Christianity

[Kain]

Lucifer never wanted to KILL God. He wanted to BE God. So what does God do in his omnipotence. He 'condemns' Lucifer to Hell, to rule over all of its dominion and sin and all that B.S.. So God gets rid of Lucifer, who only wanted to be God, by turning him into a God of his own dominion.

 

Now that I read this again, I just realized something: Christianity is a polytheist religion. It has the Holy Trinity (oh but thats one person:rolleyes:) and it has Satan. Now before you jump on me let me explain.

 

Christians claim to worship a single God, making them monotheists to appease they're God. But they make God to be the God of Good, and he's made of 3 different sections (Father, Son, Ghost blah blah blah). But Christian's also know about another being. A God of Evil; Satan.

 

Missing my point? Let me make it simple. A Greek Priest of Zeus didn't warship Hades too. He served his 'God' but knew of other Gods of different domains.

[Rainer511]

I think Satan wants to kill God, he displayed that by warring against Him in heaven. Even if he doesn't want to kill God, in which I highly doubt, my statement did not stand on whether or not Satan wanted to kill Him and be god, or just be a god.

 

Is Satan omnipotent? No. Is Satan omnipresent? No. Is Satan omniscient? No. Satan isn't much of a god now is he? Besides what makes a god, well, god? Is it something or someone that you worship? Then to Christians Satan isn't a god. Is it something all powerful, all knowing, and ever present? Then Satan isn't a god. Christians do not acknowledge Satan as god, but the Greeks acknowledged Hades as god, that is the difference.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Quick preface,

The only reason I'm replying is because Rainer511 has rejoined the debate...

 

If there is no God, then why is there good in the world? Before you scoff at my question, think about it. If we are inherently good then why is there evil? If we are inherently evil then why is there good?

 

This concept is only a problem if your bound to the concepts of 'good' and 'evil'.

 

To demonstrate, let's take a cheetah that I saw on a nature program the other day. It was chasing and hunting a gazelle. It had managed to catch up with the gazelle and given it a blow to one of it's legs. It could not escape.

Now, the cheetah could have just killed it anytime it liked at this point. But, instead, it decided to just sit by it. Anytime the gazelle tried to get away - which was impossible as the gazelle wasn't able to run - the cheetah just gave a quick swipe of it's claw and kept it from going anywhere.

From my point of view, it almost looked like it was playing with it. It could have finished the kill at any point, but instead it would just stop it from escaping by ripping more and more chunks into the animals flesh.

 

...now, to many people, that may look like 'evil'. Sure, the cheetah has to kill the gazelle and eat it to survive. We can all understand that. But does it have to make it a prolonged death? Why did it have to play with it, and cause it unnessesary distress and agony?

 

THe fact is that 'good' or 'evil' probably has nothing to do with it.

 

Maybe the cheetah was just plain tired from the chase and was just too tired to finish the kill at that point.

Maybe more probable is that in some way the cheeath found the occasional movment to attack stimulating - in the same way a cat will attack a string dangled in front of it. It's not sitting there thinking "wow - I LOVE hurting this poor, defenseless gazelle", but it's got inbuilt instincts which tell it to perform an attack dependant on particular stimuli.

 

When the gazelle was running, it's in full hunt mode.

 

If the cheetah had killed the gazelle instantly during the hunt, then the gazelle would be dead, hence no movement, and the cheetah would not torture it, but go ahead and eat it.

 

But in this case the gazelle wasn't killed instantly, so it was still moving. BUt it wasn't moving properly, which meant it became something different to the cheetah. It was no longer prey to be hunted, it was just a stimuli - just like a ball of string. Almost like target practice...

 

The moral of the story - some of the things we catagorise as 'good' or 'evil' are only to do with our 'viewpoint' of the truth.

 

To say that there cannot be a loving God because of suffering is a close-minded statement. However, to say you don't understand what purpose the suffering has is a very legitimate statement.

 

I accept that point. God could be so more intelligent and have such a better view of the world than us, that his 'righteous' a nd 'just' actions could appear otherwise to our mortal minds.

...that's possible.

 

Or, another possibility is that we like to have someone to blame when things go wrong.

If my house get's blown away in a hurricane, I can shout at God and say 'WHY GOD!!'. When in fact, a hurricane is just a certain type of weather system. It has no intent, no conciense - it can't say 'I think - therefore I am'...

Also, HIV / AIDS could be just a natural phenomonem - not designed or inflicted by any 'God'.

 

So - I think we can conclude that since these two possibilities exist, and we can't really tell the difference between the two, because God's actions may be so incomprihensible to us, that looking at 'natural' phenomenen and trying to imply 'God like meaning' into them isn't going to be a very accurate way of determining the existance or non-existence of God.

 

...but many christians, particularly on this forum, are going to continue trying anyway...

 

You can't say that someone's having a disease is a punishment for their own sin, that sounds like Karma to me. I'm not saying that God has never punished anyone directly by seemingly natural means, but that cannot account for absolutely all diseases and suffering.

 

Thanks Rainer511. You've done the side of christianity justice by making that point clear.

 

Here is an example, sexual immorality. He knows that in the world he created if you go having sex with every person you meet there is a good chance you’re going to be suffering, so he tells us not to.

 

OK, first of all I'll skip by the obvious exxaduration. (even the Rolling Stones haven't slept with EVERY SINGLE WOMAN they have met!! )

 

And let me make one thing clear, I think it's fairly admariable to wait until your married to have sex.

 

I'm still intreaged by this idea, though, that people who engage in sex outside of marriage are 'going to suffer'. If you mean in the afterlife, well - ok, you can believe that if you like.

But if you mean within their lifetime, I would like to know how you come to this conclusion...

 

Even when I was a 'believer' in Christianity, and I thought also that sex before marriage was wrong, I never thought that sexual sinners were going to have a bad time here on Earth! In fact, I was thinking quite the opposite!!

I always thought that they were going to get their 'payback' in the next life.

 

Why are these people 'bound to suffer' here? Please explain...

 

Once we sinned, God had a problem. The nature of an 'all powerful' being is that he cannot contradict himself. God cannot be in the presence of Sin. The payment for sin is death, not only mere physical death but also spiritual death. So what is God to do? He is a loving God, but at the same time He is a righteous God. His very nature destroys the sinful, but the people He loves are sinful. The answer? He sends His Son down in bodily form...

 

...The righteousness of God was fulfilled with his sacrifice, and now the loving God is free to accept all who ask for forgiveness.

 

Well Rainer, that's a nice story. I know that probably sounds sarcastic, but I'm actually not being.

 

No, I don't believe that story is true - don't get me wrong.

 

But as a story, it is beautiful. An all-powerful God putting himself through all that pain and torture because he loves his 'children' so much. It's a lovely story, and I can see how it gives you hope and makes you feel better about the world.

 

And let me get something else clear - my objective isn't to just rip down the idea of this story for you.

There are SO many aspects of Christianity which in my view are GOOD and worthy of note.

 

MY objective is to stop Christians going up to homosexuals and telling them they have to repent for the 'sin' of being homosexual.

 

MY objective is to stop Christians going up to Hindu's, Muslims and Buddists and telling them they have to throw away their 'false' religion and join the only true one - Christianity.

 

These kind of actions are damaging. Christians disagree - of course they would.

Christ told them they can do this, so who am I?

 

The only way I can convey my viewpoint is to point out that maybe everything in the Bible isn't 'literal' truth. Maybe you are blindly following teachings which were never 'divine'...

 

Unfortunately, to get that viewpoint across, I end up having to upset people.

...but don't you think the kind of Christian actions I've just listed above are also causing 'upset'?!

 

btw - it's always interesting how some Christians can be so quick to 'rip down' the belief systems of other religions and cultures, and then get SO defensive and offended once their own is given a bit of rational inspection...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Rainer511

If there is no God, then why is there good in the world? ... If we are inherently good then why is there evil? If we are inherently evil then why is there good?

 

Concepts of "good" and "evil" are human constructs... most likely. Only humans think in terms of good and evil, but we apply it not only to ourselves but to other animate and inanimate objects. Black cats, bears who attack people who attempt to feed them, Bengal tigers that attack their handlers in front of thousands, and a myriad of natural and manmade objects that are deamed "evil" by various cultures (inluding christian cultures).

 

Typically, we observe what we perceive as an altruistic action, and assign a level of "goodness" to it, depending upon the level of altruism: a cub scout helping an old lady cross a street or a mother jumping in a freezing river to save her child where both perish. In this example you can plainly see which is more altruistic. However, I would argue that there are very, very few actual acts of altruism in nature... including in man.

 

The cub scout had an alterior motive: earn a badge. The mother had an alterior motive as well (albeit one that was most likely instinctive): perpetuate her genome. If her child dies, her DNA goes with it.

 

So, as you can see, there is only selfishness at work, even if some selfish behaviors are more preferable to others... say robbing a bank and killing the guard so you can take home the money.

 

The difference is that with homo sapiens sapies, a species of animal that is aware of the fact that it is self-aware, much more thinking occurs as to "why" things happen or occur. We need reasons. So when we observe someone in an apparently "selfless" act, we choose not to consider reciprocity or the instinct to promote our DNA by protecting our offspring. We say, "that's a good deed."

 

When we observe someone acting "selfishly" in order to get what they want, we call them "wrong," "selfish," and "evil." Depending on the level of selfishness. The bank robber might very well be trying to feed his family... or perhaps he is trying to buy nice things for himself. The latter reason would, theoretically, make him an attractive mate... so, again, he could further his own genome.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

You could say that you don't believe the human being is inherently good or evil, but then you have another problem. If what we do and what we think are a set of highly evolved instincts then why is there any sense of morality?

 

We are animals with instincts... I don't think many would disagree with that. But we also have the ability to choose courses of action beyond our instinct should societal norms and rules dictate. My instinct is to drive home as fast as possible after a long day at work... society says that I cannot drive faster than the posted limit.

 

In addition, many societal and cultural norms in the world have evolved as a direct means of ensuring the survival of the society or culture. So again... an example of "selfishness" within morality. A contemporary example might be laws against homicide. If people were to kill when they felt it benefited themselves or their family, entire cultures would be at risk... look at Israel / Palestine for evidence of this.

 

However... there are cultures, even today, that practice things like infanticide in order that their society might continue to flourish. The Yanomamo of the Amazon River Basin in S. America is an example of this. They have a protein deficiency among their people... too many people and the society cannot sustain itself. Too few hunters and the society cannot sustain itself. So as an answer, only a certain number of female infants are permitted to be born per year. This is considered to be moral and just by Yanomamo standards.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Rainer511

Is Satan omnipotent? No. Is Satan omnipresent? No. Is Satan omniscient?

 

Assuming that a "satan" exists (which I do not, btw), why wouldn't he be omnipotent? How can he/she/it do the things mentioned in the bible if he/she/it didn't have boundless supernatural power?

 

And if this being's supernatural powers are bounded, what are the boundaries? Can satan appear in my home? My job? How does satan tempt the righteous if he only has a cubicle in some depth of the Earth near the core?

 

The more I study christian mythology through the lens of a non-christian (something I was unable to do just over a decade ago), the more I see a huge web of symbology and metaphor that, over the centuries, has been taken as fact. As symbology and metaphor, christianity is a beautiful and fascinating mythology. As a literal fact, it is a deleterious belief system to non-christian cultures that have been, and will become, victims of extortion and exploitation in the world.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

SkinWalker,

 

Well said.

 

You've done a much better job of explaining 'good' and 'evil' as man-made concepts than I did

[Thrackan Solo]

GOOD LORD! COULD WE HAVE ANYMORE THREADS ON CHRISTIANITY?!?!

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by Rainer511

If there is no God, then why is there good in the world? Before you scoff at my question, think about it.

Ok I thought about it and it makes no sence that you said that at all? Hmm "there is good in the world so there has to be a god" you're saying?

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

If we are inherently good then why is there evil? If we are inherently evil then why is there good?

Are you really reading what you type? Seriously are you? Nothing is inherently evil or good it's all based on your point of view. I'm sure a Muslim terrorist bombing a store doesn't think he is doing evil does he? Nope he thinks he is doing something good and just? Evil and Good depends on your own personal views and that of the culture you live in.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

You could say that you don't believe the human being is inherently good or evil, but then you have another problem. If what we do and what we think are a set of highly evolved instincts then why is there any sense of morality?

Where do you get this stuff? Next time separate it into paragraphs so it's easer for me to break down and rip apart. Morality for anyone I pretty much covered above. What's moral to you isn't moral to me. It all depends on the individual's point of view.

 

{Example (1)} From my point of view being a christian is immoral possibly even evil. It is against my heart and morals to be a christian.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

Also is it wise to automatically assume the existence of a loving God is an impossibility based on the suffering in the world?

Hmm so people make mistakes, get born in bad situations, and starve blah blah blah What does this have to do with god? That is just the nature of being human.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

You're judging the infinite with a finite mind. Here is an analogy I read. A hunter catches a bear in a bear trap. He feels compassion for the bear, and attempts to let him free. The man approaches, and the bear becomes hostile and won't let him get close enough to help. Why? The bear thinks the man is attacking him. The man then shoots the bear full of drugs so that he can help him, and the bear again, being shot, thinks he is still under attack. You would not expect a bear to understand the logic of the man, neither should you expect man to understand the logic of God. To say that there cannot be a loving God because of suffering is a close-minded statement. However, to say you don't understand what purpose the suffering has is a very legitimate statement.

The only thing infinite here is christian imagination. I love all the copouts that christians throw in the mix to justify unjustifiable things. No mater what the argument or statement of fact nothing in christianity needs proof not one thing. When bad things happen to me I don't blame god, because for (1) it doesn't exist. (2) I most likely did something stupid and got myself into the situation. (3) It was unstoppable. If I fined out I have cancer tomorrow. It has nothing to do with god or anything I did right or wrong. That's just the nature of things. Bad genetics, bad environment, or whatever it may be? Some things in life don't need to be justified you have to except them and move on.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

God created the world, and it was good. There was no suffering, and there was no sin. God created man, and gave him a choice in whether or not he would follow Him. God wants man to love Him. The only way for there to be love is if there is a choice to hate, there cannot be love without choice. In this God created the possibility for sin. Satan wants to destroy God, but he can’t. Instead he takes to destroying humans by tempting man into sin. Where does suffering come from? Sexual immorality, humans torturing other humans, hurtful things that people say-these are things that cause a form of suffering. These things are also considered sinful. Before you go accusing me of contradicting myself, please realize I’m trying to say that suffering is a product of sin, but not necessarily a punishment for sin. I’m not saying that torturing someone will cause you to have suffering, but that torturing someone causes suffering. I think people here are looking at it the wrong way. Here is an example, sexual immorality. He knows that in the world he created if you go having sex with every person you meet there is a good chance you’re going to be suffering, so he tells us not to. If you told a child not to touch the stove and they did it and got burnt, are their burnt fingers a punishment for not listening to their parents? I wouldn’t think so.

Are all christians inherently masochistic? They are always telling about how sinful people are and how we needed to be punished. I read someone on this forum state that "a son is responsible for their father's sins" or something like that. If that is true all christians are going to hell. Christians have committed some really nasty atrocities in the past.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

I will openly admit to having a dependancy on Christ. However this is different from an alcoholics dependancy. If you had a good friend who helped you through troubled times, who was always there for you when you needed it, in a sense you depend upon that person. This is the dependancy that I have with Christ. And in another sense I depend upon Him in the arena of eternity.

So you are schizophrenic too? What ever gets you threw the day. By the way at the hospital I work at. We got a person in last night claiming to have been crucified and was Jesus "NO JOKE". Maybe it's your friend and you're not a schizophrenic? How about this? Ever thought about growing as a person and being independent or does the idea of truley being alone really scare the crap out of you?

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

Once we sinned, God had a problem. The nature of an 'all powerful' being is that he cannot contradict himself. God cannot be in the presence of Sin. The payment for sin is death, not only mere physical death but also spiritual death. So what is God to do? He is a loving God, but at the same time He is a righteous God. His very nature destroys the sinful, but the people He loves are sinful. The answer? He sends His Son down in bodily form, and He goes around, spreading God’s Word. Satan sees this, and what a chance! God has put His only Son in Satan’s domain-now Jesus has to play by his rules! Satan uses Pilot, Herod, and other political leaders to try and kill Him. With Herod he fails, but he ultimately triumphs-and oh what a triumph it was. Not only did he kill Him, but he did so in glorious fashion. Humiliation, suffering, a cry to his father, the works! Wait a minute, he’s taking on the sins of the world, and in doing this anyone who asks can have forgiveness through him. Satan can no longer take souls with him to hell so easily, but who cares? Satan just killed the embodiment of God, who in their right mind would believe in a God who died at the hands of mortals, even if he was in bodily form. But to Satan’s dismay Jesus visited hell for merely three days before breaking out resurrected affirming his deity. The righteousness of God was fulfilled with his sacrifice, and now the loving God is free to accept all who ask for forgiveness.

Is this a debate forum or Sunday School class? Might as well give up if you think your going to turn me with fairy tells and myth. You might have better lock scaring someone else with your stories, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by Rainer511

Also remember, before you comment, my logic should only be consider that of an alcoholic. I am unwise and irrational, for my faith blinds me from the truth. Be sure to use small words, for you wouldn’t want to confuse an idiotic Christian bigot like myself. And if you cannot see this as utter sarcasm then you have no right to be posting here.

The first part is the only thing you have said that makes sense to bad you were being sarcastic.

 

I will continue comparing christians to similar things "like alcoholics." In this post I will compare them to a 5 year old kid. Allot of the things christians use to prove god exists are questions a 5yr old kid might ask their father.... Like the ones I was asked above.....

 

Daddy where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going?.... Well son you came out of your mother one night. It was a real mess and she said she was never doing it again. Why are you here Hmm well the condom broke. :/ As far as where your going? To college I hope, but not if you keep asking people stupid questions instead of using common sence.

 

Humanity won't get out of kindergarten unless we throw away our religious back packs.

 

"Rainer511"

If you think I'm not takeing you serious you just might be right.

Here is a nice site for you to study so you can get to 1st grade in humanity.....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[lukeskywalker1]

You know, i talked to this guy the other day, and he was reading a book about the 4th demension. Anyways, he was talking about how a person in the 4th demension could (we were eating lunch at the time) could take my milk carton thingy and remove the milk, and the carton could be untouched. So i got to thinking (i know something like this has been said before) anyways, i thought MAYBE thats heaven? I mean, Maybe just God has that power.... i mean, that would be a good explanation of things in the bible.

 

GOOD LORD! COULD WE HAVE ANYMORE THREADS ON CHRISTIANITY?!?!

 

lol, this most likley wont be last It never ends....

[Homuncul]

When parents say to their children that they don't know anything cos they are so young, children would never admitt that. they would disagree. They would try to argue with them only later understanding how right their parents were. Partly and in a bit different form the problem is presented on this debate, I guess.

 

I'd like to test it so I would like everyone here to post his age and his position, whether he's christian or agnostic or whatever. I know the age of almost everyone here, it's just I want everyone to see it.

 

P.S. I'm 20 and I'm something not too far from agnostic.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Age: 29

Viewpoint: Agnostic (was bought up with 'Christian' beliefs)

[weiderudare]

Age: 15

Position: I don't belive in God. Atheist.(Its something like that right?)

 

 

My view of God.

God is of course something created by mankind itself, in our goal to find security.

The human can't handle the fact that we are in fact, alone and no one will never know about us. There are no one who watches over us and knows that we exists.

That's the reason God was "Created"

There is no God, just face it.

 

The most interesting is, as that the evidences against God raises, the number of belivers drops.

Instead, the number of UFO sigthings has raised. Especially in USA, where there are many belivers.

 

UFO is like a new religion. People worshiping the aliens, once again sure that we are not alone, there are someone who knows that we exists. And that makes us calm.

Think about it would you?

[El Sitherino]

Age:16

Belief: Agnostic buddhist.

 

I don't really know what to believe, I read all the books about god being just and kind and what have you, just sometimes, things happen that make that seem a lie. Not to mention just some personal observations I make about the world around me that makes it seem as though if there was a god the entity itself is unperfect. I would like to believe there is an afterlife also, after having lost many people close to me, but I just find it hard. When I hang out with my friends, whom are all different religions, we talk about our beliefs, but we do it where it doesn't get personal, because we don't force our thoughts on eachother. anyway, I was brought up in a very liberal household, I was raised Liberal Lutheran, I lost one of my best friends at the age of 7, just a year after I lost my opa.

 

I still hold views and morals of tolerance and kindness towards others, many of all the buddhist beliefs.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Of all religious outlooks, I personally find Buddism to be the most appealing to me. Not to say I believe it, or follow it, but hypothetically, if I - for some reason - HAD to follow a religion, it would be Buddism.

 

(It is also interesting to note that you can find many parallels between Buddist teachings and the teachings of Christ. This is especially evident when noting the differences between Christian teachings and Judaism.

In fact, I'm very confident that Jesus was influenced by Buddism in some way, but I won't go to much further into that - I've already push things too far as it is! )

 

Buddists, from what i know, have the least bloody history. They are also overall the most tolerent of other beliefs and customs.

And I find buddist teachings to be the most enlightening and morally pure overall when compared to other religions.

 

I particularly find the notion of sending good-natured, practicing Buddists to hell particularly non-sensical and ridiculous. This is not to say that sending good-natured people from other religions to hell is any less 'crazy', but somehow Buddists seem to emphasise this point for me.

 

The last thing on a (typical) Buddists mind is to harm another being in any way - under any circumstances, or inflict their belief system and culture onto others. And yet they are destined to have their skin eternally burnt from their bodies in hell...?!

 

Sorry - just don't buy it!

Or even if it's true, I would rather burn with the Buddists than spend 2 seconds in the presense of a God who would allow such injustice and stupidity to be possible...

[Master_Keralys]

Somewhere between childhood and adulthood. Well enough read to know the difference between fantasy and reality, with enough friends who have turned away to see why. Still a Christian.

 

Question: Just because you can't understand something, does that make it less real? For example, we didn't understand stars for most of history. We didn't understand on a molecular level why people die of cancer for most of time. That didn't mean they didn't work. Now, I am admitting that God is a different issue, beyond science (for there is a definitive line between science and theology). However, I still wish to ask: Just because you can't understand God or his plans, does that make him less a reality?

 

Think of a massive tapesty. Think of the back of a tapesty. If anyone here has ever seen it, it's flat out ugly. It has to be; to attain the beauty of the front requires complexity that by definition would ruin the appearance of the front.

 

That's called life. But with the assumption that the Bible is true in its account of creation (I'm not saying it is or isn't, this isn't that debate), the mess we're in is not God's fault. It's ours. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about can go read the account of the fall of man in Genesis. So quit whining about that making God fallible. It doesn't. It makes us fallible. And don't argue with my logic, I stated at the beginning the assumption operated on; many of you will not agree with that assumption, but that's all you can disagree with about that statement.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Master_Keralys,

 

I have no problem discussing Christian teachings within the 'theoretical' domain...

 

..so yes, ASSUMING that the Bible is the Word Of God etc...

 

...things went wrong at the time Eve was tempted by Satan, Eve convinced Adam to partake of the Tree Of Knowledge which meant God had to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden etc. etc....

 

fine.

 

But what the HELL does that have to do with - for example - modern-day Buddists who are only living the way they were taught to live...?

 

In the end, all the technicalities Christians like to bring up, like the basic sinful nature of man, the blood sacrifice of Christ being the only way to overcome that blah blah blah are just that - technicalities! They don't overcome the sheer, blatent unfairness of the situation.

 

...and believe me, half-arsed analogies about tapestries don't cut it!!

 

Please accept that people of other faiths are no different to you in the sense that they are just living what they have been taught, in the same way that YOU live the way that Christianity teaches YOU to live.

 

If you approach a Buddist and say 'You need to believe in Christianity', they would have no desire to 'bash' your beliefs, but many - in fact MOST - will repsectfully tell you that they are happy and content with their own beliefs.

 

It is actually quite unlikely a Buddist is going to approach a Christian and tell you 'You have to become a Buddist', because their beliefs don't involve converting the whole world to Buddism.

But, theoretically, if they did - would you suddenly just give up your beliefs and become a Buddist?!

 

...exactly! So accept that without the Buddist having 'ultimate' knowledge somehow FORCED upon their brain, they are just as 'right' in rejecting 'Christianity' as you are of rejecting 'Buddism'.

 

So in the end, Buddists, or good people from other religions who do not convert to Christianity - eventually only go to hell because they somehow did not have the 'insight' to realise the things they were taught from day 1 were somehow less true than the things you were taught from day 1.

 

Christianity being the only way to heaven is kind of like being in a test with - say - 10 different question papers. Before you even get to answer any of the questions, you have to decide WHICH paper is the one you should be working by in the first place.

If you - by sheer bad luck - choose the wrong paper to answer, then in the end it doesn't matter how well you answer the questions (i.e. how good a life you lead), in the end the examiner says:

 

'What a shame, you answered the questions very well, but unfortunately you chose the wrong question sheet'.

 

The examinee might reply : 'But, how was I suppost to know WHICH paper was actually the correct one? Sure, there were a load of people saying the Christian paper was the right one, but all the poeple that i knew were telling me the Buddist paper was the one I was suppost to be answering...'

 

The examiner shrugs his shoulders and says 'Sorry son, that's just the way it is. If your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather hadn't have pissed me off, things could have been fairer - but, this is the way the cookie crumbles my lad!'

 

THe examinee - being a Buddist - would probably ironically try and see the best in the situation. 'Oh well, at least those nice Christians were lucky and got into heaven'.

 

The examiner smiles 'Ahh - that's nice of you' - he said, just before he pulls the trapdoor lever...

 

 

In the end, you can try and explain all the 'technicalities' behind the idea that people from other religions NEED to go to hell, but honestly, you may as well save your breath.

 

If God does not have the power to make the entry into heaven 'FAIR', then I can hardly think of him as omnipotent. He's at best a demi-god in my eyes...

 

Or maybe you would like to propose it only seems unfair to my limited mortal mind. Perhaps from God's point of view that seems perfectly fair...

 

...maybe you have a point. From my view, ants are just little dots. As long as they don't bother me, I don't bother them. However, iIf they start trapsing around my flat (though no fault of their own mind - they are just following their instincts), I don't hesitate in poisoning them.

 

...maybe Buddists have no more meaning to biblical god than ants do to me...

[Cosmos Jack]

Age: 24

Belief: Scientific Pantheist

 

Scientific Pantheist isn't exactly how I feel, but it is closer to it than anything else.

 

I'm also know as a Evil Devil Pagan, heathen, sinner, and supporter of small woodland creatures all over the world. I'll stop on the road pick up a turtle before I'll stop to pick up a christian.

 

Christianity has always puzzled me. I remember being real young and telling my mother "it doesn't make any sense. Why do people think that way?" She didn't have an answer.

 

So as I got older and had to deal with them more and more. I read about their history and all the wonderful things christians have done. All the wonderful things they are doing now. I made my own answer and it's not pretty.

[ShockV1.89]

Age: 22

 

Agnostic

 

Mostly because I think going in either extreme is not wise... most religious people I know barely take the time to learn about their own religion, and when they do, they learn from biased sources (pastors, etc).

 

And atheists, I believe, are foolish in thinking themselves so knowledgable that they can come to a solid conclusion that there is no supreme being out there. There may very well be one, be it Christian or Muslim, or whatever. Maybe it hasnt even presented itself to anyone. But if it is that supreme and doesnt wish to be contacted, for whatever reason, then there's no way we're going to know about it.

 

Me, I simply take the middle ground and say: "I dont know. I can't know. I wont pretend to know. I'm not going to say that I know for the sake of eternal salvation, because in my heart of hearts, I still am not sure, and probably never will be. When I die and find out, I'll make up my mind, and if there is a God, he/she/it will know as well as I do that, according to how I was made as a human being, this is the only way it could be, and I dont think I would be punished for it. But until then, I don't know."

[lukeskywalker1]

It's not like the christians buring people didn't know they were doing wrong or when they were comenting genocide on the Native Amerians?

 

True, they knew right from wrong, but they chose wrong. Let God deal with them. Ive thought about it, and they comitted several sins, but who am i to judge them?

 

*****

 

 

When i post, im talking about people in general (lets get that straight) Im talking about you (unless i make a reference to you) Im not talking about your loved ones, or friends, or just people around you. It would be impossible for me to make examples for every situation, because there are just to many. I still believe things happen for a reason, whether good or bad. Bad things can turn out good, whether you see it or not.

 

The examinee might reply : 'But, how was I suppost to know WHICH paper was actually the correct one? Sure, there were a load of people saying the Christian paper was the right one, but all the poeple that i knew were telling me the Buddist paper was the one I was suppost to be answering...'

 

The way to know is the bible (of course, if you dont believe, or have never read it, then i dont know. And if you dont believe, or have any intentions on being a christian, why would you except for pleasure reading?) When i say pleasure reading, i dont mean making jokes etc.... i mean, like you would watch a movie, or just an everyday book.

 

 

Mostly because I think going in either extreme is not wise... most religious people I know barely take the time to learn about their own religion, and when they do, they learn from biased sources (pastors, etc).

 

Of course, talk to a paster, it sounds awesome, talk to someone who doesnt believe it, it may or may not sound good, it just depends on the person. They might not know anything about it, or they may know a lot about it, and they can form there own interpretation. Anyways, the history (in my opinion) doesnt matter, a whole lot. You see, the rest of the christians are not responsible for how other christians live there lives, or what they do. Its not our fault, its not God's fault, or the religions. Its the individuals who do the wrong doings that are at fault. As for christians, the history that is needed is the bible. It doesnt matter what other people have done. Im sure athiests or other people have done wrong things, even buddhists. They are human, humans sin... or do wrong doings. If you go about it like that, then whats the point of anything, because every system is corrupted by the sins of a few people.

 

If God does not have the power to make the entry into heaven 'FAIR', then I can hardly think of him as omnipotent. He's at best a demi-god in my eyes...

 

Dont look at this from your perspective, if God is real, then look at it like this, its his "place" He lets in who he wants and who he doesnt want. If knocked on your door tonight would you let me in? I dont know..... but anyways, not saying you have, but there are people who have said bad things about God, that no person would want to be called, or had been said about. If God is real, why would he allow them in? Forget about the rest, just think about that really fast. Of course i know the you were talking about buddhists, but im talking about people in general.

 

 

BTW:

 

age: 15

 

Christian (raised... God was mentioned, but not really thought about. You know, the people who say they believe in God, but really dont care about it.... truthfully, i hadnt even heard about christianity!)

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

True, they knew right from wrong, but they chose wrong. Let God deal with them. Ive thought about it, and they comitted several sins, but who am i to judge them?

 

Posted at a pantheist web site...

"The God of Christianity can forgive a lifetime of destructive egotism even on the deathbed. The tribunal of descendants, and of the natural world, will not."

 

These people will always be remembered for who they were. They are dead and can do nothing to reverse their actions even if they wanted. The only punishment they are able to get is the judgment their descendents pass on them.. We are our own judge, jury, and executioners.

 

There is no higher power waiting for us when we die to send us to hell or whatever.. If we don't keep ourselves in check nobody will. Fear and idealizing in false gods doesn't last..

 

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

And atheists, I believe, are foolish in thinking themselves so knowledgable that they can come to a solid conclusion that there is no supreme being out there.

 

You know once I had a christian tell me "You should believe in god, because it is better to be safe than sorry." Are you one of the types that don't want to take to one side or the other, because you mined tells you one thing, but you're afraid to be wrong?

 

There was time when people didn't know why it rained. They didn't know why the wind blew or what it really was. They didn't know why they were here or why they died? This was all answered by personifying human ideas into a higher power. "If we don't know there has to be something smarter and more powerful that does." All cultures invented gods to answer their questions for them.. The odd thing is they answered their own questions. Most answers were wrong, but they were answers..

 

We know allot of the answers now.. We still don't know why we are here. My idea is there is no reason why we are here and it doesn't matter, because not everything needs a justifiable reason or has one. "Except it and move on." I make my own purpose in life. There is no god that did it for me before I was born.

 

I believe anyone that thinks we are special or above all life is foolish and arrogant. If any of you need to think you're a Oscar Myer wiener when you wake up in the morning have at it. Think you are special. People are nothing but hairless talking apes with delusions of grandeur.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Dont look at this from your perspective, if God is real, then look at it like this, its his "place" He lets in who he wants and who he doesnt want. If knocked on your door tonight would you let me in? I dont know..... but anyways, not saying you have, but there are people who have said bad things about God, that no person would want to be called, or had been said about. If God is real, why would he allow them in? Forget about the rest, just think about that really fast. Of course i know the you were talking about buddhists, but im talking about people in general.

 

It's entirely different. It's like creating a child and kicking him out on his own. Except even worse. There's a difference between letting a stranger in, and letting your OWN CHILD(Which we are to God, according to the Bible) in.

 

Also, I like to ask something. What exactly are "we" to God? Jesus has been considered his only son, so what does that make us? Illegitimate children? Pets? Test Subjects?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

The way to know is the bible (of course, if you dont believe, or have never read it, then i dont know. And if you dont believe, or have any intentions on being a christian, why would you except for pleasure reading?) When i say pleasure reading, i dont mean making jokes etc.... i mean, like you would watch a movie, or just an everyday book.

 

Luke,

 

Believe whatever you like. It doesn't bother me anymore. And I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore.

 

To you, I am hopelessly blasphemous, and am therefore blinded to the TRUTH.

To me, you are hopelessly irrational and therefore, are blinded to the TRUTH.

In this situation, conversation is useless...

 

It's nothing personal, I just don't hold conversations with irrational people. If I wanted to do that, I'd go visit my local mental hospital for a chin-wag.

(..you know, where all the sexual sinners are kept!)

 

You've totally missed the point of my last post. I mean, you haven't just disagreed, or tried to counter - the points I've made have just completely flown straight over your head.

 

You simply cannot concieve of the idea that to people of other religions (or no religion), the Bible IS JUST A BOOK, nothing more. (The same way the Koran, or the Gita is just another book to you)

And more importantly, these people are not evil and DO NOT deserve an eternity of torture -they just have minds and hearts of their own, just like you have - it's that bloody simple.

 

I DON'T CARE if you believe it or even HAVE THE ABILITY to see it - it's a point that has the right to be debated, and yet you won't even engage on the topic, because the very TOPIC ITSELF offends your faith.

 

The bottom line is your getting out of your depth here...

 

You want to believe in the Bible, and Christianity? Fine - go right ahead. Just please don't pretend to get involved in supposedly 'rational' debates and then debate in an irrational manner. It's a complete waste of everybody's time.

 

...I for one am not going to spend my precious time sending back logical counter-points to your arguments which I know are falling on deaf, irrational ears.

 

There are others on this board who I hope can engage me rationally, but your not one of them I'm afraid...

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Of course, talk to a paster, it sounds awesome, talk to someone who doesnt believe it, it may or may not sound good, it just depends on the person. They might not know anything about it, or they may know a lot about it, and they can form there own interpretation. Anyways, the history (in my opinion) doesnt matter, a whole lot. You see, the rest of the christians are not responsible for how other christians live there lives, or what they do. Its not our fault, its not God's fault, or the religions. Its the individuals who do the wrong doings that are at fault. As for christians, the history that is needed is the bible. It doesnt matter what other people have done. Im sure athiests or other people have done wrong things, even buddhists. They are human, humans sin... or do wrong doings. If you go about it like that, then whats the point of anything, because every system is corrupted by the sins of a few people.

 

 

I'm not saying that the history of christianity has anything to do with it. You're right, modern christians have nothing to do with ancient christians massive crimes against humanity.

 

What I'm saying is that few people can come up with a more convicincing reason to be Christian than "Because the bible says so." The entire religion is based around a book that I just dont trust.

 

Although in truth, my post was aimed at all religions, not just Christianity. There's just too much going against religion, in general, for me to believe without a doubt that there is a God or that he/she/it is involved in our lives.

 

Cosmos Jack, it's not a matter of me being afraid of being wrong. It's just that I don't know if there is a God or not. My mind is not telling me one thing and I'm afraid of it, because my mind has not made up its mind. Trust me, I wish it was just me being afraid of being wrong. But I'm not going to make up my mind on this until I know for sure.

[lukeskywalker1]

You've totally missed the point of my last post. I mean, you haven't just disagreed, or tried to counter - the points I've made have just completely flown straight over your head.

 

You simply cannot concieve of the idea that to people of other religions (or no religion), the Bible IS JUST A BOOK, nothing more. (The same way the Koran, or the Gita is just another book to you)

And more importantly, these people are not evil and DO NOT deserve an eternity of torture -they just have minds and hearts of their own, just like you have - it's that bloody simple.

 

 

I understood what you were saying. Must i say "I understood it" for you to know...?

 

To you, I am hopelessly blasphemous, and am therefore blinded to the TRUTH.

To me, you are hopelessly irrational and therefore, are blinded to the TRUTH.

In this situation, conversation is useless...

 

Lets just get this into the open, how many people would actually change? Other people here have said they wont turn to christianity, but i still talk to them. Id say your being irrational by "ignoring" people who dont think the way you do. In fact, id say your not up to the challenge of turning me from my "ignorant" ways, so your giving up.

 

 

 

The point of the debate is to convince the other person your right. All the evidence you have shown is something id just simply have to take YOUR word for. Im not saying its wrong, but still. The same with me, if you did decide to change, it would be based on "evidence" that ive shown, but the problem is, you wouldnt know it to be true, you would have to take my word for it.

 

 

And dont forget, the debate is being talked as if God is real, Not if he isnt.

 

 

You simply cannot concieve of the idea that to people of other religions (or no religion), the Bible IS JUST A BOOK, nothing more. (The same way the Koran, or the Gita is just another book to you)

And more importantly, these people are not evil and DO NOT deserve an eternity of torture -they just have minds and hearts of their own, just like you have - it's that bloody simple.

 

I DON'T CARE if you believe it or even HAVE THE ABILITY to see it - it's a point that has the right to be debated, and yet you won't even engage on the topic, because the very TOPIC ITSELF offends your faith.

 

I see it, but your not God, you dont make the rules. And hey, you dont believe in God, so it doesnt affect you. What do you have to fear, or the buddhists? They dont believe it.

 

 

Also, I like to ask something. What exactly are "we" to God? Jesus has been considered his only son, so what does that make us? Illegitimate children? Pets? Test Subjects?

 

Interesting... I wish I knew the answere... 1 thing i know is, he ment to create us... (this is assuming he is real) So were not illegitimate children. Pets, i doubt that, just because if were pets, i doubt God would have put up with us for this long. Test subjects, i dont know... Tough question. Im not God, how should i know?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

This is my final reply to you Luke.

I will need to wait for rational people to reply before I will rejoin the debate.

 

I'm still willing to discuss Christianity with many people on this board. Rainer511 and Kurgan are obvious examples.

 

Maybe you beleive Kurgan isn't as 'fundamental' as you would like, but Rainer511, from what I can tell - has just as firm beliefs as you do.

 

The difference is, Rainer511 is still willing to hold a rational discussion - you are not.

 

Get in your head Luke - it's not Christianity I'm not willing to discuss, I just don't discuss anything of a vaguely serious nature with irrational people.

That in itself would be an irrational act.

 

I have no interest in trying to convincing you of anything. my only interest is in the truth.

I actually think it's best you just stay in your imaginary world, where the Bible is unquestionable, and sexual sinners are loonies.

 

Anytime I bring up rational arguments to you, I feel like I'm about to make a 5-year old cry by trying to tell them there isn't a Santa Claus...

 

If it makes you feel better to think I have given up in 'convincing' you, then you can do, because you are right.

...I think I'd have more of a chance of teaching algebra to a chimpanzee.