Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I never said that you have to change your belief system. I simply asked you to explain it. I'm sorry if the question gave offense, but it was only a question.

Minor point of clarification: I am not so arrogant as to believe that I know all about God. I simply know where to find all that I ever need to know about God. The Bible is perfect. My own understanding of God is very imperfect, and I learn more every day.

Actually, this conversation has helped me by forcing me to take another good look at my beliefs. What do I believe to be true? How do I support that belief? Christians are not expected to take our faith blindly, but rather to test it and examine it. Blind faith may work out well in the short-term, but it cannot survive the first challenge. Only a well-grounded, often-examined faith will enable you to face what life has to offer.

Another minor point of clarification: The canonical Gospels don't actually differ on any substantive issues. Each Gospel writer picked up a few events that the others missed, which is what you might expect from four different eyewitness accounts. Even so, the Gospels are all in agreement on the "big" things.

I agree. Scriptural interpretation is very important. Of course, the next obvious question is how do you interpret Scripture? Theologians refer to this concept as Biblical hermeneutics.

Again, you are free to believe whatever you believe, and you certainly don't need my approval. :)

My question is about how you believe what you believe. And my question may be particularly focused because you have professed a Christian faith. Therefore, I'm trying to understand how your belief fits into Christianity.

So here's my other point: Names have meaning. If I wanted to call myself a Pastafarian, that would bring certain meanings along with it. My identification with the Flying Spaghetti Monster would imply certain things about my beliefs. I am not especially familiar with Pastafarianism, but I think it would require me to accept (at least) the following beliefs:

1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
2. He is omnipotent, invisible, and very powerful. (Surely this last point is redundant, if he's also omnipotent.)

Source: http://www.venganza.org/worship/guid...astafarianism/

However, I don't believe that the FSM exists, that he created the world, or anything else about him. Therefore, if I called myself a Pastafarian, I would be incorrect in doing so. Furthermore, I might expect that Pastafarians would ask me some questions about my beliefs.

(Before anyone gets huffy, I should add that I know that the FSM is satire. I used it in my example so that I could avoid needlessly offending believers of other faiths.)

Understood. As I told KO, I don't seriously expect to convert anyone via the Shrapnel forums. I'm looking to increase our mutual understanding.

Thanks, you just remembered me why it's so great (once again) to be agnostic :D

Sorry if I'm not gonna be a very active part of the discussion anymore, but university will take me a lot of time these days. I will continue reading this 3ad anyway.

Thanks again to SlipperyJim. I would have liked to argue you with more time, so my arguments this time will be quite faster and shorter.

I would argue you that the apostoles might have died for the "ideals" of Jesus, like people died for defending ideals through all history. I have no problems too with many of his ideals - he was preaching peace and the irrelevance of richness in times where war and conquer were everything, so I would have died (and maybe said he was God) too to spread those ideals. If the Christian religion spreaded so fast, remember it was appealing to the poors and it went to substitute the great popular cult of Hercules - that's history.

Your analysis about the "average good guys will not go to heaven" was enjoying to read but quite pointless to me as when I die, the last thing I expect to find is the Christian Heaven and expecially God, as I see Him too contradictive, too antropomorphic and convenient (in a "you are with me or you are against me and you suffer forever" way) to be real. So being an "average good guy" (actually I hope, better than the one you described :D ) isn't for me something to reach an (unproven :) ) Heaven. I just say "A" God (not necessarily yours) which saves just a relatively small elite isn't very appealing.

And about miracles, I still think if the Christian God was
actually like you perceive it, our world would be much different. Matthew 17:21, "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." Reiterated through all the New Testament in several passages (you certainly know that). Ask with faith, and you will be given? We would not have famine and illness, amputees with regenerated arts (!) would be in TV everyday thanking God for the miracle, and lots of other beautiful things. It's not this way and I live with it. I once found a (excuse me, it's quite ironic but it was the best I could remember in this little time) prayer on a website:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

You could do it tonight and you already know nothing would happen. But as you said many times you have no problems saying that God parts seas, casts flamestorms and resurrects people at will so this would not take great efforts to him - as he loves people (and you too, as you say you see him in your life, doing good things I suppose) he could actually do it, no?

;) Sorry, my English is bad and I have no time to refine my words this time. Maybe they look to you more offhanded and unpolite than the situation would require... it is just a language barrier, forgive me. ( I think I also invented some words while writing, I just hope everything is comprehensible)

Oh, thanks to you too HoneyBadger. Actually, as I was friendly "debating" with SlipperyJim, it was maybe not so clear, but I think too that the reciprocal differences enrich us all. I think I stated it some times ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

>lch> Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Thats a rather unchristian perspective on Jesus I would say. I would almost say you are closer to a muslim than a christian :)

I actually go to some lengths to teach my students that the belief that Jesus is God is a requisite for the salvation act to be possible and thus a requisite for being a christian :)

You put the finger on my problem with truth etc. The christian article of faith includes the belief in God becoming flesh in Jesus and sacrificing his son for the salvation of mankind. Of course there have been other articles of faith that claim to be christian. Once they were considered heretic. Today they are just considered other faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are not christian according to the earlier christian articles of faith, but they consider themselves christian.

If there is a God there is a truth and only one of the articles of faith is true. I can't get rid of my logically based worldview - thus do not think there can be multiple truths regarding the truth.

New articles of faith where an individual or a religious movement states his/its beliefs might be true, but they cannot be true at the same time as every other article of faith. If we accept multiple truths there will be some faiths and ideologies that readily accepts practices others would abhor. So if there is no truth other than what everyone accepts for his own truth a believer of a truth could legitimize atrocities. I do not like atrocities. This is why I hate postmodernism. On the other hand I dislike people who would force their will and their beliefs upon others. Since there is no way of knowing which belief system is the TRUTH I dislike people who believe they know the truth and what they might do. Everyone who believes in a truth has a moral duty to his own belief system. Thus a believer in a truth is potentially a dangerous man in the view of someone not sharing the same belief system. My problem with postmodernism might be that it defends fundamentalist beliefs. Somewhat ironic.

I end up thinking that society as a whole makes up for what faith and truth and stuff cannot work out. A set of values shared and maintained by a society usually works fine. Society shapes values and ethics, and if religion is used to legitimize the ethics of a society, fine. When religion is shaped and legitimized by society, nice.

---

Hmm. I intended to answer SlipperyJim in another post, but I might have covered some ofg it here.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

The problem, mister Kristoffer, is that "values" aren't "mantained". They are supposed to enrich, grow and evolve in time, as you know.
My problem with religion in society is that often it wants to "anchor" ethics and morals to the period their Holy Books were written - at the times they were given as godly commandments to make them more easily acceptable, but now, 2/3 thousand years later, they are still perceived as godly commandment, even after we've gone through Renaissance, Illuminism, Sexual Revolution and our values should have changed and have become more opened.

In Italy, the most of the ppl still has many problems to accept homosexuals as NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS (I mean, it doesn't sound a so terrible thing to do :smirk:) because we've, everyday, this or that man high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy reading a passage of the Bible in national television and saying they're an abomination and their love is "twisted" and "innatural". I can hardly imagine something more narrow-minded and terrible (not to say less god-inspired) that considering someone's way to LOVE "twisted" and "innatural" - not even knowing it and with science (and bare nature, look at animals, even them have heterosexuality and homosexuality as well, it's far more natural than chastity) stating the exact opposite.

Ok, I've gone for the lenghts and I'm off topic - I just wanted to say that I disagree that religion "legitimizes" many of the ethics of current society - in fact it tends to immobilize them, stops their natural evolution through people's experiences, and I can't really get how it could be a good thing.

Btw if anyone is curious I'm not homosexual ^_^ I live my heterosexual life happily and with satisfaction - but I have some homosexual friends, males and females, and I just hate to see how my society looks at them many times. :mad:

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I assume that I am materialistic enough not to become a believer with less than a direct intervention from God. If God intervened and gave me a revelation he would exist and I would feel good and happy as I had found him. If I had a deep religious experience based on psychological processes I would likely be as happy.

Unfortunately I do not know any christian that well. And I don't think he or she could give me a deep religious experience. I might just as well become a buddhist or a muslim. I have more contact with muslims than christians these days, and the leap of faith is probably slightly easier. Islam is not as demanding with regards to theology I'd say. On the other hand the leap of faith in regards to islam would be greater since I'm not socialized into it. Not that I have a christian upbringing, but I have more preconceptions regarding christianity than islamic traditions.

Likely there are good hearted Jews and muslims that would gladly aid me as well. A couple of years ago I had regular visits from mormons for a while. Mostly to get to know their beliefs and traditions. They were aware that I didn't intend to convert, but were glad to visit and inform me. I suppose they hoped for me to convert eventually.

I did not say core message. I said core functional message. What I consider the societal function of christianity to be. What's it's use to society.

Regarding postmodernism se my earlier post.

If I did believe I would have a belief system and a faith etc. Something personal. I called theis devotion.
With religion I mean the institutionalized faith, with traditions, beliefs etc. Faith as expressed in society.

I do have a beard, as well as long hair. I look far more 'Jesus' than Gandalf do :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Whoops, we seem to have cast Growing Fury on the Badger.... ;)

I can't possibly respond to everything in this entire post. Actually, I've suddenly become very busy, so this may be my last post for a while. :mad:

I'll try to pick out a few main points to address. Starting with the first point:
Postmodernism is unsustainable, as I mentioned to KO. Everyone can't be right, because many of our beliefs are mutually exclusive.

For example, I believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Atheists believe there is no god at all. We can't both be correct. One does not equal Zero.

There's either something (or Someone) greater than us, or there isn't. If there is something (or Someone) greater than us, then that something (or Someone) must have some sort of identity. There must be facts we can learn and truths we can explore.

But we won't get anywhere if we continue to indulge the postmodern fallacy that everyone is right. Everyone cannot be right. It is entirely possible that everyone is wrong, but that's a different question. :)

Read the Book of Revelation some time. The world will end, and God will work everything according to His plan (not mine).

The problem is not my doubts in God's plan. On the contrary, God has made His plan perfectly clear (at least in some respects), and that plan requires me to take action. If I don't want my family, friends, and loved ones to spend eternity apart from God, I have an obligation to be a witness to them. More about that later....

Missionaries don't usually do what you're claiming they do. Missionaries do help the poor, feed the hungry, and tend to the sick. They do all of the good things that you're saying they should do, so I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

The North American Mission Board is the missionary arm of my denomination. Go explore the website and see the sorts of things that Southern Baptists do. For example, we're very involved in helping people who were affected by Hurricane Ike. In addition to the NAMB, my church also sponsors missionaries that build houses for poor people in Central America, install clean water filters in Africa, and provide free medical care to poor tribal folks in various undeveloped countries.

If you don't like Southern Baptists, check out Habitat for Humanity, which is an ecumenical Christian mission to build houses for poor people.

That's a great philosophy if the Christian worldview is utterly false. On the other hand, if Jesus was right, then we have an obligation to help people spiritually in addition to helping them in material ways.

(I promised I'd get back to our obligation to witness.)

To put it another way: If all you do is feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and tend to the sick without ever telling them about Jesus, then all you've accomplished is to send well-fed, well-dressed, healthy people to Hell.

We do have free will. As Christians, we must surrender our will to God. That's what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that's what He wants us to do.

However, our free will is limited. Essentially, we have to pick to whom we shall be enslaved. That's the point that Paul made in Romans 6. We are all born slaves to sin. By the grace of God, we can choose to surrender our wills to Him. When we do so, we are set free from sin and we become slaves to righteousness.

Before someone flips out, the neat "trick" to becoming a slave to righteousness is that it's our only way to become free. (That's almost Zen, really.) Surrendering to God opens all sorts of new possibilities in one's life. God has shown me things that I could have never imagined before I knew Him. A life of faith is a life of adventure.

I don't have $50,000, so I'll skip over the rest of your offer. :(

The Church is not the Borg. Christianity does not require you to become a certain race, abandon your language, or turn your back on your culture. There are Christians in every culture on Earth.

If your point is that we should all work together to face common problems, then I agree with you completely. We should never let our religious differences get in the way of being good people.

However, if your point is that we should just table all of our differences and pretend that we agree ... then I can't agree with you. But there should be no need to do so!

If you want to feed a hungry person, and I want to feed a hungry person, then there's no reason that we should fight about who gets to feed hungry people. Let's both feed the hungry. As we feed the hungry, I'll be telling them about Jesus. You may choose to tell them about something else, or not to tell them anything. That's your choice. But here's my point: Both of us can still feed hungry people! "My" hungry person will simply get an introduction to the Gospel to go with his meal. Why should that bother anyone?

Agreed. I think we've done an excellent job of being good neighbors right here on this very discussion thread. Nobody has shouted at anyone else. Nobody hates anyone else. (At least, I hope not!) We're discussing one of the most contentious topics of all time, and we're managing to be polite & respectful while we do it.

Tolerance doesn't require us to all agree with each other. Instead, tolerance allows us to disagree with each other as long as we are respectful while we do it.

Agreed. Shalom! :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I agree. I think Sweden is a bit more accepting than Italy, but my homosexual friends do suffer some by general conceptions, generalizations and beliefs.

Religion is the single most effective preserver of society. Be it social structures, world view or traditions. It is conservative by nature.


Since most sacred scriptures are old and shaped by a society far from today I would probably become either desperate to find a coherence between my ethics and my newfound belief in a revealed truth, or become a full-fledged fanatic, should I get a revelation from God.

Neither prospect seems to attractive :) Hmm, thats a new though, I might not be happy as a christian :)

If I turned christian by slow socialization I would proably not turn into a fanatic, and be rather friendly and happy and inclusive of all kids of postmodern beliefs in personal truths and Gods.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

To anyone who tried the experiment of finding Jesus,(see my previous post) If you got the tingle,(indwelling of the Holy Ghost) and have any questions please pm me. These guys who want to argue are missing the simplicity of the whole message. Read first John, all of it. Its small. Enjoy.:D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Hey there Bwaha ;)

I am a guy "wanting to argue" - I'd call debating more appropriate. :smirk: As you may have read, I already have some knowledge of the Bible too.
And I just can't agree that the "whole message" of the book and religion is simple. That's why we're discussing it in a ton of posts from different points of views here, and we're just scratching the surface. And that's why Bible has been discussed for centuries at this moment and still people have plenty of doubts.
The message is big and difficult and has many faces which go to involve all the aspects of a person's life - a message which for this reason may be shared or not, accepted or not :) I don't, JimMorrison doesn't, you and SlipperyJim do, Ich does (with some reserves AFAIK :) ), and we're all analyzing it. But its' not simple ^_^

Best wishes ;)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I agree with you on the depth of the subject. That being said, I know some people were touched thru this discussion. Those people need the message kept simple because they are babies. I won't go into the higher mysteries because it will confuse them.:D