My big problem with Christianity

[GePap]

To me the fundamental problem with BK's arguemnt is that no Christian Theologian can even disprove a Muslim theologian, nor Jewish Theologian, nor HIndu Theologian, nor Buddhist Theologian, and neither can any of them disprove the Chrsitians.

So basically one is left to chose wich they think is right based on personal choices, NOT on "facts"

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming
Christianity is just one of MANY religions. While I can understand their myopic view that they are the only true religion... everybody else feels the same way about their religion (yes, some religions actually except the fact that you can believe in a god even if you aren't in their specific religion, but most christians don't). Heck, there are many different Christian religions that can't even agree on some things. So BK, your christian moral code is no more universal than anybody elses... and since their is a seperation of Church and State in the US, no single religion should dictate policy. If your version of Christianity doesn't accept same sex marriages... that's fine. You don't have to do them in your church. But to think that your limited moral beliefs should be IMPOSED on the rest of the world is just arogant and ignorant at best. There is no universal moral code... if there was, all the different faiths that believe in a god would all agree on a single moral code... and they don't!.
And that is the reason why there is a seperation of church and state here... I only wish it was as seperate in reality as it is supposed to be in theory.

As you well know, its not as simple as that. If we had to completely separate christian ethos from our current laws we'd have to allow many other practices that are currently illegal (or else provide some other basis upon which to make them again illegal). So long as citizens (who may have opinions based upon their religious beliefs) pass the laws, and not the various Church hierarchies, I dont see the constitutional problem despite my opposition to their discriminatory choices.

[The Mad Viking]

Ming!

Spencer H
A Christian ethos hardly translates to the "church" passing laws...
Of course much law is based on Christian traditions...
This in no way refutes separation of church and state.
Elected officials pass laws... churches do not.

[East Street Trader]

I think it goes something like this.

There exists good and evil. God gives man freedom to choose. But He will like it if the choice made is good. And He knows that for man to make this choice is not easy because the Devil has a lot of the good tunes.

So He wants to help man out. But in doing so He also does not want to be insistent (as that rather destroys the free will thing). So what He does is to come down to earth with the good word about all the excellent reasons why choosing good is the winning plan. And to convey the fact that He is going to like it if that is the choice made.

But he knows that someone who comes into the world as it is, devoid of all evil and preaching good, will have a hard time. Because of all the evil knocking around. In fact the response of evil is bound to lead to tragedy.

But this is OK. Because by Himself being willing to accept the fundamental aspects of man's lot - pain, humiliation and death - as the price for delivering His message God conveys his love for man and gives His word a really excellent chance to get across.

I am not a Christian but I must say that Jesus is about the most compellingly interesting character I have come across and his story is a gripping one.

The ethic he teaches is also wholly satisfying.

[Boris Godunov]

My problem with Christianity is that few, if any, of its adherents seem to actually practice it. Worse, those same folks seem intent on trying to force other people to practice their bastardized version of it, or of forcing people to accomodate it where it has no place (i.e. science classrooms, secular government policy).

[Capt Dizle]

God is like Buffy? Universal moral code?

only on apolyton

[The Templar]

Re: Re: My big problem with Christianity

Originally posted by germanos


Jesus did not die for anybodies individual's sin. He was sacrificed to lift humanity from the 'inherited' sin, that came upon humanity when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge in Paradise.

Original sin (isn't this only Catholic?) is a whole other issue. How can I be held responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve?

Is the problem that Christianity is just incompatable (in any straightforward way) with American conceptions of individual responsibility?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My problem with Christianity is that few, if any, of its adherents seem to actually practice it. Worse, those same folks seem intent on trying to force other people to practice their bastardized version of it, or of forcing people to accomodate it where it has no place (i.e. science classrooms, secular government policy).

Actually that's my problem with many Christians. Then I rememeber someone like MLK Jr. and think this problem is not directly the fault of the religion as a whole.

My question was more theological in nature. I don't get the concept.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Ming!

Spencer H
A Christian ethos hardly translates to the "church" passing laws...
Of course much law is based on Christian traditions...
This in no way refutes separation of church and state.
Elected officials pass laws... churches do not.

And elected officials who vote on laws based upon their religious-based beliefs are not attacking the constitutional separation of church and state.

If that elected official is also the pope, then we have a problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

No dice. Remember how UR talks about the Trinity? Why do Christians use such a convoluted system? The answer is that it best fits the data at hand. With the Trinity you have one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy spirit. Three persons in one Godhead.

Now, suppose we killed God the Son, Christ, in his incarnation. Does this mean we have killed all of God? No. Even during the three days of Christ's death, there still existed the Holy Spirit and God the father.

However, your argument also fails to account for the resurrection of Christ. Christ not only rose from the dead, but ascended into heaven, and still sits with God the Father in heaven. That's why Christians say that he will return again to judge the living and the dead.

[Spiffor]

I know Christ is said to have revived, it was just a cheap shot

But thanks for telling me about the trinity. It's much more clear for me now. Until your post, I was very confused by it

[Ming]

The trinity has been confusing religious scholars for centuries

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But thanks for telling me about the trinity. It's much more clear for me now. Until your post, I was very confused by it

You think it's less confusing now? You're weird.

[Ben Kenobi]

So BK, your christian moral code is no more universal than anybody elses...

And Ming, I also agree. By saying the Christian morality applies to everyone does not necessarily exclude other codes. The question comes up is how to reconcile differences in faith.

There is no universal moral code... if there was, all the different faiths that believe in a god would all agree on a single moral code... and they don't!.

That's an excellent point. How can one have a universal moral code, yet have differences among religions? Anyone, even in Christianity, has difficulties to resolve. There are big differences between just Mennonites and Catholics. Some of them are related to tradition, others to preferences in the worship service. Not all of the differences among religions cause problems for a universal moral code and some can be reconciled. The real question is which fall in which category.

I think the Mennonites are the closest, which is why I go to their church, but the fact is likely they do not conform perfectly with what Christianity used to teach. If men were given a perfect morality, would they be able to put the morality into practice perfectly? No.

As for gay marriage, it's up to the people. If the people vote, and say they want gay marriage, then the state will have to abide by that change. I've said that throughout the threads I've posted.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't believe in the magical juju Paul invented to have supersticious people flock to him...

What magic juju?