Any knowledgable Christians here?

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: skillyho
I feel like this forum is particularly slanted on anti-religious beliefs merely from an intellectual standpoint. Speaking solely from my experience discussing religion in academic and professional capacities with colleagues, most of us geeks/nerds/whatever usually (subliminally or otherwise) consider ourselves to be smarter than others. I think this elitist mentality lends itself to thinking we know everything, we need proof for everything (as if we deserve it), or we're simply better than some far-fetched ponderings written about events that transpired over the past few thousand years.

"Elitist" is an emotional label that is getting overused these days. Have you considered the possibility that people who choose to be skeptical or disdainful regarding religion might have some merit in requiring proof (hell, forget proof, how about evidence)? Maybe those of us who do engage in logical, rational thought really are better than those who blindly believe what they're told?

Bah... that's elitist talk.

 

[uhohs]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: uhohs
John 14:6
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

The problem arises when/if you claim to be a follower of Christ, claim him to be your Lord, Savior, God... and you don't take what he says as truth.

I also take it to be truth. I just don't take it literally as you do, and I also think that it has a far more profound meaning than your apparent understanding of it as an expression of cheap damnation for the rest of the world.

Sorry that my believing Jesus declaring that he is the only way to be saved isn't "profound" enough for you. I guess you can take his statement as meaning something else if you disregard parts of scripture that doesn't suit your fancy. You have to throw out quite a bit of it be to left with a mesage without final judgement and damnation.

Matthew 7:13-14
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Luke 13:23-24
23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

Luke 13:27-28
27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Matthew 7:21-27
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Matthew 12:36-37
36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 10:33
33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Straight from the mouth of Jesus, no implication or mention of your "cheap damnation" there at all :roll: Obviously all those statements from Jesus meant that there's no judgement/damnation and there's alternative methods for everyone will be saved.

 

[Madwand1]

uhohs, thank you for your response, as it gives me a chance for another without feeling that I'm unduly imposing my views on others. This I have to suggest to you: The Christian faith is wonderful and profound, and your most important business is your own salvation, as mine is for me. I wish you the greatest success in applying your beliefs to your life to the satisfaction of God.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Screw ... anyone else who doesn't speak Greek/Hebrew and is named something other than Jesus. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and the quotes(red highlighted in better Bibles) is all you need to know. Even I think it's all bupkus, but at least Jesus had something to say, so instead of getting a watered down and washed out interpretation from some wannabe, go to the Source.

Why limit yourself to those four gospels? There were over a hundred of them.

 

[edro]

It's simple.

Base your life on a mystic or base your life on science?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

The Bible specifically refers to faith in spirit over supposed faith in detail but not in spirit. This gives another answer. It's not hard to consider -- if you worship God as God, would He really mind if you called Him say "Allah" instead of "God"?

In the middle of some great hot sex (a possible manifestation of physical worship) would your girlfriend mind if you called her michelle instead of her real name?

The God of christianity specifically gives himself 2 names... I AM and YAHWEH... Then of course there is his son Jesus Christ. Calling either of them Allah just seems incorrect!

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: QurazyQuisp

Originally posted by: JDub02
OP, kudos for searching. My suggestion is to start your search by reading. Joel Osteen is a good place to start, but given your background, you might want something meatier. Try some Jack Hayford, Mac Hammond, Creflo Dollar, or Joyce Meyer.

But remember, some things just have to be taken on faith. The core belief is that a virgin gave birth to God's son, who was still God; he was crucified to pay for our sins, came back to life, floated to heaven, and he's coming back some day. Pretty crazy on the surface, yet I believe it.

Please, please, do not ever mention Joel Osteen and Christianity together. He has come out to say numerous times that the is simply giving the people what they want to hear. He doesn't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity one bit, if he did he wouldn't go out and tell everyone they are going to be wealthy and have a perfect life once they become a Christian. Christianity is not a joy ride.

John Piper (Any)
C.S. Lewis (Any)
Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz)
Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis)
Shane Claiborne (Irresistible Revolution)
and there are many more.

And so on are wonderful authors/pastors who will really give you an idea as to the root of the religion and what it truly means to be a Christian.

That being said, I'd be more than willing to talk although I'm not sure if I'll be able to provide the best answers.

You can view the video about Joel's beliefs here... http://www.forgottenword.org/osteen.html

While I'll admit that Joel's teachings aren't very "deep", the author of that piece you linked to comes off as bitter over something that I can't figure out. He apparently has a problem with the whole evangelical/charismatic movement, yet provides no substance for his arguments other than he feels that Joel's teachings are too watered down. He summed up Joel's doctrine as

It's God's will for you to live in prosperity instead of poverty. It's God's will for you to pay your bills and not be in debt. It's God's will for you to live in health and not in sickness all the days of your life.

and obviously has a problem with it. I don't see how being prosperous and healthy is outside the will of God.

 

[uhohs]

Being healthy, happy, or well to do isn't outside the will of God. But Jesus didn't promise his followers wealth, prosperity, or health. In fact he told them the opposite. If someone claims to be Christian and the things he strives/lives for are worldly wealth and possessions, he has no grasp of the teachings of Christ or the Gospel.

 

[Kasper4christ]

Interesting, that seems to be one of those 'inconvenient truths' that so many people end up glazing over. "God wants the best, if you're not getting it, somethings wrong." Try teaching that to 3rd world countries.. <sigh> I know its not a direct quote, don't take it as one.

Personally, I rather enjoy Mars Hill, and their primary preaching pastor Mark Driscoll. They're goin through a rather interesting series on Doctrine, check it out if your curious.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: AMDZen
knowledgable Christian = oxymoron

jk

not really

Not even kidding a little. When you start asking the hard questions about where the fairy tales come from Christians react violently. When you start asking the hard questions about the full extent of the sex scandal Christians react violently. When you start asking the hard questions about the millions of people the church has murdered Christians react violently.

Christians don't want knowledge of their own and they don't want other people to have it either.

Err, I'm a pretty hardcore atheist, but its just ignorant to say that all Christians are stupid. I know a Physics professor who is a devout Christian and is very smart.

Not too mention most of the things you list are not Christianity related. There is a difference between Christianity and religion, you know that right?

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Kasper4christ
Interesting, that seems to be one of those 'inconvenient truths' that so many people end up glazing over. "God wants the best, if you're not getting it, somethings wrong." Try teaching that to 3rd world countries.. <sigh> I know its not a direct quote, don't take it as one.

Personally, I rather enjoy Mars Hill, and their primary preaching pastor Mark Driscoll. They're goin through a rather interesting series on Doctrine, check it out if your curious.

Prosperity doesn't necessarily mean monetary wealth. And just because poverty exists doesn't mean that God endorses and is responsible for it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
"Why does God have to damn those to hell? Eternal damnation... isn't that pretty harsh? For what, not loving you back? If God is truly love, which is what Christian God profeses to be, then why do the creation have to accept him back in order for us to deserve the creator's love? Can he not abolish hell? Is He helpless?"

I've always found it interesting that Christians accept that it is ok for God to make the decision of whether or not to bring eternal suffering and pain upon a person for not loving him, but the thought of another person bringing temporary suffering and pain through the use of burning their flesh for not loving them is considered ludicrous and a sin for that matter. Something just doesn't quite add up there.

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
This is one area where I think christianity actually makes sense. Heaven is the ultimate reward, hell is the ultimate punishment. If anything I would expect it to be the most impossibly hard thing imaginable to attain the best thing you can possibly attain ever, but if you listen to the preachers it's supposedly easier than falling off a log. Accept Him and worship Him, which is something you want to do whether you know it or not, and you're in. If it's really that easy, then the punishment for doing this preposterously simple thing should be both infinitely bad and final. Yeah, that's how I'd run things too

Ultimate reward or ultimate punishment. Why weren't we at least given a third option that lies somewhere in between? I'm quite serious. I realize it's not something that is considered very often and is easy to reject since it seems foreign in terms of the Christian faith, but when you really think about it there is nothing wrong with having one so why not? Why be condemned to anything eternal for that matter based upon what we do and do not do within a limited frame of time? Does that make any sense? Doesn't it make more sense that any kind of eternal future whether it be good or bad is quite extreme when it is based upon a fraction of time? If people are capable of changing during life and God is supposed to be forgiving then why limit the amount of time we have to find the "right" path. Is there really a point to doing that? What good really comes from limiting such things? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Without reading any of the rest of the thread, I am most definitely available, and would love to talk with you OP. PM sent.

-Kevin

Edit: I am honored to have my name floating around up at the top of member suggestions .

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Yes, islam and christanity is based off of the same root. Yet, my point still stands as "why choose christianity over islam?"

Because one is closer to your own heritage than the other and resonates better with your circumstances and leanings perhaps?

If not, then why would you think that is is necessary, from God's perspective, not the local mullah's, to adopt a mutually exclusive attitude with respect to faith?

Though, as SlitheryDee says, "because His book said so" would be a pretty good counter-argument, it suffers from being an assumption of literal accuracy and faith in a religion as reported by those promoting the same religion; a flaw you've identified yourself.

If you read the Gita for example, I think you'd understand this perspective better.

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Also,you convenently ignore Odin, rain gods, ra, and buddah many of whom were mentioned before allah in the same sentence.

I think you should be able to deal with both "Allah" and "God" with respect before you try to take on such issues. It's not hard to make a problem so difficult that even you can't solve it, which is just fine if you don't want to solve a problem, but not exactly the best approach otherwise.

So basically what is from your heritage is right? That is irrational and biased.

From what I can decipher from what your saying, I still do not see a single answer to said question that is not based off of "faith", arbitrary feelings, or irrational thoughts. Also, I originally did not propose the question as the start of a debate, which has already been covered at long lengths in this forum. I was merely suggesting to the OP to add said question to his list to ask the Christianity "Expert".

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ultimate reward or ultimate punishment. Why weren't we at least given a third option that lies somewhere in between? I'm quite serious. I realize it's not something that is considered very often and is easy to reject since it seems foreign in terms of the Christian faith, but when you really think about it there is nothing wrong with having one so why not? Why be condemned to anything eternal for that matter based upon what we do and do not do within a limited frame of time? Does that make any sense? Doesn't it make more sense that any kind of eternal future whether it be good or bad is quite extreme when it is based upon a fraction of time? If people are capable of changing during life and God is supposed to be forgiving then why limit the amount of time we have to find the "right" path. Is there really a point to doing that? What good really comes from limiting such things? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

You're right. However, that "third option" is the default option, at least in terms of lives typically lived not spiritually. The "third option" is discussed in other religions, but is not emphasized in Christianity or Islam -- for some specific reasons, I believe. One of those reasons would be that such a "third option" becomes an excuse for perpetual postponement -- I'll be charitable when I've paid off the mortgage; I'll be religious when I'm retired and don't have so many pressures, etc. This is to say that the "third option" is real and ever-present, it's the idea of perpetual postponement and some future spirituality which is discouraged, emphasizing instead that the present matters most.

A further extension is that the "third option" and "second option" aren't really different, and that the "third option" is in fact the same as the "second option" looked at in a different manner, with a view towards contrast with the first.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
So basically what is from your heritage is right? That is irrational and biased.

From what I can decipher from what your saying, I still do not see a single answer to said question that is not based off of "faith", arbitrary feelings, or irrational thoughts.

thecrecarc, I think you might understand me better if you made a real effort to do so instead of getting hostile about the subject.

 

[BudAshes]

The ultimate counter point to the bible is outer space. Ever since we have discovered this vast universe we live in more and more people have lost their faith. The earth isn't even the center of our solar system, let alone the universe. Man is not important except to ourselves.

 

[uhohs]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
The ultimate counter point to the bible is outer space. Ever since we have discovered this vast universe we live in more and more people have lost their faith. The earth isn't even the center of our solar system, let alone the universe. Man is not important except to ourselves.

huh? lol.

 

[Madwand1]

Aurobindo expressed similar challenges.

There are theories of existence which accept the individual soul, but not soul evolution. There is, for instance, that singular dogma of a soul without a past but with a future, created by the birth of the body but indestructible by the death of the body. But this is a violent and irrational assumption, an imagination unverified and without verisimilitude. It involves the difficulty of a creature beginning in time but enduring through all eternity, an immortal being dependent for its existence on an act of physical generation, yet itself always and entirely unphysical and independent of the body which results from the generation. These are objections insuperable to the reason. But there is too the difficulty that this soul inherits a past for which it is in no way responsible, or is burdened with mastering propensities imposed on it not by its own act, and is yet responsible for its future which is treated as if it were in no way determined by that often deplorable inheritance, damnosa hereditas, or that unfair creation, and were entirely of its own making. We are made helplessly what we are and are yet responsible for what we are, - or at least for what we shall be hereafter, which is inevitably determined to a large extent by what we are originally. And we have only this one chance. Plato and the Hottentot, the fortunate child of saints or Rishis and the born and trained criminal plunged from beginning to end in the lowest fetid corruption of a great modern city have equally to create by the action or belief of this one unequal life all their eternal future. This is a paradox which offends both the soul and the reason, the ethical sense and the spiritual intuition.

But he also wrote:

Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer, Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult egoism stand in the way.

All religions have saved a number of souls, but none yet has been able to spiritualise mankind. For that there is needed not cult and creed, but a sustained and all-comprehending effort at spiritual self-evolution.

The changes we see in the world today are intellectual, moral, physical in their ideal and intention: the spiritual revolution waits for its hour and throws up meanwhile its waves here and there. Until it comes the sense of the others cannot be understood and till then all interpretation of present happening and forecast of man's future are vain things. For its nature, power, event are that which will determine the next cycle of our humanity.

 

[Viper0329]

PM sent. It was really long and spans two PMs, though. Hope it helps.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
PM sent. It was really long and spans two PMs, though. Hope it helps.

HELLO!!!!

I think this is you?


If so, this guy is a great resource on the topic in the OP and a great guy all around.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: wwswimming
what aspect of Christianity ?

the history of the religion, details like the section in Luke
where Mary is visited by angels and told she's going to
have a special baby, the association of the pseudo-Christian
right with the Bush administration, or the part about asking
JC as your savior, thinking that you will be saved as a result
of this choice ?

there are many facets to Christianity.

I don't really care for those small details. I'm questioning the very fundamentals of Christianity which no one sufficiently answered and gave me the run-around answers. And this is with genuine effort by talking to my church pastor (who holds PhD in Harvard if that means anything to you), countless nights of discussion with fellow good-willing yet knowledge-lacking Christian friends & family. That in result really turned me away:

"Isn't it bit presumptuous to say those worldly people who seem happy are really not happy deep inside because they don't know Your God? There are plenty of people I observe who ARE truly happy without believing in Your Christian God"

"You mean to tell me the hundreds of thousands who die in the world EVERYDAY that don't believe in Christ all go to hell? Why is it their fault that they weren't even given the opportunity to at least hear of Christian God? Please don't give me the [God works in mysterious ways] line."

"If Adam and Eve sinned. Why are WE paying for their sins? Who came up with such system and why does it have to be that way? Why did God had to send his one and only Son to atone for our sins (John 3:16)? That seems awfully man-made logic to me. If God is truly almighty, why is he bound to such silly & restricting tit-for-tat system?"

"Why does God have to damn those to hell? Eternal damnation... isn't that pretty harsh? For what, not loving you back? If God is truly love, which is what Christian God profeses to be, then why do the creation have to accept him back in order for us to deserve the creator's love? Can he not abolish hell? Is He helpless?"

1)To answer question one, to me is straightforeward and in one sentence... ignorance is bliss. What i mean by that is it is possible to be content and truly happy in naivety. However it is also possible to be even happier in the post knowledge period. Its possible to say the same thing about sex.. when you were a child, there were times you were truly happy, but then you discovered sex and again you are truly happy. and then you look back and say... if i didnt have this now, I wouldnt be happy. How was i ever happy before not having this as a part of my life.

2)Im not sure that christianity teaches that they do... There is a lot of different opinion on this subject, and i dont have the answer. what about babies? what about mentally handicapped? do they go to hell if they die? If you look at this from the opposite end... it is the job of the christian to tell everyone and give them the opportunity to know jesus. Are you going to hell because there was someone you didnt tell them?

3)im not sure exactly how you think you are paying for Adam & Eve's Sin... I think you are confusing PUNISHMENT & CONSEQUENCES... You are only punished for your own sin... However, the CONSEQUENCES of someones sin may have a direct affect on others... this is true for all things. Example, someone kills your friend. The killer would be sent to hell as punishment... as a consequence of that killing, you would be sad and lonely possibly. Back to Adam & Eve... Not living forever (as adam and eve would have) is a consequence of that sin (introducing death to the world) not a punishment. You're not going to hell because eve ate an apple, your destination is purely based on your choices in your life.

4)Damnation to hell and where is the third option?... once again, to me this seems straightforward. Hell is not about the fire, the pain, the torment, or the demons. The afore mentioned things are all present, but that is not what hell is... Hell is simply defined as being in the complete absence of God or a place where God is not, Heaven is simply defined as being in the presence of God. What form of a third option could there be? I dont know what your third choice would be, but given the defining characteristic, i dont know how it would be distinguished from choice 1 or 2.

About Gods love and hell... I dont know if you are a parent or not... but it is possible to both love someone and yet recognize the need for punishment... They are not mutually exclusive.

And again back to my earlier point... consider that if there are 2 groups of people, those who accept God and those who reject God... those who reject God now will reject God in the afterlife... so why would you put them in a place simply defined as being in a place with God? obviously, you should put them in the place they would be happier in... a place defined as a place where God is not.

 

[QurazyQuisp]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Kasper4christ
Interesting, that seems to be one of those 'inconvenient truths' that so many people end up glazing over. "God wants the best, if you're not getting it, somethings wrong." Try teaching that to 3rd world countries.. <sigh> I know its not a direct quote, don't take it as one.

Personally, I rather enjoy Mars Hill, and their primary preaching pastor Mark Driscoll. They're goin through a rather interesting series on Doctrine, check it out if your curious.

Prosperity doesn't necessarily mean monetary wealth. And just because poverty exists doesn't mean that God endorses and is responsible for it.

I don't care so much about the rest of that article, but rather the video at the top. HE STUMBLES when asked if Jews, Muslims, Hindus and so on are going to go to hell. If he truly believed in Christian fundamentals he'd respond with something along these lines: Jesus tells us that we are not to condemn, however, Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."

Further, the whole do good things issue that Joel seems so set on... Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith?and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God?not by works, so that no one can boast." I'm not saying that we shouldn't do good things, but our relationship with God, our salvation is not hinged on it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ultimate reward or ultimate punishment. Why weren't we at least given a third option that lies somewhere in between? I'm quite serious. I realize it's not something that is considered very often and is easy to reject since it seems foreign in terms of the Christian faith, but when you really think about it there is nothing wrong with having one so why not? Why be condemned to anything eternal for that matter based upon what we do and do not do within a limited frame of time? Does that make any sense? Doesn't it make more sense that any kind of eternal future whether it be good or bad is quite extreme when it is based upon a fraction of time? If people are capable of changing during life and God is supposed to be forgiving then why limit the amount of time we have to find the "right" path. Is there really a point to doing that? What good really comes from limiting such things? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

You're right. However, that "third option" is the default option, at least in terms of lives typically lived not spiritually. The "third option" is discussed in other religions, but is not emphasized in Christianity or Islam -- for some specific reasons, I believe. One of those reasons would be that such a "third option" becomes an excuse for perpetual postponement -- I'll be charitable when I've paid off the mortgage; I'll be religious when I'm retired and don't have so many pressures, etc. This is to say that the "third option" is real and ever-present, it's the idea of perpetual postponement and some future spirituality which is discouraged, emphasizing instead that the present matters most.

A further extension is that the "third option" and "second option" aren't really different, and that the "third option" is in fact the same as the "second option" looked at in a different manner, with a view towards contrast with the first.

I would much rather be given the choice of whether or not to procrastinate rather than a faith choosing it for me. These same faiths allow us to choose whether or not to actively follow everything else that their scripture says is a requirement. Why not give us this choice as well? I don't need my life to be micromanaged by some faith so much. I don't mind guidelines to follow, but to be so strict as to only allow the extreme of two choices (100% good and 100% evil) makes no sense at all especially when that same faith emphasizes how it is ok not to be perfect as long as you atone. That to me, is sending out mixed messages.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I would much rather be given the choice of whether or not to procrastinate rather than a faith choosing it for me. These same faiths allow us to choose whether or not to actively follow everything else that their scripture says is a requirement. Why not give us this choice as well? I don't need my life to be micromanaged by some faith so much. I don't mind guidelines to follow, but to be so strict as to only allow the extreme of two choices (100% good and 100% evil) makes no sense at all especially when that same faith emphasizes how it is ok not to be perfect as long as you atone. That to me, is sending out mixed messages.

You're assuming that the religion is correct in its interpretation of the scriptures, and God, which is not my belief. In which case, you're complaining about something attributed by that religion to God, and perhaps making the mistake of many of not seeing the difference between a religion and God. The difference is crucial to understand, and once understood, you would be averse to using the term "faith" to describe a religion, as faith is subjective, while a religion is not. In these terms, faith cannot be imposed; it can only be found, informed, enriched, and corrected. You are free, within the limits of God's will. In that, you are free to procrastinate as long as God wills, but for the better for your own spirituality and for consistency with the stirrings of your own faith once you find one inside, it's better not to adopt an attitude of "maybe later".