Women, is this overtly chauvinistic

[Greatest I Am]

Women, is this overtly chauvinistic?

1 Timothy

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
2:15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

I believe in equality of the sexes. I believe that all souls and natures are created perfect and of the same value to God.

Is it right then for religions to place women at the back of the bus while men take the beat seats?

How do you feel about being consigned to being followers and never leaders, forever?
If you happen to be a Gay female, how do you feel about having to hang from the rear bumper of the same bus?

Regards
DL

[Allie]

Hi David,

Thanks for the kind words. Maybe I will break things into smaller parts so I can relpy more often. Would that be better? I enjoy discussing and debating with you, too.

I hope you have a merry Christmas!

There are only a finite number of potential believers (or followers or parishioners or whatever euphemistic term is used). If the figure of 80% Christian did apply to the US population, only 20% can be recruited without competing directly with other sects by "taking their members".

Religions DO compete with one another for customers (from among non-believers and from taking from each other).

A minister friend bristles a bit when I refer to his "flock" as customers. However, he cannot dispute that his organization is funded by income derived from such people AND that they contribute in exchange for religious services.

Some churches compete. I wouldn't exactly call a church member a customer, though. They aren't buying anything. In some situations that are not ideal, someone may give out of guilt or because they have been taught they have to "buy" their way to heaven, and that is unfortunate and wrong. But in an ideal situation, they are giving from their hearts because they want to give back to God(NOT because it's a habit, or because they think they have to do it to be a "good Christian").

Allie, as we both know, the "new person" is usually a child " far too young to have developed abilities of discernment and judgment. Children tend to believe what they are told by "authorities". A few people may become religious later in life, but most are raised from infancy in a religion (usually a Christian sect in the US) and stay with that sect or one somewhat similar as adults.

Other "new people" are often those in emotional distress " unhappy, hurting, confused, abused, addicted, abandoned, etc. To whatever extent these apply, the people involved are not in ideal or even reasonable position to make sound judgments.

"New people" are seldom adults who are satisfied with their lives and capable of using some discernment and judgment about what stories to believe.

Oh"I honestly hadnt been thinking about children. But now that you bring it up, new people could very well be children. I dont know what to do about that. I suppose it is up to the parents to protect their children with their judgment skills. My parents raised me in a church because my mom (strange, because my mom was not a Christian) wanted me to know God. I never understood that, to be honest. She lived a God-free life, yet she wanted me to have God. It is almost astonishing to me, for some reason.
Yes, other new people often have some sort of problem. I think that is because they realize that theyre missing something, and their way of life is not working out for them"they see the need for God. I think they make a very sound judgment if they decide to change so absolutely. If their judgment isnt sound, then what can we do? It all depends on the situation and the person.
I know that new people are hardly ever people with good, safe lives"because they say Why would I need God? Im doing perfectly fine without him. They dont think about after they die. I think they may keep that out of their head on purpose, to avoid thinking about it. According to their standards, they dont need God"they have everything they want and need. Of course, I think everyone needs God, but I cant convince people who are determined to think otherwise. Its their choice.

Early imprinting (or training or indoctrination or exposure) IS a factor. People tend to revere many things from their childhood and youth. Music preference is a simple example which demonstrates that people tend to "fixate" (or develop strong attachment to) what they experience at some stage fairly early in life.

Well... alrighty, then.

THAT is one of the downfalls of Christianity in my opinion. Being a Christian does NOT require (according to many) ANY following of ethical behavior or concern for fellow man (to "get to heaven" " the objective of "faith"). Instead, many Christians believe that all they need do to "get to heaven" is to believe in Jesus.

They quote scripture to demonstrate that "faith not works" is the means of "salvation" " that ALL that is required is belief. This frees them to behave however they wish with "assurance" that they are "saved".

To me that seems very counter-productive " BUT it is very characteristic of MANY Christian attitudes conveyed here and elsewhere. I have started a separate thread with the topic "What does it take to get to heaven". Perhaps Christian members will enlighten us.

I agree. I often think about this kind of thing. There are lots of wrong attitudes in Christianity. I can only be responsible for myself, though. Ill make sure I am setting a good example. Try my best.

It is a complex and confusing subject--for me, at least. It has provided me with so much to think about. But in general, I tend to think that there is a certain attitude the devout Christians have. Its the What can I do for you? attitude, not What can my religion do for me? It seems to me to be the difference between giving your life to God (God centered) and keeping your life for yourself (self centered).
Despite how many people focus on the bad things in Christianity, ideally, it is an extremely good thing.

That hypocrisy is blatantly obvious. It speaks strongly against the value of "teachings of the religion". If the teachings cannot be shown to produce generally positive results, but often result in hypocrisy, what is the value of the teachings?

Well, I wouldnt blame the teacher in all situations. Really, it is the students choice what they do with a lesson. Im sure you, who used to be a teacher, can relate to that. For instance, I can get a lot out of a math lesson. My neighbor, who stares off into space the whole lesson, doesnt get much out of it. Its no different with people who attend religious lessons. While one person might take the lesson to heart and try to change, another person will dismiss the words as soon as they walk out the door. So, I wouldnt blame the teachers, for the most part.
Not to say that there arent bad teachers. There are those, too, and that is a whole different subject.

Such attitudes (often conveyed) are VERY disconcerting to non-believers as well. It speaks strongly against the religion in question (and to some extent, religion in general).

Yes, it is disconcerting. However, I dont think the whole religion should be blamed.

ALL decisions should be critically examined and NOT followed blindly.

Do you obey all laws of our country? Before you answer, be aware that you ARE legally responsible for obeying laws without regard for whether or not you know about them " AND that US statutes alone occupy more than 27,000 pages (and not even legal scholars claim to know all the laws). Some interesting insight into the matter is available at http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1156

Huh. I dont know if I follow all of the laws. I know I drive over the speed limit sometimes (Oops). Why?

If your mom (hypothetically) advised (or demanded) you to do something that was very much against what you value or believe, would you feel compelled to follow that advice?

Feel compelled? Yes. Would I do it? No. My mom is a very wise person, and her telling me to do something against our beliefs would be very off, which would make her advice even harder to ignore. But if it was really off, I wouldnt do it.

That can be known as "herd mentality" or "group think" or (at worst) "mob psychology". I do not subscribe to or recommend that behavior (though I realize it is comfortable for many who seek approval or belonging).

No, its not that. Im pretty far away from group think. I was saying I will give up certain things or think about adding new things to my life to make the group run peacefully. I was also thinking in terms of people that are Christians, but I was very unclear. Sorry about that.

But, would you go along with some "kinda strange" rules or practices of the group that differed from your own values (at least somewhat)? If so, why?

It completely depends. If you wanted to give me a scenario, I could tell you what I would do.

Is a religious "success" superior to a non-religious "success" (other things being equal)?

Yes. But I dont think the people are superior. I think we are all equal, Christian and non-Christian.

What makes you think that "people seem to want god before they die"? Where did you get that idea? Few of us actually know well many people just before they die; therefore, our personal experience is not a good basis for making a general statement.

That claim seems to be popularized by preachers and entertainers " perhaps because it helps sell their products.

Maybe it is. However, I know one that is not. It was a man speaking at my grandpas funeral. He spoke of how his father, as he was dying, became a Christian. He expressed how he was glad my grandpa wasnt leaving him in doubt as his father had, because my grandpa was a Christian for a long time before he died. Ive also heard the saying there are no atheists in foxholes, which also led me to think in that way. However, I could be wrong.

A current thread here includes a fellow Christian declaring that he is a "slave to Christ". Does that sound like freedom? From what I have seen written by people I debate, worshiping gods DOES set limits on freedom.

Just because one accepts the boundaries set for them does NOT indicate that they are free. Saying "I like being inside this fence" is NOT the same as saying "I am free".

Ive debated this before; it makes me smile that it came back. Do you remember the thread? I said the way Christians live makes us more free than other people. I would compare it to a fish. If it is in water, it can do what it wants. Outside the water, it is utterly unable to do anything. It is more free if it is in the water--if it is confined to the water. So by being a Christian, and living how I think Christ would live in my situation, it makes me more free.
Its also like a drug addict. You can choose to do drugs, and be a slave to them for life(with a chance of recovering, of course). But really, you are more free if there would be no drugs, so you could never become hopelessly addicted.

Many think that they will somehow "live after death". That belief may be comforting to them; however, there is NO assurance that it is correct.

I would disagree. I guess thats a bit obvious, though.

The goal may be important for YOU. I question anyone assuming that their chosen goal is superior (or easier or more difficult or more worthy) as compared to others. It must be human nature to think that "my way is best for others" and we must LEARN that is not true.

I think my way is right, so why wouldnt I think it is also best for others?

Oh my.

Some might say that sounds like masochism.

Hmm. I dont enjoy suffering"just that, if I was suffering for God, I would know I was living my life for him. I would be reminded of my purpose every time a hardship befell me.

Do you believe that your beliefs are superior to those you attempt to convert or convince?

If, for instance, you were to try to convert me to your beliefs, would that mean that you think that your beliefs are superior to mine and/or that I would be "better off" in life (or death) if I believe and worship as you suggest? If so, why would you think so?

Well, lets look at it this way. A mother was outside in the snow, playing with her child. The child didnt know there was a cliff nearby. The child started running, full speed, toward the cliff, and the mother screamed for the child to stop. The child thought the mother was just trying to spoil the fun, but really, the mom was concerned about the childs safety. Was her knowledge superior?
But yes, I believe you would be better off as a Christian. I think so because in death, you would go to heaven. In life, you would have a rock solid God and beliefs that arent swayed by emotion. It seems to me that you already live respectably; it would be a matter of centering your life around God and doing everything for him. Everything you do would be purposeful, because you can reflect Christs light even by your body language. Also, you could benefit other Christians with your ability to think things through clearly and logically, so youd be helping others. There is also a feeling of family, of camaraderie between Christian friends (Well, between Christian friends who live like Christians). You would gain that: A group of people who are more willing to help you in your times of need because you are all brothers and sisters in Christ. There would also be a whole bunch of good things that would be unique to your situation, so I couldnt list them out. So, do I think you would be better off? Yes.

Not at all. However, I AM aware that quite often "strings" ARE attached to "Christian Giving". I discuss this at some length in a thread of that same title in this sub-forum.

I wouldnt say quite often. I would say sometimes. Because really, from what I have seen from the people around me, there are no strings attached. I see Christians who are giving because they want to give a lot more than Christians who are giving because they are selfish in some way. For example, my church last year prepared and sent away 400 AIDs caregiver kits for kids in Africa. There were a lot of unselfish people helping out. This year, my church gave away 400 boxes for Operation Christmas Child"again, we didnt do it because we are selfish. There are people who help out the food bank every single Tuesday"they arent selfish. Our church supported (meaning, we went there and helped) the Teachers Warehouse, which helps underprivileged kids get the school supplies they need. These people are not selfish, they are not giving with strings attached, and most of them, at least, arent helping because of some thought of personal gain. There might be a few people who brag about what good things they do, but they are the vast minority. Jesus taught to give in secret, by the way, so Christianity is not at fault. If there is error (which, there are people who give to say look how good I am) it is not in the religion.

Some is used to support elaborate lifestyles of celebrity preachers and televangelists. They ARE fellow Christians, aren't they? They do promote Christianity, don't they? They do collect money for Christianity, don't they?

Well, some people are corrupt. I wouldnt call them fellow Christians, not if they are living in the wrong like that. Not if theyre twisting Christianity into just another thing to make money out of. No, those people are not my brothers and sisters in Christ. They might promote Christianity, but dont you think theyre really promoting themselves? Sure, they collect money. I dont know what they do with their money. Do you?

SOME church income is used to help needy people. I challenge ANY church to disclose exactly the percentage of its income that actually makes its way to needy people.

High Pointe gives about 8-10% to the needy and to missionaries. It goes into a big pool of money that a bunch of churches donate to regularly, so I cant tell you exactly how much goes to missionaries and how much goes to the needy.

I do not dispute that some people involved with religion are selfless, altruistic, giving people.

Would you say that NO people involved with religion are seeking personal gain or profit OR would you acknowledge that some people are seeking such personal gain?

I would acknowledge there are people searching for personal gain through religion. However, I would say most Christians give from a selfless heart, from my experience.

Do you feel free to ignore rules of Christianity?

They arent rules. Theyre choices, each one something Ive decided to change about my behavior or self. Do I want to go back on my personal choices? No! That would be like asking a recovering alcoholic if they felt free to go have a beer. No, they dont"because it is their personal choice to stop drinking, and its a choice they dont want to just give up on. Its healthier for them, too, and there wouldnt be any point to giving up on that choice.

Some may regard that as admirable.

Im not doing it to be admirable.

For instance, "tall or short" simply doesn't work because the categories are arbitrary and there are many individual who are "in the middle" " somewhere between tall and short " "on a continuum" so to speak.

"Right vs. Wrong" thinking is similar. We might say it is wrong to steal. However, assume that the ONLY way available to a young mother to feed her children is to steal it from rich people who have vast surplus (don't change the conditions or make suggestions). Would her decision to steal the food be WRONG? We might have to conclude that stealing is not always the wrong thing to do.

"With us or against us" is equally faulty. What if I don't give a darn one way or the other? (Again, don't change the conditions, I have stated my position in this example). I am not against the position because I don't care. Likewise, I am not in favor of the position for the same reason. NO ONE is entitled to tell me "you are against unless you are in favor" because that is MY decision to make " and I have made one of neutrality.

The "false dichotomy" is a common error (major blunder) in logic.

I agree. Whats wrong in one situation can be right in another.

Let's look at it a different way. Are you in favor of regulating or controlling an individual's behavior if the behavior has potential to harm THAT individual?

I think that individual should catch on themselves, and stop themselves. However, if they dont, I think it is good for friends and family to remind that person that they could hurt themselves or that they are hurting themselves. I think controlling ones behavior is probably not the right thing to do, seeing as theyll probably resent you for it, like you said. However, there are exceptions... like parents. Parents control what their children do for a long time before the child can make good decisions for themselves. Do I think that is wrong? No.

Does "considerate toward each other" include ONLY fellow Christians or does it include ALL humans?

That extends toward everyone. However, there is a special sense of family and intimacy with just fellow Christians. Hmm... how to explain this right? Maybe I could say it like this: We should be friends with non-Christians and Best friends with fellow Christians. I believe we should only date fellow Christians, because non-Christians can only relate to us in the worldly way.
We should be kind and courteous to everyone"love everyone"but there are certain things that should be reserved for Christian people only (in my opinion"Im not sure if everyone would agree with me). I think that Christians (for the most part) should ask advice from other Christians. Christians can relate to each other their struggles that come from being Christian that others cant relate to at all. Christians can talk to other Christians about belief-related things and not be mocked or looked down upon. A Christian in another Christians company wont have their beliefs compromised, because they have the same beliefs. So, its better to be Best friends with other Christians. Can you see what I mean?

I observe some or many self-identified Christians being very inconsiderate toward others, particularly "Atheists" or other Non-Christians " even in these forums. In fact, I observe it as rather common, particularly among the more fundamental, fanatical, or literalist Christians I have known or have debated to be inconsiderate and disrespectful of Non-Christians.

I think that comes from a feeling of being superior, which is wrong. What can I say? I wish they would stop and ask themselves What would Jesus do? and actually think about it. Sometimes trite things are really true, you know what I mean?

But I repeat, their behavior is not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught to be humble, to put yourself last. His teachings are good"if people strut around with an Im-so-much-better-than-you attitude, you know they arent following Christs love-filled message.

[Allie]

Hi Allie thank you for the reply.

I did google to have a squiz and it looks like High Pointe Community Church is an ever growing National concern.

I also noticed in your posts with Zzyxz that you also want to become a missionary. May I ask to which parts of the world you want to (personally) go?

I enjoy replying! Thanks for taking an interest and talking to me.

I want to go wherever I'm needed. I don't have a preference.

High Pointe is an ever growing National concern? What do you mean?

[catalyst]

Allie wrote

I enjoy replying! Thanks for taking an interest and talking to me.

You are welcome. I appreciate your candor and also the thought you put into your posts.


Allie wrote:

I want to go wherever I'm needed. I don't have a preference.

Does High Pointe have its own Missionary Training programme? Also what type of mission work would you prefer to do?

Allie wrote:

High Pointe is an ever growing National concern? What do you mean?

When I did a google as to High Pointe, I noticed that they are popping up everywhere across the US, hence "ever growing concern" and just to clarify, "concern" when used in that context when referring to "business" growth holds no negative connotation.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Allie,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Maybe I will break things into smaller parts so I can relpy more often. Would that be better?

Whatever works for you is fine. We could even open a discussion thread in the "Open Dialog" sub-forum if you like.

I enjoy discussing and debating with you, too.

I enjoy this from a point of view that may not be immediately obvious. I regard you as being representative of many young people who are eager and able to learn. We don't really debate " but more discuss " which is wonderful. You speak for a lot of people.

Many years ago when I taught college classes there were usually one or two people in each class who were bold enough to speak out, ask questions, provide answers. I depended on those people to help make classes meaningful to others " and to ask questions that others might be hesitant to ask. By talking to them I talked to the class. They were my "Bright Eyes" " they sparkled with enthusiasm and eagerness to learn " just as I had when I was a student.

You raise issues that concern many people (young and old alike) because you are brave enough to enter serious discussion and to ask and answer searching questions. That is uncommon. Most prefer to "play it safe" and say little. May you be an inspiration.

Don't get in over your head.

Some churches compete. I wouldn't exactly call a church member a customer, though. They aren't buying anything.

Of course they are buying something. They are buying religious services, forgiveness of "sins", "salvation".

Calling a fee "donations" or "tithing" does NOT make it non-existent.

In some situations that are not ideal, someone may give out of guilt or because they have been taught they have to "buy" their way to heaven, and that is unfortunate and wrong. But in an ideal situation, they are giving from their hearts because they want to give back to God(NOT because it's a habit, or because they think they have to do it to be a "good Christian").

In an "ideal situation" religious services would not involve any payment.

Oh"I honestly hadnt been thinking about children. But now that you bring it up, new people could very well be children. I dont know what to do about that. I suppose it is up to the parents to protect their children with their judgment skills.

Most religions with which I am familiar (and particularly Christianity) emphasize indoctrination of the young.

"What to do" about children being given religious "training" before they can be expected to apply judgment and discernment is a real problem for anyone who desires to avoid "poisoning young minds" against or in favor of supernatural beliefs.

In my own experience, when my daughter and son were at home they were exposed to differing views without being told to choose. Their mother was fairly religious and I was fairly unreligious. My daughter (who is now about fifty years old) became VERY religious for a few years (and said many of the same things thirty years ago that you say now).

After some years of real world experience, children of her own, and education through Master's degree level she realized that religion did NOT provide a rational "guide to living" or answers to significant questions. Fifteen years ago or so she grudgingly admitted that Ole Dad's ideas weren't so stupid after all. The last I knew she was strongly anti-religious.

My son went to church with his mother and married a Christian woman (one of the more repulsive people I have known). They had children and later divorced (but may be back together within the last few years). I do not know his current views on religion.

My parents raised me in a church because my mom (strange, because my mom was not a Christian) wanted me to know God. I never understood that, to be honest. She lived a God-free life, yet she wanted me to have God. It is almost astonishing to me, for some reason.

I commend your mother for giving you the opportunity to make your own decisions; however, I question the meaning of "raised in a church". Often that denotes indoctrination (euphemistically called "teaching" or "training" or "bible study")

Yes, other new people often have some sort of problem. I think that is because they realize that theyre missing something, and their way of life is not working out for them"they see the need for God.

They may feel a need for something (perhaps a life that "works better"). Religionists are prone to claim that the need is for their favorite "god". However, many other things can also fill "needs". Improving one's life situations, finding an appropriate mate, changing careers, seeking new friends and new activities, even getting a pet can fill "needs" that some might suggest require "gods".

I think they make a very sound judgment if they decide to change so absolutely. If their judgment isnt sound, then what can we do? It all depends on the situation and the person.

Changing life paths MAY be sound judgment.

Who are "we" to say what another person should do? Am I better able than you to pick out a mate for you? Is anyone? Would you empower ANY other person to choose your mate? Or, should you be free to choose for yourself?

How about choosing your religion, would you prefer the freedom to make that choice for yourself, or would you rather have someone choose for you?

I know that new people are hardly ever people with good, safe lives"because they say Why would I need God? Im doing perfectly fine without him.

EXACTLY. Those who have "good, safe lives" can reasonably conclude that they do not need "gods". It is usually a waste of time to proselytize to such people. The conversion success ratio can be expected to be far higher by preaching to people in prison or others who have an unpleasant life.

They dont think about after they die.

Why should anyone think about "after they die"? The belief in "life after death" is a religious theory that cannot be shown to be true.

Basing one's life upon the premise of an "afterlife" that cannot be shown to exist is, in my opinion, making a decision that cannot be supported by truth.

I think they may keep that out of their head on purpose, to avoid thinking about it.

Agreed. Many people refuse to face the reality of death. Some just don't think about it. Others accept one of the "afterlife" theories.

According to their standards, they dont need God"they have everything they want and need.

"Their standards" SHOULD govern their lives " without disapproval from others. Those who are satisfied with what they have in life should NOT be coerced into seeking "more". We should mind our own business and make our own decisions.

Of course, I think everyone needs God, but I cant convince people who are determined to think otherwise. Its their choice.

If you had solid evidence you could convince ME. But you don't have anything to show that what you say is true.

I do not think that you tell falsehoods. You seem to be sincere. However, when asked to show that what you are saying is true you cannot show anything more than tales in a book and personal opinion.

Early imprinting (or training or indoctrination or exposure) IS a factor. People tend to revere many things from their childhood and youth. Music preference is a simple example which demonstrates that people tend to "fixate" (or develop strong attachment to) what they experience at some stage fairly early in life.

Well... alrighty, then.

Thank you.

THAT is one of the downfalls of Christianity in my opinion. Being a Christian does NOT require (according to many) ANY following of ethical behavior or concern for fellow man (to "get to heaven" " the objective of "faith"). Instead, many Christians believe that all they need do to "get to heaven" is to believe in Jesus.

They quote scripture to demonstrate that "faith not works" is the means of "salvation" " that ALL that is required is belief. This frees them to behave however they wish with "assurance" that they are "saved".

To me that seems very counter-productive " BUT it is very characteristic of MANY Christian attitudes conveyed here and elsewhere. I have started a separate thread with the topic "What does it take to get to heaven". Perhaps Christian members will enlighten us.

I agree. I often think about this kind of thing. There are lots of wrong attitudes in Christianity.

Wrong attitudes have been characteristic of Christianity " even more so in the past. Have you studied the history of the religion? Are you more than vaguely familiar with the ugliness and horrible actions of Christian churches during the Dark and Middle Ages? If not, it will be very illuminating to research the topic.

Christians who believe that their god worship practices are superior to those of others do and have done great damage to societies by inflicting religious beliefs onto others. There is nothing superior about Christianity. It is just another one of the tens of thousands of religions worshiping thousands of different "gods".

It is a complex and confusing subject--for me, at least. It has provided me with so much to think about. But in general, I tend to think that there is a certain attitude the devout Christians have. Its the What can I do for you? attitude, not What can my religion do for me?

A "giving attitude" is NOT unique to Christianity. Other religions and philosophies place far greater emphasis upon "giving" than does Christianity (in my opinion). Many non-religious people are far more giving than many religious people.

I can only be responsible for myself, though. Ill make sure I am setting a good example. Try my best.

Agreed. Each of us is responsible for ourselves.

It seems to me to be the difference between giving your life to God (God centered) and keeping your life for yourself (self centered).

How about "human centered" " focusing life upon living in harmony and peace with other humans? Isn't that far more worthy than focusing upon self or "gods"?

Much of "god focus" is actually anticipation of reward for the self in an "afterlife" (aka, "earning a ticket to heaven") by worshiping "correctly".

Despite how many people focus on the bad things in Christianity, ideally, it is an extremely good thing.

What, exactly, do you identify as "an extremely good thing"? What can you claim is extremely good?

Since Christianity departs from being ideal, as you indicate, what is the value of its present non-ideal form? Is it more good than bad???? Does it do more good than harm? How do you know?

That hypocrisy is blatantly obvious. It speaks strongly against the value of "teachings of the religion". If the teachings cannot be shown to produce generally positive results, but often result in hypocrisy, what is the value of the teachings?

Well, I wouldnt blame the teacher in all situations. Really, it is the students choice what they do with a lesson. Im sure you, who used to be a teacher, can relate to that.

I realize that students choose what to learn and what to ignore. However, I see NO benefit in teaching or demonstrating hypocrisy. Do you?

Such attitudes (often conveyed) are VERY disconcerting to non-believers as well. It speaks strongly against the religion in question (and to some extent, religion in general).

Yes, it is disconcerting. However, I dont think the whole religion should be blamed.

Much of what I see as negative influences from Christianity are its basic teachings and therefore I DO hold the entire religion responsible. What are the negatives?

1. Focus upon afterlife rather than present life
2. Focus upon worship of a "god" rather than focusing upon human relations
3. Emphasize punishment for "disobedience"
4. Claim superiority on the basis of beliefs
5. Claim moral "high ground" and demean the morals of others ("heathens, infidels, etc")
6. Claim that "all other gods are false gods"
7. Promote rules made by preachers (not by "gods")
8. Glorify warfare and killing
9. Failure to update "rules" to accommodate social change (slavery, women status, etc)
10. Emphasis upon obedience and conformity
11. Resistance to advances in knowledge that threaten religious "truths"
12. Failure to substantiate claims
13. Talk far more about killing than about love
14. Condone killing of infants and unborn (as "wicked")
15. Accept tales of incredible, nature-defying events as though they were true
16. Condone slavery, servitude, second-class citizenship for women, child abuse, animal and human sacrifices.

No, its not that. Im pretty far away from group think. I was saying I will give up certain things or think about adding new things to my life to make the group run peacefully. I was also thinking in terms of people that are Christians, but I was very unclear. Sorry about that.

What does "people who are Christians" have to do with following a group?

Are you implying that if the group consists of Christians you tend to go along to make things run smoothly? Do you think that Christianity produces good groups?

Some very nasty organizations have been heavily Christian. For instance the Ku Klus Klan is / was composed of Christians (including many Protestant ministers). The KKK itself was not directly aligned with the church, but it was a largely Christian group (and very anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew " anti-anything but WASP).

Since the KKK group consists of many Christians, would you go along to make it run smoothly?

Is a religious "success" superior to a non-religious "success" (other things being equal)?

Yes. But I dont think the people are superior. I think we are all equal, Christian and non-Christian.

What, exactly, makes religious success superior to non-religious success?

What makes you think that "people seem to want god before they die"? Where did you get that idea? Few of us actually know well many people just before they die; therefore, our personal experience is not a good basis for making a general statement.

That claim seems to be popularized by preachers and entertainers " perhaps because it helps sell their products.

Maybe it is. However, I know one that is not. It was a man speaking at my grandpas funeral. He spoke of how his father, as he was dying, became a Christian. He expressed how he was glad my grandpa wasnt leaving him in doubt as his father had, because my grandpa was a Christian for a long time before he died. Ive also heard the saying there are no atheists in foxholes, which also led me to think in that way. However, I could be wrong.

I'm confident that you realize that generalizing from a single example is not wise. What else makes you think that people seek "god" when they are close to death? Have you been told that by people promoting religion?

Are you aware that "no atheists in foxholes" is an urban myth that has been repeatedly shown to be in gross error? Why would Christians continue to preach such a thing when they have been shown it is not true? Is it okay to fib a little to promote religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes

A current thread here includes a fellow Christian declaring that he is a "slave to Christ". Does that sound like freedom? From what I have seen written by people I debate, worshiping gods DOES set limits on freedom.

Just because one accepts the boundaries set for them does NOT indicate that they are free. Saying "I like being inside this fence" is NOT the same as saying "I am free".

Ive debated this before; it makes me smile that it came back. Do you remember the thread? I said the way Christians live makes us more free than other people. I would compare it to a fish. If it is in water, it can do what it wants. Outside the water, it is utterly unable to do anything. It is more free if it is in the water--if it is confined to the water. So by being a Christian, and living how I think Christ would live in my situation, it makes me more free.

Yes, I remember " "slavery is freedom" " "rules are freedom" " "if I like slavery it is not slavery" " "if I like the rules they are not limiting". Do I remember correctly?

Its also like a drug addict. You can choose to do drugs, and be a slave to them for life(with a chance of recovering, of course). But really, you are more free if there would be no drugs, so you could never become hopelessly addicted.

Exactly the same thing can be said of religion " if none of the thousands of religions existed, no one would be addicted to (or enslaved by) religion " until someone declared themselves a "prophet", claimed a "vision" of "gods", and invented a religion.

Do you suspect that many religions have been invented " or do you agree that all were started by "gods"?

Many think that they will somehow "live after death". That belief may be comforting to them; however, there is NO assurance that it is correct.

I would disagree. I guess thats a bit obvious, though.

What is the source of your "assurance"? Did you read something about "afterlife" in an old book and hear people talking about it? Did you decide to believe what the book and the people said? Do you know anything directly that demonstrates an "afterlife" (or are you just repeating what others say)?

If you retell what others have told you (orally or in writing) how do you know for certain that they knew what they were talking about and how do you know that they did not exaggerate or make up things?

The goal may be important for YOU. I question anyone assuming that their chosen goal is superior (or easier or more difficult or more worthy) as compared to others. It must be human nature to think that "my way is best for others" and we must LEARN that is not true.

I think my way is right, so why wouldnt I think it is also best for others?

If it was possible would you have others do things your way against their will?

That is one of the great negative effects of self-focus " thinking that whatever is best for us MUST be best for everyone else.

A more rational position is that our ideas may be best for us but there is no assurance that they are even workable for others.

Some might say that sounds like masochism.

Hmm. I dont enjoy suffering"just that, if I was suffering for God, I would know I was living my life for him. I would be reminded of my purpose every time a hardship befell me.

Do you think that others should be willing and eager to "suffer for god"?

I am reminded of a saying; "Be careful what you wish for".

Another thing that comes to mind is: "Self-fulfilling prophesy".

Do you believe that your beliefs are superior to those you attempt to convert or convince?

If, for instance, you were to try to convert me to your beliefs, would that mean that you think that your beliefs are superior to mine and/or that I would be "better off" in life (or death) if I believe and worship as you suggest? If so, why would you think so?

But yes, I believe you would be better off as a Christian.

The question I asked was do you think that your beliefs are SUPERIOR to mine (my convictions)? If so, why.

I think so because in death, you would go to heaven.

"Heaven" is a religious concept that cannot be shown to exist in anything other than imagination and religious dogma and literature. The concept means nothing to me.

Perhaps you choose to believe tales about "heaven" and "life after death" that were told to you by "prophets" and "priests" and probably parents and associates (including what is written in old books).

I was told (and read) the same tales but I asked for evidence that they were true. When NO evidence could be supplied (just more tales from books and people), I decided to not accept the tales as truth " and to accept instead that death is the end of life.

In life, you would have a rock solid God and beliefs that arent swayed by emotion.

If I believed in "gods" I would have a BELIEF that a "rock solid god" existed. Believing something does NOT make it true. If every human alive at one time believed the Earth was flat " did that make it true?

There is a vast difference between having a belief in a god and having a god. For belief to exist there need be no god " only imagination.

It seems to me that you already live respectably; it would be a matter of centering your life around God and doing everything for him.

Why would I do that? Let me guess; to get to heaven. That is the objective of god worship, isn't it? Earn a ticket to preferred seating in an "afterlife" that cannot be shown to exist. Devote your real life to the hope that you will be "rewarded" for "eternity" by a "god" that cannot be shown to exist.

I am not interested in changing my life in any way to worship an invisible super being that can be shown to exist ONLY in tales told by ancient and modern people.

Everything you do would be purposeful,

What I do in life now IS VERY purposeful. I have nearly seventy years of purposeful living. Are you attempting to say that you know that I am without purpose?

Isn't that a rather silly thing to say to someone you know only superficially?

Aren't you ASSUMING that a person who does not worship gods LACKS purpose? Can you show that it is true? If not, what causes you to make such a foolish assumption?

because you can reflect Christs light even by your body language.

My body language and demeanor reflect self-confidence. I do not need an invisible friend to feel confident.

Others may feel a need for support or assistance from a "god". Many of us do not.

I have known many very religious people whose body language communicated that they were "whipped puppies" or meek or weak. What happened to "Christ's light" being reflected in their case?

Also, you could benefit other Christians with your ability to think things through clearly and logically, so youd be helping others.

I do that now. Why would I seek any change?

Why would I seek to benefit Christians (as opposed to helping humans as I do now)? Why would I "back up" or restrict my help to Christians?

There is also a feeling of family, of camaraderie between Christian friends (Well, between Christian friends who live like Christians).

I have strong relationships with chosen people " a wonderful wife and a few select friends. Some of those people are religious and some are not. One of my dearest friends is a staunch Christian " and a good man.

I do not select my friends based upon their religious beliefs. I choose people of integrity, honor, character, ability " and those who think positively toward fellow humans.

I do not choose to associate with people who are bigoted, intolerant, dishonest, elitist, dependent, meek, indecisive, suspicious, secretive or negative toward others. That is my personal preference. I do not seek "popularity" or acceptance.

You would gain that: A group of people who are more willing to help you in your times of need because you are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would NOT "gain that" " I HAVE that. I have friends that I HAVE counted on in "times of need" (i.e., helping each other however and whenever needed " usually without being asked).

Do you suggest that I trade a group of proven friends for a group that has in common a religion? Are you kidding me?

There would also be a whole bunch of good things that would be unique to your situation, so I couldnt list them out. So, do I think you would be better off? Yes.

You have NOT shown ANY way that becoming Christian would be advantageous to me.

Perhaps your reasons would fit with people who lack self-confidence, who seek to "belong" to a group, who are insecure in their decisions, who are dissatisfied with their life.

None of those "talking points" applies to me " or to a great number of other people. Not everyone is like you perceive people to be " and many are not in need of the things you mention. People who are not needy in one way or another are NOT good candidates for conversion. It is more likely to be successful to proselytize to people who are in need of religious services.

However, I AM aware that quite often "strings" ARE attached to "Christian Giving". I discuss this at some length in a thread of that same title in this sub-forum.

I wouldnt say quite often. I would say sometimes. Because really, from what I have seen from the people around me, there are no strings attached.

Have you read the threads "Christian Giving?" and "What a difference"? Those detail some very real and ongoing situations with which I am very familiar.

That you are not aware of "strings" being attached to giving may be more an indication of lack of exposure to such situations than an overall truth.

I see Christians who are giving because they want to give a lot more than Christians who are giving because they are selfish in some way. For example, my church last year prepared and sent away 400 AIDs caregiver kits for kids in Africa. There were a lot of unselfish people helping out. This year, my church gave away 400 boxes for Operation Christmas Child"again, we didnt do it because we are selfish.

Do you KNOW that there were "no strings attached" when those kits were given away in Africa? Do you KNOW that no one is expected or required to listen to religious preachings in order to get one of those kits? Do you know for sure?

There are people who help out the food bank every single Tuesday"they arent selfish.

As you probably know my wife and I devote considerable time and effort to a Food Bank organization. This past Monday we drove eighty miles from our home pulling our large flatbed trailer, at the Food Bank we loaded the trailer and the truck with junk to be hauled away, we unloaded the junk at the designated place (several miles away), then drove home. Hauling away junk (useless donations and broken or unsalvageable items) is a BIG and very necessary chore (among many) that we undertake frequently.

We donate to the Food Bank because we support the objective of providing groceries to families in need. HOWEVER, within the past few months the Food Bank has initiated a policy of requiring food recipients to listen to hard-sell religious preachings for a half hour or more BEFORE they can receive groceries for their families. They are NOT allowed to leave the preaching area, to use their cell phone, to take a smoke break or to leave their seat except to go to the bathroom.

We disagree strongly with the new priorities and have reduced our contributions substantially and have begun moving in other directions. We do NOT agree with "giving" with strings attached.

Our church supported (meaning, we went there and helped) the Teachers Warehouse, which helps underprivileged kids get the school supplies they need.

We have worked with groups of young people from area churches " delightful young people.

These people are not selfish, they are not giving with strings attached, and most of them, at least, arent helping because of some thought of personal gain.

That is true for people (such as us) who are NOT Christians.

Can you show that it is any more likely that a person will help others if they are religious? Do you recall a bible story about a "Samaritan" that reflected upon who helped a person in need and who did not?

There might be a few people who brag about what good things they do, but they are the vast minority. Jesus taught to give in secret, by the way, so Christianity is not at fault.

If the "give in secret" teaching was followed, churches would NOT take credit for their charity programs.

If there is error (which, there are people who give to say look how good I am) it is not in the religion.

If in error blame the individual, if correct credit the church.

Some is used to support elaborate lifestyles of celebrity preachers and televangelists. They ARE fellow Christians, aren't they? They do promote Christianity, don't they? They do collect money for Christianity, don't they?

Well, some people are corrupt. I wouldnt call them fellow Christians, not if they are living in the wrong like that.

How, EXACTLY, does one distinguish who is a "fellow Christian" and who is not " even though both claim to be Christians, both belong to churches, and both go through similar motions?

Let me guess. If the person is caught or exposed doing something "Unchristian" they "are not fellow Christians" any longer. They were "fellow Christians" before they got caught or exposed to be profiting by exploiting religion.

Not if theyre twisting Christianity into just another thing to make money out of. No, those people are not my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Are the "money grubbers" the ONLY ones who you deny brotherhood? What about groups that preach very different views (but still promote worship of Christ)?

They might promote Christianity, but dont you think theyre really promoting themselves? Sure, they collect money. I dont know what they do with their money. Do you?

I do not know what ANY church does with the money it collects (except for purchasing elaborate palaces of worship).

Churches are NOT required to disclose their financial dealings. They should be.

Are you in favor of all churches being required (like any other tax exempt organization) to open their financial records for public view?

SOME church income is used to help needy people. I challenge ANY church to disclose exactly the percentage of its income that actually makes its way to needy people.

High Pointe gives about 8-10% to the needy and to missionaries. It goes into a big pool of money that a bunch of churches donate to regularly, so I cant tell you exactly how much goes to missionaries and how much goes to the needy.

Missionary efforts are, in my opinion, a form of advertising, promotion and recruitment. I would NOT count that as charity. Paying expenses for people to recruit and proselytize is a business expense.

If half (just a wild guess) of the funds set aside by High Point go to actual needy people that would mean 4 or 5% of income goes to the needy and 4 or 5% goes to missionary advertising.

What happens to the other 90 to 92% of the income?

Isn't even 10% a rather miserly percentage to devote to helping those in need? Didn't Christ teach to give substantially to the poor? Did Christ teach to build palaces of worship? How much of High Pointe budget goes to salaries, to buildings, to advertising?

Do you feel free to ignore rules of Christianity?

They arent rules. Theyre choices,

I see " "The Ten Choices" or "The Ten Suggestions"

Let's look at it a different way. Are you in favor of regulating or controlling an individual's behavior if the behavior has potential to harm THAT individual?

I think that individual should catch on themselves, and stop themselves. However, if they dont, I think it is good for friends and family to remind that person that they could hurt themselves or that they are hurting themselves.

Here we are in agreement.

I think controlling ones behavior is probably not the right thing to do, seeing as theyll probably resent you for it, like you said.

Yes, often people who are controlled will resent the controllers. However, I see a far more important reason to NOT control. That is we should RESPECT other people and NOT assume that they are inferior to us in ability to decide what is best for THEM. Just as they should respect us and not assume that they know what is best for us.

However, there are exceptions... like parents. Parents control what their children do for a long time before the child can make good decisions for themselves. Do I think that is wrong? No.

Rather than saying that parents should "control" the behavior of their young children, I prefer to say that they should TEACH their children to behave in ways that are positive for them and for others.

However, parents should NOT attempt to control the behavior of their offspring who are no longer children. For instance, my daughter is nearly fifty years old. Wouldn't it be silly of me to attempt to tell her how to live or how to behave?

Her daughters are nearly thirty. Wouldn't it be silly of her to attempt to control their lives? Where should parental "control" cease? I would say when the young person has demonstrated a measure of judgment and discernment on their own.

Some learn those things early and some seem to never learn (and some are mental children who need supervision by others throughout life).

Does "considerate toward each other" include ONLY fellow Christians or does it include ALL humans?

That extends toward everyone.

I experience a great deal of LACK of consideration from self-professed Christians based upon their perception of my refusal to worship their favorite gods. I am a resident of the Bible Belt and a contributor to several Internet forums. Am I not included in "everyone"?

Do I forfeit being treated considerately by Christians by refusing to pay homage to their preferred "gods"?

However, there is a special sense of family and intimacy with just fellow Christians. Hmm... how to explain this right? Maybe I could say it like this: We should be friends with non-Christians and Best friends with fellow Christians.

A man who I would identify as a "best friend" (after my wife) shared a meal and a pleasant afternoon with us. I am glad that he does not follow your "reasoning" to be best friends with only fellow Christians.

We share a value system and an integrity that is solid and deep. It makes no difference to me that he is religious (because he doesn't attempt to convince me to believe in god) and it makes no difference to him that I do not share his beliefs. We are good, solid friends who would do anything within reason to help one another " and we both regularly go out of our way to do good things for others.

I believe we should only date fellow Christians, because non-Christians can only relate to us in the worldly way.

If a Christian man was to encounter a wonderful woman with whom he shared values, goals and desires in nearly everything but she was Non-Christian (a "perfect mate" so to speak, aside from religion); should he refuse to date her because of the difference in their religious beliefs?

Should the man reject that woman and accept another that is not as close in values, goals and desires (a less perfect mate) " JUST because the latter is Christian?

Are you aware that about half of all marriages in the US end up in divorce? Are you aware that "Christian marriages" fare no better than others?

Do you think that Non-Christians should refuse to date Christians?

We should be kind and courteous to everyone"love everyone"but there are certain things that should be reserved for Christian people only (in my opinion"Im not sure if everyone would agree with me).

What should my Christian "best friend" refuse to share with me?

I think that Christians (for the most part) should ask advice from other Christians.

Why is that? Do you feel as though Non-Christians are unqualified to give advice on matters of importance in life?

Christians can relate to each other their struggles that come from being Christian that others cant relate to at all. Christians can talk to other Christians about belief-related things and not be mocked or looked down upon.

Perhaps it would be wise to talk to fellow Christians about Christian matters?

A Christian in another Christians company wont have their beliefs compromised, because they have the same beliefs.

Discussing religious beliefs with those who hold different views DOES subject those beliefs to question.

Those who are not confident and secure in their beliefs have good reason to fear them being "compromised". Those who are secure in their beliefs need not fear them being challenged, questioned or compromised.

Can you imagine me being afraid to have Christians influence my thinking? Should I fear them "compromising" my convictions? Is religious belief so weak that it fears challenge?

I make the comment frequently that it might be wise to NOT attempt to promote or defend religious beliefs in public debate that is fairly moderated " because there is no evidence to support the claims and stories that make up Christian beliefs.

Even the "resurrection of Jesus", a core belief in Christianity, cannot be shown to have actually occurred. The only "evidence" is writings of preachers and promoters of religion that claim that Jesus "arose from the dead after three days". There is NOTHING else to show that "Jesus arose from the dead". If people claim there is other evidence, ask to see the evidence " and learn there is none.

So, its better to be Best friends with other Christians. Can you see what I mean?

I "see what you mean" if you are fearful of having your beliefs challenged.

I observe some or many self-identified Christians being very inconsiderate toward others, particularly "Atheists" or other Non-Christians " even in these forums. In fact, I observe it as rather common, particularly among the more fundamental, fanatical, or literalist Christians I have known or have debated to be inconsiderate and disrespectful of Non-Christians.

I think that comes from a feeling of being superior, which is wrong. What can I say? I wish they would stop and ask themselves What would Jesus do? and actually think about it. Sometimes trite things are really true, you know what I mean?

Much of the "teaching" of the bible and Christianity DOES declare that those of Judeo/Christian worship are superior " are "chosen" " are the ones "going to heaven" " are responsible for converting "heathens" to "proper" worship.

But I repeat, their behavior is not what Jesus taught.

The behavior is patterned after the "god" of the bible " angry, hostile, jealous, vindictive, arbitrary, discriminatory, dangerous, murderous and genocidal.

Doesn't Christian belief claim that Jesus and god and the holy ghost are all parts of the same being? Isn't Jesus accountable for what god says?

Jesus taught to be humble, to put yourself last.

Can you honestly and sincerely say that Christians actually DO this reliably? Or, is it just a nice idealistic thing to talk about or claim as an "objective"?

His teachings are good"if people strut around with an Im-so-much-better-than-you attitude, you know they arent following Christs love-filled message.

Jesus is one third of "god" according to Christian beliefs and the bible tells stories about how that "god" hates and kills people who refuse to worship him. Thus Jesus IS involved in all of those atrocities (if one accepts that he is one-third of god).

Didn't "god" (including Jesus presumably) kill all of mankind except eight in a boat (according to a bible story) because they were "wicked" (refused to worship)? Didn't that genocide include killing "wicked" infants and unborn?

Is that the "message of love" to which you refer? Does the god you worship have a split personality?

[Allie]

Hi David,

Thanks for the kind words. Im going to be in Japan from Jan. 7th through the 15th, so I wont be able to reply during that time. I will also have a huge amount of homework to catch up on afterward, so I might be gone from this site for a few weeks. I will reply eventually, though"I just wanted to warn you of my extended absence. Oh, and if you want to put this in a discussion thread, feel free. It might be more appropriate"we have long gone off the topic of women in church.

Of course they are buying something. They are buying religious services, forgiveness of "sins", "salvation".

Calling a fee "donations" or "tithing" does NOT make it non-existent.

I will keep my stance and say it is not a fee. Here is something my dad wrote in answer to the question "What does God expect from us with giving and tithing?" It gives some insight on giving to the church.

This topic is covered in High Pointe 101 where you are free to ask questions.
That being said, I think this piece that I wrote for a study of the Minor Prophets will be helpful in understanding OT tithing versus NT giving.

One of the most used scriptures regarding tithing is Malachi 3:10 which says Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

This is a good time to talk about hermeneutics, or the rules by which we engage and understand the text. One of the very first things you must ask yourself is how are we different from the people we are reading about? and how are we the same? The biggest difference between these people in Malachi and us is that they are under the Mosaic Law and we are not.

What was the Mosaic Law? The Law accomplished several different purposes. It was primarily the constitution of the nation of Israel and so it contained civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. God gave them the Law and told them Hed bless them as they obeyed it and curse them if they did not. The Law was in force until Jesus Christ died on the cross and we are told He fulfilled the Law completely and so now we operate under grace.

You could say the difference between the two could be described as the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The Law was just a foreshadow of what was to come. The Law is transactional in nature. This means that when you do something God responds in a certain way. Grace is relational in nature"as His children we act out of gratitude for what Jesus did for us on the cross.

So how does this apply to tithing? Since the whole concept of tithing is an Old Testament command that follows the Law, it follows then that we can not transfer that over to the New Testament church. I can already hear the roar of disapproval so let me explain. What was the transactional nature of tithing?"Blessings if you obey and curses if you disobey. What did this reveal about Gods character?"That our financial giving is important to God because it furthers His work and it reveals our trust in Him as our ultimate provider. Do you remember the great commandment we talked about earlier? It says to love God and to love others. Relationally, our giving shows that we are grateful and thankful to God and we are generous to others"love God and love others. The 10% in the Old Testament was a rule and it gave us a guideline of what God expected. If we are truly thankful for what Jesus Christ did for us, do you think its possible to argue that the percentage we give today should be any lower in the New Testament? Our giving is a tangible expression of our love for God and othersit reveals our heart.

In an "ideal situation" religious services would not involve any payment.

Why would that be ideal?

I commend your mother for giving you the opportunity to make your own decisions; however, I question the meaning of "raised in a church". Often that denotes indoctrination (euphemistically called "teaching" or "training" or "bible study")

I have been going to church since I was born. That's what I mean when I say "raised in a church".

How about choosing your religion, would you prefer the freedom to make that choice for yourself, or would you rather have someone choose for you?

I want the truth--whether someone picks it for me or whether I pick it myself.

"Their standards" SHOULD govern their lives " without disapproval from others. Those who are satisfied with what they have in life should NOT be coerced into seeking "more". We should mind our own business and make our own decisions.

You think we should mind our own business, I think we should go out and spread the truth.

If you had solid evidence you could convince ME. But you don't have anything to show that what you say is true.

I do not think that you tell falsehoods. You seem to be sincere. However, when asked to show that what you are saying is true you cannot show anything more than tales in a book and personal opinion.

I am definitely being sincere. Even if you doubt everything I say, dont doubt my sincerity.

The Bible is a compilation of ancient documents. These (well, the New Testament) prove the existence (at least) of Jesus. If (like lots of people on this site) you dismiss the Bible, saying it isn't any proof at all (which I don't understand) there are other people (historians) who wrote about Jesus. There were also many prophesies about Jesus, and he fulfilled them. Here are a few I took from http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/foretold.php.

It is interesting to note that Jesus birth, life and death were predicted by people speaking and writing under the influence of God centuries before Jesus was born. I do not have enough room here to discuss every case of fulfilled prophecy relating to Jesus, but I have chosen the ones that relate to his death and the events leading up to it.

The book of Isaiah, which was begun about 750 years before Jesus death, declared that the Messiah, whom Jesus claimed to be, would be spat on and whipped (Isaiah 1:6, 50:6). This was fulfilled by the torture and whipping inflicted on Jesus prior to his crucifixion as recorded in Matthew 27:67, 27:26 and Mark 14:65.

The Book of Psalms, which was a written over a span of a thousand years and was finally edited a few centuries before Jesus birth, gives us the most details regarding the nature of Jesus death. According to various Psalms (or worship songs), Jesus would be given vinegar to drink whilst he hung on the cross (Psalm 69:21), be pierced with crucifixion nails (Psalm 22:16), agonize with thirst (Psalm 22:15), and would have his garments distributed whilst he hung naked on the cross. All of these prophecies were fulfilled according to the Gospel accounts of Jesus death and any reading of the Gospel accounts will confirm this.

If you dismiss all of this (the New Testament, the other historians, the prophesies) all as "tales from a book", I would think you were denying truth, not me.

Are you more than vaguely familiar with the ugliness and horrible actions of Christian churches during the Dark and Middle Ages?

I am aware of what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. It was despicable and wrong.

There is nothing superior about Christianity. It is just another one of the tens of thousands of religions worshiping thousands of different "gods".

In your opinion.

Many non-religious people are far more giving than many religious people.

Where do you get these huge, sweeping assumptions? This does not hold true to the people around me, or my experience.

How about "human centered" " focusing life upon living in harmony and peace with other humans? Isn't that far more worthy than focusing upon self or "gods"?

Since my God focuses on loving your neighbor as yourself, I think it would be best to focus on Him.

What, exactly, do you identify as "an extremely good thing"? What can you claim is extremely good?

For starters, Christianity emphasizes mercy and love. I would say those are extremely good things, that, when put to use, trickle down into more extremely good things. Here is the definition of love from the Bible.

1st Corinthians 13:4-7 says Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Would you say that these things are extremely good? Would you recognize that Christianity emphasizes these things?

Since Christianity departs from being ideal, as you indicate, what is the value of its present non-ideal form? Is it more good than bad???? Does it do more good than harm? How do you know?

From what I see, Christianity does more good than harm. I cant speak for all of Christianity all over the world because I simply dont know enough.

I realize that students choose what to learn and what to ignore. However, I see NO benefit in teaching or demonstrating hypocrisy. Do you?

Teaching and demonstrating hypocrisy? What do you mean by that?

1. Focus upon afterlife rather than present life

I wonder what you mean by that. I do not focus on afterlife, but I do look forward to it.

2. Focus upon worship of a "god" rather than focusing upon human relations

And since Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, we focus on human relations as well.

3. Emphasize punishment for "disobedience"

We actually emphasize mercy and forgiveness.

4. Claim superiority on the basis of beliefs

We claim we know the truth, sure.

5. Claim moral "high ground" and demean the morals of others ("heathens, infidels, etc")

What do you mean?

6. Claim that "all other gods are false gods"

Again, we believe we have the truth.

7. Promote rules made by preachers (not by "gods")

Those rules could be good things.

8. Glorify warfare and killing

I have never glorified warfare and killing, and neither has High Pointe. What do you mean?

9. Failure to update "rules" to accommodate social change (slavery, women status, etc)

I have seen that, and that is a negative side. However, my mom was a pastor (under the main pastor) in High Pointe, and none of us promote slavery, so I think our church has done fairly well updating.

10. Emphasis upon obedience and conformity

I dont know what you mean by that.

11. Resistance to advances in knowledge that threaten religious "truths"

Can you give me an example?

12. Failure to substantiate claims

I would disagree.

13. Talk far more about killing than about love

That is definitely not true. The emphasis of Christianity is love. Killing seems very far off the topic of Christianity, to me. Why do you think Christianity talks about killing often?

14. Condone killing of infants and unborn (as "wicked")

In the Old Testament.. I cant debate much about the Old Testament. I havent read enough of it.

15. Accept tales of incredible, nature-defying events as though they were true

I dont see that as negative.

16. Condone slavery, servitude, second-class citizenship for women, child abuse, animal and human sacrifices.

Those are all separate and lengthy topics that I havent researched enough to debate or discuss.

I'm confident that you realize that generalizing from a single example is not wise. What else makes you think that people seek "god" when they are close to death? Have you been told that by people promoting religion?

Are you aware that "no atheists in foxholes" is an urban myth that has been repeatedly shown to be in gross error? Why would Christians continue to preach such a thing when they have been shown it is not true? Is it okay to fib a little to promote religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes

I cant remember everything that made me think that. No, it is not okay to lie while promoting religion. I did not hear the atheists in foxholes saying from a preacher. I heard it from my family. The only reason that I remember it was because I thought it was fascinating. I may be in error, but it makes sense, to me, for someone to wonder on their deathbed about the afterlife more than they did while they were healthy, and want it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, I remember " "slavery is freedom" " "rules are freedom" " "if I like slavery it is not slavery" " "if I like the rules they are not limiting". Do I remember correctly?

Being a slave to Christ is being free from the world. Christianity is not a set of rules.

What is the source of your "assurance"? Did you read something about "afterlife" in an old book and hear people talking about it? Did you decide to believe what the book and the people said? Do you know anything directly that demonstrates an "afterlife" (or are you just repeating what others say)?

My assurance comes from many things, which I have listed out before, to no avail. I am guessing my list wouldnt suffice for you, either. Would you like me to list everything out, anyways?

If it was possible would you have others do things your way against their will?

No, that would defeat a very important point. The point is to have a spirit that wants to do these things, not a spirit that is forced to.

Do you think that others should be willing and eager to "suffer for god"?

I haven't thought about it. However, I'm leaning towards yes. I'm not sure about "eager", but "willing" to suffer--if it is God's plan--should be okay with people.

The question I asked was do you think that your beliefs are SUPERIOR to mine (my convictions)? If so, why.

I answered that, and left the decision up to you.

Do you suggest that I trade a group of proven friends for a group that has in common a religion? Are you kidding me?

No. Your friends can convert, too. You wouldnt be leaving or trading anyone.

And Im not replying to some of your post because you called me foolish, and it hurt my feelings. Even replying to this was a stretch for me (because of the Are you kidding me?). Sorry to disappoint. Be assured that I read everything.

You have NOT shown ANY way that becoming Christian would be advantageous to me.

Yes, I have. However, you say that anything that does not have your type of evidence is not advantageous, which, if it existed, would be very untrue.

Perhaps your reasons would fit with people who lack self-confidence, who seek to "belong" to a group, who are insecure in their decisions, who are dissatisfied with their life.

The Christians I know arent like that at all.

Can you show that it is any more likely that a person will help others if they are religious? Do you recall a bible story about a "Samaritan" that reflected upon who helped a person in need and who did not?

I dont know of any statistics that compare Christian giving to non-Christian giving, so I couldnt say.

Yes, the Bible story about a Samaritan. Its interesting that you use a parable to emphasize your point. That was the parable teaching what it means to be a neighbor. But yes, a priest walked by, and a Levite. Dont you think that shows that Jesus knew what wrong was going on with the religious leaders?

If in error blame the individual, if correct credit the church.

Hardly. Im telling you what the religion is about. What is Christianity, what is not. The bad things you have mentioned are not supposed to be in or associated with Christianity, so Im pointing it out.

How, EXACTLY, does one distinguish who is a "fellow Christian" and who is not " even though both claim to be Christians, both belong to churches, and both go through similar motions?

Through discernment. You can discern who is narrow-mined, who is suspicious, who is dishonest. Why cant Christians also do the same thing?

Are the "money grubbers" the ONLY ones who you deny brotherhood? What about groups that preach very different views (but still promote worship of Christ)?

You would have to be very specific.

Are you in favor of all churches being required (like any other tax exempt organization) to open their financial records for public view?

Yes. And High Pointe did, in every weeks bulletin. The bulletin is handed out to every single person who goes through the doors to listen to the sermon. There were (are) also budget meetings open to anyone who wanted to go.

If I ever talk about my church in past tense, it is because we recently left it. I still consider it my church though, so I will talk about it as if it was.

Isn't even 10% a rather miserly percentage to devote to helping those in need? Didn't Christ teach to give substantially to the poor? Did Christ teach to build palaces of worship? How much of High Pointe budget goes to salaries, to buildings, to advertising?

I would tell you if I could. However, I never went to a budget meeting.

I see " "The Ten Choices" or "The Ten Suggestions"

The ten commandments were forced on the people in the Old Testament. However, when Jesus came, he fulfilled the law. Im fairly sure that now they are more like The Ten Choices. I follow them because I want to give my life to Christ. See? Im not forced into it, Im choosing it. Its the difference between the forced spirit and the giving spirit.

experience a great deal of LACK of consideration from self-professed Christians based upon their perception of my refusal to worship their favorite gods. I am a resident of the Bible Belt and a contributor to several Internet forums. Am I not included in "everyone"?

Do I forfeit being treated considerately by Christians by refusing to pay homage to their preferred "gods"?

You are included in everyone. You keep bringing up examples of Christians who are proud and narrow-minded, but cant you see that they are wrong? They are not loving their neighbor as themselves.

A man who I would identify as a "best friend" (after my wife) shared a meal and a pleasant afternoon with us. I am glad that he does not follow your "reasoning" to be best friends with only fellow Christians.

We share a value system and an integrity that is solid and deep. It makes no difference to me that he is religious (because he doesn't attempt to convince me to believe in god) and it makes no difference to him that I do not share his beliefs. We are good, solid friends who would do anything within reason to help one another " and we both regularly go out of our way to do good things for others.

I dont think thats wrong, and I dont think your Christian friend is bad. I suppose Im telling you what Im doing with my own life, for the most part. I have one person who is a best friend of mine and non-Christian, and he just cant connect with me on religious subjects. It makes our worlds very, very different, and makes him unable to be as good a friend as my best Christian friends. He is very good talking about non religious things, but when it comes to religion (a very big part of my life, and a very big joy in my life) he is unable to respond. It made a bigger impact than what I thought it would.

However, I dont think you and your Christian friend are wrong.

If a Christian man was to encounter a wonderful woman with whom he shared values, goals and desires in nearly everything but she was Non-Christian (a "perfect mate" so to speak, aside from religion); should he refuse to date her because of the difference in their religious beliefs?

The thing is, she wouldnt be a perfect mate because their motives would be completely different. Thats like taking someone who wants to give because they want to help the world and someone who wants to give because they want everyone to tell them how good they are and putting them together, telling them they are the perfect match. Sure, they want to do the same thing"but they are not the perfect match.

Do you think that Non-Christians should refuse to date Christians?

I wont speak for everyone. However, I personally would not date a non-Christian because Christianity is the most important thing in my life. Why would I want to date someone who cannot connect with me on the most important subject?

Why is that? Do you feel as though Non-Christians are unqualified to give advice on matters of importance in life?

No, but they cant (well, maybe they can, but they probably wont) respond in a Christian manner, since they arent Christians and cant be expected to respond as such.

Perhaps it would be wise to talk to fellow Christians about Christian matters?

Thats what Im saying. However, it can also be extremely helpful to talk to non-Christians (it has helped me a lot to talk to you, for example). But non-Christians (such as many on this site) tend to mock Christians, so if a fellow Christian has a tentative idea that might be totally wrong, they can talk to a fellow Christian and either be gently guided away from that idea or enthusiastically pushed towards it"without the risk of being sneered at.

Can you imagine me being afraid to have Christians influence my thinking? Should I fear them "compromising" my convictions? Is religious belief so weak that it fears challenge?

If I was afraid of being challenged, I would not have joined this site. I simply think Christians should be wise with who they spend the majority of their time with.

Much of the "teaching" of the bible and Christianity DOES declare that those of Judeo/Christian worship are superior " are "chosen" " are the ones "going to heaven" " are responsible for converting "heathens" to "proper" worship.

You think going to heaven makes us superior? I wouldnt have thought that would be a good definition.

Doesn't Christian belief claim that Jesus and god and the holy ghost are all parts of the same being? Isn't Jesus accountable for what god says?

Yes, they are the same being. Sure, Jesus is accountable for what God does and says. I really dont know enough about the Old Testament to debate about it, though, Im sorry. Hopefully Ill be able to study it soon.

Jesus taught to be humble, to put yourself last.

Can you honestly and sincerely say that Christians actually DO this reliably? Or, is it just a nice idealistic thing to talk about or claim as an "objective"?

Some people do, some people dont. It is some peoples objective, some people just talk about it as a nice thing. There are all different levels.

Jesus is one third of "god" according to Christian beliefs and the bible tells stories about how that "god" hates and kills people who refuse to worship him. Thus Jesus IS involved in all of those atrocities (if one accepts that he is one-third of god).

Didn't "god" (including Jesus presumably) kill all of mankind except eight in a boat (according to a bible story) because they were "wicked" (refused to worship)? Didn't that genocide include killing "wicked" infants and unborn?

Is that the "message of love" to which you refer? Does the god you worship have a split personality?

(I am honestly not good for debating Old Testament, but Ill try.)
God in the Old Testament put down the law. If you didnt follow the law, you were punished. If you did follow the law, you were blessed. Jesus came, and changed everything. Now it is the spirit of the law and mercy and forgiveness instead of punishment if you do wrong (justice traded for mercy"God demands justice, therefore, if you did bad, you were punished, and if you did good, you were blessed [Jesus satisfied Gods demand for justice by dying on the cross (for us, which is loving)]). Mercy is very loving, forgiveness is very loving, dying so Gods need for justice would be satisfied is very loving, and Jesus teachings were very loving. That is the message of love I am talking about.

[Allie]

Does High Pointe have its own Missionary Training programme? Also what type of mission work would you prefer to do?

High Pointe goes to an orphanage in Guatemala every year, and also recently went to Africa, so I suppose they have a program. However, I'm no longer a member of High Pointe, so I wouldn't be able to join it. I talk about High Pointe as if it was "my church" because I have no other church to take examples from, and also because I still think of it as "my church". I've been going to it for nine years, so it's a little hard to think of it in any other terms.

I want to do long-term mission work. Basically, I want to go somewhere far away and stay there for a long time with a group of Christians who are all on fire. It probably won't happen so ideally, but that's what I'm hoping for.

When I did a google as to High Pointe, I noticed that they are popping up everywhere across the US, hence "ever growing concern" and just to clarify, "concern" when used in that context when referring to "business" growth holds no negative connotation.

Oh. I didn't know they were all over the place. I'll give you the link to High Pointe's website, so you know for sure which one is mine. The link is: http://www.highpointechurch.org/

[catalyst]

Hi Allie,

I noticed in your interaction with Zzyxz, you stated you are going to Japan this week! I hope you have a wonderful time and a safe journey! Japan is awesomely beautiful and the people, although quite quirky, are very sweet. I don't know where in Japan you are going, but if you happen to be in the southern region, around Okinawa, keep an eye out for Cherry Blossoms. It is also interesting to "wonder" at many of contents of some vending machines there! lol That is all I will say.

High Pointe goes to an orphanage in Guatemala every year, and also recently went to Africa, so I suppose they have a program.

Interesting. I will look further into that.

However, I'm no longer a member of High Pointe, so I wouldn't be able to join it. I talk about High Pointe as if it was "my church" because I have no other church to take examples from, and also because I still think of it as "my church". I've been going to it for nine years, so it's a little hard to think of it in any other terms.

I understand that. Even though I am now an ex-xian, I still when speaking of the church I was involved with as my former church as it was a huge part of my life for decades. May i ask why you are no longer with your church?

I want to do long-term mission work. Basically, I want to go somewhere far away and stay there for a long time with a group of Christians who are all on fire. It probably won't happen so ideally, but that's what I'm hoping for.

And would the mission you want to be involved in, focus more on the fundamental aids to other human beings as in foods and medical supplies, or more focused on conversion?

Oh. I didn't know they were all over the place. I'll give you the link to High Pointe's website, so you know for sure which one is mine. The link is: http://www.highpointechurch.org/

Thank you for that and I had a squiz and despite my no longer being religious, I see this "At High Pointe we will never try to pressure or guilt you into a relationship with God. Instead we seek to inform and encourage you, to answer your questions, and allow you to progress in your own spiritual journey at a pace that youre comfortable with.." as being a decent and fair approach on paper.

There are a few other things I would like to pip into with regard to your interactions with Zzyzx.

cant remember everything that made me think that. No, it is not okay to lie while promoting religion. I did not hear the atheists in foxholes saying from a preacher. I heard it from my family. The only reason that I remember it was because I thought it was fascinating. I may be in error, but it makes sense, to me, for someone to wonder on their deathbed about the afterlife more than they did while they were healthy, and want it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Your family member was incorrect as to atheists in foxholes comment. I was in Al Muthanna (Iraq) for work (I was with the Aust DOD for a period of 18 months as a civillian contractor) and "friendly fire" hit our camp. Myself and MANY of the others affected by this, went out of their way to get others out of danger, where as the Camp's Chaplain was the snivelling mess thinking of no one but himself. It was interesting to note that the atheists were willing to put their lives on the line to help another out of danger and it was an atheist who dragged him TO safety, but the one, one would expect to feel "safe" and protected, was the only one not lending others a hand. Perhaps that speaks only for that particular guy and his attitude, but it did show me that yes there are MANY atheists in foxholes.

Also, people wonder about many things in either predeath or even post death situations Allie. Contemplation of some assumed "afterlife' is just one of the many things, but that thought is there only because of the taughtology of the "claim" it is real. Of course at a "christians" funeral, someone giving a eulogy is not going to talk of the person on the deathbed realising within themself that "god" just doesn't do it for them, just as you don't see churches clammering or even asking people who have had NON god death experiences or NDE's to give their death experience testimony to the church. It is simply a matter of marketing a "wanted" comodity to the "wanting' target demographic. Try selling a gluten laden product to an audience of coeliac's and see how well the product sells.

[Zzyzx]

Thanks for the kind words. Im going to be in Japan from Jan. 7th through the 15th, so I wont be able to reply during that time. I will also have a huge amount of homework to catch up on afterward, so I might be gone from this site for a few weeks.

I wish you a successful trip and don't be concerned about when you reply " but think about these things.

Of course they are buying something. They are buying religious services, forgiveness of "sins", "salvation".

Calling a fee "donations" or "tithing" does NOT make it non-existent.

I will keep my stance and say it is not a fee.

You are free to call church income whatever you like " donation, tithing, non-fee or whatever. That does NOT change that it is income to the church from customers (or parishioners or clients or whatever) who receive religious services.

If I build a fence or a deck for someone and take payment called a donation it still amounts to a fee received for service rendered. If I preached and took income it would be no different.

Here is something my dad wrote in answer to the question "What does God expect from us with giving and tithing?" It gives some insight on giving to the church.

I have no response to most of what your father said " though I would be MORE than willing to debate him directly " and would be grateful if you would pass an invitation and make an introduction.

However a couple comments strike me as grossly in error:

That our financial giving is important to God because it furthers His work and it reveals our trust in Him as our ultimate provider.

I do not accept that "god" has any "work" that requires money. We are talking about a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being who creates universes unaided " and who now needs our money to "help his work".

Who really "needs" or wants the donated money -- surely not the preachers and prophets?

Do you remember the great commandment we talked about earlier? It says to love God and to love others. Relationally, our giving shows that we are grateful and thankful to God and we are generous to others"love God and love others. The 10% in the Old Testament was a rule and it gave us a guideline of what God expected. If we are truly thankful for what Jesus Christ did for us, do you think its possible to argue that the percentage we give today should be any lower in the New Testament? Our giving is a tangible expression of our love for God and othersit reveals our heart. [/i]

In other words, give ten percent of your income to the church to express your love for "god" and your gratitude " and do so because you WANT to. When the church was powerful it required the fee to be paid, when it is less powerful it depends upon emotional pressure "to show your gratitude and your love" for a "god" who will decide whether you go to "heaven or hell" " but don't feel pressured or anything.

In an "ideal situation" religious services would not involve any payment.

Why would that be ideal?

Ideal, in my opinion, would be true giving " without expectation of return.

If the most important thing in life (according to many Christians) is being Christlike, one should be willing to give whatever they have to the benefit of others " NOT to charge for the service or gather funds to build palaces of worship (in my opinion).

I commend your mother for giving you the opportunity to make your own decisions; however, I question the meaning of "raised in a church". Often that denotes indoctrination (euphemistically called "teaching" or "training" or "bible study")

I have been going to church since I was born. That's what I mean when I say "raised in a church".

If I was unkind I might say that could constitute brainwashing or indoctrination.

How about choosing your religion, would you prefer the freedom to make that choice for yourself, or would you rather have someone choose for you?

I want the truth--whether someone picks it for me or whether I pick it myself.

Are you willing to allow others to decide what "truth" is for you? How do you decide to whom to assign that great responsibility?

I decided long ago that I was the best person to make decisions for me. I will live in this skin for the duration " no one else will. They may know what is best for them " but not what is best for me. Each of us is a unique individual who requires unique decisions.

"Their standards" SHOULD govern their lives " without disapproval from others. Those who are satisfied with what they have in life should NOT be coerced into seeking "more". We should mind our own business and make our own decisions.

You think we should mind our own business, I think we should go out and spread the truth.

You cannot demonstrate that you know "truth". You may THINK you know truth, but so do others that believe very differently. Which of all the competing religions actually KNOW the truth and to know what is best for other people?

Many of us do not claim to know "truth" and do not presume to be able to tell others what they should think or believe or how they should live. Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) it seems as though it is more characteristic of non-religious people to recognize that they do not know what is best for other people and do not falsely claim to possess "ultimate truth" (without being able to demonstrate such possession).

If you had solid evidence you could convince ME. But you don't have anything to show that what you say is true.

I do not think that you tell falsehoods. You seem to be sincere. However, when asked to show that what you are saying is true you cannot show anything more than tales in a book and personal opinion.

I am definitely being sincere. Even if you doubt everything I say, dont doubt my sincerity.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe what you say. But, as I said, if you had solid evidence that the tales you tell were true, you could convince me. Your "evidence" is conjecture and opinion that cannot be substantiated.

The Bible is a compilation of ancient documents. These (well, the New Testament) prove the existence (at least) of Jesus.

That is not a true statement. The bible is a single source (a committee report based upon selection of writings that agree with a certain point of view).

The history of what has become known as the bible (anonymous authors, government committee of churchmen, unknown selection criteria, unavailable original documents, repeated transcriptions, translations, revisions and rewritings) does NOT lend credibility to claims of historical accuracy and credibility.

The bible CLAIMS that Jesus existed; however, in reasoned debate one does NOT use a source to prove its own tales.

If (like lots of people on this site) you dismiss the Bible, saying it isn't any proof at all (which I don't understand) there are other people (historians) who wrote about Jesus.

Have you actually studied what historians of the era said about Jesus? ONE " Josephus, a Jewish historian, is cited as discussing Jesus. However, many theologians and even the Catholic Church acknowledge that the Testimonium Flavium is an insertion (read "fraud"). No other mention occurs until about a century later when Tacitus (a Roman historian) wrote about Christians and their beliefs NOT about Christ directly. He obviously had not been born when Christ was supposed to have lived.

There is absolutely no evidence to support bible claims that Jesus was "divine".

In spite of what Christians may think, there is very little verification of the existence of Jesus outside religious promotional literature. Many historians and others will grant that a human character may have preached 2000 years ago and was later killed " but there is little agreement about exactly who the person was or what life events reported are real.

There is NO verification of any "resurrection" (other than religious promotional literature). Christians want to believe and do not tend to question the truth of bible stories; however, fervent belief even by millions of people does NOT insure truth.

There were also many prophesies about Jesus, and he fulfilled them. Here are a few I took from http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/foretold.php.

Whether Jesus "fulfilled prophesies" is strongly debated. Apologists and their literature make that claim; however, there is no evidence that the supposed events actually occurred or that the supposed "prophesies" were made and recorded before Jesus lived. It is not hard to claim "fulfilled prophesies" if one is writing the book hundreds of years later (the bible did not exist before the fourth century " and no originals of it or the documents on which it is based are known to exist today).

If you dismiss all of this (the New Testament, the other historians, the prophesies) all as "tales from a book", I would think you were denying truth, not me.

I do not "dismiss all of this" I simply ask for evidence that it is true.

I have encountered no evidence that convinces me that religious promotional material speaks truth. I continually ask for verification of claims and receive only hearsay, opinion, legend, fable and stories in a book.

For instance. WHAT besides a bible story SHOWS that the bible story about the "resurrection" is true " that a dead body actually came back to life? Sure, the bible says so " but that is only one story book. What else says that Jesus came back to life?

The most important event in the history of the world occurred (according to priests' tales), the creator of the universe (or his "son" or one third of himself) visits the Earth for thirty years, does magical tricks, preaches to multitudes " and no one notices except a few people in northern Africa " people desiring to start a new religion.

Are you more than vaguely familiar with the ugliness and horrible actions of Christian churches during the Dark and Middle Ages?

I am aware of what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. It was despicable and wrong.

Is the Catholic Church Christian?

Are you familiar with "religious persecution", witch trials, and religious intolerance characteristic Protestant churches of Europe and the Americas during post-Renaissance times?

There is nothing superior about Christianity. It is just another one of the tens of thousands of religions worshiping thousands of different "gods".

In your opinion.

Of course that is my opinion.

Those who insist that Christianity is different and ask or expect to be believed have the burden of demonstrating that they speak truth " more than just saying "believe me because I say so " or my book says so " or my preacher says so".

Show how it is different " using something other than its own claims and its own literature.

Many non-religious people are far more giving than many religious people.

Where do you get these huge, sweeping assumptions? This does not hold true to the people around me, or my experience.

Allie, I AM one of the non-religious people who are "far more giving than many religious people". I am in frequent contact with religious as well as non-religious people and do observe. A "giving nature" is NOT characteristic of or confined to Christianity.

How about "human centered" " focusing life upon living in harmony and peace with other humans? Isn't that far more worthy than focusing upon self or "gods"?

Since my God focuses on loving your neighbor as yourself, I think it would be best to focus on Him.

The god of the bible is NOT depicted as loving " but as vengeful, jealous, angry, hostile, judgmental, inconsistent, bigoted, dangerous, murderous and genocidal.

In attempting to emphasize the power of their "god" early practitioners of Christianity (and Judaism before that) wrote about how dangerous it was to refuse to worship as the self-appointed "prophets" and "priests" SAID "god wants". Their stories describe a "god" that is NOT loving.

Perhaps you have a different concept of the Christian "god" than what has been described by biblical writers and churchmen.

What, exactly, do you identify as "an extremely good thing"? What can you claim is extremely good?

For starters, Christianity emphasizes mercy and love. I would say those are extremely good things, that, when put to use, trickle down into more extremely good things. Here is the definition of love from the Bible.

1st Corinthians 13:4-7 says Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Would you say that these things are extremely good?

I rate mercy and love as good things. I rate other things higher " such as honor, integrity, justice, fairness, compassion.

Would you recognize that Christianity emphasizes these things?

I see no evidence that Christianity PRACTICES these things to a greater extent than other groups or individuals. I often encounter Christians CLAIMING that their religion results in such things " but have not encountered any claimant being able to substantiate their claim.

Since Christianity departs from being ideal, as you indicate, what is the value of its present non-ideal form? Is it more good than bad???? Does it do more good than harm? How do you know?

From what I see, Christianity does more good than harm. I cant speak for all of Christianity all over the world because I simply dont know enough.

What is the "good" that you see Christianity actually doing?

I realize that students choose what to learn and what to ignore. However, I see NO benefit in teaching or demonstrating hypocrisy. Do you?

Teaching and demonstrating hypocrisy? What do you mean by that?

I accept hypocrisy as being defined as: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

"Feigning to be what one is not" includes acting as though it is a fact that Christians are more loving, giving, just or fair than Non-Christians when that is not known for certain and cannot be demonstrated to be true.

"False assumption of appearance of virtue" includes all "holier than thou" attitudes and all claims of moral superiority.

1. Focus upon afterlife rather than present life

I wonder what you mean by that. I do not focus on afterlife, but I do look forward to it.

Christians I debate often emphasize that the benefit of Christianity is "going to heaven after you die". They convey the idea that the most important thing in life is to "believe" to achieve "salvation". Is there something more important than "accepting Christ" and getting to heaven?

2. Focus upon worship of a "god" rather than focusing upon human relations

And since Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, we focus on human relations as well.

Isn't "love thy neighbor" SECONDARY to "love god"?

Isn't a great percentage of Christian church income devoted to things OTHER than loving (or helping) neighbors " like building palaces of worship and attendant expenses?

3. Emphasize punishment for "disobedience"

We actually emphasize mercy and forgiveness.

Do you deny that a great deal of emphasis is placed upon punishment in Christian literature and dogma? Isn't "god" said to have "punished" all of humanity by killing nearly all in a worldwide flood?

Is that an example of "mercy and forgiveness"?

4. Claim superiority on the basis of beliefs

We claim we know the truth, sure.

Many claim truth without denigrating the claims of others. Some religions respect the rights of others to believe whatever they wish WITHOUT negative comments or suggestions that the beliefs of others are inferior, wrong or false.

5. Claim moral "high ground" and demean the morals of others ("heathens, infidels, etc")

What do you mean?

Christians I debate often attempt to claim that Christian morals are superior to (or "better than") those of others (particularly "atheists"). They are thus attempting to say that their morals are better than those of other individuals or groups.

6. Claim that "all other gods are false gods"

Again, we believe we have the truth.

Some who believe they "have the truth" acknowledge that their "truth" may not apply to others. Not all religions condemn other "gods" as being false.

7. Promote rules made by preachers (not by "gods")

Those rules could be good things.

Or they could be very bad things " as demonstrated by Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Warren Jeffs, and the various discredited televangelist Christian ministers and the pedophile priests.

Would you say that those preachers made "good" rules?

If a person chooses to follow some of the rules set forth by preachers or "holy" books and to ignore others, the person is NOT following the rules but is "picking and choosing" what they want as though eating at a buffet. Thus the term, "Cafeteria Christianity" " take what you want and ignore the rest.

8. Glorify warfare and killing

I have never glorified warfare and killing, and neither has High Pointe. What do you mean?

I mean that the Christian bible glorifies warfare and killing. Does anyone deny that a great emphasis is placed upon slaughter of societies and civilizations that refuse to worship the Christian "god"?

Failure to update "rules" to accommodate social change (slavery, women status, etc)

I have seen that, and that is a negative side. However, my mom was a pastor (under the main pastor) in High Pointe, and none of us promote slavery, so I think our church has done fairly well updating.

Perhaps, but you appear to be attempting to defend all of Christianity rather than just High Pointe or your personal beliefs.

0. Emphasis upon obedience and conformity

I dont know what you mean by that.

"Good Christians" follow the rules and obey what they are told by preachers. Challenging "authority" is discouraged. Obedience is highly valued. Correct?

11. Resistance to advances in knowledge that threaten religious "truths"

Can you give me an example?

Christian violence against Galileo's heliocentric (sun centered) solar system and the spherical Earth concepts are great examples of Christian church resistance to advancement in knowledge. Similar modern examples include resistance to stem cell research, genetics and evolution, and modern concepts in geology and archeology.

12. Failure to substantiate claims

I would disagree.

Can you show (using something other than religious promotional literature) that a "resurrection" actually occurred, that anyone fed a multitude with a few loaves of bread and fish, that anyone walked on water, that a star marked the birthplace of Jesus or led people to the place. Do you and your religion maintain that those things are true? If so I ask for substantiation beyond a storybook.

13. Talk far more about killing than about love

That is definitely not true. The emphasis of Christianity is love. Killing seems very far off the topic of Christianity, to me.

I have read the bible " not just the favored parts " the parts about killing women and children " including "bashing the heads of little ones against a rock" and about killing the unborn. Have you read the many accounts of slaughter of humans in the bible? What do you make of those stories? Why is all that killing mentioned?

Why do you think Christianity talks about killing often?

I think that Christianity talks about killing so often because it worships a warlike, murderous "god" " one who is supposedly willing to kill all of humanity (save eight on the ark) because they refuse to worship him ("are wicked").

Frankly, I do not find any reason to believe that the stories about "god" killing people are true. I do not find reason to believe ANY stories about ANY "gods". Humans worship or fear thousands of "gods" and tell probably millions of stories; however, neither the supernatural beings nor the stories can be shown to be true.

14. Condone killing of infants and unborn (as "wicked")

In the Old Testament.. I cant debate much about the Old Testament. I havent read enough of it.

Since the OT is part of the Christian bible, it IS part of the religion. Doesn't your religion regard the "god" of the OT as the "Father" of all (including Jesus)?

15. Accept tales of incredible, nature-defying events as though they were true

I dont see that as negative.

I regard belief in magic as being negative. Magic (or "miracles") cannot be shown to actually occur in the real world. When people "believe in miracles" (or magic) they accept a supernatural "explanation" rather than to search for real causes and effects.

For instance, those who believe that a solar eclipse is caused by "gods" or by "dragons eating the sun" are not inclined to learn about astronomy (and may actually resist truthful ideas). Those who believe that the Earth was formed by a "god" a few thousand years ago are not inclined to study actual Earth materials and processes to learn about what can be determined about the real world.

Notice that "miracle" is simply "magic" with a "divine twist".

Miracle: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
or: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Magic: 1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

I'm confident that you realize that generalizing from a single example is not wise. What else makes you think that people seek "god" when they are close to death? Have you been told that by people promoting religion?

Are you aware that "no atheists in foxholes" is an urban myth that has been repeatedly shown to be in gross error? Why would Christians continue to preach such a thing when they have been shown it is not true? Is it okay to fib a little to promote religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes

I cant remember everything that made me think that. No, it is not okay to lie while promoting religion. I did not hear the atheists in foxholes saying from a preacher. I heard it from my family. The only reason that I remember it was because I thought it was fascinating.

Family is NOT necessarily a source of truth. Family may repeat urban myths without regard for truth. It pays to do as President Regan advised, "Trust, but verify".

It reduces one's credibility, particularly in debate, to quote, repeat or accept known fallacies.

I may be in error, but it makes sense, to me, for someone to wonder on their deathbed about the afterlife more than they did while they were healthy, and want it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

What "makes sense" may well be dead wrong. It pays to check one's assumptions and information.

Yes, I remember " "slavery is freedom" " "rules are freedom" " "if I like slavery it is not slavery" " "if I like the rules they are not limiting". Do I remember correctly?

Being a slave to Christ is being free from the world.

By that same reasoning, being a slave to a dictator is being free from "the world" (or from making one's own decisions).

Slavery is freedom. Killing is love.

Christianity is not a set of rules.

Christianity certainly CONTAINS a set of rules that worshipers are taught and are expected to follow (at least somewhat).

What is the source of your "assurance"? Did you read something about "afterlife" in an old book and hear people talking about it? Did you decide to believe what the book and the people said? Do you know anything directly that demonstrates an "afterlife" (or are you just repeating what others say)?

My assurance comes from many things, which I have listed out before, to no avail.

What do you mean "to no avail"?

I am guessing my list wouldnt suffice for you, either.

I am not asking that you please or satisfy me. I ask why you feel "assured" as you claim so READERS can evaluate the merits of what you say.

I ask this so you can (or cannot) demonstrate that you have sound basis for your decisions and your statements.

Would you like me to list everything out, anyways?

Sure.

Do you think that others should be willing and eager to "suffer for god"?

I haven't thought about it. However, I'm leaning towards yes. I'm not sure about "eager", but "willing" to suffer--if it is God's plan--should be okay with people.

That is an interesting concept.

Do you suggest that I trade a group of proven friends for a group that has in common a religion? Are you kidding me?

No. Your friends can convert, too. You wouldnt be leaving or trading anyone.

My friends refuse to convert.

And Im not replying to some of your post because you called me foolish, and it hurt my feelings.

Kindly quote verbatim Zzyzx saying that Allie is foolish.

If I say that I regard it as foolish to believe without evidence (or any such thing) that is NOT directed toward any person but toward a practice common to many people.

Even replying to this was a stretch for me (because of the Are you kidding me?).

Sorry if it offends you that I cannot consider as serious anyone suggesting that I (or anyone) should abandon proven friends to seek Christian friends (or insist that friends convert to Christianity).

You have NOT shown ANY way that becoming Christian would be advantageous to me.

Yes, I have. However, you say that anything that does not have your type of evidence is not advantageous, which, if it existed, would be very untrue.

Are you saying that I will not accept your promises that good things will come to me if I believe in your favorite "god"? If so, that is correct. I do not accept unverified promises " any more than I would buy some real estate sight unseen that someone promised me was a great buy.

If I did that I would be nave and gullible. Yes, the promise might be true, or it might be false. The wise course of action would be to check the particulars before handing over the cash (or before accepting other promises as truth).

Can you show that it is any more likely that a person will help others if they are religious? Do you recall a bible story about a "Samaritan" that reflected upon who helped a person in need and who did not?

I dont know of any statistics that compare Christian giving to non-Christian giving, so I couldnt say.

Then I trust that since you "cannot say", you will not claim that Christians are more giving than Non-Christians.

Yes, the Bible story about a Samaritan. Its interesting that you use a parable to emphasize your point.

It is not unusual for me (and other Non-Theists) to quote passages from the bible to emphasize or make a point. Notice that I do not attempt to use the bible to prove anything " only to refer to it as Christian belief.

Do not assume that we who do not accept the bible as truth are ignorant of its contents. In fact, knowledge of the contents of the bible is a large factor in my (and others) refusal to accept the stories as true.

I know what the bible says about certain things like worldwide floods, dead bodies coming back to life, donkeys and snakes conversing with people, people flying levitating through the air and walking on water, etc. I also know enough about the real world to know that such things cannot be shown to have actually happened.

That was the parable teaching what it means to be a neighbor. But yes, a priest walked by, and a Levite.

Yes, it was a fictional story (a "parable" means fictional story) made up to teach a specific religious point. A lot of the bible is evidently "parable" or some other form of less than literal story telling. Yet many bible believers insist that some parts are literally true " BUT they cannot supply a means by which literally true parts can be distinguished from not literally true parts.

For instance, we agree that the Samaritan story was a parable. I suggest that there is no reason to conclude that the "resurrection" story was not a parable too. Do you agree? If not, how do you distinguish what is parable from what is not.

Dont you think that shows that Jesus knew what wrong was going on with the religious leaders?

I have no reason to accept that the statements attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him. It was decades or generations after the supposed conversations before they were recorded in bible stories. There is no assurance that they were recorded accurately (or that they were even said). The only "evidence" to support the bible is the bible itself " which is known as "circularity" (using a source to prove itself " or "it must be true if it is in the bible because the bible says it is true").

If in error blame the individual, if correct credit the church.

Hardly. Im telling you what the religion is about. What is Christianity, what is not. The bad things you have mentioned are not supposed to be in or associated with Christianity, so Im pointing it out.

What I am pointing out to you (and readers) is that Christianity DOES contain errors, inconsistencies, atrocities, horrible advice, terrible stories.

Feel free to say what Christianity SHOULD be " but recognize that it does not meet your standards or expectations. Again I point out that it is unwise to attempt to defend all of Christianity rather than one's own personal beliefs.

How, EXACTLY, does one distinguish who is a "fellow Christian" and who is not " even though both claim to be Christians, both belong to churches, and both go through similar motions?

Through discernment. You can discern who is narrow-mined, who is suspicious, who is dishonest. Why cant Christians also do the same thing?

I make NO claim to be able to determine who is narrow-minded, suspicious or dishonest. Instead, I use discernment to decide whether specific ACTIONS fit into one of those categories.

What discernment can a Christian use to determine if another person believes in Christ as savior? Can you claim to know the relationship between that person and their favorite "god" (if any)?

Are the "money grubbers" the ONLY ones who you deny brotherhood? What about groups that preach very different views (but still promote worship of Christ)?

You would have to be very specific.

As I mention previously, my wife was born and raised in the FLDS polygamous cult headed by Warren Jeffs. Those people are VERY religion oriented and preach the bible and Jesus as savior " and that a man must have at least three wives to "attain the celestial kingdom", and that a woman can gain the kingdom only by being "sealed" to a man who is going.

Are those people Christians by your standards? If you are unfamiliar with the FLDS, Internet searches will yield a lot of information.

Are you in favor of all churches being required (like any other tax exempt organization) to open their financial records for public view?

Yes. And High Pointe did, in every weeks bulletin. The bulletin is handed out to every single person who goes through the doors to listen to the sermon. There were (are) also budget meetings open to anyone who wanted to go.

If I ever talk about my church in past tense, it is because we recently left it. I still consider it my church though, so I will talk about it as if it was.

Did your reason for leaving have anything to do with "worldly" concerns or issues?

Isn't even 10% a rather miserly percentage to devote to helping those in need? Didn't Christ teach to give substantially to the poor? Did Christ teach to build palaces of worship? How much of High Pointe budget goes to salaries, to buildings, to advertising?

I would tell you if I could. However, I never went to a budget meeting.

Didn't you say that High Pointe published its financial information in a weekly bulletin?

Did Christ teach to build palaces of worship?

I see " "The Ten Choices" or "The Ten Suggestions"

The ten commandments were forced on the people in the Old Testament.

Who, exactly, forced the commandments on the people of the OT?

Do those things no longer apply to modern Christians?

However, when Jesus came, he fulfilled the law. Im fairly sure that now they are more like The Ten Choices.

Is it a "sin" to commit adultery " or to take the lord's name in vain " or to bear false witness?

I follow them because I want to give my life to Christ.
See? Im not forced into it, Im choosing it. Its the difference between the forced spirit and the giving spirit.

I see. If you want to follow the rules they are not rules? Is that correct?

experience a great deal of LACK of consideration from self-professed Christians based upon their perception of my refusal to worship their favorite gods. I am a resident of the Bible Belt and a contributor to several Internet forums. Am I not included in "everyone"?

Do I forfeit being treated considerately by Christians by refusing to pay homage to their preferred "gods"?

You are included in everyone. You keep bringing up examples of Christians who are proud and narrow-minded, but cant you see that they are wrong? They are not loving their neighbor as themselves.

That is my point. They are hypocrites if they claim to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and then to NOT do so. I KNOW Christians who do exactly that. I hear them refer to other people (including "atheists") with loathing rather than love.

Perhaps you are different. If so, you do NOT speak for Christianity " but for your personal interpretation of the faith.

Why is that? Do you feel as though Non-Christians are unqualified to give advice on matters of importance in life?

No, but they cant (well, maybe they can, but they probably wont) respond in a Christian manner, since they arent Christians and cant be expected to respond as such.

What do you mean by "respond in a Christian manner"?

Perhaps it would be wise to talk to fellow Christians about Christian matters?

Thats what Im saying. However, it can also be extremely helpful to talk to non-Christians (it has helped me a lot to talk to you, for example).

I have cautioned you that your beliefs will be challenged. That can result in strengthening OR it can result in realization that some beliefs are unfounded.

Many here are former Christians who began to question what they had been told as "truth" and realized that what they had been told did not "ring true". Some prominent examples are Catalyst (a former Christian minister now atheist), OnceConvinced (a former Christian now agnostic) and Cnorman (former Methodist minister now converted to Judaism) are primary examples.

But non-Christians (such as many on this site) tend to mock Christians,

Can you cite an example of Christians being mocked for their Christianity in these threads? If you observe such a thing, by all means use the "report" function to notify moderators of an inappropriate post. That is not tolerated in DC&R.

A great deal of what might be incorrectly identified as "mocking Christians" is refusal to accept claims of supernatural beings and events AND (more importantly) repeated demands that Christians substantiate what they claim " demonstrate that they speak truth.

Many Christian members simply parrot the bible or church dogma in a mindless way. They may be disrespected and criticized (though hardly "mocked") for attempting to preach in a debate forum.

so if a fellow Christian has a tentative idea that might be totally wrong, they can talk to a fellow Christian and either be gently guided away from that idea or enthusiastically pushed towards it"without the risk of being sneered at.

Being sneered at is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person. Making a decision through ignorance that produces net negative results is far worse in my opinion than being sneered at. I am sneered at regularly by "Condemning Christians" who hate "atheists" (without discernment enough to realize that not all who oppose their view are atheistic).

Does it appear as though "sneering" by the opposition has affected my self-confidence?

Note: Sneering is also contrary to forum rules and should be reported. I often report such actions, but sometimes prefer to "slap" the person a bit myself. I keep that to a minimum but do not "turn the other cheek" (which I think is a silly idea though it is favored by many).

Can you imagine me being afraid to have Christians influence my thinking? Should I fear them "compromising" my convictions? Is religious belief so weak that it fears challenge?

If I was afraid of being challenged, I would not have joined this site. I simply think Christians should be wise with who they spend the majority of their time with.

I see " it is the amount of time spent that you view as important. Many of us are more concerned about the quality of time than its duration. Different strokes.

Much of the "teaching" of the bible and Christianity DOES declare that those of Judeo/Christian worship are superior " are "chosen" " are the ones "going to heaven" " are responsible for converting "heathens" to "proper" worship.

You think going to heaven makes us superior? I wouldnt have thought that would be a good definition.

I point to that as a CLAIM or delusion of superiority not a fact.

Doesn't Christian belief claim that Jesus and god and the holy ghost are all parts of the same being? Isn't Jesus accountable for what god says?

Yes, they are the same being. Sure, Jesus is accountable for what God does and says. I really dont know enough about the Old Testament to debate about it, though, Im sorry. Hopefully Ill be able to study it soon.

When you do study the OT you will discover that "god / Jesus" has a very different personality that attributed to Jesus in the NT " suggesting a "split personality".

In the OT "he" was depicted as angry, jealous, hateful, indecisive, dangerous, vengeful, murderous and genocidal.

What happened to "god" between the OT and the NT?

As I see it, Allie, the NT with its Jesus stories was grafted onto the Jewish OT, perhaps in order to help popularize the newly developing religion. Paul was a writer who greatly influenced what became known as "the bible". His teachings are very different from those attributed to Jesus " BUT Paul's teachings are what form the basics of Christianity " more so than the teachings of Jesus.

I make no claim to be a biblical scholar, but I read much that is written by religious people as well as non-religious sources.

Jesus taught to be humble, to put yourself last.

Can you honestly and sincerely say that Christians actually DO this reliably? Or, is it just a nice idealistic thing to talk about or claim as an "objective"?

Some people do, some people dont.

Then humility is a PERSONAL characteristic rather than a characteristic of Christianity. Perhaps it would be wise to NOT attempt to defend Christianity in general because that covers a lot of dissimilar territory, many very divergent ideas and some unsavory people.

Those who debate Christianity effectively do NOT attempt to defend "the whole ball of wax", but confine their statements clearly to their own personal beliefs.

It is some peoples objective, some people just talk about it as a nice thing. There are all different levels.

Agreed. There is no assurance that anyone's talk means anything. Their actions are what count. Right?

(I am honestly not good for debating Old Testament, but Ill try.)
God in the Old Testament put down the law. If you didnt follow the law, you were punished. If you did follow the law, you were blessed.

God and Jesus are and were the same being, right? So if "god" did something in the OT that means that Jesus was part of that action. Is that right?

Jesus came, and changed everything.

Did Jesus come into being for the first time in the NT? Did he not exist before then (according to the tale)? Was the "trinity" invented with the Jesus birth? Did the "unchanging", "eternal" god change at that point?

Now it is the spirit of the law and mercy and forgiveness instead of punishment if you do wrong (justice traded for mercy"God demands justice, therefore, if you did bad, you were punished, and if you did good, you were blessed

Now that no longer matters according to Christian dogma, right?

Now all one need do to be "saved" (according to Paul) is to believe in Jesus as "savior" and (perhaps) ask forgiveness of sins. What Christians do in life no longer counts toward "getting to heaven". Right?

Jesus satisfied Gods demand for justice by dying on the cross

Wait a minute. Aren't Jesus and "god" the same being?

If that is true, Jesus satisfied his own demand for justice. That doesn't make any sense does it? A lot of things said by religion don't make sense (but they are supposed to be "believed on faith alone" and repeated and not questioned.

Wasn't Jesus supposed to have prayed to himself also? That makes even less sense.

What is the significance of an immortal being "dying" temporarily" KNOWING that it is not permanent? That seems like a theatrical "death".

(for us, which is loving)]). Mercy is very loving, forgiveness is very loving, dying so Gods need for justice would be satisfied is very loving, and Jesus teachings were very loving. That is the message of love I am talking about.

Jesus is quoted in Luke 14:26 as saying, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Does that sound like a "message of love"?

Many seek to "interpret" the passage to mean whatever they want it to mean. BUT, the words are very clear " supposedly spoken by a divine, omniscient being. Whatever is being conveyed, it is NOT love of fellow man.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 6 Post 58:

I do not accept that "god" has any "work" that requires money. We are talking about a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being who creates universes unaided " and who now needs our money to "help his work".

Who really "needs" or wants the donated money -- surely not the preachers and prophets?

To me, this is one of the reasons I'm an atheist. I notice that God just never seems to have enough money, or enough material to do His doings. Why does a church need electricity? Couldn't God just make the lights work, and have the power bill used to help other folks?

In other words, give ten percent of your income to the church to express your love for "god" and your gratitude " and do so because you WANT to. When the church was powerful it required the fee to be paid, when it is less powerful it depends upon emotional pressure "to show your gratitude and your love" for a "god" who will decide whether you go to "heaven or hell" " but don't feel pressured or anything.

Well said. Give the church power to force folks to pay and watch how quick we all get hit with this tax.

You think we should mind our own business, I think we should go out and spread the truth.

You cannot demonstrate that you know "truth". You may THINK you know truth, but so do others that believe very differently. Which of all the competing religions actually KNOW the truth and to know what is best for other people?

This is a pet peeve of mine. It just clabbers my milk to hear folks claim stuff without evidence as the truth.

4. Claim superiority on the basis of beliefs

We claim we know the truth, sure.

Many claim truth without denigrating the claims of others. Some religions respect the rights of others to believe whatever they wish WITHOUT negative comments or suggestions that the beliefs of others are inferior, wrong or false.

I often get a sense of this 'superiority complex' when I hear religious folks claim they know the 'truth'. Often, in my dealings, I hear this claim made with a distinctive tone of voice that implies the 'superiority' of this 'truth'.

15. Accept tales of incredible, nature-defying events as though they were true

I dont see that as negative.

Here I think of kids with curable diseases who have died while their parents try to pray for their healing rather than seek medical attention. I would also extend this to those who would kill their children thinking these kids were demons.

[Goat]

From Page 6 Post 58:

I do not accept that "god" has any "work" that requires money. We are talking about a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being who creates universes unaided " and who now needs our money to "help his work".

Who really "needs" or wants the donated money -- surely not the preachers and prophets?

To me, this is one of the reasons I'm an atheist. I notice that God just never seems to have enough money, or enough material to do His doings. Why does a church need electricity? Couldn't God just make the lights work, and have the power bill used to help other folks?

The way that many Jewish synoquogues work is that they have a budget, figure out how much money , and basically have an upfront 'fee' for 'membership', where of course those people who do not have as much money are not expected to pay the full amount. The finances of the synagogue is rather an open book, and the money that is required to run the building, and paying the rabbi's is pretty much an open book.

While people give money above and beyond that, it goes to charitable works, and is not something that is required or preached about. The idea of the 'televangelists' whose programs are begging for money just doesn't happen.