To all those who think they know what a Christian is.

[Tigermoose]

Before mouthing off on topic X that involves Christianity, please first go read the Gospel of John in the New Testament. Then feel free to come back and bash whatever denomination or political Christian orginization you wish. And when you read it, suspend your political mind for a moment and just consider the mindset of someone who believes in God and why the words in this gospel have profoundly influenced everything you know, including your own ability to read and write.

I get so sick of, "Christians this, Christians that" by people who obviously have never read the gospel with an open mind, or an open heart.

I'm just saying...Please, don't let your anger and hatred towards Bush (or the Pope) drag down your views of Christianity. If you must debate, then please get your info from the source, and not third hand through Bush or some whacked out website.

[Nederland]

1. What gives you the right

To unilaterally declare that "Christianity" is defined by the Gospel of John and (apparently) only the Gospel of John?

[Walt Starr]

3. Especially the Gospel of John!

My gosh, Mark and Matthew are much closer to the predicted gospel of Q!

[Az]

27. Well technically Mark is considered equal to Q

The later gospels beleived to be a conbination of drawing from Mark and Q.

[Tigermoose]

33. The gospels were written from an oral handing down of

the good news. If Q was anything, it was a similar oral retelling by the disciples or those who had the good news passed on to them from the disciples. The people who spoke the gospels were fisherman and laborers who were used to an oral tradition. The written gospels are an extension of that oral word that were intended for different audiences.

[Az]

39. Or

Mark was a reworking of Homer's great stories positing a pacifist as the suffering hero instead.

There are numerous theories as to how the stories came to be. The Homerian example is just as valid as oral tradition and in fact has some evidence to support it.

[Tigermoose]

41. Where are the Greek gods now?

Homer tells a fine tale, and in doing so touches on many truths. Plato also tells the tale of how, if a perfect man was on this earth, he would be beaten and killed by his fellow man. And Virgil too seems to predict Christ. And you will find many truths in many cultures that speaks of a shared human nature -- a natural law. What does this tell us? It tells us that the best of human reason is capable of approaching the Truth of human nature, and that embedded within us is Truth. Now, you have to ask, according to tradition and experience, what is the best way to explain your own reality and that of the question of the soul? Have you got a pony that can outrace Christ? Go and compare the philosophical and theological teachings of the ancient world and how the big questions are resolved by Christ and his followers. Homer's gods were fickle and contradictory. There is a reason no one worships them anymore --- because a better understanding, a revelation, of good news was brought into the world so that we might know God through Jesus rather than merely attempting to seek him through mere reason and from the tales of poets. That was the good news.

[Az]

42. Ease up there Tigermoose

The Greek gods were not experential gods such as the monotheistic god of Abraham. They were more an example of a dialog within the society (intellectuals and commoners alike) externalising their understanding of human nature. In fact their insite is still felt to this day and used as examples in psychology and sociology.

As there was not a impetus to spread belief in these gods as there was the Christian god, eventually they died out. Not for lack of merit but for lack of evolutionary aggressiveness.

And of course Christianity benefitted from growing within a philosophical environment such as provided by the Greeks. There is nothing really new in Christianity. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is reflected in nearly every single belief around the world.

And incidently, good news would be that there is no hell and that no one has to suffer for eternity. As For my opinion any universe that was created with a place for eternal punishment had something fundimentally wrong with it from the inception.

[Tigermoose]

53. Where did the Greek philosophers get their ideas?

The Hebrews, Moses in particular, far pre-dates the Greek philosophers. Augustine was of the opinion that Plato visited Egypt where he read Hebrew sources. And no doubt, a common ancestor of both was in Egypt.

The reason many cultures share common beliefs is to admit a common conception of Truth about human nature. And once you go down that road, you have to either submit that this is caused by common biological reasons, or because of the commonality of the human soul. The Christian combines these, and says that biologically and spiritually were were created to be in God's image -- that is -- our biological bodies submit harmoniously to the demands of our souls which always submitted to God's will. When Adam (or early man) decided to trust himself rather than God, then mankind therefor was punished with his soul no longer being able to command his body harmoniously. This is why we have Shame, and why we often find bodily functions to be so damn funny. If you insist that these are caused by a social evolution based on biology, then you must admit then that you are placing a faith in something that hasn't been adequately proven. Scientist has replaced priest in your belief system, and you accept published ideas as your gospel.

The Good News was that manking now has a chance to eternal salvation, whereas before he was either damned or in limbo because of Adam's transgression.

Free will means choice, and choice means ramifications for that choice, and that means judgment, and that means damnation or salvation for the choices you make. Or would you rather not have free will? I think God is good because he created us with free will. The rest is up to you.

[truthspeaker]

57. Incorrect, Greek philosophers were not influenced by early Hebrews

[Tigermoose]

65. Then explain the eery similiarity.

Or perhaps you admit, then, that there is Truth, and therefore a God? And if there is God, then what is the best interpretation of Him? Is it possible for man to know God by his own efforts? If not, then wouldn't it be necessary for God to reveal himself? And how would he reveal himself? Jesus perhaps? And if the fundamental key to salavation of the rebellion of Adam is to have faith in Jesus, then you would understand that faith requires that reason cannot completely validate His existence?

[Az]

67. They all seek to answer the same questions about the human condtion

Of course they are going to be similar. Its like 3 people looking at a fish and getting the same basic descriptions. As to leaping from commonality of philosophy to a god... that is beyond the scope of the evidence at hand. All we have is humans looking at humans and coming up with some common threads about how they should behave towards each other. Nothing divine about that.

[Tigermoose]

81. What is the human condition?

You pass over this as if it is easily describable. It is one of those "buzz words" we love to use, but what really does it mean...this "human condition."

[Az]

103. Easily decribable?

I would hardly call it that. What it means is certainly the quest both of us appear to be on attempting to discern. We have a convieniant label for it. But definition of it is far more complex. I would argue that our condition is the result of complex neurological and social constructs. That discerning the twists and turns of this grand process is a life times work. You would possibly suggest that the human condition is the divine in each of us trying to express itself. But I must leave it to you to describe your take on it yourself.

[Tigermoose]

124. Well then, you shouldn't just tie up an argument with

"the human condition" being the answer, especially when the human condition is exactly at the heart of the debate.

[truthspeaker]

76. the similarity is distant

Plus the Old Testament was not put together until the 5th Century BC. So any influence could have gone either way.

[Az]

58. Insisting

I do not insist that it must be so. I do suggest that the evidence indicates it may be so.

As to why so many philosophies colesce, yes it is human nature. Its the medium in which religions flourish and attempt to propogate. Belief systems which do not follow our natural predilictions quickly fall out of favor and do not survive.

As to the Hebrews being influecial on the Greeks. The Hebrews present themself with an oversized impression of their impact. You will find far stronger groups that were the origins of the Greeks and the Romans.

[Tigermoose]

71. AZ. Start hitting me with some details. Some works you

are getting your ideas from. I'm pretty well read on these subjects, and I'd like to learn more if I haven't read them, so I would be interested to know here you are getting your sources so that I can better address where you are coming from.

How do you define "human nature" What, to you, does that mean?

Why are you falling into the language of sociology and science to somehow validate your opinions? That may work on some, but not on me. Perhaps you are fooling yourself with your own belief in the verity of scientific language? Delve deeper. You are glossing over an immense topic that cuts to the core of our existence through the use of words like "evidence" "colesce" "medium" "flourish" "propagate" "systems" predilictions" "survive" and in an earlier post "evolution." Do you realize how you are evading the discussion by falling back on this scientific language? I do not deny the importance of Darwin's discoveries, but I caution you in submitting your search for knowledge through the filter of a religion of a scientific theory.


You make sweeping generalizations about history without citing your sources. How do you know that the Hebrew presentation is "oversized"? Who told you so? Surely you did not experience the sweep of human experience in history yourself. Whom are you trusting on? Who do you place your faith in? Is any man worth placing our trust and faith in without than man also being God? Indeed. If you question everything, you will see as Socrates did, that a wise man knows he knows nothing. A true Skeptic is a post-modern, or Solomon in Ecclesiastics, That is why Jesus was the Good News. He was also God, and thus capable of Knowing. And that is why we must trust in Him, because everyone else are just blind fools chasing shadows. It becomes a question of pride vs. humility. Do we submit that there is God (and then submit to Him), or do we insist on continually eating that apple?

[Az]

72. Check out the Bible Unearthed

Its an examination of the current state of affairs of archeology with a focus on the Bible. What it claims is that the bulk of the OT and Hebrew claims are seriously out of line with what we can determine via archiology. The suggestion is that the early Hebrew sect was a small village or community of villages with delusions of grandeur. Its clerics wove legends of import that survived as oral tradition and eventually became the accepted truth within the sect.

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman (Author), Israel Finkelstein

[Tigermoose]

83. Lots of sects had different ideas..why did this one stick?

Possibly because it was the Truth?

You pass over this "Hebrew sect" as insignificant and with "delusions of grandeur." Well.....I mean, its 2000+ years later and we're still talking about it. I don't think they were too delusional do you? I mean, what does it take to be right these days? Geesh.

Ok ok. So we have a book here, written in the 21st century, that attempts to contradict claims make by a Book written pre-1st century about events that happened pre 1st century. So we are willing to believe a book that relies on modern conceptions and what we can dig out of the ground to counter reality as interpreted and written down by those who lived during these times? Now that is called "delusions of grandeur" my friend.

[Az]

87. It is a very aggressive belief system

The propogation of social systems has little to do with the core truth behind them. It has far more to do with the methodolgy by which they are spread.

The Roman gods did not have a built in requirement of adherence to achieve a comfy end. In fact the call for adherence came from a direct secular call to adehere to the system or get tossed to the lions. Thus the reach of their belief system could only extend as far as their military might could take it.

Christianity positted a eternal set of consequences based on adherence to its doctrine. Not just a code of behaviour but litarally acceptance of it as the only valid source of truth. This combined with its call to evangelize make it one of the most rapidly spreading social memes around. Very difficult to spread faster than that.

[Tigermoose]

90. Christians were tossed to the lions routinely by the Romans..

so why did Christianity survive? How could a small band of a delusional Jerusalem sect manage to survive the persecutions of the greatest empire known to man, and yet still survive? By your arguments, Christianity should have died out shortly after its inception.

[Az]

97. A much more psychologically compelling belief system

The roman gods were a much more removed intellectual exercise. They did not have any direct impact on citizens other than a social acknowledgement.

Christianity on the other hand offered a great deal of real exeprential impact. The early sects attempted to invoke communion with god through all manner of rites and practices (The Christians As the Romans Saw Them by Robert L. Wilken). What we know now is that this state of communion was likely a form of neurological anomaly in which the brain experienced a disassociative state in which its ability to recognise self was shorted out (The "God" Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper). Studies on epileptics who have a specific part of the brain shorted out have reported so called religious experiences where they communed with god(studies conducted at UCLA Sandiego).

What we know is that this part of the brain can be shorted out in a number of ways. Drugs, physical exertion, meditation, and a host of other rites. Early Christian sects seemed to be focused on varying ways of attaining this communion with god as the Romans repoted them as being an odd set of groups each perpetrating a wide variety of rites and practices.

The upshot of all this is that there is a very real experential component to the monotheistic sects compared to the intellectually active but socially dry polythestic sects of that time. Further supporting the monotheistic pantheon is the fact that the neurological anamoly will be experienced as communion with an individual (unidentified self) thus supporting its claim of a monotheistic god.

[Tigermoose]

111. Yes. God designed humans to know him.

You keep shifting and making excuses :) On the one hand, you say aggressive philophies will dominate through secular force, and then when I bring out the Romans persecuting the Christians you come up with some other excuse. So which is it?

But yes, science is coming up with a new language to tell us in a new way that God designed man to want to know him. We have a deep seated "anxiety" from our separation from him. Your scientific language is just one way of expressing the same things philosophers and Christians have known for quite a long time. Man is not happy without Meaning, and the only meaning that "sticks" is God. Worldly concerns always disappoint in ultimately fulfilling that need. Christianity is the best way to explain that need, and to fulfill it. That is why Christ says he gives living water that satisfies.

You are subjecting your interpretation of reality through abstract scientific conceptions. I base my interpretation of reality through the guidance of a loving God.

[Az]

113. I have apparently said all I can

That will be heard. Anything further from me will appear as noise to you. I do not wish to burden you so. And besides its time to go home. I will check back in on this thread later to see if anything has changed.

[Tigermoose]

126. Would it hurt you too much to admit you might be wrong?

I would admit it, but I living a bodily as well as mental experience in this. I've had a couple of profound moments, one a vision and the other the Holy Spirit guiding me, and I have felt God at work in me. My life has dramatically improved. If I'm wrong, I don't want to be right!


I'm sure you've heard Pascal's wager?

[Walt Starr]

129. Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy

It doesn't fly.

[Tigermoose]

141. How so?

Explain please.

[Walt Starr]

148. Pascal's Wager is based upon a false assumption

It assumes that either "God" exists or does not exist.

Unfortnuately, that's a false assumption due to the recorded history of human existance. There have been over 4000 gods alleged to have existed by humans. So now Pascal's wager must be reworked to account for all of the variances.

So instead of the simple matrix of "God" existing or not and wagering on "God" existing or not, one must wager on WHICH GOD OR GODDESS exists or not.

Now, if you wager on Yishua bin Yusef (aka Yahweh) existing, and in fact the Norse mythos are correct, you have lost and will be frozen for eternity when Ragnorak occurs. In effect, you have fallen for the ruse of Loki!

But if you wager on Krsna, and the only way to achieve the Father (Osiris) is through the Son (Horus) as described in the Egyptian book fo the Dead, you have also lost (as has anybody who has wagered on your god).

So now, Pascal's Wager loses all meaning because you have over 4000 equally valid choices with only one possible choice being correct. The wager is false on its face because of this.

[Az]

159. Science is predicated on the idea that we might be wrong

Its self correcting. Remaining open to new evidence is required. That is entirely and definitively science.

[Imperialism Inc.]

164. You might consider that by your reasoning

Buddhism also has an equal claim at being the truth. As do several other religions.

On what basis does length of time an idea stays prominent make it the truth? Are all currently held ideas candidates for the truth? Do they have to survive a certain number of years? On what basis does the 'death' of an idea make it untrue? I'm guessing you don't think it has anything to do with physical evidence, at least in the realm of religion.

[starroute]

70. The Greeks and Christians both owed much to Egypt

The Egyptians were probably the first to move away from taking their gods literally and towards considering them as personifications of abstract philosophical principles. They were doing this early in the 1st millenium BC. Although the Egyptians didn't systematize their philosophy the way the Greeks did, Greek philosophy could not have existed without Egypt.

The Greeks owed a great debt to Egypt in many areas. A recent article about the Greeks getting their number system from the Egyptians some time after 600 BC emphasized that there was widespread Egyptian influence on Greece at that time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3109806.stm

The Egyptian influence became stronger, if anything, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Neo-Platonic philosophy derives in roughly equal parts from Plato and from the Hermeticism of Egypt.

Similarly, Christianity is roughly half Jewish and half Egyptian. The Therapeuts of Alexandria were great synthesizers of the mystery-cults and wisdom literature of the time, and many of the Jews of Alexandria were affiliated with them. A number of their beliefs and practices were extremely close to those of early Christianity. There are even people who believe that the first Christians were nothing other than Jewish Therapeuts who took up the Jesus-story as a useful founding myth.

From the monotheism of Akhnaton, to the salvation-cult associated with Osiris and the Book of the Dead, to the mother-child symbolism of Isis and Horus, Egypt is the ultimate source of almost everything that is most distinctive in Christianity.

[Tigermoose]

86. God is Truth, so you will see that humans have tried

to understand Him through the centuries. Human reason is capable of approaching a conception of God up to a point, but then it took God's manifestation on earth as Jesus, and the Holy Spirit which aids in post-Jesus interpretation, to get as close we can to understanding God.

I mean, I agree totally with you that the Egyptians had a lot of truths...and then the Hebrews better revised these through God's work in the patriarchs and prophts, and the God further revised our understanding through his manifestation as Jesus. We're agreed, but you take a modern evolutionary approach that seems to submit God as a social phenomenon rather than as, well, God.

[Flubadubya]

64. But they didn't beat and kill the Buddha...

and he really did become a perfect man.

It just depends on what culture you spring from and what message you have to convey. The Buddha was revered by those he came in contact with... he had a conflict with no one. He also spoke the Truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Thank you for your entirely unasked-for proseltyzing

You know, you ask people not to generalize about Christians or make patronizing comments about Christianity --- yet you haven't been at this thread for more than five minutes before you start to preach down to the rest of us... to wit:

What does this tell us? It tells us that the best of human reason is capable of approaching the Truth of human nature, and that embedded within us is Truth. Now, you have to ask, according to tradition and experience, what is the best way to explain your own reality and that of the question of the soul? Have you got a pony that can outrace Christ? Go and compare the philosophical and theological teachings of the ancient world and how the big questions are resolved by Christ and his followers.

"What does this tell us"? It tells us you think we're a bunch of 5 year olds in your sunday school class, that's what it tells us. Don't make a whole bunch of assumptions for other people about how they (we) should "explain their own reality", and top it off with goofy metaphors about Ponies and Jesus. My explanation for my own reality does just fine without Mr. Jesus, his Church, his Bible, his dictums, and any of that rigamarole. I am thrilled- yes, pleased as f-'in punch- that it works for you. For the record, I don't believe science has "just replaced" Jesus in the worldviews of many of those of us who have alternate, non-theological explanations of reality. The difference is, Science is based upon experiment and verification as opposed to faith in things which cannot be proven experientially. But you want to say belief in Quantum Physics is the same as belief in Jesus is the same as belief in the Yanomamo Pelican god? Be my friggin' guest. But part of the reason people like me find (many, not all) Christians so onerous is because give them half a second, and they will start blathering at you in an entirely unasked-for fashion about the "good news" and spouting off all kinds of self-verifying tautologies that, I'm sure, make lots of sense to them, but to the rest of us, sound an awful lot like "Jesus is right because Jesus is right"..

So, I think if you want to work on the image problem, the preaching would be a good place to start.

[sybylla]

88. Nicely said.

Criticize non-xtians for jumping to conclusions about xtians while jumping to conclusion about non-xtians, then proscribe a remedy for something that is only a problem for xtians.

It's unfortunate that so many are so blinded by the bible/koran/et al and the corrolary teachings of their religion that they can neither invision nor understand any other point of view of the world. The older I get the more certain I am that it's not evil that begets violence but the inability of so many to empathize with others.

[Tigermoose]

93. So you've made your decision.

I was addressing AZ, who uses scientific language to rhetorically convince us he is educated and thus an authority.

99% of all we know is based upon someone else's witness. Feel free to investigate everything you hear about via the scientific method. It's a great tool, but to deny that the human mind demands that we trust and place our belief in others is just, well, foolish.


"Preaching" Hmm...well...I mean, I guess that you can call it that. I just am arguing for the Truth, and you are rebelling and calling me a preacher because you don't agree. I mean, you've made your choice, so I don't expect anything less, even though I still hope and pray. I'm sure that just pissed you off to no-end. I'm sorry about that, but it is the truth. I'm not concerned about my image, but rather your soul.

[MissB]

94. Please get off it

You truly are giving Christianity a bad name today.

Take a break. You need it.

[Tigermoose]

96. How so?

Please explain.

What is it about Christ's teachings that I'm relaying are you offended at? I apologize if what I say doesn't conform to modern American conceptions about diversity and relativity. Truth demands judgment. I don't make the rules. People will not come to Christ if you teach them that everything is just shades of gray. People must understand the immensity of the questions, and then choose.

[MissB]

98. If you would like to start a thread asking who want to learn about Christ

Then please feel free to do so. The Lounge may be a better place to preach and try to save people.

No one here is asking to be saved. You are making a huge assumption that people want to be saved. You are assuming that people here do not understand what it means to reject your version of "THE TRUTH".

That is what is offensive. Your assumptions are wrong.

If you want to preach, go do it in the Lounge, which is where all non-political discussions belong.

[Tigermoose]

127. GD is constantly having topics that deal with Christianity...

my post was an attempt to plead with people to get a clue about Christianity before they speak on the subject..beyond a general "cultural" knowledge that we have all inherited.

Why is it that Christianity provokes such strong responses?

[Walt Starr]

130. Actually, the Lounge is the wrong place too

I believe the appropriate forum would be The Meeting Room, but I think even they do not take kindly to proselytizing.

Again, I believe proselytizing should be banned on DU. It's a nasty, disgusting habit some get into.

[PVnRT]

145. Does that include

atheists trying to convince others that their religion is idiotic and a myth and that they need to stop believing in it? It is a nasty, disgusting habit that some get into.

[Walt Starr]

149. All gods are myths by defnition

and will remain so until independently verifiable evidence is presented to support the existance of at least one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist.

It's an undeniable statement of fact.

[Imperialism Inc.]

167. I think it is because you aren't making any sense.

The Hebrews were right because lots of people still believe it today? What kind of logic is that?

Further, the things you are saying and the techniques you are using in this thread are the exact same things that people complain about. At the very least it isn't in keeping with the title of the thread, which I thought was going to be about showing us how some believers aren't like the stereotype at all. If that was indeed the goal... you have failed.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Thank You

For proving my point better than I ever could.

I'm glad you think you have "the truth". I'm glad you think that a belief system that posits a 4,000 year old earth (damn those dinosaur bones!) and couldn't, for the longest time, reconcile a sun-centered solar system, is the unvarnished and unchallengable source for "truth" about reality. Personally, I would want something with a better historical track record before I started spouting off so self-assuredly. But, again, if it works for you- hey- more power to ya.

As for "my soul"... Thanks for the concern. No, really. Can't speak for the "soul"--- but I remain unconvinced that my brain would function better if only it were thoroughly washed.

I may be going to hell in a bucket---
But at least I'm enjoyin' the ride!

[sybylla]

107. more jumping to conclusions

I'd like a source for "99% of all we know"

Trusting and placing a "belief in others" is something completely different than placing belief and trust in the unseen. Non-xtians put a great deal of faith and trust in others. Xtians don't have a monopoly.

And you are erroneously making the assumption that you will anger non-xtians by praying for them. Pray away. But I assure you we won't go to heaven anyway. Xtianity tells me so. Will you be offended if I don't pray for you?

[Tigermoose]

131. You can see words and ideas?

How so?

You can see relativity? You can see math? You can see how you think?

I pray, and hope, that you ask some questions that go deeper than the modern mind-sets limited viewpoints that refer to science and politics as their essential worldview that frames your way of thinking.

[Walt Starr]

133. You really don't see the difference, do you?

Everything you've mentioned can have independently verifiable evidence to support them. this means there are methods of measuring and verifying them.

Give me the measure of the god you allege. Give me a method of verification that can be consistently reproduced each time it is tested independently.

[Tigermoose]

146. I can't, because Faith is essential to salvation.

God is SUPERnatural. He is beyond nature, thus not able to be verified within the "laws" of the natural world. It is only through trusting the witness of others, and somewhat through Reason, that we can know Him.

Don't worry, though, someday you will have 100% verifiable proof, but then I fear it will be too late. But even when you have belief that God exists, that doesn't mean you trust in him. Because trust means submission to Him. And that is probably the main reason people won't believe in him, because then they would be faced with the scary realization that they would then have to submit themselves to somebody other than themselves...and that IS scary.

[Walt Starr]

150. If faith is a requirement, then there is no compelling reason for me

to believe it.

I need some evidene that I can reproduce. Until then, there is absolutely no reason to buy into it.

[sybylla]

143. Whoa, dude. Lighten up on the koolaid

I didn't understand a point you just tried to make. Was there an answer in there somewhere to what I stated earlier?

Are you trying to equate belief in others as belief in math?

And you conclude with another assumption about what frames my way of thinking?

Did you read anything I wrote?

[Walt Starr]

109. I agree, the nastiest thing anybody can do is proselytize

It's rude, nasty, degenerate behaviour, IMO.

[Tigermoose]

10. Its a good starting point..that's all.

It proclaims the good news in a way that I think the "intelligent" crowd here in DU would appreciate. But perhaps another poster is correct; perhaps John is a little too complex for the average American reader these days...

[Warpy]

32. John was a Gnostic

...and he considered his dreams to be of equal value to reality.

No thanks. I'll read Mark or Matthew for the history and the quotes.

I'll read Paul to see how the whole movement was subverted and turned into an Imperial church, letting the rich off the hook and devaluing women.

Other than a few good one-liners, though, John is a wash.

[Tigermoose]

36. You are making claims you have no substantial evidence for.

The early Christian church, those who either knew the disciples or were perhaps one generation removed, decided against the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus's teachings. In fact, the gnostic idea of secrecy directly contradicts why Jesus was sent in the first place -- Revalation (to reveal the good news, not to keep it secret). Augustine addresses this issue nicely in The City of God. You should be careful in relying on modern "rediscoveries" that are nothing more than the re-drudging up of controversies earlier decided upon through sound reason of those closer to the historical events. The Gnostic tradition is seductive to the intellecutal who would like to believe that true understanding can only be achieved by those who "know" the "secret teachings." This is caused by Pride. Jesus took fisherman and laborers as his disciples, not pharisees and saducees who believed they alone knew the secret workings of God.

Beware of intellectual pride. I too am a sucker for this, and I too was once enticed by the thrill of knowing the "secret teachings."

[Nederland]

52. Yes it is

It also is the part of the Bible that those of us who criticize Christianity don't have a problem with. It is primarily the other books of the New Testament (apostolic letters, for example) that bother us. By insisting that we focus the Gospel of John, and pretend that the other books don't matter, all you are doing it trying to restrict the discussion to things that we don't disagree on. If, however, you are willing to say that your personal faith is merely the teaching of Christs as described in John (or all the gospels for that matter) and does not include the teachings of Paul, I don't think anyone here would have a problem. Until then, I think our criticisms are perfectly valid.

[Tigermoose]

99. I used to have a problem with Paul too...

but then as I accepted Christ and began to experience the Christan life--Christ working within me-- I began to understand the subtle nuances of what Paul talks about. Paul is compassionate and loving, but he gets a bad wrap by people who don't understand that his focus is saving souls for Christ...and sometimes that means earthly concerns can be limitations to that eternal salvation. We don't always like to hear that -- nor did I...especially if it conflicts with the ideas of your favorite political party.

[Nederland]

163. No, Paul get a bad wrap because...

1)  He believes homosexuals are going to hell.
    (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

2)  He believes women should have less power than men.
    (I Timothy 2:9-15)

[Walt Starr]

165. So basically, Paul was a misogynistic homophobe

pretty much sums up every rightwingnut fundie I ever met.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Reading the Gospel isn't enough

because there is a lot of texture and nuance in the passage that is lost on a modern reader who is unfamiliar with that time period and culture.

Which is why I suggest reading Borg's "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time", which deals with the whole of the New Testament and then some.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[fdr_hst_fan]

11. Jesus

I humbly submit that, based on all I ever heard and was told, Jesus WAS a liberal!

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Welcome to DU. And yeah,

I've always thought of Him as being fairly liberal. ;)

[Tigermoose]

40. According to your definition of "liberal"

this is true. But for many "conservatives," liberalism equates with humanism, and humanism is the opposite of what Christ taught. Humanism says that man can achieve heaven on earth and that mankind by nature is not fallen. Christ taught that "the good news" was that he was sent to die for mankind and thus through God's grace redeem our fallen natures when we to die. But on this earth, we are still fallen. Humanism denies this fallen nature in its insistence that we can all just get along and make life perfect through our own labors.

You must understand that your political language of discourse is different than that of other political groups, and this causes a lot of anger and misunderstandings -- a political tower of Babel as it were.

[truthspeaker]

4. Don't tell us, tell your fellow "Christians"

When Jerry Falwell, who identifies himself as a Christian and raises money from millions of other Americans who call themselves Christians, says lesbians and pagans caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks, how exactly am I to know his isn't a Christian point of view?

[noonwitch]

7. It's a lunatic christian pov, not a christian pov

All christians are not responsible for the speech of the lunatics, just like all muslims are not responsible for 9-11.

[truthspeaker]

17. Few of us say they are. But the lunatics are still Christians.

[sangh0]

8. And Bush* calls himself a honest man

so I guess you now hate honest people too

how exactly am I to know his isn't a Christian point of view?

It's called "thinking for yourself"

[truthspeaker]

24. but there is an agreed definition for "honest".

There is no agreed definition for "Christian".

As far as I'm concerned Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush are all Christian: they all believe Jesus is the savior and son of God. What that belief means to them is obviously very different for each of them. But all three are equally Christian.

[sangh0]

31. No there isn't

nor is there an agreed on definition for "truth"

But all of those you named are Christians

[readmylips]

38. No. Only God can see who is and who is not a Christian......

We can say george bush (wink) is a good man, so is fallwell and Prez Jimmi Carter, but we cannot see inside their hearts and souls to determine if they are Christians. Only God has that Right.

The most righterous bush christian is john a$$crap, yet he is the biggest lier of them all. Is he a good man? No he is not.

[Bandit]

60. How does "Have Faith" relate to thinking for oneself?

Isn't that the main meme in Christianity? "You must Have Faith" I find that at odds with thinking for yourself.

[sangh0]

66. You're supposed to do both

Isn't that the main meme in Christianity?

No

[PVnRT]

105. Hmmmm

I have faith, yet can think for myself. Maybe all us Christians aren't knuckledragging dipshits, eh?

[Az]

108. No one should suggest you are

This issue has been before the human race for at least 2000 years. To expect everyone to be on the same page after all this time with no conclusive case being presented before the world is perhaps a bit too much to expect.

[Catholic Sensation]

9. okay I'll play this game

When Hitler, who identified himself as German (though he was Austrian), kills millions of Jews, Homosexuals, Communists, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. with narry a complaint from his fellow countrymen at the time, how exactly am I to know his isn't a German point of view?

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Are you saying you haven't heard liberal Christians speak out against

various atrocities in the world?

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Catholic Sensation]

18. I'm merely pointing out the stupidity of the post I replied to

I know liberal Christians have spoken out against various atrocities in the world. The Vatican condemned the war in Iraq. The Methodist church told it's ignorant followers to "fuck off" essentially for giving a rat's ass about a female church leader being a lesbian. The Episcopalians moved into the 20th century (not in this century yet) by electing an openly gay bishop. Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, etc. are all liberal christians who have spoken out against the atrocities in the world.

edit: for clarity, the methodist and church of england examples were referring to the atrocity that is anti-homosexual bigotry by some stupid parishners in those religions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Ok. Got ya. :^)

[leftistagitator]

128. Well, the fact that Germany takes a very strong anti-Hitler stance

might have been your first clue. Did you know you're not allowed to distribute nazi materials of any kind in Germany? You're not allowed to advocate Nazi positions in Germany. You're not allowed to make positive statements about Hitler in Germany. Personally I think they go to far, what with freedom of speech and all that, but your analogy is bad. Germans prove Hitler no longer speeks for them by denouncing everything he did and criminalizing the Nazi platform. Liberal Christians on the other hand are barely even heard from, leaving all non-Christians to assume that the fundamentalists speak for you. It may not be fair, but if ya'll can't get your message out more then people will assume the Farwells and Hagee's of the world represent Christianity as a whole.

[Tigermoose]

15. Why are you shifting blame?

Instead of investigate truth you would rather post an emotional response that attacks someone who many Christians would describe as a modern-day Pharisee.

[truthspeaker]

21. it's the OP that's shifting the blame

The blame for the negative image Christianity has belongs to those Christians who give it a negative image, not to those non-Christians who object to it. You're blaming the messenger.

[sangh0]

25. That's just dumb

Even you acknowledge that it is only "those Christians who give it a negative image" who deserve our scorn, so why is it OK to blame "those Christians who DO NOT give it a negative image"?

[truthspeaker]

29. I never said it was OK to blame those Christians

and I don't. But I guess the two or three anti-Christian posters out of thousands at DU are some kind of movement you feel you have to combat.

[sangh0]

85. Well, you didn't say it was wrong to blame those Christians

though you did take the time to absolve non-christians of blame

...not to those non-Christians who object to it. You're blaming the messenger.

[Catholic Sensation]

30. tell me, how long would you last if a few words in this post were changed

The blame for the negative image Islam has belongs to those Muslims who give it a negative image, not to those non-Muslims who object to it. You're blaming the messenger.

You'd be tombstoned in an instant. The negative images any religion has come from a multitude of things. The fact the most openly stupid members of each religion seem to be given the most press doesn't help. That and an almost willingness for people to be ignorant of what is supposed to be taught and what is projected by the aforementioned ultra-idiots any religion has. Are you going to blame the negative image Islam has only on Osama bin Laden too, or the fact we have a media and we have politicians who want us to remain ignorant to the true messages of Mohammed (I'm a Roman Catholic by the way, not a Muslim).

Instead of saying "the blame for the negative image of Christianity belongs to both the Christians who give it a negative image, and to those who willfully remain ignorant to the teachings of Christians."

[Warpy]

35. Christ wanted you to earn your way to heaven

Falwell tells the gullible that they can bribe their way out of hell.

[AntiCoup2K4]

44. "By their fruits, ye may know them"

The "fruit" of Jerry Falwell is hatred and division. This is a man who promoted a slanderous videotape about our last elected President on his "religious" TV program. His actions directly contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ by pushing doctrines of lies and hatred. Same with Bush and the PNAC'ers who make war out of greed and not for any justifiable reason. Yes, I believe there is such a thing as a "just war", but there hasn't been one since 1945, as far as the US is concerned. Nor was there one before then since 1812.

[truthspeaker]

54. Hatred and division can be supported biblically

Someone can be a Christian and still be evil.

[PVnRT]

104. How will you know?

By using your brain and suspending your hatred of religion for five minutes. It's hard, yes, but you can do it.

[bryant69]

5. The Gospel of John is indeed beautiful

But I suspect there are two answers to this (and possibly others I haven't thought of;

1. As beautiful as the sentiments expressed may be, they are still based on a lie; they continue to assert the existence of God, which is an illusion many governments have used to push people around.

2. What about ? Isn't that just as much a symbol of Christianity as the book of John?

Anyway we all have to decide whether or not we can work with people politically who we disagree with religiously (and Atheism is a religious position, of course).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LostInAnomie]

6. Paul is the fundies choice...

... with all his "damnation in hell-fire" rhetoric towards any other faith.

[Wright Patman]

16. Maybe so

but Paul is hated by the "works-based" legalists, which includes a lot of what are popularly known as "fundies," because he believed that we are saved by grace through faith.

Martin Luther took the phrase "the just shall live by faith" and used it to launch the Protestant Reformation.

[Tigermoose]

28. Paul combines Greek and Hebrew viewpoints

in a beautifully nuanced manner. His teachings are for those who already believe in the good news preached in the gospels. To read Paul without a foundational understanding and belief in the gospels is like trying to criticize Bush without being an American. You can do it, but you are not going to understand the nuances of shared experience that often give a complete, full understanding of the words expressed.

I think Dante says something in the Inferno about those in Hell hating God because to them He is all judgment and wrath. Whereas, to the Christian he is Love and Redemption. So I can understand how many people would read Paul in a certain, negative light . . .

[truthspeaker]

14. Here is how I determine who is a Christian:

Do they label themself "Christian"?

Yes: I consider them a Christian

No: I do not.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian, and so was George Wallace. Jimmy Carter is a Christian but so is Jerry Falwell. Like any other creed, religion, nationality, etc. there are good people who are Christians and bad people who are Christians, and being Christian has no bearing on whether they are good or bad.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. People labeling themselves a Christian doesn't make it so.

If you live your life by the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, you are a Christian. If you do not do this, and claim to be a Christian, you are a liar. That doesn't mean those who are truly Christians are perfect. I'm far from it. But there's a difference between doing something wrong now and then - and seeking forgiveness for it, and going out of your way to do things that you KNOW are in direct opposition to Christ's teachings. Such as starting pointless wars of greed & conquest. Or encouraging hatred and discrimination against others, with the attempted justification that they are somehow worse sinners than yourself, which is in direct contradiction to the scripture "ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

[truthspeaker]

55. but I can't tell who is living by the teachings

The teachings attributed to Christ do not have a consistent message. I cannot determine who is and who is not a Christian, so I leave it to them to define themselves.

[Walt Starr]

110. Yep, if somebody carrying around a sword claims the be Christian

then kills some unbeliever, I'd say that's consistent with part of the message presented in the NT.

[Red State Rebel]

120. Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works

and thus praise your Father in Heaven. Matthew 5:12

That is how I try to let people know of my faith.

[wryter2000]

19. I don't bash Christianity

Although I will bash what passes for Christianity in our government today.

Frankly, I wish real Christians put half the effort into rescuing their faith from the Falwells as they put into chastizing me here.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. We're trying, but it's not easy

:(

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[wryter2000]

59. I certainly appreciate your efforts

I'd join in the cause but don't feel it's my place as a non-believer. However, I got sick enough about what's beind done in the name of my former faith that I finally got a bumpersticker that says "Jesus is a liberal." When I get my Kerry bumptersticker, I'm going to put a flag decal next to it and take back my flag, too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

62. Thanks. :^) You are right that we need to take back both

of those things. They are being perverted in the worst way. :(

[truthspeaker]

22. BTW I've already read John

And the other Gospels, and Paul's stuff, and most of the Old Testament.

[Walt Starr]

26. I've read the bible many times in many translations

My word of warning to all who would read it, stay away from any version with the word "New" in the title.

Also, the translation called The Book should actually be titled The bible for Dummies.

[Az]

34. The problem

Let us assume that Jesus lived and was the son of god. Let us further assume that he did come here to preach about salvation. The moment he ascended to heaven and left his desciples behind to deal with things everything became the word of humans talking to humans. Between his falling and the actual gathering of the bible over 350 years transpired. Our nation hasn't even been around that long and our history is muddled. So any expectation that the letters and text that they voted to call the bible is a fair representation of the truth is highly subjective.

This leads us to a further problem. Its a huge book. Techicnally many books. And they do not always agree. They are not the clearest text ever written. And some of it just doesn't apply any longer. So we are not really dealing with the literal word of god here. What we are dealing with when we face a Christian is their own personal interpretation of some of the bible as filtered through their biases and perceptions.

The upshot of all this is each and every Christian is their own person. To claim that they alone hold the truth is perhaps a bit egotistic. And to claim that their source is some vault of truth is highly suspect.

[Tigermoose]

43. You would be correct, except you are forgetting the Holy Spirit.

The "huge book" becomes clear when you accept Christ and the Holy Spirit works within you. Will you have some different understandings than other Christians? Sure. That's not a problem though. We are moved by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Word in a way that best fits God's plan. The basics of Christianity, are agreed upon most major Christian denominations. C.S. Lewis shows this well in his "Mere Christianity." Many people like to tear apart the differences on the leaves and branches of the Tree, but the Tree has a shared trunk that all must attach to -- Christ. If a "Christian" doesn't attach himself to that core trunk -- or Vine as it is explained in John -- then he or she really isn't a Christian but instead a fraud.

In the end, you must understand that Christianity is an experience that must be lived to be known. The Bible never gets old to me because as I grow as a Christian, and the HS works through me, whole new levels of understanding open up to me. My heart has a larger capacity to love others then it did before, and I can't explain that other than to say it is so because I feel/know it. I know right from wrong now, and I understand that making right decisions is not based on intellectual finagling but rather on submission rather than rebellion to that which I know to be right or wrong. Another neat thing that happens is that the Bible begins to re-pattern your mind in a way that is good and beneficial. I am less nasty and dark then I used to be. I like joyful music and good times. Once you begin to experience it you know it is Right and True, and then you never want to go back that dark forest of suspician and rebellion that you once lived, where your only satisfaction is in proving to someone how much smarter you are, and how better educated.

I'm not sure if that makes sense to a non-Christian. But the amazing part is that I know that all Christians have experienced these basic similarities when they have submitted to Christ. Granted, this assumes they have really submitted themselves to Christ and have been regenerated. I once considred myself a Christian even though I hadn't really taken that plunge, and even now I feel I have a long way to go.

[Az]

49. What happens when we can explain the Holy Spirit as a neurological anamoly

The Holy Spirit is what gave the early Christian sects a lot of power in convincing others. It is a very powerful experience but it is now explainable.

It will of course mean little to you that all your experiences can be explained without a necessity of a god communing with you. Everything you explain, though wonderfully meaningful and powerful to you, is understandable within the confines of the human psyche and the neurology of the brain. There is no suggestion of mental defect here or brain damage. This is simply how the brain works.

I say it will mean little to you because you know these experiences are real and their import is beyond reproach for you. You have no reason to doubt your beliefs. And without doubt I have no means of explaining them to you. Suffice to say as much as you believe that you are in communion with the Holy Spirit I believe that I really do understand what is going on. There is of course no way for you to accept this.

[The Magistrate]

37. The Gospel Of John, Mr. Moose

Is an unfortunate choice upon which to rest your case.

In the whole of the Christian writings, there is little that presents a more repellent view of the diety than that work....

[Tigermoose]

45. How so?

Please explain.

[Walt Starr]

46. Unless it would be Paul's writings

:P

[notadmblnd]

47. I never proclaimed that I know what a christian is...

but I certainly know what/who isn't!

[dpibel]

48. This is pretty presumptious, really

How is it you're so certain that those who don't believe as you do have never read the Gospel of John (or the rest of the NT or the Bible)? It may surprise you to learn that the truth of the Bible and the true path of Christianity are not manifestly obvious to all, if only they will read the Good News.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." The fruits of Christianity are rarely the gentle, generous, spirit-filled lives that Jesus promises. The range is broad--from the crazed, hate-filled nastiness of Phelps, Falwell, and Robertson to the indifferent Sunday practice of the overwhelming majority. Very few Christians practice anything remotely resembling the ascetic, forgiving, anti-materialistic life prescribed by the founder of the religion.

So what do you think I'll learn if I read the Gospel of John again? That in the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God? Nice mystical statement that only has meaning if you accept the underlying premise. That God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life? (No, I didn't dash over to my Bible; just know 'em.) I know the story. In fact, I rather suspect that there are few Americans who don't know the basic outlines of Christianity; it's hard to grow up American and not know.

I'm not at all sure what you think you gain by patronizing those who don't believe in your religion. Saying, "If you knew my Jesus," presumes you're talking to a bunch of Satan-blinded ignoramuses. You might consider that whenever the latest in an endless series of victimized Christian threads fires up, the non-Christian posters seem to exhibit at least as much knowledge of the Bible as the affronted Christians.

So I don't think the solution is to suggest that the nonbelievers are simply lacking education. Y'know, sometimes you ride your ass to Damascus and all that happens is you get to Damascus.

[MissB]

51. What he/she said (nt)

[Tigermoose]

63. The Word was God.

I was a literary grad student, so that little statement by a 30 year old living in the Middle East around 30 AD is pretty darn profound. Is it possible that a 30 year old carpenter could have this kind of knowledge if he was just some man? Or even if you don't believe in him, how could a bunch of farmers and laborers write this sort of stuff? Modern academics from Yale and the top universities are still debating the nature of experience through language.

Ask a linguist or an literary person about the affects of language in shaping our understanding of the world around us. Some will tell you about deconstruction, and how words can never fully represent the idea in which they represent. Our understanding of the world around us is fundamentally shaped by the words that we know, and without a true word to guide us we are merely lost in an endless interplay of possible meanings.

Jesus was the Word that truly represented the idea of God. Since our experience of reality is a fusion of objective experience through our senses, and our subjective interpretation of those experiences, filtered by the words of our language, you will perhaps beging to understand the profound implications of that first line of John. That is why He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Through Him as our word of understanding, we can correctly interpret the world around us through His teachings and His presence in our lives. And that's just one line....keep going, and begin to see how the man Jesus must have been something more. And then when you see how the Holy Spirit works, your understanding deepends even more, how the HS grows our capacity to Love and our will to action.

[lagniappe]

80. You can't be serious.

Do you actually think that Jesus was the only person who ever lived that had any spiritual or philosophical insight.

Quoting scripture is a terrible way to make an argument about Christianity. It assumes you are willing to accept and defend the negative elements of the bible that are rejected by most of society. You are against slavery aren't you, and I hope you have never eaten shrimp.

Also, to be honest I'm more impressed the knowledge of that famous 26 year old German patent clerk.

[Tigermoose]

95. We'll see how long your German patent clerk's ideas stick around.

I am against enslaving ourselves to anything but God. That was Paul's message. And Jesus revised the dietary commandments of the Old Testament and made all foods clean.

[lagniappe]

102. The bible had to be revised?

You mean to tell me that the creator of the universe, the one who created the atom, gravity, life, human beings, and everything else, had to go back and revise his dietary commandments. Why? Did he make a mistake? What other parts of the bible can we safely ignore?

Furthermore, the ideas in the bible are hardly original. Good grief. Do you think that people who lived before Moses did not know it was wrong to murder or steal. I don't need the bible to tell me what is moral or immoral.

And yes, I think Einstein's ideas will be around for a very long time.

[Tigermoose]

122. We will see.

And I saw an interesting documentary on Einstein -- how he took a lot of his ideas from his wife, and then dumped her and his kid when they got inconvenient to his career. He was a real quality guy, let me tell you.


And even so, how does Einstein contradict Jesus? Einstein is explaining how the natural universe - the universe created by God to work in "natural" ways -- works. I thought you were referring to someone else originally.

[lagniappe]

140. I wasn't making a point about Einstein's morality.

I was making the point that Jesus's ideas in the bible weren't more extraordinary than say Einstein or Newton; therefore, those statements are not a good measure if his divinity.

My argument is that the bible is not proof of anything. It has more contradictions than insights.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with most Christians. I even try to live by most of the teachings of Jesus even though I am not a believer. Where Christianity fails for me is not the rituals or the rules (although some rules are ridiculous). Christianity fails for me because of its requirement of faith. I can go to church on Sunday, be a good person, and be faithful to my wife, but I've always questioned the bible. I've always had problems with faith no matter how hard I've tried. Christians tell us that, even if you are a moral person, if you don't believe, you are going to be tortured forever. To me that idea is insane.

[Az]

56. To those who are going to post arguments against Tigermoose

Understand that what he/she is going through is a build up of stress regarding others attempting to define something he/she knows to be true. In her/his opinion everyone is taking liberties with a wonderful thing and polluting it for others.

In responding you are not going to going to convince Tigermoose of being in error. You are not going to be the one to suddenly find the flaw in his/her belief. So please take into considerations the feelings of the person when responding. Understand that he/she may be expressing a good deal of pent up frustration. Underneith all our beliefs we are still fellow humans who need to work together to get through this world.

[MissB]

69. Good point, Az

It is difficult not to respond to someone who is clearly preaching, whether or not he/she understands how offensive that action is.

[Tigermoose]

73. God bless you AZ

I do this because I want others to experience the love and joy that comes through Christ. I do it because I love you, and you, and you................... And if you sneer at that, why do you sneer? Shouldn't that tell you something...that you are sneering against the idea of loving others? Why would you ever do such a thing?


I wonder why you, AZ, are always willing to debate others about God. Is it to serve them and to help them achieve joy and happiness? Or is it to validate your own rebellion against God? I do this to serve. Please do not place your own reasons for posting here as mine. Or do. As long as I can help others to find peace then I consider you a wonderful source that I can debate so that others might here the Truth that calls us all -- even you AZ.

Yes. We are all humans. But what does it mean to be human?

[MissB]

79. Hey, I love you too

But I don't believe in your god. That doesn't make my love any less valid, my dear.

You truly have no idea how offensive it is to hear someone preach about their god, do you? Most of us here are quite happy with our beliefs, and only ask that others respect our beliefs. Attempts at conversion are frowned upon here, as they should be.

[Tigermoose]

119. I completely know how offensive it is to those who don't

accept it. But should we ban all discourse based on the possibility of offending someone? Then we would never discuss anything beyond Reality TV and Kittens.

There is a reason Christ says he is a double edged sword...

[Az]

84. Sneering

I do not sneer. I disagree. But I do not sneer. I believe I do undertand why you present your views here and I believe it to be out of good will and love for others. My path is similar. It is my connection with my fellow humans that drives me to find truth and reason as well as to share this with others.

I have no rebellion against god. I lack even a belief in god to rebel against. I do have a thirst for understanding and it has brought me to an understanding of the human nature.

There is a book by Carl Sagan called the Demon Haunted World. In it he tells a story that sums up my calling eloquently. Carl took a ride with a Cab driver. The cabbie not knowing who Carl was proceeded to tell all sorts of stories that he had come across about UFOs and crop circles and all sorts of other incredulous tails. Carl was struck by the thirst this man had for knowledge and yet had been let down by the system and had his head filled with all manner of nonsense.

It is natural for us to want to know the how and why of things. It is part of our nature. As you see others living life without the comfort of Jesus I see others living life going down false paths and being sold false hopes.

My journey is one of joy at our capacity to understand the world around us. I believe it is selfish and unnatural to keep this understanding to oneself. I have however come across belief systems which reject this understanding. The question that this poses is how to deal with them. Do you evicerate them and declare war with them? Or do you try to find some way to bring the positions closer together in hopes that a new understanding can be synthesized.

The trouble of course is when the other positions cannot be moved. Even more troublesome is when their position can be demonstrated to be false and yet they cannot see it. And in truth they cannot at this time.

How you deal with this junction is critical. If you sneer at them and dismiss them you lose any hope of either side learning anything. You create camps that will in the end have to fight. This path leads to destruction. Instead you have to stay true to yourself but allow them to remain true to their own path. All the while building on what you do have in common.

In the end the only goal worthy is one of building positive connections between each other. We are going to disagree on many things. But as we study the same thing we are going to find much to agree about as well.

[PVnRT]

106. See, that's the intelligent response

Which will, promptly, go by the wayside here at DU.

[mmonk]

61. Why the Gospel of John?

Why not all in context? And how do many who profess Christianity have so little knowledge of its history, the culture of Israel at that time and of Judaism and the Roman empire, the history of the region, etc? Why is so little given to the teachings of Jesus and historical accounts? So little of the particular writing styles? How many know when the Church decided Jesus was divine? When the trinity was formulated by the Church? That these things were by vote long after the death of Jesus? How many have read an ancient Liturgy and Homily? How many have read the works that were considered for admission to the New Testament, but weren't voted in?

[Tigermoose]

75. I thought one gospel would be a good starting point.

Heck...from there, go crazy! Readreadread!

[mmonk]

92. I have.

Just curious about the choice of John.

[Walt Starr]

121. I read it. I didn't buy into it.

I got over it.

[Solon]

161. Why not the Gospel of Thomas?

at least as old as the 4 canon gospels, and recently found at Nag Harmmadi.

[TrogL]

68. Maybe you'd better read the entire new testament

preferably in the order it was written:

• Paul's Epistles (some)
  
• Mark
  
• Matthew
  
• Luke and Acts
  
• John
  
• rest of the Epistles
  

[Tigermoose]

78. I have.

Many times my friend, in different translations.

The order it was written? The "oral" gospels predated the writings of Paul. Paul was working from an understanding of what Jesus taught and who Jesus was that is based on the Gospels. That is why the Gospels are first in the NT. Reading Paul without a firm understanding of the Gospels just doesn't make sense. It would be like reading algebra without knowing basic math.

[mmonk]

82. Of course

just reading the Bible doesn't get one all that far and lends itself to different interpretations. It just doesn't quite work (regarding the New Testament). It was written by people a couple of thousand years ago and taken by itself without any supporting documentation, writings from the period, etc., and read by someone in today's world, they will come up with their own ideas, correct or incorrect.

[truthspeaker]

77. Tigermoose, you are making a false assumption

that what Christianity means to you is the same as what it means to everyone else. In reality it means very different things to different people.

[Tigermoose]

89. The Vine is the same even if the offshoots are a little different.

Baptised Christians that have submitted themselves to Christ share a bond of shared experience and understanding of the world and God that unites them in love. Our words sometimes come out differently, but underneath we have felt the same presence working in our lives, and in the world. And until you experience it I'm sure that just sounds corny.

[Solon]

162. Not at all Tigermoose...

not corny at all. I experience my Gods every day and feel their presence in everything I do. But I would never say that they are the ONLY ones out there, nor that everybody has to share in my experiences.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

91. tough..the Xtians are the main reason for homophobia in our society.

Sure, I would admit that Islam and possibly other religions also have prohibitions against this, but in the West, in our society, its Christianisty that is now the main driving force that encourages/rationalizes prejudice against gays and lesbians.

Of all the many Christian denominatons in the USA I can think of maybe only three that are really accepting , and one of them, the MCC, is mostly gay and lesbian itself.

[Az]

100. I would disagree

While Chrisitianity certainly supports the continuation of homophobia it is far closer to our social structure that enables it to exist. Let us say that Christianity provides a conveinient rationalization of some peoples discomfort with homosexuality. The source is a more complex issue dealing with how we learn to bond with individuals of the same sex as children and our lack of exposure (for cultural reasons) to the reality of homosexuality.

[Walt Starr]

112. Before one can logically debate any god

one must provide independently varifiable evidence to support the existance of any 1 of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist.

Just a point of order.

[redqueen]

115. I nominate Shiva

She's way overdue!

Would anyone like to second that?

Do we really need evidence? That so spoils all the fun!

[Walt Starr]

117. Kali-Ma!

Love that dark side goddess!

[Tigermoose]

116. Logic is based on Reason, and believing in God requires Faith.

Reason and logic will take you to a certain point where you realize that your own limitations in understanding, and that the only thing that seems to make any sense is that there is a God out there. Then you rely on faith to give a complete sense of well-being.

Reason is like wading out into an ocean until get up to your chin in the water. Faith is when you take the plunge and come out the other side - reborn. It's scary as hell, but well worth it! :)

[MissB]

118. Newsflash

I know I am not speaking only for myself when I say that I do not need faith in a diety to feel a complete sense of well-being.

Bully for you that you need it. You fail to realize, recognize, or understand that others do not need it.

Your failure to realize this is why you appear to be giving Christianity a bad name today.

[Tigermoose]

132. Time will tell.

I believe that sooner or later, you will feel that need. And when you do, you can either reject it and become embittered against it, or you can accept it and seek how to fill it.

Many people today fill that need through drugs, alcohol, politics, a loved one, or a variety of other short term stop-gaps. They won't last.

[Walt Starr]

135. That's a copout argument

Again, provide the independently verifiable evidence to support your god's existance or it will remain a myth by definition.

[sybylla]

136. Here, here

Tigermoose, there is so much you cannot see because your "faith" blinds you.

You see, in the end, you must understand that Atheism is an experience that must be lived to be known. The freethinking never gets old to me because as I grow as an Atheist, and freethought works through me, whole new levels of understanding open up to me. My heart has a larger capacity to love others than it did before, and I can't explain that other than to say it is so because I feel/know it. I know right from wrong, and I understand that making right decisions is not based on spiritual interpretations of reality but rather on submission rather than rebellion to that which I know to be right. Another neat thing that happens is that freethinking begins to re-pattern your mind in a way that is good and beneficial. I am less nasty and dark than I used to be. I like joyful music and good times. Once you begin to experience Athiesm you know it is Right and True, and then you never want to go back to that dark forest of suspicion and fear that you once lived, where your only satisfaction is in proving to someone how much holier you are, and how better annointed.

Really, this isn't an exercise in mockery but a demonstration that our approaches to understanding the world really aren't that far apart. You don't understand non-xtians, and yet at the same time you very much do.

You should try Athiesm. It really will give you that same warm and fuzzy feeling without the burden of pretending to believe in the absurd.

[Walt Starr]

123. I only put my faith in myself

I consider relying on faith in that which is external to me to be a weakness.

If it yanks your crank, fine. I don't buy into the mythology, but you are welcome to.

[Tigermoose]

139. Next time you buy something, ask yourself

Why does this work? Why can this piece of paper buy this other thing. It's because it has the full faith and backing of the U.S. government, and you believe in that. You and everyone else. That, my friend, is one example of the necessity of faith. Without faith, you would go insane. You have to trust what your senses are telling you. Trust is another word for faith.

[Walt Starr]

151. No, actually, I don't

I have no faith in my government. When I make a purchase it is not because of my faith that it works, it is because of the faith of others.

[sybylla]

158. But you see, paper only has value if others think it has value

It takes no faith to believe that a dollar is worth a dollar. It's value isn't in the paper but in what others think it is worth. I don't have to have faith that a particular item has a negotiable value any longer than it takes me to trade it for something I do value. You're comparing faith to perceived value which is something completely different. To your mind, the power of your god never changes. Is a dollar as powerful now as it was 30 years ago? Do I have faith that it will be as powerful and as helpful in my life in 30 years as it is now?

[Walt Starr]

125. So, where's the independently verifiable evidence to support

the existance of the alleged god you assert?

[PVnRT]

134. Please

look up the meaning of the word "faith" and get back to me.

[Walt Starr]

137. A thing which requires "faith"

is a myth by definition.

Look up the word myth and get back to me.

[PVnRT]

142. Let's follow that logic

I am looking for a job. I am told to have faith that I will find one. Does that mean that it's a myth that I will find a job?

[charlie]

152. Jobs exist

Otherwise you wouldn't be looking for one. Even if every job opening draws 10,000 applicants, there is still a possibility you might be the one chosen.

If you're looking for a sixteen-legged camel in Peoria, faith in success is delusional.

[Walt Starr]

153. Nope, because jobs can be independently verified to exist

I can pick up a paper and see there are jobs available.

Having faith that you will obtain one is faith in yourself. Nothing more.

[bushgottago]

114. They are ALL Christians

And they all think they are true christians. Every one of them from catholics to baptists to mormons to jehovahas witnesses to moonies. All christians.

[tjwash]

138. This is why history is dotted with holy wars and crusades.

Christians can't even agree with each other, on what a Christian is. Forget it if someone is not what they deem a "believer" by your standards. The BIBLE isn't even clear on the correct way to practice your faith, and you, yourself, are trying to push the gospel of John, as the true way.

What about Mark 16:16 where it says we must both believe and be baptized in order to be saved? Or Romans 10 verse 9, where we're told we only need believe and confess God orally in order to be saved? Or of course John 3 verse 16 where we are told we only need to believe in order to be saved. Luke 23 verse 43, a thief being hung on a cross next to Christ asks Christ to "remember" him in the afterlife. Because of the thief's belief, Christ tells him he will join Christ in the afterlife, in paradise. The thief was saved moments before he died, with no way to be baptized, or even attend a service, or even know what Christianity is, and yet according to Christ, he indeed went to Heaven.

Sorry guy, but it seems to me, that you are trying to validate your own belief by arguing with everyone about them.

[Beaker]

144. A christian is someone who worships-

the God that best fit in with what Constantine was looking for in a religion for himself and his Roman Empire at the time.

you might say that the followers of jesus won the religion lottery...

[PVnRT]

147. Only if you're a member

of the Roman Catholic or Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodox Church.

Martin Luther was the one who said they were all full of shit, in case you've forgotten your history.

[Walt Starr]

155. Martin Luther's brand of Christianity is still based upon

The roman Church.

Now who is forgetting history? Better brush up on the Council of Nicea when you get an opportunity.

[redqueen]

160. No doubt

What if he had favored Buddhism? How different would the world be? Or any of the many popular pagan religions... *sigh*

[Cleita]

154. I have read the Bible in various versions from OT to NT.

It doesn't change what I think it is, a compilations of documents and writings encompassing the mythology, history and literature of an ethnic group of people we call Jews. I have nothing against what people believe in and how they wish to express it. My gripe is against the institutions who claim to have the divine word handed to them and would exploit their believers for profit and who would bring war to those people who don't share their relgious thoughts.

[Walt Starr]

156. Bravo!

Any organization which claims they hold the only version of some absolute truth is out for suckers!

[Jim Warren]

157. You forgot to add

Ask me anything

[NashVegas]

166. I Assure You, My Feelings Towards Bush Have Nothing to Do With It

The pope, well that's another matter. Because like it or not, the pope is the living spiritual leader of a good chunk of Christiandom, the Church-professed infalible one. And that latter part, my friend, is a stinking pile of horse shit.

Now.

If you wish to believe, that's your choice. You are welcome to your comfort. You are not welcome to take that which you derive said comfort from and impose it upon others who choose to walk without it, or in some cases have been forced to walk without it and found they get along without a god quite well, thank you.