147 replies to this topic

[Mrs.D]

[quote name='supermom' date='Nov 7 2007, 09:14 AM' post='194112']
Ha--the first church I was introduced to--was Methodist.

I wasn't a very good Methodist, either.

I can't prescribe to a church that insists rejecting the valididty of other peoples lives/llifestyles because it is wrong on the eyes of man.
----------------------

Supermom, I am not sure I understand this comment. It sounds like you had a terrible experience with this church. I think that we can look at many Christian religions and see that the formal agreements or statements the groups make would follow what you say about rejecting the validity of a person's life or lifestyle. However, if you look at religions at a local level or a personal level, many do not necessarily agree. Unfortunately, they cannot (or choose not to) do so officially. Personally, my experience with the Methodist church has been one of acceptance. It was the place that I felt safe and revived my faith in others when I was having a hard time. It reminded me that life isn't already planned out for me, but rather that God gave me free-will and the ability to understand happiness and sorrow--it was my job to decide what I was going to do with it. Interestingly, as I type this I am thinking that I should really spend more time reflecting on what I learned from my Methodist church experiences. It would probably assist me quite a bit with what I am going through right now.

At any rate, since it has been a while since I have been at church and really focused in on the Methodist beliefs, I can't rattle them off but wished to share my perspective. Fortunately, wikipedia is a wonderful site and I was able to find a perfect section that describes my view wonderfully:
"It is a traditional position of the church that any disciplined theological work calls for the careful use of reason. By reason, it is said, one reads and interprets Scripture. By reason one determines whether one's Christian witness is clear. By reason one asks questions of faith and seeks to understand God's action and will.This church insists that personal salvation always involves Christian mission and service to the world. Scriptural holiness entails more than personal piety; love of God is always linked with love of neighbour, a passion for justice and renewal in the life of the world."

Although I may not personally agree with everything I found on the wikipedia page, I still think that this quote is at the heart of what makes one a Methodist.

I would also like to say that I personally think it is fantastic to have this thread (since someone said something about it being pointless or something). People say that you shouldn't talk money, politics, or religion--but I disagree. How do people learn and grow if they don't hear opposing views? If everyone is telling you that you are right or that your beliefs are spot on, do you just buy it because it is easy? Just my opinion...

[CostcoLover]

Legend:

Purple = Supermom
Blue/Red = CostcoLover

So, your not ok with me asking why are you attacking christian beliefs but you think it's ok to put a list of reasons to not like religion up--

Where's the "attack"? They're questions. Which you're rather call an "attack" than address them.

3. I "discredit" Christianity by asking legitimate questions?
In which way are these questions legitimate?

You've got to be kidding. Finding out the source of the text in the Bible is NOT legitimate? Discussing the numerous versions, translations and errors is NOT legitimate?

And yes, it does change the overall meaning of numerous critical passages in the Bible.

4. Now I'm a "lapsed" Christian? Is that what everyone in the world is? All Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, they're all just lapsed Christians?
you are obviously upset

Upset? Why would I be upset? Because you call me a lapsed Christian? I've been called far worse.

6. My faith? Unquestioned? I very much like Bish questioned my faith, though at a younger age, and much for many of the same reasons.
So then you are a lapsed Christian--you have heard all the answers before and just choose to re-ask them?

Frankly, some of your posts seem to target a deep disquiet in yourself.

Here's a tip. You don't ask answers, you ask questions.

Playing amateur psychologist are we? Notice that you don't answer the central question of the source of the Bible. Now that's "disquiet"

What you may find interesting is that none of the questions I've asked have even been attempted to be answered by those of "faith". Such as yourself for example.
I have answered them-the best I can.

afterall, it was you who seems to think that your list of 15 questions was funny?

Where did you answer the version and translation of the Bible that you use? I must have missed it.

Newsflash, that list of questions can be found all over the Internet in the humor section of forums. I received it from a Christian friend of mine via e.mail. He found it humorous as well.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong--but you were quick to jump on Msgt when he said he believes in God; and now you seem to enjoy mocking scripture.


I simply pointed out the obvious - His statement could apply to any world religion.

No, you simply decided to belittle what he believes in. if you really were so interested in pointed out that his belief could also be held valid in other religions then you would have stated--well he has a valid belief but--his belief is also shared by other religions.

That's your perception. I even stated in the post that it's an example of what it sounds like to others.

Why would I state that his belief is any more valid than that of other religions? It's up to the theists to make the argument for validity.

So by pointing out the obvious inherent contradictions in the 'inerrant' Bible, and by pointing out the numerous version and translations and errors in both version and translations, it's mocking scripture?

Who has decided that the bible is "inerrant"? What does that mean, anyway? And something you may or may not agree with is that most "translations" of the bible may have slightly different wording but for the whole; the message of the bible still stands whole. So, what difference is it?

Inerrant means without error. If you don't believe it's inerrant, then you believe it is with errors. So which errors are the ones you believe in?

The latter statement - that errors in translation, version, etc. don't matter because the message of the Bible still stands as a whole is incorrect. These aren't little typos that don't change the meaning of the text.


QUOTE(supermom @ Nov 6 2007, 04:32 PM)
That's an attack on me--and I won't answer it.

That's an attack? On you? You were the one that claimed I wanted to be a Christian, so I simply asked if that's how you perceive everyone that doesn't share your beliefs.

QUOTE(supermom @ Nov 7 2007, 09:14 AM)
sometimes I wonder why so many people get so defensive when I say I believe in God. Yes, but others have said that people have gotten upset when saying they are athiest. So what? Where does this fit into your point?

That perhaps you're overly sensitive about people's questions with regards to your religion/faith?

QUOTE(supermom @ Nov 7 2007, 09:14 AM)
Yes, I believe that not repenting in your sins will send you to hell, but if your ok with that, then so am I.
That is not a lack of acknowledgment--frankly I am acknowledging their choices. Theres nothing wrong with that.

You're "acknowledging" that they'll go to hell unless they believe as you do. Hardly an acknowledgement of other beliefs.


1. Which version of the Bible

How is this a legitimate question--and to whom do you think people on this board should be answering to--when they choose their religious faith? The essence of your questions are pompous and therefore not legitimate.

If you weren't aware, different versions of the Bible have different written text and meaning.

Like I said before, in my opinion, if you're basing your faith on a book (regardless of religion) you should seek to understand the source of that text.

The essence of my questions are not pompous, and even if they were, that doesn't deny the legitimacy of the question.

2. Which translation of the Bible

3. Which denomination of the 33,800 Christian denominations

Here's what I suspect is really going on here.

You haven't bothered to ask yourself these questions as to the source (and therefore legitimacy) of the holy text to which you subscribe, so rather than discuss these types of questions you claim to take offense in the hopes that this thread will be locked as silence is a better defense than open discussion.

And no, I've not taken offense to anything you've stated, in fact, I find it quite humorous and entertaining.

[Jolene]

The beginning of this discussion was great to read; but by the last page, the lack of knowledge of the "quoting" feature made it damn near impossible to determine who originally said what and who was responding to it. Or not. Or something.

Any chance at y'all taking a stab to clean those posts up? I am seriously, non-sarcastically, enjoying this discussion. Of course discussions like this will get heated, but it is great to read everyone's views. Thanks for putting them out there.

[wrabbit]

I feel that most people who are religious get so involved with reading Pro-religious material they don't bother reading anything else. Their feeling is, why should I read something which is going to bash my faith. And, they have a right to that attitude, even if it's not the one some of us would take.

There has been much controversy about Jesus and the lack of facts supporting him being the son of God. In one book I read entitled, "The Lost Gospel, The Book of Q & Christian Origins" by Burton L. Mack, copyright 1993; I learned of early Christian "Myth Making", and the role in that process, the early church had.

Jesus is just one of many prophets that has influenced mankind, down through the generations. In general, the teachings attributed to these prophets have been written, after they have died. So, they can not refute anything written about them or the statements they were claimed to have made. Unlike today, there was nobody to ask where the evidence was for the claims of some writers, as there certainly would be now. And, as only scholars were able to read and write back then, it wouldn't have done much good for the illiterate masses to have any written proof. I think those who could read and write were held in too much a high regard. Thus, they may have bent to the temptation to alter certain wording now and then.

Basically, as long as there is no proof of God or that Jesus was, in fact born to a virgin, there will be those who can not believe the story of the Trinity, or God, on faith alone. That doesn't mean we should condemn those who do, and they shouldn't condemn those of us who don't. One statement to me, was that the poster didn't mind if I didn't believe in God, if I was OK with going to Hell. This is the kind of "All Knowing" Christians I referred to in earlier posts. Those who claim to know the "Will" of God. For a Christian who claims they know for sure that any God will condemn a person to Hell, is an arrogant statement, to which most non Christians find offensive.

There are many good people who are not religious, I being one of them. It's hard for me to believe that there could be a God who would place me in Hell, just because I don't go to church or believe as a book says I should. Especially when that book was written by man. For some to claim that man is so fault free, that he could write a book and be accurate to the letter, about a higher beings intentions, is beyond my scope of reason. And for that book to be inspired by a higher being is stretching it further than my mind can go.

I think many of us would be less likely to be so strong in our posts if some Christians were more humble in their beliefs and made statements to the effect that they did not really know the will of God and not be so quick too condemn those of us who were non-believers, to Hell.

I think it very unlikely that this thread will bear any more good discussions and has pretty much ran it's course. I've enjoyed the parts where honest questions were asked with integrity, and honest answers were given, without condemnation or judgments. I must admit to a certain amount of bad posting, and regret I allowed the topic and the other posters to anger me to the point of writing them.

Lastly, I'm happy that some people feel they have a religion they are comfortable with and are at peace with it. I'm sorry for those who still question their faith and feel the need to get defensive about it when asked questions. And I hope that in the future, it won't be felt necessary to convert non believers, or in the extreme, kill them. I would ask that Christians don't knock on my door and if they know their church is planning to do so, to request they don't. I would also ask the they instruct their children to not try and convert other children at school, as it causes a lot of anxiety, and even hostility.

I think other countries have given us a good look at how divisive and destructive, religion can be, when their are arrogant attitudes. I wouldn't like to see our country come to that. So please, let's live and let live. It really serves no purpose to disrespect the beliefs of others, no matter what their faith. I've learned that from this thread.

[bordercolliefan]

Nice post, wrabbit.

I've enjoyed this entire thread and have seen little or no disrespect/insults. I think it's been a wonderful discussion.

I know what you mean about some believers seeming so arrogant. I don't think they are snobby or mean people; I think it's a byproduct of the fact that each religion claims to be the sole correct religion. Mormons have their "The one true church" slogan and other denominations have a similar notion. They have to; otherwise, how would they gain adherents if they took the position, "Join whatever faith you want to; one is as likely to be true as any other."

Once the religion convinces its adherents that they have unique access to the truth -- that everyone else is mistaken or ignorant -- then it is kind of inevitable that those adherents begin to feel a bit smug.

[swmr545]

Often the topic of "God" and "relgion" lead people to argue over whose beliefs are right and whose are wrong. But it is not our place to judge. Share your beliefs and defend them, but do not bash others who disagree. Instead, if you are a christian and here things that astiound you...pray for the ones who dont see like you do. Throwing your beliefs about God onto another will only push them farther away. Live by example. Trust me, Gods light will shine bright enough for even the athiest to see...when and if they are ready. Be an example. Let God use you, dont use God.

I pray that you will denounce your ways and start believing in what I believe. Until you do, your soul is condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering. God bless.

What good is that going to do this world? Regardless of what religion you claim, isn't that basically the message you are sending out when you are praying for someone else to "see the way" that you do?

[wrabbit]

Nice post, wrabbit.

I've enjoyed this entire thread and have seen little or no disrespect/insults. I think it's been a wonderful discussion.

I know what you mean about some believers seeming so arrogant. I don't think they are snobby or mean people; I think it's a byproduct of the fact that each religion claims to be the sole correct religion. Mormons have their "The one true church" slogan and other denominations have a similar notion. They have to; otherwise, how would they gain adherents if they took the position, "Join whatever faith you want to; one is as likely to be true as any other."

Once the religion convinces its adherents that they have unique access to the truth -- that everyone else is mistaken or ignorant -- then it is kind of inevitable that those adherents begin to feel a bit smug.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm trying to tone down my posts and be less emotional.

It's a challenge though, as I know many have not read the books I have and wouldn't, if they knew it would put even more doubts in their minds about their faith. But that is their decision to make. In my mind, there is no option to follow any belief blindly. My nature, and search for truth, just won't allow it.

I am too curious to except someone's claims of a deity, no matter which deity. Also the text books on history are not enough to satisfy my curious nature. When things don't make sense, I search for more information. As years have gone by and my reading library expanded, I find the American people are being lied to at an alarming rate. It seems we are a nation of lies, on top of lies. You name it, we've been lied to about it.

I get discouraged with the current attitude and lack of curiosity of the American public. Hopefully, there are more people out there like me, than I know. I can only hope that the general population has not become so lazy, they will not pick up a book and read an alterative theory or other research, on history, evolution, religion and science. But the general desired form of reading is in magazines, which feature movie and rock stars. There seems to be more interest in celebrities than in what is going on with our economy, the war or that state of our health care system.

If that is the case, Americans are a country of the misinformed and the misguided, who will believe most anything they are told. A country which is in high risk of going under, due to ignorance. And that thought is very frightening to me.

What really concerns me more, though, is the notion that God will provide and we should place everything in his hands....no need to do anything else. Also, the idea that one only need to spread the word of God to improve things on earth, has been very troubling to me. To the extreme, there are even those of religious faith that feel we are headed for the "End Times" and Armageddon, and they are happy about it!

Can you even imagine such thoughts?

[BIG PAKO]

Oh come now BIG PAKO, isn't this your first post in this thread?

Hardly addressing the question. And there are some 6 or 7 other posts where you just threw in atheist jokes.

Then again, it's a forum, being off topic is common, just read the first few pages and you'll see what I mean.

And Rich, I've yet to read Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens, but I have read the Bible.

I guess what they say is true, not everyone can perceive sarcasm

I threw in those jokes to mellow things out, didn't work though, some people are strung a little too tight.

[LexHillsmom]

To the extreme, there are even those of religious faith that feel we are headed for the "End Times" and Armageddon, and they are happy about it!

Can you even imagine such thoughts?

Unimaginable but absolutely true....I saw proof of such insanity last night watching Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Gulianni as the Evangelical pick for President. If any candidate is capable of taking us to "Armageddon" it is Gulianni...

Maybe it truly is the "end times" when Christian leaders forego the true message of Jesus to support a candidate who doesn't give a rats patooty about the Christian movement...he's just found a great way to sucker them into voting for him...he can't get their vote on his social policies...so he rattles his saber and they come running. Wow.

[ChipShot]

OH MY GOD!!! (Yes, pun intended)...This thread is still going???

[supermom]

Legend:

Purple = Supermom
Blue/Red = CostcoLover
Here's what I suspect is really going on here.

You haven't bothered to ask yourself these questions as to the source (and therefore legitimacy) of the holy text to which you subscribe, so rather than discuss these types of questions you claim to take offense in the hopes that this thread will be locked as silence is a better defense than open discussion.

And no, I've not taken offense to anything you've stated, in fact, I find it quite humorous and entertaining.

Actually the question isn't really if I have bothered to ask myself the questions to the source of the bible; but really--why are you so insistenet that I have no knowledge of the different translations? In your haste to point out inconsistencies you find with translations of the bibles, the real reason I found your posts (eh-disrespectful is not the word--what am I looking for here?--Pushy? Yeah that's it) is because you seem to be assuming that I am uneducated. Your posts come off as though you are sounding off on the other side of the pulpit banging away your objections to what? The many translations of the bible? Written and re-written in multiple languages and then interepreted to many more languages.

Duh- hello--Ever played the telephone game when you were a kid?

{hmm--ok--I'm coming back to this and thinking I getting worked up} Hey CostcoLover why don't you tell me what it is you think rather than asking what I know? Then perhaps we can actually have an interesting conversation. I'm tired of the word games.

As for wrabbit's post- I think that what you said is probably one of your best posts, I've read. You clearly thought out what you were going to say; and articulated well.

Lexi-mom--what did you expect? We are talking about guiliani and robertson!! Ha!!

Pako--For once I did see your sarcasm!!

Swmr--I wouldn't make a prayer like that---I hardly think in terms of other people in such a manner. Should you fall ill, I would pray for your recovery, should you go through hard times I would pray you find a comfort. I don't pray to god and ask him to cause harm to anyone or force others to love him. I accept that forced love is enslavement and therefore not love.

Bordercolliefan and Mrs. D--I don't believe that any one church has the springboard to heaven and the others don't. Did I give that impression? And the issues I had with the Methodist church were scriptural in the way they perform their services, as well as that one specific church. Sorry didn't mean to bad mouth a church you may attend. That wasn't the way I meant for it to sound.

Oh-yeah--and for those who object to me saying that those who are not christians will go to hell, well--what do you expect? That's my belief. If you choose to not believe in God, I can hardly see how that would offend you--as you must not believe in a hell.

However--the few times I did post it---it was in a reference as a personal thought.
Not a condemnation.

Remember--I don't write the names of souls who will enter paradise on the scrolls. You don't answer to me!!

Phew--what a conversation!!! Anyone up for tennis with CostcoLover today?

[BlindFaith]

I pray that you will denounce your ways and start believing in what I believe. Until you do, your soul is condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering. God bless.

What good is that going to do this world? Regardless of what religion you claim, isn't that basically the message you are sending out when you are praying for someone else to "see the way" that you do?

I guess what I said hit a "sore spot" im sorry. But I believe in praying for what you believe in. If you believe in something pray for it. I never said my way was right or wrong. i simply said if others wrong you or do not share the same path...pray about it and for them. I didnt say pray that they will follow your way or there soul will be condemned to an eternity of pain suffering. I am not God. Judgement is not for me to place. I can agree or disagree but not judge. Please do not put words in others mouths or assume what you do not know is fact. And your first 2 lines of your topic, I would never say. One last thing...just becasue I am a christian does not mean I will live a life without pain and suffering. being a christian is not easy...and becasue i live in this world so full of chaos and torment, i suffer quite a bit. But God gives me the joy to suffer with a smile on my face. Sounds cliche i know...but i have not always been like this. i have seen many sides. I choose to be happy. No one chooses how we feel, we decide how we let others affect us and make us feel. I choose to be happy and positive. Life is too short for anything else.

[bordercolliefan]

After all of this discussion, I am coming to the conclusion that belief in God is a matter of will, not reason. People believe in God simply because they WANT to believe in God.

When we skeptics ask, "Where is the proof?" or "What is the evidence?," believers are impatient with us because it's not about proof for them. They know there's no real evidence -- they don't need us to tell them that.

They have simply decided that they prefer to believe in God -- life is more comforting or more fun that way. Although in other contexts, believing in something merely because you WANT to believe in it would be irrational, in our culture belief in God and/or Christianity is not only socially acceptable, but lauded.

[bishmasterb]

They have simply decided that they prefer to believe in God -- life is more comforting or more fun that way. Although in other contexts, believing in something merely because you WANT to believe in it would be irrational, in our culture belief in God and/or Christianity is not only socially acceptable, but lauded.

I've certainly had several close Christian friends ask me "How can you live without hope in God?" or something to that effect. Which indirectly supports you're point above, many believe because it is comfortable to do so.

It may indeed be comforting, but that doesn't make it true.

[Jolene]

Oh-yeah--and for those who object to me saying that those who are not christians will go to hell, well--what do you expect? That's my belief. If you choose to not believe in God, I can hardly see how that would offend you--as you must not believe in a hell.

+1!

Best quote I ever heard from a non-believer to a believer was:

"It's your Hell, you burn in it!"

Doesn't matter what someone else thinks about your after-life destination. If you don't believe in a place, how can you go there?