The west needs a more human Jesus - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14793750
Drlee wrote:Well. I can't really say. I have always been a Christian of one kind or another and have frequently performed acts of compassion. Here is what I can say. In the past 10 years (and remember for me that is from 55 years old on) I have become less concerned with the administrivia of denominational religion and more interested in the essence of Jesus' teachings. As I have gotten older I have realized how much life can hurt people and how hard it is for some people to catch a break. There really are "lost souls" out there. As (I by faith believe) I get closer to my own end I want to try and use the time I have left to do some serious good. I believe that God will like this but I do not believe it is necessary for my eternal reward at this point.

But I am the one here repeatedly asserting that, as I see what Christ taught, you do not have to be a Christian to get into heaven. Good people can rely on a just God. Christianity is my path to understand Gods will.


This sort of thing confuses me. As I understand it, good works alone don't get you into heaven, one has to have faith too, so good people who are not Christians don't go to heaven.

I realise that this seems pretty mean to Christians who have an emotional attachment to non-Christians, it's a hard message. Fortunately I don't subscribe to any particular religion and therefore can be a little more objective, therefore the above message doesn't frustrate me in any way.
I suppose that, in considering religions, I gravitate towards and favour the simpler messages, and Christianity is fairly woolly compared to Islam for instance. Messages such as the one above would stick in my mind as being pretty central. Islam is easier to understand, even though it is pretty harsh, contradictory messages are resolved by the principle of abrogation, there's no such yardstick in the bible (that I know of) leaving more room for personal choice and personal choice does seem to be a component of Christianity.
#14793753
personal choice does seem to be a component of Christianity.

Not according to John Calvin, it isn't. The Elect of God were chosen before they were even born, so personal free will is irrelevant. If you were not born as one of the Elect, then you're outta luck. The doctrine of predestination was, of course, a major break with Christian theology as it had existed for the preceding 1500 years or so, which had always placed great emphasis on the importance of free will and moral choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Reformation represented the founding of a new religion, as different from traditional Christianity as Christianity was from Judaism. The fact that Protestantism is still called 'Christianity' is due more to cultural inertia than anything else.
#14793758
I'm relatively new to studying religion and your knowledge concerning detail is superior to mine. My instinct is to look for comparisons and Islam/Christianity seems a pretty apt one as well as being topical, Islam is looming pretty large at present in both passive and aggressive ways. What I previously referred to as 'wriggle room' (ie scope for personal choice) in Christianity seems far greater.

I'm content that I've at least got as far as realising that religiosity remains a significant factor in human affairs and is worth taking seriously. The majority of casual commentators on internet forums seem convinced that it is represents dead or dying superstition and is only worthy of dismissal.
I'm interested in your opinion that Protestantism is distinct from Christianity and would like to read more on this if you have a link or two.
#14793805
One of my friends is another expat who dislikes Christianity but he's also rather fixated on solving world problems through his work. I'm trying to think of a good way to explain to him that this hangup of his is actually a Protestant idea, even though he harbors some residual anger and disdain for Christianity.

If you read the old testament, it says "all skill in work comes from envy of another" [sic].

In Catholicism we work in order to live, working any more than that is unnatural. Someone who is with God naturally wants to help people, this is in my mind pretty similar to eastern or Buddhist understandings of charity.

In Protestantism, God becomes manifest through our work. This is pretty far from the old testament concept of work and I'm not sure how they got there to be honest.

One of the hardest ideas to grasp regarding "the elect" and the concept of free will vs. destiny is that all of someone's attempts to change their destiny and so-on are also part of their destiny, if one can accept this then the subject is sort of moot, there is a destiny but that doesn't mean you don't have to try and so-on.
#14793815
I'm relatively new to studying religion and your knowledge concerning detail is superior to mine. My instinct is to look for comparisons and Islam/Christianity seems a pretty apt one as well as being topical, Islam is looming pretty large at present in both passive and aggressive ways. What I previously referred to as 'wriggle room' (ie scope for personal choice) in Christianity seems far greater.

Only in mainstream Christianity (i.e., Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and a few other denominations), but not really in Calvinism or similar hardline Protestant sects. These branches of Christianity specifically deny the freedom of the will, or claim that it has no influence on whether or not one is 'saved'. Some Protestant sects make Islam look positively liberal.

I'm content that I've at least got as far as realising that religiosity remains a significant factor in human affairs and is worth taking seriously. The majority of casual commentators on internet forums seem convinced that it is represents dead or dying superstition and is only worthy of dismissal.

There is 'vulgar atheism', just as there is 'vulgar Christianity' or 'vulgar Marxism', and so on. Most people aren't interested in nuances, and seem to want to hold definite beliefs concerning things about which we cannot or even should not be definite.

I'm interested in your opinion that Protestantism is distinct from Christianity and would like to read more on this if you have a link or two.

I don't have any links or quotes to give you; this is basically just me being edgy again. It just seems to me that the theological differences between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant factions of Christianity are so wide and so profound as to constitute Catholicism and Protestantism (especially of the Calvinist variety) as entirely distinct religions. After all, the first Christians thought of themselves as Jews first and 'Christians' second. It was to be almost a century before Christianity and Judaism finally split, and it could be argued that it was Judaism which left Christianity rather than Christianity which left Judaism.
#14793865
This sort of thing confuses me. As I understand it, good works alone don't get you into heaven, one has to have faith too, so good people who are not Christians don't go to heaven.


This is true. The concept of "saved by grace" is very much misunderstood in my opinion and witnessed by the posts of one individual here. One way of looking at grace is to consider this. No person is capable of meeting God's standard. But even if he did it would still require a "favor" from God to have eternal life. Crass as it sounds, an analogy might be to say that though I am rich enough I still must have an invitation to join the country club. I can earn the money but the membership committee can still refuse me membership. I am a member by their good graces lest I take credit for my membership myself.

I realise that this seems pretty mean to Christians who have an emotional attachment to non-Christians, it's a hard message. Fortunately I don't subscribe to any particular religion and therefore can be a little more objective, therefore the above message doesn't frustrate me in any way.


It is mean. And if God subscribed to the Calvinist view that Potemkin pointed out would (in my opinion) fly in the face of the concept of a loving and just God. It would be as if God created some sort of massive game in which only the first-person players matter. There is this puzzling verse in the Bible that I have never in 66 years heard explained in a protestant church:

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.


Is there wiggle-room there to conclude that someone who keeps Jesus commands is in the club? I think so. There are other references that conclude this too. I am not alone. This is what Pope Frances recently said:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone,” the pope told worshipers at morning Mass on Wednesday. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”

Francis continued, “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”


So where do Christians get into trouble if it is not strictly necessary to be one to get into heaven? It would be if one knew Jesus teachings and rejected them. I would go so far as to say that someone who knew that Jesus commanded him to care for the poor and then deliberately refused to do it would be on really shaky ground for sure.

I suppose that, in considering religions, I gravitate towards and favour the simpler messages, and Christianity is fairly woolly compared to Islam for instance. Messages such as the one above would stick in my mind as being pretty central. Islam is easier to understand, even though it is pretty harsh, contradictory messages are resolved by the principle of abrogation, there's no such yardstick in the bible (that I know of) leaving more room for personal choice and personal choice does seem to be a component of Christianity.


Here is the thing with seekers and converts. Most of them are responding to a need they feel for something more. The easiest message is one that gives you a road map to salvation. So converts tend to gravitate to those religions (or denominations) that are rule-driven. Just obey these rules and you will be saved.

Take the issue of tithing. One can find a bible reference for tithing. Giving 1/10th of what one earns to the church. (Specifically the church. Not poor people or other charities that do Gods work with the poor or oppressed.) Well this is easy, isn't it. The church wins and I answer the hardest question in religion...."How much should I do to imitate Christ". Too easy. Follow the 10 commandments, give 10% and Bobs your uncle.....saved. I suppose this is a good start. I suppose it is where most Christians start. Or in Islam, ticking off all of the rules there as well. But as one matures in his faith one runs into this:

Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow Me.”


So how much is enough?

I believe that the above is a sarcastic remark on the part of Christ. He had said, time and again, that man cannot be perfect. So when asked (yet again) how to be perfect he deliberately made this scoffing remark. In this sarcastic comment he said (yet again) you can't do it. Or at least that very few people could do it.

When we Christians see this verse we have the same reaction as the guy to whom it was said. We are disappointed that we can't (or won't) do it and go away discouraged. We shouldn't. I believe that Christ is calling us to do what we feel we can. He does not call a father to walk away from his wife and children, leaving them broke and without his care to follow Jesus as one could conclude from this verse. Of course not. Caring for his wife and children to his best ability IS doing God's will in the first place.

In digging deeper, at least for me, I have found the simple message that you say appeals to you. It goes something like this:

Jesus came to set the table right. By dying for us (and by us I believe all people) he has paid the price for our sins. Then he told us how to live the way he wanted us to:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.


There you have it. It could not be simpler.

You don't have to do this every second of the day. Think of God as a Jewish mother if you like...."You don't call, you don't write, would it kill you to call once in a while?"

Then, because you want to please God and keep his most important commandments ("All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments") do some good things for other people.

If you want to go to church then go. If you want to give 10% to the church, go ahead. Churches are far more than pretty buildings. Much of the good work that is going on in this country comes from them. There is a church in my town that provides portable showers for homeless people. I hope they realize what a wonderful act of kindness this is.

But if you don't want to go to an organized church then pick out what you are going to do to honor God's commandments. Help the poor. Feed hungry people. Give clean socks to homeless people. Whatever. Just be aware of why you are doing it.

At the end of the day it boils down to this. If God doesn't exist and you die after doing good stuff for others, you will have left the place better than you found it. You will be over so there will be no feelings for you to have about it but others will regret your death. If God does exist you will be with him. Your reward will be whatever He decides is right and proper for you. We Christians believe it is everlasting life.
#14793871
Besoeker wrote:If you could list any of it, it would be a start.
It is not selective breeding.

I see that the 99% extinction rate of all species is just a guess based on their guess as to how long they guess that an average species can exist and how many species they guess would have came about over 4.5 billion years. However, the 4.5 billion years is basically only a guess too. So, I cannot take that 99% figure seriously.

I did not say the theory of evolution was selective breeding. I was just pointing out that evolutionists include selective breeding and natural breeding as part of the evolution theory. The varieties within each kind of animal is mainly a result of selective and natural breeding. Look at all the different varieties of dogs and horses. Some of those varieties came about through natural breeding and others with the aide of man instituting selective breeding for his own purposes. This is all possible because God programmed this capability into these animals when he created them with the ability to reproduce after their kind as well as adapt to their environment. Apparently God likes varieties in his creations.

I don't want to overwhelm you with a list right now. I would rather try to limit it. I hope you don't mind watching some videos. I became a strong believer in visual aides when I was an instructor at the Signal School on Ft. Gordon, GA. But before I get to any evidence on the creation side, I am presenting the first video, which gives some of the presumptions in evolution from the view point of a former biology professor.

Presuppositions of Evolution



The second video presents many of the problems of the science trumps God origins of everything in nature from a Christian point of view.

Proof That God Exists



After you understand the above we can move on my number 1 evidence.

DNA - God's amazing programming; evidence for his existence

How is it that we can see that DNA is an encoded set of information & instructions stored in every cell of every living thing & not see that it must be by design? DNA uses a 4 symbol chemical code (like our alphabet uses 26 symbol codes) and instructs the body how to build our protiens.

The storage method for these instructions is so vast no human can ever invent such a large storage method in such a small package. A single DNA strand can store an entire library of books. And we each have trillions of DNA strands within us! Its design is clearly evidence of an intelligence as it could not randomly happen. When we see information we automatically know some form of intelligence is behind it. No scientist will dispute that. So this is no different.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (atoms) (subatomic particles) (DNA)



Two questions for you to answer:

How does a bird know how to build its specific nest?

How does a honey bee know how to build bee hives?

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
#14793875
Answer this question Hindsite.

If God wanted us to have proof of his existence then why didn't he give it to us in a manner that is easy to understand?

I get very discouraged every time I see a Christian trying to solve for God. It never works, always displays a dramatic lack of knowledge about science in general and dismisses our most sacred belief that we know God through faith not proof.

I do not want all knowledge if in the end it leads me to discover that all that I have been or done does not matter at all.
#14793903
Thanks for the considered response Drlee. Looking at Hindsite's Creation/Evolution stuff, plus his mirror-image detractors has reminded me of a recent musing of mine ie... is The Bible any better (or different) for having Genesis 1/2 in it?

The Creation myth seems to take up most of the debate between religionists and secularists nowadays and doesn't seem to add much (anything?) to how Christians interact with the world, especially that relatively recent 6000 yr figure which isn't even from the Bible (as far as I know).
#14793918
Pointing out logical errors clearly is the mirror image to committing said errors! I feel so exposed now!
#14793924
The Creation myth seems to take up most of the debate between religionists and secularists nowadays and doesn't seem to add much (anything?) to how Christians interact with the world, especially that relatively recent 6000 yr figure which isn't even from the Bible (as far as I know).

The Biblical narrative doesn't give us an explicit time span, and doesn't even tell us how long a 'day' lasted in the absence of a Sun. The 6000 year figure was calculated by some medieval monk or other (who clearly had nothing better to do with his time) by adding together the ages of the patriarchs until the Biblical narrative coincided with a known historical era.
#14793945
Potemkin wrote:The Biblical narrative doesn't give us an explicit time span, and doesn't even tell us how long a 'day' lasted in the absence of a Sun. The 6000 year figure was calculated by some medieval monk or other (who clearly had nothing better to do with his time) by adding together the ages of the patriarchs until the Biblical narrative coincided with a known historical era.


Yeah I know, so the amount of time and energy devoted to these issues, both by Creationists and their opponents, seems quite out of proportion, same with the evolution argument. Genesis 1/2 occupies such a relatively slim part of the Bible, but 90% of the debate and I can't see how the Bible is enhanced by it, it seems the scriptural equivalent of "It was a dark and stormy night..", ie someone thought that a dramatic start point was necessary.
I suggest the Bible start with Adam and Eve and leave the sketchy natural history to others.

Funnily enough, the Big Bang can't really be located for similar reasons. We can extrapolate using our present timescale and that looks sort of logical, but around that time of vastly different conditions, how long was a millisecond?
#14793951
Time is relative, so there is no other way to consider it than in reference to our present timescale. It's not that it's sort of logical but it's fundamentally the way time works.
#14793953
around that time of vastly different conditions, how long was a millisecond?

The question is not well posed, jakell. We know how long a millisecond lasts - it's the length of time it takes for certain physical processes to occur (e.g., for one wavelength of light of a certain frequency to pass a single point). If you are addressing how long a millisecond would subjectively seem to last, I can only reply that there was no subjectivity around back then to experience time anyway, so the question is moot. And if you mean that time might have 'stretched out' as we go backwards towards the Big Bang, then my reply would be that this cannot be the case, otherwise the first 'instant' after the Big Bang would still be happening, and it clearly isn't. We can therefore safely say that a millisecond just after the Big Bang lasted exactly as long as a millisecond right now.
#14793955
The creation story is one of the greatest 'who gives a damns" in the Bible. It is not important for us to understand Christ or his message. It tells us nothing about the nature of God other than He was the force behind the creation of the world and liked how it turned out.

Creation stories are obligatory features of any religion. They are almost never an important aspect of belief. Potemkin is quite right. Few mainstream Christians and almost no Roman Catholics give it much of a second thought. It is like Jonah and his whale in that regard.

If I could spend an hour with God playing Q & A the question would never come up. I like the answer in the movie Oh God. When God is asked if he created the world in 6 days he replies, "Oh I get it. It is a history quiz. Actually I thought about it for 5 and did it in one."

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that argues against evolution nor "proves" that the world is anything but a few billion years old.
#14793967
Drlee wrote:The creation story is one of the greatest 'who gives a damns" in the Bible. It is not important for us to understand Christ or his message. It tells us nothing about the nature of God other than He was the force behind the creation of the world and liked how it turned out.

Creation stories are obligatory features of any religion. They are almost never an important aspect of belief. Potemkin is quite right. Few mainstream Christians and almost no Roman Catholics give it much of a second thought. It is like Jonah and his whale in that regard.

If I could spend an hour with God playing Q & A the question would never come up. I like the answer in the movie Oh God. When God is asked if he created the world in 6 days he replies, "Oh I get it. It is a history quiz. Actually I thought about it for 5 and did it in one."

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that argues against evolution nor "proves" that the world is anything but a few billion years old.


Then you are probably as frustrated as I am that Christians (nowadays) spend so much time arguing about this, for you because you are a believer and for me because, after one or two trips around the block, it's rather dull and predictable.
#14793972
Yes, the literalists are killing Christianity and making it more inaccessible to modern people who rely on science in daily lives, and can't comprehend why they have to dumb themselves down, to be a Christian.

Good posts, Drlee. LIKE x3.
#14793974
mikema63 wrote:Time is relative, so there is no other way to consider it than in reference to our present timescale. It's not that it's sort of logical but it's fundamentally the way time works.


Potemkin wrote:The question is not well posed, jakell. We know how long a millisecond lasts - it's the length of time it takes for certain physical processes to occur (e.g., for one wavelength of light of a certain frequency to pass a single point). If you are addressing how long a millisecond would subjectively seem to last, I can only reply that there was no subjectivity around back then to experience time anyway, so the question is moot. And if you mean that time might have 'stretched out' as we go backwards towards the Big Bang, then my reply would be that this cannot be the case, otherwise the first 'instant' after the Big Bang would still be happening, and it clearly isn't. We can therefore safely say that a millisecond just after the Big Bang lasted exactly as long as a millisecond right now.


I find it difficult to think too deeply about the Big Bang anyway, although on the surface it seems fairly straightforward. If I can throw something equally paradoxical at it then that sort of gives me an excuse to turn back towards more useful cogitations, a bit like learning not to bother trying to find the end of a rainbow.
#14793977
Drlee wrote:Answer this question Hindsite.

If God wanted us to have proof of his existence then why didn't he give it to us in a manner that is easy to understand?

I get very discouraged every time I see a Christian trying to solve for God. It never works, always displays a dramatic lack of knowledge about science in general and dismisses our most sacred belief that we know God through faith not proof.

I do not want all knowledge if in the end it leads me to discover that all that I have been or done does not matter at all.

Perhaps God wants us to believe and have faith in Him, but also wants us to use our minds to reason and be fully convinced.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
(Romans 14:5)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

(Romans 1:18-25)
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

You are already in one. He says his race is being[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

Most of us non- white men have found a different […]

Fake, it's reinvestment in communities attacked on[…]

It is not an erosion of democracy to point out hi[…]