288 replies to this topic

[Fyxe]

Oh. So it's effectively a doctrine-induced branch of philosophy, then. Hmm. Interesting.

[Nevermind]

But the problem is that your "misportray", arunma, can be put down to "personal interpretation".

[Fyxe]

Very good point, Lazuru. I study English, and one of the most important parts of study *any* piece of text is to know the significance of words and their varieties of meanings, meanings that not only have a wide range when we look at them now but would of had completely different interpretations at the time it was written as well.

[arunma]

But the problem is that your "misportray", arunma, can be put down to "personal interpretation".

Well, that's a good point. But personal interpretation only goes so far. For example, claiming that the six-day creation account from Genesis is actually a billion-year long process would be a personal interpretation. The different views on the atonement by Christ are personal interpretations. But claiming that Christ preached tolerance is dishonest.

Why do I draw the line here? Because Christ never addressed the other religions, and his apostles called them idolatrous. If you think Christ preached tolerance, let's see a Scripture reference or three.

[Fyxe]

I'd love to do so, but I wouldn't know where to begin, what with the fact that I'm not Christian and all.

But arguing from what seems like common sense standpoint, it seems that while Jesus may not of addressed tolerance of other religions, he nevertheless preached tolerance and love for the ways of fellow men, which we would assume included other religions.

[Nevermind]

Love for all other people involves tolerance of them.

[arunma]

Love for all other people involves tolerance of them.

No it doesn't. For example, I as a Christian am required to love President Bush, but I hate the way he's running America (to say nothing of tolerating him). Loving people does not require us to accept those peoples' beliefs.

But arguing from what seems like common sense standpoint, it seems that while Jesus may not of addressed tolerance of other religions, he nevertheless preached tolerance and love for the ways of fellow men, which we would assume included other religions.

Again, it's erroneous to couple "tolerance and love." Tolerance and love aren't related concepts.

Anyway, he did not teach tolerance or love for the "ways of fellow men." We are specifically commanded to hate the evil things that other people do, even though we must love the sinners themselves. The ways of our fellow man are often wicked, and we must never love these things. If we love the darkness, we will be drawn to it, and that is antithetical to the Gospel message. For example, Jesus specifically commands us to hate wealth. He says, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (St. Matthew 6:24). We hold that other religions are wicked, because they are perversions of the truth. Jesus taught us that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself. And if we truly love our neighbor, we will give him the opportunity to worship Jesus Christ, instead of practicing other religions. That is why Jesus commanded us to evangelize all peoples.

[Nevermind]

It's also erroneous to couple "acceptance" with "tolerance". Tolerating a person and their beliefs, does not mean you accept said beliefs. It means you do not dislike them for having those beliefs. Tolerating a person does not have to involve tolerating their beliefs.

You tolerate Bush, but not his actions. If you did not tolerate him as a person, you would remove him as a person.

[SOAP]

Oh, but that's not true. The church fathers speculated that the creation days were at least a thousand years in length, and this was long before the modern theory of cosmology ever took shape. In 155 AD, Saint Justin Martyr wrote, "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject." (Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81). In my opinion, young earth creationism is a new belief, and it is rather non-traditional. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily follow from a literal reading of the Bible. That's why I don't believe it.

Wouldn't that mean that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit? I don't see how that means anything else.

[Meep]

Surely turning the other cheek is tolerance of a type? And if I'm not mistaken that's one of the things Jesus says at the Sermon on the Mount. I also don't see the difference between agape (love in the community) and tolerance.

I have a question for the Christians, an old question. Is what God does good because it is good, or is it good because God says it is?

[Nevermind]

Well I think that kind of question would have to be contextual. In which case the answer comes down to either something involving extreme faith in God's actions, or the action is morally right anyway. In most cases it is the latter, which is what makes Christianity so popular, really. If we were to take faith in a god that was just a complete asshole, then why bother?

[SOAP]

Unless you're an asshole too.

[Nevermind]

True, we DID have the Dominicans.

[Meep]

But, if an act is good regardless of what God says then that means God isn't the highest good. On the other hand, if the act is good only because God says it then it's goodness can only really be said to be arbitrary.

[arunma]

It's also erroneous to couple "acceptance" with "tolerance". Tolerating a person and their beliefs, does not mean you accept said beliefs. It means you do not dislike them for having those beliefs. Tolerating a person does not have to involve tolerating their beliefs.

You tolerate Bush, but not his actions. If you did not tolerate him as a person, you would remove him as a person.

Now you're just arguing semantics. But if you wish, I can amend my statement to say that Jesus did not preach tolerance for others' actions, and most certainly not for their religions. My point remains the same.

Wouldn't that mean that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit? I don't see how that means anything else.

Whether or not it defies an ultraliteralist interpretation, the fact is that Adam didn't die until years after he ate the fruit. So obviously, Moses wasn't referring to a 24 hour day.

[Reflectionist]

Okay, I haven't read all through this thread yet, but this matter is pressing.

EEEEVIL NONBELIEVERS. Because they don't believe in the infallibility of a book and the existence of a surpreme being they must be sent to heeeell!!

Pshaw. If that's the case, then God is quite simply a jackass.

I don't particularly want to believe in a God who'd send me to hell for not believing in him and having my own perspective on the world rather than blindly following the ideals of other people.

dragon's wrath, plenty of people pray and get nothing. Those examples you stated are just plain BS. There was a storm. So what. I don't seriously think the entire weather system of an area was changed because one man prayed. I think the weathermen would of been somewhat confused. A plane didn't suddenly explode. So what? How often does that happen anyway?

Oh, and by all means convert me now!! You felt better the next day!? After you prayed to yourself to give yourself a positive outlook? REALLY!?! I would never of guessed.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to get it. It's not that God hates people who don't believe in Him. I would be a liar if I said that, okay? God commanded us to love everyone, as much as we love Him. Now, wouldn't that make Him a hypocrite if he wanted people to go to hell? Yeah, he would. But God isn't a Hypocrit. He's just a perfect God. Sin is his kryptonite, and we're all sinners, wether we want to be or not. That's all there is to it.

So now we enter Jesus. He bridges the gap that sin puts between humanity and God. does this make sense? Jesus didn't come out of hatred. He didn't come to prove everything wrong. He didn't come to tell everyone their going to hell without him, although, in what He had to do... that's exactly what he had to do. He didn't want anybody to go to hell. He doesn't. He can't.

I hope that clears up anything about 'evil nonbelievers.' Because, in my opinion, saying anything like that is simply calling the kettle black.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, after reading the rest of the thread....

My statement on Christianity is exactly what I've posted above. My views on God are simple - God is love. any attributes you can think of love, fit God as well. Prayers are answered according to his perfect will. I could pray for good health because of my kidney failure. Wether my kidneys Heal, or wether I have a successful transplant is up to God. But on the other hand, if what I'm doing in my life will only be shown by me dying of kidney failure, maybe that will reach somebody that I couldn't reach with my mouth. Look at Rachel Scott, for example. Murdered in the Columbine shooting for telling the two kids that she believed in Jesus. Her martyrdom reached a looooooooot of kids in her school and in the world. So in effect, prayers will be answered, but probably not in the way you'd expect them to.

Yes, it is possible to argue Christianity without quoting the Bible. The thing is, to not use the Bible is to not be able to use anything that Jesus said. Isn't it generally accepted that Jesus was alive in the time we know him to be alive? So... this is the same thing as, asking me to argue the rights of african americans or women, but I can't use the constitution or the Bill of rights?

Tolerance was not taught by Jesus. Love was. those are two different things. If I had tolerance for other religions, no matter what they were, then that would be saying that there are many ways to Heaven, which, there just aren't. There's only one.

Read 1 John 2:22

[Fyxe]

I have a question. Have all the people who were born before the existence of Christianity, or all the children who died before they knew about it, or all those people in countries where knowledge about Christianity is limited... Have they all been sent to suffer eternal hellfire?

[Nevermind]

Well that point is redundant because if you believe in Christianity, then you believe that creation came from God, in which case you wouldn't be believing that Christianity just sprang up of its own accord. Because to believe in Christianity means that you believe Christianity, or its God at least, has been around since the beginning of existence, which means that in your own personal opinion, there were no people before its existence. As for the other examples, that just depends on your faith, really, and things such as your view on baptism and original sin.


And Arunma, I'd like to see these verses in which we are taught to show intolerance towards other peoples' beliefs.

[Meep]

It is good because God cannot do what He does not feel like doing, and for no other reason. Some would come back and say in response to that, "So God WANTS the people who go to Hell to go there?" The answer to that, of course, is no. However, if we want to live our lives in sin and/or reject God's forgiveness, we are pretty much saying that we want to go to Hell, and God will honor that; He would rather grant your wishes than force an unaccepting non-believer into Heaven. You can put this all in prospective if you think of it this way: God created us with a free will for a reason; He would rather have one person who freely chose to love Him living in Heaven with Him than an infinite number of people whom He pre-programmed to love Him in Heaven with Him.

I think you got confused with the question, which is easy to do it is a confusing question. What I mean is that, for example, is not killing people good intrinsically or is it good because God says it is?

[Fyxe]

So... Egyptians, all that lot... Didn't exist?

[Emiko]

my mother in law said i was gonna go to hell cause i didnt believe in hell <.<

*puts marshimellow on stick*

and she bout killed me in the process....sometimes i wonder is supposed christians judge to harshly when they arnt suppose to judge peoples at all...

[Fyxe]

They judge all the time, that's the problem. Virtually all of them make the judgement that they are entirely right with no reason to believe otherwise, and others are therefore wrong.

[Reflectionist]

Fyxe, in the Old Testament, according to the Law of Moses, you had to sacrifice a lamb to repent of your sins. I think. Abraham almost killed his own son as a sacrifice, but because he had faith that God wanted him to do it, his son was allowed to live, and he was credited with righteousness. He got into Heaven.

But after Jesus came, those laws were done away with.

And Lazurukeel, check out John 3:3.

[Nevermind]

So...  Egyptians, all that lot...  Didn't exist?

Of course they did, but if you're a Christian, you don't exactly believe in their existence before that of God, do you. I mean hell, Moses LIVED with the Egyptians. We're not that ignorant >.>

And Emi, you make a wonderful point. Those Christians who judge others so harshly, in my opinion, are just hypocritical. We are not here to tell them they are right or wrong. In my opinion, that is between them and God.


And Re, I'm really not seeing anything in that verse hey.

[Emiko]

I thought it wqs funny, i tried not to be mean cause well it wasnt Christian like for me to become sarcastic to her..since she is faimly...

i hate to see the way she reacts when I tell her that I dont celebrate christmas or birthdays....considering i just had her first grandchild

[Fyxe]

Lazuru, my point was that there was no organised Christain religion before the Egyptians, so how did anyone back then know anything about god?

[Emiko]

Originally Posted by Fyxe
I have a question. Have all the people who were born before the existence of Christianity, or all the children who died before they knew about it, or all those people in countries where knowledge about Christianity is limited... Have they all been sent to suffer eternal hellfire?

The bible says that those who have not come to know God will be resurrected in those 1000 years and given the chance to know him... they are ressurected into judgement :3

[arunma]

And Arunma, I'd like to see these verses in which we are taught to show intolerance towards other peoples' beliefs.

Jesus prohibits the worship of false Gods. "Then Jesus said to him, 'Be gone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.''" (St. Matthew 4:10). So bowing before the Buddha, worshiping false Hindu gods, practicing ancient European paganism, taking part in wicca, and all of these other things are prohibited.

Jesus also says that only in him are people saved. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (St. John 3:18).

Saint Paul says that we are to use our intellect to combat false beliefs. "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5).

We're not allowed to combine Christian beliefs with false beliefs. It says, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (1 Corinthians 10:21).

Do you have comments?