The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You are essentially alienating people from your cause by your arrogant statements.

What I said is bold, if reckless. What Brian said is arrogant.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 If you knew anything about the belief system you are trying to discuss you would know that condemnation is not yours to give. There is no possible way for you to claim higher moral ground when you make comments like this.

The belief system I am discussing is that of the Bible, whose authors all echo the standards of Luke 16:19-31 and Luke 23:32-43; I am not usurping the prerogative to condemn anyone, but giving warning of that condemnation that is already written.

Originally Posted by bluegospel What Brian said is arrogant.

What is arrogant about saying you should do good for its own sake, rather than in hope of some reward?

Originally Posted by bluegospel What I said is bold, if reckless. What Brian said is arrogant.

No Blue what is arrogant is coming onto a forum with the intention of starting a fight. If your intention was not to start a fight then buddy you have gone about this the wrong way and need to look at your methods of delivery.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The belief system I am discussing is that of the Bible, whose authors all echo the standards of Luke 16:19-31 and Luke 23:32-43; I am not usurping the prerogative to condemn anyone, but giving warning of that condemnation that is already written.

You really have no idea. When you say

Originally Posted by bluegospel And he does it, yes, he should be commmended and the first guy condemned.

you are saying that people should condemn the individual for his actions. The words "should be" are not past tense as you are now trying to indicate.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If Johnny Beau Bart is so ambitious that he builds an empire and commissions the finest and purest philanthropists, scientists, engineers and physicians to establish justice, peace and good works universally, except that Johnny despises one poor fellow panhandling on the next block, he's essentially done that to Christ.

Ok....so what does that say about the 'christians' who want laws passed to discriminate against others, based on DIFFERING religions, orientations, and (sadly, in the not too distant past), race? How about those who are overjoyed about violence committed against others in the name of 'being christian'?? Are you saying THEY should be condemned too??

Hope so...otherwise, that's another contradictory statement.

Are you saying THEY should be condemned too??

Nah, we know that blue is implying that these people should be commended since usually they are the organizers of the "reformed panhandler". Often their intemperate outbursts are a mask for organised attacks on other groups.

All this is known but I really now wonder why I am bumping up this thread.

OK

Originally Posted by TB0ne Ok....so what does that say about the 'christians' who want laws passed to discriminate against others, based on DIFFERING religions, orientations, and (sadly, in the not too distant past), race?

That is not and never has been a particularly "christian" phenomena. The Japanese, even before WW2, passed laws concerning the Ainu of Auni Moshiri (Hokkaido) that discriminated against them. Buddhist, who are supposedly peace loving, are currently involved in attacks on Muslims in Burma. Lenin and Stalin, and other former Communist (read athiests) leaders have also done this. There is good and bad in both sides, lowering this discussion to the lowest common denomiator, yet picking at only one group, does nothing for your argument and actually makes you appear extremely biased.

The problem with debated like this is the tendency for both sides to pick at the other side for things that they have done as though they are the only ones to have done it.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 That is not and never has been a particularly "christian" phenomena. The Japanese, even before WW2, passed laws concerning the Ainu of Auni Moshiri (Hokkaido) that discriminated against them. Buddhist, who are supposedly peace loving, are currently involved in attacks on Muslims in Burma. Lenin and Stalin, and other former Communist (read athiests) leaders have also done this. There is good and bad in both sides, lowering this discussion to the lowest common denomiator, yet picking at only one group, does nothing for your argument and actually makes you appear extremely biased. The problem with debated like this is the tendency for both sides to pick at the other side for things that they have done as though they are the only ones to have done it.

Couldn't agree more, sadly. I do tend to be a bit biased, given where I live. I remember when Eric Robert Rudolph bombed that clinic (was only about 2 miles from my house), and got to hear some 'fine good christians', spouting off about how it was 'gods will' that folks died, and a nurse was critically injured, etc., etc.

You are totally right in that it's not just a 'christian' phenomenon. But I was responding to blue's posts...

Originally Posted by TB0ne Really? ...then.... So...part one is it doesn't matter what you DO...part two it does??? Yet those don't contradict each other? And according to that link you posted, doesn't that also imply that a non-believer that spends their entire life doing well, will be favored? And why should it be OK for a 'believer' to spend their life being a total jackass, and doing ONE good thing is enough? And according to things I've read...aren't we ALL supposed to be children of God? Not just the 'select few', or doesn't that contradict what's in the bible elsewhere?

TBone, I know you can read more accurately than that. I said very clearly, there are two bases for judgment--primarily and ultimately, what you are. Secondarily, what you do. The first basis determines your eternal condition, whether eternal death or eternal life has you soul. The second basis determines your appraisal by God, and I'll add, justification for the former.

Originally Posted by TB0ne And according to that link you posted, doesn't that also imply that a non-believer that spends their entire life doing well, will be favored? And why should it be OK for a 'believer' to spend their life being a total jackass, and doing ONE good thing is enough?

Absolutely not. 1) I have only said that being good was enough, which requires Christ. If a man is a jackass and becomes good, becoming good is enough. 2)He's praised for the good he does--if one deed.

If a person does good deeds all their life that doesn't make them good. If they do it, for example, so they can feel good about themselves, it may be satisfying after having done it, but it doesn't resolve the most important event of their life--it's end. When God asks for an accounting for their life, and they plea, "Well, Lord, I did all these good deeds . . . and such and such . . ." they're assuming they've earned God's favor--which is a bad assumption.

Originally Posted by TB0ne And according to things I've read...aren't we ALL supposed to be children of God? Not just the 'select few', or doesn't that contradict what's in the bible elsewhere?

If the Bible and the Holy Spirit weren't clear that this was not the case, then I would hope that what you suggest here were true. But it doesn't and it's not. The fact is that every one of us has trespassed God, trespassed others--irreparably. We cannot mend those trespasses by good works.

We are all "children of God" in the limited sense that Adam was a child of God and that God created every one of us. But membership in God's household is by adoption and it is by right, through faith in his Son, Jesus, who bore our sins, died, was dead for 3 days, and through literal resurrection, overcame death for us. You're either devoted or against him. You can't dismiss him as another good teacher, another saint, another myth or another liar, and be justified before God.

Originally Posted by brianL What is arrogant about saying you should do good for its own sake, rather than in hope of some reward?

I was referring to his reference to the living God as a "mythological creature." Such a statement requires either arrogance, a stunted mentality, or at best, total blindness.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 you are saying that people should condemn the individual for his actions. The words "should be" are not past tense as you are now trying to indicate.

No, I am not saying that any person has any right to condemn anyone, but that he duly stands condemned before God. I myself don't know that person because he (or she) is hypothetical. I would not point at anyone and say, "you," or "that person," is condemned because he despises the poor. I would rather pray for him with God's help.

Originally Posted by TB0ne Ok....so what does that say about the 'christians' who want laws passed to discriminate against others, based on DIFFERING religions, orientations, and (sadly, in the not too distant past), race? How about those who are overjoyed about violence committed against others in the name of 'being christian'?? Are you saying THEY should be condemned too?? Hope so...otherwise, that's another contradictory statement.

I will not argue that there aren't hypocritical Christians. Nor will I deny that there are many immature Christians. In fact it grieves me that so many Christians take for granted such precious things as literacy, especially today when we have such replete stores of information at our fingertips.

Hypocrisy and immaturity are two very different things. As far as legal actions, that can get very complex, and lead to very heated arguments. So I'll just give this example:

Christians often claim that America is a Christian nation because they say it was founded on Christian principles. An elder, who used to be the Pastor of our small church, often boasts "Two-thirds (or three-quarters, something like that) of the signers of our Articles or Constitution were ordained ministers!"

My first thought when he says that is, "Yeah and probably 100% owned slaves." So what it really comes down to is this--did they protect the same rights for their slaves as they did for themselves and each other? Was their motive to free their slaves? If they didn't have the same regard to their slaves rights as for themselves then they were essentially just New World Pharisees, no matter how attentive they were to their religion, in which case I would argue America is not and has never been Christian. But I'm not arguing that because I don't know how they treated or were inclined to free their slaves.

That's a topic I look forward to discussing on the social media site I'm working on.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I will not argue that there aren't hypocritical Christians. Nor will I deny that there are many immature Christians. In fact it grieves me that so many Christians take for granted such precious things as literacy, especially today when we have such replete stores of information at our fingertips.

How much of your time and energy is spent dealing with hypocritical 'christians', and how much of it do you spend on sites like this, trying to 'convert' others?? And since you value literacy, wasn't it YOU that posted such gems as this?

Originally Posted by bluegospel "I'd like to get my hands on whatever time-machine you've laid hold of. You must have one since you know so much about the councils of the 4th century" "The testimony of Christians--whether of hypocrites or of saints--is very weighty" "Tell you what, I'll carefully study a dozen or two pages of your most recommended book"

So:

1. They're called 'books'.
2. No, Christians aren't special in ANY way, thanks. Their testimony isn't worth more than anyone elses, under ANY circumstances
3. Wow..a WHOLE DOZEN PAGES?

Hypocrisy and immaturity are two very different things. As far as legal actions, that can get very complex, and lead to very heated arguments. So I'll just give this example: Christians often claim that America is a Christian nation because they say it was founded on Christian principles. An elder, who used to be the Pastor of our small church, often boasts "Two-thirds (or three-quarters, something like that) of the signers of our Articles or Constitution were ordained ministers!" My first thought when he says that is, "Yeah and probably 100% owned slaves." So what it really comes down to is this--did they protect the same rights for their slaves as they did for themselves and each other? Was their motive to free their slaves? If they didn't have the same regard to their slaves rights as for themselves then they were essentially just New World Pharisees, no matter how attentive they were to their religion, in which case I would argue America is not and has never been Christian. But I'm not arguing that because I don't know how they treated or were inclined to free their slaves. That's a topic I look forward to discussing on the social media site I'm working on.

Go back to point one: they're called BOOKS. Venture out of the religion section, and you'll find lots of them. They cover such things as America being a Christian nation (it's not...and wasn't intended to be). They came here to worship as they saw fit, and when they laid the groundwork for the country, they EXPLICITLY SAID that there should be no state religion; christian or otherwise. Read up on how Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson viewed Muslims. Want to know how they viewed things? Read their biographies, and even their personal diaries, since they're in the Library of Congress. You don't have to not know..you can learn.

And on the slave topic, you might want to look up Leviticus 25:44, and Exodus 21:7. This is also a good read, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Originally Posted by bluegospel No, I am not saying that any person has any right to condemn anyone, but that he duly stands condemned before God. I myself don't know that person because he (or she) is hypothetical. I would not point at anyone and say, "you," or "that person," is condemned because he despises the poor. I would rather pray for him with God's help.

But you infered that. If you believe in predestination then you believe God's judgements and rewards are already set, if you don't believe in predestination then they are not set. You said "should be condemned" so you are either saying it is mankind who is condemning or that God hasn't made up his mind yet. So answer me this Blue, what do you believe?

Originally Posted by bluegospel I was referring to his reference to the living God as a "mythological creature." Such a statement requires either arrogance, a stunted mentality, or at best, total blindness.

Well, mythical being, is that better?
Arrogance? No, I'm a very 'umble person, Mr Copperfield.
Stunted mentality? No. Not a genius, just slightly above average IQ.
Total blindness? No. Short-sighted, though.