Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

So you take it literally, but you don't take it literally? But it's something that should be taken literally?

 

do you take the part literally that says if you have a rebellious child you should bring him to the city gates where he will be stoned to death?

 

I wasn't actually aware there were any real creationists left on the boards. Perhaps a JCC Evolution thread is in order?

 

Because of the things God is directly responsible for, even though that's less than 100% of everything that has ever happened in the history of the Universe?

Epic: You brushed at this point earlier in the thread. As I asked you at that time, is it your position that people have no worth or make no influence on the world around them simply because they aren't, in some final weighing of the scales, a very good person?

This isn't really hard to understand at all. As compared to scientific terminology, the vernacular is imprecise. This is the whole reason science developed a specific vocabulary to begin with. The result of this imprecision is that the "true" intended meaning of common language discourse isn't always easily discernible. Thus, while he believes the statement true, he is admitting he can't come to a fixed, complete understanding of every single detail described. Do you find this somehow unreasonable? Are you perfectly able to translate the description of a scientific phenomenon by non-scientists 100% of the time? Really?

I do. And also the part where, when Peter and the apostles were asked about whether new converts to Christianity should follow the levitical laws described in the Old Testament, the answer was "No." And also the multiple points where people were judged righteous and obedient to the law despite not killing their significantly rebellious children, which (along with the actual texts of verses you are referencing) suggest that there's something more complex going on here than you are giving credit for.

Hello

 

You don't think evolution is correct?

 

lol

 

I think it's the most robust scientific explanation for speciation and biological diversity available, which, despite a number of useful applications, still fails as an accurate representation of what historically transpired.

 

In other words, Wocky decided to make a thread in the JCC to act as a troll against splitting to the Senate by playing Devil's Advocate for stupidity.

It's like an evil villain shaking his fist.

 

Wocky is the residential Snidley Whiplash of the JCC.

 

i agree they have an influence, but what good is that influence if they are tormented, as a result of their unbelief, for all eternity?

 

There are perfectly reasonable believers/Christians/religious folks in the world. There are many on this forum. But reasonable or not your leaders are people like this:



These are the people speaking for you. That is one of your leaders. That person votes for Romney, wants science removed from classrooms and replaced with creationism, pretends government is invasive while they wish to tell you what to do in your own bedroom, and so on. Evil people own your religion.

 

Doesn't speak for me, not one of my leaders.

 

How can you take the entire Bible literally when it is full of contradictions, errors and outright lies?

 

I don't.

 

The more I study the Bible, the more I realize that everything I once thought was contradictory was just my misunderstanding of one or both parts of what seemed contradictory. Do you have any specific contradictions in mind?

 

I guess my feeling is that if both they and others feel their life has meaning and worth, the objection is not to them having existed in the first place. We just agreed on what I would call the rationale for that happening. The real objection is why these people are going to Hell. But they were perfectly able to change that outcome. They just chose not to.

And Christopher Hitchens, a leading atheist thinker, was an unvarnished bigot who spewed anti-Muslim demaogougery as bad as anything that came out of Fox News, while offering full-throated support for the worst aspects of the War On Terror. Not the least of which was the War in Iraq. That is the person speaking for you. Playing a game of guilt by association is stupid.

Never mind that, I don't much regard Meyers anyway, though I can't say I found the few sermons of hers I've heard to be terribly offensive.

 

Here are some contradictions involving the resurrection: http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Resurrection.htm Since each of the four gospels contradict each other in several instances, they cannot all be true.

Second, Jesus was clearly lying in Matthew 17:20 and Matthew 21:21 when he told people that praying to him would work. No matter how hard you pray, you cannot tell a mountain to move from one place to another. Still don't believe me? Try praying for all cancer to be cured worldwide. It won't work. John 14:12: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." These passages prove that prayer doesn't work despite Jesus' assurances.

Here is another list of contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

 

Irrelevant, that no longer applies since the Resurrection, same goes for the majority of those Old Testament laws. We are no longer under the law but under grace.

 

I'll start with your second point, prayer, and move on to the first and third after I take the time to check out your links.

Jesus is not saying, "Ask for anything at all, tack the words In Jesus' Name on the end of the prayer and it's yours." The key phrase is "in my name." Praying in Jesus' name means identifying with Jesus, understanding who He is and what He stands for, making yourself one with Him in spirit. If you speak in someone else's name, you say things that they would say, not just what you would say. So when a Christian prays in Jesus' name he should not simply ask for whatever he wants with no regard for what God wants. That's why the Lord's Prayer includes the phrase "Thy will be done." If we pray for the mountain or the cancer and it is God's will, they will be gone. When we pray in God's name, we are acknowledging who He is and that all we ask for must be subject to His will.

In my own life, I've asked for many things that were not in accordance with God's will. Looking back with the perspective of many years and 20/20 hindsight, I can see how God saved me from some of my prayers that He did not grant (often involving a girl I though was Mrs Right). I've also received many good answers to prayers when I aligned my will with His and was thus able to pray in His name. For instance, I've been praying that this discussion would remain civil and free of insults and name-calling. It's working so far.

 

i just think it's callous, when i put my feet in god's shoes, to create beings who i know full well will end up suffering for all eternity. like, if i just didn't create them in the first place, they wouldn't be in torment forever. yeah it was up to them to believe or not, but knowing full well a lot wouldn't, i may have been like, screw it, maybe i just won't create anything. because seeing i love these creations, i don't really want to see them in pain... forever.

but i guess i'm more compassionate than what god is. because this "test" he has set up, i guess for his own amusement, to see if his creations believe in him despite evidence to the contrary, is somehow worth all the torment and everlasting pain caused on the many who don't see fit to believe. this is why god gets called cruel.

 

That's right. Hitchens was unfortunately one of the folks speaking for me wether I liked it or not and I disliked him and his horrid little attitude.

 

Not all Christians believe in that stereotypical "fire and pitchforks" version of hell.

 

That's funny, because that's exactly how the Bible describes hell. But since Christians already ignore the parts of the Bible they don't like, this isn't surprising.

 

Have you ready any post I've ever written on this?

(And no, that's not exactly how the Bible describes hell.)

Hell is just a person being spiritually off-balance in the afterlife, which is ultimately their own choice, and once their attitude changes you "enter" heaven. Hell and heaven are the same "place," but people will initially experience it differently because of their point of view. Vain people will see they don't have bodies anymore and dislike it, greedy people will see they're without possessions and dislike it, murderers will see their victims immortal, everyone will see how flawed and imperfect they've been throughout life and be ashamed of it, etc. And everyone will eventually get over it, some sooner than others.


Also, the Bible only ever says for sure that 3 individuals will go to hell, the "second death" (Satan, Beast of the Sea, Beast of the Land). And in the original translation, even for them, it's "ages/aeons," not eternity.