I've grown up most of my life in a 'Christian' environment. Baptist church and a non-denominational private Christian school. The likes of Doctor Dobson and the Left Behind stuff is familiar. However, as I've looked at it and thought as well as actually looking into what's been written in the Bible, I have the conclusion that most of the so-called 'Christian' people are wrong: either by the legalistic crap inserted by the leaders (aka, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, etc.), or by people who don't know what's really said and take what's given to them as gold. 1.)Would someone please enlighten me as to why we need a Pope? I've never heard of a good, Biblical reason as to why there is a need for that type of position. 2.)The Bible is not a scientific book, rather historic. Actually, to be correct, the Bible is a library, with different books, some historical, others poetic. 3.)There's nothing wrong with saying Happy Holiday's. I'm not politically correct, but I don't see what the big deal is. Secondly, what's wrong with the government not being partial to Christianity? That's what separation of church and state is about. BTW, 'separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, thanks. 4.)It's 'Thou shalt not murder' not 'Thou shalt not kill'. Governments are there, despite the corrupt officials that may run them, to enforce the law. Execution of a murderer is justified. 5.)Christianity isn't about feeling good, and you'll never find a promise from God or Jesus that you will. 6.)Humanity is flawed, and condemned for eternal damnation. You cannot do anything to get around this. (One of my gripes with the Catholic branch) You are only saved because God had Jesus die a painful death plus torture beforehand. There's nothing you can ever do. On the flip-side, that doesn't mean you should flippantly and willingly engage in activities contrary to what God has stated as being wrong. 7.)If Jesus did not die and rise again, the whole Bible doesn't mean jack. That's the entire crux (no pun intended) of the Bible. Worry about that point first and foremost...everything else builds on that. 8.)Drinking is not wrong. Getting drunk is...otherwise, God/Jesus has contradicted himself by stating that he does not tempt people. 9.)It is never okay to murder, attack, destroy property of, bomb, purposefully insult, or violate any of the laws given from God in order to stop those who commit sin. 10.)If Jesus did not clarify an Old Testament law, or change it, the OT law still stands. Example: Homosexuality is still wrong, according to God. 11.)What denominations believe may not be in the Bible. Wether it's a misinterpertation or tradition, some things are not biblical. This isn't to say they are wrong, but know what's been said from God, not by certain parts of the denomination. 12.)America is not a strict Christian nation. The prinicples it was founded on are from a largely Christian perspective, but that in no way means that we were founded as a strictly Christian nation. Given that, don't expect that everything in America will be strictly Christian. 13.)Seeing 'R' rated movies or listening to Rap or Metal will not send your teens to hell or make them commit violent acts or do sinful things. If they do, then there are bigger issues. Don't throw a huge fit everytime Marylin Manson puts out a new CD or a new teen slasher film comes out. The recording companies and movie industries are businesses. If you ignore it by not spending money, time, and effort to protest it, that's sometimes more effective. Discretion is necessary, but, seeing and R-rated movie will not send someone to hell. 14.)Discussion of sex at a proper age is good for kids to have in both public and private schools. Having Christian upbringings doesn't mean kids will share your beliefs on the subject. Educate them properly: don't just say what's good an bad--try to have an actual, realistic reason. 15.)Well God said so is not necessarily good enough. Know that's what was said and not misinterperted. /rant
It's not entirely crap, but what's happened is that people don't know the real truth and believe what the pastor says is entirely gold. They don't think or question if it falls in line with what's been said from God...who they supposedly believe in. Contrary to what many people believe, it is perfectly fine to question what's being taught and said in church. It's supposed to be that way. You're not supposed to blindly accept whatever the pastor, or anyone else says. I get irritated with people who say they're Christian, yet haven't the slightest clue as to what the Bible really says. Hey, you don't have to know everything about every book, but when what you believe in has a primary text and you don't know squat about it and follow beliefs and stances that are said by failiable men instead of knowing what is truely said, you're a blind moron. Christianity seems to be on a diverted mission to stuff the pews with people rather than lay it out straight, and many people don't even bat an eye. Then you've got the Christian media (printed media and a/v stuff). I read one of the Left Behind books, and, uh, it sucks. The writing is mediocre at best, and the plot seems stretched out. Just because someone claims to have written a Christian book, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Christianity has largely become another label, like Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap...which is really pathetic. Jesus isn't on anybody's side, which the like of Falwell, the Pope, and conservatives like Bush lackey Sean Hannity, don't seem to understand. American values do not equate Christian values, but it's been twisted and misconstrued to make it seem as such. I'm a Conservative Libertarian as far as politics are concerned, which seems to go well with my Religious stance: I'm in a small minority. But I'd rather be there looking to understand the real truth than in the blind majority on either side.
I'm glad you brought this up so close to Christmas, where there a lot of ideas floating around about the holiday, Christianity, and Jesus himself. Christians (viewed as 'Protestents' by the Roman Catholic Church) do not believe in a pope nor hold the Catholic pope in any special esteem. History as I understand it presents the Pope as a creation of Roman Catholic dogma, established circa 495AD, around 450 years after Christ walked the planet. Im my mind, the pope was the natural extension of the Roman Ceasar into the Christian faith. Let me explain. For the Romans, the Ceasar was a god-like being, literally a living diety who was infallible and beyond all reproach. This helped cement the dominance of the Roman government because all Roman citizens were forced to make a sacrifice to Ceasar and swear him as their god. To oppose a caesar was to defy a god, and to incur the wrath of both the Roman government and other Roman citizens. When Christianity swept the Roman empire in the first 300 years AD (and this despite the wholesale slaughter of Christians by the hands of the Romans), the Roman government survived by mingling their own pagan customs, rituals and ideals with that of Christianity. The result, among other things, is a man with the title 'pope' (from the Latin "father") who is unsurprisingly considered infallible and his words considered dogma (on the same level as the Christian scriptures). This established a new type of ceasar, masked as a Christian leader. This is known as caesaropapism -- the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian church. A convenient way to lead ignorant masses, not a Christian convention at all. What is science? My understanding of the word is that it is the pursuit of truth through the scientific process: hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis of the resulting data. While the bible is not a 'scientific book' per se, it is not unscientific in nature. Some seemingly incredible assertations made by biblical texts were scoffed at in the past and are now found to be accurate. For instance, the idea that wells existed under the ocean was considered by many to be a biblical fallacy until the mid 20th century. Now it is common knowledge that such wells exist, but the bible is rarely credited to be the first to point this out. The ideal of a secular state is to preserve religious freedom, not squelch it. In other words, the government should take a stricly "hands off" approach to religion, religious practice, and anything else of the sort unless it violated another person's constitutional rights of liberty and justice. Today it seems our government is not very hands-off at all, and the rights of the people of America are trampled daily. This includes our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms in defence of our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, our freedom to privacy, due process, and not least of all religious freedom. In fact, the bible says that one who would kill another person in cold blood should be killed. It sends a strict message about the gravity of such an action and ironically about the value and fragility of life itself. Those who killed in self-defence or under special circumstances (accidentally, strongly provoked, etc) were given special provisions. Those were given a permanent mark on the forehead (meaning that they were not to be harmed) and banished from the area. Many people see Christianity as a crutch which makes life easier for foolish and weak-minded people. In fact, it has been the dominant belief system of a vast majority of the great thinkers for centuries. If followed in its truest form, Christianity is the only belief system I know of (having studied every major religion and many minor ones) which claims that man is man, God is God, and man will never be a god. Furthermore, true Christianity demands that one constantly strive to be better, rather than succumb to the natural regression of humanity which occurs automatically without intervention. It also promises that those following the teachings of Christ will be generally disliked and persecuted, which has happened throughout history. This occurred often enough at the hands of others claiming the Christian title but not actually following the teachings of Christ. Following the teachings of Christ is a bit like strapping on a parachute while on a passenger plane that is going to crash. To the other passengers who have no idea the plane's going down, you'll look silly. It will make the majority of your flight very uncomfortable, and you will not be able to rest soundly like the other passengers. But when the plane goes down, the parachute's true purpose will be revealed: not comfort, but being saved from one's inevitable crash & burn. Yes, this is true. Could you stand before a perfect being and not feel dirty? I couldn't. Which brings me to the concept of hell. To many people, it is impossible to believe that God could be kind & loving and yet send people to hell. How could a perfect & wholesome God create the most horrible place in existance? To that I pose a counter-question: what makes a trash grotesque, the can, or the trash inside? I suspect that hell is a bit like that. We with our corruption, contempt, and above all selfishness are what makes hell a place nobody wants to be. Christians believe the only way to be un-corrupted is by allowing God to do so through his own means, thus exempting us from our 'trash can' fate. This brings me back to our creation theory argument some months back. In it, I posted the vollowing, which I will quote verbatim: "It seems we have a logical vacancy which I'd like to address. Let me clarify that this is directed at anyone who would take both sides of the argument here: It's not reasonably possible to take both sides. I'm going to pull heavily from the writings of C.S. Lewis, but logically you have 3 choices in how one regards the person of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Mashiach for any Jews who may be reading this), since he claimed to be the Messiah. Those choices are as follows: 1)He was a persuasive liar and a con artist, but not really the Messiah 2)He was a good natured but insane individual, in that he truly believed himself to be the Messiah but was in fact an ordinary man with no grip on reality 3)He was actually who he claimed to be – the Messiah, Son of God, savior of mankind, the perfection of Adam's weakness, etc. If you are following this thread of logic, consider this. If Jesus was in fact a liar and a con man, nothing he said should be given any credence. After all, what good is the word of a liar? And if you can't trust him in one matter, should you take him at his word in another? On the other hand, perhaps he really believed himself in some form of self-delusion to be the Son of God. In that case, though his intents were not necessarily evil, “that would put him on the level of a man who believes himself to be a poached egg” to paraphrase Lewis. If he is not even sure of who or what he is, obviously he can not be trusted in any matters of importance. Finally, we can choose to believe that Christ is in fact who he claims to be, and that as a result his teachings are in fact the Word of God. If that's true, logic forbids that we pick and choose which of his teachings we choose to believe. If he was who he claimed to be, than we must give all of his teachings equal leverage. We don't have the liberty to pay lip service by claiming that he was “just a good teacher”. Liar, madman, or Messiah - those are your choices. If we choose to accept that the teachings of Christ are trustworthy, then we must also accept the old testament in its entirety, since Christ fully endorsed it and spoke of it as the Word of God. Saying “I believe in Christian creation and also in the big-bang/evolution” is nonsensical, since the bible is very specific about the time frame in which the world was created. Also, evolutionary precepts are the antithesis of Christian teachings. There's simply no room for agreement on this point." Yeah, this is also true, and one I disagree strongly on with Mormons. They claim that when the scriptures mention people drinking wine it was merely grape juice, a product of their own convenient interpretation of the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures themselves do not lend that as a possiblity. Remember when Jesus turned water into wine? Check this out, from John 2 (emphasis mine): 9...the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the groom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." Too much grape juice to drink? What are they, toddlers with soft palletes? Yes, it was definately alchohol. Don't like it? Too bad. ...All good points B but I'm afraid you were a little too thorough for me and I wasn't able to comment on each point with the short time available to me. I'd like to comment on the remainder of your points when time allows. All the best, -AT
To be honest, I don't like talking about religion much, especially Christianity. I get very worked up about some of the things they preach, and impose on people. These days the church only want your money
If all they want is your money, the fact that they call themselves 'Christian' is incidental. Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Hehe, all I'm going to say is televangelists... A quote from one of my old Religious Education revision books... [Said by a preacher] "Praise the lord...Send us 50-bucks..."
So one could safely say that those people are materialists which masquerade as Christians. The proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing.
Yeah if they're the kind that are always pleading for money and for people to send them cheques etc then I guess you could call them that.
Alot of what I've ranted about here has been due to listening to the White Horse Inn. It's refreshing to hear the truth, and, while human, it's given me a lot of food for thought. They had a very good series on misery and death (The Blue Note). Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to use Christianity as a ruse to have people send them money (Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, faith healers). To me, it's in the same category of butchering the Bible as when a 'Christian' blows up an abortion clinic. That just makes my blood boil. Hell, I lost $600 to a guy claiming he was Christian and after that learned that it's a popular line by guys trying to sucker people in. (I told him no and he got pissed, btw.) I think that a mere fraction of people claiming to be Christianity are really so---as much as can be expected from any human. People don't understand or choose not to understand what the Bible really says, and until that changes in massive numbers, most Christians are going to be, as Lenin put it "useful idiots" for the butchered version of Christianity.
I have to say you put serious thought into this. I personally dont beilive in everything the bible says, but i do beilive in alot of it. I also dont see anything wrong with the pope..
Yeah you do have a good point, Why should we (as in christians) listen to some random person who burned paper and smoke came out of a chiminey (how pope is chsoen according to my CCD teaher) You can do one thing to solve this problem: Convert to protostant
There's no biblical reason for a pope. Now, I've heard some stuff about tradition having Peter as the first pope, but the Bible does not have anything explicitly stated about having someone like that---at least for the human part. I see it as putting in an unnecessary middleman between the person and Jesus. I see the Catholic-branch of Christianity as dunked in tradition, and having a lot of internal politics that isn't necessary or really biblical. Wether I'm Protestant or not really doesn't change the issue, much like me being born as an American doesn't remove the fact that Hitler massacred Jews. It's the frustration on how the foundational book Christianity uses is improperly understood and/or interperted. Most of it is pretty readable, btu the cultural nuances---I feel---don't have as much of an impact as they did. A big issue is the context, which is why you get nut jobs like Fred "God hates fags" Phelps and Jerry Falwell who are very influential leaders manhandling scripture. Those two, at least as I understand, are Protestant, and why being a non-Catholic doesn't fix the problem. Most people who claim to be Christian assume that what's being said is 100% true. Uh, there's one problem with that: the pastor is human, and unless someone has some data proving otherwise, human's are falliable. That's why there's a 1950's-era air that people believe being a Christian means that Jesus makes life a rose garden. Again, not biblically true, and pretty much contrary to what's happened. Empreror Nero, anyone?
in a nutshell to me most religions are alike the old books like the bible etc are just a guide (set of rules or laws)to live your life by, These books were written for uneducated people with hardly any comunication or law and order to ensure life was as civilised as possible , By getting them to believe in a god and to frighten them by what would happen if they didnt and to reward them by telling them all the good that would come to them if they did ensured a largley peaceful time , Things are different these days we have a lot more knowledege they thought there was only one god ,But now you can shop around and choose your god theres loads to choose from just put religion or god in your search engine and surf through them im sure youll find one you like ! me im still browsing
You're right in saying that they are a set of rules. 99% of religions have a book that is a set of rules. That doesn't mean that it is nothing more than that... And if these books were written for uneducated people, why have most of our most intelligent, prominent people in history been christian or otherwise? Some of the most intelligent people that the world has ever known have believed in God and lived life based on a "book." Which leads me to say - Have you ever studied the bible? And I mean more than just going to church a few times a year or even having read it. I've read plenty of books in school and even did book reports but got nothing out of it. I'm talking about studying... Give it a shot and you might be surprised. IMHO, you dont have any business criticising one thing or another unless you have an idea of what you're talking about. You dont have to have a doctorate, but certainly a background in the subject. And if in this day in age we have so much knowledge that proves there is no god, etc why is there even a debate? If it was so black and white, no debate would even be tolerated.
You will always find large problems with a church because they have to satisfy the entire church. This doesn't allow for independent thinking a lot of the time, because every one is agreed or shunned. This isn't always true, but it is typical to find such things in every church. So to find holes in the church is good and not something that should worry you or make you think the church is wrong. Just the people's beliefs may be. : )
Exactly. You can find plently of churches that are completely messed up and have problems. That is not to say that the "religion" in and of itself is flawed. It means that the people inside the church are messed up. You're not going to find a perfect church, but the people inside are seeking a perfect God, which does exist.
Independent thinking is biblical, as to the sense that if you take the Bible as the foundation for teaching from God, then you should think about what's on Sunday, what is written by authors...basically, is what you're looking at really what's been said in the Bible. Unfortunately, many churches have missed out on this concept, or people just get the drift, which I believe is an unintentional casuality of the religious right's agenda. If you don't go to the source and understand it in the proper context, you end up with kooks that think it's okay to blow up abortion clinics...much like you have some kooks that take the Quran out of context so they can justify a suicide bombing. Christianity makes one claim that is rather different from any other religion: a living founder. Islam does not claim that Mohammad is still alive, nor does Buddishim claim Buddah is still alive. Christianity is also, unlike what is insinuated all too often, based on salvation by grace. The entire concept is that you are flawed by sin, and that you are unacceptable to God, and therefore only worthy of condemnation to an eternity in Hell outside the presence of God. The only ticket out is to accept the grace of God. Jesus came down and let himself be sacrificed as a man and physically died. Then, and this is a very key point, he came back to life 3 days later. If he did not raise from the dead, then that invalidates the Bible, as much of the Old Testament (among other things) prophesied about Jesus coming and doing this. I'm not well-versed in other religions, but I can speak for what I do know.
"Christianity is also, unlike what is insinuated all too often, based on salvation by grace. The entire concept is that you are flawed by sin, and that you are unacceptable to God, and therefore only worthy of condemnation to an eternity in Hell outside the presence of God. The only ticket out is to accept the grace of God. Jesus came down and let himself be sacrificed as a man and physically died. Then, and this is a very key point, he came back to life 3 days later. If he did not raise from the dead, then that invalidates the Bible, as much of the Old Testament (among other things) prophesied about Jesus coming and doing this." -Big B I personally don't believe Jesus taught this. I think it was added later on to create a dependency on the church.
