The Truth of Christianity vs. All Other Belief Systems

[I Ratant]

...

Judging other because of a prejudicial book written 2000 years ago is just not right. Times change, cultures change, our view of things change. CD's dogmatic acceptance of every thing in the Bible just shows his inflexibility and his inability to accept that the world of today is not the world of 2000 years ago. I'm scared of him (because he would condemn whole nations to hell), and yet, strangely I pity him.

.
But isn't at the core of the inerrant view of that book that things that have changed in those 2000 years have changed for the worst, when the basic rules have been cast aside for "convenience"?

 

[supercorgi]

.
But isn't at the core of the inerrant view of that book that things that have changed in those 2000 years have changed for the worst, when the basic rules have been cast aside for "convenience"?

Well, that's the viewpoint of those that believe that the world is basically evil and only gets worse when we deny the word of god. The people who believe this are practically salivating for the Rapture when they can be sucked up into heaven and sit at the right hand of god (and gloat at all the sinners suffering in hell). I don't believe that it's convenience, I believe that these forms of religion that are adapting to changes in the real world and not being dogmatic and inflexible - for that I respect them. And I think they need to do this to survive.If there is too great a gulf from what the 2000 year old book tells them and what modern culture tells them, they're going to lose adherents. Just look at the Catholic Church in America - most don't accept the demands of the Pope. My sister-in-law who was devoutly Catholic won't even attend church any more since the peadofile priests scandals broke out.

Frankly, I think for the Catholic Church to survive, they need to allow clergy to marry and also let women become priests.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Mr Clingford, I respect you because you're a Christian that thinks. The Methodist and Episcopal churches are willing to change with the times and not be dogmatic. The culture of today is not the culture of 2000 years ago. Things have changed drastically and I respect religions that accept that change.

Massachusetts is the first state to recognize gay unions. My nephew and his devoted partner (together for over 5 years and devoted to each other) live in NY, which hasn't yet recognized the need for people to cleave to each other and have some official recognition of their devotion. I hope they do soon. I think it's awful to deny the rights allowed to some to be denied to other because they are "different." I hope that changes soon throughout this country.

Judging other because of a prejudicial book written 2000 years ago is just not right. Times change, cultures change, our view of things change. CD's dogmatic acceptance of every thing in the Bible just shows his inflexibility and his inability to accept that the world of today is not the world of 2000 years ago. I'm scared of him (because he would condemn whole nations to hell), and yet, strangely I pity him.

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always. It's far better to be a God pleaser than a people pleaser. Jesus himself is coming back to judge this world and I suggest you get right with him before it's too late! Christ followers believe the Bible and by sharing it's truth we hope others will come to repentance. God is the judge, not us!!

 

[Roadtoad]

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always. It's far better to be a God pleaser than a people pleaser. Jesus himself is coming back to judge this world and I suggest you get right with him before it's too late! Christ followers believe the Bible and by sharing it's truth we hope others will come to repentance. God is the judge, not us!!

And you come to another thread and continue to lie. Keep it up, Kathy, you're the best recruiter any "atheist movement" ever hoped for. At this point, Richard Dawkins would be cheering you on.

 

[six7s]

Frankly, I think for the Catholic Church to survive, they need to allow clergy to marry and also let women become priests.

In all seriousness, I suggest that they get their thinking caps on... they way they are going they really do risk being seen as being a completely anachronistic institution, one that owns some serious assets (real estate, etc)

There is, I think, a chance that they could lose it all in the same way they got it... through violence...

Could be messy... unless they stage manage the next few decades really well

 

[Ladewig]

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always. It's far better to be a God pleaser than a people pleaser. Jesus himself is coming back to judge this world and I suggest you get right with him before it's too late! Christ followers believe the Bible and by sharing it's truth we hope others will come to repentance. God is the judge, not us!!

Have you ever thought about working your way up to atheists? You know, convert a progressive protestant or two, convert a Catholic, convert some Buddhists and then convert an atheist. Just starting in at the highest level really isn't working very well for you. It appears to many of us that your pride is preventing you from seeing how little progress you are making here.

 

[six7s]

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always.

We agree!

Is miracle!

 

[Hokulele]

God is the judge, not us!!

Which is fairly hypocritical of you to state, given your track record here.

 

[Lonewulf]

God is supposedly the judge, but anyone that has done any kind of judging in the real world has been humans. Funny that.

 

[Mr Clingford]

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always. It's far better to be a God pleaser than a people pleaser. Jesus himself is coming back to judge this world and I suggest you get right with him before it's too late! Christ followers believe the Bible and by sharing it's truth we hope others will come to repentance. God is the judge, not us!!

I would agree that God does not change (although Process Theology, I think it is, has some interesting thoughts on God's experiences being changed because of created things, as opposed to God's nature being changed).

Where I would differ, kathy, is that I think people have viewpoints limited by time culture, gender etc, seeing through a glass darkly. Jesus himself develops ethics, saying Moses said this but I say to you (Sermon on the Mount). Remember that Xtians think that the Jews didn't get the whole picture and didn't grasp fully the nature of the messiah, or that the early Xtians thought that Christ would be returning very soon. He's not back yet so they got that wrong too. Remember also that thought in the Bible concerning who would be saved has developed too; at first we get the idea that God will only save the Jews, then there are ideas in the prophets that the gentiles are included too, then in the NT the whole world.

 

[wollery]

SC, God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and always. It's far better to be a God pleaser than a people pleaser. Jesus himself is coming back to judge this world and I suggest you get right with him before it's too late! Christ followers believe the Bible and by sharing it's truth we hope others will come to repentance. God is the judge, not us!!

So stoning to death disobedient children, rape victims who don't scream loudly enough, people who eat shellfish, pork or rabbit, people who work on Sunday, people who wear cloth of mixed fibres, etc. is still to be practised.

Gotcha.

 

[six7s]

Remember also that thought in the Bible concerning who would be saved has developed too; at first we get the idea that God will only save the Jews, then there are ideas in the prophets that the gentiles are included too, then in the NT the whole world.

And now, in teh gospels of teh Internets, we're back to a select few:


www.godhatestheworld.com

John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That says God loves everyone, right? Wrong. Every so-called Christian in the world will cite John 3:16 as proof that God loves everyone. They don't have a clue what the verse means<snip/>

It seems that if you're going to base an entire lying theology on one part of a verse, you would at least know what the verse means. But so-called Christians today are far too simple-minded and lazy to look into the matter. So we'll do it for you<snip/>

If you would actually read what the verse says, and read the context around the verse, you would find that the answer is right before your lying eyes - you just don't want to see it, because it conflicts with how your evil, dark hearts think God ought to be!
<snip/>

You'll say "but doesn't 'whosoever believes' mean that everybody has the chance to believe?" Nope. Turn a few pages to John 10 (you may be surprised to find that there is actually more to the Bible than John 3:16, but believe me, there is). You will find in John 10:11 that Jesus says "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." Later on in verse 26, Jesus says to some unbelievers: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Uh oh - you John 3:16 heretics have a few problems on your hands. <snip/>

Furthermore, the only people who can believe are the ones whom God has ordained to eternal life.

<snip/>

If He hates a person, He doesn't love everyone. For another example, there are billions of people in hell. If He loves those people, what a peculiar way of showing it!

Our message to this evil world is that God hates you, and you better prepare for the return of Christ in power and glory. Jesus came the first time to save; and Jesus will come the second time in vengeance, because you do not obey the Gospel. It will be soon, and you will experience the wrath of the Lamb, face to face. (Deut. 7:10, Rev. 6:16).

Also see "God Loves Everyone" - The Greatest Lie Ever Told, which includes 701 passages from the Bible proving God's hatred and wrath for most of mankind.

Source: http://www.godhatestheworld.com/common/html/john316.html

You sure can't argue with that sort of rationale!

 

[Mr Clingford]

And now, in teh gospels of teh Internets, we're back to a select few:
[qimg]http://www.godhatestheworld.com/common/images/john316banner.gif[/qimg]

www.godhatestheworld.com




You sure can't argue with that sort of rationale!

Errm, from the website,
"you just don't want to see it, because it conflicts with how your evil, dark hearts think God ought to be!"

There is more to the NT than John 3:16 and I wasn't confining myself to just one verse.
If God does indeed send billions to endless torment I wholeheartedly agree that he is a bastard, but I don't. I would disagree about several terms: 'billions, 'endless' and 'torment'.

There are differing, contradictory strands in the Bible, for instance the tension between faith and works. Many times the importance of faith is trumpeted, but there is also the key strand that how lives out one's life is as important.

Furthermore, although some Xtian traditions emphasise the importance of loudly proclaiming a faith, we also find the idea that it is what is in the 'heart' that is significant, and only God knows that. Unfortunately, many Xtians seem very willing to judge who is 'in' and who is not. I agree with the Xtian view that it is not about being 'in', saying I believe and sitting back, but about a process of becoming better people (which I touch upon today in the eternal 'Truth' thread in History).

 

[six7s]

I agree with the Xtian view that it is not about being 'in', saying I believe and sitting back, but about a process of becoming better people (which I touch upon today in the eternal 'Truth' thread in History).

Which was one of the key factors that meant I knew I had to get out...

Incidentally, that made doing so a little bit easier, too... Remember, the papists have something of a monopoly on guilt, so its hardly surprising that there were moments of trepidation...

Anyhoo...

The more I read of what you write, the more I like

I have a hunch neither of us are going to persuade the other... but that doesn't preclude heated yet friendly debate and debate promotes thinking... a win:win, yes?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Which was one of the key factors that meant I knew I had to get out...

Incidentally, that made doing so a little bit easier, too... Remember, the papists have something of a monopoly on guilt, so its hardly surprising that there were moments of trepidation...

I have been fortunate in knowing Xtians who also walk the walk and who think too (yes, they exist).

Anyhoo...

The more I read of what you write, the more I like

Mwah ha ha, I will make you an Anglican yet, which is a fate worse than atheist for Catholics, no?

I have a hunch neither of us are going to persuade the other... but that doesn't preclude heated yet friendly debate and debate promotes thinking... a win:win, yes?

I like vigorous friendly debate and thinking (which is a relief since I am not here to preach) - I am probably a little too much on the provocative side with my Xtian friends. My mission, which I have chosen to accept, is to show that my brain did not fall out when I became a Xtian, and that we are not all Southern Baptists who think that Jack Chick and Fred Phelps are too soft.

It's also probably the attention I'm after - I also post a bit on a Xtian board which would be considered unsaved by RaptureReady, but there are many people more knowledgeable and intelligent than me so I don't say much there.

 

[Hokulele]

Mwah ha ha, I will make you an Anglican yet, which is a fate worse than atheist for Catholics, no?

My dirty little secret is that I attended a private (the U.S. version of what is known in the UK as public) Episcopal (the U.S. version of what is known in the UK as Anglican) high school (whatever the heck that is known as in the UK, I am sick of parenthetical commentary).

 

[wollery]

My dirty little secret is that I attended a private (the U.S. version of what is known in the UK as public) Episcopal (the U.S. version of what is known in the UK as Anglican) high school (whatever the heck that is known as in the UK, I am sick of parenthetical commentary).

Minor nitpick. In the UK the term "public schools" refers to a limited number of schools that you pay to attend (the best ones, of course), the rest are called private schools (they're lumped together under the term "fee paying schools, somewhat of a misnomer, since the schools don't pay fees, you pay them). The schools run by the government are called state schools (and these can be run by religious organizations).

 

[Hokulele]

Minor nitpick. In the UK the term "public schools" refers to a limited number of schools that you pay to attend (the best ones, of course), the rest are called private schools (they're lumped together under the term "fee paying schools, somewhat of a misnomer, since the schools don't pay fees, you pay them). The schools run by the government are called state schools (and these can be run by religious organizations).

Thanks for that.

The school I attended wasn't state run (that whole U.S. separation of church and state thingy), my parents paid for my attendance, and they certainly considered themself a "best one".

Of course, that is debatable.

 

[six7s]

Thanks for that.

The school I attended wasn't state run (that whole U.S. separation of church and state thingy), my parents paid for my attendance, and they certainly considered themself a "best one".

Of course, that is debatable.

For some reason, I'm thinking of Groucho...

 

[six7s]

My mission, which I have chosen to accept, is to show that my brain did not fall out when I became a Xtian

Have you rehearsed your encore yet?