Contradictions In Religious Fundamentalism

[Baby Bethany]

WARNING!! This thread discusses topics which those of you with strong religious belief may find offensive. If you do not wish to take part in religious debate, please leave the thread now. It is also a very, very long post. Thanks.

I decided to post this thread for a few reasons. Mainly because Religious Fundamentalism is an important subject right now, but also because this year is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and because of this religion is very much in the news. In addition, I have become aware that many of you have Christian Fundamentalist beliefs, and at least two of you have agreed to join with me in a theological debate. I admit that we could have had this debate by pm, but there may be others reading who would like to express their thoughts on the subject too. So why have I decided to post this thread on a fetish forum? Well, first of all this is the only forum I belong to.......you guys are the biggest group of people I can talk to at any one time. However there is another very good reason, and this is that most of you are American. Now I know this sounds odd, but I honestly believe that Christian Fundamentalism is far more common in the US than anywhere else. Secondly, most Christians in the UK are members of the Church of England. Personally speaking, I find the C of E a little 'wishy washy' in it's views. This is not to say that strength of faith among UK Christians is any the less, rather they are not so willing (for the most part) to openly debate it. Why this is, I'm not sure, but I do feel the C of E tries too hard to be all things to all men. They seem so desperate not to offend other religions by contradicting them, that they do not (it seems) want to make it clear what they themselves stand for. It is quiet difficult to engage in a theological debate with a member of the Church of England, simply because they do not want to disagree with opposing views. In other words, they leave the debate when it starts getting complicated.

So what do I consider "Fundamentalism" to be? There are many definitions of the word, but in this case I mean it as a belief that the text of holy scripture is the exact and precise word of God. Interestingly, I've spoken to a couple of Christians who believe there is no such thing has a Christian Fundamentalist, and that this is something which exists only in the Islamic faith. I disagree, because just as the basis of the Islamic faith is that the text of the Quran is the precise word of God (has told to the Prophet Mohammed) so there are many millions of Christians who believe the same of the Bible.

To my mind, the biggest single problem with having a fundamentalist view is that it leaves you with a life full of contradictions (hence the topic title). The big one that seems to be on everyone's lips right now is the Creationist v Darwinian argument (am I the only one who thinks there is room for both views?) but there are many others, which never seem to be discussed. Here are a few I would be interested in discussing with you:

1) The vengeful God of the Old Testament v the loving God of the New Testament. How can God be both at the same time?

2) Jesus was born a Jew, and he died a Jew. He never set out to start a new religion, but to reform the old. Why did his followers form a new religion?

3) How can the authors of the New Testament claim to be precise about the facts relating to Jesus's life, not to mention the words he said? None of them ever met him and they lived centuries later. It seems a little like they have made up some of the 'facts' to prove a point.

4) How can so many Christians do non Christian things? For example, some of the Christians I've met have been warm and caring people, some on the other hand have been among the most unpleasant people I've ever met (including my old Sunday School teacher lol). Many people seem to think they can do what they like, so long has they quote the Bible and attend church on Sunday. Even among decent people this can be the case. For example, I'm against the death penalty on any grounds (not for religious reasons, just moral) but when I said this on here, I was flamed by many people including practising Christians. Isn't killing another person a sin, regardless of the reason? On that basis, isn't killing in a war a sin also? How can a minister/priest/vicar, join the army? Equally, I have seen members on here who quote scripture and say "I leave all judgement to God" only to go ahead and flame someone.

5) Why the need for icons, ritual, church? One of the biggest contradictions I see in the Christian faith is ritual. For example, you go to church on a Sunday, you join in ritual, and use all the paraphanalia of that ritual, including candles, crosses, wafers, wine etc. But is there a need for any of this? Does it tell me in the Bible that I must go to church, or confess to a priest for example? I used to visit church as a child (my parents are Irish) and to be honest I was left feeling that the whole experience was 'man made' rather than required of me by God. For example I was told not to worship "False images" and then told to worship a gold cross or statue by the same person. I was told the story of Jesus and his disapproval of the temple, and it's greedy priesthood, whilst I was sitting in a church full of wealth and talking to clergy who were very well paid for their services. Surely if God does exist he is everywhere? So why does it matter if I'm in church, in a forest, at the bottom of the ocean or on the moon when I talk to him?

If you've reached this point, thanks for staying with me. I look forward to hearing your view on the above. I would just like to add that I wrote this not undermine your faith, but to see how many of you have asked the same questions of that faith, and how many of you have not. To my mind, the vast majority of religious people around the world believe in a faith for no better reason than their parents believed in that same faith, and that's what they were brought up to believe. I have an enquiring mind, and I couldn't devote my life to something simply because it was what my parents believed.

I believe in Darwin's theory, but as I said at the beginning I think there is room for both Darwin and God. Having also read the recent books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion etc) I have to say that although I agree with his points I don't share his beliefs. Dawkins is an Athiest (which in itself is a faith, oh yes it is Richard Dawkins lol) he cannot believe in something he cannot test. However, to my mind there are things that we simply cannot test, either because we lack the technology to test the theory, or we lack the intelligence to comprehend the theory itself. For instance your pet goldfish cannot comprehend your TV or how it works, however this doesn't mean that your TV doesn't exist.

Beth

[DiaperBoyKR]

Hey Beth, I promised that I would come in here, and so I am. I will try to keep this a short and sweet as possible, but its entirely likely that my post will end up being as long as yours . A little bit of background on me first. I was born and raised to a Roman Catholic family, so I am not a "fundamentalist" from birth. I was raised with the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Bible, but also with the strict adherence to doctrine and ritual that is part of any Catholics baggage (and that does include much of the CoE given the English Church's history). Many of the questions you have raised here, I have thought and considered myself. When I came to Korea, I was in a dead area of my life spiritually. I wasn't questing, I wasn't really doing anything. I got invited to a Baptist church here, and I realized that my religion really wasn't faith, and I rectified it. My relationship with Christ is now a personal one instead of one defined by the actions of the Church.

As to your questions/apparant contradictions. I'll try to use Scriptural references where I can, but I may not always have them on hand.

1. Vengeful vs. Loving God.

This one is a difficult one, and it is a hard one to reconcile. The biggest thing to keep in mind though is that God's primary characteristic is not one of love, but of holiness. In the old Testament, there was no way for the people to come into a true relationship with God because of the stain of Adam's sin. As such, God was in punishment mode because His children were often rebellious, and He had no other real way to communicate with them. God was never trivially vengeful. Each time he exacted vengeance it was for clear violations of the orders that He had sent to man either directly or through the prophets. But to say that God's love was not apparent during the Old Testament is to deny many of the stories and histories that are contained within. I would point to the story of Job, who though tested by Satan remained faithful to God and thus was rewarded in the end. Similar stories with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David, Daniel, etc. Those men who keep their eyes on the Law of the Lord were blessed by Him. The arrival of Jesus on Earth was always the plan of a loving God to provide the path back to Him for His children. The Law by itself can never justify a man, only faith can do that. With the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, God made a way that all men could come to Him and know his love.

2. Jesus was a Jew.

Yes, this is manifestly true. It was in fact required that the Messiah be a Jew because of the promises that were made to the Hebrew people throughout the ages. Jesus' purpose was not to create a new religion, nor was it simply to reform the Jewish faith. The Jewish religion was an extremely closed religion. Even though there were some Gentile converts to Judaism, they were often ostracized because they were not of Hebrew descent or blood. Jesus came to open the path for all men to the Father. The Jews had the first opportunity to know Christ because they were and are the chosen people of God. But the new religion was not supposed to BE a religion. It was to be personal individual knowledge of the Father through the Son. Religion is a man-made interjection into that relationship. Matthew 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

3. Precision of the Gospel/New Testament

The New Testament was written on average between 30 and 70 years after the death of Christ. The Pauline epistles are probably the earliest parts of the NT, and Paul had access to many of the apostles who knew Christ personally. The four gospels were written toward the end of that section. John was written by John of Patmos, who most definitely knew Christ...it is believed by some that he is, in fact, one of Christ's half brothers, or one that was extremely close to Christ (he is often referred to as the disciple that Christ loved). Luke was written by Luke himself, Paul's close friend and personal physician. We know that he spent significant time in Jerusalem prior to the death of Mary, Christ's mother, and it is entirely possible that the she was the primary source for much of his writing. He also wrote the book of Acts, and he was a witness for much that happened there. Matthew and Mark are more troublesome...it is not sure if they were written by the Apostles that they claim for thier authors. However, regardless of the whether or not they are absolutely precise, the four gospels do correspond with each other greatly. Further, most fundamentalists believe that the scripture is the inspired Word of God meaning that God Himself directed the hands of those who wrote. He is the ultimate witness of all things on this Earth. II Timothy 3:16-17: "For all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

4. Christians doing Non-Christian Things.

Ooh. This is a toughie, and one I often struggle with myself. It is true that there are many out there (and they seriously exist in fundamental circles) who think they can quote Scripture and that makes whatever they do alright. Um no, wrong. I beleive that when someone comes to know Christ, they are saved for all eternity, and their actions on this Earth cannot change that fact (Phillipians 1:6: "Being confident of this one thing, he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ). But we are still stuck in our sinful flesh. Pride, hatred, anger, hypocrisy, all of it is something that we need to struggle with daily. A saved person is fully capable of doing anything that a person who knows not Christ is capable of doing, because we still struggle with the flesh. Our Spirit (the desire to do the things of God) and our flesh (the desire to live in the immediate desires of the world) strive against one another (Galations 5:17: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit agains the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.") The problem is that when folks think they are ok, and just go to church on Sundays and think they are ok. They don't feed their souls with the Word of God, which a Christian should desire more than his necessary food. Without that cultivation love toward others causes problems of arrogance, bigotry, and just plain meanness to show up.

On to the other points in this question though.

-Death Penalty. I am in favor of it. The reasoning behind it is this. There are consequences both in this world and the next for all that we do. The death penalty is not an act of vengeance in my eyes, it is an act of punishment. There are some crimes so heinous in my mind that the offender must be removed from this sphere for the judgment of God. I'm not saying there are many, but I do believe that they exist.

-Service in the Military. You will find many fundamentalists in the military. The difference between military service and killing another in war, and straight murder is often a fine distinction. In war, you are often fighting to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your country from an enemy that seeks its annhilation. In this kind of battle, killing is justified....every man has the God-given right to defend himself. Jesus himself just before he instructed his disciples to take up their swords for their own defense (Luke 22:36: "The said he unto them, "But now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one"). But if you cross the line into killing out of anger, or hatred, or desire to kill, even in war that becomes murder. A priest or a minister who joins the military, although he knows he may at some time need to take the life of another, falls under the same category, but serves a great purpose. He is there to remind the individual not to let his emotions or other issues take the best of him and slip across that line.

-Judgement. The problem here is seperating salvationary judgement and personal judgments here in the mortal realm. We are not to judge whether or not an individual knows the Father, knows Christ, etc. by their daily walk, or by their actions. We are not to judge their actions. However man being man, thinking he knows better, and not realizing that he is flesh ends up thinking he knows better than God, and tries to put limits on who can and can't be saved. Its an extension of the problem listed above.

5. Ritual Christianity.

This was my single biggest problem with the Roman Catholic church. I'm not going to get into it too much, but I believe it is a perversion of what Christ intended to go through all of the motions of full blown religion. I'll touch on some of the high points briefly:

-The Sacraments: This is an interjection of man into what is God's sole province: The distribution of salvation and grace. Grace is given freely by God to His Children...all we have to do is ask. If baptism by itself could redeem a person, why would Jesus need to have died? The salvation comes when the decision happens in the believers heart to trust in Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Baptism should only be a recognition of that inward change that has already happened. Similar with the other sacraments. They do not give grace in themselves...that comes from God. They are merely the recognition of something that has happened in a person's life. The only ordnance that comes from Christ as far as an observance goes is for the Lords Supper and the remember of Christ's life that goes with it.

-Ritual: Humans crave ritual for whatever reason. Probably because its somewhat comforting to them. don't ask me why I don't know. I think in some ways its again people trying to interject themselves into what should be a personal relationship with God. I don't think its necessary. I don't worship a cross, or pray to a cross (never did even as a Catholic) but sometimes the sight of it helped to center my own mind.

-Clergy: You're absolutely right. There are many in the clergy today, that I am not sure if they truly know the one they profess to preach. I'm not going to make any judgments individually, but it is indeed possible. Christ and the apostles warned frequently of false shepherds that would come in the final times. Any time there is religion there are those who will try to profit by it. At the same time, there are many many many individuals in the ministry whose primary purpose is the salvation and edification of men's souls. They are the shepherds that God has sent to care for his people.

There's nothing wrong with an enquiring mind Beth.....it means that you're searching for the answers. You are right too many people are of a religion "because their parent's were" without thinking about why they are in that religion. Those people should be careful....they may be missing something.

Ill say this much about Darwin. God works in mysterious ways, his ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts like our thoughts. We also know that a day is as 1000 years to God, and a 1000 years is as a day. I do not believe that science and faith are contradictory things. They should support one another. Is evolution possibly the tool that create the species of the world? In my mind, yes, it is possible, but not without the guiding hand of the Creator. Is the world potentially billions of years old? Yes. We don't know how long a day in God's sight is. All of these answers we can ask the Father when we see Him face to face.

Hope that helped out....

KR

[sarah_ab]

just wanted to throw out a title to a book that people might find interesting its called "when religion becomes evil" by charles kimball.

Its not as bad as the title suggests, but rather a look at when people do 'evil' things in the name of their religion. It is not actually saying religions are evil, just that many people will do some pretty 'bad' or 'evil' things in the name of their religion (i put the words bad and evil in quotes because seeing something as evil is subjective.. ) but anyway, i just thought its an interesting book you guys might want to check out. He covers acts done by people who are members of many of hte major religions, and acts carried out in multiple countries around the world.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Not looking to join the debate but most of your questions stem from ignorance and not from contradictions. Christian was the name given by the pagans to the non jewish believers in christ in Antioch. It sort of just stuck. Originally believers were called followers of the way.(Now that refers to a cult)

Old testamnet God vs New tyestamnet is the same god, however the terms of the covenant/contract have changed. It wasn't that God was vengeful it was that the Jeish people had terms and conditions for blessings and curses set forth in the Mosaic Law.(Dueteronomy 28) When Jesus came, his purpose was to gfulfill the law as a perfect sacrifice, or a sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

As for hypocritical people. The Bible does say "For all have fallen short of the Glory of God." People have their own mind, will and emotions and will act upon it from time to time. We all screw up. again as for hate mongering, that is people being people. This is nothing new, mankind is stupid, lets just be honest with ourselves.

Death Penalty- Well the irony is most people who are against the death penalty are somehow for abortion which is a complete logical falacy. People tend to use the eye for an eye scripture to argue against the death penalty, when in reality Jesus was making light of how corrupt the law of man truly is.(Haammarabi's codes punished the poor while fined the rich)

War? Read Ecclesiates. Or listen to the doors song that was based off of it. The correct Translation of thou shalt not kill is actually thou shalt not murder. The king james transalation is yet again wrong(of course don't tell the hard core baptists, sorry guys, love ya but it's a historically proven fact that the kjv is not accurate) King David murdered a man in cold blood but was called a man after God's own heart. the reason was not that he was without sin, but rather he had a repentant heart.

Final note, few know what the full title of Origin of the species was, since if they did it would discredit Darwin's motives slightly. The book was titled "Origin of the species and perpetuation of the superior races" The original goal was to use nature as justification for one race ruling over another.

The beautiful thing is in America you are allowed to believe and think as you may, a truely double edged sword.

[anondl]

I have faith because I want to.

I was raised a Christian. I am no longer Christian since about age 25 because I rejected the idea that only Christians go to heaven, but I still believe in a higher being.

With no formal training in comparative religion I cannot speak with authority, but I believe all religions have logical and rational holes in them. All religions can be ridiculed for their occasional absurdities but I think the point of all of them is to make some sense of why we are here and where we came from and where we are headed, and along the way, how to conduct ourselves.

I believe I have a right to happiness but so does everyone else.

Its a Golden Rule thing. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Anondl

[Baby Bethany]

Guys, thanks for your comments........very interesting points.

DiaperBoyKR: Thanks for making that such a clear explanation, I'd be very interested in finding out more about the Baptist Church, maybe you could explain or provide a relevant link please? Hopefully you will have time to contribute further to this thread.

Sarah: Thanks for the info about the book, have you read it yourself? I must admit to feeling a little disappointed that you didn't let us have your own view on the subject. I would have valued that.

Anondl: I agree with all you said, very clear and straight to the point.

Curiosity: Thanks for your imput, although I'm disappointed you don't want to take part in the debate because I would like to discuss some of the points youself and DiaperBoyKR made, I don't think it's sufficient to simply explain away the contradictions of scripture, by saying it's "Ignorance of the subject rather then contradictions". I admit to not having the in depth knowledge of Christian scripture that some of you do, in fact I have more knowledge of Islamic scripture. But my subject is history, and with that knowledge of history I believe I can challenge what I see as contradictions. I will say what I have to say and if you still don't want to respond, then no harm done.

1) Old Testament God v New Testament God

I feel we have to accept that we are dealing with two totally seperate books. One was written by the Jews whilst in exile (although based on a much older oral tradition) and the other was written by people in the Roman Empire several centuries later. Does that fact alone not mean there are going to be contradictions in the text of those two books? In addition, does not the fact that the two books have been translated so many times mean that the exact wording must have changed since the first time they were written down? (See the Dead Sea Scrolls.) Curiosity, you yourself said the wording in the KJ version is not the original wording (and I have a couple of Jehovah's Witness friends who say the same thing.) So on that basis, why must the text in any of the current versions be the original wording? Is it not simply the case that the Jewish people who wrote the OT saw God as being vengeful simply because this was the only way they could justify the fact that they were in exile from the promised land? Where as the later authors of the NT had no such problems to explain. Even the role of the Devil (Satan) is contadictory between the two books. In the OT he seems to have limited power, and be firmly under God's control. But then in the NT he seems to share almost equal footing.

2) Hypocritical People

As you say Curiosity, we are all Human and I guess we all make mistakes. A person of any faith, is no exception to this rule. It's about following your head and heart and doing what you believe is the right thing to do. However I will say that being able to commit almost any sin, on the basis that you can "repent and be forgiven" is a little bit like having your cake and eating it. This reminds me of the mass murderer that kills 6 innocent people and then "finds God" whilst on death row. I take on board the point you make DiaperBoyKR about there being a clear difference between killing and murder, but then the story of King David murdering someone kind of contradicts that.

3) Ritual

I guess the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate example of Christian ritual, but there is also much ritual in the Protetstant Church......this in itself is a contradiction. In the original points made by Martin Luther in the 16th century he explained that there is no way to reach God other then through Jesus Christ. He said you cannot get to heaven through the Pope or clergy or ritual, or by building churches or making donations to the church (I believe his aim was to stop wealthy people trying to buy a place in heaven, whilst committing sins on Earth). This is what the Reformation was about. But isn't it the case that since the Reformation, the Protestant Faith (with a few exceptions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses) has gradually slipped back into it's old ways? I understand the point DiaperBoyKR made about ritual being representative and not the way to God in itself, but in that case why do we need it? Is there any reason why a Christian needs to attend a Church Service at any point in their life? (other than to become part of the Church community). I think the classic example is Christmas Day. Jesus was not born on 25th December, that day was used because 25th December was the date of the Roman Festival of Saturnalia (the worship of the God Saturn). The early Christians knew that the Roman people enjoyed the Saturnalia celebrations and banning it word turn potential converts against them (it would have been like us banning Christmas). For this reason, they simply adopted it as a Christian celebration. This is not the only example of Christian celebration being based on earlier pagan festivals.

I think DiaperBoyKR's point about us all enjoying a good ritual holds a lot of truth here.

4) I agree Curiosity, that Darwin believed man should have control over all living things. However this was nothing new, as man had believed this for centuries prior to Darwin. From the Bible itself (Genesis 2, 26) And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I can't help thinking that having a fundamentalist view of the Bible not only undermines God, but actually belittles God in many ways. The reason I say this is because the Bible is a two thousand year old book. Subsequently, the views expressed within that book are the views of a person two thousand years ago. This is comparable to me arguing with a modern Astronomer that the Sun and Stars go around the Earth, on the basis of that's what it says in an ancient Greek text. In order for me to argue that text I would have to either ignore the discoveries made in the last two thousand years or discount them in some way. This is what most fundamentalists do when confronted with contradictory scientific evidence. Isn't it better to take the view (as put forward by DiaperBoyKR) that the exact words of the Bible should be open to interpretation. For example, isn't it better to see the Earth being created in "six days" as the Earth being created in six periods? Maybe a day in the creation story is a thousand million years, rather than our day of 24 hours? I feel that hanging on to every little word of scripture (which as discussed may not be the original word anyway) undermines God in many ways. As for fundamentalism belittling God, I say this because the original idea of God (as the creater of everything) was of a person that created the Earth, Sun, Moon, and a few stars. But by making discoveries, and showing the universe to be much, much vaster than that, hasn't science elevated God? Because if there is a God and if that God is the creater of everything, then that creater must be greater than anything the authors of the Bible could have even dreamed of.

Beth

[Creepymouse]

1) The vengeful God of the Old Testament v the loving God of the New Testament. How can God be both at the same time?

2) Jesus was born a Jew,...Why did his followers form a new religion?

3) How can the authors of the New Testament claim to be precise about the facts relating to Jesus's life, not to mention the words he said? None of them ever met him and they lived centuries later. It seems a little like they have made up some of the 'facts' to prove a point.

4) How can so many Christians do non Christian things?

5) Why the need for icons, ritual, church?

The plain and simple answers, Bethany, are that several of these questions refer to a modern organization (rather, many of them) that has become as apostate as the Jewish religion had in Jesus' day. If you'll bear with me:

1) There really isn't a difference, if you get in and actually study it. Many of the so-called 'fire-and-brimstone' things God did in Hebrew times were a foreshadowing of the actions he would take against those that oppose him in the future. Jesus provided the sacrifice which would forgive sins, but only for those who show their genuine appreciation for that sacrifice. If one shows a lack of gratefulness, one does not receive that forgiveness.

2) It all depends on how you look at it. Jesus offered the Jews a final chance to serve God faithfully. Many of them chose to be his followers, but as an entity, the Jews killed him. Thus, by the year 60, the former incarnation of God's kingdom on earth was destroyed forever (modern-day Israel is not ruled by a son of David, nor has the temple been restored)

3) Say what? Luke is the only Gospel writer who never met Jesus, and he is known to have done a deep investigation into his life before writing the book. This is clear by several accounts in which his account differs slightly, to be somewhat more detailed. All of the letters were written during the first century after Christ's death. After Paul's death, as IIRC he was the last living apostle, the congregation gradually saw 'wolves in sheeps clothing' pulling the congregation away from Christ's teachings.

4) In good conscience, we can't. He who takes the sword will perish by the sword. Love your neighbor. You must serve God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. These things are set in stone, and no amount of 'wishy washy' teaching by modern 'churches' will change that. Organizations that claim to represent God but whose teachings dishonor Him are not long for this world, they will fall just as the Jewish system did two milennia ago.

I can cite references if you want, but I don't have my Bible at this desk and its time for work.

[Baby Bethany]

2) It all depends on how you look at it. Jesus offered the Jews a final chance to serve God faithfully. Many of them chose to be his followers, but as an entity, the Jews killed him. Thus, by the year 60, the former incarnation of God's kingdom on earth was destroyed forever (modern-day Israel is not ruled by a son of David, nor has the temple been restored)

I can cite references if you want, but I don't have my Bible at this desk and its time for work.

Thanks Creepymouse,

I've quoted you on question 2) as I have a question on your comments. I know it's a widely held view that the Jews killed Jesus (is it fair to say that they didn't see him has the Messiah, because the Messiah they were expecting would be a warrior?) However, wasn't it a requirement that Jesus die for his cause? For example, had Jesus lived a full life and died of old age, what would have become of the Christian faith?

I've even read at least one article that suggests Judas was sent by Jesus himself to do what he did, as Jesus knew he had to die. I don't know what you guys make of that theory?

Beth

PS) You mention modern churches and their teachings, I am really intrigued by what religion you are......would you mind telling me? By pm if you like.

[sarah_ab]

Sarah: Thanks for the info about the book, have you read it yourself? I must admit to feeling a little disappointed that you didn't let us have your own view on the subject. I would have valued that.

hey beth, yes i have read the book, its pretty good, at times i feel he gives a few to many examples, you know the whole.. alright alread we get your point lets just move on thing.. but they are valid examples that do highlight the point he is trying to make quite well.

as i think i said, the title of the book can be misleading as the author is not saying whether or not religions are evil, but rather people do evil things in the name of religion.

yeah i didn't offer my own view on the subject for a couple reasons..

1. everyone is entitled to believe what they wantto believe, and i've learned that no matter what you say to the contrary it is the very rare occasion when you can change's someones beliefs. That is a personal journey that happens through personal experience and i've no right to try and convince someone that what they believe in is wrong, especially when the person is not harming anyone in their beliefs.

2. much of this debate is about semantics and definitions of ideas, things that cannot be solidily defined.. for example what is evil? what is good? what is God for that matter.

3. after spending a semester taking philosophy and then a semester taking the psychology of religion, i just dont have the energy to enter into a long debate..

i will just say one thing, cause it irks me.. it was mentioned by someone that the same people who oppose the dealth penalty are 'for' abortion.. the big debate with abortion is when does life start? many who are against the dealth penalty but support a woman's right to abortion often do not believe life starts at the moment of conception. again its all about semantics and how people define ideas and concepts, and those definitions are conviently made to fit a person's point of view.

[paradox]

Arguing and debating religion is a fun and timeless tradition as long as you remember two facts.

1. We are all going to die

2. We all are not going to figure it out untill we get there

So there it is we can all speculate and read and come up with rational conclusions but when all is said and done, we don't know anything we are simply fumbling in the dark.

[PampersPete]

Well said Paradox

[underwhere]

First, I am a Jew, so I can speak with no authority on anything to do with the New Testament. With that disclaimer out of the way, I'll dive into to what I hope I can contribute.

War? Read Ecclesiates. Or listen to the doors song that was based off of it. The correct Translation of thou shalt not kill is actually thou shalt not murder. The king james transalation is yet again wrong(of course don't tell the hard core baptists, sorry guys, love ya but it's a historically proven fact that the kjv is not accurate) King David murdered a man in cold blood but was called a man after God's own heart. the reason was not that he was without sin, but rather he had a repentant heart.

Also, don't forget that in Egypt, Moses, who at that time believed he was the son of Egyptian royalty, killed an Egyptian who was beating a slave for not working hard or quick enough. The distinction between "kill" and "murder" is a fine distinction, but a very important one. Heck, even today, with all of the stuff going on in the Middle East, Israel has, historically, always been a state which responds to aggression, not one which attacks its neighbors to gain land or economic prosperity. The fact that it has gained both, one could argue, has been an interesting thorn in the side of many Arab states who have wanted nothing more than to push Israel into the sea ever since it's modern day creation as a state.

Although Moses was repentant, even Moses failed to have ultimate faith in God, and it was for this reason he was not permitted to enter the promised land.

Final note, few know what the full title of Origin of the species was, since if they did it would discredit Darwin's motives slightly. The book was titled "Origin of the species and perpetuation of the superior races" The original goal was to use nature as justification for one race ruling over another.

It's also no coincidence that Hitler quoted and utilized the theories of Darwin along Hitler's path in history. Darwin wasn't Hitler's only justification, but was one of several.

The beautiful thing is in America you are allowed to believe and think as you may, a truely double edged sword.

Indeed. We all must be careful, both individually and collectively, that we don't find ourselves believing in madness. Even today, there are people who firmly believe that The Holocaust never occurred, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of what aspect of history we are discussing, the following is still true: If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

[sarah_ab]

Arguing and debating religion is a fun and timeless tradition as long as you remember two facts.

1. We are all going to die

2. We all are not going to figure it out untill we get there

So there it is we can all speculate and read and come up with rational conclusions but when all is said and done, we don't know anything we are simply fumbling in the dark.

wait wait wait wait wait just a minute.. hold the phones.... no one.. and i mean NO ONE!!! told me i was going to die!! i did not sign up for that ending, i did not agree upon it and i certainly signed no paper saying so!!!

this .... this isn't ok.. to just spring something like this upon a person without any warning.. without anything of the sort....

i just... i just dont know what... what to do .. about ... anything anymore....

i'm............ i'm going to die?

[PampersPete]

wait wait wait wait wait just a minute.. hold the phones.... no one.. and i mean NO ONE!!! told me i was going to die!! i did not sign up for that ending, i did not agree upon it and i certainly signed no paper saying so!!!

this .... this isn't ok.. to just spring something like this upon a person without any warning.. without anything of the sort....

i just... i just dont know what... what to do .. about ... anything anymore....

i'm............ i'm going to die?

I'm a trained military sniper. I can turn off the lights in .005 seconds. Send me your address and you won't have to worry about dying anymore....

[sarah_ab]

I'm a trained military sniper. I can turn off the lights in .005 seconds. Send me your address and you won't have to worry about dying anymore....

lol pete, i'll keep that in mind.... when cleaning up after freshman univ boys becomes just to much for me, i'll give ya a call!

[Baby Bethany]

wait wait wait wait wait just a minute.. hold the phones.... no one.. and i mean NO ONE!!! told me i was going to die!! i did not sign up for that ending, i did not agree upon it and i certainly signed no paper saying so!!!

this .... this isn't ok.. to just spring something like this upon a person without any warning.. without anything of the sort....

i just... i just dont know what... what to do .. about ... anything anymore....

i'm............ i'm going to die?

So, I take it you don't believe in the theory put forward by some that we are already dead and in heaven, but just don't remember our real lives?

Then we have the Cathar theory that Heaven is the natural place for us to live, but we are punished by being sent to Earth (which is in effect Hell) for a lifetime. And then when we die (having followed God's law) we will be back in heaven. This will last until we next deserve punishment, at which time we will be back on Earth (Hell) for another life of struggle.

I never put much faith in the Cathar theory, until I was trying to find a parking space at the supermarket this morning......now I think there could be something in it.

Beth

[DiaperBoyKR]

Beth,

I'm glad that my post helped clear things up a bit for you. I love talking about my faith because of how I feel about it, and the strength and support its given me. I'll try to help clear things up, but again, I'm not the most perfect source in the world either.

First and foremost, there isn't a single Baptist church, so it'd be difficult to send you to a link to read up on the doctrines of the church etc. Its more accurate to call them a group of similarly minded churches. There are several Baptist conventions, the Southern Baptists being the largest, which have some more formalized doctrines and such. I however am an Independent Baptist, essentially meaning that although we are associated with many like minded churches around the world we are not tied to any one overarching convention of belief. Our pastor and each individual Christian is responsible for determining the Will of God in his life and the path that we are supposed to walk. If a pastor feels that the Scripture is speaking in a certain way, he is not constrained to stay silent if it is opposed by the convention. The fundamental points of faith in most Baptist churches are as follows however:

1. All men are sinners from birth (Romans 3:10, 23 "There are none righteous, no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."). Although men were created by God as a perfect reflection of Himself as His children, man was given free will. Through the actions of Adam in the Garden of Eden, mankind was indelibly marked with the sinful nature that seperated us from truly knowing the Father. Ultimately, this sinful nature, unless redeemed will result in the ultimate seperation of mankind from the Father. Even at this time though, God knew that He could not abandon what He had created and promised that He would send a Redeemer, a Messiah through Adam and Eve's line to repair the fault that had been created (Genesis 3:14-15)

2. The Father sent His only begotten Son, a coequal part of the Godhead to Earth to be the ultimate sacrifice under the law for the forgivness of sin. Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. As such he became the mediator between God and Man (1 Timothy 2:5), and sits at the right hand of the Father. He is the Word of God, and has existed since the time of the creation (John 1:1-3. Although the Son is not directly referenced in the story of Genesis, when God speaks creation into existence, He consistently uses the plural forms, and not simply the royal "we" and "us". This comes from the Greek forms which did not have a similar tradition). His sacrifice allow for the cleansing of mankind, and making man acceptable before the Father.

3. Justification and salvation occur in Christ Jesus through faith alone with no works of the law required for that salvation. All that is required is a faith in the saving power of God, true repentance for one's sins, and a desire to correct the way that one has lived in his life. Man cannot work his way to salvation because by nature all of our works are tainted (Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast."). Rather than any works, we put our faith purely in the justification through the faith of God (Galatians 2:16).

4. The coming of Christ was designed to free man from slavery to sin, and to the Law (referring to the Mosaic Law, which heretofore was the only way that any individual could know the Father). It was not intended that man should be resubmitted to a doctrine of ritual and law that was designed to dictate the terms on which he engaged with the Father (Galations 3:24-28). The Law was designed to point us to a time where we recognized where and who we were, but once Christ came, the need for it disappeared. The Law can only convict, it cannot justify.

5. Baptism is not a salvationary work in and of itself. It is a recognition of an inward change that has already occurred. Thus by definition, it can be performed on infants or others who have not reached the age of wisdom/self-determination. Can your parents enter into a contract that is legally binding on you for your whole existence? No. As much the same applys here. Each man is responsible for his own salvation. The salvation/Baptism of the Spirit occurs when one recognizes their need of salvation and puts their trust and faith in Jesus. Water baptism is the identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It signifies the new life that the believer has put on in Christ (Galatians 2:20).

6. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and as such it is infallible on what it speaks (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Historically, only the first 5 books of the Bible were written any time significantly after the events occurred. Starting with the Book of Judges (and with the exception of the Book of Job) most of the Books of the Old Testment were written during or shortly after the period in question usually by one of the major players in the events. As such, they are generally considered even by most historians as a fairly accurate reading of what actually occurred during that time. The Word is available to all believers, and should be read, studied, memorized, and meditated upon (Romans 10:17, Revelation 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:15, 1 Timothy 4:15, Joshua 1:8)

7. Christ will return at the end of time to reign as Lord of All. All will recognize Him as Lord, all creatures in Heaven, on Earth, and in Hell (Phillipians 2:8-11). The faithful in Him will be called to the side of the Father.

Essentially those are the main points. There are alot of curlicues that go with it, and quite honestly there are things that are different from pastor to pastor and even person to person.

Personally I have to agree with you on some of your points, but I thought I'd drop a couple more 100 won coins in the well.

-Is it possible for a serial murderer to become saved on death row and go to heaven? Yes, absolutely. However, its not as simple as "Oh, I found Jesus, and repented, and now I'm saved!" True repentence involves seeing your sins as God Himself perceives them, and feeling the immense sorrow for their commision that goes with it. Without lying or exaggerating, this is hard for me to do without shying away from it myself....I imagine it would immensely harder for something like that. At the same time though I don't think spiritual salvation should excuse such a person from the punishment he laid up for himself on this earth. Just me, but there it is.

-Murder by itself is just like any other sin. Every human is fundamentally capable of doing it. Its just whether or not we do. The rules for repentance are the same, but more difficult. If you read the story of David when the prophet Nathan confronted him with what he did, he was seriously torn up with grief for how he greived God, and with sorrow for his actions.

-Your point about if we don't really need ritual why should any Christian need to go to church? The answer in my mind is two fold. First, its a direct command from God...."Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy." For Christians, our Sabbath Day is on Sunday to recognize the completion of the saving work performed by Christ when He arose from the grave. As such that is when we gather together to praise, worship, and pray. Second, it is a more visceral need on the part of humans. We are a social animal, and as such we gain edification, strength, and support when we have the ability to gather with likeminded people. This is what many Christians call fellowship, and for us it is a time of renewing, and refreshing. Ritual isn't necessary, and in fact in my mind it gets in the way. Some level of structure is good to help things from getting out of hand, but simple ritual where everyone knows the lines isn't what faith should be based on. In our church, prayer is free form, not written in a book or on a paper (except for our bilingual services when a translator is working with us) and the pastor regularly engages with the congregation joking, laughing, etc. Don't get me wrong, this is partly to do with the size of our church (if we hit 80 thats a big Sunday), but the other part is the nature of the place. Fundamentally, no there is not a reason to go to a church service. You could theoretically be all on your own and still be a "practicing" Christian. But I can tell you that the support that goes with being regularly in Church is amazing.

-As far as the literal word of the Scripture goes, I am of two minds. I believe in the Holy Scripture as the literal, God inspired Word of God. However, at the same time I think there are aspects of it that are being ignored or are letting our limited human understanding overwrite. Science and Faith are two sides of the same coin, either is not complete without the other. God gave humanity the faculty to reason, to search, and to understand so that they could be drawn closer to Him. As such on the creation, I seriously think in many ways that what science has discovered about the world is truly what has happened. They've simply missed the Divine Hand that has guided it to this point in history. If you look at many of the "great" scientists (Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus especially) they were also great men of faith. To them, nothing that they discovered was contraindication of a Divine Hand in the world. This concept that science disproves the existence of God is a relatively new one, and has only been around for about 150 years. Science as it grows just shows the immensity of the Creator. I agree with you on that.

-The Devil in the Bible does not share anything even nearing equal footing with God, or Jesus even in the New Testament. He is a fallen angel, admittedly of a high order of angels, but an angel nonetheless. He doesn't have the divine power that God does. He is amazingly powerful, as are his fellow fallen angels, but he is still limited by the power of God. The Book of Revelation is where he seems to have the most power, but that is a special case. That is a prophesied period of time known as the Great Tribulation where God will effectively be "hands off" in the world, and Satan will have alot of power.

-The Bible itself has not retained the same exact wording as it has always had. A few words will be different here and there, but that is to be expected. There is no way to translate one language into another perfectly and directly, there will always be some things that do not translate precisely. This usually involves words with conotations in addition to their literal meanings. I personally use a KJV because I think its primary translation descended from the most commonly used versions of the Bible. I can get into this later if anyones really interested....it would be a decently long post in and of itself. At the same time, I don't think its a bad thing for someone to read another translation of the Bible. The Word of God is the Word of God, and it will never return void is a person has an open heart as he reads it.

Ok...I think thats the high points for now.......hope i didn't tick people off too bad .

[Bettypooh]

I thought I replied already but I don't see my post so I'll just jump in here

Yes Sarah, I'm afraid were all going to die. In fact we're all doing that right now

I haven't read that book you mention but I read a few reviews. It was already obvious to me that more people are murdered in the name of religious beliefs than for any other reason. Also obvoius is how that the 'religions' do little or nothing to rectify this or distance themselves from such hatefulness and wrong. The closest I have seen to such a distancing is the Roman Catholic practice of 'excommunication', and yet they have condoned the retention of priests who have admittedly had sex with children and have yet to oust the Bishop who doesn't believe that the "Holocaust" was as extensive as it provably was. Closer to this 'distancing' is the Quaker practice of "shunning" anyone in their church who errs greatly without repentance. I am not a believer in many of their doctrines but I have great respect for their solid beliefs and willingness to stand by them so completely.

Bethany, I have yet to find any religion that wasn't contradictory. Here in the US, "Fundamentalism" refers to the more extreme right-wing churches which I find to be the most contradictory of all. They seek not God or goodness or truth, they seek to find Bible scripture which they use out of context or that doesn't apply to the situation to justify their prejudices and wrongs They will not listen to you even when you point out the obvious to them in their own Bible. Their minds are closed and they are happy that way You ask about the apparent difference between the God of old and the God of new. One difference is that the 'old' God wasn't exposed to any harm, while the 'new' one now had a child in the nasty old world which the 'old' God had made a mess of; now he could be hurt. You'll often see the parallel happen with new parents here on Earth. The reason Jesus ended up as a 'new religion' is that he wasn't able to reform the 'old' one. The "exactness" of any religious text is questionable as all were written by humans, not by their 'God'. I've always wondered why everyone's 'God' was unable or unwilling to do their own work. Wouldn't it be more believable and apparent if human foibles weren't involved? And there are plenty of those, such as translations taken from translations taken from yet another translation losing something each time One glaring example is the King James Version's "Thou shall not kill". In the times when it was written, everyone understood that "kill" was a synonym for "murder" which was lost as the current definition of "kill" changed in language usage. There was clarity in the text it was taken from which used the word "ratsatch" which meant only wanton murder of an innocent. Another aspect to consider is that in the early times few people were literate. History was passed along verbally based on memory, and it's pretty obvious that as we age our memories become less and less exact. Also apparent is that each person who retells a story in their own words sends our a slightly different meaning of it due to each person's seeing it from their own singular perspective based on how it was told to them and how they interpreted that. Like the old school-age game of "Pass the Secret", it's amazing how a story becomes twisted when it passes through dozens of people who retell it in their own words. Another issue to consider is what are known as "The Books of the Apophryca", four texts which had always been in the Bible but were removed by general agreement of organized religion hundreds of years ago. They justified this by saying these books were redundant and vague and therefore unnecessary. It''s obvious that those who follow the current KGV and any translation of it are not receiving the 'complete word of God' as they profess to believe. Most Christians are astonished when they discover the role their own sect played in doing this! And seminarys teach their preachers-to-be to never mention these books and how to gloss over the issue when the topic is brought up. As to "christians" doing non-Christian things, well first they are human and prone to error because of that, but the most prevalent reason is that they're not true followers of Christ and therefore not "Christians" at all When a true Christian commits a sin and comes to realize what they did, they do what they can to right their wrong as make every effort to never make that same mistake again. They do what the Bible tells them to do which is to go to the person(s) they harmed and ask their forgiveness no matter how embarassing it may be. It's not an easy thing to do but it's that way for a reason because if you 'grovel' this way, you're not going to forget it and therefore not going to make that same mistake again. It reinforces the lesson in a most personal way Humans tend toward ritual and the Churches use this tendancy as a way to regularly require a person's attendance at their church. They justify these rituals as a necessary part because it reminds and reinforces some aspect of their doctrine. If you are a true believer the reinforcment isn't necessary because it's already locked into you. If you're not that deeply certain, these rituals become a way to profess that you're a follower by attending and participating in them to show others how pious you are. It's how the Churches work to keep their seats full, keep you feeling good about yourself while they press their doctrines on you, and nothing more than that I believe in evolution to the degree that it means the adaption of life forms to their enviroment. We see that happen all the time. But if it were the basis of life as we now live it, it would seem that by now we would have evolved down to one single perfect creature able to live in any place equally well with a provable lineage(or 'link' as you may prefer)to be seen as absolute proof of the theory. I believe that there is too much diversity of life for it to have evolved from a single source. There had to be a creation(and a darn big one)for this much interweaving of life forms to have happened, but perhaps there has been some evolution since that time. In that manner the two can co-exist. As singular theories neither is directly and solidly provable.

Curiosity notes the Bible scripture that says we have all "fallen short of the glory of God" because of our sinful and human nature. There are many places in the Old testament where God directed his minions to exact revenge against other peoples who had done nothing more than choose to believe a different religion. I see being a sycophant as being wrong, and I feel that a God who would use such methods isn't "glorious" at all. Furthermore, if as the Bible claims, God knows what the future will be, then why does He allow good and righteous persons to come to harm? If their faith is as unshakable as Job's he already know it and shouldn't have any need to prove the obvoius. God chooses to let innocent people come to harm knowing it's going to happen, something totally abhorrent to anyone who believes as the Bible teaches us to the we "are our Brother's Keeper" with an obligation to try to keep everyone from harm whether we like them or not. Why is it right for Him to do something and wrong for us to do the exact same thing? Such hipocracy is not "glorious" to me at all. As I see it, God is just there, neither good or bad, caring or oblivious, or anything that I would consider "glorious" at all. If we really mattered much to Him he wouldn't be like He is. If He really cared he would change His ways but He won't. Instead we are all forced to suffer based on "the original sin" when elsewhere the Bible says that "surely even God wouldn't punish the third or forth generation" for the sins of their predecessors. Nope, there's nothing glorious about God and He's as wrong as we are or the Bible is wrong in how it portrays Him. There's no 'mystery of God's ways' going on here but there's sure a lot of contradiction!

Anondl, I'm much like you in my beliefs but I did spend a lot of time studying the Bible, listening to the teachings of numerous sects who claimed to be Christian, and even studying other religions with an open mind so as to choose the correct one for myself. In the end there is no established religion that I am aware of worth following or supporting, so I too have reverted to "The Golden Rule" as my single and sole religion since it is the least fallible way to live. Having said that I still believe in the Protestant version of God, and that Jesus was His son, and that there will be a judgement of myself eventually. Like Winston Churchlill said toward the end of his life I am ready to meet my creator but I doubt that He's ready to meet me

If you're really interested in learning about the enigmas of the Bible and how today's religions teach, look into these things: Books of The Apophryca, the "Third" and "Seventh" Heavens, The "wheel" which Ezekiel saw in the air which we would nowadays call a UFO, the Law as given to the Jews and how we've come to realize through scientific study the wisdom of some of their tenets, and modern finds of Scrolls which state that they were supposed to be included in the Bible but weren't because they were only recently discovered and how modern religions refuse to acknowledge this. Study how each sect interprets the same scripture in such a widely different way and figure out for yourself which religion, if any, you wish to follow with your eyes and mind wide open so that you won't be misled as so many are.

Bettypooh(with a lot of time in my hands)

[Baby Bethany]

Beth,

I'm glad that my post helped clear things up a bit for you. I love talking about my faith because of how I feel about it, and the strength and support its given me. I'll try to help clear things up, but again, I'm not the most perfect source in the world either.

-As far as the literal word of the Scripture goes, I am of two minds. I believe in the Holy Scripture as the literal, God inspired Word of God. However, at the same time I think there are aspects of it that are being ignored or are letting our limited human understanding overwrite. Science and Faith are two sides of the same coin, either is not complete without the other. God gave humanity the faculty to reason, to search, and to understand so that they could be drawn closer to Him. As such on the creation, I seriously think in many ways that what science has discovered about the world is truly what has happened. They've simply missed the Divine Hand that has guided it to this point in history. If you look at many of the "great" scientists (Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus especially) they were also great men of faith. To them, nothing that they discovered was contraindication of a Divine Hand in the world. This concept that science disproves the existence of God is a relatively new one, and has only been around for about 150 years. Science as it grows just shows the immensity of the Creator. I agree with you on that.

-The Bible itself has not retained the same exact wording as it has always had. A few words will be different here and there, but that is to be expected. There is no way to translate one language into another perfectly and directly, there will always be some things that do not translate precisely. This usually involves words with conotations in addition to their literal meanings. I personally use a KJV because I think its primary translation descended from the most commonly used versions of the Bible. I can get into this later if anyones really interested....it would be a decently long post in and of itself. At the same time, I don't think its a bad thing for someone to read another translation of the Bible. The Word of God is the Word of God, and it will never return void is a person has an open heart as he reads it.

DiaperBoyKR, thanks again for clarifying some of those points for me. I think it's a great debate, and to me not about trying to prove people wrong. I can't prove anyone's faith wrong........neither can any of us.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on the science aspect. To my mind we still have a lot to learn in science, and that's why I feel athiesm is a bit of a condradiction. I accept the atheist view that "there is no proof that God exists" but equally there is no proof that God doesn't exist......this is why I called athiesm a "faith" in my first post. Besides, it depends what you consider "proof". For instance, we still don't know 100% how the universe began or if the universe is everything there is, or if there is something beyond that. And narrowing it down to life on Earth, we still don't know how life began......it may have been an accident, who knows? As Sarah said, it's all subjective. It reminds me of an article I read in a science magazine, about a scientist who was also a man of faith (I think he was Jewish). He said he sees God in a DNA thread.

I agree with you on the translation aspect. I realised the problem of direct translation when I was learning German. The reality is that there are some English words which simply have no direct German equivalent and vice versa. So if translating a letter say from English to German, you sometimes have to use the closest word you can find. This makes it easy to imagine the problems Martin Luther must have encounted when he was translating the Bible from Latin into German for the first time.

Beth

[sarah_ab]

So, I take it you don't believe in the theory put forward by some that we are already dead and in heaven, but just don't remember our real lives?

Then we have the Cathar theory that Heaven is the natural place for us to live, but we are punished by being sent to Earth (which is in effect Hell) for a lifetime. And then when we die (having followed God's law) we will be back in heaven. This will last until we next deserve punishment, at which time we will be back on Earth (Hell) for another life of struggle.

I never put much faith in the Cathar theory, until I was trying to find a parking space at the supermarket this morning......now I think there could be something in it.

Beth

well, another reason i'm not contributing aside from an extreme lack of energy... is that i am an athiest, and although i have had a varied background in christianity... raised protestant congregationalist, went to catholic high school, worked at an episcopalean summer campt, and even joined my friend at jewish temple every week for a year.

However, i have discovered from the comments on many many people on this board (although not from anyone who has posted on this thread) that for some reason being an athiest means i cannot engage in any theological conversation and apparently because i dont believe in the scriptures and holy texts i cannot then discuss the theological arguments they offer.

apparently in order to discuss christianity and 'god' you have to be a believer, which i am not.

[curiositykilledthecat]

If this life is heaven then somebody needs to f*** themselves. I want my money back.

If you read the old testament, God had a covenant with the Jews and onlyy the Jews, entered in upon through Abraham. Once Jesus entered the picture he fulfilled the terms of the old covenant and also just happened to bring gentiles into the equation. It's not that God had it out for everybody else, it was that his covenant was with the Jews and if you screwed with the Jews then shit hit the fan. As far as things that happened to the Jews, they disobeyed and bitched alot and well Dueteronomy pretty much laid out the terms of the agreement.

Fundamentalism is not wrong, however, stupid people interpreting, adhering or acknowledging only what they want to and teaching that everyone else is wrong is in and of itself wrong.

Debating religion is a waste of time, fun but alas a watse. Now to quote one of my favorite books

Ecclesiastes 1

¹ These are the words of the Teacher,^[a] King David’s son, who ruled in Jerusalem.

² “Everything is meaningless,

[anondl]

I thought I replied already but I don't see my post so I'll just jump in here

Anondl, I'm much like you in my beliefs but I did spend a lot of time studying the Bible, listening to the teachings of numerous sects who claimed to be Christian, and even studying other religions with an open mind so as to choose the correct one for myself. In the end there is no established religion that I am aware of worth following or supporting, so I too have reverted to "The Golden Rule" as my single and sole religion since it is the least fallible way to live. Having said that I still believe in the Protestant version of God, and that Jesus was His son, and that there will be a judgement of myself eventually. Like Winston Churchlill said toward the end of his life I am ready to meet my creator but I doubt that He's ready to meet me

Bettypooh,

Thanks for your kind reply. I think a lot of my attitude comes from my history, (strikingly obvious). I was born in Germany (A largely Protestant country) and adopted by an American Protestant couple. So my religious education was Protestant. But in my early adulthood I had to ask myself what about those people who had not been exposed to Christianity. What happens to them. The answer I got was that all people all over the world had the opportunity to be saved by Christianity. That didn't wash with me.

We are all an accident of our birth. If I was born in the middle east, I would likely be Jewish or Muslem. If I was born in Japan I would be Shinto. If I was born in India I would be Hindu.

The Golden Rule is a pretty good idea. Some might even call it Karma.

Anondl

[Baby Bethany]

Bettypooh,

Thanks for your kind reply. I think a lot of my attitude comes from my history, (strikingly obvious). I was born in Germany (A largely Protestant country) and adopted by an American Protestant couple. So my religious education was Protestant. But in my early adulthood I had to ask myself what about those people who had not been exposed to Christianity. What happens to them. The answer I got was that all people all over the world had the opportunity to be saved by Christianity. That didn't wash with me.

We are all an accident of our birth. If I was born in the middle east, I would likely be Jewish or Muslem. If I was born in Japan I would be Shinto. If I was born in India I would be Hindu.

The Golden Rule is a pretty good idea. Some might even call it Karma.

Anondl

Yep, which brings us back to the point I made about most people sharing the religion of their parents.......which does kind of make it an accident of birth or geography. Okay, many people do choose their own faith, but the vast majority follow whatever their parents and grandparents did. I once put this same point to a Muslim friend, who said that he followed his faith through his own choice and by following his own heart. But he did admit that the fact that he was raised in Pakistan and taught to be a Muslim from birth was the essence of why he's a Muslim in the first place. There is an agument that teaching religion to your child is a form of brainwashing, no different to teaching them a certain political view.

As you say Anondl, one of the biggest problems with any organised religion is that if one is right, then the others must surely be wrong. So if the Catholic Church are correct, then every non Catholic that has ever lived is doomed. If the Islamic faith is correct, then the same and so on and so forth. It may simply be a case that none of them are correct, or that God (and by God I mean whatever organising/guiding force there is in the universe) simply doesn't care about the faith of a clever primate, on a not very important planet, orbiting a not very large star. Like you Anondl, the whole reason why I don't have a religion now is that I've looked into several, but never found one which ticks all the boxes for me. In every religion I've looked at I find something that I find difficult to believe.

Atheism to me is just another faith. It has to be a faith, because making the statement that "God does not exist" is no different to saying "God does exist" either way there is no evidence, and because of this an act of faith is required in either case. To me Atheism is as worthy of respect and theological debate as any organised religion. One of the things that always amazes me (that Sarah also touched upon) is the reluctance of most people of strong faith to engage in any theological discussion. I think this thread proves that. You could argue that there are not many people of faith on here, but I've seen many, many people quote scripture in other threads, only to ignore any form of debate in this one. This is nothing new, I've spoken to people of various faiths all over the world and to be honest the majority have been the same way......either that or they've become angry. I've also come across many people (of various faiths) who are willing to preach to you, but who lose interest when you start asking questions. I find this unfortunate.

Beth

[DiaperBoyKR]

Beth, great post, and I have to agree with alot of what you said. I don't think alot of people are willing to debate their religion or faith because they are afraid of being challenged in that faith. In many cases, they don't really know why they believe what they beleive, but feel that they have to pretend like they do. So they put up a scholarly preachy front, and try to make themselves unassailable. I think there are universal truths out there, and I believe very firmly in my faith, but I also believe that if they are the truth they will hold true even under challenge.

Sarah, I have no problem debating with someone who is not a believer! I try to avoid being preachy if i can avoid it, but I value a variety of differing view points. I've argued religion/faith/spirituality with a number of friends who are not Christian (one of who is a N.A. Shamanist, and another who primarily who believes in luck as the universes driving force). The only thing I try to do is maintain an atmosphere of respect for everyone involved, and try to avoid being adversarial. There is nothing more detrimental to debate than insulting and throwing intemperate language.

This is the overall problem with religion these days. Too few people on all sides of the fence know WHY they believe what they believe, and I think if people would a.) learn about the principles of their own religion, and b.) share it with others in a respectful atmosphere, alot of the problems between the religions would vanish. But thats also opposed to human nature, so its not going to happen.

[Creepymouse]

the Bible is a two thousand year old book.

Okay, this is true, but you might think of it another way. If you own a complex device of any sort, (preferably before the proliferation of cheap Chinese junk) you'll agree that the instruction manual is an invaluable tool. In 100 years or more, if the device is still working, the manual would still be as valuable. While our society has changed immeasurably, our essence has not. The Bible is the instruction manual, a precious writing from our Creator, and its rules to live by are perfect for us.

Isn't it better to take the view (as put forward by DiaperBoyKR) that the exact words of the Bible should be open to interpretation.

Of course, but remember what Joseph said in Genesis, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" Even Genesis uses the word 'day' as a period of time, and 'fundamentalists' tend to overlook that point. Genesis 2:4 says "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that God made earth and heaven." So all seven days are being referred to as a single day, clearly it is an indeterminate unit of time, but one with a clear beginning and end.

then that creater[sic] must be greater than anything the authors of the Bible could have even dreamed of.

Even the writers of the Bible understood that the universe must be much more vast than we can imagine, and that its Creator must indeed be infinitely more grand. Several of the Psalms are very much a praise of this, David in particular.

Oddly enough, you bring up a good point. The Bible, while not being a science textbook, touches on things like the water cycle, the earth being spherical, and that it hangs upon nothing, far contrary to the beliefs of the time.