I invite you to pick apart Christianity

[thisGuy]

So, why didn't God just decide that people didn't need to sacrifice to gods anymore?

In fact, if he wanted to, he could simply reimagine history such that no sacrifices to gods had ever been made. He can do that--he's God.

For that matter, he could whip himself up another son in a jiffy, since he's God and all.

I just really don't buy the concept of God as being 'forced' to do anything. "Ohh nooooo I have to choose between my son and humanity's salvation!!"

No, you don't. Just change the conditions governing the universe; you're God!

he could, but then God would violate the basic virtues that we interpret as good and noble, such as integrity. if humans are to look up to a God, one thing he must be, is be reflective of all that is good and virtuous. after all, we ARE made in the image of God

we are given a CHOICE to follow or diregard anything we want. any constraints that bound us today are human-imposed.

its a lesson to humanity. we choose to learn or we choose to ignore. regardless, its there for study

 

[Mole]

You'll have to excuse my doubts that you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Your fall back position seems to be the insult.

 

[Mole]

he could, but then God would violate the basic virtues that we interpret as good and noble, such as integrity. if humans are to look up to a God, one thing he must be, is be reflective of all that is good and virtuous. after all, we ARE made in the image of God

we are given a CHOICE to follow or diregard anything we want. any constraints that bound us today are human-imposed.

its a lesson to humanity. we choose to learn or we choose to ignore. regardless, its there for study

The problem is that this kind of Apologetics requires double-think.

And double-think and intellectual integrity are strange bed fellows.

 

[Totenkindly]

he could, but then God would violate the basic virtues that we interpret as good and noble, such as integrity. if humans are to look up to a God, one thing he must be, is be reflective of all that is good and virtuous. after all, we ARE made in the image of God

I agree with this within the constraints of your framework.

However, there is no universal law saying that:

• God must be someone we look up to.
• God must be good, noble, and virtuous
• God must be rational
• God must be consistent

Those are all assumptions about God.

In terms of making decisions about one's life, they seem reasonable; but in terms of rational logic, they cannot validate that the faith system is true. They're just constraints you've chosen to operate under because they seem to mesh with what you want to believe is true (which is fine, and I might even share some of those assumptions with you -- I just want to call a spade a spade).

 

[Take Five]

Your fall back position seems to be the insult.

Well then what do you really know about Christianity, esp. Catholicism? You seem to spout half truths and incomplete knowledge. I don't really think it's fair to bash and criticize the religion, when you're not well versed in what it really teaches.

A man and a woman are in a car, the woman is crying and has a bandage on her nose. It may look like the man is a woman beater to the skeptic, but in actuality the woman just got a nose job. Is it right for the onlooker to "save" the woman by attacking the man to teach him a lesson?

If one doesn't really know the meaning of the crucifxion of Jesus and the reasons why it happened according to Christians, how can on make claims about the nature of the religion or its God?

 

[simulatedworld]

Taken in a literal sense, I completely agree with you.

But as it stands, it does make for good allegory. If God just magically fixed our situation in the stories, we wouldn't exactly have any life lessons to learn from them.

Right, and I appreciate the conventional wisdom contained in the Bible.

There's much to be learned from it in terms of history, cultural influence, art and moral guidance.

It's just ridiculous to think it's literally true.

I can totally get behind the values that Christ was promoting--love thy neighbor, don't judge others, be nice to people, etc. That's great and it was pretty revolutionary for his time.

I just don't think he had supernatural powers, and I'm pretty damn sure he's not coming back from the dead.

Doesn't mean we can't appreciate what he had to say, but why attach all this "HELL AWAITS NONBELIEVERS!!!!" crap to it? It's obviously intended allegorically to help us make moral decisions and guide us through life--if you miss the message and focus on the arbitrary rituals and hellfire and damnation for sinners, you're missing the point, and badly.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if God exists literally--he probably doesn't; that's not the point.

 

[Night]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if God exists literally--he probably doesn't; that's not the point.

This is a very important distinction.


The best way to find God/s is to seek his nonexistence. Conversely, the quickest way to overlook God is to try to explicitly assert his presence.



Very insightful point, SW.

 

[Qre:us]

The best way to find God/s is to seek his nonexistence.

What does this mean?

 

[Night]

What does this mean?

Undertake a personal quest to divorce what you believe (personal faith) from what you've been instructed to believe.

As faith is wholly concerned with belief without empirical data, seeking God is an ideal that must be fertilized independent of external pressure. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.

Accounting for this inequality is crucial -- without intimate comprehension of what one considers a 'god' to be/not be, one simply parrots third-party ideology. In short, you're choosing to believe/disbelieve not on the basis of personal exploration, but instead on steadfast bureaucratic codes of cultural conduct that likely have absolutely nothing to do with whatever a 'god' is or is not.

Religious faith is a question of individuality; not a communal expression of aged cultural norms.

 

[Qre:us]

Undertake a personal quest to divorce what you believe (personal faith) from what you've been instructed to believe.

As faith is wholly concerned with belief without empirical data, seeking God is an ideal that must be fertilized independent of external pressure. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.
Accounting for this inequality is crucial -- without intimate comprehension of what one considers a 'god' to be/not be, one simply parrots third-party ideology. In short, you're choosing to believe/disbelieve not on the basis of personal exploration, but instead on steadfast bureaucratic codes of cultural conduct that likely have absolutely nothing to do with whatever a 'god' is or is not.

Religious faith is a question of individuality; not a communal expression of aged cultural norms.

This cannot be done practically because the very existence of the concept will always come from the 'outside'. It defies meta-cognition. A person born in isolation will never be aware that what he is contemplating is 'god' or not...unless he is aware of the concept in the first place. The seed will need to be planted someway, it can never come from inside without any outside influence. Ever.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

See? I find this verse entirely pointless. God has the power to easily disband the "devil" and chooses not to do it. If God were really all-loving, wouldn't God be compelled to save its creatures?

Yes, He does have the power to destroy the devil, and He will, his end is very clear in the bible. But, destroying him does not change the fact that when Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God, sin entered them and all humanity born of them. It corrupted their nature as well as that of every human being born thereafter, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

Sin = separation from God = lost. We are born lost, condemned already. That is something people don't realize - they stand condemned right this moment if they are not saved. Final judgement and eternity in hell is only an end result of this and the choice to not be saved.

Being lost is not a matter of 'conduct' but rather a condition of the heart. A change of behavior for the better will not alter our sin nature. What is necessary is a transformation of the heart.

Salvation is simple: Jesus + nothing = salvation. Can't earn it because it is a free gift, and because it is a free gift paid by Jesus, you can't lose it by anything you do.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

God wants a relationship with us. He loves us and has a ton of great things in store for every one of us, and wants to do great things through us. Transformation of the heart can only happen when we are saved because once we are saved, we are no longer under the power and condemnation of sin. At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit seals us, lives inside us, and guides us in everything. Not takes over us, guides; we do not become robots, we still make our own choices, but we are given the mind of Christ, convicted of any future sin so we can repent (if we don't, we tend to move away from God out of guilt, not vice versa), and are literally changed into a new person. It happens over time, though many people do a 180 in life and it is very noticeable, and you remember when you got saved because your outlook and view of things really does change a lot. And, most importantly, and freeing of all is that salvation is permanent - nothing and no one can take us from Almighty God.

God's attitude toward the lost is one of love and patience. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that His desire is that no one perish but that all come to repentance, and He provided a way for us to do that. He also allows those that do not want a relationship with Him their choice.

 

[Night]

This cannot be done practically because the very existence of the concept will always come from the 'outside'. It defies meta-cognition. A person born in isolation will never be aware that what he is contemplating is 'god' or not...unless he is aware of the concept in the first place. The seed will need to be planted someway, it can never come from inside without any outside influence. Ever.

Finding 'god' doesn't necessarily presume earnest participation in the identification of a superentity/singular creative cosmic force.

Universal human axioms (primarily those dealing with life/death/existential meaning) fundamentally link to the idea of 'what happens next' respective to human consciousness as it (perhaps ideally) disavows present cognitive perception and transitions into a state of being/unbeing after biological death.

So although the terminology and directive goal of deciphering 'god' can be considerably different between cultures, it is a shared instinctive trait to question the inevitability of one's death and what awaits him thereafter -- even as a social impulse to better appreciate his identity in whatever communal system he is invariably oriented (even those in isolation must negotiate with environmental cues, as to enhance the likelihood/quality of basic biological survival).

 

[lowtech redneck]

+1.

Nobody worships Mary, and Catholics also believe that Jesus was God incarnate as man and worthy of worship. The main differences between Protestants and Catholics today are:

1. The belief that taking communion is taking the physical body of Jesus. Catholics do, Protestants don't.
2. The belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Protestants (mostly evangelicals) do, Catholics don't.

It's not germane to the discussion at hand, but it still bugs me.

You forgot the "priesthood of all believers" aspect of Protestantism-an EXTREMELY important difference. There is also the whole "salvation by faith alone" thing, though there seems to be major disagreement among Protestants as to what that really means.

Now begone with ye foul popery!

 

[Qre:us]

Universal human axioms (primarily those dealing with life/death/existential meaning) fundamentally link to the idea of 'what happens next' respective to human consciousness as it (perhaps ideally) disavows present cognitive perception and transitions into a state of being/unbeing after biological death.

We can't know any kind of universal human axioms unless we accept ourselves as part of the whole, as part of humanity. Me living, and then dying, is only afforded to me by watching/knowing of, another's death, and knowing what the difference is between life and death. It is afforded to me by a relation to the outside. I will not have any concept of my life as living, and, the inevitable possibility of dying without being an audience to it first.

 

[Night]

We can't know any kind of universal human axioms unless we accept ourselves as part of the whole, as part of humanity. Me living, and then dying, is only afforded to me by watching/knowing of, another's death, and knowing what the difference is between life and death. It is afforded to me by a relation to the outside. I will not have any concept of my life as living, and, the inevitable possibility of dying without being an audience to it.

I think we disagree less that you may suppose, my fine woman.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, He does have the power to destroy the devil, and He will, his end is very clear in the bible. But, destroying him does not change the fact that
when Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God, sin entered them and all humanity born of them. It corrupted their nature as well as that of every human being born thereafter, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

Sin = separation from God = lost. We are born lost, condemned already. That is something people don't realize - they stand condemned right this moment if they are not saved. Final judgement and eternity in hell is only an end result of that.

Being lost is not a matter of 'conduct' but rather a condition of the heart. A change of behavior for the better will not alter our sin nature. What is necessary is a transformation of the heart.

Salvation is simple: Jesus + nothing = salvation. Can't earn it because it is a free gift, and because it is a free gift paid by Jesus, you can't lose it by anything you do.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

God wants a relationship with us. He loves us and has a ton of great things in store for every one of us, and wants to do great things through us. Transformation of the heart can only happen when we are saved because once we are saved, we are no longer under the power and condemnation of sin. At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit seals us, lives inside us, and guides us in everything. Not takes over us, guides; we do not become robots, we still make our own choices, but we are given the mind of Christ, convicted of any future sin so we can repent, and are literally changed into a new person. It happens over time, though many people do a 180 in life and it is very noticeable, and you remember when you got saved because your outlook and view of things really does change a lot. And, most importantly, and freeing of all is that salvation is permanent - nothing and no one can take us from Almighty God.

God's attitude toward the lost is one of love and patience. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that His desire is that no one perish but that all come to repentance, and He provided a way for us to do that. He also allows those that do not want a relationship with Him their choice.

You explain the general doctrine well enough.

Again, the bottom line is that you learned a doctrine from a book... which is basically the recorded experience of human beings with (presumably) the divine. None of it is self-evident, and there are lots of holy books out there and personal experiences that people share to describe their (presumed) encounters with the divine. What makes one authority more "authentic" than the other?

Explaining the theology doesn't say anything about whether the theology is true. (For example, "prove" to someone that there is a literal Judeo-Christian devil -- and even the Bible shows an evolving evil persona over centuries of time rather than being established in full-form from day one.)

In any case, what stands as a valid statement of faith from you doesn't have a lot of impact in a discussion setting, where people are looking for common ground that can be agreed upon so that the veracity of further ideas can be established to the satisfaction of both.

 

[Qre:us]

I think we disagree less that you may suppose, my fine woman.

:steam:

*off to find my next victim as playing with Night is no fun!*

I'm in a disagreeable mood, dangit!

Yes, He does have the power to destroy the devil, and He will, his end is very clear in the bible. But, destroying him does not change the fact that
when Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God, sin entered them and all humanity born of them. It corrupted their nature as well as that of every human being born thereafter, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

I've never fully understood this dichotomy between god and (d)evil. Isn't 'god' in terms of Christianity the big all? If not, then, God cannot be all-powerful as there is a separate other - the devil. How can you know god has the power to destroy the devil if the devil is a separate entity beyond god? What qualifies god to destroy the devil, the other?

 

[ergophobe]

This cannot be done practically because the very existence of the concept will always come from the 'outside'. It defies meta-cognition. A person born in isolation will never be aware that what he is contemplating is 'god' or not...unless he is aware of the concept in the first place. The seed will need to be planted someway, it can never come from inside without any outside influence. Ever.

I don't think the suggestion was for independently seeking God without any idea of what that may mean. No reinventing the wheel is being suggested, I think. Although, on reflection, even though we may use different nomenclature, it does not imply that we aren't independently reaching the same understanding of there being a higher being/power/whatever. Also people did independently reach some shared ideas of universal truth. That's the most fascinating part for me.

I think the suggestions made are along these lines and I couldn't agree with them more. I have thus far refused to participate in this thread for this reason alone:

Theology doesn't matter -- theology only works as a justification if you already accept all tenets of Christianity as true.

Is it any wonder that people have issues with this? You need to step outside your own beliefs and theology if you want to grasp why people are taking issues with this sort of belief structure. As I mentioned in a response to you elsewhere today, the information you send through Ti is what determines outcome, but right now you're just sending "pro-Christian" ideas through and so you're not really grasping why people are having issues. You can still maintain your conclusions, but maybe putting yourself in someone else's mindframe would help you understand why they are saying these things.

OP - humbly, you made your leap of faith. Could you possibly make your leap off faith (or out of it) to understand where people are coming from? Particularly using passages from the bible by themselves as evidence seem least useful because some of us believe they are and have always been open to interpretation.

 

[Qre:us]

I don't think the suggestion was for independently seeking God without any idea of what that may mean. No reinventing the wheel is being suggested, I think. Although, on reflection, even though we may use different nomenclature, it does not imply that we aren't independently reaching the same understanding of there being a higher being/power/whatever. Also people did independently reach some shared ideas of universal truth. That's the most fascinating part for me.

I'm arguing that there is no inherent independent, in the literal sense of the word. Everything is connected, so, it is impossible to say that there wouldn't be any outside influence or pressure.

It's less about the concept of god, than about knowing to think/contemplate such concepts in the first place..for which Night said is because we all think of life and death, which still doesn't resolve this independent inquiry buziness, cuz a person only knows what life and death is through another.

There is no such thing as an inherently independent thought from outside influences/pressures. As humans it cannot be. It defies meta-cognition.

 

[ergophobe]

Okay. I understand your point better now.

Assuming there are multiple external pressures and influences, the suggestion would be to examine a set of acquired beliefs from as many perspectives as possible. Also use your internal powers of logic and/or feeling to distinguish between those logically inconsistent, poorly framed, poorly compassionate, poor explanations of the world as we observe it empirically. Both internalized logic and feeling provide enough basis to question any set of institutionalized religious beliefs.