Why are you not a Christian

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Why are you not a Christian

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have been wondering what the general response would be to this for a while.

Responses like "It is all BS" aren't all that useful, please say why it is BS, if you think so.

This is not suppose to be a debate thread, I will try my best not to debate with the nonChristians, and I would ask other Christians not to debate with them either (even if you know they are wrong). Rather it is suppose to be an informational thread. A discussion thread might come later

I think I know why some of you aren't Christians, but I am interested in why others of you aren't... and I am interested in knowing if I am wrong about those who I have hypothesis on.

The clearer, the better, of course. While we shouldn't debate you, presenting a reason why you aren't a Christian that was addressed 1000 years ago is a bit ignorant.

JM

To be honest, I think your question departs from a wrong point: the view that you need a reason NOT to be Christian, as if it were something natural. To me, the default Human belief is some kind of agnosticism and by whatever reasons, you later either adopt a certain belief system, deny any metaphsical belief altogether, or whatever.
So basically, there's no need to justify not being Christian. So I could rather ask you: Why are you Christian? Why should we orient ourselves according to a book written mostly for Near Eastern shepherds, and partly for hellenized Mediterranean people? A book which was furthermore canonized a few centuries later, then claimed to have been written through the Holy Ghost in order to immunize it. What makes you believe this old book is the sole basis for God's relation with us, why doesn't he give real updates anymore? Is the game not supported anymore by the manufacturer? I'm not saying that you can't find a rationalization for yourself, but the question why one does believe this is much better than why one doesn't - being from a Christian background is an explanation, but no good reason.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Blake

For instance, you may have noticed this game called Politics. In a two party system, all people use roughly the same process of logic, inference and reason, to decide which party to back.

And on average, 50% choose one party, and 50% choose the other party.

How can that be, if the same process of logic, inference and reason is used by all people?

If you think about that; it will reveal some of the limitations of logic, inference and reason. While it can be used to make decisions, it does not arrive at truths.

You can't seriously be contending that people use nothing but "logic, inference and reason" to decide which party to back.

Bh

[Blake]

Logic, inference and reason are perfectly fine.

But does the term "Garbage In Garbage Out" mean anything to you?

If logic, inference and reason, operates on garbage input, the output is still garbage.

[Provost Harrison]

Precisely, people have different ideals and different levels of altruism or selfishness.

[Bosh]

BK: Ah so you come down on the God does good things because they're good side not things are good because God does them side. So basically you're saying that morality is something that transcends God. If so, where the hell does it come from?

Also, unless God was monumentally stupid, he would've known that the original covenant would've gotten broken. If he made humans so he should have had some inkling that we're really not very good at the whole doing what you're told thing.

The whole thing seems a lot like a scientist who made a new strain of mice, told them not to eat a piece of cheese that he put in their cage or he'd stab them with a scalpel. Of course the mice eat the cheese and the scientist decides he doesn't want to stab them with the scalpel after all so he starts stabbing himself in the arm. Just seems rather bizarre to me, I honestly can't wrap my head around it.

[Ben Kenobi]

No I have to make you burn forever in hell first then I'll be satisfied...meaning I'll never be satisfied because it turns out forever is that long.

That's the image we get of Hell. I don't know if it's a burning lake of fire, but it is supposed to be eternal separation from God. You get what you've longed for, an eternity without him. Given the way things are here on earth, I think most wouldn't find that very appealing.

In all seriousness the problem would best be 'solved' by you returning the 20 bucks and repenting from theft. That is if time travel is disallowed. If you won't or can't repent we can constrain you from theft. But why should we punish you?

Why should someone be punished for theft? Because they have hurt another person. It's not enough to just return the 20 dollars, you would have to make restitution for violating their trust. Generally the inconvenience that you have put on them should be there for you to make you understand how you have hurt someone else.

It is emphatically not a violation of free will if done properly. so long as the person personally experiences no instances in which they felt constrained they haven't lost their free will.

Your description chills me. "Behavioural modification" isn't any different from brainwashing and is a violation of free will.

Stricter definitions of free will appear to indicate God hasn't given us free will anyway given how deterministic our brains seem to be. Why would I or anybody want "Actual" strict "free will" (whatever that might be) over a perfect illusion of free will that allows me to do as I choose? Further debate will probably center around free will and may need to continue when I come back. Certainly this "free will" concept is central to christianity.

I'd rather have my own choices fair or fowl, then have each step I take pre-determined. Yes, it is important to Christianity, I don't think you can have it without some sense of free will.

Then don't strip them of their free will. fix them. If a God takes away a drug addicts drug craving have they lost their free will?

People only use drugs because they crave them?

A time machine or a new contract would do the trick.

When you break a contract there is always a penalty associated with doing so. That is to deter people from breaking the contract when their interests have changed.

Fine. I don't think punishment is the proper response by an omnipotent perfectly good being however.

Discipline can be a very good thing.

naw, Hitler gets to keep his soul in my hypothetical scenario. The guy is fixed not annihilated. This discussion may require carefully defining terms, so could you define soul and free will for me so I can address that when I get back?

You are changing who he is by 'fixing' him in this way. For me an important part of a person's soul is their personality and their character, whether good or evil. If you go in their head and change things, that's no longer free will. Why not simply remove the ability to do evil things altogether?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Bosh
The whole thing seems a lot like a scientist who made a new strain of mice, told them not to eat a piece of cheese that he put in their cage or he'd stab them with a scalpel. Of course the mice eat the cheese and the scientist decides he doesn't want to stab them with the scalpel after all so he starts stabbing himself in the arm. Just seems rather bizarre to me, I honestly can't wrap my head around it.

Actually -- and I've never thought about it this way before -- the whole thing makes sense if you see Christ's sacrifice as an apology to mankind. Sort of like God saying, "Ok, now that I look back on the Old Testament, I see I've been a complete, utter, brutal, sadistic sh!t, unworthy of the adoration and obedience I've demanded -- and even extorted -- from you. I'm really, really sorry. And just to show you how serious I am, I'm actually going to let you brutally torture and kill me for once, okay? And, after that, things are going to be different."

I've said before, and I've meant it, that the behavior and attitude of Yahweh in the OT is exactly that of an alcoholic. Maybe Christ was part of his 12-step program.

Of course, at the end of the NT, Christ promises to return within a generation or so, then disappears forever -- which is also consistent with alcoholic behavior.

[Jon Miller]

There are a lot of different views, a view from soemone who follows 'oneness' theology (very liberal theology)>


"To understand why Jesus died, rather why He was killed, one has to understand the circumstances that led to His death.

The difference between dying and being killed is a significant one. We have long believed that sin ushered death into the human experience when the truth is that it was murder that sin ushered into the human experience. Dying is part of the cycle of life; murder is not. This misunderstanding arises from not fully comprehending what the Creator meant when He told Adam that he would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As long as Adam remained loyal to the government of the Universe he would never deliberately go contrary to the policies of that government and would never be in an antagonistic position to it. This is what happened when Lucifer tried to overcome the "cloud ceiling" that prevented him from being "like the Most High." Fortunately for him he challenged a superior being who only had to exile him to deal with that challenge. The death that resulted after Adam and Eve ate the fruit occurred when Cain killed Abel. Adam and Eve's sin was in destroying the cohesive fabric of human cooperation. Eve refused to consult with Adam to settle a conflict in her mind and Adam abandoned his wife when he was confronted by his friend and Master.

It was this division that resulted in sin and whenever two forces of equal power and authority vie for singular space one will ultimately be killed by the other.

Christ had to die because He became sin for us. He took on what sin represented -- seperation, fragmentation and murder. He did not die to save us. That He accomplished through the life He lived in which He revealed the fulness of the character of His Father.

It is important to note that He did not merely die; He was killed. As the eternal God he could not die and if His death were needed for our salvation we could not be saved. But sin represents not the entrance of death but the desire to inflict harm on your own kind because they are different from you rather than to work together in harmony. It is no accident that in His final prayer Christ prayed that we may be one."

I was starting prepare a thread about this subject (Christ's death), but then decided it would be better to go with "Why are people Christians" and then go with "Why did Christ die"

My purpose with these threads are to aid in people understanding eachother, nonChristian and Christian alike. I know I very much want to make sure I understand the nonChristian people here.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Ben, and others, I would prefer that this was not a debate or discussion thread, but rather an information thread. People who try to discuss things but who don't understand eachother aren't likely to grow at all through the discussion.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Re: Re: Why are you not a Christian

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


To be honest, I think your question departs from a wrong point: the view that you need a reason NOT to be Christian, as if it were something natural. To me, the default Human belief is some kind of agnosticism and by whatever reasons, you later either adopt a certain belief system, deny any metaphsical belief altogether, or whatever.
So basically, there's no need to justify not being Christian. So I could rather ask you: Why are you Christian? Why should we orient ourselves according to a book written mostly for Near Eastern shepherds, and partly for hellenized Mediterranean people? A book which was furthermore canonized a few centuries later, then claimed to have been written through the Holy Ghost in order to immunize it. What makes you believe this old book is the sole basis for God's relation with us, why doesn't he give real updates anymore? Is the game not supported anymore by the manufacturer? I'm not saying that you can't find a rationalization for yourself, but the question why one does believe this is much better than why one doesn't - being from a Christian background is an explanation, but no good reason.

There haven't been very many agnostics or atheists in earth's history. I don't think that that is the default position.

In any case, I have made a new thread. Ask me (and others) to tell more about something if you would like.

And most Christians aren't dependent on the Bible alone (or even primarily) for their Christianity. In fact, probably the majority aren't.

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Re: Why are you not a Christian

Originally posted by Jon Miller


There haven't been very many agnostics or atheists in earth's history. I don't think that that is the default position.

In any case, I have made a new thread. Ask me (and others) to tell more about something if you would like.

And most Christians aren't dependent on the Bible alone (or even primarily) for their Christianity. In fact, probably the majority aren't.

JM

Ok, Jon, I'm curious. Back on p. 3 I said (in the spirit of your OP):

I believe Jesus was a great moral teacher. I try to lead my life in accordance to his teachings regarding the treatment of other human beings (though I'll admit I don't even attempt voluntary poverty).

But I don't believe he was divine, let alone God. So I'm out of the club.

Would you agree I'm out of the club? Or does following Christ's teachings, while denying his divinity, still make me a Christian?

[Jon Miller]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are you not a Christian

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Ok, Jon, I'm curious. Back on p. 3 I said (in the spirit of your OP):



Would you agree I'm out of the club? Or does following Christ's teachings, while denying his divinity, still make me a Christian?

I wouldn't call you a pauline Christian, so traditional Christian no.

If you wanted to be an XXXX Christian, I would agree (not that it matters).

JM
* XXXX being the proper adjective to describe your theology.

edit: I mean, it would make you an XXXX Christian.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Ben, and others, I would prefer that this was not a debate or discussion thread, but rather an information thread. People who try to discuss things but who don't understand eachother aren't likely to grow at all through the discussion.

JM

my bad. Maybe I'll start a free will thread to pick up where Ben and I left off.

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Re: Re: Why are you not a Christian

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There haven't been very many agnostics or atheists in earth's history. I don't think that that is the default position.

You understood me wrong. With agnosticism I didn't mean a belief in nothing, similar to atheism - not even close.
But small children can't have a focussed belief - they're really open to believe almost anything - unless you give them a clear answer based on your own believes, which, being a parent, would have an authoritative character.
Since I don't follow a certain belief, I don't give my son determined answers on some questions. I rather say, some believe this, some believe that, what do you believe is true? The very natural response is that one day he'd say, there is a God, other day there are several, the next day, there is no such thing - Jesus is always kind of there because his kindergarden is Catholic (but not 'in your face', there are even 2 muslim children there) and thus sometimes present... My son believes in the "christ child" - actually a fairie with the same function,like Santa Claus, the tooth fairie, and when he abandoned his sucker, a fairie left a present for him... But all these "believes" are very volatile, change daily and have no real direction.

So agnosticism was used in its proper meaning "not knowing", which they will have unless you give them an authoritative answer as a parent.

[Max Webster]

Just before I croak will I reach out to God. In the meantime i will just indulge in my usual decadence.