My big problem with Christianity

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc


Hmm, I suspect many Shia and Sufi might not agree, let alone B'hai (who do aknowledge the Allah as the prophet, making them heretics and properly subject to persecution as per the Koran).

Plus, Islam works differently. Instead look at the number of Imam's who have started another fundamentalist furor, the history of Spain is a good starter. After the conquest by Islam, it was more or less tolerant (though non-Moslem's had to accept second class citizenship that also marginalized them economically, they had to pay higher taxes). After another group of Moslems, still technically Sunni I believe, came and conquered the original conquerors, it became a rather unpleasant place for any non-Moslem to live.

But it wasnot like the ealy church camg to force all Christian to follow one set of beilf. which work for awhile
but with putting drown alots of heresy by military force. The 30 year war that was fought in Germany total werck that country that both the Prot and Cath ask the foreign armies to please leave. People thought that this bitter war would go on forever untril Cath France took the Prot Germany side to force talk on than treaty. These talk where unusely as there was no rule of who sit next to someone or who talk before another person. The regular rule of etiquette and courtly manner was not in force. At the same these talk where going on include in these talk where talk to end than long standing serf revolt against the Holy Roman Empire for 60 year there was than massive serf revolt which defeat many HRE armies on the battle field. It took 3 year to reach agreement on all the issue. The reason why the regular rule of discource was suspence was by the rule the serf wherenot allow to tell the HRE leader they compliant about how they where treated, everybody want peace an the rule of etiquette and courtly manner where in the way so all side agree they wouldnot be in force.
While there where fighting between the vary muslim sect by basely agree that Mecca will open to then all. Only some hothead really fought. The religious scholar got along petty well with each other. In Pakistian there are religious infighting between religion than the military
government was the first government to crack down on it. Three of the four man who attack than christian church with genades over the christmas holday in 2002 where senrence to death by than anti-terrerism court and the last one got life in pirson. Pakistian is than modrate islam state. In the 30 year war they estimate that 1/6 of the population of germany die from war relate cause.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ned
Curt, yes. But don't all parents try to impart their beliefs to their kids? This is not a matter of religion at all.

It perpetuates the power of organised religion by forcing people to create moral cages around themselves.

Like good sheeple they keep the tired traditions going.

Thankfully, such foolishness is falling apart.

[curtsibling]

Re: Re: My big problem with Christianity

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Jesus came down to Earth to change the relationship between God and people, in part by sharing the pain and suffering of human existence, in part by teaching and healing, and in part by establishing a new church to provide continual guidance. As Ben pointed out, prior to Jesus's appearence Jews made sacrices in order to atone for sins. Christ's sacrifice made an end to that ritual, no longer could a person pay back God for sins / crimes. Christ showed the world that God was not a tyrant or an unbending taskmaster, but instead that He understood our predicament and that He loved us to the point of making a sacrifice for us. Christ's death is the paramount example of the saying: "No greater love hath any man for another than he shall lay down his life."

I must comment on this.

Jesus, if he existed, was born from the biology of a woman, like any human.

Also, I think he would have been more of a Koresh/Manson type figure, given the cult-like power he was allegedly privy to.

It is a feature of religion and it's flocks, to paint an impossibly rosy vision of it's idols.

Precious few authors of the bible (long held up as true 'evidence') even knew this personage of jesus.

I find anyone in this day in age that believes literally anything about his
being the son of a deity, to be a potentially dangerous individual indeed.

No offence intended.
But I find the magical, 'son of god stuff' to be really rambling dogma, unfit for the modern mind.

[Dis]

did anyone watch the barbarians series on the history channel. It is interesting how they said Viking leaders sought to bring in christianity as a means of controlling the population.

That is all organized religion is. A means to control people. It beats me why people can't see this.

Sure I may believe in a creator of the universe. But I doubt I will ever support organized religion. It is a tool to oppress the weak.

[curtsibling]

My thoughts exactly.

(minus the creator thing)

[Ben Kenobi]

Anacyrean:

Christ is no superhuman, but a messenger, bringing the essence of the same message as that of Moses and all prophets before him. Man is warned not to imagine partners to God.

I agree with most of your statements, and what I find intriguing is that the Jews would as well. One should not imagine partners, or I believe the technical term, of shirking God.

However, Jesus makes several claims to be the Son of God, which if true, leaves no room for this interpretation of Christ as a prophet. Yes, Christ talks about prophets, but always in the concept that prophets spread the word of God, and rebellious Israel rejects God in rejecting the prophets. He rebukes Israel, and shames them with the comparisons to the other peoples who are willing to accept God.

What would you feel if the FBI showed up at your door and said your grandpa robbed a bank 100 years ago but was never caught, so now that they have traced his lineage, you have to do prison time of say, 20 years, for the crimes of your grandpa? Why is this an outrageous assertion, and why not I or you being 'guilty' of some sin that we had no part in? I find the idea of the Original Sin rather unholy in this respect, totally at contradiction with the glory of creation of the universe.

Yes, the glory of creation in the universe is diametrically opposed to Original Sin. They cannot be reconciled except if God chooses to do so. However, this says more about the nature of the original sin, than the glory of creation, and the divisions opened up by the first rejection of God. Sin afflicts each one of us, and thus, we bear our own inheritance from Adam.

Islam asserts individual responsibility. Your life is a test for you, your actions and decisions in life define who you are. Your sins and good deeds belong to you. If you ask for forgiveness, you ask it from God, say from your heart, which is transparent to God, that you are sorry and pledge never to do it again. God knows your sincerity. You need no interlocutors, no intermediaries. Noone comes in between you and your Creator. God is not a guy with a long white beard sitting in the sky (I don't mean Christians think so, just to make the analogy more striking) but he's all around, he’s omnipresent in this universe and other universes that we don’t know of yet. He does not look upon Man with feudal hieararchies of lordship.

To this I ask, how can sinful man redeem himself? God does not need our works, so why should we ask to own our good deeds when sin so outweighs them? Secondly, regarding the interlocutors, God draws each one of us to himself. It is a good thing, because otherwise, we would never come near to him. God came down as man in Jesus Christ not to put a barrier between us and God, but to allow us to come nearer to him than we could otherwise. For without Christ, we would all be under God's sovereign law, with Christ, we must believe in him.

God is above reproduction, or having an offspring in that respect.

Christ, as the Word of God has been with God for eternity. I know it is difficult to understand, but CS Lewis makes a good comparison to what is meant by the term 'begotten.' Suppose you are a carpenter. If you make a table, the table is yours, and of a different substance than you. If you have a child, you see the opposite. Your child, you do not own, yet it is of the same substance as you. The same is between God and Christ. Christ, is of the same substance as the Father, was begotten before all worlds. Christ tells us that the relationship between him and the father, while not completely analogous to that of a father and son, is best put in these words, because that is the closest we can understand the nature of their relationship.

Yes, God is above human reproduction. It is a good thing, for otherwise, his Son would not be God.

How can you be God and Man at the same time? What kind of a limited conception of God is that?

God willing chose to humble himself by becoming Man. In this, he gained a human nature along with his divine nature. It is an extraordinary compliment that God would willingly become man, and helps us to understand the depth of Christ's love for us. He is not distant, but near. He loves us so much, that he is willing to suffer and die so that man can be redeemed.

And what about the Holy Spirit? Why would God need HS to do things?

You are right, that God does not need the Holy Spirit, but He has chosen to work this way. The Holy Spirit comes from both Christ and God the Father, as the love between God and Christ forms a person. Thus, the Holy Spirit, is also God, as Christ is God, and God the Father is God. Three persons in one Godhead.

Early Christian debate about the nature of Christ is a testament to this. Those who believed Jesus was human and those that thought he was God, or those that believed he was both believed in their points of view as fervently as the other groups believed in theirs. Only through imposition of one version over the rest, and its packaging as dogma provided some coherence.

If they could simply impose one view on everyone else, why have such a conference? They did not 'package doctrine', but instead sought to come to greater understanding of what it is they believe. It is only through these conferences has Christianity developed the doctrine of the Incarnation, of many of these points that we are now discussing.

which are still at contradiction with each other on some accounts.

How are you defining the term Bible before 300 AD? Which accounts are you referring to? Secondly, the books accepted by everyone do not contradict each other on doctrine.

the data the chosen Bibles provide was bound to be inconclusive

Seperating the wheat from the chaff does not necessarily lead to inconclusive teachings, but more consistent and coherant doctrine. Not everything that Christians wrote ought to be considered canonical.

Only that shows that the Bible was surely interfered with.

Again, what if I said that the Holy Spirit helped them to the task? How then would God have not had his will?

Islam has much more internal consistency, and suffers none of the dogmatic question marks that has intrigued Christians for ages.

Trope. Shi'a and Sunnis, are just one division, so much that you have wars between Shi'a and Sunni. How can you claim that internal consistency, if they both use the same Q'uran?

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Re: Re: My big problem with Christianity

Originally posted by curtsibling


I must comment on this.

Jesus, if he existed, was born from the biology of a woman, like any human.

Also, I think he would have been more of a Koresh/Manson type figure, given the cult-like power he was allegedly privy to.

It is a feature of religion and it's flocks, to paint an impossibly rosy vision of it's idols.

Precious few authors of the bible (long held up as true 'evidence') even knew this personage of jesus.

I find anyone in this day in age that believes literally anything about his
being the son of a deity, to be a potentially dangerous individual indeed.

No offence intended.
But I find the magical, 'son of god stuff' to be really rambling dogma, unfit for the modern mind.

Thus speaks a guy who uses a crowned skull for his avatar?
I could comment upon the psychology of people who use deathshead figures as a symbolic representation of themselves, and I certainly would not look to such a person to tell me what is fit or unfit for the modern mind.
No offense intended.
I was merely trying to answer the questions about Christian theology posed at the beginning of this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

But just before I die, I will have faith in Jesus crist as my lord and saviour

That's a pretty big gamble. How do you know when the time comes, that you will have such an opportunity to repent?

That is all organized religion is. A means to control people. It beats me why people can't see this.

Sure I may believe in a creator of the universe. But I doubt I will ever support organized religion. It is a tool to oppress the weak.

So this must be why churches help the poor to oppress the weak.

[Ben Kenobi]

Early-life indoctrination to retain the religionist grip over youth amounts to mind-control.
As they will carry out the same act with their kids in turn...

Why then do so many come to Christ later on in life, and many leave the religion of their parents?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Dissident
did anyone watch the barbarians series on the history channel. It is interesting how they said Viking leaders sought to bring in christianity as a means of controlling the population.

That is all organized religion is. A means to control people. It beats me why people can't see this.

Sure I may believe in a creator of the universe. But I doubt I will ever support organized religion. It is a tool to oppress the weak.

If what you're saying is true then Christianity could be seen as more of a tool to control the strong, since the Vikings warriors whom the Norse kings wished to control certainly could not have been described as "weak". They terrorized an area of the world extending all the way from what is now Morroco to Iran, and from Ireland to the Urals. I simply don't see the downside of someone having pulled the reigns in on them. Consider for a moment that if the Viking terror had never stopped then you and I would probably not be communicating over the internet like this.

[yavoon]

I like god, unless I end up in hell. then he's a damn blighter

[gamenaught]

Why then do so many come to Christ later on in life, and many leave the religion of their parents?

They don't.

"The significance of focusing on the development of children is underscored by findings showing that the moral foundations of children are typically solidified by the age of nine, that lifelong spiritual choices regarding one’s faith and one’s relationship with Jesus Christ are generally made before they reach age 13, and that a person’s religious beliefs are usually worked out prior to becoming a teenager – and that those beliefs rarely change to any meaningful degree after age 13."

Source: Barna Research Group

[Capt Dizle]

This thread actually has some good stuff in it.

[gamenaught]

"The researcher admitted that the outcome of his studies produced a significant turnabout in his own views about ministry. “Since I became a Christian two decades ago, I have always accepted the dominant notion: the most important ministry is that conducted among adults. But the overwhelming evidence we have seen of the huge impact in the lives of kids and the relatively limited changes in the lives of adults has completely revolutionized my view of ministry. I have concluded that children are the single most important population group for the Church to focus upon."

Barna.org

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
did anyone watch the barbarians series on the history channel. It is interesting how they said Viking leaders sought to bring in christianity as a means of controlling the population.

That is all organized religion is. A means to control people. It beats me why people can't see this.

Controlling in what way?