Why believe in God when there are more logic solutions?

[ivdavid]

seekandlisten, i really am unable to comprehend what you actually believe in - you seem to be taking too many stances at once. I hope you'd help my confusion here -

The flood and creation are stories not history and people should be encouraged to find the 'meaning' in these stories rather than take them as 'literal history' when we have evidence that contradicts these as 'facts'.

You seem to be holding a dual standard of what 'fact' or 'observable evidence' is.
1) In some cases, you consider absolutely accepted scientific facts that are observable even now as insufficient.
In these cases, you are willing to accept the religious view in faith while rejecting what the scientific intelligentsia have to say about it. Eg: Your belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection. I think people staying dead after passing away is accepted as fact and observable evidence today and yet you choose to ignore it.
2) In some other cases, you choose to embrace the scientific evidences and rail against faith or rather 'blind faith' as you would call it.
Is there a reasoning behind this that I don't see now?

Faith should be put in your 'God', not religion, the bible, or anything else that comes from our world.

I somehow feel you're misinterpreting what 'religion' actually means.
I've read of your tolerance for other's beliefs in your posts elsewhere. So I'm assuming you wouldn't be against any beliefs that I choose to have and wouldn't impose your faith or beliefs on me.

Now, Principle is defined as any basic truth or proposition. These principles may range from truths revealed by God to specific purposed ordinances. Doctrine is any such principle or set of principles that are presented for acceptance and belief. Religion is a combination of such sets of doctrines. That's the pure simple meaning of religion - at least that's the way i perceive it.
So, one could possibly choose to believe in the doctrine of total depravity of human nature, or the doctrine of regeneration or in salvation by grace through faith. It may simply be the belief in Jesus as God (I think it's the doctrine of God-man). It may also range from the belief in holy wars to belief in faith evidenced by good works. Any combination of doctrines that seems complete, internally non-contradictory and externally consistent leads to being defined as a religion.
The hindus believe in the doctrine of rebirth, while the Christians believe in the doctrine of resurrection. And so on and so forth goes the various acceptance of sets of beliefs.

Therefore, when you ask me not to put my faith in religion, to me it sounds like - 'do not put your faith in your set of beliefs'. I don't know if that's what you intended but that's how i perceive it. And this crossing into other's beliefs is what we agreed not to do earlier. So, i believe in certain doctrines that I wholly accept and put my faith in and since these doctrines are what the Christian religion puts forth, I claim to be a Christian who puts his faith in Christianity. If you adopt a different set of doctrines, then you too have a 'religion' in your hands - it just cannot be called Christianity. So your believing in the doctrine of resurrection but not the doctrine of Holy Trinity makes you accept a different set of beliefs apart from what the Christian religion's set of beliefs consists of, thereby making you a non-Christian.

Your argument seems to be about why mere mortal men should decide what set of beliefs are to be compiled together. But that's the very point - mere mortal men didn't pull out these doctrines from mid-air. These were laid out in the written Word of God - the Bible - and all these doctrines are derived only from God-breathed Scripture.

This takes us to your next argument about the Bible not being the Word of God but rather only ordinary writings of men which contains some truths but not perfectly true in itself.

Yeah, men were 'inspired' by 'God' to write scripture. I'm pretty sure it wasn't referring only to Constantine's council approved bible though.

All i get as response for what i'd written is a sarcastic opinionated remark - so very unlike you. You've ignored all the reasoning that I put forth and have simply stuck to your beliefs. So let me put forth my reasoning again in a direct format.
1. Do you believe Jesus was sent by God? Yes/No.
(I read of your belief in His divinity somewhere - so I'd assume this to be a Yes)
2. Do you believe that Jesus knew the Old Testament Scripture thoroughly and even quoted it many times? Yes/No.
3. If yes, then do you believe that if Jesus had doubted the veracity or authenticity of the Scriptures, He would have derided it instead of hailing it? Yes/No.
4. If yes, then how was the Old Testament Scripture perfectly written and compiled - by mere mortal men or by the guidance and inspiration of God?
5. If the OT truth could be preserved perfectly by God, then can't the same happen in the NT Scriptures?

With regard to Jesus quoting OT Scripture -
Joh 5:46 For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My Words?

If we are to believe the writings of Moses, then Genesis is the first of those and creation happens to be the first of Genesis. So yes, I would believe God's account of creation to any other theory/'fact'.
As in Romans 3:4, " But let God be true, and every man a liar "
I hope you don't imagine the account of Jesus Christ to have been manufactured. If so, then how can anyone trust any other teaching of Christ? How can anyone even believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

I'll continue in the next post...

 

[ivdavid]

... continuing from my previous post.

To revisit your statement -

Faith should be put in your 'God', not religion, the bible, or anything else that comes from our world.

Let's take your position. If I decide to put my faith in God and God alone and reject religion, Bible and anything else from the world, then what am I supposed to believe in? Wouldn't that become the 'blind faith' that you detest? Am I to wait for a revelation directly from God? How would I know that it is really God and not the evil one deceiving me? How would others then experience Him? What would happen if there were differences of opinion - are each to be considered true - shouldn't there be a means of discerning truth? Is that dependent on our gut feel? Then truth becomes subjective and hence loses its meaning.

I assume you didn't mean it that way - you're trying to tell me to keep an open mind and read as much as possible of various doctrines and then pick the most true of them. Well, what's the basis then on which I determine truth? Do I seek consensus? Do I trust my own fallible wisdom and reasoning? The very reason I'm seeking God is to be led by Him, not to lead myself there. You need a constant objective source to guide you in the paths of righteousness - not our own subjective 'wisdom'.

And how would anyone find any truth about God if He hasn't revealed it? How would I have any hope of eternal life if God hasn't revealed it to be so? And where has God revealed that if not through the Scriptures? And if the same God has revealed Himself in various Scriptures(of different religions) which seem absolutely contradictory - I have 3 conclusions to make -
1. God does not exist (atheist view)
2. God is not perfect (anti-theist view)
3. God has not revealed Himself in all the religious scriptures. (Christian view)
(Correct me if i've overlooked anything.)

Can I ask what the Holy Spirit was 'inspiring' here?

I hope you're not actually referring to this definition of inspire - 'To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion'.
The meaning of inspire in context is this - 'To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence'
So, all Scriptures are affected, guided and aroused by God's influence on men to write what God has purposed and willed. If God wants the wickedness of men and His just wrath on such to be recorded, then that's what we get in the parts of Scripture that you quoted.

The bible says to let your light shine....Instead of 'preaching' one must 'saved' you'd be surprised how far 'works' go in 'proving' your beliefs over just telling people them.

Are you quoting the Bible for me or do you completely believe in this teaching of Jesus? If you do believe in this teaching of Jesus, then why not accept the teaching of Jesus where He asks us to go and preach to all nations? All Christians must shine for Jesus AND preach to all nations. Read John 17 to know why the world hates preaching about Jesus. The Gospel message is the good news about the Saviour and the Kingdom of God but all this is accompanied with the reproving of sins and this makes most guilty. Some repent and believe - others mock, complain or hit out. What then is the motivation for Christians to share the Gospel - it's to be filled with joy in seeing one more sinner repent and gain life. We want others to receive the grace of God and to experience the divine joy, peace and life in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Regarding the wrongdoings in the name of religion - how fair is it to blame the Bible or Christianity for the evil done by men? It's like blaming mathematics for the error committed by a student in his sums. Remember total depravity and satan's deceptions. People can be very wicked and satan can use this to cause many to depart from the faith. The Bible very clearly stands against all the issues that you've listed out - but nowhere does Christ ask us to react in violence. If people do so, then it's of their own evil hearts.
Christianity is not answerable for other religions' atrocities.

...and condemning those that don't believe to hell isn't exactly the 'straight and narrow path' to me

We Christians have no right to condemn anybody - only God has the right to do so. We are only repeating what Jesus said.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

You must realize that selective quoting of Scripture is also twisting the meaning and context of the Scripture.

Here's a passage that goes along with my beliefs that when Jesus said 'love the Lord your God' there was a reason he didn't say 'my God' or 'our God'.

I don't know what you're implying here but I hope that it isn't an assumption that Jesus was actually permitting each to worship his/her own god. On the contrary, Jesus was quoting the Law from Old Testament Scripture regarding the One true God.

If i've misunderstood something, please correct me. But if you feel that there's truth in what I say, I plead you to read the Bible again believing its infallibility.

 

[seekandlisten]

Hey ivdavid,

You put forth a lot of interesting and challenging statements which I would like to address but I don't have time right now to thoroughly examine your posts. I will however look them over and think on them and try and respond later tonight.

cheers

 

[Faithful4Christ]

Wow. As I read these posts I am astounded.. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me as though most of you Athiests reject Christianity without even attempting to believe in it. No one here will be able to change your mind about what you believe unless your WILLING to listen and think about them thouroughly before just casting them away to the back of your mind. I can tell you about my personal experiences with God, feeling His presence and glory, but to what extent can you believe me if you haven't attempted the same? If you have not really tried to believe, who are you to disagree with the feelings that we Christians encounter? And with this logic thing, what is logic? Who knows what's logical and what's insane? Logic is but a perception of the human mind, and can very well be a lie. Point is, God is waiting for you to make the choice to at least TRY to accept Him. God Bless

 

[seekandlisten]

seekandlisten, i really am unable to comprehend what you actually believe in - you seem to be taking too many stances at once. I hope you'd help my confusion here -

hey ivdavid,

I'll do my best to answer any questions you have. I try to be careful on taking 'stances' so you'll have to point out what is contradictory and I'll do my best to clear it up.

You seem to be holding a dual standard of what 'fact' or 'observable evidence' is.
1) In some cases, you consider absolutely accepted scientific facts that are observable even now as insufficient.

I would not say I regard scientific evidence as insufficient, but rather the opposite.

In these cases, you are willing to accept the religious view in faith while rejecting what the scientific intelligentsia have to say about it. Eg: Your belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection. I think people staying dead after passing away is accepted as fact and observable evidence today and yet you choose to ignore it.

I also wouldn't argue my belief in Christ's resurrection as 'truth' that I must convince others to believe as well. That being said, I don't believe that Jesus' body was raised from the dead like some kind of living corpse either.

2) In some other cases, you choose to embrace the scientific evidences and rail against faith or rather 'blind faith' as you would call it.
Is there a reasoning behind this that I don't see now?

I would have to agree with scientific evidence, so my 'faith' wouldn't contradict it as science does not apply to faith. I think we have to clear up a few definitions in regards to 'faith' and 'belief'.

When I say 'blind faith' I am referring to a belief in something despite all evidence against said belief. (eg: a belief in a literal 6 day creation that occurred 6,000 based solely on the bible) Do note I am not intending to attack your belief if you believe this but merely my opinion in regards to the overwhelming scientific evidence against said belief.

Faith should be put in your 'God', not religion, the bible, or anything else that comes from our world.

I somehow feel you're misinterpreting what 'religion' actually means.

I think the clearing up of the matters of what is 'faith' and what are 'beliefs' by definition will clear this up a little better as well. I'll address my perception on this in reply to your other post.

I've read of your tolerance for other's beliefs in your posts elsewhere. So I'm assuming you wouldn't be against any beliefs that I choose to have and wouldn't impose your faith or beliefs on me.

Not at all and if at any time I appear to impose my beliefs, please point it out as it is not my intent.

Now, Principle is defined as any basic truth or proposition. These principles may range from truths revealed by God to specific purposed ordinances. Doctrine is any such principle or set of principles that are presented for acceptance and belief. Religion is a combination of such sets of doctrines. That's the pure simple meaning of religion - at least that's the way i perceive it.
So, one could possibly choose to believe in the doctrine of total depravity of human nature, or the doctrine of regeneration or in salvation by grace through faith. It may simply be the belief in Jesus as God (I think it's the doctrine of God-man). It may also range from the belief in holy wars to belief in faith evidenced by good works. Any combination of doctrines that seems complete, internally non-contradictory and externally consistent leads to being defined as a religion.
The hindus believe in the doctrine of rebirth, while the Christians believe in the doctrine of resurrection. And so on and so forth goes the various acceptance of sets of beliefs.

Therefore, when you ask me not to put my faith in religion, to me it sounds like - 'do not put your faith in your set of beliefs'. I don't know if that's what you intended but that's how i perceive it. And this crossing into other's beliefs is what we agreed not to do earlier. So, i believe in certain doctrines that I wholly accept and put my faith in and since these doctrines are what the Christian religion puts forth, I claim to be a Christian who puts his faith in Christianity.

I'll try and clear this up a little. The 'faith' part I'll address a little later. I would assume you would agree that you have 'faith' in God, correct? Now because of this faith you belief what is put forth in Christianity. You then proceed to narrow it down some more to whichever of the 33,000 denominations of Protestantism your beliefs line up with. This becomes, to me anyways, because of your faith in the Christian God you choose to believe in the doctrines taught in whatever subdivision of the Church you fall in. Would you agree? To say you put your faith in Christianity would be misleading to me as I assume there are doctrines among the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, JW's, probably certain Protestant denominations, as well as the Universalists that you would not agree with correct?

Hopefully this clears up a little bit of where I'm coming from and when I address my perception of 'faith' I'm sure we'll have a better understanding of where each other are coming from.

If you adopt a different set of doctrines, then you too have a 'religion' in your hands - it just cannot be called Christianity.

I could probably sum up the majority of my beliefs into a more specific religion, but that would not limit my beliefs only to that religion. The only purpose would be to narrow down where I'm coming from, but would not be totally accurate either in encompassing what beliefs I hold.

So your believing in the doctrine of resurrection but not the doctrine of Holy Trinity makes you accept a different set of beliefs apart from what the Christian religion's set of beliefs consists of, thereby making you a non-Christian.

That is usually where I get categorized yes, seeing as I don't believe Jesus is 'God'.

Your argument seems to be about why mere mortal men should decide what set of beliefs are to be compiled together. But that's the very point - mere mortal men didn't pull out these doctrines from mid-air. These were laid out in the written Word of God - the Bible - and all these doctrines are derived only from God-breathed Scripture.

Yet I'm sure there are doctrines taken from the bible that I'm sure you don't agree with as well that are held among the other branches of Christianity. The truth is that the bible can be 'manipulated' to say many things.

The other thing being that the bible we hold in our hands today isn't the original 'God-breathed' version. I believe I've seen you state you believe in the bible's infallibility before so I won't discuss this point in great depth as I don't hold this belief.

This takes us to your next argument about the Bible not being the Word of God but rather only ordinary writings of men which contains some truths but not perfectly true in itself.

The message is still there, it's just muddied up a bit from being subject to 'human' reliability in 'transferring' the written version. I don't agree that it is 'God's literal written Word'.

Yeah, men were 'inspired' by 'God' to write scripture. I'm pretty sure it wasn't referring only to Constantine's council approved bible though.

All i get as response for what i'd written is a sarcastic opinionated remark - so very unlike you. You've ignored all the reasoning that I put forth and have simply stuck to your beliefs.

I apologize for my hasty remark. The point I was getting at is the passage you referred to as all Scripture being God-breathed is not a relevant argument as the Bible was not compiled yet so it is merely one's personal perception as to what the author included here.

So let me put forth my reasoning again in a direct format.
1. Do you believe Jesus was sent by God? Yes/No.
(I read of your belief in His divinity somewhere - so I'd assume this to be a Yes)

I will point out it is not always simple answers in regards to my belief. But I'll simply answer yes and no and we can take it from there. So, yes.

2. Do you believe that Jesus knew the Old Testament Scripture thoroughly and even quoted it many times? Yes/No.

Yes

3. If yes, then do you believe that if Jesus had doubted the veracity or authenticity of the Scriptures, He would have derided it instead of hailing it? Yes/No.

His version would have been much closer to the original then we have. He quoted 'random' passages which does not logically conclude the whole of the OT as we received 1500 years later to be 'infallible'.

4. If yes, then how was the Old Testament Scripture perfectly written and compiled - by mere mortal men or by the guidance and inspiration of God?

The inspiration of God does not equal literal word of God.

5. If the OT truth could be preserved perfectly by God, then can't the same happen in the NT Scriptures?

Yet errors and additions have been shown to be present.

With regard to Jesus quoting OT Scripture -
Joh 5:46 For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My Words?

If we are to believe the writings of Moses, then Genesis is the first of those and creation happens to be the first of Genesis. So yes, I would believe God's account of creation to any other theory/'fact'.

There is however overwhelming observable evidence against a literal 6 day creation occurring 6000 years ago so to ignore that is impossible for me.

As in Romans 3:4, " But let God be true, and every man a liar "

Not really relevant as I could use this verse in support of my side as well.

I hope you don't imagine the account of Jesus Christ to have been manufactured. If so, then how can anyone trust any other teaching of Christ? How can anyone even believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

I'll continue in the next post...

I don't think the account of Jesus Christ is 'manufactured' if I understand what you are getting at here. I don't think the story is made up, in that I believe Jesus was a real person.

Hope this helps clarify a few things. I'll address your next post hopefully tomorrow.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

... continuing from my previous post.

To revisit your statement -

Faith should be put in your 'God', not religion, the bible, or anything else that comes from our world.

Let's take your position. If I decide to put my faith in God and God alone and reject religion, Bible and anything else from the world, then what am I supposed to believe in?

Alright, let's take a look at 'faith' and what I was getting at here. By no means do I propose that you reject religion, the bible, and anything else from the world, that would be more along the lines of following the way of the Amish or monks in monastaries. I was more getting at not putting your faith in the infallibility of things of this world. What you choose to believe is up to you whether it comes from the bible, religion, or the guy down the street.

I'll try and address what I mean by faith here. It's one of the hardest things for me to explain as to simply state faith is a belief in the 'unknown' would put me in a definition that I know could be abused. In Jacques Ellul's book What I Believe, I could agree with him when he says, 'Faith in God - in a God who does not incarnate some natural force or who is not the abstract and hypostatized projection of one of our own desires or aspirations or values (Feuerbach), faith in a God who is different from all that we can conceive or imagine - cannot be assimilated to belief. For this God cannot be assimilated to one of the representations that we might easily multiply. If God is God, he is inevitably different from all that polytheists call god. Each of those gods can be described and defined; each has its own function and sphere of fundamentally other (if he were not, if he could be measured against one of our values or beliefs, he would not be God) that we can neither define nor contemplate him. the God of faith is totally inaccessible. The affirmation of Feuerbach, that God is an absolutized value, was simplistic and puerile. For one thing, we have no idea of what the absolute or the infinite is. We cannot say anything about it or assimilate it. To talk about an absolutized value might be to talk about God, but it is not possible for human beings to absolutize anything.
....For if God is God, then all that we can say about him is just our own approximation or perception, as when a child takes a pail of seawater, stirs it until it foams, and then says he is carrying the ocean and its waves.'

Personally I believe God, Allah, Brahman, Enlightenment, 'higher self', etc. are all pointing towards the same 'God' just as different evaluations. They all are different perceptions, yet not one contains the 'whole' of God if that makes any sense to you. I don't believe in a 'personal God' other than for the purpose of explaining or relating to God in our human terms. I don't believe we can contain 'God' in our 'physical' terms, so I cannot put my faith in an 'image of God' but rather in a 'God' that is not 'accessible' in light of our physical means.

I look at 'faith' being described as Alan Watts said in regards to it, 'To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.' He also went on to say, 'the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on.' You could also say that faith becomes a state of openness and trust.

You then ask the question, 'what do you believe in then?' I think of the prayer of Joan of Arc when she said, 'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep.'

In other words, you choose what you believe, you do that even now, but these beliefs are different from your faith. Faith is believing that where you are right now is where your God wants you to be but realizing that the beliefs you hold are subject to be challenged. Truth is truth and if it is not it will be shown. One must have 'faith' in following truth no matter where it takes them.

I don't know if any of this makes sense to you in explaining my position.

Wouldn't that become the 'blind faith' that you detest?

I hope I cleared up earlier what I meant in reference to the term 'blind faith'.

Am I to wait for a revelation directly from God? How would I know that it is really God and not the evil one deceiving me?

I couldn't honestly say I've ever received a 'direct revelation' from God but that would definitely be a 'faith booster' wouldn't you say?

You'd have to have faith that it is 'God' you are following. If you were following an 'evil one' it would be reflected in your actions no?

How would others then experience Him? What would happen if there were differences of opinion - are each to be considered true - shouldn't there be a means of discerning truth? Is that dependent on our gut feel? Then truth becomes subjective and hence loses its meaning.

Truth stands on its own whether we choose to believe it or not. I am by no means saying I am correct in all my beliefs. I try to keep myself open to correction, when point is made I take it into consideration and if it is shown to be true I hold on to it, if it is shown to be false it is then left behind. A 'good seed' planted will 'grow' in 'fertile soil.' You can't expect to have all the answers at once, 'become perfect as your father is perfect' sounds like a process to me not something that just is.

I assume you didn't mean it that way - you're trying to tell me to keep an open mind and read as much as possible of various doctrines and then pick the most true of them. Well, what's the basis then on which I determine truth? Do I seek consensus? Do I trust my own fallible wisdom and reasoning? The very reason I'm seeking God is to be led by Him, not to lead myself there. You need a constant objective source to guide you in the paths of righteousness - not our own subjective 'wisdom'.

I don't think I can answer these questions for you in the way you word them. I simply believe that if I am 'progressing forward' it will show in my 'works'. I agree with you that we cannot lead ourselves there but rather must give up control. That is what 'dying to one's self' is.

And how would anyone find any truth about God if He hasn't revealed it?

He has 'revealed' it, we must 'seek it out like treasure'.

How would I have any hope of eternal life if God hasn't revealed it to be so?

I simply believe the reward of 'eternal life' is given when we complete the journey not before. If your beliefs are 'driven' by receiving eternal life or being 'saved' is that not a self oriented belief?

And where has God revealed that if not through the Scriptures?

I've never said God didn't 'reveal' himself in scripture. You simply believe that the Bible is the definition of scripture and I hold a different belief.

And if the same God has revealed Himself in various Scriptures(of different religions) which seem absolutely contradictory - I have 3 conclusions to make -
1. God does not exist (atheist view)
2. God is not perfect (anti-theist view)
3. God has not revealed Himself in all the religious scriptures. (Christian view)
(Correct me if i've overlooked anything.)

Well I don't agree with your conclusions. My conclusions would be -
1. God exists on a far broader scale than I could ever imagine.
2. Man is not perfect.
3. God has 'revealed' Himself everywhere I just need to open my eyes and seek Him out.

The bible says to let your light shine....Instead of 'preaching' one must 'saved' you'd be surprised how far 'works' go in 'proving' your beliefs over just telling people them.

Are you quoting the Bible for me or do you completely believe in this teaching of Jesus?

I believe in the teaching of 'letting your light shine' yes.

If you do believe in this teaching of Jesus, then why not accept the teaching of Jesus where He asks us to go and preach to all nations?

We've had 2000 years of 'preaching to the nations', many times by force. I live in Canada and I don't run into people who haven't heard of God so 'preaching' usually 'pushes away more then draws in' wouldn't you say? It's time to start practicing what you preach as most religions forgot this part.

All Christians must shine for Jesus AND preach to all nations.

That is a false statement in my opinion. It's like saying all Christians must speak in tongues. There are many parts in the 'body'.

Read John 17 to know why the world hates preaching about Jesus.
The Gospel message is the good news about the Saviour and the Kingdom of God but all this is accompanied with the reproving of sins and this makes most guilty. Some repent and believe - others mock, complain or hit out. What then is the motivation for Christians to share the Gospel - it's to be filled with joy in seeing one more sinner repent and gain life. We want others to receive the grace of God and to experience the divine joy, peace and life in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The 'Good News' is not preaching that if one doesn't say a prayer and believe Jesus is God then they will burn in hell, or any variation of this teaching. Not trying to belittle here but trying to 'sell' the gospel by presenting hell as the alternative is not what Jesus taught in my opinion. 'Letting your light shine' doesn't mean like a 'spotlight in someones face.'

Regarding the wrongdoings in the name of religion - how fair is it to blame the Bible or Christianity for the evil done by men? It's like blaming mathematics for the error committed by a student in his sums. Remember total depravity and satan's deceptions. People can be very wicked and satan can use this to cause many to depart from the faith. The Bible very clearly stands against all the issues that you've listed out - but nowhere does Christ ask us to react in violence. If people do so, then it's of their own evil hearts.
Christianity is not answerable for other religions' atrocities.

Christianity is answerable for it's own atrocities though. Most Christians will regard Muslims as 'evil' based on the minority extremists so how is Christianity not subjected to the same scrutiny due to its extremists?

When it's 'doctrines' come into being by force and coercion I tend to question the 'motives'.

...and condemning those that don't believe to hell isn't exactly the 'straight and narrow path' to me

We Christians have no right to condemn anybody - only God has the right to do so. We are only repeating what Jesus said.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

As a Christian you believe that everyone who doesn't believe in Christianity is 'condemned to hell' correct? That assumption is then taken by those you try to convert when they don't believe the same as you that the automatic position for them is on their way to hell. Condemning by association. I don't believe it's my position to judge or condemn. Only God is capable of being just in such judgements. I don't believe the religion of Christianity is on God's checklist of whether or not you make it into 'heaven'.

You must realize that selective quoting of Scripture is also twisting the meaning and context of the Scripture.

I realize and try to avoid quoting random passages to 'prove' points. If you feel I use a verse out of context, bring it to my attention.

Here's a passage that goes along with my beliefs that when Jesus said 'love the Lord your God' there was a reason he didn't say 'my God' or 'our God'.

I don't know what you're implying here but I hope that it isn't an assumption that Jesus was actually permitting each to worship his/her own god. On the contrary, Jesus was quoting the Law from Old Testament Scripture regarding the One true God.

You can take it however you believe it to be. I simply believe what it says. If you disagree with my conclusion, that is your right.

Micah 4:2(NIV)
'Many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.'

Micah 4:3
'He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide....'

Micah 4:4-5
'Every man will sit under his own vine
and under his own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the LORD Almighty has spoken.
All the nations may walk
in the name of their gods;
we will walk in the name of the LORD
our God for ever and ever.'

Are you going to tell me the context of the passage only refers to Christianity? If it was to refer to one religion only it would have to be Judaism as that is whose scripture it comes from?

If i've misunderstood something, please correct me. But if you feel that there's truth in what I say, I plead you to read the Bible again believing its infallibility.

Hopefully we are a little clearer on each other's position now? I can only say what right for me, and my beliefs differ from yours and I'm okay with where I stand as I'm sure you are as well. I have read the bible many times and continue to read it, but I cannot accept it's infallibility in light of observable evidence. That's my belief and I don't expect you to believe the same. I am happy to discuss aspects of faith and beliefs, but more for a broadening of one's views rather than a 'this way or that way' type of conversation.

If there is anything else you wish to discuss I am more than open to it.

cheers

 

[kpd560]

Wow. As I read these posts I am astounded.. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me as though most of you Athiests reject Christianity without even attempting to believe in it. No one here will be able to change your mind about what you believe unless your WILLING to listen and think about them thouroughly before just casting them away to the back of your mind. I can tell you about my personal experiences with God, feeling His presence and glory, but to what extent can you believe me if you haven't attempted the same? If you have not really tried to believe, who are you to disagree with the feelings that we Christians encounter? And with this logic thing, what is logic? Who knows what's logical and what's insane? Logic is but a perception of the human mind, and can very well be a lie. Point is, God is waiting for you to make the choice to at least TRY to accept Him. God Bless

I was a christian until about the same time I realized santa claus wasn't a real person. I said my prayers every night before bed and we prayed before every meal. I went to church and sunday school. When I was 8 my dog disappeared for two weeks and I prayed that he would come back, he did. I prayed frequently and noticed that they were randomly fulfilled. I started wishing instead of praying and the wishes were fulfilled randomly. I started to notice that there had been thousands of religions since the dawn of man that were always believed fervently and devoutly by their followers. I realized that if my parents had been jewish I would be jewish. If they'd been muslim I'd be muslim.

My point is that it's been a long journey to atheism for me and I've given a great deal of thought to religion. I'm frankly amazed and frequently embarrassed for theists when I know more about their own religion than they do. I've had spiritual feelings but never felt the need to invoke God to explain them. Maybe I don't have a need to believe in God. Is that possible? Best.

 

[ivdavid]

seekandlisten,

Hopefully we are a little clearer on each other's position now? I can only say what right for me, and my beliefs differ from yours and I'm okay with where I stand as I'm sure you are as well.

Thank you for these very useful posts. I'm able to understand your viewpoints better. I would like to discuss them further - but please don't think i'm trying to dogmatically stuff some beliefs down everybody's throats. That has never been my intent. I've experienced what i'm convinced is the truth. I also know that this by itself doesn't qualify for others to agree with me. So i'd try and discuss it till we agree to disagree and after that we'd just let things be. No ill will.

I also feel that you've misunderstood some of what I've said - and it's not your fault. I wrote them with my perspective in mind, not yours - and you seem to have done the same. Your responses are correct from your perspective but we're not yet on the same page. So i'll clarify as much as possible in my next post (maybe tomorrow) and we can take it from there.

 

[seekandlisten]

seekandlisten,

Hopefully we are a little clearer on each other's position now? I can only say what right for me, and my beliefs differ from yours and I'm okay with where I stand as I'm sure you are as well.

Thank you for these very useful posts. I'm able to understand your viewpoints better. I would like to discuss them further - but please don't think i'm trying to dogmatically stuff some beliefs down everybody's throats. That has never been my intent. I've experienced what i'm convinced is the truth. I also know that this by itself doesn't qualify for others to agree with me. So i'd try and discuss it till we agree to disagree and after that we'd just let things be. No ill will.

I also feel that you've misunderstood some of what I've said - and it's not your fault. I wrote them with my perspective in mind, not yours - and you seem to have done the same. Your responses are correct from your perspective but we're not yet on the same page. So i'll clarify as much as possible in my next post (maybe tomorrow) and we can take it from there.

I'm always open to discussing opposing beliefs as long as it is done in a manner respectful of the others beliefs. I've enjoyed this conversation so far, so I'd be more than willing to discuss this farther in the format you put forward with respect to each others personal beliefs.

cheers

 

[Faithful4Christ]

Wow. As I read these posts I am astounded.. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me as though most of you Athiests reject Christianity without even attempting to believe in it. No one here will be able to change your mind about what you believe unless your WILLING to listen and think about them thouroughly before just casting them away to the back of your mind. I can tell you about my personal experiences with God, feeling His presence and glory, but to what extent can you believe me if you haven't attempted the same? If you have not really tried to believe, who are you to disagree with the feelings that we Christians encounter? And with this logic thing, what is logic? Who knows what's logical and what's insane? Logic is but a perception of the human mind, and can very well be a lie. Point is, God is waiting for you to make the choice to at least TRY to accept Him. God Bless

I was a christian until about the same time I realized santa claus wasn't a real person. I said my prayers every night before bed and we prayed before every meal. I went to church and sunday school. When I was 8 my dog disappeared for two weeks and I prayed that he would come back, he did. I prayed frequently and noticed that they were randomly fulfilled. I started wishing instead of praying and the wishes were fulfilled randomly. I started to notice that there had been thousands of religions since the dawn of man that were always believed fervently and devoutly by their followers. I realized that if my parents had been jewish I would be jewish. If they'd been muslim I'd be muslim.

My point is that it's been a long journey to atheism for me and I've given a great deal of thought to religion. I'm frankly amazed and frequently embarrassed for theists when I know more about their own religion than they do. I've had spiritual feelings but never felt the need to invoke God to explain them. Maybe I don't have a need to believe in God. Is that possible? Best.

Too true, too true. I see your point, because this has been a very hard question for me to answer myself. Not too long ago I came across the same realization, if I had been raised by Muslims I would probably be Muslim, and if I had been raised by Jews I would probably be Jewish. This bothered me for years until I decided to take a look at the other religions and see for myself (as I am sure you have done). Honestly, I have only thoroughly looked at the Jewish religion and the Islamic religion. Through my studies, I found holes in their religions as well as things that didn't seem right to me personally. After looking at them, I came to my own conclusion that Christianity is the truest, and the most verifiable. I have also discovered the many who are at this moment converting to Christianity in locations where Muslim is prominant. I see the good it does around me, my family, my comunity. I feel my God, and i feel the loss of Him when I stray from my faith. Christ has changed my life, and I can not imagine a life without Him. It's your choice, and you do not need to believe in a god, that is very well possible. I do not wish to annoy you, kpd560, but if you don't mind me asking, what made you start wishing instead of praying? Thanks for your reply anyways. God Bless

 

[jasoncran]

i remember those days when i used to think like seekandlisten.

 

[kpd560]

Too true, too true. I see your point, because this has been a very hard question for me to answer myself. Not too long ago I came across the same realization, if I had been raised by Muslims I would probably be Muslim, and if I had been raised by Jews I would probably be Jewish. This bothered me for years until I decided to take a look at the other religions and see for myself (as I am sure you have done). Honestly, I have only thoroughly looked at the Jewish religion and the Islamic religion. Through my studies, I found holes in their religions as well as things that didn't seem right to me personally. After looking at them, I came to my own conclusion that Christianity is the truest, and the most verifiable.

Need I say that is hardly surprising. Can I suggest that if you had been anything but christian you would have found whatever religion you happened to be the most right. We are, generally, exactly what our parents brought us up to be. This seems totally arbitrary to me and a terrible impediment to anyone unfortunate enough to be born non-christian if christianity is the "true" religion. Why would a just and loving god do this?

I see the good it does around me, my family, my comunity. I feel my God, and i feel the loss of Him when I stray from my faith. Christ has changed my life, and I can not imagine a life without Him. It's your choice, and you do not need to believe in a god, that is very well possible. I do not wish to annoy you, kpd560, but if you don't mind me asking, what made you start wishing instead of praying? Thanks for your reply anyways. God Bless

Religion is many things to many people. It can be good or bad. I'm happy that it's a good force in your life and I can say that, so far, I don't require any force like religion in my life. You're certainly not annoying me and I only hope I'm not too annoying. I started to wish instead of pray to see if there was any difference. Best!

 

[jasoncran]

by that reasoning me and my bro should have remained jw's and only one sister is. my parents are no longer jw's.
the other sister is mentally disabled.

 

[kpd560]

by that reasoning me and my bro should have remained jw's and only one sister is. my parents are no longer jw's.
the other sister is mentally disabled.

We are, generally, exactly what our parents brought us up to be.

That means there are exceptions.

 

[Faithful4Christ]

Too true, too true. I see your point, because this has been a very hard question for me to answer myself. Not too long ago I came across the same realization, if I had been raised by Muslims I would probably be Muslim, and if I had been raised by Jews I would probably be Jewish. This bothered me for years until I decided to take a look at the other religions and see for myself (as I am sure you have done). Honestly, I have only thoroughly looked at the Jewish religion and the Islamic religion. Through my studies, I found holes in their religions as well as things that didn't seem right to me personally. After looking at them, I came to my own conclusion that Christianity is the truest, and the most verifiable.

Need I say that is hardly surprising. Can I suggest that if you had been anything but christian you would have found whatever religion you happened to be the most right. We are, generally, exactly what our parents brought us up to be. This seems totally arbitrary to me and a terrible impediment to anyone unfortunate enough to be born non-christian if christianity is the "true" religion. Why would a just and loving god do this?

I see the good it does around me, my family, my comunity. I feel my God, and i feel the loss of Him when I stray from my faith. Christ has changed my life, and I can not imagine a life without Him. It's your choice, and you do not need to believe in a god, that is very well possible. I do not wish to annoy you, kpd560, but if you don't mind me asking, what made you start wishing instead of praying? Thanks for your reply anyways. God Bless

Religion is many things to many people. It can be good or bad. I'm happy that it's a good force in your life and I can say that, so far, I don't require any force like religion in my life. You're certainly not annoying me and I only hope I'm not too annoying. I started to wish instead of pray to see if there was any difference. Best!

I'm sorry I have to disagree.. I found this religion to be the most right, not because I grew up with it, but because of my research and feelings. Thank you jason because this is just another example. I have a friend who is Christian with Jewish parents as well as a Christian friend who has Muslim parents. Im sure this happens very frequently. However, I do see where your doubts come from, because I have had the same. Nevertheless, I stay faithful because God knows more than me, and what he knows I don't need to know. His reasoning is beyond my comprehension. We do not choose the Lord but the Lord chooses us. "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." - John 15:16 I believe that he has chosen everyone, however you need to make the choice to seek the real Truth. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" - Mathew 7:7. Im sorry to throw out bible verses at ya, I'm not meaning to be annoying but rather show you my perspective. Anyways, you have looked at other religions correct? If so, what is it that has not convinced you Christianity is the only real Truth? God be with us. Best to you as well.

 

[Danus]

Lets just use an example...Lets say I'm walking down the street, and a piano falls on my head...either there is a logical solution to said piano falling on my head (someone dropping it) or maybe an invisible man in the sky did it...now..

Here we are in the planet Earth. The only planet known to harbor life. The Logic in me would conclude that...we might have been created somehow, somewhere, sometime,....but how can one conclude that is was because of an invisible man in the sky? What if smart aliens created us, and even smarter aliens created them?...Where do you get an invisible man in the sky from?..There are literally a billion other explanations some reasonable, some not as to how we got here, but how you can come to the conclusion that GOD, and almighty being that nobody can see or hear or talk to did it is beyond me....

Well, your logic on space aliens sounds pretty good. After all we have tons a proof on that stretching back to about ....1900 and I've seen photos of them on the magic boxes I own, you know the TV and the computer; same magic boxes where you got the phase "invisible man in the sky", which is a ripped off phase from George Carlin. A comedian.....sound like your getting your view on creation from a comedian. That's Smart.

 

[ivdavid]

seekandlisten, and all others who are interested in this discussion,

I think we've touched upon a lot of issues and i feel we can do justice to all of them only if we take them a few at a time and focus on them. And while we do that, it's not my intent to challenge your beliefs or anyone else's for that matter. I keep reiterating this because i know that's how it's going to sound when I profess my beliefs. That's what's bound to happen when we discuss differing beliefs. But that's where we can be very tolerant of each other's beliefs - because after all, we're discussing ideas and beliefs, not people.

To begin then, we need to agree upon the vocabulary. This may seem unnecessary but we wouldn't be making much sense to each other if we kept using the same word to mean different things. I'll need to think some more on how faith, belief, trust can be defined - but for now we'll get started on a working definition for 'religion'.

can religion be defined as a set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances?

This is the way i see it. These doctrinal beliefs may be man made or divinely inspired - nonetheless, religion still remains a set of doctrinal beliefs. It doesn't mean the religious leaders, it doesn't mean the followers/believers - it just means the set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances.
Two independent cases arise here which must be differentiated -
1) These doctrines may be true or false.
2) These doctrines may be misinterpreted or abused.
For the first case, we'll have to evaluate the truth of those doctrines separately. For the second case, we'll have to evaluate the actions of the religious believers/leaders separately.

I feel that 'religion' is accountable only for the first case. I mean, the truth of a religion rests on the truth of its doctrines only and not on the acceptance or practice of its believers.

If we're agreed upon all this up to this point, then I think you'd agree with the following -

Christianity is a set of doctrinal beliefs and ordinances. Christianity is not the pastors and not the believers - these are Christians, not Christianity. The religion of Christianity is accountable only for the truth and veracity of its doctrinal beliefs and not the interpretation and practicing by its believers.

All I'm trying to say is that it's unfair to judge a set of doctrines based on the fallible interpretation, abuse and works of man. I agree with you that man is imperfect. To extend that imperfection by association to the religion seems unfair. Here, I think you've arrived at this conclusion based on your assumption that all religious doctrines are created by man and hence should be imperfect because of man's nature. But are you absolutely sure that all religions have been made by men? Are you absolutely sure that there is no divine authority behind any of them - even just one of them? If you're not sure, then man's actions must be separated from the religious doctrine itself. If man's actions are wrong, they have to be evaluated independent of the religion. But if the religion itself puts forth a doctrine that perpetrates evil, then that religion should be evaluated for truth. Would you agree?

So, these may clear up as follows -

Christianity is answerable for it's own atrocities though. Most Christians will regard Muslims as 'evil' based on the minority extremists so how is Christianity not subjected to the same scrutiny due to its extremists?

I wouldn't generalize this across all muslims. I only hope that their Scriptures don't explicitly call for such violence in which case I'd question the validity of Islam. On the other hand, if their scriptures have been misused and abused to suit some individual fanaticism, then I wouldn't generalize fault across all other muslims.
On the same lines, Christianity cannot be answerable for the wrong actions of some extremists. Christianity does not put forth any doctrine calling for any extremism. On the contrary, Jesus calls us to love even those who do harm to us. If some commit atrocities, then only such should be blamed, independent of the religion.

When it's 'doctrines' come into being by force and coercion I tend to question the 'motives'.

When Christian doctrine is forced or coerced, then I'd ask if there is any Scriptural validity to such an approach. I haven't come across a single line, either by Jesus or the apostles that we have to force Christianity down people's throats or manipulate them into believing. If this is not in the Bible, then such men have acted of their own will - let such be held accountable and not the doctrine of Christ. The motives of such people should be questioned, not the motives of Christianity. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[ivdavid]

I'll use this post to clarify and state my stance on a few issues so you may know where I come from ...

seekandlisten wrote:
[quote:1k83pwah]ivdavid wrote:
All Christians must shine for Jesus AND preach to all nations.

That is a false statement in my opinion. It's like saying all Christians must speak in tongues. There are many parts in the 'body'.
[/quote:1k83pwah]
I realize how wrongly i have worded it but this wasn't what I wanted to convey. I also realize now that you preferred people to shine for Jesus instead of preach about Him on account of the religious framework in Canada. I mistook it to be a suggestion from you for Christians(in general) to stop preaching and only shine. I wanted to convey that preaching too is commanded by Jesus to spread the Gospel - I meant it in a general sense but realize it's come out implying that every Christian must start preaching - this is not what I mean. I'm from India where most people have no idea of Christ's sacrifice and His resurrection. So this is what I believe - that Christians, whose ministry it is to preach, do have to preach to people - not hypocritically nor dogmatically but out of sheer love. And such Christians have to practice what they preach. And all other Christians have to continue shining for Jesus, witnessing whenever they can.

We've had 2000 years of 'preaching to the nations', many times by force. I live in Canada and I don't run into people who haven't heard of God so 'preaching' usually 'pushes away more then draws in' wouldn't you say? It's time to start practicing what you preach as most religions forgot this part.

I don't know much of how it is there in Canada, but I'd choose to preach even if there were just one person who hasn't heard of repentance, remission of sins, salvation, the Kingdom of God - basically the doctrine of Christ.
I do not agree to any force or manipulation being used.
And yes, preachers have to walk in righteousness. Hypocrisy is condemned by Jesus Christ Himself.

The 'Good News' is not preaching that if one doesn't say a prayer and believe Jesus is God then they will burn in hell, or any variation of this teaching. Not trying to belittle here but trying to 'sell' the gospel by presenting hell as the alternative is not what Jesus taught in my opinion. 'Letting your light shine' doesn't mean like a 'spotlight in someones face.'

I simply don't agree with that kind of evangelism. One cannot simply say a prayer, profess faith in Christ and claim to be saved. They have to be regenerated and be made a new creature. And that is a supernatural work of God and God alone. The person should repent his dead works and believe in the work of Christ. The person should have a new relationship with God, the Bible and sin - he must love and worship God, he must meditate on the Word of God, and he must hate sin and despise his own sinful nature. (Note, I don't intend to judge who's saved and who's not - each has to test and examine himself [2Cor 13:5]). So, marketing the Gospel and earning 'converts' shouldn't be the goal - winning disciples of Christ should be.

Regarding hell, i'll address it in detail in a later post. But for now, I'd agree that it is wrong for people to seek God only to escape hellfire and not out of a heartfelt desire to truly love God.

If there's anything else that I need to explain, please point them out to me - and I'd be glad to clarify...

 

[kpd560]

His reasoning is beyond my comprehension.

He should be able to make Himself understood if He cared to. It seems to me that a leader who can't be understood by his followers is worse than no leader at all. I can tell you that if He was understandable I would not be an atheist. Best.

 

[Faithful4Christ]

His reasoning is beyond my comprehension.

He should be able to make Himself understood if He cared to. It seems to me that a leader who can't be understood by his followers is worse than no leader at all. I can tell you that if He was understandable I would not be an atheist. Best.

Yes, that is true, and He does when He cares too. Sure, I don't have all the answers to all my questions right now, but He has certainly answered many. They randomly come up in church, on the tv, radio, my head, the bible, ect. And I wasn't implying that God is too confusing, simply that His capacity to reason is much greater than mine. I understand God is loving, faithful, enduring, merciful, perfect, and my path to eternal life and that is enough to understand by any of His followers. The Lord is not completely understandable because if He was, there would be no such thing as faith. I understand much more than I need to about Him to know that He is my Savior.