to rape people? Because it is against the moral code that we, as a species, has developed. Why is this code to reign supreme? Because it does, and there is no reason to change that (see below).

In a universe that doesn't care what happens to us, why should we as a race care what we do to each other and what is done to oneself?

Because we, as a species, has developed a moral code. See above.

Running with your logic everything is subjective, even right and wrong and existence itself: you obviously do not believe in an eternal moral entity, so how can you therefore use morals as a way of insulting the Christians here, calling them proud, when pride itself is subjective and may not even exist.

I take extreme offence at your notion that we think that everything is subjective. Extreme offence. Ethics is subjective. This does not mean that the rest of creation is subjective as well! The fact that Man evolved from Apes is very objective. The fact that I exist is very objective, too.

morals themselves are a creation of religious doctrine. In a universe that has no eternal moral code, morals do not exist and neither does selfishness, because everything we can comprehend is subjective, even our conscience is subjective.

Bull****. There is a far and wide gap from saying that morals is subjective and to claiming that the entire observable world is subjective. You clear that gap in what we call a "leap of faith". And saying that we make that assumption is called shadowboxing. DO NOT SHADOWBOX ME AGAIN! Ever! Do we understand each other?

This capital mistake aside, morals can exist without being in any way eternal or everlasting. Morals are merely a variable parametre in the system that we call society. Ethics are dictated by the society in which they are formed, and then in turn influence the society that spawned them. Therefore the notion tha religion is the core, or for that matter the origin, of morals is laughable at best.

If there is no God (or gods, whichever tickles your fancy) there are no such things as universally established morals.

Correct. And you will actually find that there is no such thing as a universal human moral code.

Man is the only animal on Earth to have created religion: and we are the only animal with moral codes.

"Man is the only animal on Gaia to have created religion, and man is the only animal on Gaia to have created atomic bombs. Therefore religion created atomic bombs." I somehow fail to be convinced.

What C.S. Lewis did or didn't say about matters religious is irrelevant. As is, for that matter, what people like Newton or Einstein said about this subject.

Religion created morals, and they have been handed down through cultures and civilisations over many millenia. Without religion, there would be no morals i.e murder is wrong: because there would be nothing really wrong about it: as there would be no wrong, as all is subjective.

Let me introduce you to a concept called proof, which you sadly seem to ignore. You have no proof that the

society --> religion --> ethics

contingency is not in fact a

society --> ethics
I
V
religion

or a

society -->
I________II
V________V
ethics --> religion

contingency.

A definition for the objective? What are you looking for a definition for? Any definition is subjective if you try hard enough. I could argue that we don't exist (stupid but I can argue it) and you cannot prove me wrong with any definition, as a definition is making an assumption of some sort as a basis for the definition itself.

And objectivity is making the assumption that what our senses register is correct, most of the time. But that is the only assumption that objectivity makes. And, unlike the universe proposed by a certain (un)holy book, it actually arrives at a consistent result.

There is alot of proof in favour of Christian history and doctrine, and there is more than enough to atleast create in ones mind a stern possibility that it is the true religion (if you believe there is such a thing).

Then why am I never shown this proof, if it is so fvcking abundant?

And from there one must make the leap of faith, cross the bridge, and just believe and give it a try.

*Points to sig*

Because I do not think you are ever going to find a universal proof of God: it must be personal.

And therefore worthless.

What? You have made way too many assumptions for your argument to become valid. Firstly it can be argued that we did not come from chimpanzees (I personally think we may have, but again you are making an assumption) and you are also making the assumption that apes and chimpanzees have morals when I have not seen a study that shows they posess these "qualities".

Are you purposefully misreading his post (trolling)? It can be argued with much weight that we did not come from chimps. The chimps branched off our evolutionary tree (or we branched off, depending on your point of view). And he does not assume that chimps have morals. He states that morals evolved with the human species.

You say there is a difference between religious morals and "common" morals, I think I'll dub them. Fine. Where did these "common" morals come from? If they have always existed then you are admitting the existence of an eternal entity, morality.

An analogy that I am very fond of when confronted witht this kind of nonsense is the Fable of the Milk Commissar:

Every day milk is delivered to your local store. This delivery is accomplished by a complicated network of distribution services. This system was not instated at any one particular point in history. That is, you can't put your finger on the particular spot on the timeline where the "milk delivery system invented" incident occured. So where did it come from? Has it always existed? Certainly not. Was it designed purposefully by some human entity, or, in other words, is there a Milk Commissar sitting in an office somewhere, contoling the delivery of milk? The very notion is laughable, that kind of burocracy is (part of) what caused the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Then it must have been created by an all-powerful God, right? I think that you can see where the logic fails here. Morals, like the milk delivery system, is a result of a complex series of environmental selection pressures, not some grand design.

So I ask you this: what chance would a pack of humans have of progress and ergo success if they were constantly sacrificing their own ability to become successful by living under a moral code that contradicts selfishness, arguably the very reason for the success of the human species? Not much.

By enforcing a code of morals that are above and beyond what is imediately smart, the tribe ensures stability. Stability is beneficial to every member of the tribe. Thus there is a significant selective pressure on developing morals.

ST, drop the condescending tone.

No need to go ballistic on that guy, especially seeing as he wasn't even talking to you.

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
"Morals have always been an important part of human society, all the way since we came down from the trees."

What? You have made way too many assumptions for your argument to become valid. Firstly it can be argued that we did not come from chimpanzees (I personally think we may have, but again you are making an assumption) and you are also making the assumption that apes and chimpanzees have morals when I have not seen a study that shows they posess these "qualities".


Firstly, I never said a word about chimpanzees. Heck, squirrels live in trees, right? So I may have meant that we come from squirrels. Simply enough. So I don't know if it is me who is making the assumptions here, as you assumed I was talking about apes and chimpanzees. ;)

But anyway, we have enough evidence for that Man does come from primates to assume that we do.

You say there is a difference between religious morals and "common" morals, I think I'll dub them. Fine. Where did these "common" morals come from? If they have always existed then you are admitting the existence of an eternal entity, morality. You are contradicting yourself, you obviously do not believe in a god, but you seem to believe that morals are eternal, and eternal entities are impossible, scientifically, so you believe in a supernatural entity that has the power to influence our thoughts and decisions: a fair description of a god.

I think you mistook me a bit here. I did not mean that morals were an eternal force, I meant that they were, and are, an important part of the human society, and as long as the human society goes on, so will morals.

"What chance would a pack of humans have of survival if they were constantly murdering and stealing from their own people? Not much."

Amorality does not imply stupidity. They may work together as a team, but it is for their own personal gain and not for the preservation of others. If stealing or killing a member of the tribe, perhaps a crippled or mentally challenged member, will help the group thrive as a whole, then it would be the smart thing to do, and it would be done in an amoral world. But if one posesses morals, then this handicap on the group would be allowed to live due to the sanctity of human life, causing the group to have achieved morals but to have slowed down social and economic progression.

There excists no ultimate moral code, each person and each society has its own morals, and none of these morals are wrong. Therefore, there is nothing that is called amoral, since there are no laws about moral.

If killing a crippled member of a tribe is good for the tribe, then it can be a very moral thing to do. Killing is not amoral, beacuse as long as the killer thinks he is doing the right thing, it is moral. It is not possible to point out "That tribe is moral, that tribe is amoral" and so one, since there is no code or law for morals.

So I ask you this: what chance would a pack of humans have of progress and ergo success if they were constantly sacrificing their own ability to become successful by living under a moral code that contradicts selfishness, arguably the very reason for the success of the human species? Not much.

You should know the difference between morals and moral codes. One person can think it is right of a poor person to steal from a rich person to survive, while another person can think it is wrong to steal anyway. None of these persons are immoral.

Religion created moral codes, but they never created morals.

"If killing a crippled member of a tribe is good for the tribe, then it can be a very moral thing to do. Killing is not amoral, beacuse as long as the killer thinks he is doing the right thing, it is moral. It is not possible to point out "That tribe is moral, that tribe is amoral" and so one, since there is no code or law for morals"

With that argument I was using the prior point that I misunderstood you on, that there was an eternal moral code. So due to the misunderstanding the point I made is moot.

Shadow Templar I give up trying to discuss anything with you, you are too insulting and opinionated to have a proper discussion with. You are also asking for proof in a philosophical discussion, which makes no sense whatsoever. All philosophy is based on non tangible theory, if you want proof then you are looking in the wrong place. Good day.

"Religion created moral codes, but they never created morals."

That (of course) is your opinion and I suppose we can delve into that tangent of the conversation where both sides can be argued quite vehemently, but do you want to? Religious debating is getting a bit tired, y'know...

I suppose one could argue that morals are moral codes, and there is no difference, whilst a definitive seperation can be argued too. I would also argue they are seperate.

Also, all the things I argue aren't necessarily what I believe: I am just trying to have a fun conversation :)

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
you are too insulting and opinionated to have a proper discussion with.I gotta say this one again, you really do need a thicker skin. Insulting and opinionated, sure, but I would say mildly so. The heated discussions are almost always good ones, because it means people have been passionately moved by the discussion. Usually. Just let it slide, like water off a ducks back, if it really bothers you so. Or take enjoyment it. Either way, don't let it stress you. Some people just discuss that way, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I have a very thick skin on most occasions, but on matters of religion and philosophy being insulting and condescending is very insulting and I take offense. Since it is the internet it is not really on a personal level and I do not lose any sleep, but I do try and sever the conversation before I do become personally insulted, as I did with Templar.

BrodieCadden: I am very sorry that I acted in a manner that was deemed insulting (still, browse this place a little, and you'll find that my post was not remotly inflammatory when compared with some of the other user's comments). While I stand by what I said, I regret that I said it while I was too tired to say it the right way. Please accept my profound apology, and let's leave it to that. However, I still think that the point stands: Morals is a variable, the exact details of which is determined by the surrounding society, and which in turn determines the outlook of said society.

Also, you may want to notice that the notion that (a certain) religion is the be-all and end-all of morals, is very insulting to people who do not believe, because you make the (baseless) assumption that said religion is right, which is similiar to shouting out loud somewhere in Israel that Hitler was a great guy (though he's probably the one to blame for the existance of Israel, but that's another story).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Arrok
For the record, I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior and will continue to know this regardless of what anyone here posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I have no further reason to discuss these matters with you.



That's fine, so why did you?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think most Christian's would see this as a miracle and thus is proof of the presence of a force greater than man in the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the fictional context of the movie, there is a power greater than man: The Scriptwriter. It's rule zero of all RPGs: The GM is God. Enter the suspense of disbelief. While watching a movie, or playing an RPG, I suspend my skepticism.

For a few hours gray-haired men with silly-looking sticks can actually throw fireballs at each other, and The Terminator is actually after Conner, and more than capable of surviving a shotgun round in the chest. And the USS Enterprise can certainly break each and every law of nature. But when you turn off the TV or pack away your Character Sheets your skepticism comes back in full measure (mine does at least).


The question was asked as if these movie events were real, not if they were in context of movie. Your answer is therfore invalid. Though your right, God is the ultimate "Scriptwriter" and "GM". You were closer to the truth than you care to admit.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example... Creation vs. Evolution?

Is it not possible that the process of Creation was simplified for our simple human minds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aah. By saying so you open a veritable mine of arguments for why the Bible is a rather useless source of information. Y'see, if the Bible is adapted, whether by God or man, to fit a tribal, nomadic, desert society that doesn't even exist anymore, then it cannot logically hold any validity outside of that society (even in the places where it is correct (hell, blind hen can also find a grain, as we say in Denmark), it will not be correct because it is the Bible, but because it is correct (nope, that probably didn't make much sense)).


No, I merely suggested that one tale be too complex for us. That does not mean that the entire source is such. The adaptation is not one of tribal man vs modern man, it would be one made in consideration of the comprehensions of man vs. God. This does not make it any less valid today than it was then.

But let me make an example to see if I understand you. So your saying that if you were to tell a child that it's bad to hurt someone, because they do not know what it means to kill... that it's no longer valid to tell an adult the same thing. Is it no longer valid because they understand the more complex version now? I think not. The adult just has a greater understanding of the situation.

No, I didn't understand the Danish saying. Feel free to explain if you like. My curiousity is peaked.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Please bare in mind that I do not wish to put down anyone's beliefs. I would be offended if anyone tried to do this to me. I rather would like to further the intellectual parts of this conversation that I have observed and enjoyed in the 6+ pages of this thread.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol. As for C'Jais and myself, you'll be hard pressed to find any beliefs to insult...

May this debate be mind-broadening.


Now that's not true. You clearly believe in a great many things, if it were not so you would not take the time to respond to so many posts with such passion. Some of those posts being borderline of belittling or insulting at times. While they may or may not be correct, you none the less have beliefs, and much room for debate. Interestingly, at times you show much more flare of religious fanaticism than those of us who have faith.

christian = sucker

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
christian = sucker

Thats rather naive. Then again...I'm not a Christian...but its still naive.

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Thats rather naive. Then again...I'm not a Christian...but its still naive.

naive???

trust me 16yrs of church going only convinced me of the utter hypocrisy of the church...

Besides once The christian fait confronts logic they are screwed...

Originally posted by Arrok
That's fine, so why did you?

The problem is that you do not even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

If someone takes this stance, I can understand if nobody's interested in hearing their self-righteous views.

Of course, you could state ST has the same view on things, and I wouldn't flinch.


The question was asked as if these movie events were real, not if they were in context of movie. Your answer is therfore invalid. Though your right, God is the ultimate "Scriptwriter" and "GM". You were closer to the truth than you care to admit.

That was not the issue.

ST explained why he was able to suspend disbelief, and reassume it when the movie's over.

No, I merely suggested that one tale be too complex for us. That does not mean that the entire source is such.

But where to draw the line, and who's drawing it?

Who decides if the Genesis is a metaphor or not? Who decides what in the Bible is?

Again, the Genesis as presented in the Bible is false information. Until a few hundred years ago, people did not even begin to question its literal interpretation. As such, it has failed if it was meant as a guiding fairytale.

The adaptation is not one of tribal man vs modern man, it would be one made in consideration of the comprehensions of man vs. God. This does not make it any less valid today than it was then.

Yet now, we're able to comprehend how man was created. It's very much a question of now and then.

So your saying that if you were to tell a child that it's bad to hurt someone, because they do not know what it means to kill... that it's no longer valid to tell an adult the same thing. Is it no longer valid because they understand the more complex version now? I think not. The adult just has a greater understanding of the situation.

Yes, I'd consider it a very patronizing attitude, and assume he thought of me as a child, if one were to say that to me. Because I do understand what it means to kill. I've made my own thought about it, my own morals, and if someone comes up to me and automatically assume that I'm at the mental age of a child, then I'd get pissed.

Same with the evolution story.

No, I didn't understand the Danish saying. Feel free to explain if you like. My curiousity is peaked.

It's the same as the one that goes: Even a clock that has stopped working will still show the correct time twice a day. Did that help?

At any rate, it means even a hopelessly misguided and blind idea/person/belief can still be right about a few things once in a while.


Interestingly, at times you show much more flare of religious fanaticism than those of us who have faith.

Bingo.

Atheism's a belief too, though I'm sure ST won't say that he is one. But you are right.

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
Besides once The christian fait confronts logic they are screwed...
The shadow of ignorance conceils all. Logic can't peirce this armor, intellect can only refuse it.

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
christian = sucker

WOW! Thats not very nice. Can you back that up somewhere. What about Hinduism they believe in more crazy sh*t than Christians.
I feel as if people have some kind of beef with christians. Why not other religions?

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
WOW! Thats not very nice. Can you back that up somewhere. What about Hinduism they believe in more crazy sh*t than Christians.

How come? I think the Hinduism belief is just as crazy as the Christian belief. Both teaches illogical and crazy stuff.

I feel as if people have some kind of beef with christians. Why not other religions?

Believe me: Islam is way more critizised than any other religion. Even though Christianity and Islam is very similar to each other.

How come? I think the Hinduism belief is just as crazy as the Christian belief. Both teaches illogical and crazy stuff.

Actually, it is much more logical than Hinduism.Christians dont believe in reincarnation.

BTW, Evolution is way more illogical than Christianity.

And I dont see any threads debating Muslim.

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
naive???

trust me 16yrs of church going only convinced me of the utter hypocrisy of the church...

Besides once The christian fait confronts logic they are screwed...

Logic sets the boundaries on our believes. Some things mentioned seem a tad far-fetched. But its the job of man to decide how we interpret what we see.

On a side note, earlier I think Darklighter said that he couldn't understand how we could worship the same God that ruled over people in the Middle East that were being killed. Well, to put it as the bible would say it, those people are not dying due to the hands of God, but rather the hands of man. God isn't deciding that its there time to go. Some soldier's assault rifle is.

On yet a different topic....I went to church Sunday and we discussed the difference between being Religious and being a Christian. When you hear of a religious person, they do things to please God. They try to live good lives so that God will accept them later on. Well, as human nature goes, these acts are usually not meant to please God and in the Bible it even says we will never be able to get to his level. The only way, is a belief in Jesus. He died so that we wouldn't have to struggle through good works to get to God. You could think of religion as "do" (as in do good deeds) and christianity as "done" (because Jesus did them for us).

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Actually, it is much more logical than Hinduism.Christians dont believe in reincarnation.

Just that a prophet can return from the dead... a man can live in the belly of a whale... all the world's animals can fit on one boat (but only two of each species)... that a large body of water can be parted to allow a bunch of slaves to pass... that a demon can inhabit one's body... etc, etc.

Actually, the idea that one's soul or spirit may return to inhabit a cow is fairly mild in comparisson.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo


So step over to the Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99670) thread and prove it. ;)

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
[BAnd I dont see any threads debating Muslim.

The above thread encompasses "Islam" since it has its own set of creation theories".... I, too, would like to see creation ideas other than the Christian dogma discussed, however, it appears that this is the only cult represented here.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
Yes I am a christian.

I am a Baptist to be exact.

and I don't beleive you should be baptized as a child because you are supposed to be baptized as a public statment that you have faith and want to be a christian. When your a baby you don't have faith you dont even know you exist yet. How many of you remember being baptized? You only know your baptized because you were told.

I strongly believe in the doctrins of grace.
I am against abortion, infant baptism,and women preachers.

I don't believe in speaking in toungs, or a secret rapture. I believe in a very loud and public rapture.

Catholics,and Jehovah witnesses are not christians even though they call themselves christians.

And Christianity is not a religeon its a faith!

And duh you have to believe in the Bible to be a christian, thats like saying I don't believe in Christ but I'm a Christian. not believing in the Bible and still praying and stuff is like saying your an ian with no Christ on the begining.

I agree with everything Mandalorian said, except I'm a Presbyterian, so I got baptized as a baby. I'm glad that I'm not too religious though, because I would get on other peoples nerves. Otherwhize, I speak freely about it.
And Christianity is actually the best path...it's easy because God provides for your needs.

Originally posted by Luc Solar
Christianity differs from other major religions quite a bit.

When you walk around the streets you don't see anything religious. Go to Islamic or Hindu countries and you see the difference. There everything is controlled by religion: what you wear, where you can go and with whom, what you're allowed to do and when/with whom/where, what you can eat, what you can say etc. etc. etc.



I dont know if someone has mentioned this but I will:) . The thing about Hindu and Buddhist run countries where people have to dress and eat in the way the government and religion chooses. I would just like to say that here in America, we have a little statement in the decloration, that states, that we are seperated from church and state, meaning we can have the right to our own beliefs. Also I am a true christian:)

* Removed irrelevant part of Luc Solar's quote. Let's try to keep quoted text to a minimum rather than quote the whole post. -SkinWalker

Originally posted by Father Torque
I would just like to say that here in America, we have a little statement in the decloration, that states, that we are seperated from church and state, meaning we can have the right to our own beliefs. Also I am a true christian:)

Seperation of church and state?

"One Nation under God"?

"Introduction" to other biological theories? (namely, only Christian creationism - we wouldn't wanna teach the kids ancient viking creation mythos, would we?)


Real question: "True Christian"? Which of the Christian cults do you follow, and which of these get into Heaven? Only yours? Baptists, Mormons, Catholics and the Calvinists as well? Where does God draw the line in the sand?

It's interesting to note that the phrase, "one nation, under God, indivisible," doesn't appear until 1954 in our Pledge of Alliegance."

Similarly, the motto, "In God We Trust," doesn't appear on our money until 1956.

The original Founding Fathers, to whom I have immense reverence, made efforts to keep church and state separate. In fact, several of the Founding Fathers were agnostic and even atheist. Those that held religious convictions recognized the sanctity of being able to practice whatever religion you chose in private without fear of ridicule or state-sponsored retribution. By looking at original documents of the era, you will notice distinct separation of church and state.

The culprits to our current misconceptions that the United States was always "one nation" that trusted itself to god? President Eisenhower... he signed both bills, largely as a means for re-election ("I Like Ike"). He did this at the suggestion of Matthew R. Rothert, president of the Arkansas Numismatic Society. Senator McCarthy was just getting warmed up around the same time, so there was a lot of misjudgement going on in government.

I, for one, am ready to be rid of both exclusionary tactics.

Originally posted by C'jais
Seperation of church and state?

"One Nation under God"?

"Introduction" to other biological theories? (namely, only Christian creationism - we wouldn't wanna teach the kids ancient viking creation mythos, would we?)


Real question: "True Christian"? Which of the Christian cults do you follow, and which of these get into Heaven? Only yours? Baptists, Mormons, Catholics and the Calvinists as well? Where does God draw the line in the sand?

Well, I agree, America may have "One nation under God" and "In God we trust", but honestly, America itself is hypocrysy. Maybe the majority of Christians live in America, but America is so proud, and Christians should be humble.

And for the "real" question: I believe that only Calvinists and Baptists are true Christians, becasue John Calvin, who started the first Calvinists, is against the Catholics. And have you ever read all the stories about Catholic Priests who rape the altar boys?:rolleyes:

However, ther are some catholics who are true Christians also, not all are on the wrong path.

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
christian = sucker

Jah warrior, if i were a mod, I would throw you out and lock this site from you 4ever. what that is called is chat-killing and insulting someone else's belief. If you don't like christianity, then ignore it! You don't have to state your opinion in such a harsh way!! :mad:

...who cares what you think anyway? :p

Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
And for the "real" question: I believe that only Calvinists and Baptists are true Christians, .... And have you ever read all the stories about Catholic Priests who rape the altar boys?

However, ther are some catholics who are true Christians also, not all are on the wrong path.

This is somewhat confusing to me. If "only calvinists and baptists are true christians," then how can "some catholics" be as well? Is there a defining criteria from your perspective?

I only ask because I find the belief systems of others fascinating. I've met those of many denominations of the christian faith who don't consider the other denominations "true." I'm always interested in their defining criteria.

By the way, there are many instances where Baptist, and perhaps even Calvinist, officials have commented crimes. Some even involving pedaphilia.


Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
Jah warrior, if i were a mod, I would throw you out and lock this site from you 4ever. what that is called is chat-killing and insulting someone else's belief. If you don't like christianity, then ignore it! You don't have to state your opinion in such a harsh way!!

While his post was a bit shorter than I would have liked, it was relevant and on-topic. The title of the thread is questioning true christianity over hypocrisy. His post, albeit in two words, indicated he believed hypocrisy was christianity's defining characteristic. I agree that it was insensitive, but only insulting from a limited perspective. Most christians, many are even my friends, are insulted at my views and beliefs, just as I am insulted at the assumptions that they make at times.

I must say, that most of my christian friends, some right here in this forum, make attempts to respect the sensitivities of non-christians. I do likewise, though it's also true that we both fail at this from time to time. I try not to hold it against them and I hope they do the same. It's hard to have serious discussions, where friends have differing opinions, and still not say things to irritate them.

Having said that, you have to understand that your comment about true christians is probably very offensive to some that are not Calvinist or Baptist.

Originally posted by joetheeskimo5
...who cares what you think anyway? :p

You apparently did. Enough at least to give him four lines and a smiley. Jah's a good guy. He just tells it like he sees it. I can't say that I completely disagree with him on that point that you found offensive either.

I personally dont distinguish denominations. I'm a Methodist. But when people ask "Oh what religion are you?" I just respond "Christian". For some dumb reason people I know think being a Methodist means you aren't a Christian. I bet they're a lot of people who get this stuff everyday. "Oh your a Catholic? Thats too bad im a Christian." Stupid things like that are what separates Christians. Sometimes the only thing that differs between denominations is the name of the person that founded them.

As a true Christian, I respect all other religions as well as my own.