A question to Christians

I checked three Lutheran sites at random--two say "catholic" and one says "Christian." The Baptists apparently don't usually say the Nicene Creed as part of their liturgy, but they "affirm" their belief in it. (Actually, varying Baptist groups have varying practices. The Reformed Baptist Association of Churches has an often-quoted constitution in which it affirms belief in "the doctrines expressed in the Apostles? Creed and the Nicene Creed." They don't mention whether they use either as part of their services.)

 

I KNOW that Christianity is right, but I also know that everyone else (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus) thinks the same way. I do not expect do convert anyone, nor do I wish to try. I am proud to be Christian and have no problem sharing it freely. I will show that I am Christian, I'll pray to God in public, I'll talk about what I believe. As long as you have some sort of religion, it's better than none. I think atheists are more wrong than anyone. Hindus may worship cows, but at least they recognize somrthing higher than themselves.

And by the way, I know what it's like to try to be converted. There are these Mormon missionaries where I work that walk around and ride bikes everywhere. I have to intention to convert, but I appreciate the fact that they are thinking of me.

 

I think atheists are more wrong than anyone.

I love the brilliant display of ignorance here. Do tell me, what's your next trick?

 

have a question for Christians: How come Christians focus so much on how Jesus died and not what he preached?

^^^

You have a very valid point there. Most people will focus on Jesus birth (Christmas) or Jesus death. What's up wit dat?

However, Jesus had a lot of important teachings. A christian, a follower of Jesus, would have to apply what Jesus taught, not just focus on his death.

 

The reasoning behind the focus on Jesus Birth/Death

simply put is this:

Throughout the Old Testament there have been prophecies that tout the comming of the Messiah. It was important to the New Testament Church, especially Helenistic Jews, to prove that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah of the Jews. There were many "messianic" canidates of the time, Judas Maccabeua being one of them; however his birth and death are not talked about in the Old Testament. Jesus' birth is specifically talked about- as is his death down to describing Crucifixion; a practice not yet held in the world.

This doesn't even touch the fact that Jesus' Death was what ultimately paves the way for us to go to Heaven...he took our place on the cross for our sins.

 

Even looking at the gospels-- how much of it was devoted towards jesus life and teaching?

 

I think atheists are more wrong than anyone.

I love the brilliant display of ignorance here. Do tell me, what's your next trick?

I don't think this can be considered ignorance, unless you are saying that his belief in God stems from ignorance. He proceeds from the assumption that God exists. Based upon that assumption, athiests are indeed more wrong -- that is, farther from the truth -- than anyone else of any faith, because all faiths acknowledge the existence of higher powers, whereas atheists do not.

You may believe he's fully incorrect, but it doesn't make him ignorant unless belief in a higher power is equal to ignorance.

-Paul

 

have a question for Christians: How come Christians focus so much on how Jesus died and not what he preached?

I'd like to chime in on this. I think it's because his death and resurrection is really what christianity is about. He made the sacrafice so we could have eternal life.

That having been said, there are a lot of Sundays and not every Sunday's lesson is about Jesus' death.

 

Without his life and teaching, no one would know the importance of his death and resurrection.

 

Even looking at the gospels-- how much of it was devoted towards jesus life and teaching?

90-95% of it? The one major complaint about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that you heard from Christians is that it focused too narrowly on the manner of Jesus' death and skimped a little on the meaning of his life.

I'm not really sure where the idea comes from that Christianity consists of wandering into a building with uncomfortable seats once a week and shrieking about how the rest of the world is going to hell. Actually--I do know where that idea comes from. It comes from hackneyed TV plots whose psychological appeal is in assuaging any lingering viewer guilt about watching shows full of sex and violence, since the people who come out against gratuitous sex and violence are wackos, anyway. (90% of the time, who are the heroes in the "crazy religious wacko" plot? The innocent, virtuous local teens who have lots and lots of sex. Adult viewers who like to think of themselves as virtuous don't have to feel as bad about watching two high school students "get it on" if a show has established that what the kids are doing is "beautiful" and "life-affirming" while their grouchy old religiously-maniacal parents are really worshipping death.)

Most serious Christians work their guts out to try and be more like Christ. K_K presumably didn't spend a couple of years on a mission, "on the job" seven days a week for no pay, because he thought it would be really fun. A friend of mine who's entering the seminary isn't planning on taking a massive pay cut and giving up the possibility of marrying and having children because he really had nothing better to do. If it makes a difference to you, I work with severely emotionally impaired children and teens, who are not most teachers' favorite population. It's not always fun, but I find it very fulfilling, because it's what I feel called to do. It's basically my attempt at following in the footsteps of Christ. Jesus did not actually say, "I was a furious adolescent who threatened to throw a chair at you, and you taught me to write anyway," but I like to think of it as implied. I very deliberately chose a job in the service of people who are generally poor, needy in every sense of the word, and almost universally disliked, in order to keep myself honest as a Christian. I can see myself going spiritually dead in a traditional 9 to 5, in which I did nothing but shuffle paper around in order to make a few rich guys some more money.

None of this is remotely unusual. My cooperating teacher during my last student teaching semester not only works with the same kids that I do, she's adopted three special needs kids, whom she raises along with her biological children (I forget if she has 3 or 4). This means she goes home and has one of her kids threaten to throw a chair at her there, too. She goes through with all of this because she is a very religious person, and she thinks that this is what God wants her to do.

If Christians don't generally tell you all of this, it's because they aren't supposed to. Jesus' instructions were to serve and shut up about it. Next time you find yourself in some agency where they remove cockroaches from homeless people's ears (I've got a friend who's done that) or do direct care for dying children (got one who does that, too), look for the religious emblems on necklaces, bracelets, earrings, and tie-tacks. You'll see a lot of it.

 

Edit: The_Fireman wrote: I don't think anyone can claim to be a Christian truthfully if they think anyone will have eternal life, as long as they love one another.

In that case, what happens to John 13:34: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you?"

The idea is that your first priority has to be God.

Exactly. That's what I was saying. You can be kind and compassionate to other people all you want, but if you sin against God, you're damned.

Also, while sin might "only take a moment," the spiritual damage need not be permanent. That's what repentence is about.

Yes, but repentance is useless without atonement. The damage IS permanent. That's the whole point of the Messiah's first coming. Only through Him, through His life and death, can sin be atoned, and then from there repented from. The point is that SOMEONE will pay for the sin. Not a single one will go unaccounted for.

 

I'm not really sure where the idea comes from that Christianity consists of wandering into a building with uncomfortable seats once a week and shrieking about how the rest of the world is going to hell.

Refer to The_Fireman's last post and you'll see why people get the impression that Christians are just out to say "you're damned for not believing what I believe". I wonder where he gets those ideas? Certainly not the bible because I've been told many times that only a priest can truly interpret the bible. So he can't have come to those opinions on his own.

It comes from hackneyed TV plots whose psychological appeal is in assuaging any lingering viewer guilt about watching shows full of sex and violence, since the people who come out against gratuitous sex and violence are wackos, anyway.

Don't forget the televangalists.

 

So I have a question: Why didn't God send Jesus about the time of, say, Noah? Or Moses? David?

Surely he was needed in those times.

Seems a little, how shall I put this?...short-sighted of God?

See, that's the thing that makes me question God's purported all-knowingness. He seems to change His mind on a couple of occasions, especially with that whole Flood thing. So why didn't He just do that with Adam and Eve? With Him being all knowing, He should have seen that He'd have to start over with Noah anyway, so why not just skip all that stuff in between?

Also, that pre-destination thing makes me wonder about it.

And now, my real question for Christians:
Why is it, when the Old Testament says to do stone someone for working on the Sabbath, Christians are quick to point out that that is part of the Old Law that was fulfilled by Jesus, yet when it says that homosexuality is an abomination, Christians can't preach it enough?

Do boil that down into an easier question: Why do Christians pick and choose the parts of the Bible to follow?




Let's Go Gekigangar!

 

Hindu's do not worship cows, at least I don't. I worship this guy who was the son of part of the Hindu Holy Trinity but who got his head cut off in this misunderstanding but got an elephant head instead.

Actually, that's just part of the mythology. The cow thing is misinterpreted, cows are sacred animals in India partly because Hindu's are vegetarians and also because they give you milk, like your moms did when you were a baby, so a cow is like your mother when you are an adult. You dig?

The Hindu mythology is pretty good, anyone familiar with the Mahabarath story knows that it is like the ultimate epic, and it has sex, drugs, rock and roll, war, the whole thing.

 

I've always thought that was a very good point, why does Christianity concentrate on the birth and death of Christ.
Perhaps the truth could lie in the inconvenient things that the historical Christ is reputed to have said. The New Testament is replete with quotes that would indicate that the philosohy of the early christians was eschatological and egalitarian, and with possible exceptions, pacifist.
With the world still here two thousand years later, the gap between rich and poor as wide as ever and countless christians championing wars across the globe it's important that right wing christians radically re- interpret the New Testament.

 

Why is it, when the Old Testament says to do stone someone for working on the Sabbath, Christians are quick to point out that that is part of the Old Law that was fulfilled by Jesus, yet when it says that homosexuality is an abomination, Christians can't preach it enough?

Please consider what the scriptures say.

In the Greek scriptures, the governing body of anointed apostles, directed by God's spirit, "did away with" the Law. The Mosaic Law was what God set in place to "lead up to Christ" and then it was done away with. God purposed for this to happen.

If you read the Greek scriptures, you will notice that homosexuality is condemned in no uncertain terms. God does not change. His righteouss principles never change. Laws change. Principles don't. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for gross sinning, homosexuality which was one prominent factor. Homosexuality displeases the True God as much now as it did then.

 

I will show that I am Christian, I'll pray to God in public,

Perhaps you'll want to recall the admonition to pray in private, for those who pray in public have already received their reward.

 

Why, pray tell, are atheists so wrong?

And didn't Jesus also say, "Beware those who preach in the marketplace"?

Peace,

V-03

 

green_jedi

I just find it strange that those things the early Christians wanted to do (eat shellfish, not get circumcised, be able to work on the Sabbath, etc.) was made okay, but things they didn't want (homosexuality) were kept bad.

You say that while laws change, principles don't. You realize how many things are considered abominations in the Old Testament? Seems pretty pricipled to me, yet God seemed to change His mind.

Seems fishy to me.


Ooh, I just thought of another question: When taking an oath (such as when entering elected office or while testifying in court), why do Christians (and I know it's just not Christians, but I'm asking why Christians are okay with this) swear upon the Bible?

Matthew 5:34-37 (New International Version)
34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ?Yes? be ?Yes,? and your ?No,? ?No?; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Seems to me that swearing on the Bible constitutes as "anything beyond" Yes and No.



Let's Go Gekigangar!

 

JFT,

You are making one big mistake, that many people make.

You are basically asking why "Christians" don't all agree with your interpretation of the Bible. In doing this, you are basically acting as though all Christians interpret the Bible the same, and not as things really are (with there being essentially as many interpretations as Christians).

The test of anyone's interpretation isn't whether it is consistent with your interpretation, but whether it is internally consistent.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK

That's exactly why I'm no longer a Christian, because I just could not reconcile the inconsistancies. For one thing to be okay now while another thing remains wrong...just seems, well, too convenient. I've started to calling Christianity "Jew-lite: All the religion, half the work."

God just doesn't seem to mesh with the current message of Christians.




Let?s Go Gekigangar!

 

That's exactly why I'm no longer a Christian, because I just could not reconcile the inconsistancies. For one thing to be okay now while another thing remains wrong...just seems, well, too convenient. I've started to calling Christianity "Jew-lite: All the religion, half the work."

God just doesn't seem to mesh with the current message of Christians.

Which Christians? Baptists? Catholics? Mormons? Methodists?

Even within each denomination, you will find varying interpretations. And yet, you are acting as though they all share the same interpreations and inconsistencies.

Kimball Kinnison

 

So what would you have me do KK, list each denomination?

I am generalizing here, and that's perfectly legitimate. If the objection doesn't apply to a certain sect, then I'm obviously not referring to that one. Honestly, I'm not seeing what your problem is here.





Let?s Go Gekigangar!

 

Last I checked, every denomination used pretty much the same bible. The only thing I see that's different between the denominations is which parts of the Bible they choose to interpret, which parts they hold above the others, and what they ignore outright.

 

Last I checked, every denomination used pretty much the same bible.

Not really. There are more version of the Bible than there are theories about SW and the EU.

JIFFY!!! You're back!!!