Why I am not a Christian

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Religions are an early attempt by humankind to explain the universe that surrounds us, in a fashion that is understandable for the layman. Such an attempt is not inherently malicious nor benevolent, but simply mirrors human nature. There is a reason why all human cultures developed beliefs in supranatural forces.

Exactly.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Not really, a journey assumes a path, implies (sufficiently) a destination and a knowable route. None of which apply to this debate imo.

I still think his example of a desert is good. We are all trapped in it. Some believe that there is a "the other end" and some believe that there is a knowable route to reach it. Some others believe there may be multiple routes. Yet others believe there is no end, and no routes to deliver us. We all struggle to survive the desert. Some find pieces of paper they believe to be maps and feel assured while they travel, others accept the fact that we are trapped and try to get the best of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by bayraven
Man, i've been sheltered. i've believed that AG/ATH people were just bitter and dissapointed by some percieved failure from God (which is ironic knowing as many bitter Christians as i do)
I appreciate the discourse.

And what did you believe about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the countless other religions out there?

to take issue with just this point; Christians believe in the sacrificial system, starkly stated, blood payment for sin. It is our belief that the ultimate purpose of Christ was to be the final sacrifice. To then offer up a pigeon is pointless

Yes, fine, you believe that- but that does not mean its right, now does it? If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then God asked for sacrifices in his name. A simple question, if you care as much, is why Jews, who don;t think Jesus is the Messiah, why they stopped sacrificing.

But then, there are simple questions- why don't you keep Kosher?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by bayraven
Man, i've been sheltered. i've believed that AG/ATH people were just bitter and dissapointed by some percieved failure from God (which is ironic knowing as many bitter Christians as i do)
I appreciate the discourse.

Well I just can speak for myself here - I don't think I'm bitter and I do not think being religious or being atheist does say anything about if a person is stupid, "good", ethically or whatever. I have no prob accepting religious people, and I do not try to convince them that they are oh so wrong all the time, although I don't share their beliefs. Because I think it is a private thing to follow a religion or not. In this sense however I expect that they don't try to force their views on others as well.

Therefore I would have problems if religion would become more influential in politics, because I think politics should follow rational principles, and that is not exactly the strength of religion.

Overall, I think monkspider's right, there are small-minded people everywhere, religious or not.

[bayraven]

EDIT- correcting use of quote box

Originally posted by GePap


And what did you believe about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the countless other religions out there?

misdirected, probably the same way you view Christians

Yes, fine, you believe that- but that does not mean its right, now does it? If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then God asked for sacrifices in his name. A simple question, if you care as much, is why Jews, who don;t think Jesus is the Messiah, why they stopped sacrificing.

I donno. I'm sure there is a historical answer, probably related to the distruction of the temple. I'm not Jewish so i really don't know. BTW, are there any professed Jews in poly?

But then, there are simple questions- why don't you keep Kosher?

this is one of my favorite concepts. Christians smarter than me can probably make more sense out of this, but just to get it out there, it is the difference between being under The Law, (Torah) and under Grace (New Covenent)
Paul said that The Grace of God manifest in the sacrifice of Jesus freed us from the (humanly generated superflous) additions to the law,

Here's my problem (as i'm working through my faith), God is unchanging, yet He wiped out (the flawed) mankind and started over w/ Noah. He set up the Law BWO the Torah and replaced it with Grace. (good bye kosher)
But for me, here's the real problem: as Christians we go back and forth with justification from the Law and Grace, depending on which fits our need. I have been criticized for tatoos because of the Levitical prohibition of same. when i axed about that, i was reminded that the 10 commandments were Torah, also. As i said earlier, i don't have to know the answer to believe there is one.

[GePap]

Well, from a historical perspective, Paul was trying to move Christinity from a Jewish sect into the Roman mainstream. He was hardly going to get loads of converts if he forced everyone to follow the laws of the Torah to become Christians. So, well, POOF! We don't have to follow the Laws anymore! Eat all the pork you want!

As for your question, we have several "professed" Jews here. Lord of the mark certainly, and Edan as well, thought I have not seen him in a while. We have many israelis, and a few of them might be practicin jews as well.

[bayraven]

GePap,
you sell Paul short. First off, if we are discussing him, i assume for the sake of argument we each accept that he was, and that he was the guy laid out in Acts and his apistles.
If his intent was to soft pedal what he saw as irrefutable truth, then he could have done the same-more of it- to avoid the riots in Jeruselem, Ehpeses, and anywhere else that cased him to be beaten, stoned and imprisioned time after time.

[bayraven]

epistles
i'm not being careful

[Last Conformist]

There's a little "edit" button in the upper right of your post, that should be most useful for correcting spelling mistakes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by bayraven
GePap,
you sell Paul short. First off, if we are discussing him, i assume for the sake of argument we each accept that he was, and that he was the guy laid out in Acts and his apistles.
If his intent was to soft pedal what he saw as irrefutable truth, then he could have done the same-more of it- to avoid the riots in Jeruselem, Ehpeses, and anywhere else that cased him to be beaten, stoned and imprisioned time after time.

How then did Paul come to the revelation that the grace of God replaced the the Law? jesus didn't tell him- did an angel come and speak with him?

Its called marketing- you can;t mess with the basic principles that make the faith the faith (the role of Jesus, one God, so forth), but things like the Laws are certainly open to change, and if that makes selling the message simpler, go ahead an do it.

A universalistic faith like Christianity needs to adapt to local conditions to flourish. If anything, Paul is nearly as important as jesus, because without him, or his changes, Christianity would have remained just another Jewish sect.

[bayraven]

I guess early Romanized Christianity makes your point

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Does the English language have such a thing as the French concept of "pieux mensonge" (lit. 'pious lie'), i.e. a lie that has a benevolent intent?
When I use the word "lie", I do not want to induce that every preacher is malicious. In fact, the religious belief in itself is not necessarily malicious.

It's called a "white lie" in English, but it fails again because a white lie is still a conscious deceipt. The preachings of a believer are not a conscious deceipt. Unless the preacher themself has no belief, preaching faith is not a lie.

It might be wrong, but being wrong is not in itself lying.

Religions are an early attempt by humankind to explain the universe that surrounds us, in a fashion that is understandable for the layman. Such an attempt is not inherently malicious nor benevolent, but simply mirrors human nature. There is a reason why all human cultures developed beliefs in supranatural forces.

Isn't that true of physics too? I don't know about you, but I'm quietly cynical about many of these grand theories. Was it a big bang? Was it an oscillation? Is superstring theory the work of acid casualties. Why was the bang big, and why did it go bang?

However, these explanations can only be false, because we live in an extremely complex universe, that we as a species will probably never fully understand. Science is a very imperfect tool to that effect. And religion is even worse.

That depends on the religion. I'm a pagan because it makes more sense to me on an intellectual level than any other theory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by bayraven
I guess early Romanized Christianity makes your point

Just look at Christmas- no way in hell Jesus was born in the beginning of winter- everything in the bible points to spring at some time. So why all of a sudden make a holiday in december his birth date? cause it was a pagan celebration that was so popular, it had to be coopted somehow.

[Brundlefly]

I believe that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved.

Argument for the possible existence of God:

Would you admit that there are some aspects of the universe that you do not understand?

Can you conceive the possibility of the existence of God as a part of the universe?

If you answered yes to both questions, then you have to admit God might exist. If you answered no to either question, I want an explanation why.


In any case, if a God does exist, there is no way of knowing if he corresponds to the God image portrayed by any world religion.

Religions have value as institutions which socialize people and provide security blanket to those who are freaked out by their own mortality. But no religion is based on facts..

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Isn't that true of physics too? I don't know about you, but I'm quietly cynical about many of these grand theories. Was it a big bang? Was it an oscillation? Is superstring theory the work of acid casualties. Why was the bang big, and why did it go bang?

Skepticism wrt science justifies a lack of skepticism wrt religion? Seems a tad uncharitable to me ...