|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2002 : 21:49:50
|
I don't know if anyone else has read this, but there's a good article comparing different denominations of Christianity over at secweb.org
Just an example, from the religion I had grown up in, Presbyterian Church:
Their authority is basically a circular thing:
quote:
The reformers based all of their claims on "sola scripture," the scriptures alone; therefore, the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God and guides all.
And their stance on heaven and hell? Read on:
quote:
The most current statement I(the author) could find comes from a 1974 paper on universalism adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. It mentions judgment and promises hope, acknowledging that the ideas of heaven & hell seem to be "in paradox." This statement concedes how God works redemption and judgment still remains a "mystery" to man.
Am I ever glad I got out when I did! 
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 15:24:43 [Permalink]
|
James, I can totally relate to the guy writting this article. I have been doing a little research into the variety of ways one is "saved." I was raised Baptist and taught that you need only have faith that Jesus was who the Bible said he was and that he did everything it says he did. POW! you are saved. And once you are saved you cannot lose that salvation. So I guess that even though I have since become an atheist I am still going to the heaven I no longer believe in. My incredibly right wing brother calls this "fire insurance."
It is a classic argument. "What if I am right and you are wrong" The problem that Xians don't take into account is that other religions could say the same thing to them. Their argument only works on people who don't believe in the afterlife. Interesting post, I am curious what everyone else thinks.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 16:40:09 [Permalink]
|
The question might just be "what are you being saved from?"
Since the answer isn't really "sin" ('cause ya gonna sin anyway you nasty little so and so and you actually like to sin don't you?) but rather punishment resulting from your sin; you have to check who is it who is going to punish you.
That would be god who is all good and all just and all wharever.
So it turns out that you are being saved FROM god.
Funny religion.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 18:50:10 [Permalink]
|
Slater you always have such an interesting take on things. And yes I do enjoy my SIN. Never thought of it as having to be saved from god. I want to find the god that will save me from death. I don't want to have to die to find eternal life. Again,"funny religion."
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
|
InChrist
New Member
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2002 : 23:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Greetings to all.
This is my first post on the SFN. I have read many of your posts, mostly regarding religion, but also of some other topics as well.
Because this is my first time writing, I should tell you first off that I am a Christian. But before being quick to judge me, I must tell you that I am NOT into religion, or what could be called "churchianity." Why? because it's usually something traditional, something made up by a man. A good example of this, true Roman Catholicism, ie following the 7 sacraments to get into heaven, something which most Catholics don't even do. Not to step on anyone's toes, but I don't accept that as Christianity. But many of the other "established churches" such, as those mentioned here quite often, have the potential to become hypocritical and legalistic.
Another thing I should be sure to mention, I am not close minded. I do evaluate my beliefs. Blind faith is nothing but stupidity in my opinion, and many people in this country simply put their faith in Christianity, or any other belief for that matter, just because it sounds good. That's not me!! I do reason, trying not to be biased if I can.
Here is what I believe, if you seek God above all else, all of those things won't matter anymore. So how do you know that what I say is true? Well, I unfortunately cannot prove this to you literally because we have different beliefs, and attacking your beliefs is certainly not going to get us anywhere. So I respect all of your beliefs and recognize your right to have them and I hope that you will do the same for me. I also respect the right of churches to have their beliefs. This means I will call anyone who professes to be a Christian just that, a Christian. I do not judge them. But I can evaluate their actions and tell you whether or not they are living a Christian life. Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you are. I feel compelled to apologize to everyone who has had a bad experience with someone calling themselves a Christian. I know I've had some! But it's unfortunate that I cannot erase their folly. So let me give you a way by which you will be able to separate the true Christians, people truly seeking God, to those who are most likely just pretending. If you are ever in a situation where someone you know, who claims to be a Christian, screws up, watch to see how they recover. If they admit their mistake, apologize, ask for forgiveness, and honestly try to reconcile their error, chances are they are a Christian. If not, they probably aren't a Christian. How do I know this? Because the definition of being a Christian, whether you believe Christ existed or not, is that you will want to obey the teachings of Christ, which would include reconciling yourself to others. And one more good indication, while I'm on the topic, is whether people do things "in the name of God." Best example, the Crusades. The Crusades directly defy Christian principles. People simply were looking for a reason, an excuse. Don't buy this. Take a look at those people skeptically. Are they really Christians?
One last thing, I don't wish to "force my beliefs" on anyone. I don't want to change your beliefs. (snicker, snicker) "Yea, right" you might say. "Every Christian is out to convert the world. Why would you be any different?" Simple, as a Christian it is not a requirement that you must proselityze people. (continued on another post)
|
|
|
|
InChrist
New Member
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2002 : 23:10:51 [Permalink]
|
I can't convince people of Christianity by saying some "magic words" that will cause them to be "forever changed!" I just want to be a part of the debate here, for in challenging each other, we find out what we really believe. And I percieve that many of you are very intellegent, truly knowing Christianity, not just writing it off. So in my words may you see my difference, the identity I claim in Christ. Sorry that this is so long! I hope you found it interesting if you have read this far.
Let me expound a little on what I believe, in regard to the original post, and then you can respond to it.
What about the Bible?
I have found two things to be true about the Bible. If I follow what it says in my daily life, changes result in myself that I cannot explain. This I know to be true. I also know that the Bible is not mysterious, but plain, meant to be easily understood. (Some parts of Revelation can be tough though!) So I take it literally (more on this I will talk about in the Creation/Evolution debate).
Now this brings up a few problems. If I take the Bible literally, then I must believe in the "inerrancy of Scripture." Let me tell you that I never assume anything to be true just because. I will try it and find out for myself. So far I have not found any inerrancy as I see it. This doesn't mean that there aren't any. You might begin citing some that you believe are errors. Please do so in order that I might check them for myself. But I must warn you that many supposed contradictions are 1)not in context 2)misunderstanding of the English language. I have seen that some of you have a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. This impressed me greatly and really caught my attention. I am somewhat intimidated by this, but I will do my best. What more can anyone ask of me?
You also might say "What about the authors of the Bible? How can we know that those are even Jesus' words? How can we know that the Bible wasn't masterminded by some people who were just trying to create a religion?" These are all very excellent questions and demand attention. First, the Bible has been found to be accurately translated for many hundreds of years. And there are an abundance of manuscripts, all in nearly complete agreement with only minor differences in word choice and no change in meaning. This might explain the accuracy to the canonization, but what about before the canonization? This is where things become more difficult. We have no original manuscripts. So the physcial evidence isn't very supportive. I mean there's no physical evidence. The only reason we can know that Christ even existed is from the writings of Josephus and Tacitus. I will save this for the other forum though.
If we can't get anywhere with physical evidence, we can try to get there with reason. There are many who would say that the apostles were merely trying to make a new religion, create a conspiracy, or to exalt some average man who had some interesting teachings. Many writers in history have created myths, many of which are based on actual things or people. Why is Christianity any different? One indication is that all of the apostles, save one, died for their beliefs. How do we know that? Let's look at history to see if that idea has any merit. We know that Christians under the Roman Empire were often killed merely because they are Christians. Tacitus writes of this in his Annals when he mentions those who follow Christus and them being "punished" for acts they did not even committ because they were "hated." Even today Christians are being killed for their beliefs simply because. (continued)
|
|
|
|
InChrist
New Member
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2002 : 23:39:25 [Permalink]
|
Not because they are of a certain race, for many people are killed because of their lineage, not because they have done something to anger someone, for many Christians live their lives peacably and don't offend anyone, but simply because of their beliefs. Other people die for beliefs, Islam being a prime example, but if the apostles really did die, why would they die for a lie? Moreover, even if someone was to die for a lie themselves, many Christians in history watched as their families were murdered in front of them. I don't believe anyone would go to such lengths to propagate a lie. How would they even know that Christianity would someday supposedly become the largest (it might not be anymore, Islam might have surpassed) religion in the world with over a billion people being identified with it? Especially when the entire world hated them enough to put them to death. I recognize that this evidence is pretty weak in itself, so I will continue with a bit more later. I will also write about universalism as I am very involved with this topic on another discussion board. I think that I have probably written more than enough for the time being.
I look forward to hearing your responses. I myself am still searching the issue of the Bible and why it can be trusted. So far the greatest evidence I have is the evidence of it's affect on my life. I hope you will all see this.
In my closing words let me tell you that many times I have seen a general bashing of Christianity. If you want to do so, so be it. I'm not going to condemn you or anything. But let me say that a man never describes his character more clearly than when he describes that of another. Therefore, if you wish to be taken seriously, as I do, then you will not need to insult anyone because you are secure in your beliefs. So do as you will.
And I apologize again for the length of this posting. Once I get started it's hard to stop!
Grace and Peace
Josh
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 04:26:35 [Permalink]
|
Welcome InChrist.
I don't want to convert you to atheism or anything, but I asume that posting your convictions here means that you don't mind having them discussed.
If you are interested in a discussion about the origins of the NT and wether or not it is a lie you should read the two "did Jesus really exist? thread in this topic. There is a lot of evidence there for it not being a factual acount and Slater makes a good argument for it being a deliberate constructed lie.
I have a problem with your definition of Christianity. I don't understand it.
What exactly makes a christian a christian? Living acording to your interpretation of what the bible really means instead of the uncontable interpretations of others who thought of themselves as christians? In other places in your post you argue that there must be something to christianity because it has had so many followers. But according to your definition most of them were not true christians, were they?
If you are looking for inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible I would suggest you start with something like the
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I also have a problem with your christianity must be true because so many belive in it and are willing to die for it.
Does that mean that truth is democratic? Many People have died for communism. Does that mean that it has to be true because they would never die for a lie?
Neither Christians nor Muslims or Jews are in the Majoity by the way. If you want to go with what is most popular today you should probably go with Buddihsm or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 08:37:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Welcome InChrist.
I don't want to convert you to atheism or anything, but I asume that posting your convictions here means that you don't mind having them discussed.
If you are interested in a discussion about the origins of the NT and wether or not it is a lie you should read the two "did Jesus really exist? thread in this topic. There is a lot of evidence there for it not being a factual acount and Slater makes a good argument for it being a deliberate constructed lie.
I have a problem with your definition of Christianity. I don't understand it.
What exactly makes a christian a christian? Living acording to your interpretation of what the bible really means instead of the uncontable interpretations of others who thought of themselves as christians? In other places in your post you argue that there must be something to christianity because it has had so many followers. But according to your definition most of them were not true christians, were they?
If you are looking for inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible I would suggest you start with something like the
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I also have a problem with your christianity must be true because so many belive in it and are willing to die for it.
Does that mean that truth is democratic? Many People have died for communism. Does that mean that it has to be true because they would never die for a lie?
Neither Christians nor Muslims or Jews are in the Majoity by the way. If you want to go with what is most popular today you should probably go with Buddihsm or something like that.
Lars,
In Christ seems to be someone who actually "gets" their faith. By recognising that faith comes from within and recognising that it is unprovable, he is merely making statements of his faith and explaining what that faith means to him. As for calling some Christians unChristian, that is an evaluation of deeds versus his interpretation of the Bible. (In Christ, please feel free to correct me if I've misstated your position. I won't insult you to claim I know your mind or anyone elses.)
As to majority, in the whole world, Christianity is not a majority. It is however a majority in the Western world. (US, UK, Europe) As one moves into the middle east and far east, Islam and Buddhism are majorities in those areas.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
SueW0
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 09:05:27 [Permalink]
|
You're in high school or college, right? Just guessing.
quote:
So far I have not found any inerrancy as I see it.
I haven't found any inerrancy either. :-D
quote:
Not because they are of a certain race, for many people are killed because of their lineage, not because they have done something to anger someone, for many Christians live their lives peacably and don't offend anyone, but simply because of their beliefs.
People get killed for being gay or the wrong color too.
quote:
Other people die for beliefs, Islam being a prime example, but if the apostles really did die, why would they die for a lie?
Oh, how many times have I heard that over the years? The question doesn't even make sense. It sets up a false dichotomy: either the story of Jesus is absolutely TRUE or it must be a "lie". Things don't quite work that way. If a Scientologist comes up to you preaching whatever it is those people believe, is he telling "The Truth"? No. Is he "lying"? No, because he *believes* it. If some whackos beat him to death because they hate Scientologists, did he "die for a lie"? No.
This "people don't die for a lie" business is something I've come to call proof by fanaticism, and it's a logical fallacy. In fact, I'm nearly convinced that the more fanatical the followers of a belief system are, and the more willing they are to "die for" it, the LESS likely it is to be true.
quote:
I myself am still searching the issue of the Bible and why it can be trusted. So far the greatest evidence I have is the evidence of it's affect on my life. I hope you will all see this.
I consider that the worst sort of evidence there is. You can't get any less objective than that. For that matter, from what I've seen, the effect of faith, particularly in Christianity or the inerrancy of the Bible, has been pretty poor in some respects. It leaves people completely defenseless against con artists and pseudo-science like creationism by encouraging faith over reason and deactivating their B.S. meters.
quote:
In my closing words let me tell you that many times I have seen a general bashing of Christianity.
That's nothing compared to the bashing of atheists I see in the media. Being bashed doesn't make you right. Bashing atheists is politically correct, that's all.
quote:
And I apologize again for the length of this posting. Once I get started it's hard to stop!
You can always edit, ya know!
Speaking for myself, I don't see what there is to be gained from worrying about whether the Bible is absolutely correct in every meaningless detail or not. It's just an ancient book, written by people who didn't know any more than you do about Ulimate Reality, and subject to all the limitations one would expect from fallible human beings. Once you realize that, interpreting the Bible becomes a lot simpler, and no longer a matter of eternal life and death!
Sue
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 10:39:16 [Permalink]
|
A good example of this, true Roman Catholicism, ie following the 7 sacraments to get into heaven, something which most Catholics don't even do. Not to step on anyone's toes, but I don't accept that as Christianity.
My goodness, what a way to start. Take the oldest form of christianity misrepresent it and complain because it isn't protestant. Starting with a "straw-man" isn't very good form.
I do reason, trying not to be biased if I can. Try harder, I don't think any catholic would recognize you as being unbiased.
So how do you know that what I say is true? Well, I unfortunately cannot prove this to you literally because we have different beliefs, and attacking your beliefs is certainly not going to get us anywhere.
Atheists don't hold beliefs about gods so don't worry about attacking them, they aren't there. But you may have noticed in your reading of this site that Skeptics require evidence and proof before they will subscribe to an idea
This means I will call anyone who professes to be a Christian just that, a Christian. I do not judge them.
Give me a break. You started off by attacking the Roman Catholics -the largest branch of christianity--saying " I don't accept that as Christianity"
So in my words may you see my difference, the identity I claim in Christ.
I can't see any difference. You are taking exactly the same tact that five out of the last six christians who posted here did.
It is almost like you all used the same "How to Bamboozle Skeptics" guide book.
If I follow what (the Bible) says in my daily life, changes result in myself that I cannot explain.
This is what a Jesuit colleague of mine calls "The Protestant Cult of the Bible". Taking the instruction manual of christianity and attributing magical powers to it
So far I have not found any inerrancy as I see it.
I take it that was just a typo and not a Freudian slip.
But I must warn you that many supposed contradictions are 1)not in context 2)misunderstanding of the English language.
Since your book is supposed to be without error because it was inspired by a god then it shouldn't matter which language it's printed in, should it? Or are you saying that god doesn't speak English?
First, the Bible has been found to be accurately translated for many hundreds of years. And yet not a few lines have passed since you said there was a misunderstanding of the English language.
And there are an abundance of manuscripts, all in nearly complete agreement with only minor differences in word choice and no change in meaning.
You'll find the same to be true of all the professionally produced books of the period. There was an extensive publishing industry during the entire history of Rome and stretching into the "dark ages" with professional transcribers, proof readers and copy editors. Nothing magic about it, it was a business.
We have no original manuscripts. So the physcial evidence isn't very supportive. I mean there's no physical evidence.
We have no evidence that dates from the time of the Jesus character. But we may very well have the original manuscripts, those which date from 325 CE.
The only reason we can know that Christ even existed is from the writings of Josephus and Tacitus. I will save this for the other forum though.
You haven't been reading the posts here, have you. There are only about 20 lines of copy in Josephus which refer to christians. They were all added by the Roman Catholic Church in the late Fourth Century. The chirstians who Tactius was talking about were the followers of Apollonius of Tyana and not Jesus.
So we don't know that there was an historic Jesus. And since all of the stories attributed to him can be traced to earlier sources it would be foolish to assume that there was.
One indication is that all of the apostles, save one, died for their beliefs.
The problem with this assertion is there are no records. There is no evidence that there were Apostles at all let alone details of their deaths.
We know that Christians under the Roman Empire were often killed merely because they are Christians. No we don't. We do have a number of books that tell of the martyrs but they date from the Sixth Century --well after the fall of Rome.
Tacitus writes of this in his Annals when he mentions those who follow Christus and them being "punished" for acts they did not even committ because they were "hated."
"Christus" or "Christna" is a Vedic god. The spelling of his name, in English, was changed in the mid 1800's to "Krishna".
many Christians live their lives peacably and don't offend anyone, but simply because of their beliefs.
And many do not, but rather try to force their weird beliefs down the throats of the general population.
but if the apostles really did die, why would they die for a lie?
Yes, why not? It happens all the time. You just mentioned the Islam. That's 10 martyred apostles vs. 19 terrorists. Mohamed bets you nearly two to one.
Especially when the entire world hated them enough to put them to death.
You have history backwards.
The Emperor Theodosius the Great (r. 379-395 CE) made it a capital offence to be anything other than a christian. "Pagans" were put to death by the thousands. "Pagans" were legally slaughtered by the christians until the Eighteenth Century.
So far the greatest evidence I have is the evidence of it's affect on my life. I hope you will all see this.
Nope, I don't see it at all. You are putting forward a testable premise. Reading the bible and following it's teachings will change a person. You haven't said how but I presume you mean for the better. But you seem to dodge around this test by declaring only the people you like to be "true" christians.
Worst case scenario Adolph Hitler. In his writings he considered himself a devout christian. His treatment of the Jews was merely following the teachings of Martin Luther's interpretation of St Paul. According to your test it shouldn't have been possible for Hitler to be the fiend that he was. Since he was that should negate any claims of positive changes being made simply by being a christian.
In my closing words let me tell you that many times I have seen a general bashing of Christianity. If you want to do so, so be it.
If you have a personal belief system and you keep it to yourself everyone will respect that.
HOWEVER…if you present it on a public forum, particularly one that is dedicated to the philosophy of Skepticism, you wave any special treatment. The bashing is because it is a cock and bull story that has done more harm to the people of this world than any other story ever has. If you think you can defend it then by all means do. But do not be surprised if christianity isn't welcomed with open arms. Most of us here who are Atheists became so by studying christianity.
Therefore, if you wish to be taken seriously, as I do, then you will not need to insult anyone because you are secure in your beliefs. Josh, do not portray Atheism as a belief as it is just the opposite. Most Xians start off by demanding that insults not be used and then start quoting Psalm 14:1. I hope you aren't as disingenuous as your brethren have been.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 11:59:55 [Permalink]
|
InChrist, I hope you don't feel overwhelmed, as most Christians who post here are bombarded by posts in response!
Just to pick a small part of what you've posted, and since I just finished an English research paper on the subject, so it's kinda fresh in my memory:
quote:
First, the Bible has been found to be accurately translated for many hundreds of years. And there are an abundance of manuscripts, all in nearly complete agreement with only minor differences in word choice and no change in meaning.
Homework assignment:
1. Of how many generations is Jesus descended from David? (Mt. 1:6-16 vs. Lk. 3:21-31)
2. Where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after he was born? (Mt. 2:14 vs. Lk. 2:39)
3. Name the 12 disciples. (Mt.10:2-4, Mk.3:16-18 vs. Lk.6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
4. When did the earth dry up after the flood? (Gen. 8:13 vs. Gen. 8:14)
5. Who bore Jesus' cross? (Jn. 19:17 vs. Mk. 15:21)
6. What's up with that damn cock and its crowing? (Mt.26:34, 74-75 vs. Mk.14:30, 66-72)
7. Is divorce ok? (Mk. 10:11 vs. Mt. 5:32)
8. Can God lie? (Tit. 1:2 vs. Ezek. 14:9)
9. What came first, man or animals? (Gen. 1:25-27 vs. Gen. 2:18-19)
and one more:
10. What were Jesus' last words? (Mt. 27:46 vs. Lk. 23:46 vs. Jn. 19:30)
(with a huge nod to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com  )
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 13:19:36 [Permalink]
|
You know my reply to Psalm 14:1 is Matthew 5:22: "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Hahahaa! Burn, sinner, BUUUURN!
It's a good think I'm an athiest, for I would make a damned good fundie preacher....oh, but I'm a woman too. Drat!
quote:
One last thing, I don't wish to "force my beliefs" on anyone.
Nor can you. No longer.
As for Christianity being true because many people were willing to die for it, that is a fallacy known as 'appeal to popularity' (Don't worry, I won't trouble you with the Latin).
I am perfectly willing to die for athiesm or the Great Cthulhu. Does that make either belief* correct?
*Strictly speaking, I do not believe in Cthulhu, although I am his priestess.
- Cthulhu Saves! - |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 15:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's a good think I'm an athiest, for I would make a damned good fundie preacher....oh, but I'm a woman too. Drat!
Never stopped Tammy Faye.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 15:37:00 [Permalink]
|
I didn't think of Tammy Faye as a preacher so much as the town crier.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Wiley
Skeptic Friend
68 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2002 : 15:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Stop with Tammy Faye. Y'all are just tryin' to give nightmares, aren't you.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
