Official Christianity thread part 2

[Smokey D]

Same deal as last time. Questions or comments about Christianity or God go in here. It's probably best if comments about philosophical conceptions of God go here as well. Common sense rules apply, so no bashing or antagonizing people about their beliefs. Generally, I'm pretty relaxed about the rules, for the sake of discussion, but I will enforce them more strictly here.

[Mr. Ron]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

[Smokey D]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

I never believed.

[Mr. Ron]

I never believed.
Non-religious household or just saw it fro what it always was?

[Reaganista]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?
it took years

[Smokey D]

Not a religious household, but I did go to Bible class in school for a few years and I went to a Catholic school throughout my teens. Religion just never occurred to me as something I needed to get into.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah I was a pretty strong believer until I hit the 6th grade. I actually at one point prayed to Satan for whatever reason lol. I would say I became a full fledged atheist in like, the 8th grade. I went to private religious schools for 7 years.

[italic zero]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?
I've never been to church.

[Mr. Ron]

I've never been to church.

You lucky bitch. ;_;


I only set foot in one because the family wants to go to holiday masses. I have to hand it to whoever built my church though, beautiful architecture.

[Already_Taken]

Many of the most beautiful buildings in the world are houses of worship.

[italic zero]

well sure i've been in plenty of churches and cathedrals

[Reaganista]

i used to go to church religiously

[Iskandar]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?I lost interest in it as I grew up.

[Mr. Ron]

I lost interest in it as I grew up.

Same, actually. Christianity in itself is very very boring.

[Iskandar]

Same, actually. Christianity in itself is very very boring.It wasn't that so much, although Mass is especially boring to a child. It was that I felt no real need for religion in my life, so as I grew older I came to reject what I had been taught more and more.

[AA-12]

I realized that trying to learn and make yourself closer to "god" and christianity is pointless and letting out your inner faith and delving deeper into what's already there is how you become a better person.

[lunchforthesky]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

Mum in a (British) Christian and Dad is an atheist. Can't say I ever believed.

[TheDarkHorse]

Same, actually. Christianity in itself is very very boring.

how can you make such a generalization with so many branches and divisions?

oh, and define Christianity while you're at it so we know what we're talking about.

[GreyHam]

i never really believed in God. It just never made sense to me, and although its something im open to, its not something im going to be forcing

[lunchforthesky]

how can you make such a generalization with so many branches and divisions?

oh, and define Christianity while you're at it so we know what we're talking about.

Basically it's anyone who thinks that the contents of the Bible hold some kind of key or instructions on how to achieve salvation.

[Akira]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

I grew up (and am growing up) in a non-religious household. Mom grew up Christian and my dad grew up Muslim, neither was too religious, so when they got married and decided to have kids they just kind of ditched religion.

[PerpetualBurn]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

I went to a Church Of England primary school, so the assumption that Christianity was correct was always put in front of you. Never forced. Never particularly openly taught. But school assemblies revolved round singing hymns, and we did the Nativity at Christmas. As with Santa, I assumed I wasn't being lied to. I would say I didn't so much believe as never considered a refutation. It was never a part of my life I actively cared for.

I've always had an inquisitive mindset, and as I got older I became aware that some people, amazingly, weren't Christian or even religious at all. This was somewhat the start of my thoughts about religion.

I've spent a great deal of time contemplating my religious stance and I don't expect it to change unless I get a very hard hit on the head.

[Aaron]

Do any other christians find other christians really really irritating? I find the whole social aspect of christianity really suffocating [ie christians that feel the need to constantly hang out with only other christians; as if peoples differing beliefs will rub off on them or something]. Any other christians that find church irritating in that aspect?

[TheDarkHorse]

Do any other christians find other christians really really irritating?
yes

I don't even know if I would call them Christian because of their actions

I find the whole social aspect of christianity really suffocating [ie christians that feel the need to constantly hang out with only other christians
its called fellowship.

; as if peoples differing beliefs will rub off on them or something]. Any other christians that find church irritating in that aspect?
oh no, I have plenty of disbelieving friends. We're supposed to love everyone. Any thing else is not from God.

[Aaron]

TheDarkHorse: I think you're missing the point I'm making in that you discected my paragraph as to how you wanted to answer. Read it all together as... a paragraph!

I'm of the opinion that many christians hide behind their christianity from the real world and that's why they stick together in groups. It's like they want to go through life without encoutering different social situations that may challenge them. I mean.. God is always in the church, he's never out in the real world right? I think to a degree that's why some people are so aggressive in their disagreement with christianity; to some it may appear as if christians are [ironically] elitist and don't welcome others.

[TheDarkHorse]

I've never encountered the group that you're talking about.

As I said, Christians associate with other Christians for fellowship, what some see as necessary for living their lives how they should.

I don't think thats bad if they're just trying to live with the right influences; if its for discriminatory purposes, it is not good.

[Kurrpt]

Do any other christians find other christians really really irritating? I find the whole social aspect of christianity really suffocating [ie christians that feel the need to constantly hang out with only other christians; as if peoples differing beliefs will rub off on them or something]. Any other christians that find church irritating in that aspect?

of course, but its not their over-zealous point of view on christianity that is the problem, its that they use their religion as an excuse to be a bitch/jerk

[lunchforthesky]

I despise anything that is illogical. It annoys me to no end.

[TheDarkHorse]

I despise anything that is illogical. It annoys me to no end.
wrong thread.

unless you're assuming religion(And everything in relation) is illogical. Provide a logical argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

unless you're assuming religion(And everything in relation) is illogical. Provide a logical argument.

Belief in God is definitely illogical.

[lunchforthesky]

wrong thread.

unless you're assuming religion(And everything in relation) is illogical. Provide a logical argument.

Any belief in a higher power is illogical as it is always without evidence. Building illogical creatures to fill holes in human knowledge. It answers the unknown with yet more complex unknowns. Completely illogical. Atheism (as in there is definately no God) is also illogical. The most logical stand point is accepting we do not fully know how the universe got here, but recognising the answers sure as hell aren't in old books.

[Kurrpt]

its called agnostic

[MAthiAS]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?
I went to Catholic school through 6th grade and believed fairly strongly (compared to my peers) til after I was confirmed. Then I kind of realized that my beliefs on life weren't all that consistent with those of the Church, and that I was far happier just ignoring the whole thing and thinking for myself.

[PerpetualBurn]

its called agnostic

I'm agnostic in the same way I'm agnostic to Santa and Unicorns.

[lunchforthesky]

its called agnostic

Agnostic has other conitations. Such as some agnostics think there is a decent chance the Bible is dead on. Which there isn't. I'd prefer to say I'm somewhere being a Deist and an Atheist.

[MAthiAS]

Also the concept of hell is/was incredibly scary to me to the point of making me miserable at times.

[Dr Hooch]

I'm agnostic in a scientific way and athiest in a practical way.

[PerpetualBurn]

Agnosticism loses me when it gives any kind of respect to the suggestion of God.

[Iskandar]

I might have been an agnostic for about two weeks but then I realized how much better the arguments for atheism were.

[blockhead]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

I struggled with my religious beliefs my whole life. My mom told me that I was asking her if god was real at about age 5. I always had difficulty believing in Christianity but felt like I had to because my family was very Christian and I didn't want to be shunned. I remember being confirmed in the Church in 6th grade I just felt like I was lying to myself and how horrible it was. My father is not a Christian and I remember staying up at night worrying if my dad was going to go to hell, because that's what the bible says about non-believers and I also have OCD so I would just have these little panic attacks about it and not be able to let it go. Eventually, when I was a sophomore I just came out and told my mom that I wasn't sure if I believed in a god at all and that I sure didn't believe in Christianity. Since then I've looked back at my experiences with Christianity and realized how horrible I really think it is due to making me feel guilty as a kid for not believing what the Church says without evidence. I've just come to the conclusion that I don't need the bible or a god and that I should just try and do the best I can to do the right thing.

[Iskandar]

I passed out at my Confirmation. In retrospect, this seems kind of cool.

[Aklerc]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?
I've been pretty agnostic most of my life, believing there could be a "higher power". This was strengthened when I started philosophy at college andlooked at various arguments. However when delving into my own reading and research, the arguments against a God seemed stronger and far more rational. To the point now where pretty much all aspects of religion seem ridiculous, delusional and hardly beneficial to the individual or society.

Basically.

Through research and reading I have also come to a personal opinion that I have no obligation to respect religion in the slightest. Of course I will respect people and if they believe whatever, I'm not gonna force my views on them. But in general terms, when talking about (specifically) organised religion I'm (pretty quickly actually) ridding myself of the idea that religion is something to be respected and that just because someone else thinks it's right, doesn't make it wrong to allow me to think it's bollocks :)

[Dum Dum Boy]

I'd say it's no more or less F'ucked up than any of the other Abrahamic religions.

[Dr Hooch]

Agnosticism loses me when it gives any kind of respect to the suggestion of God.

Proper agnostics give it to god but not God, i expect.

I passed out at my Confirmation. In retrospect, this seems kind of cool.

"Did you see a light?"

I've been pretty agnostic most of my life, believing there could be a "higher power". This was strengthened when I started philosophy at college andlooked at various arguments. However when delving into my own reading and research, the arguments against a God seemed stronger and far more rational. To the point now where pretty much all aspects of religion seem ridiculous, delusional and hardly beneficial to the individual or society.

Basically.

Through research and reading I have also come to a personal opinion that I have no obligation to respect religion in the slightest. Of course I will respect people and if they believe whatever, I'm not gonna force my views on them. But in general terms, when talking about (specifically) organised religion I'm (pretty quickly actually) ridding myself of the idea that religion is something to be respected and that just because someone else thinks it's right, doesn't make it wrong to allow me to think it's bollocks :)

Absolutely. It's like, there's no good reason to "respect" someone being a liberal democrat just because they believe the libs are capable of peicing together a coherent government without sending the country bankrupt. ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

Proper agnostics give it to god but not God, i expect.


Then please allow me to rephrase:

Agnosticism loses me when it gives any kind of respect to the suggestion of god.

[Iskandar]

"Did you see a light?"Lol.

I didn't see anything until I woke up in Swiss Chalet. I can only hope that's what death is like.

[Mr. Ron]

how can you make such a generalization with so many branches and divisions?

oh, and define Christianity while you're at it so we know what we're talking about.

It doesn't matter how many branches there are, I know about them, and the mythology compared to other religions is very boring.

Christianity is the following of Christ and his teachings, where the only path to salvation is the acceptance of Christ and his message.

[gregulus]

Ron has a point. Ancient pagan religious are infinitely more interesting.

[Sexypastries]

I became an atheist over time i suppose. My mom is a very religious woman, so it was difficult for me because I always had the lingering feeling that I was letting her down.

Eventually I just started losing interest in the idea of a relationship with god, I didn't really have any strong arguments for atheism until I started coming to this site when I was about fourteen and it was refreshing to read opinions from people who weren't christian like everyone that lives around me. From there I started getting more active in figuring out what I believe, and I decided it's foolish to believe in god so I stopped.

[pedro durruti]

I was raised in a very relaxed Catholic household, where my mom would only take us to church about once a month at the most. My belief in God was just a childhood prejudice basically, and it began to fade once I became good friends with an atheist. I also went to a Lutheran school for three years (to attend with a friend), where they taught me some Jesus stuff and that evolution was wrong, which surprised me and made me think "How the devil could they believe that?"

So I slowly drifted into agnosticism and finally became an atheist, which I still consider myself, but about a month ago I had a fit of agnosticism. Man, that was frightening! It was agnosticism at its core, because I confused myself so much in contemplating God, I didn't know the difference between red and blue. I also reverted back to theism for about ten minutes the other night, through pure sentiment, choosing my feeling over my intellect. I thought how wonderful it would be to believe in God and believe that there is an ever-loving being whose tears and joy it shares with me. But, I am still an atheist.

[lunchforthesky]

So I slowly drifted into agnosticism and finally became an atheist, which I still consider myself, but about a month ago I had a fit of agnosticism. Man, that was frightening! It was agnosticism at its core, because I confused myself so much in contemplating God, I didn't know the difference between red and blue. I also reverted back to theism for about ten minutes the other night, through pure sentiment, choosing my feeling over my intellect. I thought how wonderful it would be to believe in God and believe that there is an ever-loving being whose tears and joy it shares with me. But, I am still an atheist.

I occasionally have the odd spat of "what happens when I die, oh my life is meaningless" etc.. but then I actually think about religion and my head fast kicks into gear.

[Sexypastries]

i hope my body ****ing rots when i die and i cease to exist

heaven would suck

[lunchforthesky]

i hope my body ****ing rots when i die and i cease to exist

heaven would suck

I've met Christians and they are boring as hell (no pun intended)

[Aaron]

I've never encountered the group that you're talking about.

As I said, Christians associate with other Christians for fellowship, what some see as necessary for living their lives how they should.

I don't think thats bad if they're just trying to live with the right influences; if its for discriminatory purposes, it is not good.
You're one of them! *points*

And to all christians here from a fellow christian:
God created alcohol to drink, women to sleep with and life to be enjoyed. Treat other people with respect and keep him in mind in whatever you're doing and you can actually enjoy yourself, believe it or not [believe it or not, lol].

[PerpetualBurn]

God created alcohol to drink

Erm...no.

[Iskandar]

Humans created alcoholic beverages.

[Aaron]

Quit looking for an arguement.
This subforum would be much better if people didn't troll for arguments.

/off-topic.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, how about you don't post in the Christianity thread in the serious discussion forum something like "God created women to sleep with"?

[TheDarkHorse]

Any belief in a higher power is illogical as it is always without evidence.
Religion doesnt necessarily require a higher power.

anywho, Its not illogical, considering there's no proof of Their non-existence . You cannot prove a negative.

The most logical stand point is accepting we do not fully know how the universe got here
You seem to use the word logical a lot, but its really out of context.

I don't see how its more "logical" to just say you don't know(even if you believe you do) than to take a side.

Proper agnostics give it to god but not God, i expect.


agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic believer.

It doesn't matter how many branches there are, I know about them, and the mythology compared to other religions is very boring.
There's not much mythology related to Christianity, unless you consider Christ's death and resurrection mythology.

I have been to other churches too and didn't find them exciting. I attend non-denominational to get away from all the unnecessary separations.

[descendents1]

I've had a lot of paranormal crap happen at my grandmother's house, like cups flying around, fans turning on and off (heavy knobs being switched), and frames and vases vibrating and shaking. It has kind of scared me into believing. I take a very hard scientific stance on everything in my life and it really crushed the christian beliefs I was raised with, but all the crazy stuff that happens in my life keeps me believing. I just share my experiences with people. Can't make 'em believe. Hard enough for myself.

[Mr. Ron]

I've had a lot of paranormal crap happen at my grandmother's house, like cups flying around, fans turning on and off (heavy knobs being switched), and frames and vases vibrating and shaking. It has kind of scared me into believing. I take a very hard scientific stance on everything in my life and it really crushed the christian beliefs I was raised with, but all the crazy stuff that happens in my life keeps me believing. I just share my experiences with people. Can't make 'em believe. Hard enough for myself.

I've had some incredibly weird stuff happen to me as well, but I'm sure its all natural phenomena that I either not aware of or just not familiar with.

[descendents1]

I've had some incredibly weird stuff happen to me as well, but I'm sure its all natural phenomena that I either not aware of or just not familiar with.

liek teh jesus

I'd feel safe thinking it's natural phenomena. I'm definitely not familiar with it. It's all just really crazy because it's intense movement and we usually have strings of events occur after a family member's death.

[Aklerc]

Religion doesnt necessarily require a higher power.

anywho, Its not illogical, considering there's no proof of Their non-existence . You cannot prove a negative.
Anyone want to jump in with the flying teapot? No? I can't be bothered to put it in my own words so here:
"
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

There's not much mythology related to Christianity, unless you consider Christ's death and resurrection mythology.
Ha ha. Christ's death and ressurection is obviously the only story in the Bible. There is so much crap in the Bible that you can't pass off for anything more than a myth. Virgin birth, people coming back from the dead creating women from men's ribs, creating men out of dust. Need I go on?

[Dr Hooch]

You forgot the genocide

[Aklerc]

You forgot the genocide
Is the genocide myth? I just thought it was showing that God was naughty.

[Dr Hooch]

Is the genocide myth? I just thought it was showing that God was naughty.

<bible police arrive to find the israelites dancing on the charred remains of Sodom and it's people>

"Oh my god! You killed all these innocent women and children?"

"uh, no...
< <

> >"

"So who did?"

"Uh

umm

G-god?"

[Aklerc]

I know there was genocide... I didn't think it was of the Sodomites though. Though knowing the ol' testa-God there was probably more than one.

note to self: buy a bible

[GreyHam]

the bible is a gripping good yarn to be fair, some well juicy tales in the old testament

[Aklerc]

Some ****ed up tales as well :p

I do love a good browse through the old testament.

[PerpetualBurn]

The Bible is boring as hell.

[GreyHam]

your boring as hell

burnz

[Lupus]

the bible is a gripping good yarn to be fair, some well juicy tales in the old testament

Yeah some of the stories are entertaining, except it's ****ing impossible to start. Genesis is so boring.

My path towards atheism began around the age of 9 when I started to think about death and the afterlife. I could not help but believe that this life was it and there was nothing more. For a few years I lived with the fear of my mortality (seriously depressed at times), trying to convince myself that there was a God. When I decided to just accept atheism I felt a lot better.

[Aklerc]

Yeah some of the stories are entertaining, except it's ****ing impossible to start. Genesis is so boring.

Lol and leviticus is like "Do this and die" "Don't do this and you will die" "Do this or this while not or doing this then you and your mother will die" Gotta filter through the crap to find something good.

[GreyHam]

Ezekiels vision makes me laugh every time, given that it was deemed as 'too extreme' for anyone under the age of 30

Ezekiel 1:1-28 1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoi'achin), 3 the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chalde'ans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was upon him there. 4 As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze. 5 And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the form of men, 6 but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; they went every one straight forward, without turning as they went. 10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man in front; the four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle at the back. 11 Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. 12 And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. 13 In the midst of the living creatures there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches moving to and fro among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures darted to and fro, like a flash of lightning. 15 Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. 16 As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of a chrysolite; and the four had the same likeness, their construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. 17 When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. 18 The four wheels had rims and they had spokes; and their rims were full of eyes round about. 19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads. 23 And under the firmament their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another; and each creature had two wings covering its body. 24 And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of a host; when they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the firmament over their heads; when they stood still, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness as it were of a human form. 27 And upward from what had the appearance of his loins I saw as it were gleaming bronze, like the appearance of fire enclosed round about; and downward from what had the appearance of his loins I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about him. 28 Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

for extra credit, try drawing it...

[Dr Hooch]

The Bible is boring as hell.

for every page of war, pillage and incest there's 10 pages of geaniology, right

[Sexypastries]

I've met Christians and they are boring as hell (no pun intended)

i live with christians and i disagree, i know a lot of people who like god and all that that are pretty cool people, but heaven would be boring because you wouldn't do anything ever.

[Misanthropic]

Anyone want to jump in with the flying teapot? No? I can't be bothered to put it in my own words so here:
"
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."



I like that part.

I consider myself an atheist now, having come to that point in like ten years (I'm 22). Though I don't come from a religious home, it's not easy when they teach you in first grade that everything in the bible is true. Wonder if they still do it; wonder what happens when we get more and more foreign people moving in with different beliefs (I went to a small school with just three classrooms, two grades in each).

[burk]

Here's the proof you all have been looking for! The BANANA! http://youtube.com/watch?v=mQ9IeO23nHQ

Although I can understand that some people believe in God, I think there are limits to how long you have to go to try to convince other people that your religion is the correct one.

[TheDarkHorse]

Anyone want to jump in with the flying teapot? No? I can't be bothered to put it in my own words so here:
It didn't address the issue, which dealt with the illogicality of believing in such a thing. This focuses solely on proof.


Ha ha. Christ's death and ressurection is obviously the only story in the Bible.
As far as i'm concerned, Christianity was introduced in the NEW TESTAMENT. He said Christian mythology, which is why clarified his idea.

There is so much crap in the Bible
once again, bible /= Christianity, especially since some born again Christians are not even familiar with the OT.

that you can't pass off for anything more than a myth. Virgin birth, people coming back from the dead creating women from men's ribs, creating men out of dust. Need I go on?
I suggest you look up the word 'mythology' and realize its not synonymous with the word 'crap.'

[Smokey D]

Omigod omigod, no mythology in Christianity? What are you, high?

Angels and demons, the first 5 books of the OT, miracles left right and centre and the Book of Revelation.

Crazy mofos.

[Dr Hooch]

Who wrote all that sh!t about angel wars and stuff?

What reason was given? Like an angel came down and a shepherd was all 'dude! what is the deal in heaven right now" and the angel was all "maaaaaaan... there's all this archangels and demons and wings and sh!t. I'll show you if you get in."

w-was it like that?

[gregulus]

It didn't address the issue, which dealt with the illogicality of believing in such a thing. This focuses solely on proof.

but you would not scoff at a seemingly crazed homeless person that told you there was a teapot orbiting the sun in between earth and mars?

[132WalrusesInMexico]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?
The reason why I don't believe in your god is the same reason you don't believe in Allah, Jah, or any other gods from other religions.

[gasmaskman]

The reason why I don't believe in your god is the same reason you don't believe in Allah, Jah, or any other gods from other religions.
Well...I don't believe in God because there's no proof (and won't ever be) that "he" exists. There's nothing that could possibly happen that would make me believe there is a God.

IMO everything happens because that's how it is. "Miracles" are just things we've never seen before, or improbabilities that weren't known.

[ashman]

Well...I don't believe in God because there's no proof (and won't ever be) that "he" exists. There's nothing that could possibly happen that would make me believe there is a God.

You understand that there is no proof that/a God exists, but there is also no proof that he doesn't exist.

The Bastardisation of science at its best :smash:

[pedro durruti]

i live with christians and i disagree, i know a lot of people who like god and all that that are pretty cool people, but heaven would be boring because you wouldn't do anything ever.
Except bask in the glory of God, which means doing everything! In heaven, you get to dine on Jesus' flesh and bathe in Buddha's blood. Spritual blood, of course! It's not the same as it is down here, it's like a transparent, gooey, nirvana-like blood. Buddha is very happy to accomodate you. You know that Jesus tastes like whatever you want him to taste like? Even rabbit, which tastes like chicken meat.

And the orgies they have!

[gasmaskman]

You understand that there is no proof that/a God exists, but there is also no proof that he doesn't exist.

The Bastardisation of science at its best :smash:
This quote says it best:
"There's no proof that I'm not god"

[TheDarkHorse]

Who wrote all that sh!t about angel wars and stuff?


I've never heard of an angel war
but you would not scoff at a seemingly crazed homeless person that told you there was a teapot orbiting the sun in between earth and mars?
I wouldn't tell him its illogical to believe in such a thing



The Bastardisation of science at its best :smash:

good to see you posting again.

[Smokey D]

I've never heard of an angel war

The War in Heaven, when Lucifer was cast out etc.

Just because it's not in the Bible explicitly doesn't mean it's not part of Christianity.

[gregulus]

I wouldn't tell him its illogical to believe in such a thing

you're right, you'd probably laugh and call him crazy.

[PerpetualBurn]

I wouldn't tell him its illogical to believe in such a thing


If you don't at least think it then consult psychiatric advice.

[lunchforthesky]

Omigod omigod, no mythology in Christianity? What are you, high?

Angels and demons, the first 5 books of the OT, miracles left right and centre and the Book of Revelation.

Crazy mofos.

Seriously.

Virgin birth my ***, more like she was a crazy slag who claimed "God" had got her pregnant. Sounds like a really bad cover story that got out of hand.

[TheDarkHorse]

The War in Heaven, when Lucifer was cast out etc.

.

Satan fell "like lightning." There was no huge, epic battle like uninformed Bible readers tend to believe.

you're right, you'd probably laugh and call him crazy.
no, probably not.

[DiesIrae]

The reason why I don't believe in your god is the same reason you don't believe in Allah, Jah, or any other gods from other religions.

They are ethnically different?

[Smokey D]

Satan fell "like lightning." There was no huge, epic battle like uninformed Bible readers tend to believe.

Christian mythology is not just what is referred to in teh Bible, though.

And even if it was, there is a whole lot of stuff that would be considered myth if it weren't in the Bible (Virgin births, angelic messengers and death-resurrection cycles were commonplace in eastern Mediterranean mythology around the time of Christ).

[TheDarkHorse]

Christian mythology is not just what is referred to in teh Bible, though.
this is irrelevant, not that I ever said(or implied) that it was limited to the Bible.

And even if it was, there is a whole lot of stuff that would be considered myth if it weren't in the Bible (Virgin births, angelic messengers and death-resurrection cycles were commonplace in eastern Mediterranean mythology around the time of Christ).
Apart from the discussion of the Prophetic, Christianity is related to the New Testament, not entire Biblical mythology.

[Smokey D]

this is irrelevant, not that I ever said(or implied) that it was limited to the Bible.

You said that Christianity had no mythology, which is wrong for the reasons I outlined.


Apart from the discussion of the Prophetic, Christianity is related to the New Testament, not entire Biblical mythology.

That's not true. Christianity requires the New Testament, but it is not sufficient.

[TheDarkHorse]

You said that Christianity had no mythology, which is wrong for the reasons I outlined.



There's not much mythology related to Christianity, unless you consider Christ's death and resurrection mythology.
evidently you misread me.



That's not true. Christianity requires the New Testament, but it is not sufficient.
are you misreading me on purpose?

Christianity = New Testament

However, as I said, the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed, therefore they are related in the prophetic sense.

[Dr Hooch]

If that's the case then they hid it bloody well

[Smokey D]

evidently you misread me.

No. I said there is more mythology than just the resurrection cycle.



are you misreading me on purpose?

No. I'm emphatically disagreeing with you.

Christianity = New Testament

No, because if that were true the liturgy wouldn't include the Old Testament, but it does.

However, as I said, the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed, therefore they are related in the prophetic sense.

I think they're much more related than that.

[TheDarkHorse]

No. I said there is more mythology than just the resurrection cycle.

no you didn't

Christian mythology is not just what is referred to in teh Bible, though.

:sigh: why can't people just give up an argument when they've obviously misconstrued the point? :rolleyes:




No. I'm emphatically disagreeing with you.
On what? That Christianity was introduced in the New Testament? Once again, do you realize how many born again Christians aren't even familiar with the OT?

or that there's not much mythology in the NT? Besides Christ's death(and If you would like to consider miracles) and Acts, there's not much but letters to the church from paul and instructions for Holy living.

Not to mention in the first place, you brought up the idea of an angel war which I simply said is not true. You're making a completely different argument in regards to that post.


No, because if that were true the liturgy wouldn't include the Old Testament, but it does.
Um, there are books which only contain the New Testament, which I've seen given to people after they've been witnessed to. The Old Covenant is irrelevant in accepting Christ's payment, which is the New One.



I think they're much more related than that.
I don't know how much more than that they can be related.

An OT reader would only understand the old covenant and not be able to be saved. A NT reader would understand Christ's sacrifice. One who read both and see the difference, yet the OT isn't necessary for reading to understand salvation(in a literal sense). Ever think about why Jews read the OT?

[nitzguy]

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Check out this site. The first 5 minutes is most jut music and some pictures.. But what they call "part I" has to do with some pretty heavy stuff... mainly how Christianity is just plagiarized from Egyptian folklore.

part II is mainly about 9/11 crap

partIII is really interesting.

but mainly check out the first part after the 5 minute mark

[Dr Hooch]

I actually watched that, last week. It's the only one of those kinds of things i've ever given any time.

I don't believe everything that's said. But there's no way of saying WTC7 wasn't demolished in a controlled way, after watching the footage.

The stuff on jesus is really very interesting, and you guys shgould watch it even if you pass on the rest.

[Smokey D]

no you didn't

That's what I said when I talked about angels and stuff.

:sigh: why can't people just give up an argument when they've obviously misconstrued the point? :rolleyes:

I haven't misconstrued your goddamned point. I'm arguing it's wrong. I understood what you said. I'm saying there is a lot of mythology including Christ's resurrection cycle. You said there's not much.

On what? That Christianity was introduced in the New Testament? Once again, do you realize how many born again Christians aren't even familiar with the OT?

Er, so? Christianity may have started with the NT, but to say the Old Testament doesn't factor in is blatantly false. I don't care what some ignorant Bible bashers (the irony of them not knowing what's in the Bible is extremely rich and I actually disagree with your claim) might think.

or that there's not much mythology in the NT? Besides Christ's death(and If you would like to consider miracles) and Acts, there's not much but letters to the church from paul and instructions for Holy living.

Ressurection, revelation and various miracles are mythological. Or at least they share characteristics with myths. And besides, not all myth involves the supernatural.

Not to mention in the first place, you brought up the idea of an angel war which I simply said is not true. You're making a completely different argument in regards to that post.

Christian mythology is much bigger than the Bible -- it includes apocrypha, various parallel Judeo-Christian (Lilith, demonology etc) myths and philosophical constructs etc, not to mention the cult of the saints.

Um, there are books which only contain the New Testament, which I've seen given to people after they've been witnessed to. The Old Covenant is irrelevant in accepting Christ's payment, which is the New One.

Yes, I've seen them too. New Geddes Bible of whatever. They aren't real Bibles, though.

I don't know how much more than that they can be related.

They are related prophetically, thematically and historically.

An OT reader would only understand the old covenant and not be able to be saved. A NT reader would understand Christ's sacrifice. One who read both and see the difference, yet the OT isn't necessary for reading to understand salvation(in a literal sense). Ever think about why Jews read the OT?

So what? That doesn't mean Christianity doesn't draw on mythologies originating in the OT.

[Danger Bird]

http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/365/03/365-Days-Project-03-16-bernard-robin-and-crystal-the-monkey-song-1972.mp3

[Mr. Ron]

http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/365/03/365-Days-Project-03-16-bernard-robin-and-crystal-the-monkey-song-1972.mp3
I feel incredibly sad for all involved in that recording. :(

[Danger Bird]

You think that's sad they just said on the news that 53% of Americans believe in creation and not evolution.

[Mr. Ron]

.......

[PerpetualBurn]

You think that's sad they just said on the news that 53% of Americans believe in creation and not evolution.

53% of those in the survey are complete morons.

[Mr. Ron]

I can't believe that over half of America doesn't take science seriously.

[PerpetualBurn]

Without seeing it, I would be tempted to be highly sceptical of such a statistic.

But frankly in a such a developed nation any percentage greater than nought is too high.

[Danger Bird]

It was on that CNN doc. about the christian right. It's still on, actually.

[ashman]

I can't believe that over half of America doesn't take science seriously.

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.

[DiesIrae]

53% of those in the survey are complete morons.

I don't think that they surveyed a populace that could acuratley depict america, and you are damn rigt. They are dumb.

[Mr. Ron]

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.

mhm

[Reaganista]

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.
im having trouble imagining what you could possibly mean by that

[Mr. Ron]

yeah

[pedro durruti]

Testament? Once again, do you realize how many born again Christians aren't even familiar with the OT?
Maybe, then, they aren't really Christians, but grown-up babes missing out on a lot of mythology.

[Danger Bird]

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.

Uh actually no.

[Dr Hooch]

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.

True, but anyone who doesn't take science seriously ever regardless of who told them what is pretty intellectually lacking.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?It clicked when I bothered to read the bible.

[TheDarkHorse]

I haven't misconstrued your goddamned point. I'm arguing it's wrong. I understood what you said. I'm saying there is a lot of mythology including Christ's resurrection cycle. You said there's not much.
1. You said there was an angel war, which was false. Get over it and don't try to make some kind of sub-argument to compensate for it
2. There is not much mythology in the New Testament, which is directly related to Christianity. Ron argued that, not you. So far, both of you are unsuccessful at disproving my point.



Er, so? Christianity may have started with the NT, but to say the Old Testament doesn't factor in is blatantly false.

I don't see where any one said that.

you see how you're missing the point?

Old Testament stories are not considered Christian mythology, only biblical mythology. This really isn't hard.

I don't care what some ignorant Bible bashers (the irony of them not knowing what's in the Bible is extremely rich and I actually disagree with your claim) might think.[QUOTE]
They're not "bible bashers." They're born again Christians who have only read the NT.

[QUOTE]
revelation
Has not occurred.

And besides, not all myth involves the supernatural.
I didn't know Paul's letters, which cover 2/3 of the NT, are considered mythology.



Christian mythology is much bigger than the Bible -- it includes apocrypha, various parallel Judeo-Christian (Lilith, demonology etc) myths and philosophical constructs etc, not to mention the cult of the saints.
thats hardly related to Christianity, based on the definition that was given.



Yes, I've seen them too. New Geddes Bible of whatever. They aren't real Bibles, though.
They contain the NT, which has the message of the Gospel. I don't see how they're discredited when they have the message of the ultimate goal-salvation.



They are related prophetically, thematically and historically.
obviously-however not by covenant.



So what? That doesn't mean Christianity doesn't draw on mythologies originating in the OT.
That by no means says OT mythology = Christian mythology. This is just bad logic.

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.
exactly. I find it equally staggering that people don't take philosophy seriously.

[PerpetualBurn]

Old Testament stories are not considered Christian mythology, only biblical mythology. This really isn't hard.

Considering Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the Old Testament, this semantic difference is a bit inane.

[Smokey D]

You said there was an angel war, which was false. Get over it and don't try to make some kind of sub-argument to compensate for it

Why are you saying that the idea of a heavenly war between angels and demons is not part of a broader body of Christian mythology?

I didn't say it was in the Bible.

There is not much mythology in the New Testament, which is directly related to Christianity. Ron argued that, not you. So far, both of you are unsuccessful at disproving my point.

How are you defining mythology? I can think of at least a dozen events in the New Testament which bear similarities to non-biblical myths.

I don't see where any one said that.

you see how you're missing the point?

Why are you saying that Old Testament stories don't count as part of Christian mythology, then?


They're not "bible bashers." They're born again Christians who have only read the NT.

They aren't real Christians if they say the OT isn't important.

Has not occurred.

Nor has Ragnarok.

I didn't know Paul's letters, which cover 2/3 of the NT, are considered mythology.

The Book of Acts and the Four Gospels are plenty mythological for my point to be true.

thats hardly related to Christianity, based on the definition that was given.


What definition? Anything that invokes Christianity is Christian.

They contain the NT, which has the message of the Gospel. I don't see how they're discredited when they have the message of the ultimate goal-salvation.-

Fine. They aren't complete. They don't tell the whole story.

obviously-however not by covenant.

So?

That by no means says OT mythology = Christian mythology. This is just bad logic.

What? The Old Testament forms a part of Christianity.

It'd be bad logic for me to say the New Testament = Jewish mythology, but I can't possibly see how you can say the Old Testament isn't Christian.

[TheDarkHorse]

Why are you saying that the idea of a heavenly war between angels and demons is not part of a broader body of Christian mythology?
now you're just bsing.

The "angel war" is not considered Christianity.
If its not in the bible, I wouldn't consider it grounds to be attacked or taken seriously.

I didn't say it was in the Bible.
way to cover your error, then.

The true story is in the bible. If someone brings up some other story, its not fair grounds. By your logic, anything can be considered Christian mythology.



How are you defining mythology?
no broader than the stories of the supernatural

I can think of at least a dozen events in the New Testament which bear similarities to non-biblical myths.
enlighten me



Why are you saying that Old Testament stories don't count as part of Christian mythology, then?
The old testament is related to Christianity in a way, but OT stories are NOT about Christianity. You're being simple, and its only hurting your argument.



They aren't real Christians if they say the OT isn't important.

1.Christian means that you have accepted Christ's sacrifice. As far as I know, thats as real as it gets.
2. No one branded the OT as "not important.":rolleyes: The OT is not necessary for salvation.



The Book of Acts and the Four Gospels are plenty mythological for my point to be true.
Actually, thats not much.

And it wasn't your point. Once again, you're sneaking around and taking three different points to revive your failed argument.



What definition? Anything that invokes Christianity is Christian.

um, no.


Fine. They aren't complete. They don't tell the whole story.
the "whole story" is not necessary for salvation, then.

Thats the beauty of Christianity.


So?
so they're not exactly the same.


What? The Old Testament forms a part of Christianity.
It'd be bad logic for me to say the New Testament = Jewish mythology, but I can't possibly see how you can say the Old Testament isn't Christian.
Using the definition of Christianity, its actually quite simple.

[samariah]

for me, things started to come together after spending a few months at a christian college and being able to somewhow take a few steps back and see all that was wrong (imo) with the religion (and most western religion) in general. im not atheist now either. i'm not really anything that i care to label myself as.

[Smokey D]

now you're just bsing.

The "angel war" is not considered Christianity.
If its not in the bible, I wouldn't consider it grounds to be attacked or taken seriously.

... No I'm not. Apocrypha is myth.

So are the saints.


way to cover your error, then.

You're dismissing a whole bunch extra-biblical material.

The true story is in the bible. If someone brings up some other story, its not fair grounds. By your logic, anything can be considered Christian mythology.

Only if it claims to be part of Christianity.

But you're saying this like there isn't mythology in the Bible.


no broader than the stories of the supernatural

Those are fairytales, not myths. Christian mythology is the body of traditional narrative associated with Christianity. This is quite a good description of what I'm talking about 'Many Christians believe that these stories are sacred and that they communicate profound truths. These traditional narratives include, but are not necessarily limited to, narrative portions of the Christian scriptures.'

enlighten me

The Virgin Birth, the flight to Egypt, the death of the innocents, any number of miracles, the death and resurrection, the Ascension, the liberation of Peter, Pentecost, the conversion of Paul, the acts of the Apostles, and the book of Revelation

The old testament is related to Christianity in a way, but OT stories are NOT about Christianity. You're being simple, and its only hurting your argument.

But they are part of the wider body of material that 'communicates profound truths' related to Christian life and living.

1.Christian means that you have accepted Christ's sacrifice. As far as I know, thats as real as it gets.
2. No one branded the OT as "not important.":rolleyes: The OT is not necessary for salvation.

The OT is not in anyway necessary for salvation, but it is part of the Christian literature.

Actually, thats not much.

And it wasn't your point. Once again, you're sneaking around and taking three different points to revive your failed argument.

I said there was more to Christian mythology than what you said. That's all.

um, no.


[quote]the "whole story" is not necessary for salvation, then.

Thats the beauty of Christianity.

But they do tell interesting and relevant things.


so they're not exactly the same.

I didn't say so.

Using the definition of Christianity, its actually quite simple.

I dispute your definition. It's incomplete.

[TheDarkHorse]

... No I'm not. Apocrypha is myth.

So are the saints.
which has nothing to do with Christianity as defined in the Holy text



You're dismissing a whole bunch extra-biblical material.
because its not Christ-related.



Only if it claims to be part of Christianity.
then anything could claim to be part of Christianity.

The only thing I consider related to Christianity is Christ Himself, as well as Paul's NT letters.

But you're saying this like there isn't mythology in the Bible.

There's plenty of mythology in the bible. There's not much mythology in Christianity.


Those are fairytales, not myths.
no they're not.

Christian mythology is the body of traditional narrative associated with Christianity.
who determines what is associated? The claim?

once again, Christianity is directly related to Christ. Hard to believe, right?

'Many Christians believe that these stories are sacred and that they communicate profound truths.
Source

I've heard a few believers dismiss them as false.



The Virgin Birth, the flight to Egypt, the death of the innocents, any number of miracles, the death and resurrection, the Ascension, the liberation of Peter, Pentecost, the conversion of Paul, the acts of the Apostles, and the book of Revelation
ok. Ive agreed to all already except revelation. This still isn't much, especially in comparison to Biblical mythology(OT) as a whole.



But they are part of the wider body of material that 'communicates profound truths' related to Christian life and living.
Thats not Christianity, then, by your own admission.

OT was about Holy living and personal performance; The New Covenant by Christ says all of our sins have been paid for, and we should trust Him rather than relying on our own performance.

Of course there's truth on living in the OT, but what I've shown you is the difference between Christianity and God's old covenant.



The OT is not in anyway necessary for salvation, but it is part of the Christian literature.
Then how can someone not be a "real Christian" just because they didn't read the old text?



I said there was more to Christian mythology than what you said. That's all.
fair. However you also said Christian mythology includes the OT and extra-biblical material, which is false.

um, no.
[QUOTE] But they do tell interesting and relevant things.
so does Jesus. So does Paul.
If you'd read the commandments and laws of the OT compared to the words of Jesus and Paul, you'd notice there's quite a difference.

I dispute your definition. It's incomplete.
I used Ron's definition actually


Christianity is the following of Christ and his teachings, where the only path to salvation is the acceptance of Christ and his message.

[Reaganista]

i dont see how everything jesus and paul do or say isnt a myth

[Smokey D]

which has nothing to do with Christianity as defined in the Holy text

Christianity is bigger than just the Bible.

because its not Christ-related.

Christianity is bigger than Jesus.

Sociologically and as an institutional phenomenon, I mean.

then anything could claim to be part of Christianity.


Yes, but most things wouldn't because they define themselves in opposition to it.


The only thing I consider related to Christianity is Christ Himself, as well as Paul's NT letters.

Which is actually some neatly contrived definition to fit your argument and nothing else.

What about the book of Acts? What about the non-Pauline letters? What about the Book of Revelation?

There's plenty of mythology in the bible. There's not much mythology in Christianity.

I disagree both with your limited definition of Christianity and the assertion that 'Christ Himself' and the Pauline letters don't constitute myth.

who determines what is associated? The claim?

once again, Christianity is directly related to Christ. Hard to believe, right?


Yes, the claim. What else is there?

Source

I've heard a few believers dismiss them as false

The body of Christian mythology isn't the same for the whole community of believers. There's a whole bunch of variations.

But most Christians would say that there are stories within the Old Testament that, even if they are literally untrue, communicate a profound message from God.

In fact, Christians who dismiss the OT would likely be rejected as heretics. See Gnosticism etc.


ok. Ive agreed to all already except revelation. This still isn't much, especially in comparison to Biblical mythology(OT) as a whole.

It's quite a lot, given how much the NT repeats itself.


Thats not Christianity, then, by your own admission.

I say it's not sufficient for Christianity, but it still forms part of Christian identity.

OT was about Holy living and personal performance; The New Covenant by Christ says all of our sins have been paid for, and we should trust Him rather than relying on our own performance.

Different traditions say different things about that, so I'm not sure I'd agree.

Of course there's truth on living in the OT, but what I've shown you is the difference between Christianity and God's old covenant.

Christianity as a phenomenon is not merely the New Covenant.

Then how can someone not be a "real Christian" just because they didn't read the old text

Not reading it and not believing in it are different things.


so does Jesus. So does Paul.
If you'd read the commandments and laws of the OT compared to the words of Jesus and Paul, you'd notice there's quite a difference.

Alright, but if Christianity as a social force discounts the OT, why do people who widely associate themselves as Christians invoke the Ten Commandments, or Genesis or whatever?

I used Ron's definition actually

I dispute that too.

[Mr. Ron]

What was wrong with my definition?

[Smokey D]

Theologically it's fine, but it doesn't explain everything we might want to know about the historical trajectory of what we call Christianity.

[Mr. Ron]

Theologically it's fine, but it doesn't explain everything we might want to know about the historical trajectory of what we call Christianity.

I see. I was just going for a general definition I guess.

[TheDarkHorse]

Christianity is bigger than just the Bible.

No, its really not. Not when I speak of Christianity as Christ's message and sacrifice.


Christianity is bigger than Jesus.

Sociologically and as an institutional phenomenon, I mean.
ok, religion and message.

I see we're clear on that.

Yes, but most things wouldn't because they define themselves in opposition to it.
any aberrant theology can claim to be with Christianity and be fundamentally different.

What about the book of Acts? What about the non-Pauline letters? What about the Book of Revelation?
once again, if we're talking about the religious movement, then this flies.

I, however, am speaking of Christ's death/resurrection/salvation, which is a belief.

I disagree both with your limited definition of Christianity and the assertion that 'Christ Himself' and the Pauline letters don't constitute myth.
I never asserted that.

Paul's letters are instructions to the people; there's no mythology involved

For the record, there's NOT MUCH mythology in the New Testament, with or without your added instances.

Yes, the claim. What else is there?
There's always the truth.

Claims can be baseless you know.

But most Christians would say that there are stories within the Old Testament that, even if they are literally untrue, communicate a profound message from God.
and?

In fact, Christians who dismiss the OT would likely be rejected as heretics. See Gnosticism etc.
Once again, i'm not saying the OT is dismissed or rejected; its just not necessary for salvation. Believe it or not, there are believers who have not read the OT. That doesnt make them any less of Christians than someone who has.

It's quite a lot, given how much the NT repeats itself.
um you mean how there are 4 different gospels?

In that case it would be much with the same miracles and occurrences told a second, third, and 4th time.

I say it's not sufficient for Christianity, but it still forms part of Christian identity.
of course it does; I wouldn't call it Christianity though. Its a completely different covenant.

Different traditions say different things about that, so I'm not sure I'd agree.
please explain.

Christianity as a phenomenon is not merely the New Covenant.

thats what its about. Jesus didn't come to create an institutionalized religion. The movement is merely to spread the message.

Not reading it and not believing in it are different things.
I never said not believe.

Good, we're clear on another misconstrued point.

Alright, but if Christianity as a social force discounts the OT
did i mention there's a slight mixup here?
I dispute that too.
so what basis are you attacking me on? In order to be a valid critique, the argument itself must be valid.

[Smokey D]

No, its really not. Not when I speak of Christianity as Christ's message and sacrifice.

Well I'm talking about it as a historical phenomenon.


any aberrant theology can claim to be with Christianity and be fundamentally different.

Yes, but you can't call the vast majority of widely accepted orthodoxy an aberrant theology.



I, however, am speaking of Christ's death/resurrection/salvation, which is a belief.

But... believing in the 12 Tasks of Hercules is a belief too.



Paul's letters are instructions to the people; there's no mythology involved

Correction. There's nothing (much) supernatural involved. They're still part of a body of mythology.

There's always the truth.

Claims can be baseless you know.

Okay, so who's claim to we accept and why?

and?

And as such they're part of Christian literature.


Once again, i'm not saying the OT is dismissed or rejected; its just not necessary for salvation. Believe it or not, there are believers who have not read the OT. That doesnt make them any less of Christians than someone who has.

Yes, but nor does it make the OT any less of a Christian text.

um you mean how there are 4 different gospels?

In that case it would be much with the same miracles and occurrences told a second, third, and 4th time.

My point is that if you counted the 4 gospels as one story, there'd be a relatively large ratio of supernatural happenings to everyday events.

Not that I'm saying supernatural happenings are the only sort of myth there can be.

of course it does; I wouldn't call it Christianity though. Its a completely different covenant.

It's not Christianity, but it is Christian.

please explain.

Catholicism has a very different interpretation to works than Protestant denominations.

thats what its about. Jesus didn't come to create an institutionalized religion. The movement is merely to spread the message.

I say again -- Christianity isn't just what Jesus said.

so what basis are you attacking me on? In order to be a valid critique, the argument itself must be valid.

I'm attacking your assertion that Christianity is just what Christ said.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

And if we're going off what Jesus apparently said in the NT, the OT is still entirely relevant and if you don't follow the rules as laid down in it (10 commandments etc), then you will go to hell.

[pedro durruti]

No, its really not. Not when I speak of Christianity as Christ's message and sacrifice.
It is not Christ who established Christianity, but his followers. When Smokey speaks of a 'historical phenomenon' he means that Christianity is more than just the New Testament, in multiple ways. Christianity is a religion, and no religion is without its church. Christianity is not narrowly contained within a continuum with Jesus' teachings of the New Testament. It, as an institution, originated in Roman Catholicism, which, if my Catholic history is correct, was established by Peter, a historical character.

If you're approaching it from a more philosophical level however, then you could consider Jesus' words and all that surround him as the true basis for Christianity, while all religions holding that title were physical mutations of its perspective, but that would go against all forms of institutionalized Christian doctrine, Protestant or Catholic or Maabajeebow. And that would also discount the entire Old Testament, which Christianity draws from largely as an Abrahamic religion, just like Islam.

[Ibanman]

I was kinda made to go to church with school when i was young about once a month, but as I grew up I realised none of it was true and it had alot of contradictions. Dont go off on a mad rant, this is just me. I like music, my friends, my job and my life. I dont have time to waste.

[-1up!-]

Anyone who takes science 100% seriously, without thinking for themselves, is in the same boat as the bible bashers.

That's ****ing ridiculous. Science is a rigorous method of observation and experimentation which does not pretend to be true unless its hypotheses have been subjected to tests and proven. Religion presents arbitrary precepts and pretends to have objective moral value while having no care at all for any kind of proof. If you're seriously equating science and religion, you must have the intelligence of a pebble.

[wammy_banned]

i love these threads

something that has always bugged me about christianity is that there is a lack of informed christians, and those are the ones who keep trying to explain it because they most likely just joined the church and are excited and are telling others. Then those people questiont hem like any sane person and prove them wrong due to lack of knowledge on the new christians part. most atheists would at least have a respect for christians if they knew everything about it.

As for the whole "how did we get here" stuff regarding science vs religion, i believe everything created by god is logical, but i do not believe life began on its own, there is the constant problem with chirality, which disproves spontaneous generation of life which, to me, means that at least some powerful force or being created life, and i believe that thing is god. this is why i will never lose my faith. there is also my less logical belief in the bible, less logical because while it cannot be proven completely, translations of the bible that have been dated back to very soon after Jesus' death were translated by experts and came out saying the exact same things, proof that the translation itself has not changed, so at least the new testament is likely to be true.

just my 2 cents on this whole thing.

feel free to point out any historical or other inaccuracies i may have stated. im very tired typing this.

also the chirality bit was taught to me a very long time ago and i cannot remember the details, i just remember that the probability of life forming by itself is the same as flipping 50,000+ coins and them all coming up heads or vice versa. IMO its gotta be god.

[Yield]

Question for the atheists here....what made you disbelief in religion? Was it a long, drawn out process of personal debate or just something that sort of "clicked" one day?

Years of never going to church except for isolated periods of time and then thinking of so many contradictions, hypocrisies, etc. led me to just not care.

[tehultimatepwn]

i love these threads

something that has always bugged me about christianity is that there is a lack of informed christians, and those are the ones who keep trying to explain it because they most likely just joined the church and are excited and are telling others. Then those people questiont hem like any sane person and prove them wrong due to lack of knowledge on the new christians part. most atheists would at least have a respect for christians if they knew everything about it.

As for the whole "how did we get here" stuff regarding science vs religion, i believe everything created by god is logical, but i do not believe life began on its own, there is the constant problem with chirality, which disproves spontaneous generation of life which, to me, means that at least some powerful force or being created life, and i believe that thing is god. this is why i will never lose my faith. there is also my less logical belief in the bible, less logical because while it cannot be proven completely, translations of the bible that have been dated back to very soon after Jesus' death were translated by experts and came out saying the exact same things, proof that the translation itself has not changed, so at least the new testament is likely to be true.

just my 2 cents on this whole thing.

feel free to point out any historical or other inaccuracies i may have stated. im very tired typing this.

also the chirality bit was taught to me a very long time ago and i cannot remember the details, i just remember that the probability of life forming by itself is the same as flipping 50,000+ coins and them all coming up heads or vice versa. IMO its gotta be god.

for the new page

and i found a site explaining the chirality bit http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/chirality.asp

[Dr Hooch]

That source is banned like Bibletrash is if you want anything approaching a reasoned discussion

[Mr. Ron]

Except bibletrash makes good points.

>_>

<_<

[Dr Hooch]

Well we know that ronald

never hurts to be courteous

[Mr. Ron]

true enough

[Mr. Ron]

I seriously just read this....






POCKETS OF HONESTY

A friend and I went to Wal-Mart today. We had a wonderful time, on coming back
My friend informed me that he had forgotten his Twenty four cans of coke in the cart in the parking lot.

Naturally twenty four cans being what they are, We headed straight back to hoping that we would find them. The parking lot did not have any with two cans sitting in them

My friend sailed into the store to find someone had returned them. Two cases of the article and we came back with our coke.

My friend was surprised that no one had stolen the cans. To which one can only say; it’s cultural. America was founded on Christian principles; thus the honesty of the individual/s of returning The cans of coke…

Had those cans of coke been in some other country with values less than Christian
There is no doubt we would never have dreamed of getting our coke ever.

Way to Go Americans, way to Go…

In Christ
Cyber Defender of Biblical Faith and Principles

[Dr Hooch]

If they were alcoholic he'd never've seen them again put it that way

[PerpetualBurn]

My friend was surprised that no one had stolen the cans. To which one can only say; it’s cultural. America was founded on Christian principles; thus the honesty of the individual/s of returning The cans of coke…

The key part is where he explicity suggests that they didn't expect to get the cans back

The bit that completely invalidates the entire story.

[Smokey D]

No, the bit that invalidates it is where it's not 24 cases of a million dollars.

The payoff versus the potential punishment is not incentive enough not to steal the coke. Also, it's kinda like that scene in Clerks where Dante says that if there's unattended good (or money, in his case) just sitting there, people assume it's being watched.

Also, I suspect if someone had started drinking the cans before they were abandoned, it would be far less likely they would have been returned.

[lunchforthesky]

I think it's way more likely they would get returned in Saudi Arabia than America cause I don't know about you but I quite like my hands.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, the bit that invalidates it is where it's not 24 cases of a million dollars.

The payoff versus the potential punishment is not incentive enough not to steal the coke. Also, it's kinda like that scene in Clerks where Dante says that if there's unattended good (or money, in his case) just sitting there, people assume it's being watched.

Also, I suspect if someone had started drinking the cans before they were abandoned, it would be far less likely they would have been returned.

I think that's a fair rebuttal.

But I prefer where they explicity state the fault in the argument for themselves.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I like the bit where he calls himself a "cyber defender of biblical faith and principles". Makes him sound like he's in the Justice League.

[tehultimatepwn]

this country is anything but christian led, other than the "under god" line in the pledge of allegiance, we usually dont act christian at all. its great he got his coke, but we're just not liek that.

[Reaganista]

thank god for that

[Tyrant21]

back to NT being myth, I don't understand how it is not myth. There is no accurate documentation proving a) any of his many miracles, or b) any of his exploits whatsoever.

In addition, it is human nature to exaggerate stories especially in instances similar to the story of christ, where such exaggeration would greatly deify his exploits.

[lunchforthesky]

We've scared (converted :)) all the Christians away. We need them back.

[Tyrant21]

oh god so many of the frshman in the music building are the " i love jesus and feel like advertising it on everything i own" type of christian, which just seems completely fake, and a poor attempt at looking like a good person

[Dr Hooch]

this country is anything but christian led, other than the "under god" line in the pledge of allegiance, we usually dont act christian at all. its great he got his coke, but we're just not liek that.

the under god line was only added by socialist-hating conservatives in the 60s

you live in like the world's least secular secular country

[JollyRoger24]

I have a question? If you don’t believe in God do you believe in a higher power or powers.

And when i say "you" i mean that as a general term.

[Dr Hooch]

Higher powers than what? I don't believe in any omnipotent intelligence, but i'm entirely comfortable with higher powers like alien life or, y'know, gravity.

[Iskandar]

I have a question? If you don’t believe in God do you believe in a higher power or powers.No.

[lunchforthesky]

I have a question? If you don’t believe in God do you believe in a higher power or powers.

And when i say "you" i mean that as a general term.

I see it as a possiblity, but that it is unlikely and lacks evidence and thus at present my educated guess is a no.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Can anybody here justify the belief that morality comes from the bible? Judging by what actually happens in the bible; bigotry, rape, slavery, masochism, etc the belief that morality descends from it appears, well, quite retarded.

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah you need to be stupid, without that you can't really justify it.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Yeah you need to be stupid, without that you can't really justify it.this is why it fascinates me. A lot of the people who believe it are *not* stupid.

[Lupus]

It might seem that way but in reality it's just that everyone's stupid.

[lunchforthesky]

this is why it fascinates me. A lot of the people who believe it are *not* stupid.

I can never understand why seemingly intelligent people (eg. Cronium) can believe such things. I mean with people like Little Pound it doesn't suprise me but many very intelligent people are literalists.

[PerpetualBurn]

It seems to require a very secure compartmentalisation of their thought processes that eventually some stage is hit at which criticism isn't applied as it would be to anything else.

[lunchforthesky]

It seems to require a very secure compartmentalisation of their thought processes that eventually some stage is hit at which criticism isn't applied as it would be to anything else.

I agree. It's as though religious thought acts in an unquestionable vaccuum in their brain.

[ringworm]

It seems to require a very secure compartmentalisation of their thought processes that eventually some stage is hit at which criticism isn't applied as it would be to anything else.
agreed

[Smokey D]

Different first principles.

Or double think.

Can anybody here justify the belief that morality comes from the bible? Judging by what actually happens in the bible; bigotry, rape, slavery, masochism, etc the belief that morality descends from it appears, well, quite retarded.

This is such a tired argument. The Bible explicitly rejects all that stuff.

And even if it didn't, it's a logical fallacy to say that because it does some bad stuff it can't do good stuff as well.

[Futue te Ipsum]

This is such a tired argument. The Bible explicitly rejects all that stuff.So what if it does?
It doesn't stop it accepting it too.
And even if it didn't, it's a logical fallacy to say that because it does some bad stuff it can't do good stuff as well.It's also irrelevent that it can do good stuff.

My point is that if we can cherry pick our morals then we're getting them from somewhere else.

[Smokey D]

Er, except it pretty much does.

Like when Jesus says '"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" he's telling people to not do what the Old Testament says.

It's also irrelevent that it can do good stuff.

No. The good is irrelevant to the bad, meaning hte Bible can still teach important moral lessons while having a whole lot of crap in it.

My point is that if we can cherry pick our morals then we're getting them from somewhere else.

Cultural norms, which are, in Western society, based on the good bits of the Bible.

[Dr Hooch]

I'd be more inclined to think the good bits of the bible were based on cultural norms, really. Along with the bad bits.

[lunchforthesky]

I'd be more inclined to think the good bits of the bible were based on cultural norms, really. Along with the bad bits.

I agree. We have just adjusted the Bible to our culture.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I'd be more inclined to think the good bits of the bible were based on cultural norms, really. Along with the bad bits.

Depends on the society. A lot of western society could arguably be based off the bible, but the bible could be based off of ancient cultural bits.

[Oriah]

I agree. We have just adjusted the Bible to our culture.

and so has every generation that got their hands on the bible.

[lunchforthesky]

and so has every generation that got their hands on the bible.

Bingo.

[Oriah]

Can anybody here justify the belief that morality comes from the bible? Judging by what actually happens in the bible; bigotry, rape, slavery, masochism, etc the belief that morality descends from it appears, well, quite retarded.

Wasn't it all for the "greater good" of things? The bible has many lessons that are of "good" morality, just as every religious text does. I think all that "bad" stuff in there is just to show you that this kind of evil exists.

Whats truly retarded is how people are misinterpreting the bible and all these freakin huge churches are opening up making religion seem like a football game. The preacher just feeds em what they want to hear, And slowly controls what they think to be "right" and "wrong". (example of southern chrisianity)

I personally believe religion is for you and you alone. When you start listening to others on what You should decide for yourself then you really have given up your right to choose what your "truth" is.

[lunchforthesky]

Wasn't it all for the "greater good" of things? The bible has many lessons that are of "good" morality, just as every religious text does. I think all that "bad" stuff in there is just to show you that this kind of evil exists.

So when God floods the entire world, and kills nearly everyone in it, he is just doing it as an example of what evil can do?

[ThePinkPanther]

the story of Noah is showing that the evil are punished and that the good are saved

not God is evil and kills everything for whatever reason

it condemns evil

[Oriah]

So when God floods the entire world, and kills nearly everyone in it, he is just doing it as an example of what evil can do?

As far as I know he(they) never did such a thing. And if that did happen or does happen how do you know he(they) are responsible? and ok what if your god Did flood the earth and killed everyone, so what. Does that tell you maybe We arn't the center of the universe and that there is something bigger, more meaningful, and unfathomable that escapes our grasp.
-and maybe its not really "evil" from our respected perspective.

[PerpetualBurn]

It tells me God's a bit of a prick.

[lunchforthesky]

the story of Noah is showing that the evil are punished and that the good are saved

not God is evil and kills everything for whatever reason

it condemns evil

I don't think there is any justification for the genocide of the entire human race but one guy and his family. How can you really excuse that?

As far as I know he(they) never did such a thing. And if that did happen or does happen how do you know he(they) are responsible? and ok what if your god Did flood the earth and killed everyone, so what.

I'm referring to the Noah's Ark story.


Does that tell you maybe We arn't the center of the universe and that there is something bigger, more meaningful, and unfathomable that escapes our grasp.
-and maybe its not really "evil" from our respected perspective.

Well no first and foremost it's a story so it didn't you know actually happen. However that said it shows me that if the Judeo-Christian God is real then he isn't any God worth my praise :p

[Oriah]

I don't think there is any justification for the genocide of the entire human race but one guy and his family. How can you really excuse that?



I'm referring to the Noah's Ark story.



Well no first and foremost it's a story so it didn't you know actually happen. However that said it shows me that if the Judeo-Christian is real then he isn't any God worth my praise :p

I know it's a story, but you still have to ask those "what if's"
, maybe "god" is a prick, who knows, we certainly don't.

[lunchforthesky]

I know it's a story, but you still have to ask those "what if's"
, maybe "god" is a prick, who knows, we certainly don't.

Well assuming that we are talking of the Judeo-Christian God, then i'd say that while Jesus seems like a dude most of the time, God is pretty much a grade A bellend. I know some people consider them the same but if you read the Bible then yeah it's pretty obviously two different people with two entirely different characters.

[ThePinkPanther]

I don't think there is any justification for the genocide of the entire human race but one guy and his family. How can you really excuse that?

i dont think most people view the story of Noah's ark to be true. its more a story saying "be good and you'll be rewarded"

not

God kills all things like you're implying

you're looking at it from a much too literal stance

note: i dont believe half the stories in the bible to be true, but i find them to give good moral ideas

[Oriah]

But Maybe you are right and god isnt worth your praise, what ever you feel makes sense to you then so be it. In any case I like to go to the quote "Believe what you want, it doesn't mean you're right" - King Crimson

[PerpetualBurn]

"Believe what you want, it doesn't mean you're right" - King Crimson

Insightful...

[lunchforthesky]

i dont think most people view the story of Noah's ark to be true. its more a story saying "be good and you'll be rewarded"

not

God kills all things like you're implying

you're looking at it from a much too literal stance

note: i dont believe half the stories in the bible to be true, but i find them to give good moral ideas

You are being too selective.

The message is do what God wants and you will be rewarded but don't do what he wants and he will smite you and everyone you care about.

You can't just go ignoring half of the story cause you don't like what God does.

[Oriah]

Insightful...

heh I love it.

[Iskandar]

I remember that song. "Facts of Life."

[Oriah]

I remember that song. "Facts of Life."

You are correct sir. :chug:

[ThePinkPanther]

You are being too selective.

The message is do what God wants and you will be rewarded but don't do what he wants and he will smite you and everyone you care about.

You can't just go ignoring half of the story cause you don't like what God does.

i never said i liked or didnt like what He does

but the New Testament shows God as forgiving and loving, not the "fire from heaven to smite the heathens" God of the Old Testament. So when you bring that into context you don't (well shouldnt, unless you're jewish thus having only the old testament) focus on the "other half" of the story as you say because it is irrelevant.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's the same God.

[lunchforthesky]

i never said i liked or didnt like what He does

but the New Testament shows God as forgiving and loving, not the "fire from heaven to smite the heathens" God of the Old Testament. So when you bring that into context you don't (well shouldnt, unless you're jewish thus having only the old testament) focus on the "other half" of the story as you say because it is irrelevant.

It's supposed to be the same God but obviously it's one of the quirks of The Bible that for a monotheistic religion we are quite clearly dealing with two different Gods.

[ThePinkPanther]

It's the same God.

i know


but im not the one who wrote the bible so dont bitch at me

[PerpetualBurn]

Well you're the one taking part in the discussion...

If the authors are anywhere around I'll deal with those tits seperately.

[ThePinkPanther]

i am taking part of the discussion

but one cannot discuss the difference of the same God in the bible

other than to think He changed His mind.

[Oriah]

i am taking part of the discussion

but one cannot discuss the difference of the same God in the bible

other than to think He changed His mind.

I don't even see a reason to disscuss anymore. We can't get truth from any of this nor from any text no matter what you believe, it's never "Perfect" there-for made by man. :smash:

[PerpetualBurn]

i am taking part of the discussion

but one cannot discuss the difference of the same God in the bible

other than to think He changed His mind.

Well when I'm here to point out the problems of the Bible I don't see why I wouldn't point to the gaping inconsistencies like that.

[Oriah]

lets relax guys, WWJD HAHAhaahHAhaa :lol:

[Mr. Ron]

It's the same God.

Some Christians will say that before Jesus's arrival to save man, there was no way for forgiveness of sins and thats why god did what he did in the OT.

[ThePinkPanther]

Well when I'm here to point out the problems of the Bible I don't see why I wouldn't point to the gaping inconsistencies like that.

i agree with the inconsistency

but it doesnt matter because i dont put much weight on the old testament anyways

[PerpetualBurn]

Some Christians will say that before Jesus's arrival to save man, there was no way for forgiveness of sins and thats why god did what he did in the OT.

I don't think being smiley now makes up for world wide genocide.

but it doesnt matter because i dont put much weight on the old testament anyways

Well I don't see why you'd take one as truth without taking the other as the same. At which point you're talking about the same intelligent being, so where in the timeline he did stuff doesn't matter.

[ThePinkPanther]

Well I don't see why you'd take one as truth without taking the other as the same. At which point you're talking about the same intelligent being, so where in the timeline he did stuff doesn't matter.

i dont see any reason to HAVE to believe in both equally.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't think being smiley now makes up for world wide genocide.



Well I don't see why you'd take one as truth without taking the other as the same. At which point you're talking about the same intelligent being, so where in the timeline he did stuff doesn't matter.

I know lol. Then they will say those people deserved it because they were bad and god gave them fair waring, and they were deserving of death. I really really really hate it when people say others are "deserving" of death.

[PerpetualBurn]

i dont see any reason to HAVE to believe in both equally.

Well you don't have to. It's just if you're going to accept fairy tales why not go the whole hock?

I know lol. Then they will say those people deserved it because they were bad and god gave them fair waring, and they were deserving of death. I really really really hate it when people say others are "deserving" of death.

Well it's a funny sense of the word "deserving" since it would have to completely ignore any sense of justice that we understand.

[Mr. Ron]

Well you don't have to. It's just if you're going to accept fairy tales why not go the whole hock?



Well it's a funny sense of the word "deserving" since it would have to completely ignore any sense of justice that we understand.

I was actually having a convo about justice on another forum with some tool and he went on and on about how murderers deserve death because they took away a person's rights by killing them....and thats justice.

[JollyRoger24]

Does anybody know what the word Trinity refers to?

[Smokey D]

The indwelling of the three persons of God within the same being.

[JollyRoger24]

The three person are the father son and holy spirit or holy ghost which ever. If you think of them in more human context it might make sense. The father is the smite full father who when you do something wrong will ground or in the Noah case kill everybody. The son which in this case is Jesus is like a child, children tend to be more kind, and i say tend to cause i know someone is gunna say something about bullies. Then there is the holy spirit which is the teacher part that gives knowledge.

[Mr. Ron]

I never actually studied the trinity in my small catholic high school, oddly enough. I always thought of the trinity as a schizophrenic archetype of sorts.

[Smokey D]

It can't be because the actions of each person work in harmony with one another.

[Mr. Ron]

yet they are one in the same, but described as 3 separate persons.

[PerpetualBurn]

I always thought of it as silly and paradoxical.

[JollyRoger24]

Think of it like this: We see three men. "What are they?" we ask. "They are human beings," we answer. Each is man, possessing the same humanity and the same human nature defined in a certain way: created, temporal, physical, rational, etc. In what they are, the three men are one. But in who they are, they are three, each absolutely unique and distinct from the others. Each man in his own unique way is distinctly a man. One man is not the other, though each man is still human with one and the same human nature and form.

[Mr. Ron]

Think of it like this: We see three men. "What are they?" we ask. "They are human beings," we answer. Each is man, possessing the same humanity and the same human nature defined in a certain way: created, temporal, physical, rational, etc. In what they are, the three men are one. But in who they are, they are three, each absolutely unique and distinct from the others. Each man in his own unique way is distinctly a man. One man is not the other, though each man is still human with one and the same human nature and form.

Except the father, son and holy spirit are ACTUALLY one. Unlike the three men.

[Smokey D]

They are the same being ('of the same substance') but different persons. Persons here is not referring to the most-Freudian conception of the self, but a complex theological argument dating back before the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28religion%29

[PerpetualBurn]

Think of it like this: We see three men. "What are they?" we ask. "They are human beings," we answer. Each is man, possessing the same humanity and the same human nature defined in a certain way: created, temporal, physical, rational, etc. In what they are, the three men are one. But in who they are, they are three, each absolutely unique and distinct from the others. Each man in his own unique way is distinctly a man. One man is not the other, though each man is still human with one and the same human nature and form.

Think of it like this: silly and paradoxical

[JollyRoger24]

Except the father, son and holy spirit are ACTUALLY one. Unlike the three men.

The three men were used to show that they are made of the same thing but different in mind, just like The father the son and the holy spirit.

[Mr. Ron]

The three men were used to show that they are made of the same thing but different in mind, just like The father the son and the holy spirit.

I've always thought that the Catholic interpretation of the trinity was ONE being, comprised of three personalities that acted often times separate from each other. Again, I never really studied this in-depth.

[PerpetualBurn]

Which mind genocided the human race and what were the other two minds doing?

[Smokey D]

Hey people,the Trinity is composed of three persons in the same being, separate but equal, united in will etc.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, hilarious, isn't it.

[Mr. Ron]

Hey people,the Trinity is composed of three persons in the same being, separate but equal, united in will etc.

I'm having trouble grasping this concept though. How can a son and father be the same in one being?

[JollyRoger24]

Which mind genocided the human race and what were the other two minds doing?

Father committed this genocide you speak of(the Noah story right?), the spirit is seen as a teacher, and the son is the human form "so that all can believe".

[Mr. Ron]

Father committed this genocide you speak of(the Noah story right?), the spirit is seen as a teacher, and the son is the human form "so that all can believe".

So.....if these three persons are of the same being and are equal, and jesus being the same part of the being that committed the genocide is the same one that sent himself down to earth to speak against such behavior (jesus), wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?

[Smokey D]

I'm having trouble grasping this concept though. How can a son and father be the same in one being?

It's a different definition of being.

Whatever is begotten (not made) by God is God.

The Son is the self-realisation of the Father, made 'real' by the perfect attributes of God -- including reality.

And it doesn't make Him a hypocrite because Jesus is quite prepared to punish the sinful.

[JollyRoger24]

I'm having trouble grasping this concept though. How can a son and father be the same in one being?

Imagine the trinity is a triangle. The father is the tip and from the tip comes the son and the holy spirit.

n the Old Testament we find Yahweh, the one Lord and God, acting toward the world through His Word and His Spirit. In the New Testament the "Word becomes flesh" (Jn 1:14). As Jesus of Nazareth, the only-begotten Son of God becomes man. And the Holy Spirit, who is in Jesus making him the Christ, is poured forth from God upon all flesh (Acts 2:17).

does that help or no?

[Smokey D]

That's not how the Trinity is described in Western Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

[JollyRoger24]

Now you are coming into church history

[Mr. Ron]

It's a different definition of being.

Whatever is begotten (not made) by God is God.

The Son is the self-realisation of the Father, made 'real' by the perfect attributes of God -- including reality.

And it doesn't make Him a hypocrite because Jesus is quite prepared to punish the sinful.

But jesus is a far cry from the OT god.

[Smokey D]

Now you are coming into church history


No. I'm outlining how the Trinity is defined.

It is only a tiny minority who defines the Trinity in the way you've described.

But jesus is a far cry from the OT god.

No He's not.

[JollyRoger24]

But jesus is a far cry from the OT god.

and why is that a problem.

[Mr. Ron]

No. I'm outlining how the Trinity is defined.

It is only a tiny minority who defines the Trinity in the way you've described.



No He's not.

OT god: DEATH DEATH DEATH

Jesus: Turn the other cheek

[JollyRoger24]

No. I'm outlining how the Trinity is defined.

It is only a tiny minority who defines the Trinity in the way you've described.


it is still chuch history
the filioque clause (filioque meaning "and [from] the son" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

but now we are debating on something that has been going on for years we agree that trinity is 3

[Mr. Ron]

and why is that a problem.

If jesus is the same god that is represented in the OT, then he preached against himself and his actions.

[JollyRoger24]

If jesus is the same god that is represented in the OT, then he preached against himself and his actions.

I am a little confused on what you are saying. Are you trying to say that Jesus shows compasion while the God of the OT does not.

[Mr. Ron]

I am a little confused on what you are saying. Are you trying to say that Jesus shows compasion while the God of the OT does not.

Infanticide/genocide/plagues aren't really attributes of a compassionate deity.

[Smokey D]

it is still chuch history
the filioque clause (filioque meaning "and [from] the son" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

I know what the Filloque is.

But I doubt you're an Orthodox Christian.

[JollyRoger24]

I know what the Filloque is.

But I doubt you're an Orthodox Christian.

why do you say that. have i said i am not.

[Smokey D]

No, but the metaphors you're using are much more frequently used in Protestant circles.

[Hedgedive]

I hate to quote something from 12 pages back but

Do any other christians find other christians really really irritating? I find the whole social aspect of christianity really suffocating [ie christians that feel the need to constantly hang out with only other christians; as if peoples differing beliefs will rub off on them or something]. Any other christians that find church irritating in that aspect?

omg yes.

[JollyRoger24]

No, but the metaphors you're using are much more frequently used in Protestant circles.

hmm weird the metaphors were from a orthodox website

[Danger Bird]

omg yes.
lol try being a non-christian and getting dragged to a youth group by your christian friends.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's a different definition of being.

Whatever is begotten (not made) by God is God.

The Son is the self-realisation of the Father, made 'real' by the perfect attributes of God -- including reality.

And it doesn't make Him a hypocrite because Jesus is quite prepared to punish the sinful.

So Jesus prayed to himself.

What a self-loving prick.

[lunchforthesky]

So Jesus prayed to himself.

What a self-loving prick.

Yeah that doesn't really match up with the God and Jesus being the same guy deal.

[Smokey D]

Jesus people, do you not read? They were not the same person. They were of the same being. Jesus is the self-recognition of the Father. Father and Son, according to Trinitarianism, have shared a relationship of love since before time began.